"Love Jihad", the conspiracy theory sweeping India

[Razgovory]

I don't know much about Hinduism.  Does it have an ethnocentric element similar to Judiasm or the Norse Lay of Rig?  We are a special people and for that reason we can enslave or destroy other peoples?

I don't think the Norse Lay of Rig has any element of "we are special people and for that reason we can enslave or destroy other peoples." It's all about a divine explanation for social classes, IMO, but has basically nothing about justifying raiding, enslaving, or destruction on the grounds of one people being divinely ordained to do so. That is, again IMO, something that white nationalists are bringing to the table by means of the Christian cultural baggage.

The Norse, of course, raided and killed and destroyed but I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that they thought that was divinely ordained or that they were somehow a better people because of it. That was a Christian contribution (in addition to the sanctity of life and opposition to slavery and other much more benign things) - heathen Norse and Saxons raided, traded with, and intermarried with heathen slavs along the Baltic coast. It was only once they'd converted to Christianity that the Scandinavians and Germans started destroying due to perceived divine mandates (i.e. the Baltic crusades).

Well the Lay of Rig describes each group as physically different. Of course the lay of Rig is incomplete and we have no idea what it said in full or what if it existed in the pagan world at all.  What I'm describing is something extremely common in Indo-European paganism.  That a group of people are special because of their ancestry (typically because of descent from a God) and because they are special conquering other people is okay.

"Why is that guy the king?"

"Because he descended from Odin.  It is his right."

"Why do we conquer the guys over there?"

"Because we are descended from Geat.  It is our right"

There is no real moral aspect of it.  They don't consider themselves better people for doing, that's not how their religion worked.  But it does give reason why they can murder and steal without any sort of ritual impurity.  Now pretty much nothing exists of Norse religious practices, but this is is baked into Indo-European paganism from the very beginning.

[grumbler]

Hinduism is about the most diverse religion in existence.  You can find variants that are practically indistinguishable from Christianity, for instance, barring some name changes.

Hindi-speaking Hindus do definitely have an ethnic component to Hinduism; they don't distinguish much for themselves between being Hindu religiously, ethnically, or linguistically (though they do acknowledge that one can be religiously Hindu without being ethnically Hindu - after all, most Hindus don't speak Hindi). 

Hindu nationalism, as I noted before, seems a weird concept, given that one of the core tenets of classic Hinduism is that the reality we 'know" is but an illusion.  It is a religion about self-advancement, not group advancement, because anyone (or even everyone) in your group may just be part of the illusion.

[Jacob]

Well the Lay of Rig describes each group as physically different. Of course the lay of Rig is incomplete and we have no idea what it said in full or what if it existed in the pagan world at all.  What I'm describing is something extremely common in Indo-European paganism.  That a group of people are special because of their ancestry (typically because of descent from a God) and because they are special conquering other people is okay.

Yeah, it describes each social group as physically different (and consistent with the results of diet, labour, and general standard of life) but that is internal facing not external. It's an explanation that your social status as thrall, free peasant, magnate, or king has a divine explanation. And, in fact, the status of magnate (and king, who tends to rise out the upper layers of the magnate class) is often associated with control of sacred sites, godi-hood, and presiding over prestigious sacred rites.

But the step from "our rulers are descended from/ have a special bond with the gods so it is natural that they rule" to "and therefore we have a right to conquer and destroy" is quite big, IMO. Especially because the Norse never had a particular need to justify raiding and pillaging. The driving force seems to have been that kings' and magnates' social status depended on the ability to distribute largesse through feasts and gifts. If they could gain the wealth to do so via trade and taxation of trade in their territory, great; if not raiding does just fine (and in fact, I blieve the periods of intense Norse raiding corresponds to the periods where warfare stopped the silk trade via Russia into the Baltic sea and beyond creating a shortage of silver income for the magnates and kings).

For those who are interested, here's a translation of the Lay of Rig: https://www.pitt.edu/~dash/rig.html and here's the wikipedia summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%ADgs%C3%BEula

"Why is that guy the king?"

"Because he descended from Odin.  It is his right."

I don't think we have any evidence that Norse rulers right to rule was due to divine descent. Rather, the right to rule was determined by who could maintain the largest and most skilled group of warriors and use them with cunning and skill, and that was settled in battle. Odin was thought to determine the winner when kings clashed, and he was notedly capricious. That is a theme that recurs again and again. When shields clash, men die and kings are laid low. Odin may determine the winner, but nowhere is it suggested he does so due to ties of kinship.

"Why do we conquer the guys over there?"

"Because we are descended from Geat.  It is our right"

I'm not scholar, but I've spent a lot of time reading about the Norse and vikings and your assertion here is the first time I've ever come across the notion that any Norse justified conquest due to divine descent.

Once the Norse started coalescing into (Christian) Kingdoms there was an impetus for the kings to follow the prevailing fashion and "discover" prestigious descent of various kinds to shore up their authority, and naturally the hagiographers grabbed whatever was at hand (see f. ex. Saxo Grammaticus tying various Norse gods to different Southern European presitigious lineages). But I don't believe we have any evidence that raiding or conquering heathen Norse referred to any kind of divine justification.

Norse overseas settlements were established by right of conquest and/ or through negotiation with the neighbours. The Great Heathen Invasion of England was justified by the alleged murder of the father of the invasion leaders - Ragnar Lodbrok was allegedly thrown into a pit of snakes by the King of Northumbria (though the historicity of that is unclear). Within Scandinavia itself it was almost always rival dynastic claims and personal or family feuds that are given as reason for wars; such and such a pair of brothers couldn't agree on splitting their inheritance, this person claimed a right to rule through such and such connection to a previous ruler, and so on.

There is no real moral aspect of it.  They don't consider themselves better people for doing, that's not how their religion worked.  But it does give reason why they can murder and steal without any sort of ritual impurity.  Now pretty much nothing exists of Norse religious practices, but this is is baked into Indo-European paganism from the very beginning.

Agreed that there was no real moral aspect to it. But "divine descent justifies murder and theft without incurring ritual impurity" sounds to me like neat macro theory projected onto specific contexts without any concrete evidence for that specific context.

Now I may have missed something - like I said I'm no scholar. I'd be happy to hear more about what's driving your theory. But based on what I've read and my understanding there's little to support the conclusion that theories of divine descent or special lineages justified conquest among the Norse.

I don't mean to come across as argumentative here - this is just one of my areas of interest, so I enjoy discussing it.

[The Brain]

FWIW I've never heard anything about Vikings thinking themselves a chosen people for plunder or conquest in the sense under discussion. And I've never heard anything about them being big on ethnic or religious purity.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, this is a macro thing.  The whole point of claiming a divine ancestor is to claim you are special.  For a whole group to claim a divine ancestor makes their religion ethnocentric.

[Jacob]

Yeah, this is a macro thing.  The whole point of claiming a divine ancestor is to claim you are special.  For a whole group to claim a divine ancestor makes their religion ethnocentric.

Disagree. It can be, but it is not always the case, and there are other reasons to claiming divine ancestry.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, same.

On a purely practical level if your culture values lineage and ancestry - those are important factors - so you have lists of who is whose ancestor, won't you inevitably get to a point where it's either a God or a mythical figure?

[Valmy]

You can say basically anything about Hinduism and it will be true someplace.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, this is a macro thing.  The whole point of claiming a divine ancestor is to claim you are special.  For a whole group to claim a divine ancestor makes their religion ethnocentric.

Disagree. It can be, but it is not always the case, and there are other reasons to claiming divine ancestry.

You would claim a divine ancestor to seem less special?

[Jacob]

You would claim a divine ancestor to seem less special?

"Claims of specialness" doesn't really enter into it, rather it's an explanation for why people are grouped the way they are.

"We are all descended from the legendary hero Razgovory who descended from such-and-such a god. That is why we live in Razland and speak Razzian. Razgovory had a twin, Grumbler, which is why Razzian and Grumblish seem like related language, and why Grumbleria's traditional territories are next to Razland. The people across the sea claim to be descended from a different god we've never heard of, which is why we can't make heads or tails of the Garbonin language and why Garbonite customs seem so weird to us."

[Eddie Teach]

Garbonites are known for their distinctive lifelike statues.

[The Larch]

More illiberal shenanigans from India stemming from the farmers' protests.

India: activist arrested over protest 'toolkit' shared by Greta Thunberg
Disha Ravi charged with sedition, accused editing document on how to support India's farmers that was tweeted by Swedish climate activist

Indian police have charged a 22-year-old climate activist with sedition over accusations she edited and circulated a document tweeted by climate activist Greta Thunberg relating to India's ongoing farmer protests.

Swedish climate activist Thunberg tweeted her backing this month for the farmers, who have been demonstrating since December against agricultural reforms they say will harm their livelihood but benefit large corporations. She shared a document which she said was a toolkit to create and spread awareness about the farmers' complaints.

The toolkit caught the attention of the Delhi police who began a criminal investigation, claiming the document was evidence of a conspiracy "to wage economic, social, cultural and regional war against India."

On Saturday, police conducted a raid on the Bangalore home of Disha Ravi, 22, an environmentalist who co-founded the Bangalore branch of Friday's for Future, a global movement for social justice begun by Thunberg.

Ravi was flown to Delhi and remanded in the custody of Delhi police, over allegations she was a "key conspirator" in the toolkit tweeted by Thunberg. Delhi police said she had started a WhatsApp group and "collaborated to make the Toolkit Doc ... to spread disaffection with the Indian state" and had then directly shared it with Thunberg.

The 22-year-old, who works in a vegan restaurant, has now been charged with sedition and criminal conspiracy.

At a court on Sunday Ravi broke down in tears and said she had only edited two lines of the toolkit file. Police alleged in their statement they had technical evidence that Ravi's role in editing the toolkit was "many times more than the 2 lines editing that she claims". The court remanded Ravi to five days in police custody after police requested time to "unearth her connections with the Sikhs for Justice".

Indian environmental groups condemned Ravi's arrest, describing it as a "witch hunt" on "fabricated charges" and 10 groups demanded her release.

"Delhi police's actions are all the more sinister because Disha was taken to Delhi with no disclosure about her whereabouts, not even to her parents, an action that can be termed extrajudicial abduction," read a statement by the Coalition for Environmental Justice in India.

Delhi chief minister Arwind Kejriwal, who has backed the farmers' protests, called Ravi's arrest "an unprecedented attack on Democracy. Supporting our farmers is not a crime."

Further raids are being carried out by police as they are looking for two more suspects. Earlier this month, police said the campaign material was aimed at waging a cultural war against the government and creating divisions among various groups in Indian society.

On 5 February crowds in Delhi burned effigies of Thunberg after she tweeted support for India's protesting farmers. Photos of Thunberg and pop singer Rihanna were set alight and banners were held aloft warning that "international interference" in Indian affairs would not be tolerated.

Thunberg became embroiled in allegations of an international criminal conspiracy against India after she tweeted a "toolkit" for people who wanted to show support for the farmers. The document included campaigning tips such as suggested hashtags and advice on how to sign petitions.

Though not named in the police case that was filed then, or in Sunday's arrest, Thunberg's tweet was said to have brought the Delhi police's attention to the existence of the toolkit. Leaders in the ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) said the toolkit was "evidence of international plans for attacks against India".

The farmer protests have been mainly peaceful. However on 26 January, thousands of farmers overwhelmed police and stormed into the historic Red Fort complex in Delhi after tearing down barricades and driving tractors through roadblocks.

India's foreign ministry hit out this month at "sensationalist social media hashtags and comments" by celebrities following posts from Thunberg and Rihanna.

[Tamas]

When the farmers protests started the Economist seemed to indicate that reforming the system created in a totally different environment in the 60s in itself was a pretty good idea, but that the government went about it in the worst possible way, no consultation or forewarning, just dumping drastically new laws and regulations on the farmers almost overnight.

So I understand the upheaval especially in light of subsequent government actions to suppress it, but I just have too many bad memories of farmers wreaking havoc to protect subsidies freedom to be in 100% support of them.

[The Larch]

When the farmers protests started the Economist seemed to indicate that reforming the system created in a totally different environment in the 60s in itself was a pretty good idea, but that the government went about it in the worst possible way, no consultation or forewarning, just dumping drastically new laws and regulations on the farmers almost overnight.

So I understand the upheaval especially in light of subsequent government actions to suppress it, but I just have too many bad memories of farmers wreaking havoc to protect subsidies freedom to be in 100% support of them.

Thing is, even nowadays, agriculture employs something like half of the entire Indian workforce, it's something that literally affects hundreds of millions of people. It's not a semi-forgotten part of the economy like in the west.

[Tamas]

When the farmers protests started the Economist seemed to indicate that reforming the system created in a totally different environment in the 60s in itself was a pretty good idea, but that the government went about it in the worst possible way, no consultation or forewarning, just dumping drastically new laws and regulations on the farmers almost overnight.

So I understand the upheaval especially in light of subsequent government actions to suppress it, but I just have too many bad memories of farmers wreaking havoc to protect subsidies freedom to be in 100% support of them.

Thing is, even nowadays, agriculture employs something like half of the entire Indian workforce, it's something that literally affects hundreds of millions of people. It's not a semi-forgotten part of the economy like in the west.

Fair point.