Sheena Patel published this article Hindus who complain a bit too much on Hindu Voice UK, in which she criticizes efforts by Hindus to protest trivial issues.
Here is my response, as posted to the discussion forum:
>
I agree that some issues are not worth pursuing: for example, it was better to let “The Love Guru” die a natural death.
While I don’t agree with the tactics of Hindu Jagruti Samiti, I do agree with the objections to the crude portrayals of Hindu goddesses by painter (and sensationalist) M.F. Hussain. The New York Times published an article about M.F. Hussain, but treated Hindu objections as being puritanical about nudity. The Hindu American Foundation sought a response, but didn’t get any. The sad part is that the NYT article was written by an Indian with a Hindu name [Somini Sengupta].
I agree with Koenraad Elst’s comments, but I think that the rubric “fascist” comes from journalists and writers who apparently take their cue from Indian journalists and scholars who negatively label any Hindu group that’s the least bit assertive: for example, calling the RSS “chauvinistic.” Wendy Doniger is a good example: I’m reading her latest book The Hindus: An Alternative History, which features these labels.
>
ADDENDUM: I recommend Dr. Elst's article Hindu Studies: Warring with Words, as published in the July/August/September 2009 issue of Hinduism Today, as a guide for journalists and writers in covering Hinduism.
