We are neither Hindus nor Indians!

Question

I am a Hindu as well as an Indian. You say you're a Hindu as well as an Indian. But WE are neither Hindus nor Indians.

Over my one whole year of this site, I have found that certain users have been finding it difficult to comprehend the scope of this site. There's undoubtedly a sense of "insider-outsider" mentality prevalent among a considerable number of users, both newbies and old users. I'm not gonna show them here because I don't want to make any user look bad publicly. Of course, this sort of mentality is ingrained in many of ours' psyche but that doesn't mean that should affect how we use this platform. I admit I myself have been guilty of such ideas in the past and I hope I don't make such mistakes again. I'm not expecting this post will make drastic changes immediately but I do expect some changes gradually in this area, among certain users.

So here's what I want to make crystal clear: this platform is intended not only for Hindus or Indians but also non-Hindus and non-Indians. That includes Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Americans, Europeans, researchers, etc. Don't let the URL or the name of the site fool you. We're a secular site sponsored by a secular company. However, we might dislike that, we need to accept this fact. In fact, I feel this is important aspect this site has to deal with if we want it to graduate. Also, we must appreciate questions that have been written with a critical point of view.

If you think you have been fooled, maybe you have been. But it's not definitely not by Stack Exchange but by you yourself. We need to remember that this forum is unique and absolutely incomparable from what we expect from other forums.

Consider the definition of this site:

Q&A for followers of the Hindu religion and those interested in learning more about Hinduism.

The site definition is completely clear that this site is not for Hindus exclusively but for anyone who is genuinely interested in learning more about Hinduism.

As Hindus/Indians, we need to take a step back and realise this is somebody else's commercial venture that they are inviting us to participate in. They are cooperative in tailoring it to our specific community needs but we still have to play by their rules.

If you are more inclined to resent rather than rejoice the differences between us, then this may not be the site for you.

P.S. I'm not discouraging people to participate here. My point is this site is not only for Hindus and Indians exclusively. At the same time, non-Hindus are expected to respect the sentiments of Hindus and Indians.

Note: This post was inspired by a similar post on Christianity Stack Exchange.

Answer 1

I've been thinking about this site a lot since this question came to my attention. I tried to figure out the best way to respond to this without having the benefit of a shared reference. If this was merely the same situation as what Christianity was dealing with to cause Caleb to ask his question there in 2011, we could easily copy and paste the thesis of Shog's answer there and edit the references to Christianity to say Hinduism instead.

Right... The site is named, "[Hinduism]", not "[Hindus]". It is, like most of the Stack Exchange sites, intended as a vessel for Q&A on a specific topic; who contributes to filling it, what they believe or how they identify themselves... We have no control over these, nor should we.

What he's saying here that I think is important to emphasize is that we seek to identify sites based on their subject rather than the people who might be experts in that subject. About a year ago we renamed the Writers site to Writing. While a site about writing may attract anyone who writes - including people like me who only write posts on Stack Exchange sites - a site called "Writers" makes people who do not identify as writers - including me - feel that it's not a place that fits them. This could be a disservice to that community!

So, the first pass, surface-of-the-water answer to this question is that we do not expect the users of this site to be Hindus or Indians. While it is quite likely that the majority of users here are in one or both of these categories, it is not required. What we expect is that everyone using this site comes here to ask and answer questions about Hinduism in an honest and open way with the goal of learning.

---

But, based on the comments and discussion and talking with users and reading what's been going on in some of your chat rooms and looking through some of the flags I've seen and reading emails from at least five of you, I think the actual post you meant to duplicate wasn't Christianity's but Islam's from 2012.

Why sectarianism is ruining your site

I wasn't around on the network at the time but I am pretty sure that things here aren't nearly as bad here as Aarthi makes Islam sound in her post. That said, I think her post and Jon's answer are worth reading because I fear there's a risk of the site heading in that direction and I think the solution recommended there is one y'all should consider.

We need the users of this site to recognize that, much as the Christianity site isn't only for Protestants or Catholics or Baptists, your site isn't only for Shaivism, Vaishnavism, or Shaktism and it might be a good idea for you all to make some changes in how the site is run to emphasize that so that visitors to the site know that discussion of all sects is welcome.

Every religion that's been around more than a few years has different groups with vastly different beliefs and yet they all consider themselves to belong to that religion because there's some common elements the groups share. Often sacred texts serves as basis for practice, but it could also be traditions handed down from one generation to the next. This is expected and can make for a complex, diverse and interesting exchange of beliefs. It can also lead to argument, anger and name calling.

While some groups may be mainstream and others more niche, this site isn't here to decide which qualify as Hinduism and which do not. Every one of you who identifies as a belonging to a specific sect likely disagrees with parts of other sects. Therefore you must be contextual in your disagreements, focusing on helping others learn the teachings of the sect or tradition they are asking about, even when it is not your own. I know this can be difficult, and in some cases you may not be comfortable participating in such an activity - but the choice then must be between participating in helping the asker accomplish their goal of learning and not participating at all.

Let me give you a non-religious example that might help:

On our parenting site, they have a strict rule of not writing answers that disagree with the premise of the question. This is particularly visible when it comes to corporal punishment for children. There are people and cultures who believe it is a valid form of behavior correction for their children and there are people and cultures who believe it is not - and on top of being invalid, abusive.

If someone asks a question about spanking, the site requires that answers actually accept spanking as a solution and not insist that other alternatives be used instead or write posts or comments about how spanking is child abuse.

What this means in practice is that people who are very opposed to spanking have to either accept that it is an allowed subject on the site and ignore those questions or they find somewhere else to ask questions about parenting. If they can't ignore them, they will likely be forced out by the moderators.

So, as with the Parenting example, you must recognize your own beliefs and biases and where they differ from those of others. Their belief may be wrong for your sect's teachings, it's not absolutely wrong to all sects.

In addition to this, please remember to assume good intentions. If a question is asked that seems to target the beliefs of one sect, make an effort to help make the question more neutrally worded if you can but don't change the question entirely. Don't use the comments to accuse the asker of sectarianism and avoid retaliating by asking a question that targets another sect.

Because of how different the teachings of the Hindu sects are, it is likely that questions about one sect may ask things that you find offensive to yours. This doesn't make the question offensive in general, it is a function of how this site works and the fact that it should accept questions about all Hindu groups.

How to scope questions to avoid arguments and set expectations

Part of what's becoming clear is that you can't make absolute statements about Hinduism. The answer to many questions depends on which sect you're interested in.

So, as I hinted at briefly earlier, I'm going to suggest you take another cue from the Christianity site and you all start requiring that questions are contextualized to a specific sect (or sects if the question is asking about the differences) rather than asking unbounded questions that will lead to arguments about which is the "correct" answer. If a question doesn't mention this, request it.

Here's an example of a comment you might leave on a post without context:

Good:

It's not clear from your question which tradition you're asking about; I suspect it is Vaishnavism, but can you edit to clarify?

Bad:

Those Vaishnavists teach all sorts of stupid crap. You should totally drop that and try Shaivism.

If a question is looking for an answer from one sect and gets an an answer from another, flag it as not an answer and leave guidance for the person answering:

This question specifically asks about Shaktism but your answer seems to be based on Vaishnava dharma. Please note that we expect answers to address the answer from the teachings of the sect the question is about.

To help you get started, here are some of the posts on Christianity's meta where they determined how to scope questions and what questions work for them. They seem to be very well-suited to your needs and the Stack Exchange format:

• This question is an excellent guide to the types of questions they allow and how they're scoped.
• This question addresses the concerns of not knowing what denomination you're asking about.
• This question focuses on how the Christianity site is different than other forums and what they expect from participants there.
• This question is specifically about whether tags are sufficient indicators of a question's scope - specifically in relation to indicating denomination.

You don't need to adopt their policy 100%. You're a different site and a different religion with different concerns but these posts and others on their meta site do a lot to help shape what users can expect and how moderators are expected to moderate the site - if mods know what's expected of them, they know how to handle flags.

You all have a lot of work ahead of you to address some of these issues. We're here to help and guide but, in the end, keeping your site inclusive and welcoming to all Hindus and anyone interested in learning about the various traditions of Hinduism is part of the work of maintaining this site as much as asking and answering, voting, closing, and editing are.

Answer 2

Well, in theory, a lot of the divisions we have should matter less than they seem to here.

Folks sometimes ask me for opinions. I'm a hindu, though one who kind of takes a less nose in scripture view of things. My viewpoint isn't any less or more valid than someone who's trying to take a more literalist, or even a deeper understanding.

I'm also more familiar with the tamil, rather than sanskrit tradition of things. I probably know the bare minimum of scriptures (I know my gayatri and can muddle through the abivathaye... ), but I don't think that makes me any more or less.

Quite honestly any religion related sites is going to have diverging views. We have dozens of different traditions, and many practices that have various levels of acceptance in the modern era.

The original post is taken from the christianity meta. That said, we have a different and unique set of challenges -

I do know that sometimes there's differences between northern and southern traditions. Saivites and Vaishnavites (Even if I'm a southern "Iyer" with Tirupathi Vengadajalapathi as my family deity, and I admire the passion that folks in vaishnavite temples in the south have for telling their stories). At the end of the day though "My way is better than your way" isn't the SE way.

Rather than focus on the differences, we can learn from each other.SE's always been a place to teach and learn. Arguments happen but they need to be constructive.

And well, we can always learn from others - the judaism site is actually a great example of a place where people with different traditions and the same faith ask questions about their faith, and how it works around their lifestyle. They do get technical - and site a dizzying array of sources.

If someone has an honest question in good intent, even if they're not hindu, It should stand. On the other hand, sometimes the politics of (ethnic) indian society can be complex and folks may need to make decisions - and hard ones.

Something that concerns me is how much hostility I see towards mods. I guess the same can be true of saints. If you have an issue with a mod (or a saint, which is rarely the same thing) - you might, rather than focusing on the person, make a case for why something should be, within the framework of the site and SE.

You think something shouldn't be closed? Dig out the rules. make a constructive case to why it would be a good fit for the site.

I personally think that, well, the circumstances behind the original post are pretty different from what we have, but eh, we all need to get along better.

Answer 3

The word 'Sindhu' was given by foreigners to denote people who lived east of Sindh river in Pakistan, which over time became 'Hindu'.

By common definition, the word 'religion' implies belief in God, and some way/faith/worship system to express that belief.
The followers of the religion currently known as Hinduism, would likely tell you that they believe in Gods (usually Shiva/Brahma , Vishnu) and Scriptures (usually Vedas , Ramayana/Mahabharata).

The Sanskrit term for our religion is Sanatana (or Vaidika) dharma, and such believers are called 'Astika'. The term for a sect or book or guru who does not believe in Brahmam and Vedas is termed 'Nastika'. There are many such schools of thought within Bharat, like Buddhism, Charvakam etc. Muslims/Christians believe in God, but not in Vedas.
Note - There are schools which believe in Vedas but not in God although they do believe in Atma, who are also called Astika, but that's a separate technical discussion for a small minority of academics.

So, this is who I consider a 'Hindu' - belief in Vedas, and Bhagavan

Whether they know the Sanskrit terms for Bhagavan / Vedas or simply seek their local deity or temple or priests in matters concerning faith, or whether they follow the instructions of scriptures exactly or partially etc. is a different discussion. Laymen may not have even heard of the term 'Vedas', but indirectly through words of elders and acharyas, or by worshipping a Vedic God, they end up believing & following tenets of Vedas.

Now, let's come to this site. I'm going to put words in your mouth and say that the point you want to get across is:

This is not a social network for Hindus

Most of us here understand that, because it's obvious.

What is also obvious is that the people who visit a site called 'hinduism' will in majority be Hindus, or minority who are not but are genuinely interested in learning more about its intricacies, or a tiny fraction who will be intent on deriding it.
This happens in every community, whether political, religious, sports etc.

Now, let's come to your next point:

"We're a secular site sponsored by a secular company... we must appreciate questions that have been written with a critical point of view."

This is a 'secular' site, because we don't restrict entry to 'Hindus only'.
This is NOT a 'secular' site, because we restrict questions to 'about Hinduism only'.

This is a 'secular' site, because we tolerate critical/derisive questions. (Some upvote, Some downvote, Some flag).
This is NOT a 'secular' site, because we don't tolerate repeatedly derisive criticizers (first timers get flagged, repeat offenders get derided back, continuous attackers get banned).

Again, you'll likely find above pattern in any community, more so in religious ones where faith is involved.
Any question that has been asked with sincere academic curiosity, in high likeliness, has been answered with academic responses. Any question that had opinions inserted into it (with or without intent), will invite similarly opinion-inserted answers.

For any 'community' to thrive, the ratio of appreciaters to criticizers, of flag-bearers to pitch-forkers, of believers to skeptics, must be high. If you go to a christianity SE, and more than half the posts are from skeptics, either the users should migrate to skeptics SE, or rename it to skeptics SE. It's simple numbers.

Finally, the underlying belief in Hinduism is on Bhagavan & Vedas, which can easily find other online expressions if one particular site's policy doesn't suit it. The site serves Hinduism, not the other way around.

P.S: We're fine. I don't think there is any major issue with the health of this community, nor with the way the moderators run this site, nor do I think the site owners have an issue with our SE.

Answer 4

You could have just posted this link from Christianity Meta, after all, everything in this post is copied word by word from there.

Posts on every site should be specific to the issue on that particular site only, since I joined this site, I've never seen what you described. All users of this site are aware about the scope, it may be a problem on other sites like Christianity but not on this one.

This post creates an impression that similar things are happening here as well which is not the case. They created the post because it was required but here, this post is extremely pointless. Maybe the intention was to post it here just because it exists there regardless of the fact that nothing is actually wrong.