called fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically. Yet members of all other
religions have done this, while Hinduism is by all accounts the most disorganized of all
religions. There are many Christian and Islamic parties throughout the world, and in all
countries where these religions are in a majority they make sure to exert whatever
political influence they can.
Why shouldn't Hindus
have a political voice even in India? The Muslims in India have their own Muslim party and
no can id calling them fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically. There are
many Islamic states throughout the world and in these Hindus, if they exist at all, are
oppressed. What Hindu groups are asking for India to be a more strictly Hindu state than
Muslims are doing in Islamic state?
There are those who warn that Hindu rule would mean the
creation of a Hindu theocratic state? Yet what standard Hindu theology is there, and what
Hindu theocratic state has ever existed? Will it be a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or Vedantic
theocracy? What Hindu theocratic model will it be based upon? Is there a model of
Hindu kings like the Caliphs of early Islam to go back to, or like the Christian emperors
of the Middle Ages?