i think you meet a very different set of indians here in the west: the middle class which tends to avoid anything that would rock the boat. not that they do not have their rants, but they prefer to express their nonsense about muslims (or whatever) within the safety of their two bedroom flats (apts).
anthony d'costa disagreed with me regarding this point, on pen-l, since he felt that the indians in the US came from various segments, and he probably knows better than i about this, so i am cc'ing him (i do not know if he is on LBO). prof d'costa, the full text of "dlawbailey"'s post is at: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/0642.html.
also, there seems to be a general trend among non-native populations behaving more docile in what they themselves rank as more sophisticated cultures. if that sounds like a horrible stereotype, my apologies: i am probably using the wrong terms. when i was a grad student here in the US, there was an indian student who had a lot of ideas that he was keen to discuss - but often during research group meetings or informal gatherings his choice of english words and pronunciation would be constantly corrected, leading to a growing disinclination on his part to participate, perhaps out of a feeling of being ridiculed. this might have been studied before?
> Another question: Is there language in the Hindu sacred texts that would
> tend to inflame violence? I always thought, naively I'm sure, that Hinduism
> was not a religion focused on earthly conquest. Judaism, Christianity, and
> Islam all include a history of religious/ethnic conflict in their theology.
> Does Hinduism?
i probably know only a bit more hinduism than you, but i'll take a shot: well, there is the concept of dharma, or duty, and your duty varies over different stages. in the grihastya stage, for instance, you are expected to establish and support a family.
i do not know of particular calls to violence but i guess being an early entrant into the religion business, hinduism had the luxury to not have to rail against competitors, and advocate all means to keep the faithful in line.
an article by shashi tharoor, that i posted to LBO a few days ago (see: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/0538.html) touched upon some of this:
------------
The Hindus who attacked the mosque had little faith in the institutions of Indian democracy. [...] They are not fundamentalists in any common sense of the term, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals: there is no Hindu pope, no Hindu Sunday, no single Hindu holy book and indeed no such thing as a Hindu heresy. Hindu "fundamentalists" are, instead, chauvinists, who root their Hinduism not in any of its soaring philosophical or spiritual underpinnings - and, unlike their Islamic counterparts, not in the theology of their faith - but in its role as a source of identity. They seek revenge in the name of Hinduism as badge, rather than of Hinduism as doctrine.
In doing so they are profoundly disloyal to the religion they claim to espouse, which stands out not only as an eclectic embodiment of tolerance but as the only major religion that does not claim to be the only true religion. All ways of worship, Hinduism asserts, are valid, and religion is an intensely personal matter related to the individual's self-realization in relation to God. Such a faith understands that belief is a matter of hearts and minds, not of bricks and stone. The true Hindu seeks no revenge upon history, for he understands that history is its own revenge.
------------
i do not know how i would buy into this rosy picture of hinduism. for instance, how much of the caste system and its horrors, was prescribed by hindu beliefs and texts? i do not know the definitive answer, but my guess is that the caste system is an outcome of the tenets of the religion.
--ravi