not a hate ask but a genuine question. why do hindus feel so threatened abt their future while being in majority? also isnt the idea of a hindu rashtra kinda like imposing majoritarian rule? i am a jain and i feel squashed by both hindus and muslims. i cannot feel like i can say either side is completely right or completely wrong. but because of this exclusion, the people of my community have a bitter attitude towards both hindus and muslims. it's "us" and "them". i'd like to know can we exactly blame them for having this attitude? after all when two elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled on right?
Oh you're a Jain? And you like elephant allegories? Here's another one. Since you're a Jain, surely you know this one by heart. 
It's an example to demonstrate one of the three core tenets of Jainism: anekantavada. It translates to "no-one-perspective-ism", which asserts that reality is multifaceted, that no single human perspective can capture the absolute truth. Basically, all humans are blind, and they perceive the reality based on what they are accustomed to, therefore the truth is relative to the viewpoint and context from which it is observed.
I'm astika myself. Arsheya Astika logicians have refuted anekantavada and its logical system syadavada, for example the nyaya argument is that if all judgments are merely conditional or "partial truths" (syat), then no definitive, reliable knowledge (pramana) can exist. Even for kevaladvaitin astikas, even when there's maya, there's still one absolute truth in the paramarthika satya, that is eternal Brahman and atman, and this is what Jainas don't believe in which is why Jainas are also philosophically nastikas, like the Buddhists. Speaking of which, two of the core tenets of Bauddha philosophy are kshanikavada -everything is momentary, and anicca -impermanence. Jainas believe that jivas are permanent. Bauddha philosopher Shantarakshita argued that if in Jaina philosophy, a jiva is "permanent" as a substance but "changing" in its modes, it effectively means it disappears and reappears every second, which is a "logical contradiction". Another Bauddha philosopher, Dharmakirti, was far more crude, he called the Jainas shameless (ahrikah) for holding views that he believed destroyed all linguistic and conceptual boundaries, making communication impossible. Jaina philosophers, such as Akalanka, had their counter arguments to nyaya critique. Although I'm astika myself, I respect Jaina philosophers, and as an intellectual, philosophical tradition that made astikas sharper too. These philosophical debates in ancient India is what made ancient India the kind of prosperous and advanced society back when most of the world was uncivilised.
I have only seen on twitter by some edgelord Jain traditionalists that they are bitter against Hindus for the Girnar dispute, which is, apparently, a conflict between Jain and Hindu communities over the ownership and worship rights on Mount Girnar in Gujarat. The dispute focuses on the 5th peak, which Jains consider the Nirvana place of Neminath (22nd Tirthankara), while Hindus worship the site as the footprint of Lord Dattatreya. Those Jain edgelords also boast that it was Tirthankara Neminatha who imparted the wisdom that Krishna later shared with Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, and that both Krishna and Arjuna went to naraka for the Kurukshetra war, but Krishna was commuted from the lowest hell to an upper hell because he devoted himself to Jain monks. To this, some online Hindu edgelords have boasted about the Koon Pandiyan incident (a hagiographic legend where a Tamil Shaiva king converted the Jain Pandiyan king to Shaivism and impaled 8,000 Jain monks), or that Basavanna's followers killed Shwetambar Jains. Basavanna's followers are Veerashaivas, or Lingayats, by the way. Gauri Lankesh was a Lingayat and advocated throughout her life that Lingayats be legally separated from Hinduism :). The Hindu online traditionalists also say how the aforementioned was a reaction to the Kalabhra rule. You have to understand that these incidents in South India are purely hagiographic tales, with little to no evidence that they actually happened. The real life disputes are mostly about the Girnar and maybe about Jain disapproval of some Hindu practices, such as pashubali, and vice versa. Otherwise, there's only been co-existence in harmony.
Jains are considered the wealthiest group in India with high economic, cultural and social capital. I can't for the life of me understand what you are bitter about against Hindus. Has there ever been any indication that the Republic of India is oppressing you? Has the Modi government told you that they will trample you like grass? Jains are a notified religious minority, they possess certain specific constitutional protections that are not available to Hindus. According to the Article 30(1), Jains have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This provides them with greater autonomy than Hindu-run institutions, for example, Jain institutions can reserve up to 50% of seats for Jains. Unaided minority-run institutions are exempt from state-mandated reservation policies for SC/ST/OBC categories. Jain institutions have more freedom in appointing staff and determining their own syllabi, subject to state regulations for academic standards too. Jains are also eligible for various Central and State government welfare programs specifically earmarked for minorities, such as scholarships (pre-matric, post-matric), subsidized loans for education, and specialized coaching for competitive exams, despite generally being the wealthiest group in India.
Jains have this state support for being a minority. Heck, there are even Jiyo Parsi schemes. Two of the wealthiest mercantile groups in Asia can avail this government support, but not a dime for one of the most endangered ritualists of the Hindu fold, the shrauta Brahmins, with a tradition far older than Jainism. Still, never have I ever alluded that I'm advocating for a theocracy (Hindu rashtra is not a theocracy, it is just a state that is willing to protect Hindu civilisation). And even if Hindu rashtra was hypothetically a theocracy, what makes you think that astikas will suddenly start to oppress nastikas? India would still remain a republic, the time of kings is over! I don't see why you should feel any bitterness towards Hindus!
When I saw this anon ask , I was honestly surprised. It made me wonder how a Jain could feel so separate from Hinduism. I have two Jain friends at my office, and I’ve never noticed any such difference. They celebrate Hindu festivals, and one even has a Vaishno Devi photo on his desk.
I shared the post with them, and both laughed. They felt the person might be living outside India and not fully aware of the ground reality here. According to them, while Jainism and Hinduism are philosophically distinct, culturally they have always shared a deep connection.
Jainism is an ancient and independent tradition, yet it has long existed alongside Hinduism like a close family, growing together within India’s shared heritage. More than differences, it’s this bond of mutual respect, non-violence, and spirituality that truly defines their relationship....
