Hindu refusal to spread its faith is meaner than missionary coercion.

Evidence

The Hindus criticise the Mahomedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the score of the Inquisition. But really speaking, who is better and more worthy of our respect—the Mahomedans and Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for their salvation, or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of their own make-up? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mahomedan has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than cruelty. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 889

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• QUESTION: Famous provocative formulation worth revisiting — how does the cruelty-vs-meanness comparison hold up as rhetoric and as argument?

Related

• Withholding knowledge and refusing to share it is morally worse than forced conversion. (similarity 0.88)
• Refusing to share one’s faith is morally worse than forcibly imposing it. (similarity 0.87)
• Hindu tolerance is really weakness or indifference, not virtue (similarity 0.86)
• So-called Hindu tolerance is actually weakness and indifference caused by caste. (similarity 0.81)
• Hindu polytheistic toleration masks insincerity and priestly faithlessness. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Hindu tolerance is really weakness or indifference, not virtue #corroborates (0.75) — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 896