The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[A_Gupta]

^^^ those are goals or desired outcomes. As far as I know, the "how" is mentioned only briefly in the Gita, as lok sangrah.

Lok Sangrah was the term used by Lord Krishna in the Bhagvad – Gita to express his inspiration to the world. Loksangraha refers to the ways in which a human being plays role in the upliftment of society and the welfare.

[RajeshA]

^^^ those are goals or desired outcomes. As far as I know, the "how" is mentioned only briefly in the Gita, as lok sangrah.

Lok Sangrah was the term used by Lord Krishna in the Bhagvad – Gita to express his inspiration to the world. Loksangraha refers to the ways in which a human being plays role in the upliftment of society and the welfare.

The "how" is a function of intelligence on the enemy, the situation, own resources and preparation, etc. It's always different.

What is important is to understand the enemy, the challenge. One can't approach the other like a black box. Every era, every time has its own challenges, and the response has to be tailor-cut to that. For that one will not find any ready-made prescriptions.

Other than that, Raj Dharma envisages the use of sāma, dāna, danda, bheda, maya, upeksha and indrajala.

[A_Gupta]

Well, there is a general problem of how to organize mass collective action in a dharmic way, without falling prey to all the problems (adharma?) that such collective actions can bring.

[RajeshA]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[abhischekcc]

Mother is the necessity of invention.

[chetak]

Not many know the Indian past he had discovered!


Not many know the Indian past he had discovered!

Published in Indian Express

Thursday November 16 2006 09:31 IST
S Gurumurthy
"What is it that keeps the country down", asked the speaker. A young man in the audience replied unhesitatingly: "Undoubtedly the institution of caste that kept the majority low castes and the society backward" and added "it continues".

The speaker replied, "May be". But, pausing for a moment, he added, "May not be". Shocked, the young man angrily asked him to explain his "may-not-be" theory.

The speaker calmly mentioned just one fact that clinched the debate. He said, "Before the British rule in India, over two-thirds - yes, two-thirds - of the Indian kings belonged to what is today known as the Other Backward Castes (OBCs).

"It is the British," he said, "who robbed the OBCs - the ruling class running all socio-economic institutions - of their power, wealth and status." So it was not the upper caste which usurped the OBCs of their due position in the society?

The speaker’s assertion that it was not so was founded on his study - unbelievably painstaking study for years and decades in the archives in India, England and Germany. He could not be maligned as a ‘saffron’ ideologue and what he said could not be dismissed thus. He was Dharampal, a Gandhian in ceaseless search of truth like his preceptor Gandhi himself was, but a Gandhian with a difference. He ran no ashram on state aid to do ‘Gandhigiri’.

Admitting that "he and those like him do not know much about our own society", the young man who questioned Dharampal - Banwari is his name - became his student. By meticulous research of the British sources over decades, Dharampal demolished the myth that India was backward educationally or economically when the British entered. Citing the Christian missionary William Adam’s report on indigenous education in Bengal and Bihar in 1835 and 1838, Dharampal established that at that time there were 100,000 schools in Bengal, one school for about 500 boys; that the indigenous medical system that included inoculation against small-pox.

He also proved by reference to other materials that Adam’s record was ‘no legend’. He relied on Sir Thomas Munroe’s report to the Governor at about the same time to prove similar statistics about schools in Madras. He also found that the education system in the Punjab during the Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule was equally extensive. He estimated that the literary rate in India before the British was higher than that in England.

Citing British public records he established, on the contrary, that ‘British had no tradition of education or scholarship or philosophy from 16th to early 18th century, despite Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Newton, etc’. Till then education and scholarship in the UK was limited to select elite. He cited Alexander Walker’s Note on Indian education to assert that it was the monitorial system of education borrowed from India that helped Britain to improve, in later years, school attendance which was just 40, 000, yes just that, in 1792. He then compared the educated people’s levels in India and England around 1800. The population of Madras Presidency then was 125 lakhs and that of England in 1811 was 95 lakhs. Dharampal found that during 1822-25 the number of those in ordinary schools in Madras Presidency was around 1.5 lakhs and this was after great decay under a century of British intervention.

As against this, the number attending schools in England was half - yes just half - of Madras Presidency’s, namely a mere 75,000. And here to with more than half of it attending only Sunday schools for 2-3 hours! Dharampal also established that in Britain ‘elementary system of education at people’s level remained unknown commodity’ till about 1800! Again he exploded the popularly held belief that most of those attending schools must have belonged to the upper castes particularly Brahmins and, again with reference to the British records, proved that the truth was the other way round.

During 1822-25 the share of the Brahmin students in the indigenous schools in Tamil-speaking areas accounted for 13 per cent in South Arcot to some 23 per cent in Madras while the backward castes accounted for 70 per cent in Salem and Tirunelveli and 84 per cent in South Arcot.

The situation was almost similar in Malayalam, Oriya and Kannada-speaking areas, with the backward castes dominating the schools in absolute numbers. Only in the Telugu-speaking areas the share of the Brahmins was higher and varied from 24 to 46 per cent. Dharampal’s work proved Mahatma Gandhi’s statement at Chatham House in London on October 20, 1931 that "India today is more illiterate than it was fifty or hundred years ago" completely right.

Not many know of Dharampal or of his work because they have still not heard of the Indian past he had discovered. After, long after, Dharampal had established that pre-British India was not backward a Harvard University Research in the year 2005 (India’s Deindustrialisation in the 18th and 19th Centuries by David Clingingsmith and Jeffrey G Williamson) among others affirmed that "while India produced about 25 percent of world industrial output in 1750, this figure had fallen to only 2 percent by 1900." The Harvard University Economic Research also established that the Industrial employment in India also declined from about 30 to 8.5 per cent between 1809-13 and 1900, thus turning the Indian society backward.

PS: This great warrior who established the truth - the truth that was least known - that India was not backward when the British came, but became backward only after they came, is no more. He passed away two weeks ago on October 26, 2006, at Sevagram at Warda.

[JE Menon]

^^Thanks for that.

What was the title of Dharampal's study? No indication in the article.

[Vriksh]

x-posted from Western Universalism Thread.

I have met Dharampal as a boy in 1993. Good to know that his ideas have started coming out in the mainstream.

Dharampal along with other like minded people had started a foundation called Patriotic People Oriented Science and Technology (PPST) based out of Chennai. PPST then organized 3 massive Congresses on Traditional Sciences and Technology in the 1990s which included Ancient Iron/Steel making (Wootz steel) which I had the pleasure of observing at close range while the artisans coaxed the Iron out the ore in a 3 ft high furnace

More information below.

http://www.vidyaashram.org/ppst.html

A Hindu article on PPST.
http://www.thehindu.com/2000/06/12/stories/08120001.htm

A lot of research on Ancient Indian Sciences are covered in the Bulletins which are a rich source of information on many many traditions of India.
http://ppstbulletins.blogspot.in/2011/1 ... h-nov.html

[chetak]

^^Thanks for that.

What was the title of Dharampal's study? No indication in the article.

RTE Act is destructive and communal

Seems to have written a book

“The Beautiful Tree” by Dharampal.

Does anyone have access to a copy??

[JE Menon]

^^Got it... Here you go. Not sure if it's all there, but quite a bit seems to be.

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgu ... ultree.pdf

[chetak]

^^Got it... Here you go. Not sure if it's all there, but quite a bit seems to be.

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgu ... ultree.pdf

Thanks, Sirjee. You are a jem

There seem to be 5 volumes.

I can send you all by email if you want them and let me know where.

[RamaY]

^ All 5 volumes are in that PDF. They are mentioned as chapters. It is available on Archive.org as well.

[JE Menon]

My pleasure chetak... I had heard of this Dharampal (apparently only one name), but no idea of his book. Then it was mentioned here, but no title. Once you get the title... Uncle Google rarely fails.

[chetak]

^ All 5 volumes are in that PDF. They are mentioned as chapters. It is available on Archive.org as well.

Thanks saar, saved me a email hop to get them. One of my contacts had them in pdf.

[RamaY]

^ All 5 volumes are in that PDF. They are mentioned as chapters. It is available on Archive.org as well.

Thanks saar, saved me a email hop to get them. One of my contacts had them in pdf.

My apologies. The link JEM Garu put is only one volume. You can get all 5 volumes here-
https://archive.org/details/DharampalCo ... In5Volumes

Vol 1: Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century
Vol 2: Civil Disobedience in the Indian Tradition
Vol 3: The Beautiful Tree Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century
Vol 4: Panchayat Raj and India's polity
Vol 5: Essays on Tradition, Recovery and Freedom (which included the Bharatiya Chit, Manas and Kaal)

[ShauryaT]

A compilation of all of Dharmapal jis works are here. Good luck hunting them down. Do post if you manage to get access to all the articles. Here is what I have been able to chase down. Thanks.

http://www.samanvaya.com/dharampal/
http://cpsindia.org/index.php/dh-archive.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting from "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

I found that the Gordian Knot of Hindu vs anti-Hindu was best cut by properly defining various terms, i.e. based on etymology, by reclaiming them, and by deconstructing them.

Three (and a half) terms, IMHO, that I feel have been completely skewed to mean something else are

1. Hindu (Ishwarvadi Ārya, recast as "Religion" vs Bharatiya Resistance to foreign ideological and physical onslaught; redefined by the West)
2. religion (faith vs authoritarian control and subversion using faith; defined by the West)
3. Ārya (A PIE speaking White people/race which invaded India vs a Civilization of "Noble" people; appropriated by the West)
4. Bharatiya (Indian citizen vs Native cultural identifiier for Indian Subcontinental; appropriated by Secular Indian State)

Unless these terms are not understood in their proper perspective, there would remain a very wide gulf between Hindus and anti-Hindus.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by Atri from "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

they very identity of "Hindu" came into existence as opposition to abrahmic monotheistic marauders. Before that there was no such identity - there was shaiva, vaishnava bauddha, jaina etc. and there were jaati based identities.

Atri, klnmurthy said this

My political thought inspired by your political question is: it is spoken of in a pejorative sense because Indians don't own and control the discourse, and the owners have chosen to make it pejorative.

There is a big difference between what he says and what you have said.

klnmurthy says that the terms ("Hindu" and "nationalism") are not owned by Indians and the owners are doing what they want

You are saying that the term Hindu was coined specifically as a reaction to invaders.

In klnmurthy's viewpoint "hindu nationalist" is pejorative because others choose to describe in in whatever way they like

But according to you, Hindu nationalism is anti-Muslim/Christian and this corresponds, for example, to Wendy Doniger's viewpoint

The implication from both meanings is that you cannot be a Hindu and a nationalist without admitting to be anti-minority. For example we dissect statements from Muslims and ask if they say "I am an Indian" first or whether they say "I am a Muslim first" A similar choice is being offered to the Hindu. If he says that he is Hindu first, then he is anti-minority. He has to say "i am Indian" first unless he does not object to the anti-minority tag.

In other words, for Indians, nationalism has to come in different flavours for different people. But the choice of being Hindu and nationalist is removed for all Hindus unless they admit to being anti-minority.

शिव जी,

May this be the time and you be the medium through which I will manage to utter what I have been thinking subconsciously for years and was not able to (or not allowed to by saraswati) regurgitate those thoughts with certain degree of coherence.

First, when we say "nationalism" or "nationalist" or "Hindu-nationalist" etc, we have to ask one basic question - what is this "nation" thingy? Does nation here means Republic of India - a westphalian nation-state which emerged on world-stage on 26th January 1950? Or do we mean raashtra of Bhaarata which Vedas proclaim पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra).

They very construct of westphalian nation-state is very illogical according to me. It was designed to stop wars from ravaging europe, but in fact, westphalian nation-state has ravaged Europe much more. In fact, lasting peace of in Europe was achieved when post WW2, the seeds of European Union were sowed and with Yugoslavian war and fall of Berlin war, we now have a peace in Europe which seems to be organic, sustainable and lasting. Last 70 years have been most peaceful for Europe and this they achieved by moving away from west-phalian nation-state's rigidity.

However while they did this post WW2, they already had shaped the world in their image. Hence creation of nation-states all over the world.

Now this construct is diametrically opposed to very nature of human societies to naturally expand and shrink in geography. What is a citizen? All german citizens are equal, as per German constitution - irrespective of his race, religion, creed and background. In exchange, all german citizens are expected to owe allegiance to germany (which in weird way refers to a book with words "german constitution" written on its cover). While this is technical expectation from a german citizen, the expectations from ethnic germans are however very human and basal - all german citizens should consider themselves german. But an arab immigrant or a paki does not feel that way. He has german passport alright, but he openly says he is not german and will never be a german. Thus the very construct is fundamentally flawed which will soon reveal itself in ugly manner in peaceful Europe.

More or less, this is the fate of all other so called "nation-states".

In dharmik civilization, raashtra is separate from raajya which is also separate from desha. Dharma is not limited to geography (desha) of Indian subcontinent - Dharma is universal. Raashtra in our narrative is linked with geography (desha) - hence the Rigvedik Richa that I quoted above. Our narrative acknowledges existence of other raashtras (varshas) on earth. The varsha or rashtra which we live in is called "bhaarat-varsha". Raajya or state on the other hand is not liked with rashtra, nor necessarily with desha. the raajya of Saatavaahana-VaakaaTaka-chaalukya-raashTrakuTa-Kakatiya-hoysaala-yaadava-vijaynagar-marathas-maharashtra/AP/Karnataka - all have existed on same "desha", belong to same "raashtra" (which ran as per dictats of dharma), but were/are vastly different "Raajyas".

Thus raashtra-raajya-desha segregation and interlinkage in dharmik (in post islamic times, Hindu) polity is understood and inherent. This is not the case in Abrahmic polity and its successor westphalian nation-state based polity.

IN Abrahmic polity, deen and daulat (religion and state) cannot be separated. In westphalian nation-state model, while they separated state from religion to an extent, they linked it to geography and identity (vaguely - rashtra). To make things complicated, they froze the borders.

This is so much different from our way of organizing the polity. But we were overcome post 1805 and our attempt to revert back to pre-1805 polity in 1857 was crushed by English. Thus we were forced to swallow this pill of formatting our identity (raashtra), our way of organizing polity (raajya) and our desha (geography in form of partition) in British occupation.

This was tried all over the world.

Islamic world has Quran which preserves its "deen-daulat" model and since it is word of god (same god as European christians worship), it was safeguarded. Look what happened to non-abrahmic cultures and their world-view. Look at China - they have given up (or so it seems, I hope they too have preserved the core in some form) that. We had to adapt to this. The era of nation-state had arrived and no matter how conflicting it is to our understanding, we had to find a way to preserve our core while preventing further loss of raashtra-raaajya-desha and dharma. This is where the theory of Hindutva arose.

It has its origins in Hindavi-swarajya of maraThas (which was an Indian or Indic response to Islamism) which in turn had origins in Vijaynagara movement and Early rajputs. Hindavi swaraya of Marathas (for sake of simplicity, we must understand that all non-islamic, non-christian political entities which existed in India in past 1000 years are "hindavi swarajya") was a socio-politico-economic rebellion of those native brown skinned Indians against Islamism and its socio-politico-economic dominance on people and geography of India. In other words, it was a dharmaarthik response.

now as far as the word "Hindu" goes, as I said earlier, it was a collective umbrella term for all brown, Indian origin people following Indian adhyatmik paths. So it has an ethnic undertones to it. As I said in my article, Julia Roberts is a VaishNava woman, but she is not a Hindu. APJ Abdul Kalam is a Hindu.

Hindu has always been a socio-judicio-politico-economic (dharmaarthik) term. British fused it with alien concept of "religion" and gave this term "religions" connotations. I do not even understand what religion means, anymore - thankfully. I have managed to detoxify myself to some extent.

So, in summary, we have terms Hindu and Hindutva. Hindu is an identity based term (raashtra) and Hindutva is dharmaarthik theory which deals with Hindu-polity in era of nation-state.

Imagine for a while a time when this very edifice of nation-state has collapsed. Hindutva will collapse with it. It is a survival adaptation of Hindus. After few years/decades or collapse of Hindutva, when the very concept of "religion" collapses (or becomes irrelevant or non-interfering), the term "hindu" too will drop off.

I do not know what Wendy Doniger agrees with this or not. But this has preserved our way of life in past 1000 years. Without this, in my opinion, dharma would have been relegated to museums like zoroastrians and egyptians. And since this adaptation, although uncomfortable, is a protective shield it is hated by those who wish to homogenize the world. Hence all this conflict.

shubham astu..

[RajeshA]

There are often accusations of Islamophobia by Muslims, Left-Liberals, Seculars, etc. directed at honest thinkers. Often an accusation of Islamophobia leaves one perplexed how to respond to it. Here is one definition.

- Islamophobia is the imagined, mendacious or just reflection of Kufrophobia.

- Islamophobia, if it happens, is the result of Scriptural, Systemic and Historical Kufrophobia

[RajeshA]

The Hindutvavadi, the Hinduist and the Hindu (Cont.)

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

IMO, among the Bharatiyas, the connective tissue between the world of Moksha, i.e. Darśanam, Sampradaya, Panth & Bhakti and the world of Rāshtra is Dharma. Dharma sits in between, is nourished by both and still keeps the two apart.

One's Bhaktipanth should not intrude upon one's Rāshtravad and vice versa, at least not directly, but only through the medium of Dharma - the Ārya system of Meta-Ethics.

Same is the case with Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Sure the Vaishnavas consider Sri Rama and Sri Krishna to be Avatars of Vishnu, and Vishnu to be the Supreme Godhead, but that is an issue of faith. Those pundits and people who do worship and praying to Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, they are doing it as their faith, their Panth.

However Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are national heroes and national icons as well who fought off Adharmic rulers and their oppression and established Dharma for the people. They were both kings and Raj Niti was an intrinsic part of their lives.

So can the two be separated? Yes, they can, and that is by framing the dialogue on the basis of Dharma.

Dharma is the biggest beauty of Bharatiya thought, which no Abrahamic can boast of. Among the Abrahamics, there is no authority independent of God. All directions have to come directly from God, but Dharma lives autonomously from any God concept, and Hindu Gods are shown to submit to Law of Dharma themselves.

The life a "Hindu" leads and the thoughts a "Hindu" thinks in the scope of his Moksha, do not have a bearing on his life or thoughts in the scope of the Dharmaarthik.

There are some "Hindus" who wish to limit themselves to the "Moksha" scope. They would talk about "Hinduism", and they would follow their own God concept and spirituality. I would call them Hinduists.

Other Hindus would care about Dharmaarthik goals, possibly in addition to Moksha goals. These would care about Rāshtra and Hindutva.

Hindu Nationalism becomes a pejorative for many Hinduists, because they feel that they are being defined over Rashtriya issues, from which they like to keep their distance. Moreover, for no fault of the Hindutvavadis, they feel that the ideology of Hindutvavadis is besmirching the pristine Mokshik, philosophical and tolerant traditions, to which they wish to limit themselves and is dragging them where they don't want to be. They feel ashamed about this to an extent that they make demands of Hindutvavadis to completely reject Hindutva.

It is however not Hindutvavadis that are dragging the Hinduists into the political and ideological cross-fire. It is they themselves, as they choose to call themselves Hindus even though "Hindu" is associated with Rāshtravad. They do so because they follow the Western line which has thought up "Hinduism" as a religion. Secondly they feel ashamed that their faith is being compared to the likes of Radical Islam or Christian Fundamentalism, but here again Hinduists fail to appreciate that Dharma stands in between Moksha and Dharmaarthik and would not allow the debate in the Dharmaarthik field (Rāshtravad) to encroach in the Mokshik field. But if the Hinduists fail to use Dharma as a shield to protect their terrain from Western criticism, often because these secularized Hinduists buy Western rhetoric lock, stock and barrel, what can the Hindutvavadis do?

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji, excellently phrased and thought out constructs. These discussions here need to evolve and we've come to at the minimum understanding that our Indic civilization has these basic constructs:

1. The concept of Dharma (much misunderstood, much misinterpreted today)
2. Our understanding or misunderstanding of Hinduism as we and others have defined it for us.
3. The presence of various atheistic streaks, moksha margs personalized or impersonalized in conceptualization.

On the first point Dharma as a meta ethic system has been actually well propounded in the examples of Lord Krishna and Lord Rama himself. The amount it has been stressed repeatedly, i doubt anything has been. It would have been great if society had discussed what following this Dharma entails rather than apply foreigner versions of Dharma=Religion and poison a very beautiful and powerful abstraction so stressed in out core scriptures.

On the second (Hinduism) our antennas should have been up the moment its definition kept evolving to push one Dharmic sect out after another over the last 100 years or so from it. It should have gone up even more with calls to drive out more groups that essentially follow Dharmic ethic from it's fold just because their Moksha Marg concept or their orthodoxy premises differ from a larger or well established groups within. But that hasn't happened in the last 1400 years we see and that has failed to provide a rallying point for Indics as of yet.

Regarding the 3rd point i mention above, A lot of Hindutvadis not only borrow morality concepts seeped in Islamic and Victorian mores or even Germanic versions of Aryanic purity ones that many Indics with rootings in Dharma or a Sampradayic orthodixy reject as external. While there is an attempt to rally under a Sanatan Dharmic broader definition the explanation, counter explanations and the whole lot of incessant intellectual discussions is way beyond the masses to shift through. Confused lots end up with embarrassingly out of reality concepts. For example in Hinduism you don't follow any orthodox rules. That is simply wrong. You might not if you wish not to, but if one does indeed take a Moksha panth based on Bhakti or Gyaana under a Guru, he/ she is required to observe faithfully the particular orthodoxies associated with the group.

We need on this thread to establish for the Bharatiya Identity ultimately not a complex, changing/ confused definition based framework, but one based on simple easy definitive framework of governance and assorted sampradayic structures to deal with comprehensively with the Bharatiya concept. It's pointless to leave out Dharmic faiths like Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hare Krishna'ites, Arya Samajis from the overarching Bharatiya concept because their Sampradayic orthodoxies don't gel (with what of Bharatiya?).

Again it was the Western thought process of dividing and compartmentalizing that attempted to define Sampradayic orthodoxies without realizing the inherent fluidic flexibility that the Dharmic meta ethic provided for people to not only choose if they desired a Sampradayic orthodoxy but also construct a new one if they so desired. This is a very important aspect that got diluted as families started defining themselves on the basis of a Sampradayic orthodoxy. It wasn't so till a few hundred years ago. In fact it stays till these days in a latent form. It is so inherent that the constitution even has an article to maintain the fluidity:

Article 25(2)(b) in The Constitution Of India 1949
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

[RajeshA]

The Hindutvavadi, the Hinduist and the Hindu (Cont.)

harbans ji,

Bharatiyas are a bit in a quandary. It is our history, our experience, that those who have repeatedly tried to beat us down, who have tried to besmirch our proud traditions, have come down riding on some God concept, and used a manufactured authority, claiming it as derivative from God, to talk us down.

They did not think it necessary to enter with us in any philosophical debate in order to really measure the worth of their morals and prescriptions. It was sufficient that they could dominate over us politically and shove down their superiority down our throats through sheer force. Instead of philosophical debate, we had the pleasure of verbal attacks and enslavement. This was the price of military defeat.

Basically the Islamists and the Europeans used or for that matter abused God for thrashing us. An invasion, a military defeat, an occupation, an oppression is one thing. It is still in the realm of politics, even if utterly Adharmic. However God itself was used to batter us. They dragged in God into the dharmaarthik field, even though we were used to keeping it in the realm of Moksha, and outside politics.

There is a big difference how the Abrahamics use God in battle and enslavement and how Dharmics use God in battle. The Abrahamics see themselves working directly for God and carrying out his mission which is to assert the given God's and his Church's dominance over a people. For Abrahamics the means of achieving it are immaterial, since the end justifies the means. Dharmics on the other hand fight wars not to establish the supremacy of their God over others, but to establish Dharma in a land. For us the call to God before a battle is only to give us courage in the noble cause, and if a Hanuman flies on our flags, then it is to hope for his support. But Dharmics never went into a battle for the sake of personal glory and influence of their God. Nor did we try to spread a God's glory through force and oppression. Fighting for Dharma is not the same thing as fighting for a particular Form & Name of God.

This has caused a certain cognitive dissonance among us. In fact, we heartily embraced Marxists, Left-Liberals, Atheists, Seculars, and what not in the hope that these at least were not fighting for some God and so must be of the reasonable kind. Alas, that was a disappointment too! But I digress.

Now Bharatiyas think that any response to this God-driven onslaught has to be responded to in kind. We feel that we too have to repackage our set of beliefs and customs into a religion with a God's name displayed prominently on the flag and a simple book under our armpits. For this is the model that we think has succeeded, and so this is the model we have to emulate.

For this reason, one would see many Hindus who are willing to repackage our whole Sanskriti along with our Moksha Margs and sculpture all of it into a formidable religion, similar to Islam or Christianity. So even Hindutvavadis have to some extent accepted the prepackaged "Hinduism" as defined by the Europeans. However it is being called "Sanatan Dharma". I can understand this urge.

Still other Hindus, the Hinduists, also support the "Hinduism" being sold as a prepackaged religion by the Europeans. It frees them with identification with Hindu Rāshtravad and thus opens up many more avenues available for them.

These two constituencies willing to refashion our Sabhyata and our Sanskriti as Hinduism Religion, has given the Europeans a blank cheque to go about this project as they deem in their interests.

What I am trying to say is that we Bharatiyas don't need to transform our whole ideological architecture in order to ably respond to the Abrahamics and their offspring ideologies.

We need not bring our Moksha Panths into this ideological conflict. That should remain a personal issue, a matter of a person's own spirituality or to celebrate our festivals and should play no part in a Hindu's calling to his Rāshtrabhakti and Dharma.

Dharma here is not the sum total of all Dharmic Moksha Margs. No! Dharma here is the Ārya system of Meta-Ethics which guides our behavior and action, and in this case, in the dharmaarthik realm, in the sociopolitical realm. So we should simply forget talking about Moksha Margs, faith, God concept, etc. when we are formulating a robust response to the Abrahamics. We don't need to go about fighting wars for the glory or supremacy of our God(s).

There is much more to fight for.

Bharat is special for we are the preservers of the oldest stories of mankind.
Bharat is special for we are the protectors of Dharma in this world.
Bharat is special for we are the teachers of this world.
Bharat is special for we are the last strong bastion of human freedom to choose his Moksha Marg.
Bharat is special for we are the mother of all civilizations.
Bharat is special for we are the father of sciences: astronomy, mathematics, medicine, metallurgy, industry, urban development.
Bharat is special for we are the last stand between reason and demise into religious oppression, authoritarianism, consumerism, exploitation of nature, and social degeneration.
Bharat is special for we have one of the richest living cultures in the world.
Bharat is special for we are the Center of the Āryatva Sabhyata, which spread all across Asia.
Bharat is special for it is the land of the Vedas.
Bharat is special for it is choking full of holy places.
Bharat is special for it is our land.

Bharatiyas/Hindus don't need a God to fight for. Bharatiyas/Hindus have Dharma, an Ārya Rāshtra, an Āryatva Sabhyata and an Āryatva Sanskriti to fight for. And it is our duty to crush all that is Adharma and to neutralize all those who bears ill will towards our Rāshtra.

[RajeshA]

Macaulayist Angst

Cross-posting two posts by Lokesh_C from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

I am a Hindu nationalist. Am I being accused of wanting to kill Muslims and eliminate all religious minorities in India? Why?

This has turned into one of my long ramblings, sorry for that :

Short version from the "other" side: "You cannot be a Hindu Nationalist because it will pose a challenge to our narrative and our agenda for you". My goal is to convert the whole of India into an exclusivist religion and you dont have a place in that India. I might be doing it for religious, cultish or economic reasons, and you are coming in the way. How can I convert people if there is a Hindu Nationalistic movement??!! Hindu Nationalism is yeeevil because it is against Exclusivism (in other words: You are fighting its dual: Universalism). Universalist-Exclusivist duality runs counter to an Agnostic-Inclusive duality. Thus the fight against Hindu Nationalism is a continuing fight against Pagans and Infidels. We are fighting them for their crime of existing. It is an existential fight and we should not make any mistake about it.

Long version on how it happened:

I used to think this was leftover from colonial era policies, where Hindu Nationalists were especially singled out for harsh treatment. This created a harsh choice to the non-Macaulayized, Hindu elites in India. They could either hold on to their identity and miss the brishit loot gravy-train, or they could join in on it. Membership to the loot club was only done if you disowned who you are and then try to be who you never could be, the brishit-stiff-upper-lipped-TFTA Gora Admi. The few that chose to remain Hindu were later initially marginalized (Gokhale etc) and later actively persecuted (Savarkar and co).

Our Macaulayputras were fully involved in that process, and they were rewarded well by the looters. From that POV its easy to extrapolate and say that the current bunch of fully Macaulayized Brishit installed elites are descendents of those who had played a part in suppressing Hindu assertiveness, and thus are following the script laid out by their ancestors.

It is immaterial whether the initial suppression of Hindus by the elites was done by coercion by the Brishits or it was due to their own volition. What matters now is that their children are the ones making the decisions for the rest of us.

The above is what I used to believe. I still do to some extent. However I now think that there are many hidden agendas that is missing from this picture. A multi-generational transmission of shame, inferiority and self-hate that persisted in our elites for this long is a very potent thing. If you have no good intentions towards India, this self-hatred can be used to create problems in India, and we now know to the extent which it has corrupted us.

A gora/arab who is also a quick learner with a keen observational powers would easily manipulate things to push his or her own agenda. The white/arabic agenda-pushers have hijacked the self-confidence void of our elites by giving them a figment of respectability. An award here, a talk show there. Some metrics here and a statistic there and TimesOfIndia, HT, rrrrNDTV, MoorkhaButt, Turdesai will all be standing in line to bow to you, the white man. A gora holds a power over them that defies rationality,whether a gora likes it or not. Many goras initially get confused over this, but they quickly get used to it and get spoiled.

What the spoiled gora does not know is that he and the macaulayized Indian form a pathological bond. The gora gives the Indian his validity and in return he gets pampered and spoiled. Both of them live in a distorted world, but it is a perfect symbiotic relationship. The few goras who like this are usually full blown NPD cases or end up having borderline NPD (Narcissistic personality disorder) and the Indians become their Narcissistic fuel, who only exist as his/her extension which pampers him.

In such a case, a Nationalist Hindu is a challenge to this privilege of being able to set agendas and control India. By being a Hindu Nationalist you are taking away the gora-admis privilege, you are taking away the gora+macaulayputra control over you. This disturbs the pathological bond and thus creates two angry people.

1) The Gora Agenda-pusher who suddenly feels angry that he has no control. He has turned into an ordinary human being.
2) Macaulayized Indians who suddenly feel scared (scared more than angry), since you are pushing away his or her ONLY source of self-worth and his or her only source of "power and knowledge"

Symptom of this disturbance can be seen in the highly predictable NYTime, WaPo (f)artikals on yeeeeevil Modi churned out in constant intervals. And rrrrNDTV, C5M, turdesai behavior towards Modi.

On a side note: Our elites behave like they were hijacked by tiny aliens from space. I can spin many sci-fi short stories on that, one that puts a mirror in front of our elites to show what kind of jackasses they truly are.

You are right about projection psychology, it is apt in this case. Abrahamic religions and their "secular" children (comooonism/sikularism/democrazy etc) have done unspeakable harm on humanity. The Abrahamics have also boxed the "others" into "religions", whether the others cared to put themselves in that box called religion or not.

Macaulayputras are reflecting the same fear of their masters, in fact the fear is "exact" in its details and reasoning. They are doing a "cargo cult" version of western secularism. Despite being born Hindu, the make the mistake of placing Hinduism in the same box as Abrahamic beliefs and then believing that Hinduism is capable of the same tyranny of an Abrahamic one. They make the same mistake their masters make. It is not surprising since they are intellectual "cargo-culters" they are unable to see things from a different perspective than the one of their masters. One can excuse their masters for being ignorant, this phenomena gives an idea of how deeply a Macaulayputra has been uprooted from his or her culture.

I have a few more questions to these people
1) What is your reason to box Hinduism with Abrahamism?
2) If you agree that the box is a fallacy, then what evidence or facts can one rely on to prove that every nationalist Hindu will end up being a Nazi or a Spanish Inquisitor or a Brishit colonizer or a Stalin or a GW Bush. Countless examples on the non-Indian side? Where are the Indian Hindus who committed a crime of an order or magnitude lesser than these worthies that I have outlined above.

[RajeshA]

Talking Point

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

I am just reminded of all the articles we see on newspapers, magazines .
You will invariably find "the right wing Hindu nationalist party, the BJP" mentioned and along with it "militant wing, the RSS" .

People associate right wing / nationalist with what they are accustomed to and project the same here.

Funny is that after all the massacres in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and everywhere else on the planet, whenever something like this is said about Muslims, they just shout back at you that that is all your "Islamophobia", whereas in case of Hindus who haven't done anything, the Secular Hindus simply embrace the verbal abuse, become all apologetic and start admitting that Hindus need to curb down on "right wing Hindu nationalism"

Why is it difficult for us to always leave some article signature like "There has historically been a deep-seated anti-Hindu hostility in Western media."?!

If everybody just keeps repeating this statement ad infinitum ending any article or post like this, it is going to put Western media in a bind and free Hindus from its influence.

This follows the template as suggested by Anujan ji.

Before people complain about polio from Pakistan, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of polio. Other countries complain about 1-2 polio cases. Pakistan has 200 polio cases. With almost one case reported per day. Polio has no religion or nationality and any one could get polio. It is wrong to blame a single country for polio. It is the failure of the entire world that polio is still lurking in Pakistan. Just condemning polio won't work: root cause of Pakistani polio, like poverty, illiteracy and unsolved issues like Kashmir should be addressed and solved. More people to people contact, relaxing travel restrictions and aid are the best ways to combat polio.

India and Pakistan have fought 4 wars over Kashmir and over 1 billion people live on less than $2 per day in the subcontinent. Our Lahore correspondent contributed to this report.

Anujan, you have an evil mind and a sharp tongue and vice versa. My cup of envy runneth over.

There is a method to the madness. People in Pakistan are remarkably consistent in their messaging. You can see that suddenly everyone: Think tanks, politicians, diplomats, media, RAPEs etc use the same language to describe something. Like "Solve Cashmere to Solve Afghanistan". Suddenly everyone says the same thing, using the same words. Another example is "Trust deficit between Pakistan and USA", "Pakistan has lost $100 billion due to terrorism", "Pakistan itself victim of terrorism", "Moral, political, diplomatic support for legitimate aspiration for self determination", "US is driving Pakistan to China's camp", "South Asia is a nuclear flashpoint", "Both India and Pakistan should stop teaching hate in their schools" (as a response to madrassa proliferation in Pakistan), "India has suffered one Mumbai, Pakistan has suffered many Mumbai like incidents" and so on. Sometimes it catches on, sometimes it doesnt.

In places like US, there is something called a "talking points memo" that is sent out to all the supporters: essentially a succinct and same set of words to keep on repeating so people can remember it quickly and easily and you sway them based on repeating the words over and over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point

So one side argues that the number of guns that people have is proportional to the number of gun deaths, the other said will counter it with "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". See, if you repeat the same thing, you dont have to argue the original point. An intellectually smart (but socially stupid) person will try to counter the original argument with "Have you controlled for factors like conflict, law enforcement and so on...". An effective person on the other hand will keep on repeating "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". If you think about it, that is pretty stupid argument to make actually. Going by that argument, bazookas should be legal. Bazookas dont kill people, people kill people. Nukes should not be banned by NPT, nukes dont kill people, people kill people. It doesnt matter that the statement is stupid. It only matters that it is easy to remember and repeat and suddenly everyone believes it because it is easy to remember and repeat.

If you ask the SDREs on why arms supply to Pakistan should be cut off, each SDRE will make a long logical argument, using different words, different ideas, different set of logical arguments. While they'll all be well argued, it is all very tiring to follow each of them, remember the argument and be convinced by them. If you ask a typical Pakistani abdul on why Pakistan is training and sending terrorists everywhere, he/she will reply with a straight face "Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism". In some ways, we are victims of our own intelligence. We tend to pack arguments with nuance. A typical pakistani with IQ in the low 90's will parrot the same set of words. If you observe closely, "Pakistan itself victim of terrorism" has permeated even the discourse in the west. Even Motorma fair, sane people like Lisa Curtis, Panetta, Kerry and so on manage to squeeze it in. "Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism...."

If you think about it, "Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism" is merely a rephrasing of "Before the world blames suicide bombers, they should realize suicide bombers themselves victim of their suicide bombing". Essentially Pakistan is the country equivalent of a suicide bomber. So, the best way to counter this is repeat those talking points ourselves but modified in absurd ways, so every time someone hears those words, they only remember how absurd those words are. I never tire of doing that.

1. Before the world accuses Pakistan of spreading polio, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of polio
2. Before US accuses ISI of funding pro-Kashmir group to influence American politics, they should remember Pakistan itself victim of ISI influencing politics
3. Before Bangladesh accuses Pakistan army of committing crimes, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of Pakistan army crimes when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan
4. Before India complains about Pakistan army shelling its towns, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of Pakistan army shelling their towns

So take a talking point, gleefully deconstruct it, point out how absurd it is, keep repeating it and drive the point home.

[A_Gupta]

On Sanskrit studies:
http://swarajyamag.com/featured/enemies-of-the-tongue/

[RajeshA]

The Hindutvavadi, the Hinduist and the Hindu (Cont.)

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, current Sarsanghchalak of RSS, has himself said, that for Hindus there is no need to worship any gods, it suffices if they worship Bharat Ma. Now what kind of "religious fundamentalism" or "religious nationalism" is that?

Where the hell is religion in there?

The way Hindus (or for that matter Hindu Nationalists) see this is that Hindutva has absolutely nothing to do with what is understood under religion, or faith, or Moksha, or Bhakti, and nor has the "Hindu". "Hindu" is a term only for use in combination with Bharat, as that is its etymology. Hindutva is the protective instinct of Bharatiyata.

Now under the initiative and guidance of the British, there has been an effort to package the classical elements of faith and any forms of social organization of the Bharatiyas into a religion box called Hinduism, and then posited that only people who follow this boxed framework are Hindus. Corollary of this is that people who are not knowledgeable enough to know all that is in this box, for most an impossible task, they are then deemed somehow superficial or ignorant Hindus, and Western Sanskritists can lord over them! While all those Hindus who live by their age old local beliefs and traditions and thus do not comply by the classic definition are simply written off as superstitious Hindus and degraded. After doing enough dissing of this Hinduism package using Freudian analysis, ridicule of icons and questioning all historicity, the West ridicules those who try to abide by it, as exotic but primitive polytheists. And those Hindus who try to flee this ideological terrorism either by going up the ladder seeking classical Hinduism but distancing themselves from Durga and Ganesha or simply washing off their hands off Hinduism altogether and embracing Western modernism, though still retaining their Hindu names, are given a guilt complex saying Hinduism is under influence of those Talibanic Hindu Nationalists and even such Hindus are proclaimed guilty by association. So there is nowhere for any follower of Hinduism to run to, except into the arms of a waiting missionary.

What one gets is Hinduists attacking Hindutvavadis for embarrassing them as Hindus, and Hindutvavadis get puzzled where did that come from - after all for them being Hindu is all about being protective of Bharat and Bharatiyata.

The only alternative I see is
- to express our Sanskriti using a different architecture than a religion box, and call it something else rather than "Hinduism";
- to seek our unity in Dharma, Sabhyata, Sanskriti and Rāshtra;
- to defend it by embracing Hindutva (Hindu Nationalism).

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread


I know Rajiv Malhotra ji got this whole idea off the ground with his "Being Different" and Purva Paksha methodology. However where he has really disappointed me is with not taking the process to its logical conclusion. He too failed to get the gist of the difference between the two. History-centricism, Integral vs Synthetic Unity, Comfort with Order and Chaos, etc are fine and good, but he kept those differences confined mostly to "manifestation of difference", but did not venture into "reason for the difference". Secondly he restricted himself too much to the philosophical realm and did not venture into the politics, where the main difference lies. Thirdly he accepted at face value, the "religion box" of Hinduism as has been prepared by non-Indic interests.

I tried to explain to him, but he said "Let's not get too carried away, with terminology! More important is to embrace the differences, and feel comfortable with them".

I think he was uniquely qualified to bring out this subject out into the open, and he failed.

In the The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition Thread, one of my focus has been to differentiate Dharmic traditions from Abrahamic religions.

Religion is a brotherhood claiming to be divinely sanctioned, making exclusivist claims of universalism, with authority vested in those acting as guardians of theology and dogma around the divine sanction, pursuing a sociopolitical agenda.

Bhaktipanth is a collective though non exclusivist pursuit of spirituality, philosophy, mythological reenactment, ritualized symbolism and devotion, in abidance with Dharma, often under the guidance of a founding traditional lineage.

Continuing on the subject, I would say a socio-ideological system touches upon various questions on life. These are for example:

1. What is the nature of existence? How was the perceptible universe created? Is there a transcendental consciousness overseeing creation? What is the purpose of creation? How will it all end?
2. What is the nature of man? What is the relationship between man and the transcendental consciousness if it exists? What are the limits of 'Free Will'? What is the purpose of Life? How can man be happy? Why does man suffer?
3. How should man think, behave, and act? How does man's actions influence his destiny? Where does man receive guidance to this effect? Is that guidance mandatory?
4. How should mankind structure their society? What laws should govern society? What laws should society impose on each individual?
5. Who oversees society's governance? Who oversees man's behavior?

Abrahamic and Arya socio-ideological systems answer these questions very differently, and dependent on how they answer, one can determine whether they are religions or not.

The first two sets of questions, I would say, form the philosophy and faith backbone of any system - the Darśanams, the Moksha Margas, the Bhaktipanths. It is for these set of questions, that Hindus say, "sarva pantha, sama bhava"! We don't discriminate. Religions propose various views on this, but so do Dharmic Bhaktipanths.

It is in the answer of the next questions, that Dharmic socio-ideological systems differ from Abrahamic religions. In religion the laws and its upholders derive from top boss - from God. In Christianity, it is the Church, allegedly instituted by Jesus, Son of God, himself, when he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church". In Islam, it is the Ulema (and Caliph), who are best knowledgeable about the Holy Koran, the word of Allah, as conveyed by the Khatam an-Nabiyyin, the Seal of the Prophets, by Muhammad.

In case of Christianity, it is the ten commandments from the Old Testament, which form the basic laws, and to some extent to their simplicity and lack of need of interpretation, that the responsibility for upholding of implementing these laws has been passed on to the monarch, to the state, which allowed a certain degree of secularism to blossom. However the "obligation" of Evangelism which allegedly derives from Matthews 28:19,20 has remained the domain of the Church.

Islam, in form from Shariah, however posits a comprehensive way of life based on Holy Koran, the word of Allah, and on the life of Muhammad and to some extent the later Caliphs. That means one would always need the Ulema who understand Qu'ran and Allah's Rasool and they would remain the last arbitrators of Islamic Law. So no chance of secularism here.

Now the Exclusivism in the Moksha-Margas of Christianity and Islam shouldn't as such matter. After all it is only a question of belief of an individual. But when the Moksha-Margas start impinging on the answers of the last 3 sets of questions, then exclusivity leads to authoritarianism, to tyranny.

In Dharmic socio-ideological systems, the premise is totally different. There the answers to the first set of questions, do not directly influence the next set of questions. The next set of questions are dealt through the medium of Dharma and not the Moksha Marga.

Dharma is the Ārya system of Meta-Ethics. Dharma exists autonomous of Moksha Marga.

What one encounters often in our scriptures is that often not even Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma can intervene is the laws of Karma, and change the vardaans and shraaps given to a person. At the most they can suggest a means to mitigate the effects of a vardaan or a shraap. Even Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma have to bow to Dharma, and their Avatars try to live according to Dharma. That means Dharma itself is external to their existence.

I say Dharma is meta-ethics, because it is not a list of do and donts given to us, but rather it is the conditioning of our Ātman to act conscientiously. Since Ātman is a manifestation of Paramatma, in ways one can see Dharma as a form of guidance from Paramatma Himself. Different Darśanams may explain it differently. Development of a Dharmic conscience is as such knowledge intensive and requires critical thinking.

Thus each and every Dharmic becomes responsible for right and wrong, and if someone fails to do it correctly, the Sovereign takes it upon himself to carry out Raj Dharma.

Also social organization and social codices among some groups have developed by building on the foundation of Dharma.

So religions shows following characteristics:

1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.
2. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) sanctioned by the Creator God.
3. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter.
4. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God.
5. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.
6. Group Identity deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.

I would here suggest that neither "Hinduism", nor Buddhism, nor Jainism and to a large extent nor Sikhism really fit into this schema, and thus they cannot be called religions.

Hinduism is not a religion!

[RajeshA]

Dharmic Cohesion & Unity

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

We need this common umbrella to persist as it can help us in the future as well, and many of us do have common interests.

At the same time, we should also actively rebut the conventional view of Hinduism as just yet another religion and point out how it is so much more.

Keep the advantages of political identity.

IMHO, this is where the RSS etc score. They realized, with their ethnic experience of the Maratha empire, that spiritual commonality alone is not enough. To protect the way of life, a political identity also has to be created & sustained. Otherwise, under the garb of diversity - you have nothing in common with each other - each group under Sanathan Dharma will be gradually attacked & subverted, with the other group being told, you can't speak for these guys or protest, you were never one group.

If one understands Sanatan Dharma as only the transcendental stuff, then Moksha being an individual endeavor, and there being a huge plurality and diversity of offerings, there is not going to be a robust group identity based on that.

We would be trying to look for our unity in places where Muslims, Christians and Jews find their group identity. That is however the wrong place for us.

In Abrahamic religions, God is the highest sovereign and everything happens at his command. In a sense you are, theologically speaking, a slave of God. Officially one calls him Father. So those who pledge by him are His people, His soldiers, His children, and His people, He leads as an army, as a brotherhood.

Generally Dharmic traditions don't see it this way! There are no Brotherhoods.

Our common cause flows from our Right and Responsibility to Protect

1. Our freedom to follow our own Moksha Margas
2. Our freedom to live by Dharma
3. Our comprehensive history and geography where Dharma was nurtured known as Bharatiya Sabhyata
4. Our responsibility to preserve mankind's oldest records, Vedas, Itihaas and Puranas
5. Our comprehensive culture and inheritance which includes sciences, spirituality, philosophy, technology, handicrafts, architecture, temples, festivals, rituals, etc.
6. Our land, our Desh and Rāshtra, which has nurtured untold generations of our ancestors and allowed our civilization to bloom, where Dharma reigned supreme, and which shall not fall to Adharmic ideologies and powers.

Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti may give us courage to do our Dharma of protecting all of the above, but their name alone may not suffice to produce unity of purpose among Hindus. That is simply not their role.

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

I am saying something more basic: I don't need to accept the definitions of religion given by brits or west. If the definition given by brits is different from the definitions given by Bhaarath, then its the brits who are wrong, not Bhaarath.

"Religion" is a word and concept which comes from the West. So how can Indians dispute its definition or character?

Just like "Christian Yoga" is not Yoga, similarly "Hinduism" is not Religion.

Our socio-ideological systems, our Dharmic panths did not and do not fit into their concept of religion, and they have been chiseling around with our systems, and making our square pegs fit into their round holes, and calling all that chiseled up religion: Hinduism.

I say, we Indians don't wish that our Aryatva Sanskriti, Dharma and Samaj be force-fit into their "Religion". I say, we Indians don't wish that they with their primitive concept of "Religion" be considered as equally civilized as those blessed with Dharma and enriched with Aryatva Sabhyata.

We are Free Arya and they are slaves of a Feudal Lord.

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

Religions shows following 12 characteristics:

1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.
2. Allegiance (Nicene Creed, Shahada) as demanded by Creator God.
3. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) revealed by Creator God.
4. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter. Competition around who better represents Will of Creator God.
5. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God. Competition around who better embodies the Legacy of the Emissary.
6. Lineage Centrism to underline the claims of representational authority of God's Emissaries.
7. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.
8. Group Identity, a brotherhood, deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.
9. Conversion (Evangelism, Dawah) is used to expand the sphere of power: God's Kingdom, Dar al-Islam.
10. Entitlement for the believers/allegiants to all of Creator God's creation (Nature, Pagan's possessions, Land, Women, Power, Proselytization Rights, Victory, Heaven) as part of the bargain, as price for submission to Him.
11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.
12. Feudalism is the primary or sole philosophical principle. In religion God is modeled on a Feudal Lord projected onto the transcendental plane.

I would here suggest that neither "Hinduism", nor Buddhism, nor Jainism and to a large extent nor Sikhism really fit into this schema, and thus they cannot be called religions. !

Hinduism is not a religion!

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

There is a strong philosophical difference between Religion and a Dharmic Panth.

Re: 10. Entitlement

Religion-based God offers Entitlement and Fulfillment of Desires in lieu of Submission.

Dharma-based God offers Knowledge, Blessings for Dharmic duty and Freedom from Desire in lieu of Dharma.

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

There is a strong philosophical difference between Religion and a Dharmic Panth.

Re: 6. Lineage Centrism

Religion-based Mythology has as its main purpose to produce a record of the lineage which empowered the latest Prophet, God's Emissary, to claim representational authority deriving from God.

Dharma-based Mythology has as its main purpose to produce history which can be useful for understanding Dharma, to condition the conscience to better perceive the nuances of Dharma. There are other purposes as well.

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

There is a strong philosophical difference between Religion and a Dharmic Panth.

Re: 9. Conversion

Religion-driven Evangelism has as its main purpose to change the allegiance of a person to a particular concept of God represented by a particular Lineage of his Emissaries, whose legacy is purported to be best embodied by some sect or church or fiqh or mezheb.

Dharma-based "Krinvanto Viswam Aryam" Principle, or Buddhist Śaraṇaṃ has as its main purpose to educate others especially on ethics, Dharma, and thus to make other people noble, Ārya, for their own good, that of society and of mankind at large.

Both concepts may have an overlap, as Evangelism and Aryanization, both may do so for increasing the pool of support for their cause, to receive patronage, but other than that, the goals are different.

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

There is a strong philosophical difference between Religion and a Dharmic Panth.

Re: 3. Laws and Obligations

Religion-based Holy Books basically express the Will of a Feudal Lord. There may or may not be any logic offered as to why such laws are deemed necessary or beneficial, nor has any counter-argument offered to any such logic offered of any worth. These Laws and Obligations are unchangeable and resilient to any debate. Also an allegiant cannot claim an ethics which go beyond that what is in the Book. Ethics is subservient to Law of the Book and to the Will of God.

Dharma-based Dharmaśāstras are a product of Dharma itself as proposed and understood by the most learned scholars to deal with the demands of a certain group of people (jatis, sampradayas, srenis, gana) indulging in a particular activity (varna) at a particular time under a given set of circumstances. Various Smritis deal with this, and the objective is that in whatever one does, it should be Dharmic. But the Dharmic response to a given set of circumstances by a certain type of group may require a change when the circumstances change. So there is intrinsically nothing eternal about these laws. So one could consider these laws as a matter of speaking, secular. These laws lead to customs and customs should be followed but never at the cost of Dharma. Even rituals connected with worship, are secular as these are not ordained by some God, but were instituted by scholars to properly capture the particular kind of worship..[/quote]

[RajeshA]

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion (Cont.)

There is a strong philosophical difference between Religion and a Dharmic Panth.

Re: 8. Group Identity

Religion-based Brotherhoods represent the subjects of a Feudal Lord. Usually this creates a strong cohesion and unity of purpose among the group, because the leadership of the group as representatives of God's order on Earth, feels responsible for the protection and welfare of the whole group, and this feeling they inject into each member of the group, delegating protection and welfare of the group to each member but retaining the leadership and coordinating responsibility for themselves. There is every bit effort to organize any grouping politically. Religion, Sect, Fiqh, Mezheb all contribute to the Identity of an Allegiant.

Dharma-based Sampradayas however do not see their role as identity givers beyond that of organizing themselves to fulfill their responsibility which is education and guidance to the individual in spirituality and Dharma, for worship and celebration of deities. That is a big reason for not considering ourselves as a Religion or many Religions, because Religion is an Identity-Giver. So how do Dharmics get their cohesion and unity from? Through education and Dharmic conditioning, an awareness may be instilled into an individual to protect all that what enables Dharma and more importantly to fulfill his Karmic responsibility to which he is bound by Varna and Puruṣārtha. However the individual receives his Varna and Puruṣārtha from institutions other than schools for spirituality or Moksha. Since these traditional institutions (Jāti, Rājya, Parivār, Rāshtra, etc) have degraded in modern India, the group consciousness among Hindus may also have received a set-back. Dharmic Cohesion & Unity

[Philip]

The Governor General’s Files: A travesty of history
DC | S.K. Sinha | November 19, 2014
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141119/c ... ty-history

The Governor General’s Files: A travesty of history
DC | S.K. Sinha | November 19, 2014, 07.11 am IST

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Indira Gandhi are national icons. Both made unparalleled contributions to India in different spheres.

The former unified a nation of continental dimension in a year, saving it from being splintered into over 550 separate political entities.

Except in the case of Hyderabad, this was done peacefully. In Hyderabad, the Indian Army had to carry out police action. The Hyderabad Army surrendered within five days and casualties were minimum.

Integrating such a large nation so peacefully in a year is unmatched in the history of mankind. The Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck’s much lauded unification of Germany starting with the war against Denmark in 1824, followed by war against Austria and then France in 1871, took much longer to complete and was on a much smaller geographical canvas involving far fewer people.

Indira Gandhi’s contribution as a war leader has a unique place in the history of our country. India won a great military victory after over two millennia. Ninety-two thousand Pakistani soldiers surrendered.

A new nation of a hundred million was born. This was achieved against the teeth of opposition of the Nixon-Kissinger duo and also China’s higher-than-the-mountains and deeper-than-the-oceans friendship with Pakistan.

The threat from the US Seventh Fleet, including its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise, coming to the Indian Ocean, proved to be of no avail for Pakistan.

It was being shadowed by Soviet submarines. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was a big deterrent.

The Himalayan passes, blocked with snow in winter, prevented any intervention by China. Atal Behari Vajpayee hailed Indira Gandhi as Ma Durga in Parliament.

This after two millennia, when India had last won a great military victory when Chandragupta Maurya defeated Alexander’s great general and his successor in the East, Seleucus, and annexed Afghanistan. During the medieval period invaders from West Asia, and later European maritime powers, repeatedly defeated our forces.

Normally a leader’s birth anniversary, and not death anniversary, is observed. Mahatma Gandhi as the Father of the Nation is an exception.

The Nehru-Gandhi family (Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi) are also treated alike. In the case of others, only birth anniversaries are observed.

October 31 is the birth anniversary of Sardar Patel and the death anniversary of Indira Gandhi. The Congress government observed October 31 as National Ekta Divas because Indira Gandhi sacrificed her life for the unity of the nation.

This is debatable. Her tragic assassination was a great loss for the nation but it occurred due to her ill-conceived policy of dealing with the Akali problem, and not for national unity as such. It was a travesty of history that Sardar Patel used to be reduced to a footnote on this occasion.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi very rightly turned the focus this time on Sardar Patel but did not omit to mention the martyrdom of Indira Gandhi on that day.

Her birth anniversary on November 19 should be observed as Rashtriya Shakti Divas in memory of her great contribution to India’s great victory in the Bangladesh War.

Yet on her birth or death anniversary functions, it will be inappropriate to criticise her. On Jawaharlal Nehru’s birth anniversary, the Bharatiya Janata Party paid rich tributes to Nehru but the Congress’ first family on that occasion made scathing remarks about of Mr Modi without naming him. This was most unbecoming.

One cannot ignore the grave blemishes of Indira Gandhi. She was outwitted by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto during the 1972 Shimla talks, giving away the two trump cards we held at that time 92,000 prisoners of war and the highly cultivable land in Shakargarh bulge.

We should have got Pakistan to convert the Line of Control to an international border. Her imposition of the Black Emergency and throttling of democracy was unforgivable.

Some of the excesses during that period exceeded those by the British during their rule. She destroyed the bureaucracy and the police and even tried to politicise the judiciary and the Army.

Corruption in public life spread like wildfire with her attitude of permissiveness in saying that corruption was an international phenomenon. By blatantly perpetuating family rule, she made feudalism rampant in our democracy.

Apart from his great contribution as the unifier of the nation, Sardar Patel also made other remarkable contributions. Like the Mahatma’s successful non-violent mass movement against indigo planters in Champaran, he organised a successful non-violent mass movement in Bordoloi, Assam.

The Mahatma gave him the title of Sardar. The Congress Party wanted to abolish All-India Services in pursuit of the concept of autonomy of states, and replace them with Central Services and State Services.

There was much prejudice against the ICS and the IP who had acted against the freedom movement; some had even committed excesses.

Nehru had said the ICS was neither Indian, nor civil, nor a service. The Sardar ensured that All-India Services were retained. ICS and IP officers continued to get their old emoluments and privileges.

Their successor services, the IAS and IPS, were recruited on reduced emoluments but there was no change in their functioning pattern. This enabled us to pull through the chaotic period in the wake of Partition, when a vacuum was created as British officers, holding most of the senior positions in the administration, suddenly quit. He told the civil servants that they must unhesitatingly give independent advice to their ministers even when they knew that it was contrary to the minister’s views. But once the latter took a decision, they must implement that loyally.

He was totally incorruptible. When he died he had a bank balance of Rs 237 and no immovable property. Neither his son nor his daughter took any advantage of his official position.

The daughter, who devoted her life to looking after him, received no recognition or help and died in poverty in Ahmedabad. All the provincial Congress committees except three chose the Sardar to be Prime Minister, two chose Dr Rajendra Prasad and one Jawaharlal Nehru.

Yet the Mahatma chose Nehru to be the first Prime Minister and the Sardar bowed to that decision without a murmur, working most loyally as deputy Prime Minister.

The ailing Sardar’s remarkable letter to Jawaharlal Nehru three weeks before he passed away showed his strategic vision. He warned Nehru of the threat arising from China’s occupation of Tibet in 1950 and advised necessary defensive preparations.

Alas, Nehru ignored his advice. Thus India suffered the great national humiliation of 1962. Mr Modi has very rightly focused on Sardar Patel’s great contribution on his birthday and is promoting national awareness about him.

The new government hurriedly produced a documentary on the basis of an earlier film. This was shown on DD National without much publicity.

It does not do full justice to the Sardar. Like Attenborough’s Gandhi, the government should have a commercial film prepared on Vallabhbhai Patel; that would wash away all the efforts of the Congress in the past to underplay the memory and unique contribution of this great icon of India.

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir

[shiv]

cross post
Let me describe the difference between dharma on the one hand, and religions/nation states on the other. The relationship is like that of the relationship between the United Nations (Dharma) and Nation states (religions and nations)

The United nations has a set of gudiing principles for the purpose of preserving the world free from conflict and nations at peace with each other. I will cross post the aim of the UN and convert into minute font the part that is less relevant because it was written to prevent war. Dharma was not coded simply in reaction to a big war and for that reason "avoid war" is not big in Dharma

UN Charter guiding prinicples

• To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The UN puts itself over and above religion and nation states. All nations can have their own laws and their own religions, but need to conform with the UN charter. (It is another matter that the upholders of the UN "Dharma" - the P5, are trivial minded assholes - but that is irrelevant to the concept as a whole. It is relevant only to the failure of the UN as an upholder of real Dharma)

If you look at Dharma, its aims and objectives are similar

Dharma is a set of guidelines to preserve and propagate human society in an environment friendly way, avoid conflict if possible while allowing people to have their own nations and practise their own "religions"

But the nations and religions that arise within the United Nations of Dharma (UND) cannot have laws and religions that go against the UND charter.

Anyone who reads the Mahabharata (in gory detail, beyond the abridged storyline) will realize that the warriors in the story went about "conquering and subduing nations" in that era, making some nations vassal states or allies for war. Nations were classified according to whether they were largely dharmic led by adharmic king, or adharmic, led by adharmic people.

For example, ISIS and Somalia are examples of breaking the UN charter

What this means is that Dharma is a Universal code for human survival - to be adopted in Nation States who can then have their own religions and their own constitutions and their own law bok.

Looked at in this way it is easy to figure out the role that Dharma played in Indian society. It was a UN charter for the United Nations of India. Since the entire country pretty much followed it - we had hajaar nations under one united umbrella of Hindu Dharma.

When the British came, the 5000 year old idea of Dharma was ahead of its time and a similar concept would not be born until the League of Nations was created.

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

that is a superb way to explain Dharma to others!

[RajeshA]

Dharmic Cohesion & Unity (Cont.)

Cross-posting from the "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

Hence i wondered elsewhere if Hinduism has a sense of brotherhood or kinship.

IMO, Yes and No!

Religion does give the people a sense of brotherhood and kinship! But Hinduism as a religion is a square peg in a round hole. All that what accords "Religion" its strength through brotherhood and kinship is just not there, is not available to Hinduism.

Like every Dharmic Moksha Marga, Hinduism is reduced to some philosophizing on nature of being, some social-laws, some theories on ethics, some vegetarianism, some temple going, some festivals and some other cultural traditions. Plurality of Jātis, Varnas, Sampradayas, Ishtadevtas, Cultures, etc. all included into Hinduism makes any sense of cohesion, collective purpose, collective consciousness, etc. difficult to grasp.

So Hinduism gets nothing out of being classified as a religion, because the biggest advantage of having religion is not there for the Hindu: unity, cohesion.

For cohesion we need to look elsewhere, in a different concept.

Would it be fair to say I *follow* Dharma. I *belong* to Hinduism?

saravana ji,

Question is, is belonging to "Hinduism" as a Religion, albeit a strange one, something desirable?

I guess anybody reading the above question, would think I am some Marxist loony! But I wish to tackle the question from a different angle! My thinking is that Religion does have its benefits, like unity and cohesion, but since Hinduism, when considered a Religion, cannot avail of those benefits, due to Hinduism's internal structure, then why consider it a Religion at all? There is no real pragmatic reason to consider "Hinduism" as a Religion.

Another small benefit of considering "Hinduism" as a religion, is that uprooted Hindus who consider themselves as Hindus, i.e. followers of Hinduism, or rather Hinduists, would imbibe the passion of others, of Christians, of Muslims towards their religion, and perhaps show a similar passion for Hinduism, and its various cultural aspects. This is good for our culture, for our Sanskriti. But here too we may be trying to copy passion of others for their religion, which comes from "belonging" to their religion.

However as "Hinduism" remains a square peg in a round hole of "Religion", it creates its own problems of comprehension, and many Hindus who have never in their ancestry adhered to or even now adhere to what has been boxed up as classical Hinduism, may feel that they are not Hindus at all, or bad Hindus for they may not understand these classical concepts of Hinduism. That means they become easy prey for missionaries, who ask them about Hinduism, and when receiving answers full of doubt, ridicule the Hindus for themselves not knowing what Hinduism is all about, and then go on to explain how full of "rubbish ideas" Hinduism is, thus creating doubt in those Hindus, and naturally these missionaries proceed to offer something far more tangible, far more easily understandable, like say Christianity or Islam.

This idea has set in, that one has to belong to some religion or be an atheist, and if one belongs to some religion, then one should understand its concepts clearly, for otherwise either one is a fool or a bad practitioner of one's religion, or one's religion itself is full of nonsense.

Of course everybody should read and learn everything one can about one's traditions, but by making Hinduism into a Religion, it gives one both an imperative to follow and a guilty conscience for not grasping it completely, and at the same time Hinduism makes itself vulnerable to criticism and ridicule. This is a rut, and we need to get out of it.

So what we should be able to say, is:

Religion is a piece of shitttt, and it is a good thing that we Bharatiyas don't have it! Hinduism is not a Religion! Religion is only for mental slaves, human drones and primitive idiots. We are Bharatiya Āryas. What we have is Bharatvarsha (land), Rāshtra (civilization), Sanskriti (culture) and Dharma (meta ethics)! "Hindu" simply means, we are going to beat the crap out of Religion, and throw it back into the desert!

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by harbans from "Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?" Thread

If one needs to comprehend how and why a Dharmic Rashtra may be the answer, one has to understand two important issues:

1. How a core doctrine affects a society that chooses it.
2. Evolution vs Absolutism

The first in brief: Over the years i have seen many Indians hardly give a damn to doctrine. Even constitutional. If you talk to them they think its a piece of paper, who cares. They give numerous examples of constitutional impropriety etc etc. And one cannot flaw the examples that they give. But that is not it. The society come what may evolves in the direction the constitution is set. So put secularism, slowly and surely that concept starts filtering into State Institutions, the people who hardly bothered about it a generation back give way to another generation that starts to mouth it and then another that starts to practice elements and then to another that starts to deal with it in a more fanatic and absolutist manner. The same with respect to declaring an Islamic State. Jinnah (and i do believe so) had a vision of an Islamic state with equal rights, pubs, nightclubs, modern Westernized ways etc. Many Paki libs and there are similar types in IM circles too thought that just declaring doctrinally we are Islamic is enough, we'll otherwise use the Westernized legal system that we've inherited. But it may have been ok for a generation (in Paks case even less before the ist evolution) to think that way, but then the next put in laws that reflected an Islamic state by a few more % and so on to Zia which was still a lot shy of what the Taliban/IS kind of doctrinal purity required. Indonesia and Pak were a lot less Islamized 40 years ago than they are today. That is the power of stated doctrine. So let it not be disputed that if you state a doctrine today for your company, organization, state whatever, 4/5 generations down the line there will be a higher degree of compliance with the stated doctrine than now. This is a very important point that one needs to understand.

In context of the above, it need be that compliance can be induced by broadly 2 methods. Law and Example. Absolutism or Evolution. Islamic, Fascist kind of doctrines heavily depend on law for compliance. The more Tamasic a society the more the laws, the more fear one needs for compliance. The more it progresses to Sattva the lesser the laws one requires. This is a general trend and if one hasn't thought much about it, do put in some thought. At home for example do you prefer to set a standard, an example for your children say or do you prefer punishment based compliance to achieve the same set of results? With your children would you prefer law based absolutism over example based evolution to your desired standards? If one thinks about this one will realize one prefers evolution over absolutism to ones ideals/ standards possibly with the least bit of disruptive 'punishment' examples.

Over many years i have observed convicted criminal rates in different nations wrt Dharmics and other religious denominations. I inevitably see Vaishnavs, Jains, Buddhists, Hare Krishna'ites, Dvaits, Advaits whatever denomination of Dharmic one chooses or a combination, they have the lowest convicted criminal rates going. Read the Chinese India travelogue accounts from the 5th century. People not locking doors, no theft, no capital punishment, little laws. They expressed a lot of surprise at these aspects. Our scriptures and their many examples stress on the evolution over absolutism aspect repeatedly. Our prayers to remove Tamas are not legal absolutist injunctions but a very significant example of how praying that Tamas inside goes can make a huge difference to the way we interact and behave. It doesn't mean that today a criminal does a prayer and his Tamas is gone. Its a generational. And if a whole Generation starts down the line the next generations will evolve beyond Tamas. What you wanted to remove by the absolutism of law can thus be removed a generation down the line by dint of Dharmic prayer and doctrine. The not so subtle difference is the Western constructs focus on absolutism and law enforcement while Dharma will largely focus on example and evolution.