The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[RajeshA]

Āryāvarta Union

What are India's imperatives to go for an Āryāvarta Union?

1) Let's consider Bharat to be the peak of Mount Meru. Macaulayism, Dhimmitude, Cultural Marxism and Yuppiesm have been erosive technologies working at eating away at the side of this peak, so much so that the peak has become severely unstable. The hope is that after a critical mass the peak would simply fall over as a landslide.

What we need is a rope to another peak, to stabilize our Peak, our Bharat. It can very well be that the other peak too has been eroded at the base, and is also unstable. So too would be the case with other peaks as well.

So if all these peaks are joined to each other, the danger of them falling over (to the side away from this web of tethers) would be much less.

All previous Āryā nations - Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, and others have been eaten away by Abrahamist ideologies and by Colonialist politics. That has been the tragedy of all. In fact these nations have forgotten what bounded them and strengthened them. Each stands alone today. Each peak is about to tip over.

For some like Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia or even Korea, it may be too late, but even in these countries there are roots and stones which have refused to yield till now, and may still be able to pull back these tilting peaks. These roots and stones too can be strengthened from outside.

But one can do is to create a web of tethers and connect all the peaks. One creates an external support for each so that the Ārya people, the Dharmic people in these countries have the time, leeway and strength to face off the erosive challenges within their respective countries.

Bharat too needs a tether to the Āryāvarta lands, to those lands, Bharat helped become Āryā in an earlier age! There should be no shame to acknowledging that we too need support from the other Āryā lands, that we too are internally challenged. It is better to acknowledge it openly and saving ourselves, than die alone in shame that we allowed ourselves to fall. Ego should not overrule the necessity.

The model many Bharatiyas have currently in our minds is that, Bharat would first wash off our dirt, we would fight off the might of the other civilizations (Islam, West and Han) and their machinations all alone, and once we have strengthened ourselves, then we would again start the project of bringing Āryatva to all others. This is, in my view, an egocentric worldview and perhaps an exaggeration of our actual strength and capacity. I very much favor the confidence in ourselves, but overconfidence is not a sign of wisdom either.

Just because the Pandavas had Sri Krishna on their side, it did not stop them from inviting many other kingdoms to fight on their side - Panchala, Dwaraka, Kasi, Kekaya, Magadha, Matsya, Chedi, Pandya, Telinga, Parama Kambojas, etc. fought on the side of the Pandavas. Today Bharatiyas have to seek out allies who are willing to take the side of Dharma and fight on our side again and save Āryāvarta - the land of the Āryā people!

The Islamo-Christianist grip on power in Delhi has to break, so that a true Bharatiya can start this journey of building a coalition of the Āryā nations and power centers to first save and then strengthen Āryā Sabhyata!

[RajeshA]

Āryāvarta Union

Japan

Cross-posting from the "India and Japan: News and Discussion" Thread

I think the next Prime Minister of India should pay his/her first foreign visit to Japan and visit some of the historical Buddhist Temples and even some Shinto shrine like the one at Yasukuni.

yasukuni is associated with an imperialist japan - one that pretended to help the cause of indian independence for its own gains. a visit to yasukuni would not be appropriate

Lalmohan ji,

It is important for India to tell Japan, that India and Japan should not be slaves to the demonization done by the West of the two countries, that India and Japan need to find common meeting ground, independent of Western influence.

USA has vilified Modi e.g. by refusing visa to him. Similarly Yasukuni too has been vilified.

rajeshji i agree, however imperialst japan was not india's friend - it wanted to recreate the western model at our cost

Japan's history cannot be restricted to only the second world war. I think Japan needs to return to Shinbutsu-shūgō, when Shintoism and Buddhism were fused. It was only after the Meiji Era in 1868 that both were separated forcefully, and Japan started on its journey of active internationalism, and that too after being forced by the Gaijin, the outsiders, namely Europeans, and colonialism. After the Meiji Restoration, Buddhism decreased in influence over the Emperor.

I have a question!

Let's say we see Europe including Britain being overrun by Islam in the next half century. We know Europe would fall to Islam and become Eurabia. Why? Because neither Christianity nor Western Secularism offer any systemic resistance to Islam. We know that if Europe falls to Islam, the Islamic pressure on Bharat too would increase manifold.

So would it not be prudent to stop Europe from falling to Islam?

If Christianity and Western Secularism are incapable of stopping the slide, shouldn't Dharma take up the effort to gain space in Europe, including from Christianity and Western Secularism, as they are weak!

I think this is one way of viewing Japanese interventionism in Asia! They were not willing to accept the White Christianist Gaijin in Asia! And yes they did feel that many Asians were proving to be a walk-over for the European Colonialists. That so the Japanese thought of supplanting Asian rulers with themselves who had the strength and the will and could push back the European colonialists.

I am not saying that it was the right way to go about it, or the Dharmic way, but Japanese imperialism can also be seen as the Asian fightback against White Christianist colonialism enveloping Asia.

The problem with the Japanese was that earlier they had been so isolationist and self-centered, due to the Sakoku policy that their awareness of the larger Asian continent and its people was somewhat limited which made it difficult for them to interact with the others on an equal and respectful basis, especially during an age of war and competition later on.

However earlier Japan and India had close relations, and Japanese used to call India, Tenjiku, the heavenly abode!

India needs to play an active role in revival of Shinbutsu-shūgō which would bring balance again in Japanese thinking, and help realign Japan with India.

That is why I think an Indian PM should visit both a Buddhist Temple (e.g. Tōdai-ji) and a Shinto shrine (e.g. Yasukuni) in Japan and help them come together.

there are other shinto shrines of equal importance that do not celebrate a colonialist war (in which many indians perished at the behest of others)

But no other Shinto Shrine has the same political importance!

It would be an open declaration of support for Japanese resurgence and that India would not allow it to be moved by what others think when it comes to Japan.

It would actually be an incredibly controversial visit by the Indian PM to Yasukuni Shine. The controversy itself would forge the political nearing between Japan and India.

i would support a japanese resurgence in support of india (as the mothership of its civilisation) rather than one which promotes japanese racial superiority over her asian neighbours

As I said, the problem was the Meiji Restoration, which twisted Japan's worldview and I think was responsible to a large part in creating distance between Japan and its Asian neighbors.

I don't think it is correct to call India as the mother of Japanese Civilization, perhaps a Guru would be more appropriate, though perhaps looking at it from the viewpoint of migrations, may be one could even call us "mother"!

That can be corrected.

Japanese racial superiority was actually more a function of their missionary zeal to stop White Christianist Gaijin Colonialism in Asia, and I think even the Meiji Restoration was a process to harden themselves to this task.

Why do Indians feel racial superiority over the Pakis? Because they are those who fell to Islam. They are the fallen! They are the orcs who were once elves but the torture and the corruption changed them.

Japanese racial superiority towards other people comes from the same root. They saw others as fallen, fallen to European colonialism! But when Japan itself fell to USA after two nuclear bombs were thrown on Japan, it created a still larger shame, because they fell in their own eyes, as they considered themselves the one's who would not fall and expected more from themselves.

This is the situation from which Japan needs to be extracted, and I think it something only Indians can do or would be willing to do!

i feel the superiority piece is more inherent in their nature, not just the meiji era mindset
they would have achieved much more with a genuine asian co-prosperity sphere than the one they set out to build

It is actually normal for any warrior people to have an acute sense of pride. One would see the same sort of feelings among the Indian Rajputs, among Turks, among Americans and a whole lot of other people.

As far as superiority is concerned, it matters only for those who have an inferiority complex themselves. It should not matter to Bharatiyas.

Suraj

An Indian Prime Minister can and should visit Yasukuni Shrine for a much more direct reason - Dr.Radhabinod Pal is memorialized there. Our PM already acknowledged Dr.Pal's contribution to the development of cordial Indo-Japanese post-WW2 ties. He does not have to visit the shrine to the controversial war criminals, but can acknowledge an Indian whom the Japanese revere.

Just as the Chinese consistently make it a point to give their respects to Dr.Kotnis' family (and maintain a large memorial to him at his grave), the Japanese do so with Dr.Pal - besides the memorial at Yasukuni, they have a memorial to him in Kyoto. As a more direct relationship, Dr.Pal was personally acquainted with Nobusuke Kishi, former Japanese PM and current PM Abe's grandfather.

FWIW, desi mango people should also visit Dr.Pal's shrine at Yasukuni when in Tokyo - the Japanese around will identify with your presence and will be quite cordial.

Most Indians are completely unaware of how much the Japanese revere Dr.Pal, especially the older generation. Any nationalist Japanese will know about him, while many Indians don't know who he is. His memorial is one of the five or so main memorials at Yasukuni. It's the other ones that get all the attention due to the protestations raised by PRC and ROK. India should make it very clear that a PM's visit is to honor Dr.Pal's role in our bilateral ties. Of course, the west will vehemently portray such a visit in the negative, considering Dr.Pal's written dissent is (as far as I know, still) officially banned in US and UK and they see him very negatively for refusing to be a pliant yes man.

[RajeshA]

Vibrant Bharat (Cont.)

Shri Modi addressing Indian Merchants' Chamber Interactive Meeting in Mumbai on Mar 02, 2013

[RajeshA]

Published on May 2, 2013
By Anirban Ganguly
Niti-less UPA and its failed leadership: Niti Central

The ruler in the Indian tradition was always exhorted to display prowess, strength and ability for proactive defence. Civilisationally, we were never meant to be a defenceless, ingratiatingly pacific state and we never were. Each time an incursion or invasion took place in the past, our rulers displaying great valiance, resisted and reclaimed.

Remember how the ‘armies of Islam’, which had rapidly gobbled up the Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria in 636-637 AD and the Sassanid Empire of Persia in 637 AD, reached the frontiers of India by 643 AD, had to struggle for 69 long years to make the first breach into India in Sindh?

Leave aside these memories from a hoary past, even those of 1971 hardly goad our present rulers into a consciousness of strength. While the enemy sits, pitches tents and sets up administrative units into our space, they call for parleys and seek to interpret the aggression through dermatological dimensions!

The civilisational memory of our past valiance has been submerged into oblivion by the false secular discourse in the country and the Congress rulers of today have been heavily opiated by it. It was a core colonial agenda in the past to projectIndiaand Indians as pushovers incapable of defending their self and space, a race accustomed to being accosted and invaded, a people whom the invaders have civilised. Our continued bungling in handling our neighbours has only served to keep that image alive. Whether it is in our handling of Islamic terror groups, or of the failed state ofPakistanor ofChinain the past, we have only allowed that perception to self-perpetuate.

Moreover, in the current intellectual climate, one can’t even refer to the role of nationalism, Indian nationalism, as that would bring accusations of playing into the hands of the ‘Hindutva brigade’. Therefore, while China, to borrow a phrase from Gordon Chang, pushes its agenda of ‘militant nationalism’ by displaying belligerence, we are incapable of even articulating defiance and speaking up for the sacredness of our territorial space. In reality, we have never had so weak a ruler, so weak a dispensation in our immediate history.

The Indian civilisational tradition had always a high regard for the ruler who could protect. It only legitimised such rulers. Protection of his subjects was the core of the ruler’s ‘Niti’. A look at these exhortations shows how the UPA in the past decade has failed the test of our tradition of governance. Kamandakiya, the other astute thinker of Indian statecraft has this to say:

“A righteous king, protecting his subjects to the best of his resources and having power of capturing hostile cities should be held in high regard”. Our present rulers have failed on this basic front.

The ‘seven constituents of government’ in the Indian tradition was the “King, minister, kingdom, castle, treasury, army and allies” and its primary stay was “good sense and unebbing energy.” The castle has been allowed to be repeatedly breached, the treasury lies in a shambles and we have no visible and voluble allies on the world stage who will talk for us. Good sense has been totally absent and the energy has been for long ebbing away.

The ruler was expected to “live by his weapons and by protecting his subjects.” Forget protecting subjects, instead of living by weapons, the Congress-led UPA has made it a habit of regularly profiting from the buying of weapons. The “ability to conquer his enemies” was a key attribute of the ruler in the Indian tradition. Where have we even talked of that capability in the last decade?

“Familiarity with the nature of war and peace” was another demand made of the ruler. The UPA, forever unfamiliar with this crucial aspect, has only fumbled and bungled in the international arena.

A “living animosity for an enemy, and bravery” were the characteristic “features of energy.” Only a person “well-accomplished” in these deserved to assume the seat of power. Because the UPA never demonstrated such a “living animosity” for the enemy, it has reconciled itself to allowing Indian sentiments to be kicked around by marginal global players and brigands.

The ruler could attain the “highest pitch of prosperity” by “subjugating all monarchs hostile to him”. He could establish his prowess “by way of making war-like preparations, and waging war” if necessary. Where is our war-like preparation? Where is even a display of belligerence in defence of our rights and our land?

The ruler was called upon to display “regal prowess”, which would inspire “terror into the hearts of his enemies, like a lion strikes terror into the hearts of the inferior beasts.” UPA rule has, on the contrary, only given rise to the habit of pussyfooting in the world arena. We have always whimpered when it was necessary to roar.

It was said that the ruler who failed to lead his people “to the paths of rectitude” brought about great misery. His people were “hopelessly tossed about in the ocean of existence, even as a frail bark, having none to steer her through, is tossed about in a rough sea.”

In the last decade, the ship of the Indian state has been hopelessly tossed about in the ocean of the world with none to steer her through, let this end soon, let the chorus begin, shout down and outshout the failed leaders and say to them: “You have sat here too long without doing any good. Depart and let us be done with you. In the name of god, go!”

[Agnimitra]

X-posting from Managing Paki Failure thread:

In this discussion in India, Tarek Fatah wants to re-define the India-Pakistan struggle as an ideological/civilizational struggle rather than one between nation-states.
In another talk somewhere else he mentions that the protesters at Shahbagh (BD) look to India for support, but there is a massive demonstration in Kolkata in support of BD Islamists. He says this is ironic.

"Not Calling Me An Indian Is An Insult To Me" - Tarek Fatah Bum Raps A Leftist



The only thrust of the Leftist Pinko's argument is to accuse Fatah of being in league with the RSS and American neo-Cons.

[svinayak]

Using the name of India by the Islamists is an insult to all Indians

[Prem]

Using the name of India by the Islamists is an insult to all Indians

Muhmamad have supposed to said that he want the King of India to be brought in Chain to mecca
by Islamists. How can then one be proud of this utterly stupid, insulting and disgusting idea and its originator? I want whole Arabia to go up in vapor and all survivors to be brought in chain to India to serve as Nauqars. Lets see , if Arabs like this idea and actually rejoice at the fulfillment of this wish.

[Karan Dixit]

Tarek Fatah is Bharat Ratna.

[RamaY]

^ a wise saying.

Never get in the middle of wife-husband fight. Similarly never get in between a Muslim Vs Muslim fight. At the end they will become one and kick you out or kill you.

[Atri]

[RajeshA]

Āryāvarta Union

Thailand

On this day 63 years ago, May 5th, 1950, HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand was coronated as King Rama IX in the Royal Palace at Bangkok.

[harbans]

Carl Ji, i think that would be one of the best videos by Tarek Fateh! He even said Ok i'm, RSS, Hindu whatever...and i wouldn't walk on Aurangzeb street if i was a leftist Sharia type spouting guy hiding behind American imperialism and all that jazz..lol. Recently i think he is veering away from Islam also...this man is a gem of an example. We need a leader that will use such people as interfaces to change Islamic society within India. Thanks for posting.

[RajeshA]

Democracy in Bharat: Compulsory Voting

Published on Dec 19, 2009
Voting mandatory in Gujarat local polls: Deccan Herald

Move aimed at strengthening democracy, says Narendra Modi

GANDHINAGAR: Gujarat on Saturday became the first state in India to make voting compulsory in all local body elections, with Chief Minister Narendra Modi calling it a ''move to strengthen democracy.'' Amid opposition from the Congress, the Assembly passed the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2009.

It makes voting compulsory in elections to all seven municipal corporations, 159 municipalities, 26 district panchayats, 223 taluk panchayats and in 13,713 village panchayats of the state. Piloting the bill, Urban Development Minister Nitin Patel said it was aimed at making democracy more representative.

Terming the bill “an epochal move,” Modi said the educated and the intellectual class who often stay away from taking part in grassroots democracy would now have to do so. “It was shocking to see that the large mass of people who had collected to light candles in the aftermath of 26/11 attacks in Mumbai did not come out to vote with the same enthusiasm,” he said.

“Our decision seeks to overturn such a situation to ensure that there is maximum participation of people in (elections).”

All registered voters in Gujarat will be required to vote. Those absent will be asked to submit a valid reason with proof within a month. The Bill empowers the election officer to declare people who do not vote defaulter voters.

They shall have an opportunity to present their case within a month.
Exemption will be granted on account of illness, absence from the country or state on polling day and for any other reason prescribed by the state.

Modi said he hoped that other states as well as the country as a whole would follow suit. He contended that making voting compulsory would go a long way in reducing corruption in the electoral process.

“It has been a matter of concern for all of us... and Gujarat has taken the initiative to show the way. With the voters going in large numbers to exercise their franchise, the role of black money is sure to be reduced and democracy will be the ultimate victor,” he said.

“It is a matter of discipline. Should an individual not be apportioning half an hour just once in years to the state? Is that asking for too much?”

High percentage

Modi noted that 32 countries had made voting compulsory, leading to the voting percentages shooting up from 45 to over 90 per cent.

“How do you justify a situation wherein 50 per cent vote and with a mere 26 per cent people rule for years while an overwhelming 70 per cent remains unrepresented and without any say? The situation needs to be changed,” he added.
Congress legislature party leader Shaktisinh Gohil opposed the Bill saying it was “impractical” and “designed with political motives.”

‘Modi’fied norms

*Gujarat first state in India to make voting compulsory in local body elections

*Voting mandatory in elections to state’s corporations, municipalities and panchayats

*All registered voters in Gujarat will be required to vote

*Those absent will be asked to submit a valid reason with proof within a month

Gujarat is still having problems with the Governor not accepting the concept of compulsory voting, considering it to be a violation of a citizen's freedom of speech and expression.

Citizen's apathy to voting is a social affliction. It cannot be considered a form of freedom of speech and expression. Of course a citizen should be allowed to express his dissatisfaction with options like

• NONE OF THE ABOVE CANDIDATES
• EXPLICIT ABSTAINING FROM VOTING

But in a democracy it is not only about guarding citizen's rights and freedoms, but also about demanding citizen's responsibilities.

As many citizens become more and more prosperous, often the apathy increases, because they come as private individuals less invested or dependent on the state. So in fact it leads a dynamic that if the state makes you more prosperous, the citizen becomes more thankless. This is not the desired situation.

All voting must be made compulsory! Of course in parallel the state should increase the ease, flexibility and coverage of the voting procedure.

[RajeshA]

Democracy in Bharat: Absolute Majority Voting

What we have today in India is the First-Past-the-Post Voting, i.e. winner takes it all.

For India this is a curse, because it allows many forms of manipulation of the popular will. India should move to something better, perhaps Top-Two Run-Off Voting.

To my surprise there were some comments on this from our Vice-President Shri Hamid Ansari as well though I think he favors proportional representation.

Published on Feb 15 2013
Make voting compulsory, says Hamid Ansari: PTI

Vice President M Hamid Ansari has called for electoral reforms, including compulsory voting and proportional representation in legislatures representing all sections of society.

"To give greater meaning to representative democracy, we must come out with electoral reforms," he said at an interaction with students and faculty of National Institute of Advanced Studies last evening.

A candidate wins with just 25 per cent of total votes polled in his constituency. He does not represent the majority. Hence it is essential to bring about three changes in the electoral system, Ansari said.

The High Power Committee on electoral reforms is considering some of them. Voting should be made compulsory and the winning candidate should win only if he polls more than 50 per cent votes. There should be proportional representation in the legislature, representing all sections of society.

He said when India started its democratic journey there were core values with no disagreements, and there was insight and foresight during parliamentary debates.

"I feel today we are getting lost. The meeting of minds has not taken place, vital questions are not being addressed sufficiently. If this continues we will get into avoidable trouble. How do we get demographic dividends? Parliament and State Assemblies are becoming dysfunctional," Ansari observed.

"In democracy there is right to agitation and a right to debate. But there is designated platform for both. If there is interchange between the platforms, there is chaos. Without meaningful debates, the government takes decision in a hurry without sufficient information. They are pulled down by courts, as drafting is done in haste," he said.

Ansari said the country has evolved efficient policies and innovative ideas, but they do not transform into implementable solutions.

"The problem lies in our structure of governance. Administrative structure is inflexible and working at cross purposes. We need to be receptive towards divergent opinions. The civil society itself is becoming very intolerant. Are we investing enough for social cohesion? We need a frame of mind with wider circle of acceptance," he said.

I had a series of discussions earlier on this issue with BRFite Rahul Mehta, who helped me firm up my opinions on this.

1. Make Indian Democracy More Representative
2. Candidates Should Poll More Than 50% to Win
3. Spoiler Candidates would not Help
4. Campaigning Beyond Own Votebank.
5. Electoral System in Germany
6. Biggest Parties Would Have to Give the Nod
7. Voters Psyche in Re-Run Elections
8. Preference Voting is Contra-Intuitive
9. Proportional Voting for Rajya Sabha Would Cause Inflation of Elections
10. Proportional Representation Elections for Rajya Sabha at the time of State Legislative Elections.
11. Preference Voting Lack Logic in Weightage
12. Comparison of IRV vs Re-Run Voting
13. Costs of Election
14. IRV: A Coke Bottle Without Fizz

[RajeshA]

Interview with Dr. Subramanyam Swamy

• Sarabjit, Bangladesh - Lack of Respect and Support for the Indian Citizen in international context, Lack of bhavana
• China - in 1962 they wanted to deflate Nehru's hollow rhetoric and prestige at the international level, similarly they wish to show GoI as a toothless tiger - Hamari chetna ka vikas nahin hua hai! Solution: New Govt.
• Fear of Reprisal - authority of rishi-muni, naitik-bal
• Time of Elections - predicting October, 2013 as election possibility, UPA unlikely to go to general elections after facing rout in state elections in December, 2013 (MP, RJ, CT, DL, UK)
• 2004 Defeat of NDA - BJP Karyakarta became unmotivated due to lack of progress on RJB
• NDA Constituent: Claims to be true Hindutvavadi, now part of NDA, More outspoken Hindutvavadi than Modi
• PM Prediction: Preference for Modi, unable to predict next PM, case of prarabhda,
• Opinion on Modi: Knows Modi since 1972, nirneyak, don't fear others,
• 1992 Reforms: Proves his role as the architect of the economic reforms
• FDI in Retail: Opposes and justifies the opposition

[RajeshA]

Āryāvarta Union

Japan

Published on May 05, 2013
Japan never had smooth ties with China: Deputy PM Taro Aso: AFP

TOKYO: Japan has never in the past 1,500 years had a smooth relationship with China, Japanese deputy prime minister Taro Aso was quoted Sunday as saying during a visit to India.

"India shares a land border with China, and Japan has had maritime contacts (with China), but for the past 1,500 years and more there has never been a history when our relations with China went extremely smoothly," Aso said, according to the Nikkei and the Sankei Shimbun newspapers.

The comments Saturday at a meeting with Indian business people in New Delhi came amid continuing tensions between Japan and China over disputed Tokyo-controlled islands in the East China Sea.

Aso, a former prime minister, made the comment in response to a suggestion that Japan and India should strengthen defence and maritime cooperation since both have territorial disputes with China, the Sankei said.

India and China are in dispute over an alleged incursion by Chinese troops deep inside Indian-claimed territory.

Aso also called for close defence cooperation between Japan, Australia, India, and the United States to ensure regional stability, according to major media.

Aso attracted media attention last month after he visited the controversial Yasukuni shrine, which honours 2.5 million war dead including war criminals from World War II.

The Shinto shrine is seen as a symbol of Japan's militarist past by Asian nations, particularly China and South Korea.

Bharat & Japan would have to build a relation of the heart if we wish to become the most important alliance in Asia and thus in the world.

USA and Australia can be aligned with the Āryāvarta Union even as they stay outside of it.

[RajeshA]

Āryāvarta Principle vs Han Expansionism

There are fundamental differences between Āryāvarta principle and Han Expansionism.

Āryāvarta Principle revolves around making people sajjan, civilized, through an intensive dialogue around spirituality and philosophy, where we continue to nurture our heritage of the knowledge tree. Everywhere this knowledge tree has flowered differently but the commonality of the root and the sky towards which the knowledge tree strives creates a commonality. Similarly the various nations and peoples journey together and seek to find Dharma, the path of perfection of ethics and seek to strengthen the efforts to live by Dharma by creating a common defense against any attacks upon it. Thus all become ārya. It is this commonality that binds. It is this commonality that helps build the union.

Per Āryāvarta Principle, cultural dissemination occurs solely as an accompaniment to spiritual and philosophical knowledge exchange.

Per Āryāvarta Principle, the unity among the nations is forged to provide security to Sajjanata (civilized behavior), Dharma (ethical living), Brahma-Jñāna (common knowledge tree of spirituality and philosophy and sciences, etc.), and Sanskriti (common cultural heritage).

Han Expansionism however works according to completely different rules. It is basically based on expanding the Han tribal identity by forcefully occupying other nations and enforcing a change in affiliation to the same tribal identity on the occupied people by additionally supplanting some features of Han identity like script and language, but most notably a common political structure. The unity revolves around nurturing the political power structure, which revolves around the Han tribal identity. Where Han Expansionism cannot impose its expansion due to too big superficial racial differences, there the purpose of Han Expansionism becomes one of projecting its domination and influence for boosting its tribal ego and power. Thus Han Expansionism is merely another way of saying Han Imperialism.

Āryāvarta Principle is purely about a shared soft power which forms the core, however is protected by hard power, whereas Han Expansionism is about hard power only where culture itself is subservient to the imperial mission.

[RajeshA]

National Interests: How to Define?

Cross-posted from "Managing Chinese Threat" Thread

Always follow interests first which are fundamentals of relationships and are more important. For trust and integration religion can be used amongst other techniques but interests will be the most important

Well for that one would have to get philosophical about "national interests"! Who defines them? If it is the elite, then one needs to know how well the elite is in sync with the general populace. How well they are in sync with the civilizational culture on which the Rashtra is based?

The definition of "national interests" happens a bit too arbitrarily depending on who does the defining.

I agree "Religion" is irrelevant, if it is looked upon as a 'sampradayik path'!

The problem arises when people however start defining "national interests" independently of our Sanksriti and Sabhyata. There is absolutely no "national interest" which can be defined if it is not in some way or another shown to be nurturing Sanskriti and Sabhyata. Everything else is ephemeral or simply a biological impulse.

[RajeshA]

Published on May 05, 2013
Hindutva leaders can guarantee Muslim security: Uma Bharti: IANS

"Only right-wing Hindutva leaders can be the saviour of Muslims and guarantee their security. Only we can instill confidence and erode fear from the Muslim psyche," Uma Bharti told a TV news channel.

"The so-called secular brigade has failed to secure the community. It's important to win their trust, if not their votes," the Bharatiya Janata Party leader said.

Uma Bharti, the firebrand "sanyasin" and a former Madhya Pradesh chief minister, who recently returned to the team of central office-bearers of the BJP, defended Modi, saying there has been no exodus from Gujarat post-2002 riots.

"There was no Muslim exodus from Gujarat after the riots. People are at peace with themselves and enjoying the fruits of development. Let's not do a body count of riot victims on basis of religion. Hundreds of Hindus died in police firing during the post-Godhra riots. This negates allegations about Modi's complicity in the violence," she claimed.

[RajeshA]

Environmental Protection: Conserving Water

Shri Narendra Modi addressing Saurashtra Narmada Jal Avtaran Jan Jagruti Mahayagya in Rajkot Dist on May 5, 2013

[RamaY]

National Interests: How to Define?
.

By defining what the "Nation" is.

Of late the definition of India is given as "A Secular Democratic State that is formed on 15th August 1947".

This definition puts the interests in the following order
- Secularism at any cost
- Democracy (vote-bank style)
- Territorial integrity defined as on that day. This means any region that is disputed on that day is not morally the part of India.

This is why the intenlligentia behaves the way it behaves.

The colonization of Hindu Bharat moved from Islam to christianity to secularism.

[RajeshA]

National Interests: How to Define?

National Interests: How to Define?

By defining what the "Nation" is.

Well this has always been difficult in the best of times!

Basically this urge is there so as to motivate the citizens of a state to feel fraternity among themselves, which helps them to compete with others in other states for survival, expansion, resources and prosperity.

This fraternity of the nation is built upon the great commons, pride and the external threats.

For Bharatiyas, the great commons are Bharat Mata, Bharatiya Sanskriti & Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Asserting these great commons as the foundation of the Indian Nation would seem self-evident. However despite Partition, the Bharatiyas were not able to assert this sense of nationhood and fraternity, because of the need of accommodating the millions of Indian Muslims, and thus Islam within our borders, even though Partition was done exactly to solve this issue. Islam had insisted that it is a separate nation according to the Two-Nation Theory.

The disagreement between Muslim League and Indian National Congress was whether Muslims could live together with Hindus if the Hindus were willing to abdicate Dharma and our Sabhyata at the state level in the garb of Secularism. Muslim League decided that they weren't willing to take the chance, whereas the Indian National Congress were able to convince a large majority of Muslims to accept Secularism.

Secularism did not purge just religion out of the political system, but in fact it purged Dharma and Sabhyata out of it.

The Subcontinental Muslims received two huge chunks of Bharat Mata to devour, for their own exclusive feast, and in India, in the rest of Bharat Mata, they received a pledge that Hindus would not force them to accept the Hindu ethical code - Dharma, nor make them feel connected to Bharatiya Sabhyata.

And so Dharma and Sabhyata became separated from Rashtra - and for what? - just to appease Indian Muslims and offering them the lowest common denominator between them and Hindus - the zero overlap!

As such for Indians the great commons are simply the state and the present borders - just the bare minimum to qualify as a Westphalian state. To keep the state chugging along somehow, a Macaulayite framework was adopted, as no framework based on our civilizational heritage would have been acceptable, since Islam had to be accommodated.

Secondly a nation defines itself with respect to a history of threats and challenges faced.

This too is difficult in India, because there is no commonality between the history of threats and challenges faced by the Hindus and those faced by Indian Muslims.

In modern India, the only way of expressing this commonality of threats and challenges is through the violation of our borders, of the lives of citizens and of prestige, and nothing beyond that. No civilizational hit to Bharat would be considered a loss. But due to lack of a sense of a nation, at the very highest levels of government, which comes from rejection of civilizational affiliation, there isn't even sufficient resolve to look after this - borders, prestige and lives. Even the minimum national purpose cannot be catered to.

In such a setup, the nation cannot be defined civilizationally, and when an effort is made to define the nation over pride that comes from facing challenges and threats collectively, even there the citizen is severely disappointed, which naturally increases the deracination among the citizen, his hesitation to define himself as pledged to the nation.

If the definition of 'nation' in India, faces such challenges, then defining national interests, which are supposed to based on the great commons, is even more difficult. As such national interests are either not expressed and if expressed cannot be protected.

Indeed the Rashtra has defined its national interests in the Constitution

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and
to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

As it stands, the State has simply decided to define its national interests around managing the conflicts arising among its own citizens. One can add to that PROSPERITY for the citizens as a goal, for after all, who doesn't like prosperity?!

And what of the Nation as a whole?
Here the goal is unity and integrity!

Nowhere do we get to know to what purpose is 'unity' and 'integrity'? 'Unity' and 'Integrity' are important for the State, but that is not the same as Nation!

Basically the Constitution is completely silent on 'Nation' itself, and the term 'Nation' that it uses, it uses to mean the State itself. Fraternity is not assured simply by catering to 'unity' and 'integrity' of the state!

Fraternity and Nation need either a tribal or a civilizational approach. Indians are only in the broadest of senses one tribe. We could define ourselves so but by rejecting a common national language we sabotaged even that possibility. The only way of asserting fraternity of the nation is then civilizationally and even that we refuse to do in order to keep the oh so precious 'secularism'!

[RajeshA]

Dr Subramanian Swamy talks about Hindu India or Islamic India

[Agnimitra]

Reason I mention it is that in refuting non-Indic classifications and labels, it would be even more fruitful from the Bharatiya PoV to show their conceptual frameworks as a limited special case of a Bharatiya paradigm of concept and vision. Just like classical mechanics is a special case of theory of Relativity at speeds much lower than light.

By showing the libtards that their Macaulayite classifications are included as special cases within a larger, more intellectually fulfilling paradigm, one is more likely to win over converts. Therefore one must surround them on all sides and encompass them wholly so they have nothing to hide behind - subsume all their shibboleths.

What one can do is

1. One keeps one's Philosophical System at hand
2. One analyzes the Target Ideological System using Categories from one's own Philosophical System as faithfully as possible
3. One shows what assumptions the Target Ideological System makes as compared to the Standard - one's own Philosophical System
4. One shows under what psychosociological and political circumstances these assumptions are made
5. One shows what psychosociological memes manifest under the Target Ideological System and where such a system eventually leads
6. One shows what spiritual and social benefits cannot be available under the Target Ideological System
7. One shows why one needs to move to the different paradigm - one's own Philosophical System

Basically this is Purva-Paksha!

So we need to show it as a two-step process - strip false data, and then introduce a more comprehensive model.
Blogged this today:
Subsume all their Shibboleths

But intellectually, in terms of logic, how does one describe this universalism better? After first stripping false data via Othering followed by a relentless criticism of its hypocrisies, one must then subsume its remaining truth into one's own siddhanta. This can be done by demonstrating how what is true in it is a special case of one's own model, which is free from its limitations.

...

By showing the Libtards, Maovadis and Macaulayputras that their classifications are included as special cases within a larger, more intellectually and spiritually fulfilling paradigm, one is more likely to win over converts. Apart from defectors, one would also be able to bracket and broadside the bigoted and the prostituted among them, for them may globetrot as much as their patrons can afford, but they won't find a concept to cover their intellectual poverty with. Therefore, one must surround them on all sides and encompass them wholly so they have nothing to hide behind. Subsume all their shibboleths.

[RajeshA]

Integrating Buddhism and Sikhism into the Hindu Mainstream

We should try to understand the fault-lines between the various Dharmic traditions based on adulteration/disowning-enrichment/owning model.

Adulteration/Disowning-Enrichment/Owning (ADEO) Model

The root of the Knowledge Tree is the Vedic/Yogic thought.

1. At any given time there was in some group a traditional thinking.
2. Some faction adulterates this traditional thinking by introducing some revolutionary idea, and thus creates a new thought-line. The revolutionary/reformist idea does not reject the whole tradition, but only some part of it and introduces a new insight.
3. The traditional line is not happy with the revolutionary line and thus disowns it. The revolutionary line sees itself as superior and thus competes with the traditional line for mind share.
4. In the traditional line there is intellectual churning on how to face the challenge of the revolutionary line. This leads to enrichment of the tradition.
5. Thus by intellectually conquering the revolutionary thought, the traditional line reincorporates the revolution within it as a special case and thus claims ownership of it again.
6. The revolutionary faction however does not completely accept this view and it continues with its separate ideological identity in fact asserting it with forcefulness. The revolutionary faction rejects the idea of reuniting simply because the revolution has been carried out by revolutionaries with a following, and even if the revolutionary idea can be reincorporated into the parent tradition, the charisma and/or ego of the revolutionary or founder demands a separate identity.
7. A faction in the traditional line also chooses purity over enrichment, and chooses not to be drawn in into either adulteration nor into enrichment, and tries to retain the status quo of traditional thought.

So we have three views here - the traditional pure, the revolutionary and the traditional enriched.

We know how trees grow. It is not as if branches grow only on one side of the tree, for that would make the root unstable, resulting in its own uprooting. When a branch grows from the trunk (or another branch), there are also other branches which grows on other sides of the trunk which result in balancing out the weight of the initial branch.

What often happens with many religious factions is that they become too focused on the revolutionary and start considering him a founder, and in order to emphasize his role often exaggerate and paint what was earlier as "despicable". Thus the trunk from which the branch grows is either ignored or is shown as wanting. All this is to emphasize a claim to a separate identity built around the founder. The revolutionary however may not even have had such a project in mind, i.e. to create a whole new branch.

As such these branches become over-invested in separate identity as a whole new organization comes up around the branch, which does not like the idea of being considered as part of the same Knowledge Tree.

Buddhism and Sikhism are two identities which have tried vigorously to assert their separate identity at least in their later evolution. Jainism even though had become separated from the Vedic/Yogic Knowledge Tree as a distinct identity has however at the practical level accepted to be part of the Hindu Continuum.

Axioms of Attitude towards Rebellious Ideological Branches

So how do we deal with these separate identities ...

1. Per reflex, separate identities with accompanying organizations would try to assert their separateness. The more we try to show them as part of the bigger knowledge tree, the stronger would be their reaction. This is natural and part of the clerical angst! We should not be surprised or agitated by this.
2. Those who belong to the ideological branch but have a second separate identity, e.g. ethnic or national, have it much easier to acknowledge the branch being part of the whole tree.
3. The idea should be to reattach the rebellious ideological branch again to the trunk.
4. The strategy to reconnect the ideological branch to the tree is to show the trunk and the tree as healthy and sturdy. The trunk would have to be infused with Rajas Guṇa, where the adherents feel unabashed pride in it and constitute a powerful civilizational pole along all aspects of power. So there would have to be a Sanatan Dharmic identity which goes beyond the Sampradayik divisions. And there needs to be a resurgence in Sanatan Dharma society itself.
5. Intrinsic to the knowledge tree, there is an in-built urge to show intellectual superiority viz-a-viz another philosophical viewpoint. This urge would need to be reined in, to be controlled with respect to branches which have started to assert a separate identity, separate from the knowledge tree. Philosophical debate would not serve to bridge the gulf or grafting the ideological branch back to the trunk of the knowledge tree. Philosophical debate can proceed with those branches which are simply enrichment branches, and still keep their identity anchored to trunk of the knowledge tree.
6. At the sociopolitical level there is also going to be much soul-searching and looking at history and many incidents would come to light which show the "anti-national attitude", the "treason", the "collaboration with the enemy" of the adherents of a branch fixated upon the issue of preserving their separate identity and thus separate interests. This can be condemned but instead of seeing this as constructive critique, the adherents of the separate ideological branch would see it as an attack, and thus one would end up strengthening the separateness, and secondly one would end up strengthening the historical narrative that the branch was always in rebellion against the trunk, which makes it natural that the same dynamic would continue. The separate branch would see it as necessary that the same dynamic indeed continues, as they would see history as endorsing a policy of continued rebellion. So the ideological trunk should basically both forgive as well as hide the history deeper in the historical memory. Bringing this up is both counterproductive and it prolongs the life of the rebellion. It simply increase rancor.
7. It is better to promote a historical narrative of peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment.
8. In any dialogue, the effort should be to stress the commonality in ideas, culture, terminology and symbols, without appearing to undermine the branch's separateness of identity.
9. There should be an increase in the intermingling of the clergy, thinkers and teachers from the ideologically separated branch and the ideological trunk, such that the former feel completely at ease. They should not feel their organizational structure as threatened, either ideologically or politically.
10. Ethnically or nationally foreign branches of the separated ideological branch, who may have their own separate organizational structure, and thus naturally feel less threatened should be recruited to show strong relationship between the branch and the trunk, though it is natural that they would feel first affiliated with the organizational structure of the ideological branch in the land itself, and only secondarily to the trunk. But the outreach effort should be there.
11. The rebellious ideological branches should feel completely at ease with the knowledge tree and should share in the pride of belonging to the tree. Therefore it is important that
    • it does not feel apprehensive about punishment for past rebellion,
    • it does not feel threatened ideologically,
    • it does not feel threatened in its organizational structure
    • it does not see its founder being demeaned

As long as the various branches of the tree are not reconnected, there would always remain the scope that other civilizations would be able to exploit these faultlines, as obviously they are indeed being done. Unity of the Knowledge Tree is important.

Suggestions for an Integration Strategy

What this translates to concretely are following suggestions:

1. Aastiks would have to forgive Buddhists and Sikhs for the role of some individuals and groups from among their ranks in undermining Bharat (Sindhi Buddist kings and merchants, Khalistanis)
2. Aastiks can of course politely disagree with the deviating ideological claims of Buddhists and Sikhs, without being fixated about trying to prove them wrong.
3. Aastiks should be circumspect in claiming Buddhists and Sikhs as being ideological branches of their trunk. Their separate identity needs to be publicly respected.
4. Aastik Gurus should carry out regular and extensive dialogues with their Buddhist and Sikh counterparts, exchanging views but highlighting the commonality. An effort should be made to establish such dialogue forums which organize these exchanges regularly. More importantly these Gurus should be seen by the people together sharing the same dais.
5. Aastiks should condemn any attacks from Neo-Buddhists and Khalistani ideologues as being motivated by designs of foreigners to undermine the common civilizational pole, with these ideologues playing handmaiden to foreign vested interests. This is usually true.
6. The dialogue with Buddhists should be carried out at an international level, with Buddhists from all lands. This should be intensive and extensive. There should be a concerted effort to woo the clergy and thinkers of Buddhism from these lands. This dialogue should be institutionalized.
7. Sanatan Dharmics should become highly united and show unity and strength. If this is done the deviating branches would themselves wish to come closer.

[RajeshA]

So we need to show it as a two-step process - strip false data, and then introduce a more comprehensive model.
Blogged this today:
Subsume all their Shibboleths

Agnimitra ji,

I believe my previous post is somewhat on the same lines, perhaps complementary to it.

[RajeshA]

Ground Analysis: Bharat and Republic of India

Cross-posting a post by Atri in "Future Strategic Scenario for Indian Subcontinent GDF ed" Thread

A question for Atriji,
Based on your post regarding Mansabdari and Shivaji's actions to try eliminating it.

Could you please comment if NaMo is trying something similar in Gujarat by bypassing the "jagirdaars" who control various caste formations and try to introduce a direct access system between the aam junta and the CM of the state? After reading your post, I have come to believe, this is one reason NaMo is opposed so vigorously by elites from all parts of the country (including the so-called a-political highly educated buddhi-jivis).

Now, since you mention NaMo following a much more Savarkarite model of development than a Sanghi model of development, are there any pointers to learn about the governance model of NaMo? At least in his speeches NaMo is quite vociferous about federal structure being sacrosanct, and this federal structure being an essential feature to maintain India's unity and integrity. But does that mean he prefers regional satraps (which would again mean extension of Mughal power structure and quite opposite to what he seems to be doing in Gujarat) or does Savarkarite model provide any pointers?

Any elaboration on the above would be great.

Prahaar ji,

As far as I have read and understood, there is no "savarkaraite" model of development.. It was not the inclination, nor the time, nor the capability of Savarkar to give a model for dharmaarthik development. The situation was much more pressing the very survival of India and Dharma on that delicate cusp of tryst with the destiny. So, let us not give savarkar credit for something he has not done..

Savarkar gave a vision of looking towards India and her history. Rather, he challenged the superiority of the the outlook and world-view of addressing a problem which was being sold to us as superior outlook by Muslims and then British. In the process of that challenge, he came up with a new way of looking at things (1857 became first war of independence and not sepoy mutiny, for example OR beginning the process of dharmaarthik discourse of Dharmik system by coining the term and philosophy of Hindutva). He uttered the words which were asphuta before..

Savarkar belongs to Shivaji's way of looking at things. One famous insight is provided by Master Dinanath Mangeshkar (papa of Lata Mangeshkar and staunch follower of Savarkar) when he was composing the music for Savarkar's musical drama "Sanyasta Khadga" (OT - But RamaY ji, this is excellent resource for your Buddhism Dhaaga. Savarkar's take on Buddhism is fascinating. The name itself is descriptive - Sannyasta Khadga - A sword in Sannyasa). Master Mangeshkar said,

"Shri Krishna-Chanakya-Shivaji-Savarkar represent one ideological continuum"..

I am merely stating that I think we can put in NM in that chain of ideological continuum. Shri Krishna (well, being Vishnu himself) was both ideologue and a man of action. Chanakya and Savarkar were ideologues. Shivaji was man of action. NM shows similar flair..

When I said, NM represents resurgence of Savarkaraite model, I meant resurgence of this continuum. These four individuals have been constant road-block for foreign empires and ideas intending to digest Dharma. They were physical sword arms in their times alright.. But beyond the space-time barrier of their physical existence, they have been ideological sword arm of Dharma..

Even if NM does not become PM (my gut says he won't - time is not ripe in this life), he has done and is doing what he should.. He has given an example of how a king should be, how to outmatch, outsmart the sultanate and win in spite of them. He has show how to make tactical allies - you think all this development and post godhra image polishing is without any cost? no, he let in and got entangled in foreign capital and used it for his subsequently people's benefit. He showed how to play with global capital and powers that be, how to tame the mercantile mentality which I spoke off in few posts above and bend it at will without selling one's soul and dharma.

Shivaji was nothing in front of Aurangzeb when compared on monetary, territorial, military parameters. Shivaji was king of few districts. But he revolutionized by his example how Hindus should think and respond and persist. He gave them confidence that they can win. After massacre of Shambhuji in 1689, and with exception of Panipat 1761, Hindus have defeated Muslims in every battle they fought.. Till date. This is result of Shivaji.

NM can do this, even if he does not become PM. Young people will remember him for generations, even if his contemporaries screw him. An entire breed of young Internet Hindus (who will subsequently start entering real world with same zeal) is touched and invigorated by NM.. This effect cannot be answered by any of the DIEnasty tricks.

Shivaji built upon ideological pragmatism and real politic of Chanakya (mind it - pre-british India traditionally frowned upon Chanakyan way of polity and favored more dharmik polity of Vidura and Yudhishthira from Shanti Parva). Shivaji did not read Chanakya and his arthashastra. But he got the essence naturally from various sources and teachers, mostly importantly touring INdia with open eyes and carefully learning about her history and reasons for fall of Vijaynagar. Ramdas etc came very late in his life which helped him polish and sharpen this innate understanding of Krishna and Chanakya.

NM has the luxury of reading about all four prior to him in this chain and forming an informed opinion and vision which is consistent with current space-time.

Federal Structure, which will evolve now, will be different from Mansabdari structure of Mughals. The basic condition is reset. Larger proportion of population is now empowered. It cannot be as oppressive as it was during Mughal rule.

__________

Also see
- Bharatiya Nationalism viz-a-viz Indian Nationalism
- The Colors of Hindu

[RajeshA]

Ground Analysis: Bharat and Republic of India

Cross-posting a post by Atri in "Future Strategic Scenario for Indian Subcontinent GDF ed" Thread

No congress does not win by default, congress wins because Indians want it to win. I think that lesson is often a hard pill to swallow on BRF for many, but does not make it any less true.

OK. Whatever. How does anything matter any more anyway?

Fact is c-system is simply way too strong. I'm ready for disappointment in the next polls. Just hoping that disappointment's magnitude isn't too great only.

It is not strong or weak, saar ji.. it is simply about wrong timing and wrong medicine..

Most of string holders in India (and almost most of us, people) believe in these three sentences

1. sab chalta hai (everything is acceptable)
2. milke looto, baantke khaao (rob together, divide and eat)
3. cake katega, sab me bategaa.. (when cake is cut, it is distributed to everyone) Another version of this is Hindusthaani shaadi me dulhe ke saath saath puri baaraat bhi khaati hai (In marriage in India, entire marriage party eats, along with the groom)..

The trick is to time the strategy of thousand cuts. The problem is, it is will unravel (it is unraveling) the very fabric of ROI.. ROI is built by C-SYSTEM... Unraveling C-system means unraveling ROI (not bhaarat, but the nation-state of ROI, current avatara of Bhaarata).. Now, this thought gives jitters to many patriots, doesn't it?

Bhaarati is slowly positioning herself against ROI... As I said in future strat dhaga, all this will not go in vain.. It creates plenty of turbulence which is beginning to manifest itself. coupled with turbulence around and without confines of ROI, a perfect maelstrom is being engineered. Let Gandhis steer this ship of ROI into that maelstrom and get jhaapad.. This is what Indian Janta wishes. For something like RSS to succeed, they need to be able to speak freely using Indic languages, Indic memes, Indic metaphors, Indic frame of reference. not possible in frame of reference of ROI...

Somebody said this in some other dhaga - this is like ganesha throwing flowers at Mamasura.. ROI is current avatara of Bhaarati, and not Bhaarati herself..

As Krishna said in BG - वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि । तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्ण: अन्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही ।।

यह वस्त्र अब फट चुका है... जीर्ण हो चुका है... १९४७ मे फिरसे जन्मी भारती अब बड़ी हो गयी हैं, अब ये बचपन के वस्त्र उनके शरीर के लिए काफी नहीं हैं..

[RajeshA]

Integrating Buddhism and Sikhism into the Hindu Mainstream

What assumptions can we make:

1. Doctrinal Deviation: Buddhism as one finds after Sakya Simha Gautama Buddha (say circa 700 BCE) is indeed a different branch of Dharma with a differentiated ideology, identity and history.
2. Doctrinal Difference Assertion: The Buddhist schools and clergy would indeed try to emphasize the differences from the Brahmanical method, and thus from Sanatan Dharma - both in the narrative of the break as well as ideological. Emphasis of this difference becomes part of the life-blood of the Buddhist schools resident in the immediate vicinity of their competitors - Brahmin-led Sanatan Dharmics. This is mostly clergy-specific.
3. Structural Dynamics: One can model the above identity, identity assertion, identity separation, etc. through various models. Some models I suggested and discussed earlier were using tradition-revolution and trunk-branch metaphors. The father-son rivalry is also a very useful model. The rivalry is kept alive due to organizational angst of the clergy.
4. Clarity from Afar: Those Buddhist schools which are located geographically further away with a much less overlap of history of conflict with Brahamin-led Sanatan Dharmics, they are mostly free from this organizational angst or even doctrinal threat from Sanatan Dharmics. Their Buddhist schools, temples are secure in their own identity viz-a-viz Sanatan Dharma, and this sense of security is strengthened by the fact that they are ethnically and even culturally apart. Their autonomy and survival is secure viz-a-viz the Brahmin-led Sanatan Dharma.
5. Power Elite's Competitive Politics: Excluding exceptions, usually the interest of the Power Elite is to secure their position and to ward off competition from any competitors within their own ranks. As such there is a competition to win the favor of the people and the clergy. For such a purpose, individuals, families and groups within the power elite would compete to show that they are the true protectors of the group and clergy affiliated with the identity in question. They would often also play the card of "dharm-khatre-men-hai" in order to make the people hug on to their leadership more strongly, and if this involves provoking a rival identity, they would do that as well. Proximity to the clergy is sought to bolster their credentials as the defenders of the faith. They would also instrumentalize the doctrinal rivalry and organizational angst of the clergy to bolster their assertion of "dharm-khatre-men-hai"!
6. Power Elite's Degenerative Ways: The religious doctrine and the group identity formed around it are basically instruments to serve the Power Elite's hold on power. Except for the outward show of piety and cultural pride, the Power Elite is not really interested much in either the philosophical heritage of their religious tradition or to die for its upkeep. For them the religion-based identity is a means to an end - to hold onto power. However by showing outward piety and projecting themselves as defenders of the faith, it allows them to pursue their mercantile interests, their good life and debauchery, unabashedly free from the wrath of the people, and they also need to deliver less in the form of governance and justice as the attention is diverted to the "dharm-khatre-men-hai".

So what can one conclude:

Historically

1. Buddhist clergy in the Subcontinent was antagonistic to the Brahmanical fold, because of severe losses to them in followership in the Subcontinent due to Brahman-led Sanatan Dharmic resurgence. They had legitimate organizational angst.
2. Certain "Buddhist" Power Elite may have indeed used identity politics viz-a-viz Aastik Power Elite in their tussle for power in the Subcontinent, and may even have been open to the idea of alliances with extra-Subcontinental powers.
3. The degenerate alleged defenders of the Buddhist faith - the "Buddhist" Power Elite, e.g. in Sindh, were the first to give in to Islamic juggernaut as they saw that defense of the faith would only bring death to them.
4. But the main conflict is not at the ideological level. It is not Aastikamata vs. Bauddhamata! It is not Hindus vs. Buddhists. Of course there was proselytizing competition between Brahmins and Buddhist clergy. However the behavior of the "Buddhist" power elite and their collaboration with outside forces, need not be formulated in religious terms at all. It was basically identity politics by the power elite and tussle for power in the subcontinent. Hindu Power Elite has also made similar concessions and collaborations.

Going Forward

1. The doctrinal difference should be acknowledged from both sides.
2. The organizational angst of the Buddhist clergy in the Indian Subcontinent (India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, ...) can be removed through intermingling, dialogue, mutual respect and a mutual-pact not to prey and proselytize the followers of others. If need be external patrons for the clergy can be offered. Aastik Sanatan Dharmics can visit Buddhist Temples and provide assurance of good relations, even as they keep their own sampradayik affiliations.
3. We need to build an umbrella religious identity under which we all can work together against the threat.
4. The "Buddhist" power elite in India and in our vicinity which claims to be defenders of the Buddhist faith but like to poke Bharat and Hindus in the face and then take sanctuary in religious identity conflict, should really have a sword put at their throats. Either they accept the bigger umbrella, or they would simply be crushed. There are a myriad of political and intelligence tools one can use to persuade them.
5. The "Buddhist" clergy and power elite further away from India have zero problems with us and they should be actively courted. Of course the primary interest for them is security, security from China, independence from the West and respite from Islamic pressure.

[Agnimitra]

Some lessons that can be learned from the loss in Karnataka for 'Hindutva'-like forces:

The loss of bastions like Mangalore is attributed by some to the foolhardiness of those leaders who reduced 'Hindutva' to moral policing and protecting old superstitions in the name of tradition.

'Traditionalists' must not be allowed to lead anything or set the tone, though they must always be carried along and employed as 'buffers' to channel the stream. It is the 'fundamentalists' who must lead 'Hindutva', intellectually as well as in terms of setting social programme. Here's why:

Unlike Abrahamic cultures (esp. Islam), in Hindutva, the 'fundamentalists' are best suited to define the mainstream current, because of its yogic rudiments and undercurrent; whereas the 'traditionalists' are best suited in defining the extremes, and therefore its outer contours and different stages of its process. (Balance and the non-balance process stages.) In Abrahamic societies, the irrational and violent 'right-wing' draws on scripture and the excitement of reliving the lives of exemplars, whereas the reasonable and pacifist left-wing appeals to rationalism, compassion, balance, etc. But it is seen that in Dharmic societies, the progressive, pacifist and reasonable leaders who advocate 'balance' typically draw on scripture and the religious exemplars, whereas the right-wingers appeal to a sense of outrage, national emergency, some grievance, or the need to preserve old traditional forms in this Kaliyuga. (This includes Lankan Buddhists extremist clergy or Dharmic clergy anywhere else).

'Hindutva' is best interpreted entirely in present time, from its rudiments, and taking all modern and existing currents in its sweep. It must also be open-ended, and not succumb to "definitions" demanded or imposed by others. Its programme should be to complete all incomplete civilizational iterations and strengthen the earlier fundamental iterations. (Taking the best from everywhere, and giving one's best to everyone.)

Added: So IMHO there is a need to create a greater awareness of a core ideological formalism of high standard that can hold its own against any ideological adversary.

[RajeshA]

Agnimitra ji,

Just wanted to add to your post.

Sanatan Dharma: Traditionalists vs. Fundamentalists

[Agnimitra]

RajeshA ji, I took your post and added stuff around it and blogged this:

Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist

Some lessons can be learned from the electoral loss in Karnataka for forces purporting to represent 'Hindutva'. The loss of bastions like Mangalore is attributed by some to the foolhardiness of those leaders who reduced 'Hindutva' to moral policing and protecting old superstitions in the name of tradition.

It is also immediately relevant to point out that a slap in the face of 'traditionalist' activism is by no means equivalent to a defeat for 'Hindutva', but is rather a very welcome shift for its most dynamic vectors at the present time. Consider this post on another blog:

Kal Chiron's Blog: Rise of Narendra Modi - Return of Savarkar's stream of thought?

Then the 3 main strands:

Experience that is transmitted down generations is called Agama (आगम) in Sanskrit. The foregoing description of 'fundamentalists', 'reformists' and 'traditionalists' (apart from 'rejectionists'/'secularists') reminds one of the classification of Agama according to the Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra schools of the orthodox Vaishnavas. the Pancharatra says that Agamas are handed down in 3 forms:

1. दिव्य - Divine: Directly revealed by the Lord of all Mankind, Narayana, to Mankind via the Rishis.
2. मुनिभाषित - Spoken to Sages: Handed down and interpreted by the self-realized philosophers of different schools at different times, places and for different levels of cultural maturity.
3. आप्तमनुजप्रोक्त - Spoken by reliable and authentic persons: This has been written down and transmitted by individuals deemed trustworthy by virtue of their ethical character, intellectual acumen, clarity of memory, etc.

The first can be considered the fundamentals, such as the Veda. The fundamentalist harks back to those rudiments via meditation and epiphany. The second can be considered the speculative exegesis, such as the Upanishads and their extensions in the smritis. The reformist engages in this search as a process of managing the house politically at all times. The third can be considered pure traditionalism, which limits itself to duplication and admiration of what is written in the 'shastras' that were written at one time in pursuance of an Upanishadic method.

The Parting of the Waters
It may be significant that the encrustation of the 'traditionalist' constituency for 'Hindutva' has received a well-deserved setback, opening the way for the 'fundamentalists' and 'reformist' vectors to take control at this point. Meanwhile, the Congress and its casteist litter find themselves increasingly veering towards the extremely shrill "secularist" or "rejectionist" end - a prelude to their ultimate irrelevance or subsumation within a Dharmic viewpoint. Could this polarization of extremes and their insanities be clearing a passage for the sane but strong Vedic fundamentalists to lead the wandering Bharatas across to their native land?

[Agnimitra]

Interesting interview: Ram Madhav, RSS spokesperson speaks to Abhinandan Sekhri on Ramjanmabhoomi, the unfair demonisation of the RSS by the media, RSS’ relationship with VHP, the convenience of khaki shorts, Hindu-Muslim terrorists, liberal fascists & more…

News Laundry: I AGREE WITH RAM MADHAV

[youtube]bXYaOc1dgto#![/youtube]

[RajeshA]

Bharatiya Nationalists and Politics

Advani's reaction to the loss of Karnataka

I feel sorry that we have lost in Karnataka. But I am not surprised. The surprise would have been if we had won.

As it is, I think the Karnataka results have a profound lesson for the BJP. In a way it has a lesson also for the Congress. The common lesson for both of us is : let’s not take the common man for granted. He himself may occasionally deviate from the norms of ethical conduct, but he does feel extremely angry when he sees those at the helm of national affairs behaving immorally. This is the principal reason why there is such intense allergy towards politicians generally nowadays.

If corruption provokes indignation in Bangalore, why would it not cause the same feeling in New Delhi?

Actually, I hold that it is the Karnataka results that have contributed to clinching action being taken even in the matter of Coalgate and Railgate! Before Karnataka results, the Congress Party seemed determined not to do anything about the two scams even if it meant a total washout of the second half of the Budget Session.

There have been press reports that we lost Karnataka because we threw out Yeddyurappa. I have seen comments by eminent pressmen taunting the BJP: See how Soniaji overlooked the shortcomings of Virbhadra Singh, and earned an advantage for the Congress. BJP prides itself on taking a principled stand in Karnataka. The consequence is that BJP has lost even “the toehold it had acquired in the south.”

Let me first point out that BJP did not throw out Yeddi; it is he who broke away from the BJP and decided to form a factional party of his own, the KJP. In fact, when it became apparent that he was unabashedly indulging in corruption, if the party had immediately taken firm action, the course of events would have been quite different.

But for several months, frantic efforts went on somehow to keep placating him by condoning his peccadilloes. The justification given was that if the party did not adopt such a ‘pragmatic’ approach we would lose the only government that we had in the south.

During these months I often cited to colleagues the crisis the party had faced in its early years in Rajasthan. Jana Sangh, the forerunner of the BJP, was launched in 1951 by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji just before the First General Elections of 1952. Dr. Mookerji was elected President of the Party.

As an office-bearer of the Rajasthan Jana Sangh during the first decade of independence (1947 -57), I was witness first to the remarkable success of the party in the 1952 polls, and then to the crisis it had to confront.

In 1952, the Jana Sangh won three seats in the Lok Sabha and 35 seats in all the State Assemblies. Of the 3 seats in the Lok Sabha, two were from West Bengal (Dr. S.P. Mookerji and Shri Durga Charan Banerjee) and one from Rajasthan (Barrister Uma Shankar Trivedi).

Of the total 35 seats Jana Sangh secured in the State Assemblies, 9 came from West Bengal and 8 from Rajasthan. The crisis faced in Rajasthan owed to the fact that the party, in its election manifesto, had committed itself to abolition of the Jagirdari system; but all the 8 MLAs elected in Rajasthan were themselves Jagirdars!

When the State Assembly met, the Congress Party elected its own Speaker and offered Deputy Speakership to the Jana Sangh. Shri Lal Singh Shaktawat was elected Deputy Speaker of the House.

One of the Bills the Congress Party introduced in this very first session was the Bill to abolish Jagirdari system. When we drew the attention of our party MLAs to our party manifesto and asked them to support this particular legislation, most of them flatly refused.

We rang up Dr. Mookerji in New Delhi, and apprised him of the problem. He said he would come to Jaipur personally and speak to the MLAs.

I can never forget those days and the kind of tension we all were under at the time. The tension only increased when Dr. Mookerji arrived. Six of our eight MLAs quietly went away to their respective constituencies. These included the newly elected Deputy Speaker also. The two MLAs who stayed on met Dr. Mookerji, and conveyed to him that while they would abide by the party’s decision the rest had made up their mind to oppose the proposed Bill.

Dr. Mookerji advised the party’s office bearers to make a last effort to persuade the dissidents, but if they persisted, not to hesitate taking disciplinary action against them.

It wasn’t an easy decision to take. We were constantly in touch with Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya also, who had been named General Secretary. I can never forget that out of the eight MLAs the party decided to expel six. And one of the two who remained was Late Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who became Chief Minister of Rajasthan three times, and later on rose to become Vice President of the Indian Union. How many parties in the country would have the guts to take this kind of decision? And the Jana Sangh demonstrated such courage even in its infancy!

No wonder, while instances can be cited when other parties do get away with gross misdemeanours, we must realize that the yardstick by which the people judge the BJP is not the same as that by which they judge other parties! Because of the high expectations we have aroused in the people by our excellent track record in all these years, even minor indiscretions can prove costly for us. And our response to the Karnataka crisis was not at all a minor indiscretion. I have consistently maintained that our handling of Karnataka has been absolutely opportunistic.

TAILPIECE

Today’s PIONEER carries on its front page a highlighted box item captioned : SNUB TO PM? It goes on to say that Smt. Sonia Gandhi will be meeting senior party leaders soon to discuss the Cabinet reshuffle.

Has the Prime Minister abdicated his right even to decide about his own cabinet? Today’s news reports about the removal of two Union Ministers generally emphasise that it is Soniaji who has sacked ‘two PM’s men.’

Sheer self-respect demands that the PM calls it a day, and orders an early general election.


L.K. Advani
New Delhi
May 12, 2013

I bring this up because there is a message here for Hindutvavadis, and it is not what Shri Advani ji is trying to say. Advani is not differentiating between Policies and Politics. The example he brings up is one to do with policy. In 1952, the crisis in Rajasthan Jan Sangh was one to do with policy. The crisis in 2013 in Karnataka BJP is one to do with politics.

1) In the Congress system all Policy is Politics. In the BJP, one representative of the Bharatiya Nationalists, all Politics should be about Policy.

Now let's not misunderstand the meaning here.

Each and every policy that Congress takes is designed to maximize its advantage to remain in power, as such is is all about politics, including the foreign policy. As it is all about power, it revolves around getting maximum money and influence out of the system for the various power-brokers and their minions out of the system. The fact that due to their policies, there is some benefit to the common man or to the nation is purely a collateral benefit. It is not the goal. In fact the Congress system has no national goals.

On the other hand, in BJP ideally it should be the other way round - all politics should be for advancing policies. Remaining in power as such becomes paramount as the means to bring about positive policy change.

That means Bharatiya Nationalist forces should do their utmost to come to power and stay in power in order to advance this nation. In the Bharatiya Nationalist system, profit by the individual from the system is purely a collateral benefit. It is however not the goal. Bharatiya Nationalist forces' primarily goal should be about advancing the civilization and the nation.

And because it is so, using all necessary means to come to and remain in power should be considered sanctioned for Bharatiya Nationalist forces.

2) Having said this, from the outside, for the people, it is difficult to judge who is making policy only to remain in power and thus as a form of politics, and who is trying to get to power and thus use politics as a medium to make policy as part of a nation centered agenda. The rhetoric itself can be manipulated and if one has the media as well on one's side, then it is all the easier for power-hungry to show themselves as policy-inspired and at the same time to portray the policy-inspired as being power-hungry.

The only way to adjudge the difference is through observing the commitment of various politicians to improve the metrics of national growth and strength over a longer period of time.

3) As war among various warlords and kings has stopped being waged in the battlefield, it has solely moved into the realm of politics. Whereas earlier too there used to be politics ranging from palace intrigues; forming blood, marital, military alliances; keeping the priesthood happy, etc., the king's authority and security came from the raw power he wielded rather than from the common man. It doesn't mean that the king did not use to look after the people, that being his duty, but it does mean that he didn't need to conquer his opponents in the court of the people.

As the war has moved into the court of the people, the ruler has become accountable to the people especially regards his revenue and outlays.

That means the politicians are being forced to fight it out in elections for the privilege to rule. Treasure still remains a potent weapon of war, so it is natural that the politicians would try to wield it against their competitors. And in order to collect this weapon of war, one would see more and more corruption, misuse of funds, more power of industrialists to lobbyi, and one can expect increased interference from foreign governments. Similarly the role of media too is of utmost importance and here too one would read more biased analysis and falling journalism standards. Then a contestant for power needs a big machinery which can help the ruler convince the people, which also leads to nepotism and favoritism.

In short, the weapons of war have changed, and politicians are being forced to look for these weapons through their influence when in power or through promises to various lobbies.

That is the downside of democracy, and would need to be accepted as a unavoidable evil.

One cannot allow one contestant for power a free-reign to collect the weapons, and put chains pf morality on the other contestant. The war needs weapons and even the Bharatiya Nationalist platform too would need to collect these.

4) Having said this, it does not give unlimited sanction to the Bharatiya Nationalist forces to indulge in corruption and nepotism or be indebted to industrial lobbies only. Weapons can be collected but Bharatiyas should not have to resort to using the bones of the people as weapons for a political electoral war.

The only way to minimize abuse of power to collect weapons to retain power is to try to minimize the weapons that the enemy can gather. The more accountability, transparency and people's participation that one can institutionalize, the less would be the ability of the enemy to raise funds through corruption, and thus less would be the need of the Bharatiya Nationalist forces to also resort to the same. So the effort of Bharatiya Nationalist forces to translate these ideas into policies and institutions should continue.

Even as one denies the leeway to oneself to collect weapons, so too one must deny it to the other as well. However a unilateral moratorium on corruption is not the answer either.

5) As long as the enemies of the Bharatiya Nationalist forces indulge in corruption and nepotism and media stranglehold, so too would the Bharatiya Nationalist forces, and that would have to be done through ways and means which does not undermine the leadership. Some part of the forces would have to act beyond the law and do the dirty work.

In order to retain propriety among the leadership, it is important that any form of corruption that takes place, it does not touch the leadership or any office holders. For this the Bharatiya Nationalists too would need invisible anonymous hands to do the dirty work of collecting funds. One can't have party or government office-bearers like Bangaru Laxman collect the "donations" and be caught in a sting.

6) In the end, there is one dictum that the Bharatiya Nationalist forces would have to follow.

Look after one's own people!

Corruption and Favoritism is part of the milieu in India and the world. This is how one generates the weapons for the good fight - the electoral fight. There is no getting around it, not as long as the anti-national parties have a free reign to indulge in all of this as well. Should an organization, a party-functionary be caught in law's dragnet doing so, and one is clear about his commitment to the cause, e.g. in the case of Kalyan Singh or even Yeddiruppa, the people simply cannot be thrown out. That is an absolute shame! One doesn't back-stab one's own people, people who have devoted themselves to the cause, to the party and in fact even agreed to do the dirty work of collecting "weapons", collecting money for elections.

Even if the person caught in the dragnet has to be sacrificed, what the party can do is to take the person away from the lime-light and at the same time reward him by bringing in his people into more responsible positions.

Bharatiya Nationalists would have to stand together and not let internal politics bring them down. Their mission is far too important to be sacrificed due to some instrumentalized morality pushed indirectly by the anti-national forces.

Of course all this depends on whether the person in question is committed to the cause or not. If he is committed then no such public immorality can be allowed to break the ranks! If one falls into this urge of morality, one starts playing the game according to the laws determined by the enemy!

7) What should be clear is that for Bharatiya Nationalists corruption cannot be a vehicle for increasing personal wealth nor can favoritism only be visible as nepotism. However these would be morally permissible, even if not legally permitted, if the cause of the Bharatiya Nationalists is kept in the middle and any collections are used to push forward that cause.

All this of course would be deplored by many as a stand, but we should acknowledge reality, even if we don't accept it., and Bharatiya Nationalist forces should not be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

-----------

Also cross-posted to "Statewide and National runup to 2014 General elections" Thread also for discussion if desired.

[RamaY]

X-Posting from Off-Topic thread.

this is some thing. Give Nityananda a pass, 'coz some in some western land gave church-walas a pass? why not do both, haul nityananda & deviant padres on coal? deviance is deviance.

btw, nityananda owns vast tracts of land in blr rural. this is an area, east of maddur, which for all its designation as rural, has not a grown seed in the last 20 years. all land there is either quarried, factories, or "resorts", and "ashrams", inlcuding farms of karunanidhi family and ap politicians. (p chidambaram also own lots of land in ka, but not in this area). but bulk of land owned by JDS and congress biggies and no sign of bjp. overwhelming bignames in ka politics, hdk, pgr scindhia, smk, deekeshi (DKS), all from this area. all of whom are atleast a few hundred crores worth. in this real estate gold mine, how the fukk did a tamilian fake swamy come to own such vast tracts of land? his advaita that good or what? random taatha in the bylanes of malleshwara can teach this guy shankara. in this climate how does a fake swamy thrive, when sundry temples of the real seer of tiruvannamalai, ramana maharshi, can barely meet their fiduciary obligations? want to stress again, no bjp in this area.

also there are p-number of swamis and mathas from various communities all over SoKA. Nobody cries over them, 'coz at the end of the day, they do some social work. none of the traditional KA mathas from any of the communities in this area. only fake swamis like nityananda there.

What crime Nityananda committed? Is having consensual sex (even if he did) a crime? Why was he arrested? What were the charges?

Why weren't the people who took video were arrested for breach of privacy?

Which law says it is wrong for Hindu trusts/maths to
1. Have consensual sexual relationships
2. Consensual sexual-tantric sadhana by adults
3. Take donation of and acquire lands and commercial holdings as long as necessary taxe paid?

RamaY ji, this is an interesting question. Here's my 2 cents:

I believe it is, or should be, a fundamental part of the moral and technical code of any school of mental or spiritual healing and development, that the integrity of the student's/patient's sense of reality must not be broken by the teacher/doctor. This means that at any stage of the student's development, the teacher must not break the agreement with the student's perception of reality. This also means that the teacher must not be drawn into the student's perception of reality but remain outside of it - while acknowledging it. Similarly, even if the student originates a view of reality that is disgusting or disappointing to the teacher, the teacher must not invalidate it, but merely acknowledge it and continue the process.

The burden of this moral code is on both, the teacher and the student. It is in both their interest to maintain agreement between themselves during the entire process. Because agreement is the basis of reality. But since the student is the subject of the process, he/she is going through a lot of subconscious material where he/she is not analytically clear. It is specifically the teacher's duty to guard the student's back, as the student turns inwards. In this process, the student will definitely go through various reactions towards the teacher - ranging from anger to propitiation. Just as the teacher must not be drawn into the student's anger, so also he must remain aloof from any act of propitiation. The student will definitely go through a stage of propitiation, wherein he/she will want to supplicate to the teacher and give gifts to the teacher, or in the case of a woman, will want to offer her body to him. This is observed across different schools, and is a matter of course. It is therefore a technical duty of best practice for the teacher to NOT take advantage or be drawn into that transaction, but to merely acknowledge the sentiment, repay the compliment, and continue with the process. that will raise the student on the scale of self-determinism and clarity, bringing forth genuine gratitude and love rather than propitiation and dependence.

Therefore, it is a technical imperative. Defenders of Nithyananda say that he had entrants to the ashram sign a contract acknowedging the possibility of "tantric" sex. But that "agreement" is nonsense, because of the state of the student entering the ashram. The student is in a state of propitiation, and this is a blatant case of taking advantage of a clinical weakness during a standard process.

Secondly, he claimed to be a sannyasin, and I am not aware of any order of sannyasa that includes "tantric" sex with students as part of its discipline.

If students want to practice tantric sex, they are free to do so with a suitable student partner. I do not see how it is healthy in any way for it to happen between student and a formally designated teacher of multiple pupils!

Agnimitra garu,

There are multiple issues here, let us analyze them separately.

1. Legal aspects
- The ashram has too many assets. This is not illegal as long as the assets are received as donations and/or purchased in a legal manner. And if the ashram can provide right sources of that income then the funds are also not illegal.

- The guru had sex with a women. This is not illegal either as long as both individuals are majors and the sex is consensual. If one were to believe in modern humanism, then sex between same sex majors is also legal.

- The guru is teaching Tantra. This is not illegal as long as the players are adults and guru explains and takes consent forms from the participants. There is no law against teaching Tantra

2. Moral aspects
- There is no celibacy concept in Hinduism; Brahmacharya is a different state of being BTW. The guru need not be abstinent from sex as long as it is natural; and it is encouraged too. And sex during women's rutukalam is also considered as Brahmacharya. Assuming sex between Swamy Nityananda and Ranjita is out of love/desire/kama, even then it is Dharmic.

- Sex with student is immoral: Not necessarily. Assuming this is a Tantra sadhana, then there are no student/teacher. The women is embodiment of Nature and men embodiment of existence. And I seriously doubt I would call that practice "sex", for it transcends the physical being by many layers. This is same as a teacher/student relationship when they are practicing an intense sword fight, there is no teacher/student relationship for some time as they would move/strategize as two opponents.

Please note that Swamy Nityananda made some information public
1. He is teaching Tantric vidya
2. He informed the students about things involved in the process (by one logic the students are like children to Guru. By that logic sex between students of same Guru can also be immoral for they become siblings-in-knowledge)
3. His sex with Ranjita was consensual (even the women acknowledged that)
4. All involved parties were adults and "educated" (Often we are told that educated people are the most scientific, reasonable, informed, non-corrupt and so on).

In summary -

We need to stop responding to certain scenarios like Dhimmi-Secularists. We need not understand and judge Indic scenarios from western moralistic memes. There are many layers of nivuru (dust covering over fire) hiding the fire that is SD. We many not be able to remove that dust all in one go. But if we can avoid adding fresh layers of dust over fire, at least it will keep our civilization warm till the fire dawns on us from within.

[RamaY]

^ Compare this with what is happening in Christian and Islamic societies

1. Some of those faiths preach and demand celibacy, especially from their religious priests (immoral)
2. Tantrika type sadhanas are forbidden in those faiths (immoral)
3. The priests, nuns and mullahs are involved in sexual relationships (immoral)
4. They are conducting sexual acts involving under-age children (illegal and immoral)
5. All this sex is done without the consent of the opposite/same sex (illegal and immoral)
6. The church and mullah structures are using illegal financial transactions (illegal funds received in India)
7. Some of these faiths even condone rapes and pedophile based on context (illegal - but we are yet to see one conviction in India)
8. Some of these faiths forbid sex between same sex individuals (immoral)

Yet we do not see the "educated" Indians talk about these religions or their organizations, for they are Secular-Dhimmis. So who/what is biggest enemy to Indic interests?

1. REAL (not perceived like in this example) adharmic Indics - These people never claim that their religion permits it. They accept the legal as well as moral punishment society (Indic or Abrahamic) gives them.
2. Real dharmic Abrahamics - These people condone/protect the actions of Church/Mullahs by giving religious excuses.
3. Adharmic Abrahamics - These people claim that they have religious sanction for their actions.
4. Dhimmi-Secularists - These people "justify" Abrahamic actions and memes by falsely "protraying" Dharmic Indic actions as Adharmic by applying Abrahamic memes on them.

[member_20317]

YamaR ji,

I have heard of tantric sex practices in the context of control over Indriyas, but if I remember correctly the whole section on 'Indriya control' is supposed to be towards the loved ones usually family. It is not random one night stands, it is about keeping control while being in the company (real or not) of loved ones. Teacher is not supposed to be a loved one in the same sense as the family members. He is meant for respect. The practice is supposed to be of not partaking of the fruits of the attachment but only to do it as a duty. Atri ji would be better qualified to throw light on the matter.

There can be no guru-shishya relationship if guru gets enmeshed in the shishya's confusion. Whatever the position of morality or legality (which I believe are sideshows in the matter), I would need some more education on your stand if you care for my support for it.

The Gurus's position is equivalent to that of parents and no messing around with a shishya's mind can be condoned.

RamaY ji you have presumed that Nityanand ji is qualified for imparting education on the matter. His pears do not agree for the moment. We can safely discount views of others on the matter.

pinging Atri ji on the matter.

[RajeshA]

Ideological Perspectives in Dharma: A Classification

RajeshA ji, I took your post and added stuff around it and blogged this:

Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist

Agnimitra ji,

thanks for including the portions in your blog post. A minor suggestion: perhaps you may consider giving a link from BRF, from where you included the portion. It is good when there is back and forth linkage. It increases the traffic for both. It is of course entirely your choice.

The first can be considered the fundamentals, such as the Veda. The fundamentalist harks back to those rudiments via meditation and epiphany. The second can be considered the speculative exegesis, such as the Upanishads and their extensions in the smritis. The reformist engages in this search as a process of managing the house politically at all times. The third can be considered pure traditionalism, which limits itself to duplication and admiration of what is written in the 'shastras' that were written at one time in pursuance of an Upanishadic method.


First Formalism, then Propaganda
In my humble opinion, as a precursor to propaganda, there is a need to create a greater awareness of a core ideological formalism of a high standard for Hindutva that can hold its own against any ideological adversary. Up until now, Hindutva ideologies have been individually propagated by fundamentalists (e.g., Swami Dayananda Saraswati), by reformists (e.g., Swami Vivekananda), or by traditionalists (e.g., Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada). Each one of these tried to subsume or derogate the other strands in order to mobilize certain sections of society that were ripe for their propaganda focus. The political philosophers of Hindutva, such as Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup, the RSS ideologues, Savarkar, etc. must be extended in order to do a sound job of consolidating and managing these strands, which can sometimes appear divergent and sometimes complementary. It would help the general awareness of all proponents of Hindutva as well as its opponents, to have a clear picture of the political schema into which all these tendencies find a coherent place.

I think we agree on how important it is to be able to see from which perspective a Dharmic authority approaches social challenges.

We could look at the fundamentalist, reformist and traditionalist division form the perspective of literalism as well. My take on this:

fundamentalist perspective: One could say that the fundamentalist tries to be the most literalist, however in case of Dharma, that would be amiss. Indeed at the root of the Knowledge Tree in Dharma sits the Vedas, an oral tradition of preserving the revelations to the rishis (from whichever source qualifier added to win KLP Dubey ji's acceptance). The fundamentalist in Dharma could of course take the text of the Vedas and claim to be satisfied with it. However Dharmic fundamentalism, I believe, is to mentally reconnect to the thought process of the rishis, buddhas and tirthankars, and basically to ignore the cultural and religious evolution after their advent. The effort is to take care of the base of the trunk (Vedas) and to reach the roots (Rishihood).

traditionalist perspective: The traditionalist perspective is to be a repository of the knowledge, cultural and social evolution, making the person a live embodiment of a single evolutionary path. Taking care and responsibility for the health and preservation of an evolutionary path is the traditionalist's main responsibility. Thus the traditionalist sits on the leaf of the knowledge tree, always conscious of how the leaf is connected to the roots receiving its nourishment through the whole branch and trunk all the way to the root.

reformist perspective: The reformist is the dynamic agent in the whole knowledge tree. The reformist perspective is all about looking at how the tree serves society and to prune the twigs which do not and in fact have grown in such a way that they hurt society. It is this hurt that makes a reformist minded aware of the need of doing the ideological pruning. The reformist looks at the applicability of certain assumptions made in the past during the growth of the knowledge tree, and he is willing to revisit those assumptions and force change.

All these perspectives are in a way in confrontation with each other.

The literalist fundamentalist doesn't appreciate the ideological, cultural and social evolution and considers them as distortions of the original letter. The traditionalist doesn't appreciate the literalist fundamentalist because of the latter's destructive attitude towards the evolution. The reformist doesn't appreciate certain traditions either because of their harmful effect on society from his perspective, which is something the traditionalist too rejects because of his focus on preserving tradition, even those parts which are considered as outdated and not compatible to the needs of the society.

For the sake of completion, one could also add the following.

desertist perspective: Basically this is about breaking off from the knowledge tree and planting the stem cutting elsewhere. It is a desertion in the sense that it asserts a totally different identity, even though the initial stem has its origin in the same knowledge tree. Those ideologies on the knowledge tree don't really differentiate between the two trees, whereas the new rooted stem cutting, sees itself as separate. However usually the deserter ideology has its origin in political reasons and the desire to indulge in identity politics. As in any cutting there is some trauma attached to the newly rooted stem. One could consider Buddhism and Sikhism in such a mould. In order to assert its independence, of course the tree rejects the trunk and roots of the main knowledge tree, but this is only a formal rejection, for in truth the transplanted stem remains in its essence the same as the main knowledge tree. I have written on this in context of "Integrating Buddhism and Sikhism into the Hindu Mainstream" [1] [2]

Whereas reformists do make efforts to make the knowledge tree more topical to the needs of the day, their efforts can have only so much impact. The good part about their efforts is of course, they try to retain as much of the tradition as possible which in their view does not need revision.

However the main thrust needs to come from philosopher fundamentalists who are willing to grow new branches altogether.

Also political ideologues of Hindutva also have a prominent role to play. Just as reformists care for the needs of Samaj and try to prune the knowledge tree accordingly, political ideologues cater to the needs of the Rashtra and try to strengthen the cause of the Rashtra by mobilizing the Knowledge Tree to that effect.

[RamaY]

RamaY ji you have presumed that Nityanand ji is qualified for imparting education on the matter. His pears do not agree for the moment. We can safely discount views of others on the matter.

Did I say he is qualified? I know I am not qualified to assess him. Who are his peers, do they teach tantra sadhana and what did they say?

Who qualifies any school of spiritual thought, Secularists?

Is it even possible to "qualify" a teacher/gurukula and expect/achieve predictable outcome in terms of quality of education? Are all IIT/IIM input/output smart and successful? and so on...

The fact is that a bunch of wannabe tantriks went to Nityananda, "believing" him to be a guru. The fact is that almost all of these students went thru secular, scientific education making their decisions secular and scientific. We do not know if they learned/achieve anything or not.

We are not assessing and judging Nityananda on that basis. We are assessing and judging him on the basis of
(1) a 'sexual' sting operation with one and only one intention, to throw mud on and ridicule Hindu schools of spirituality,
(2) a 'secular' propaganda to paint it as some illegal and immoral act using a mix of abrahamic memes
(3) a 'proselytizing' propaganda to use it to convert people out of Hinduism and
(4) a 'political' interest to appease/influence voters to vote against a particular party

[Agnimitra]

^^ RajeshA ji, link added.
--------------------------

1. Legal aspects
- The ashram has too many assets. This is not illegal as long as the assets are received as donations and/or purchased in a legal manner. And if the ashram can provide right sources of that income then the funds are also not illegal.

I have no issues with this part.

- The guru had sex with a women. This is not illegal either as long as both individuals are majors and the sex is consensual. If one were to believe in modern humanism, then sex between same sex majors is also legal.

This is a formal guru-shishya relationship. Please note, in my post I made the point from a technical perspective - not "moral". The "consensual" agreement is NOt valid in this case, because the "guru-bhakti" and guru-glorification that goes on in these sects has the effect of causing all its adult members' to psychologically regress, at least in their attitude w.r.t. the guru and his companions. In this process, they fall into a state of propitiation to this guru. Therefore, the "agreement" to have sex in this case would be like an adult pedophile cajoling a minor or a teen to have sex, or like an attendant at a mental hospital convincing an adult patient to have sex.

That was the technical part. Morally, I am not aware of any mainstream method that condones one-off casual sex between a student and a guru figure. If the guru was married, would a one-off casual encounter between a male student and the ashram's guru-mata also be considered OK? In one sense the human is pan-sexual - but the realization of this ought to be spiritual and not via indiscriminate experimentation, which can be dangerous. If one does want to experiment, one certainly can - a healthy society does have that space - but the guru-shishya relationship is NOT that space, IMHO.

Lastly, my argument had nothing to do with institutionalized celibacy, "sexual morals" or any such thing. I am not a proponent of the institution of celibacy, though I consider those who choose celibacy for a higher cause to be honorable people.

- The guru is teaching Tantra.

What is meant by tantra? There are 11,000+ tantras relating to everything from agriculture to vastu. Sex is one of them. Even if Nityananda ji was teaching sexual techniques, he should have made that more clear - and probably NOT accompanied his sales pitch with such self-deification and glorification. The very fact that thousands of his students were appalled when they found out means that he broke an agreement at some level. Forget courts of law, he was convicted by his own student body. Secondly, he could have paired his students up with one another for tantric sex.

I don't disagree with you that the sting op against N was meant to tar the reputation of most ashrams springing up. But frankly, Dharmics should also use the opportunity to clarify many issues. I believe your point of view here is valid, in untangling the mix of Adharmic ideas about sexual morality and other such things. But the fact that abuse and charlatan practices are rampant is also a matter of concern. A moral code based on technical best practices would certainly be useful.