The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by brihaspati »

To illustrate the problems with trying to fix values - I am going out of immediate "Bharatyia" context, and I am taking the 10th commandment - "don't covet thy neighbour's wife".

(1) How does "truth" help in establishing decisions here, if say someone says - that the rule does not prevent coveting the non-neighbour's wife, or everyone's daughter, sister, mother. It does not define who is a "neighbour". There is no special meaning for "neighbour" if someone stretches the definition to all humanity - since until we are sure that humans do not live in other planets, we will not be able to divide humanity into "neighbours" and "non-neighbours".

(2) if a neighbours wife is "formally/ritually/soicially-recognizably" married, but the hubbie beats/prostitutes her and such beating/prostituting is formally approved by that society, and the wife decided to "covet" you. What does "truth" provide as a way forward?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by ShauryaT »

RamaY wrote: Did you get a chance to pose this question to the likes of RM? What was his answer? I am curious.
I prefer to take the guidance of pure practitioners on the matter. Practitioners who are less bothered about others and also those who are more connected with issues of India and Indians as Indians see them, preferably living in India. I have posed related questions to some very astute observers of the Indian constitution and the way it has come about. Do not want to drop in names but since you asked, not to RM as IMO he has dedicated himself to the issue of purva-paksha of the west. All power to him and his endeavors.

Read up on the constitutional debates some day, you will gain some insight into the question of its construction and gain some respect for the challenges faced by the people who crafted them. Not saying you and or me have to agree but they were neither dimwits nor traitors to the cause. Their challenges were genuine, even if their solutions in hindsight may not be optimal. They are worthy of our respect and their ideas can be critiqued without resorting to ridicule. One day KM Munshi complained to SVP that there is nothing Hindu or a native ethos to our constitution, SVP's answer was let "Hindus" first get some coherency in their voice and ideas without which it was futile to talk about Hindu ideas for no one would know what they mean and have any agreement on anything. This remains our challenge. To unite behind a set of ideas, goals, objectives and principles that espouse a spiritual and dharmic life for the nation. To what degree has the Hindutva movement been able to do that is to your judgment.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Coincidentally following editorial appeared in today's Suryaa news paper. This is what happens when Harbans/ShauryaT type thoughts are acceptable/encouraged in the first place...
http://news.suryaa.com/opinion/edit-page/article-122248

భారత రాజ్యాంగం ప్రకారం, చట్టం ముందు అందరూ సమానమే. అందులో కుల, మత, ధనిక, పేద తేడాలు లేవు. అయితే, ఈ నీతిని ఉల్లంఘించేవారు లేరా అంటే ఉన్నారు. అది వేరే చర్చ. మరి మహాభారత రాజ్యాంగం ప్రకారం కూడా చట్టం ముందు అందరూ సమానమేనా? కాదని ‘నాడీజంఘుడు అనే కొంగ-గౌతముడు’ అనే బ్రాహ్మణుని కథ చెబుతుంది. మహాభారతం, శాంతిపర్వం, తృతీయాశ్వాసంలో ఈ కథ ఉంది.

సంగ్రహంగా కథ ఇదీ: గౌతముడు కులధర్మం వదిలేసి ఒక బోయను పెళ్లి చేసుకున్నాడు. ధనసంపాదన కోసం కొంతమంది వర్తకులతో కలసి దేశాంతరం బయలుదేరాడు. వారు ఒక కీకారణ్యంలోంచి వెడుతుండగా ఒక అడవి ఏనుగు వారిమీద పడింది. ప్రాణభయంతో తలోవైపుకీ చెదిరిపోయారు. గౌతముడు ఒంటరిగా ముందుకు సాగాడు. అలసిపోయి ఒక పెద్ద మర్రి చెట్టు కింద ఆగాడు. ఆ చెట్టు మీద నివసించే నాడిజంఘుడు అతనిని చూసి జాలిపడ్డాడు. ఆతిథ్యమిచ్చి అలసట తీరేలా సేవలు చేశాడు. నీకు కావలసినంత ధనమిస్తాడని చెప్పి తన మిత్రుడైన విరూపాక్షుడనే రాక్షసరాజు దగ్గరకు పంపించాడు.

రాక్షసరాజు అతనికి మోయలేనంత ధనమిచ్చి పంపించాడు. తిరిగి మర్రిచెట్టు దగ్గరకు వచ్చిన గౌతముని నాడీజంఘుడు యథాప్రకారం ఆదరించాడు. గౌతమునిలో ఒక దుర్మార్గపు ఆలోచన పుట్టింది. బాగా బలిసి ఉన్న ఈ కొంగ తనకు కడుపునిండా ఆహారమవుతుందనుకున్నాడు. నిద్రపోతున్న కొంగను కట్టెతో బాది చంపేశాడు. మాంసం వలిచి మూట కట్టుకుని డొక్కను అక్కడే వదిలేసి ప్రయాణమయ్యాడు.
రోజూ తన దగ్గరకు వచ్చే నాడీజంఘుడు ఎంతకూ రాకపోయేసరికి విరూపాక్షుడు కీడు శంకించాడు. ఏంజరిగిందో తెలుసుకు రమ్మని భటులను పంపించాడు. కొంగ డొక్కను చూసిన భటులకు జరిగింది అర్థమైంది. గౌతముడే కొంగను చంపిఉంటాడని గ్రహించిన భటులు అతన్ని వెతికి పట్టుకుని బంధించి విరూపాక్షుని ముందు నిలబెట్టారు. ఈ కృతఘు్నని మీరే చంపి తినెయ్యకుండా నా ముందుకు ఎందుకు తీసుకొచ్చారని విరూపాక్షుడు అన్నాడు. మాకు మాత్రం నీతి లేదా? ఈ పాపాత్ముని శరీరాన్ని మేమెలా తింటామని భటులు అన్నారు. అతన్ని తీసుకెళ్లి నెత్తుటి గాయాలు అయ్యేలా ఒక ఎతె్తైన ప్రదేశం నుంచి కిందికి తోసేశారు. ఆకలితో నకనకలాడుతూ ఆ సమీపంలోనే తిరుగుతున్న కుక్కలు కూడా అతన్ని తినడానికి ఇష్టపడలేదు.

మిత్రుని మరణానికి దుఃఖించిన విరూపాక్షుడు కొంగ డొక్కను తెప్పించి దహనసంస్కారాలు చేశాడు. అంతలో ఇంద్రుడు అక్కడికి వచ్చాడు. నాడీజంఘుడు నీకే కాదు, బ్రహ్మకు కూడా మిత్రుడేననీ, అతడు తనను చూడడానికి ఈ రోజు రాకపోవడంతో ఆందోళన పడుతున్నాడనీ చెప్పాడు. నువ్వు నాడీజంఘునికి దహనసంస్కారంచేసి వెళ్ళిన తర్వాత దగ్గరలోనే ఒక ఆవు దూడ- తల్లిగోవు వద్ద పాలు తాగుతుండగా దాని మూతికి అంటిన పాలనురగ గాలికి ఎగిరివెళ్లి చితిమీద పడిందనీ, దాంతో నాడీజంఘుడు ప్రాణాలతో లేచికూర్చున్నాడనీ, ఇప్పుడు నీ దగ్గరకు వస్తున్నాడనీ చెప్పాడు.

నాడీజంఘుడు వచ్చాడు. తనవల్ల బ్రాహ్మణునికి ఇలాంటి దుర్దశ కలిగినందుకు నొచ్చుకు న్నాడు. అతన్ని విడిచి పెట్టేలా వరమిమ్మని ఇంద్రుని కోరాడు. బ్రహ్మ ఉద్దేశం కూడా అదేనని దివ్యదృష్టితో తెలుసుకున్న ఇంద్రుడు నాడీజంఘుని కోరిక తీర్చాడు. విరూపాక్షుడు భటులను పంపించి గౌతముని డబ్బుమూటలు తెప్పించి అతనికి ఇప్పించాడు. గౌతముడు వాటిని మోసుకుంటూ, తొట్రుపాటుతో మాటి మాటికీ వెనుదిరిగి చూస్తూ వెళ్లిపోయాడు.

కృతఘు్నని దేహాన్ని కుక్కలు కూడా తాకవని చెప్పడం ఈ కథలోని ప్రధాన ఉద్దేశం. దాంతోపాటే, పశుపక్షులలో కూడా దయ, క్షమ ఉంటాయనీ; మిత్రధర్మాన్ని, అతిథి మర్యాదను అవి కూడా పాటిస్తాయనీ చెబుతోంది. రాక్షసులను మనుషుల్ని తినే వారుగా చిత్రిస్తూనే వారికీ నీతి, మిత్రధర్మం ఉంటాయని అంటోంది. అలాగే ఒక వ్యక్తి భ్రష్ఠుడు, కృతఘు్నడు, హంతకుడు కావడానికి కులంతో సంబంధంలేదని కూడా చెబుతోంది. అంతవరకు బాగానే ఉంది. కానీ హత్యవంటి తీవ్ర నేరానికి పాల్పడిన గౌతముని శిక్షించకుండా విడిచి పెట్టడం, పైగా డబ్బుమూటలు ఇచ్చి మరీపంపించడం నేటి మన అవగాహన రీత్యా ఆశ్చర్యకరంగానే ఉంటుంది. చట్టంముందు అందరూ సమానులన్న సహజన్యాయాన్ని తలకిందులు చేసే ఇలాంటి కథలు మన పురాణ, ఇతిహాసాలలో చాలా ఉన్నాయి.

అది ఆ కాలపు నీతి అనీ, ఇప్పుడు కుల, మత, లింగ వివక్షకు తావులేని కొత్త నీతిని తెచ్చుకున్నాం కనుక పాత కథలు తవ్వుకోనవసరం లేదనీ ఎవరైనా అనచ్చు. పైపైన చూస్తే ఇది సమంజసంగానే కనిపిస్తుంది. కానీ కాస్త లోతుకు వెడితే అలా అనిపించదు. ఇవి పాతకథలే అయినా ఇలాంటివి పొందుపరచిన భారత, భాగవత, రామాయణాదులు ఇప్పటికీ ప్రవచన, వ్యాఖ్యాన, కళారూపాలలో ప్రచారంలోనే ఉన్నాయి. కాకపోతే, నేటి సామాజిక, రాజకీయ వాతావరణంలో ఇబ్బందికరంగాతోచే విషయాలనుదాచి, పాక్షికంగా మాత్రమే వాటిని ప్రచారంలో ఉంచుతున్నారు. మరోవైపు, ఆ రచనలలోని కులాధిపత్య భావజాలానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా పీడితసామాజిక వర్గాలు పోరాడుతున్నాయి. ఆ రచనల విశిష్ఠతను బోధించే సామాజికవర్గాలకూ, వీరికీ మధ్య అర్థవంతమైన సంభాషణ జరగడం లేదు. రెండూ పరస్పర శత్రుశిబిరాలుగా కొనసాగుతున్నాయి. పీడిత సామాజికవర్గాలు ఆ రచనలలోని చెడును ఎత్తి చూపుతుంటే, వాటి సమర్థకులు మంచిని మాత్రమే చూడమంటున్నారు.

కుల, మత, ప్రాంత, లింగభేదాలకు అతీతంగా ఒక తటస్థ భూమికనుంచి ఆలోచింపజేసే నీతి, రాజనీతి, ధర్మం, మానవీయ విలువలకు సంబంధించిన అనేక మంచి విషయాలూ ఈ రచనల్లో ఉన్నమాట నిజమే. అయినాసరే, తమకు ప్రతికూ లమై న విషయాలు వాటిలో ఉన్నప్పుడు పీడిత సామాజికవర్గాలు ఉదారబుద్ధితో కేవలం మంచిని మాత్రమే చూడడం సాధ్యమేనా? అదీగాక, ఈ రచనలను మన దేశ సాంస్కృతిక, జ్ఞాన వారసత్వంలో భాగంగా గుర్తించి నప్పుడు ఈ వారసత్వానికి పాత/ కొత్త అన్న హద్దులు గీయడం తగనూ తగదు, సాధ్యమూ కాదు. వాటిని దేశవారసత్వంగా గుర్తించినప్పుడు నేటి ప్రజాస్వామిక యుగ లక్షణానికి అనుగుణంగా అన్ని సామాజికవర్గాలూ ఆ వారసత్వంపై హక్కుదారులే అవుతారు. ఇంకాస్త సూటిగా చెప్పాలంటే ఒక దళితుడు, లేదా మరో పీడితవర్గానికి చెందిన వ్యక్తి భారత, భాగవత, రామాయణాదులను సొంతఆస్తిగా భావించుకునే అవకాశం ఉండాలి. అంటే, వారికి ప్రతికూల మైన అంశాలను తొలగించి ఆ రచనలను కుల తటస్థంగా మార్చాలి. మొత్తం సాంస్కృతిక వారసత్వాన్నే ప్రజాస్వామికీకరించి దానిని ఉమ్మడి వారసత్వంగా మార్చాలి.

అలా అనడం తేలికే, కానీ అందుకు ఏం చేయాలన్నదే అసలు ప్రశ్న. ప్రతికూల కథలను, ఘట్టాలను తొలగించడం ఒక మార్గమా? అలా అయితే, ఆ రచనలకు, అందులోని భావాలకూ గల చారిత్రకతకు నష్టం కలుగుతుంది. వాటిని అన్నిటినీ ఒకచోట పొందుపరచి అనుబంధంగా ఇస్తూనే వాటిని ఆమోదయోగ్యం కానివిగా ప్రకటించి కుల తటస్థ పాఠాన్ని రూపొందించడం మరో మార్గమా? మొదట ఉమ్మడి పాఠం అవసరాన్ని అందరూ గుర్తించగలిగితే, అది ఎలా చేయాలో మార్గాలు స్ఫురించకపోవు.
Brief translation

Ravi_G garu; this is how Constitution of India becomes Constipation of India in spite of its "secular" and "dharmic" preamble.
YamaR wrote: The constipation of India gives equal status to all Indians irrespective of race, religion, caste, sex and so on. But does the constitution of MahaBharata give the same rights?

Let us read this from the context of the story of a Crane (Nadi Jhnaga) and a Brahmana (Gautama). This story comes in Santi Parva - 3rd Chapter of Maha Bharata.

Gautama is a Brahmin by birth. But he leaves his Kula-Dharma and married a Boya woman and joined a group of businessmen to make money. When they were going thru a forest an elephant family came behind them. They all got dispersed out of fear. Gautama too ran for his life and stopped under a big tree exhausted.

A crane named Nadi Jhanga took pity on this brahmin. He gave him some food and took care of him. Then he told Gautama to visit his friend and Rakshasa king Virupaksha and get help.

Gautama goes to Virupaksha who gives Gautam lots of money. Gautama comes back to Nadi Jhanga's tree with that money and stays there for the day. Then Gautama seeing a well-fed and healthy crane (Nadi Jhanga) gets a sinister thought to eat him and kills him by hitting him with a stick. Gautama takes the meat with him leaving the skeleton there.

Virupaksha concerned about Nadi Jhanga, who visits him every day, sends his soldiers to find Nadi Jhanga's whereabouts. The soldiers come and find the skeleton and figures out it must be Gautama's doing. They search for him and bring him to Virupaksha. Virupaksha questions his soldiers why they didn't kill and eat him then and there and why they brought him to his court. The soldiers tell the king that they didn't want to eat a sinner like Gautama.

Then Virupaksha has Gautama thrown from the top of a mountain. But even hungry dogs living there wouldn't touch Gautama's body.

Then Virupaksha mourns for his friend Nadi Jhanga and conducts cremation rituals for him. In the meantime Indra comes there and tells Virupaksha that Nadi Jhanga is a friend of Brahma as well and he too was worried about Nadi Jhanga. Indra also tells virupaksha that the bubbles from a calf's mouth that came after drinking from her mother's (Cow) milk fell on Nadi Jhanga's cremation remains and that brought Nadi Jhanga back to life and he is on his way to Virupaksha.

Nadi Jhanga comes to them in the mean time. He feels bad that the Brahmana got such a bad karma because of him (his flesh made the brahman want to eat him). He requests Indra to make Gautama alive again. Indra uses his divya drishti to get Brahma's wish and honors Nadi Jhanga's wish. Virupaksha sends his soldiers to get Gautama to him and give him the money and sends him home.

Gautama takes the money and leaves the place looking back with fear and doubt.

{Now see how Dharma, Ethics and Secularism analyzes this story}

The moral of this story is "even dogs wouldn't touch the dead body of ungrateful person". This story also tells us that even birds and animals have the concepts of Daya & Kshama (Kindness and forgiveness) and they too follow mitra-dharma and atidhi-dharma. This story also tells us that even Rakshasa have morals and friendship etc., eventhough they eat humans. It also tells us that the birth or caste doesn't stop from a person becoming a murderer. So far so good.

But letting a murder go scot-free and that too giving him money doesn't fit in our "current understanding" of Dharma. There are many such stories in our Puranas and Itihasas that doesn't conform the constitution that says "everyone is equal in the eyes of law and order".

People may say that it is the Dharma of those days and since we have the Dharma of our times enshrined in modern constitution we need not worry about old stories. It may appear logical on the surface. But if we go deep, all these stories are retold even these days thru pravachanas, speeches etc. But the contemporary proponents of this Hindutva (my word) hide the truths that are not comfortable and conformance with modern values and spread the partial stories. On the other hand the downtrodden sections are fighting against the exploitation by the upper casteism. But there is no purposeful dialogue between these two sections.

The oppressed are talking about the negatives of those stories where as the oppressors are demanding that we must see only the good in those stories.

It is a fact that these puranas and itihasas also talk about secular/neutral values that do not see things from caste, religion, region, sex etc perspectives. But is it possible for oppressed sections to see them in a positive light?

More over when we want to recognize these texts as our cultural and knowledge heritage we cannot differentiate such body of knowledge in a old and new classification. When we recognize them as our national treasure then they all the sections of the society become rightful owners of that national treasure.

To say it differently a Dalit or an untouchable also should be able to claim Ramayana, Bharata, Bhagavata etc scriptures as their own. To get there these texts have to be changed to remove the portions that are against them and make them caste neutral. The entire cultural heritage has to be democratized and made it a national ancestry.
So the what did the author see in this whole story?

That a Brahmin remained a Brahmin even though the story tells us he left his Kula-Dharma (was this author drunk or didn't understand what it means?) and married a Boya (lower-caste?) woman?

That the Brahmin was let go just because he was a Brahmin. {It doesn't matter even if it was Nadi Jhanga's prerogative and the fact that he took pity on his guest and the fact that the story doesn't give Gautama's Brahmana birth as the reason}.

Nadi Jhanga is the victim of caste descrimination. A Brahmin killed a bird.

Nadi Jhanga is an oppressed section.

Rakshasas are Dalits. Even though they were allowed to eat humans, they didn't eat Gautama, the Brahmin, because he was impure. {Now make an intellectual jump that tells us that this story is casteist, insults Dalits (that they were cannibals?) even though they demonstrate untouchability based on Gautama's actions}

The Brahmin insulted the Dogs by forcing them to make a choice?

They let the Brahmin go even though he was a murderer. And a Dalit forgiving a Brahmin is not acceptable (even though it is kosher, secular etc for a Christian Sonia Gandhi to forgive RG Killers and Arudhanti Roy seeking forgiveness for Afjal Guru).

The Puranas, Epics and Vedas cannot be accepted as national treasures unless all such stories are removed/changed.

And this idiot gets editorial space in a news paper!

I don't know whether to :lol: or :(( (The kulas/Castes mentioned in this story are - Brahmin, Boya, Rakshasas, Crane, Dogs, Devatas)

All I can say is we are on the right track to reach Harbansification of India. May this project go god speed.

Uttishta Bharata!
Last edited by RamaY on 11 Feb 2013 02:08, edited 2 times in total.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

in case harbans ji miss my response, here is the most important one-

5. the hijacking of our memes is what outrages me.
Dharmaraj Ji, you asked me to comment on your post that said the above. And then this..
i didn't asked you "how" memes got hijacked.
If you did express outrage on meme's being hijacked i did answer you in good faith. You asked me humbly, and i in good faith did respond to you respectfully in that. And then, when i point why our meme's are getting rejected you dish out Gotcha's and ROFL's. It's not that i am hurt as if you proved me wrong. What i am hurt by is you sweet talk me humbly for a response and then when i do, you respond in a cheap manner. Claiming Hindutva of course. Why should now i ever respect either your question or your objectives? This is neither dialectic or debate. Anyways carry on. You will not win this way. All i will say is that this is low..hitting below the belt.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

Someone like Rajiv Malhotra dedicates his entire life to accumulating evidence that the zero, the decimal number system etc. are of Indian origin.
Rubbish. RM is not the guy to do so. He may be one person who is trying to get that truth across. The only person that spent decades doing so exclusively probably is Georges Ifrah, a French Moroccon.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by svinayak »

ShauryaT wrote: They are worthy of our respect and their ideas can be critiqued without resorting to ridicule. One day KM Munshi complained to SVP that there is nothing Hindu or a native ethos to our constitution, SVP's answer was let "Hindus" first get some coherency in their voice and ideas without which it was futile to talk about Hindu ideas for no one would know what they mean and have any agreement on anything. This remains our challenge. To unite behind a set of ideas, goals, objectives and principles that espouse a spiritual and dharmic life for the nation. To what degree has the Hindutva movement been able to do that is to your judgment.
This is exactly what the white man said about Hindus and what the BRitish said during partition. They said they would prefer to talk to Jinnah one person representing ML and easier to do it. All the colonial elites/Indian colonial elites said the same thing to the Hindus. We dont want the colonial narratives inside the consitution and the period of constitution creation we had colonial elites craftng them. They looked at the rest of the nation as would a colonial mind would .
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

Explanation: Within Hinduism, as it should be, the Moksha Margs can be endless and it is for each individual to search for his own Moksha Marg or through his own experimentation based on previous Dharmic works to develop new Moksha Margs. This freedom is intrinsic to Hinduism.
Is different from not only in plurality..
It is not really the idealized spirit of inquiry and seeking of one's own unique Moksha path that our tradition ascribes to but
This is not about constitution here that you mention, but specifically about tradition. Hindu tradition does not ascribe (Definition: To attribute to a specified cause, source, or origin) to Mokha paths. Your HIndutva tradition according to you does not have any attributes to either cause, source or origin of these various Moksha paths. So why do i believe you that your Hindutva State and/ or Mokhsa seekers have any enthusiasm to call themselves Hindu/ Hindutva protagonists? What guarantee within the Hindutva fold do you really make that guarantees Moksha seekers will be allowed to function freely apart from wish lists that you draw. Jinnah too drew wishlists.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Acharya wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: They are worthy of our respect and their ideas can be critiqued without resorting to ridicule. One day KM Munshi complained to SVP that there is nothing Hindu or a native ethos to our constitution, SVP's answer was let "Hindus" first get some coherency in their voice and ideas without which it was futile to talk about Hindu ideas for no one would know what they mean and have any agreement on anything. This remains our challenge. To unite behind a set of ideas, goals, objectives and principles that espouse a spiritual and dharmic life for the nation. To what degree has the Hindutva movement been able to do that is to your judgment.
This is exactly what the white man said about Hindus and what the BRitish said during partition. They said they would prefer to talk to Jinnah one person representing ML and easier to do it. All the colonial elites/Indian colonial elites said the same thing to the Hindus. We dont want the colonial narratives inside the consitution and the period of constitution creation we had colonial elites craftng them. They looked at the rest of the nation as would a colonial mind would .
The biggest joke is that a set of self-claimed Hindus raise time and again who wants to conform and appease to those very colonial constructs and propose a unified definition of Hinduism of course without the name Hindu, and blame the Hindus who fight for their identity as narrow-minded and not inclusive.

These Dhimmis then blame the self-confident Hindus for the disunity among Hindus.

Thanks but no thanks dhimmis, we do not want Hinduism to become Dhimmism.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Atri »

The opponents of Hindus have only one thing in common - Hindu hatred.. They differ with each other in remaining 99% of issues. yet, they forget those 99 differences and come together on one common issue..

Indics have 100% convergence on dharmaarthik issues and almost 99% convergence on Moksha related issues. the only serious differences Indics have with each other is about Moksha matters. Yet Indics cannot come together forgetting the 1% difference based on rest of 99% common things.. They keep fixating on 1% differences on Moksha-matters...

this is the tragedy of Hindu and India...



arrivederci...
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

They said they would prefer to talk to Jinnah one person representing ML and easier to do it. All the colonial elites/Indian colonial elites said the same thing to the Hindus.
Acharya ji, you keep narrowing your version of the Indic through your Hindutva. You keep rejecting. When people start moving out of the fold, you seethe and start blaming. You reject Hare krishna'ites, you reject Arya Samaji's for not worshipping idols, you reject Moksha margs..what are you left with? Wielding a Trishul on the streets with Bal and Raj Thackeray types? That is what not me, but what you are leaving Hindu's a choice with. What do you think people will choose?
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

5. Let us assume Harbans and ShauryaT want to add the state coercion power behind the Dharmic constitution. Then all power to them. After they complete that exercise, i am 100% sure, the end product will be exactly same as how Bharat was before the Islamic and christian invasions.

The biggest opponents of such a constitution would be the soft/hard secularists, followers of Abrahamic faiths. There is no Christian or Muslim (Indian or otherwise) can follow such a dharmic code without compromising on their religious beliefs.

If the Muslims and Christians can achieve such adherence to the concept of nationality, then we wouldn't be seeing the opposition that we see today to sing Vandemataram.

What Harbans and ShauryaT doesn't accept is whether they like it or not, their project will be seen as Hinduisation of Bharat by Christians And muslims of India and will be resisted thus.

What harm they are doing in the process is to rob the identity of Hindus.
Le me assume you are right in the assumption. Ramay Ji then apart from the fact that we don't use the 'Hindu' meme what is the problem? We get people to rally behind values that have Dharmic origin. It is very highly possible that much larger numbers of Muslims and Christians will support those values.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Atri mahasaya,

Lot of salami slicing is in progress...

1/ This thread is about getting rid of the identity of Hindu/Hinduism. Why do you need the tag/title of Hindu when we give you the your Dharmic constitution is the proposition.

2/ The news article I posted is about our cultural/Sastra heritage. These Puranas/Itihasas etc cannot be accepted as national heritage unless any/all references to caste discrimination is completely removed/erased, even if the stories are about what happened thousands/millions of years ago. It doesn't matter if these stories include the so-called mythical sections such as Rakshasas, Devatas, Indra, Brahma etc., WE will tell you what are objectionable (even if the story is about a crane forgiving a meat-eating Brahmana, but accepting a human-eating Rakshas and so on).

3/ The Dalit identity and appropriation of Ravana/Bali etc., The Abrahamics know that their religions are nothing but new Avatars of Hindu Asuric empires. Since Hindu puranas tells Hindus that they must mercilessly destroy all/any such Asuric power centers, the Dalit identity is slowly nurtured to associate themselves with these Asurics (it doesn't matter Ravana is a Brahmin, he can be shown as Dravidian; it doesn't matter Bali is made king of Patala loka, but he is suppressed by a brahmin, it doesn't matter if Rama/Krishna are dark skinned, but they came from North India and so on) and claim victimization. With this the Hindus are numbed and are prejudiced even to talk about taking on Abrahamic faiths face to face (New version of Facism is being defined).

4/ Manufactured events in/around Hindu festivals, gatherings, rituals etc., and raising manufactured moral dilemmas so the sleeper cells in Hindu society (Dhimmis, Casteists, Secularists, Liberals etc) can demand getting away with these festivals, gatherings and rituals.

Uttishta Bharata!
Last edited by RamaY on 11 Feb 2013 02:45, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Hindu & Bharatiya
ShauryaT wrote:All I have seen so far is Harbans proposing that the term Hindu is not as unifying and has gained sectarian constructs - even within the various Aastika and Nastika folds. There is no way out but to fight and eliminate adharmic ideologies from our land. It is our solemn duty. Hindu or Dharmic will not change that equation. I prefer the words Dharmic and not Hindu simply because the word Hindu has been given to me by others while derivatives of the word dharma are my very own. The word Hindu does not mean anything to me, the word Dharma does. Dharmic does. SD does. Arya Dharma does. I have my dharma shastras as my anchors. I have the teachings of 1000's of gurus and dozens of works to guide me and provide principles, objectives, values of Dharma. I reject this foreign word Hindu and choose to use terms that my own lands have produced to make me understand who we are and what we stand for and refuse to be defined by others!
I mentioned earlier.
RajeshA wrote:IMHO

Definition of Hindu - Any ethnic Indian who follows the traditions originating in the Indian Subcontinent.

Definition of Hindutva - Pride in identification with this Hindu identity

Definition of Hindu-ism - The traditions that Indians follow, traditions which originated in the Indian Subcontinent.


There are some who specify a particular tradition and receive their identity from that tradition, some of them considering their identity outside the overarching Hindu identity, but that is a decision for that community, but it does not change the definition as such. Hindu-ism is inclusive of all traditions which have originated in the Indian Subcontinent or organically evolved from those which have originated here.
The reason one cannot give up on 'Hindu' is because besides being a descriptor for one's faith, it also includes the ethnicity.

Whereas 'Hindu' is a much older term, 'Hinduism' as a term was introduced by the British, and basically means the 'the belief(s) of the Hindus'! Who are the Hindus? They are the original inhabitants of Bharatvarsha who did not adopt other beliefs thought to have originated outside India - Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

Even according to their definition, Hinduism was not a religion, in the sense that it had a strict Content Definition and thus an anchorage in it.

Definition of 'Hindu' was based on the Set Theory =>

Hindu: Set {all inhabitants of India} - Set {all inhabitants adhering to foreign religions}.

Definition of 'Hinduism' was thus

Hinduism: Religion (Set {all inhabitants of India} - Set {all inhabitants adhering to foreign religions})

So before the Abrahamic religions expanded in India, retroactively speaking 'Hindus' would have been

Mool-Hindu: Set {all inhabitants of India}

Hinduism is defined over Hindu and not the other way round, not Hindu over Hinduism. A Hindu is not one who follows Hinduism, but Hinduism is the belief of the Hindus.

So one should lay the emphasis on the term 'Hindu'. If that is clear, any belief of his would be called 'Hinduism'. Of course 'Core Hinduism' or 'Orthodox Hinduism' would be defined over Content Definition.

Orthodox Hinduism: Subset of beliefs of Mool-Hindus

But an Orthodox Hindu has to be not only one who believes in some tradition from Orthodox Hinduism, but he also has to be a Hindu first.

Actually someone from outside Bharatvarsha cannot really become a Hindu but can convert to Hinduism or for that matter Orthodox Hinduism, because anybody can take up the beliefs of others. Also a non-Bharatiya cannot develop Hinduism further, simply because per definition Hinduism is the belief of the Hindus, and he is not a Hindu due to his non-Bharatiya ethnicity. :). He can of course develop a Hinduism tradition further but it cannot be called Hinduism then.

So a non-Bharatiya having Hinduism as his overarching belief system would have to be called something different than 'Hindu', a 'Hinduist' perhaps.

He can of course convert to Sanatan Dharma, or Buddhism, or Jainism, or Sikhism, or some particular tradition within Sanatan Dharma and claim his religious identity from that tradition.

On the other hand 'Hindu-ism', i.e. the state of being a Hindu, is an identity marker.

Just some thoughts!
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by ShauryaT »

Acharya wrote: They looked at the rest of the nation as would a colonial mind would .
Yes, yes, Have known that for years now. Go beyond this fact. Ask Why? Ask who were they? Ask what did they do and why? Go through their arguments? Ask why they did not espouse a Hindu framework? Ask why did they espouse a colonial framework? Understand, critique, suggest, improve. Do not just stop there and just whine about how "colonial" they were. It does not take us forward. They did what they thought was best. It is upto us now to take what has been given and provide to the future. You can bet on it our grand children will also ask, WTF were we doing? :)
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

harbans wrote: Le me assume you are right in the assumption. Ramay Ji then apart from the fact that we don't use the 'Hindu' meme what is the problem? We get people to rally behind values that have Dharmic origin. It is very highly possible that much larger numbers of Muslims and Christians will support those values.
Harbans garu,

There are few problems I can express openly. There are some I cannot at this point for various reasons.

1. Here the objective is to assert a certain way of life. Then why do we want to start such a great project with appeasement? Secondly please note that the moment you start negotiating with a give-in, it is a slippery slope. Please read my above post in reply to Atriji.

2. I can understand your suggestions for Hindus to get away from their identity. Can you propose the same to the other religions meaning to say that the religions of all citizens of India is Indianness and nothing else? If it is so, will there be a need for an Indian to go do Hajj/Bethleham? For example you identify yourself as a Dharmic and nothing else. Do your family members do the same, in all contexts of their life? Then how does this experiment is different from the Communist experiment and what lessons we learned from that (please note that the russians are going back big time to Christianity and Islam big way, even after near 100 years = 5 generations of communism)?
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

Ramay Ji, some portions of your previous posts are very different in tone and quality of content than what you previously posted. I appreciate that sincerely. Yes we have differences and we are all seeking to better our Governance. The last thing i want to do here and want to see is others claim our rich and varied heritage. In our anxiety and endeavour the last thing we must do is to reject memes. Even if that be ISKCON, Arya Samaji, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh. They are all very rich in their own ways. So when you look at my opposition at Hindutvaa and my questions do try and see through that prism. Not through the prism of rejection of identity or ritual. That is not my aim.
I can understand your suggestions for Hindus to get away from their identity. Can you propose the same to the other religions meaning to say that the religions of all citizens of India is Indianness and nothing else? If it is so, will there be a need for an Indian to go do Hajj/Bethleham?
I don't want any Indic to change their identity. I want themselves not to be outright reactionary. If the Universal declaration of Rights is resonant to many of our Dharmic values we must be outraged they have not acknowledged so, yet at the same time express we are happy too that they have adopted so many our our ideals. To reject them as Xtian we give them our value systems built over millennia on a platter free to claim and own. To reject Moksha as a tradition we give on a platter others to claim the highest release form. We may have a lot ourselves at a fault. Let us introspect better.

To Bethlehem and Mecca yes i do encourage Indics to go there on vacation. Not as something to search within their souls.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

harbans wrote:To Bethlehem and Mecca yes i do encourage Indics to go there on vacation. Not as something to search within their souls.
I don't think Indics can go into Mecca!
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

Rajesh ji, non muslims are out of bounds there. I know.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

harbans wrote:So when you look at my opposition at Hindutvaa and my questions do try and see through that prism. Not through the prism of rejection of identity or ritual. That is not my aim.
Please explain your opposition to Hindutva. What is wrong with it?
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Harbans garu,

I support any/every sect of Hinduism this includes all Indic religions (if they think they are separate from Hinduism). Bharat, thru its '000s of years of history has seen many experiments - The rule of Devatas, Asuras, Charvakas, Buddhists, Jains, Kapalikas, you name it. All this is collected in various Puranas, Epics etc.,

On your reference and absorption of Abrahamic ideas, I am very concerned. I will explain why. Pls visit Andhra-History thread and read the post Ramanaji posted on some Rama Raya and Pathan Rustum. Also read my response and link. That is my biggest concern about these approaches.

Please think about this scenarios. Tomorrow someone else suggest (we already did that with taking the name India - and people can give million supporting reasons for it) that we get rid of our federal structure and let states be autonomous. We are seeing the ill-effects of it in NE, JK, Kerala, TN and even Gujarat (a narrow-minded Hindutvavadi like me may rejoice at the fact that NM is getting invited and honored by Japan, Asean, EU, USA etc.,). Look at the mercy petitions for killers of RG, Beant Singh and Afjal Guru. They can ask isn't it in Hindu interests to have 20 Hindu nations (after discounting Muslim and Christian majority states) in United Nations? (The argument put forward for Telangana state) and so on...

Then try to visualize this alternative approach.

Declare India is a overt Hindu state. Change its name to Bharat. Make its constitution a Dharmic code (this could be exactly the same you and ShauryaT is proposing), ensure Rashtra puts all its force behind this. Ban religious conversions into Monotheistic religions that say the non-believers go to hell or must be killed, while allowing conversions to all Indic religions. Declare that children of Monotheistic religions can choose the religion of their choice only after reaching 21 years and going thru an education that gives them as is understanding of all religious texts. Rewrite Bharatiya history as an accurate presentation of what has happened.

Why should I be apologetic and accommodating towards the religions that are inherently adharmic, even though the followers are Dharmic to boot? Why would a Dharmic need me to appease his Adharmic faith so he can join my Dharmic alliance?
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Pranav »

devesh wrote: the "older" term for our system was not really "Dharma". it was "Vaidika Dharma".

so for people who have a problem with "Hindu", the only valid option is "Vaidika Dharma", not simply "Dharma".
You have taken it upon yourself to dictate to others that only Vedic and nothing else.

This Abrahamic mind-set, which seeks to put Dharma into a box, should be avoided.

The principles of Dharma are eternal and universal and cannot be restricted to a particular book. And each individual walks his own path (his Swa-Dharma), as per his Karma and state of evolution.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by devesh »

Pranav wrote:
You have taken it upon yourself to dictate to others that only Vedic and nothing else.

This Abrahamic mind-set, which seeks to put Dharma into a box, should be avoided.

The principles of Dharma are eternal and universal and cannot be restricted to a particular book. And each individual walks his own path (his Swa-Dharma), as per his Karma and state of evolution.

:roll: whatever.

yup, I've taken it upon myself to point out that our forefathers did not call themselves "Dharmik". that word without the qualifier of "Vaidik" or at the very least "Arya" is meaningless.

there are a 1000 different dharmas, all for 1000 different contexts.

if you want to define the broader civilization as a "Dharma", you need a solid QUALIFIER which leaves no confusion. I hope that much we can comprehend.

oh, and the patronizing reference to "Abrahamism" is much appreciated. thank you.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by devesh »

also, the point of this discussion is how to cut down the BS and arrive at an "Ideology" of vision which can act as a UNIFIER. most importantly, it must have the capacity to mass mobilize. all those "discarded" sections of the Indic: like the Tribals and ST's need to feel the "movement" with the new ideology.

this is not some academic exercise we are involved in. when we are proposing to call ourselves "Arya" or even "Vaidika Dharmics", we have to see if all those terms are within the "interest" of the "discarded" sections.

to me, "Hindu" seems like the only term which will get the most number of people under our umbrella.

if we insist on "Arya" or some other esoteric "Dharma", we won't be appealing to many.

there are tactical advantages in calling ourselves "Hindu". it has mass mobilization advantages. that is the most important thing. not some academic fulminations.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Vayutuvan »

RajeshA wrote:So a non-Bharatiya having Hinduism as his overarching belief system would have to be called something different than 'Hindu', a 'Hinduist' perhaps.
...
Just some thoughts!
No sir, it has too much of a negativity and can be confused with Islamists, which we non-Bharatiyas (who have naturalized citizens of other countries) would not be able to stomach. What do you have against the hindu/SDs outside the borders of Bharat?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

matrimc wrote:
RajeshA wrote:So a non-Bharatiya having Hinduism as his overarching belief system would have to be called something different than 'Hindu', a 'Hinduist' perhaps.
...
Just some thoughts!
No sir, it has too much of a negativity and can be confused with Islamists, which we non-Bharatiyas (who have naturalized citizens of other countries) would not be able to stomach. What do you have against the hindu/SDs outside the borders of Bharat?
matrimc ji,

just for clarification, when I speak of Bharatiyas, I mean ethnic Bharatiyas, in modern lingo Person of Indian Origin (PIO) or Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) (these are not exact matches for ethnic Bharatiya, I know).

When I speak of Bharatiya, I mean ethnic Bharatiyas who retain their love for Bharatiya Sabhyata, or in other words whose hearts are still in India.

Even if one gets naturalized to citizenship of another country, it doesn't change one's ethnicity. As far as civilizational allegiance is concerned, it depends.

The 'Hinduist' was proposed for people who did not have Bharatiya ethnicity, but followed the beliefs of the Hindus. But if the word is not pleasing, one can use some other term.

The point was to differentiate between the 'Hindu', which has an ethnic dimension, and one who is not a Bharatiya, but follows the beliefs (religion) of the Hindu.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by member_20317 »

Bhai log, whatever term gets used that would have little bearing on how the other side would treat our interests. Lets just point out the states when the situation has recongisably changed. The recognisation will keep getting finer as the measurements get better and if the constituents decide these can even be blurred/ignored.

It is hilarious to see Engineers, which most of you guys are, getting twisted on English. Thoda relax karo. Its not like this forums has personal property at stake. Galti ho gayi to maan leinge.


BTW a query by matrimc ji -
"What do you have against the hindu/SDs outside the borders of Bharat?"
and since he is a
we non-Bharatiyas (who have naturalized citizens of other countries)
so at the minimum the answer should be address this one group.


Here is my individual attempt at addressing it:

matrimc ji, you the non-Bharatiya can reasonably expect from us Bhartiyas that we not promote anything [no guarantees on results]:

1) that seeks to undermine your connection to your Pitrbhoomi

2) that seeks to undermine your choice for following your dharm of serving your Karmabhoomi

3) that seeks to limit your choice of Punyabhoomi

Also since it is all about choices, I guess you would have no objection if we go ahead and promote the overlap of Pitrbhoomi, Karmabhoomi and Punyabhoomi for all Bhartiyas. No guarantees on results only promotion.

Any reservations on this proposal this far.


Added later : Just to provide against any wrong signals. I am not accepting the categories for universal application. That remains upto the Janta Janardan. I am merely accepting the categories as between the two of us.
Last edited by member_20317 on 11 Feb 2013 11:38, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Why is 'Hindu' non-negotiable?


We need to look at how the word was used.

In Pre-Islamic Times
The people of the land used to call themselves 'Bharatiya'. The Persians used to refer to us as 'Hindu' people, perhaps from the river 'Sindhu', or for whatever reason. So when interacting with them, a Bharatiya would indeed say, "I am from the people, whom you refer to as 'Hindu'". This may have been the case from time immemorial.

Similarly when the Greeks came to our borders, they called us 'Indoi' taking over the nomenclature as used by the Persians, whom they got to know much earlier than us.

This was a time, when the Bharatiya Sabhyata reigned supreme over Bharat, and except for some 'minor' military incursions, Bharatiya Sabhyata was not shaken, especially as there was no concept of external proselytization in Bharatvarsha.

So at the terms, 'Hindu' and 'Indoi' we Bharatiyas looked upon in a benign utilitarian way.

After Islam
When the Arabs converted to Islam and fell over Persia, the Islamics now spread over the region adopted the term used by the Persians to address us - 'Hindu'.

When Islamics started their invasions of Bharat, we were attacked by them as 'Hindus'.

When Islamics succeeded in capturing territory, we were occupied by them as 'Hindus'.

When Islamics started converting native Bharatiyas to Islam, this conversion drive by them was on us as 'Hindus'.

So 'Hindus' became the Target. But a target resists, and as we as 'Hindus' also became the Resistance.

So the term 'Hindu' from the Islamic PoV became the Target, and the term 'Hindu' from the Bharatiya PoV became the Resistance.

The Hindus were all those in Bharatvarsha who resisted the Islamic assault on Bharatiya Sabhyata, which tried to not only convert the religion of Bharatiyas to Islam but tried to also change the allegiance of Bharatiyas to another 'civilization', the Islamic Civilization.

The Islamics, the 'Targeters' defined the 'Target' and from their definition of 'Target', the Bharatiyas defined the 'Resistance' and the name of this Resistance was 'Hindu'.

And looking at the political situation today, the 'Target' and the 'Resistance' have not changed. It is still the 'Hindu'.

After British Arrival
The British did not change anything in the underlying terminology.

They came to Bharatvarsha and saw the civilizational war between the Bharatiyas who had retained their original civilizational anchorage and called them rightly 'Hindus' and others, either arrivals from foreign lands, or other Indians who had changed their civilizational allegiance to Islam and called them 'Muslims'.

From their own proselytization agenda, they added another group of 'Targeters' - the Christian missionaries, who too made the 'Hindu' the Target.

So the term 'Hindu' has been welded by the Bharatiyas in the fires of Resistance to foreign imperialist religious ideologies. As long as foreign imperialist religious ideologies would try to dominate India and try to change the civilizational allegiance of Indians, till then the Resistance would have to continue, and till then the term 'Hindu' is non-negotiable as one of our primary identity markers.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by johneeG »

ShauryaT wrote:
devesh wrote: Harbans ji, I'm sorry, but the above question of yours is really ignorant if you don't know the answer to that.

the CONTEXT of EVERYTHING that Sri Krishna says in the BG is the MAHABHARATA.

everything that he says has the broader context of MB. it has the lessons, history, and story of the Kaurava-Pandava conflict, and broader North-Indian power struggle of the period.

in short, the entire story of MB, including the social, political, military, and historical progression of events which led to BG, is ALL part of the context of whatever that Krishna says.

how can you, or anyone, say that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context? that they stand independent and detached from the contextual viewpoint of the story in which it is said????
Hello....
BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti. The fact that the author ved vyas situates BG in the midst of the great war is besides the point. The BG is and remains a Moksha shastra in its purpose. It has no lessons of history or anything to with the story of kaurava-pandava or the power struggle of the period. It is not a dharma shastra and neither it has secrets to management as is the fad in some circles. Neither the BG is the key to understanding political struggles as Tilak tried to do. The BG is what it is - a Moksha shastra.
MB is called Panchama-Veda(Fifth Veda). BG is thought as essence of Vedanta/Upanishad. Vedanta/Upanishad is part of Veda. BG is part of MB.

MB is a smriti, itihaasa and a purana. It contains the portions relevant to all the 4 purusharthas.
1) Dharma Shastra.
2) Artha Shastra
3) Kama Shastra
4) Moksha Shastra.

There is a famous claim of Vyasa, " yath iha asti tath anyatra, yath na iha asti na tath kvachit".(That which is here is found elsewhere. That which is not here is not present anywhere. i.e. in short, MB is comprehensive).

BG is considered to be part of Prasthana Trayi(3 scriptures on Moksha). The 3 scriptures are:
a) Upanishad/Vedanta which is part of Vedas.
b) Brahmasutra authored by Vyasa. These are sutras or short aphorisms to explain the essence of Upanishad/Vedanta.
c) BG which is also considered to be an essence of Upanishad/Vedanta.

Adi Shankara has written bhashyas(commentaries) on all the three of the above.

MB contains several other great works(of course, the whole of MB is great). But, some of the popular works within MB are:
a) Vishnu Sahasranama
b) Vidhura Niti
c) Sanat-Sujatiyam
d) Nala-Damayanti Upakhyana
e) Sati Savitri story
f) Dharma-vyadha story

MB contains several works that deal with Karma(rites and rituals or action), Bhakti(devotion), and Gyana(knowledge).

Each of those works is quite complete in itself. And as such, can be taken 'independently'. And these works are 'universal' in nature.

But, the words 'independent' and 'universal' do not have the same meaning when they are used by a Hindu and a non-Hindu.
When Hindus say that a particular Hindu work is 'universal', they mean that the work is beneficial to all mankind and can be followed by any person(after proper understanding of the work).
When non-Hindus say that a particular Hindu work is 'universal', the want to deny its Hindu-ness.

When Hindus say that a particular Hindu work is 'independent', they mean it is not bound by the constraints of time and place. That means, BG is not limited to Kurukshethra or Dwapara Yuga. BG is relevant even today and is relevant in any country.
When non-Hindus say that a particular work is 'independent', they mean that the work is independent of larger Hinduism.

The same pattern repeats whenever a particular Hindu concept becomes popular(particularly in west). Take Yoga for example.

Hindus are not saying that there is no context. There is always a context. There is a specific definition. There is are rules and regulations. Even if all these details are ignored, one must at least keep the basic context in the mind, to understand the work properly. The basic context of all Hindu works is elementary knowledge of Hinduism/Santana-Dharma/Vedic-Dharma(not just any dharma). The same applies to BG.

One can understand BG, only when one has some elementary knowledge about Hinduism. Otherwise, one is bound to end up with false understanding. Remember, BG is talking about the highest knowledge of Hinduism: Upanishads/Vedanta.

Is BG a Moksha shaastra or Artha shaastra or dharma shaastra?
BG is a Moksha shaastra, no doubt. But, it contains basic dharma upadeshas, especially in regard to performance of Karma: sva-dharma. So, BG can be treated as dharma shaastra.

But, if one wants to insist that BG is only and only a moksha shaastra, then there is no point in quoting a moksha shaastra in a discussion about state and society. In such a discussion, artha shaastra and dharma shaastra have relevance. Chanakya's artha shaastra is very useful in this regard because it is like a collection of all the previous works on this subject. Similarly, Chanakya niti is a collection of various dharma shaastras.

But, it is well-recognized that as much as BG is fundamentally a moksha shastra, it also has important teachings on karma and dharma, apart from bhakti. Vyasa Himself is supposed to have said
gita sugita kartavya
kim anyaih shastra vistaraih
ya svyam padama nabhaayasa
mukha padmad vinih srita (Gita-mahatmya 4)

(4) This Gita which has come forth from the lotus-like face of the Lord (He who has the lotus in His navel) and which is so melodious, should be studied. What is the need of other diverse scriptures?


About Harbans' stand:
So far, my impression is that he is not just opposing the 'term' Hinduism, he is actually denying the very existence of Hinduism. And if he acknowledges it, he considers it to be a narrow grouping that must be done away with. In short, he is against Hinduism/SD, not just the term. Instead, he is proposing a larger grouping under new label. Of course, the first step is for Hindus to give up Hinduism/SD. Do you agree with him?

---
Harbans is not just ignoring the Hindu context of all the Hindu works, but he is also ignoring the general context within the work. For example, he quotes a particular verse or word without taking the context into cognizance. So, he ends up with silly conclusions. Eg:
harbans wrote:
johneeG wrote:
In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.
Johnee G i read that all and had even responded to you. Even Upanishads and Shri Krishna rejectd Vedic authority. I posted the relevant verses to that effect too. So are they (Upanishadic texts and BG) Nastika also?
Link

Now, the very post that he quotes, I clearly wrote that Veda means 4 Vedas along with the Vedanta/Upanishad. How can one part of Veda reject another part of Veda? Such self-contradictions arise when text is interpreted without taking the context into the cognizance. This leads to internal inconsistencies.

This is not even a new phenomenon. It is an old trick that people use or a trap that people fall into.
johneeG wrote:Upanishads are part of Vedas. Upanishads are called Vedanta(End portion of Veda). Sri Krishna's quotes where he allegedly rejects the Vedas are a misreading. What He is saying is that people can perform rituals as mentioned in Vedas and obtain the fruits(including heaven). But, those fruits are not everlasting(including the heaven). Vedas contain rites and rituals to satisfy all kinds of needs and desires(Sattva, Rajas and Tamas). But, one needs to go beyond these Gunas. For that, one needs to perform one's duty(Sva-dharma) without any desires and by dedicating it to the God.

Sri Krishna is showing the limitations of Karmas while explaining the truths in Vedanta(Upanishads).
Link

In the verses quoted by Harbans, the word 'Veda' means the Karma Khanda(ritual part) part of Veda. This is a good example of how a word can be used to mean different things based on different contexts.

Generally, in any discussion on Gyana, the limitation of Karma(and even bhakti) are brought out. Similarly, in any discussion on Karma, the difficulties and potholes in trying to achieve gyana(or bhakti) are brought out. This is a norm. Lord Sri Krishna is doing the same.

When He talks about Karma(action or ritual), He says that merely knowing(what to do) is not enough, one must act.
When He talks about Gyana(knowledge), He says that actions/rituals and their results are limited. Only the Gyana(of Brahma/Atma) can give ultimate and unlimited result.
When He talks of Bhakti(devotion), He says that mere devotion is enough.

Instead of understanding a work in its entirety, a single word, or verse or group of verses get quoted out of context to buttress a silly idea. Harbans is not only ignoring the Hindu context of BG, he is also ignoring the internal context within BG. And is making conclusions that are amateurish, inconsistent and self-contradictory.

---
Now, Harbans claims that the word satya(truth) is self-explanatory in itself and does not need any definition, context, exceptions...etc. He talks of Sri Krishna and Sri Rama adhering to truth. Ok. Let me illustrate situations where Sri Krishna and Sri Rama support untruth. But, it is still justified because it is 'Dharma'(according to Hinduism/Sanatana-Dharma).

Sri Rama:
Sri Rama was leaving Ayodhya for exile in forests for 14 years along with His dutiful wife Sita amma and obedient brother Lakshmana. The 3 were seated in a chariot and Sumantra was driving the chariot. As the chariot left to some distance, the people started wailing. Even the royal family were out on streets and making loud lamentations. The king Dasaratha along with Kaushalya were inconsolable. Kaushalya ran after the chariots crying loudly. Rama was unable to watch it and kept telling the charioteer, Sumantra, to drive the chariot faster. Finally, Dasaratha collapsed on the ground. He loudly told the chariot to stop. Meanwhile, Rama kept telling the charioteer to drive faster. The charioteer was confused on whose orders to follow. Dasaratha was still the king and the charioteer(who was also a minister) should follow Dasaratha's orders only. So, Sri Rama said to the charioteer," If the king scolds you afterwards for not listening to the order of stopping the chariot, then you can say that you did not hear the king's words in the noise of chariot." Here, Sri Rama is telling the charioteer to lie to the King Dasaratha.

Is it dharmic?
It is(according to Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma).

Similarly, in Sundara Kaanda:
Hanuman meets Sita amma and gives Her the ring. Later, Hanuman destroys the Ashoka vatika and scares away the guards. Seeing this the female rakshasi guards of Sita amma ask Her who is Hanuman because they vaguely remember Her talking to Him. Sita amma does not give a straight-forward answer. One can almost construe it as a lie.

Is it dharmic?
It is(according to Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma).

Sri Krishna explains:
johneeG wrote: As for the 'half-truth' spoken by Yudhishtira: Below is the Lord Sri Krishna's view on telling truth and falsehood.
I will now tell thee, O son of Pandu, this mystery connected with morality, this mystery that was declared by Bhishma, by the righteous Yudhishthira, by Vidura otherwise called Kshatri, and by Kunti, of great celebrity. I will tell thee that mystery in all its details.
Listen to it, O Dhananjaya! One who speaks truth is righteous. There is nothing higher than truth.
Behold, however, truth as practised is exceedingly difficult to be understood as regards its essential
attributes. Truth may be unutterable, and even falsehood may be utterable where falsehood would
become truth and truth would become falsehood. In a situation of peril to life and in marriage, falsehood becomes utterable. In a situation involving the loss of one’s entire property, falsehood becomes utterable. On an occasion of marriage, or of enjoying a woman, or when life is in danger, or when one’s entire property is about to be taken away, or for the sake of a Brahmana, falsehood may be uttered.
These five kinds of falsehood have been declared to be sinless.
On these occasions falsehood would become truth and truth would become falsehood. He is a fool that practises truth without knowing the difference between truth and falsehood. One is said to be conversant with morality when one is able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. What wonder then in this that a man of wisdom, by perpetrating even a cruel act, may obtain great merit like Valaka by the slaughter of the blind beast?
What wonder, again, in this that a foolish and ignorant person, from even the desire of winning merit, earns great sin like Kausika (living) among the rivers?"
Link

Sri Krishna is not making up new rules. He is simply repeating the Hindu view of Satya(truth) and Dharma. The same thing is said by Shukracharya to Bali:
RamaY wrote:^ that poem in Bhagavatam where Sukracharya tells Bali to go back on his vow to Vaamana

Varijakshulandu, vaivahikamulandu
Prana, witta, maana bhangamandu
Bonkavachu maghamu nonda dadhipa
Bali does not refute what is said by Shukracharya. Instead, he talks about the temporariness of the world(and rulers) and the permanence of the fame(good fame achieved through good deeds).

In Buddhism, as far as I understand, the 'pious fraud' is accepted and even recommended in works like Lotus Sutra(Sadh-dharma-pundarika-sutram), buddhist missionary manual.

Is it dharmic?
It is(according to that particular Buddhist school).

---
harbans wrote:BG messages context wrt MB:
SANJAYA:

Thus have I been an ear-witness of the miraculous astonishing dialogue, never heard before, between Vasudeva and the magnanimous son of Pritha. By the favor of Vydsa I heard this supreme mystery of Yoga -- devotion -- even as revealed from the mouth of Krishna himself who is the supreme Master
The sanskrit word is 'adbhut'. Now, anyone with a grounding in Indian languages will know that the word 'adbhut' can be translated as extra-ordinary or fantastic or wonderful and so on.

If one insists that the word must be translated as 'never before'(not 'never heard before'), even then it is merely opinion of Sanjaya. Lord Sri Krishna Himself clarifies in the beginning that He is going to tell what He had already told in the past(to Surya who taught it to Manu, who passed it down to Ikshvaku, and so on). So, the claim that its new knowledge is false.

Further, within BG, Lord explains Yoga, Sankhya, Bhakti, Karma,...etc. All these are already there.
harbans wrote:Lord Krishna in BG:
Fearlessness, sincerity, assiduity in devotion, generosity, self-restraint, piety, and alms-giving, study, mortification, and rectitude; harmlessness, veracity, and freedom from anger, resignation, equanimity, and not speaking of the faults of others, universal compassion, modesty, and mildness; patience, power, fortitude, and purity, discretion, dignity, unrevengefulness, and freedom from conceit -- these are the marks of him whose virtues are of a godlike character, O son of Bharata. Those, O son of Pritha, who are born with demoniacal dispositions are marked by hypocrisy, pride, anger, presumption, harshness of speech, and ignorance.
Lets take up 'study':
the word used in sanskrit is 'svadhyaya'. The correct translation is 'self-study'. Anyway, self-study of what?
Hotel menu? Harbans' posts? Hadith? Consitution? Newspaper? Sports Magazine?

Obviously, the word 'self-study' means a specific thing(which has been taken for granted). It has a context and definition. The basic context is Hinduism/SD. Similarly, other values also have their context in Hinduism/SD and they have specific definitions.

BTW, it would be better if you depend on Sanskrit originals than the translated ones. Translations introduce unnecessary quirks.

---
Pranav,
you are repeating what Harbans has already said. The same discussion is repeating. Here is a link of the previous posts on the same topic. Link
There are 2 options:
a) Accept the present form in which a word is being used.
b) Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used).

(a)one is ready to accept the present form in which a word is being used regardless of who invented it:
Hinduism is presently used as a synonym of Sanatana Dharma. It does not matter what the original context or intention of the word was.

Synonyms of Sanatana Dharma are:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism,...etc.


Presently, Dharma is being used as a generic term. Generic term has no meaning unless the context is specified. That is the reason I kept asking,"Which Dharma are you talking about?"

The word 'Dharma' in itself has no meaning unless it is associated with a specific philosophy that defines the word. Just like the word 'law'. If I say, 'law' allows me to do something without specifying the context, then that statement has no meaning. The first question that would be asked is,"Which law are you talking about? Indian law? paki law? African law? Which law?..."

I asked the same question. You did not specify any single philosophy according to which you were referring to the word 'Dharma', instead you came up with some words(which are also generic) which you said sum up 'Dharma'. You provided your own definition of Dharma whixch you think should be enshrined in constitution. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism come up with their own unique definitions of Dharma. The followers of a particular religion would believe that the definition provided by their religion should be enshrined in constitution. The others' definitions of Dharma are acceptable only to the extent that they agree with the definition provided by one's own philosophy. I presume that your stance is same. You provided a definition and you are willing to accept the others definition of dharma as long as the others do not contradict your definition. Your original goal was to 'bringing different dharmic strands under one umbrella'. As you can see, you are not going to achieve that unless everyone(and all philosophies) give up their definitions of dharma and accept yours. In short, you are adding one more definition into the ring claiming that yours is best suited. In a way, you are starting a new a religion/philosophy with your own definitions of dharma. And moreover, anyone can come up with their own definitions that are convenient to them. Why should they accept your definition? Why should Dharma be defined as righteousness? Why not as faith in prophet X?

The original conundrum also started similarly. This is a good cue to our option (b):
Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used):
You have insisted that the word 'Hinduism' is unfit because of the original context in which it was coined. Actually, the original context seems unclear to me but lets assume that what you say is true. Then, one should also insist that the word 'Dharma' should also be used in the original context that it was first used or coined. So, when was the word 'Dharma' first used?
Answer: Vedas. :mrgreen:


So, by your own logic we should stop trying to redefine Dharma(just as we should not redefine the word Hinduism) and accept the definition provided by the first users. If that is the case, then Dharma would automatically mean Sanatana Dharma. Then, Dharma would not be generic anymore, therefore anyone who defines dharma in a way that deviates from the Sanatana Dharma would be wrong.
When Hindus use the word 'Dharma', then mean 'Dharma' as enshrined in Hindu scriptures only. Similarly, when Buddhists use the term 'Dharma', then mean it in a completely different manner. Just because both of them use the word 'Dharma' does not mean, they have same definition for that word.

Let me give an example:
Dharmo rakshati rakshitah...
Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara... These are Hindu concepts of 'Dharma'.

Buddham Sharanam Gachami
Dharmam Sharanam Gachami
Sangam Sharanam Gachami... This is a Buddhist concept of 'Dharma'.

Both of the above differ completely from each other. Bhagavad Gita along with rest of Vyasa MB, Valmiki Ramayana and other Puranas are not just any Dharmic books, they are Hindu(or SD) books. These books are teaching Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism). They will not be acceptable in its totality to Buddhists or Jains, or other so-called 'dharmic strands'. Even Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture and will not be acceptable in its totality to all these so-called 'dharmic strands'.

Sri Rama and Sri Krishna followed Vedic 'Dharma' or Sanatana 'Dharma' or Hinduism, not just any 'Dharma'... if you accept the portrayal of Vyasa MB and Valmiki Ramayana.

The point you are missing or ignoring is: 'Dharma' is a generic word. 'Dharma' broadly means 'rule'/'duty'/'religious law'. Without a context(that means an associated philosophy/creed, that word becomes meaningless).

If I keep parroting,"Lets uphold the 'law'...", but do not specify which 'law' I am talking about, then it becomes meaningless nonsense.
So, you want a definition that can cover all Indic religion and philosophies. Fine. I support your effort. But, why are you wasting your time in asking Hindus(or Buddhists or Jains) to remould their religion to suit your definition? Instead, you can simply create a definition based on the common traits of all Indic religions like belief in Karma, reincarnation and moksha(or nirvana).
no needs for the definition of Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma) to be 'more encompassing' or 'all embracing'. Strictly, speaking no ideology can be 'all embracing'. If any ideology defines itself as 'all embracing' it leads to too much confusion especially if it faces threats from various directions.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other Indic religion(or philosophy) can work with each other to collectively face the threat from Abrahamic religions without having to change their primary ethos. To work together one needs to have common interests, thats all.
Coming to the term 'Hindu', it seems to be a middle-eastern word for Sanatan Dharmics(not any dharmics). Similarly, the word 'India' seems to be a greek(or western) word. There seems to be a phonological similarity between the words 'Hindu' and 'India'(or 'Indica'). So, it is not a new term invented by the Brits. It was ancient term for Sanatana Dharmics.
Is the term 'Hindu' geographic? Why did you reach that conclusion? It is used for religious community. Anyway, the geography(India) and religion(Hinduism) are connected intimately. So, it may have been used for both.
Also, it is merely a speculation that the word is derived from Sindhu. One does not really know the etymology of 'Hindu'.

The converted indian muslims were never called Hindu muslims. If the word 'Hindu' was a geographic appellation, then surely the converted muslims would be called 'Hindu-muslims'. This is an indication that the word 'Hindu' is both a religious AND geographic term specifically denoting Hindus(Sanatana-Dharmics or Vaidika-Dharimiks).
If you have a problem with the term 'Hindu', then you can use its synonyms like:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma,...etc

But, it seems you have a problem with Hinduism itself. In which case, you can simply reject Hinduism. It seems you want to go one step further and urge everyone to reject Hinduism and re-define it. What you want to say is that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma should be junked.
Anyway, you keep insisting about the original usage of 'Hinduism'. What about original usage of the term 'Dharma'? It was first used in Vedas.

Lastly, a straight-forward question:
Do you have a problem with the term 'Hinduism'? or
Do you have a problem with Hinduism itself?
---
RajeshA saar,
great work. :D Thumbs up.

Maybe Hinduian is a good idea, instead of Hinduist. Hinduian also rhymes with Indian.
Last edited by johneeG on 11 Feb 2013 11:57, edited 3 times in total.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Prem »

Remember, after Martyrdom Guru Teg Bahadur was called Hind Di Chaddar. We can call ourseves whateever( whats in the name), This is our prerogative but as Rajesh has said , the loan,gifts, obligation , gilley shikwe have been showered upon us as Hindus , so the Salam, Hello, Comastas must be paid back, said in the name of Hindu.
member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by member_23686 »

harbans wrote:
in case harbans ji miss my response, here is the most important one-

5. the hijacking of our memes is what outrages me.
Dharmaraj Ji, you asked me to comment on your post that said the above. And then this..
i didn't asked you "how" memes got hijacked.
If you did express outrage on meme's being hijacked i did answer you in good faith. You asked me humbly, and i in good faith did respond to you respectfully in that. And then, when i point why our meme's are getting rejected you dish out Gotcha's and ROFL's. It's not that i am hurt as if you proved me wrong. What i am hurt by is you sweet talk me humbly for a response and then when i do, you respond in a cheap manner. Claiming Hindutva of course. Why should now i ever respect either your question or your objectives? This is neither dialectic or debate. Anyways carry on. You will not win this way. All i will say is that this is low..hitting below the belt.
ok whatever you say. i know that you dont have the habit of reading beyond one line but i'm going to point out a few things-

1. you took my first line out of context, bolded it and commented ignoring the part which i bolded. that was what i was trying to discuss.

2. you decided to ignore entire second half of my post where i provided a possible line of action that can be taken in order to "solve the problem".

3. you decided to ignore my question no matter how many times i asked it. i was trying to get your input in a possible action plan because i thought that you are seriously trying to put a valid point.

4. then you tried to spoonfeed me rajesh ji comment that caused a rofl from my side.

5. you then decided to ignore my explanation about rajesh ji' comment and about rofl.

6. you then ignored my comment and accused me of "hitting below belt".

i know that this thread is moving fast and it might be difficult for you to keep track of everything but try to read a full post before jumping on conclusions. this might be the most civilized forum on internet and you may not find someone reading your "entire" post anywhere else.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by JE Menon »

Pranav,

>>This Abrahamic mind-set, which seeks to put Dharma into a box, should be avoided.

>>The principles of Dharma are eternal and universal and cannot be restricted to a particular book. And each individual walks his own path (his Swa-Dharma), as per his Karma and state of evolution.

Once again, 100% agreement.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by harbans »

Rajesh Ji, for the vision of a Bharatiya State one need not really take away any Hindu identity at all or for that matter any one's identity. The difficulty in imposing an outright Hindutva state will not only lie in direct opposition from all sorts of groups, but also in it's inherent characteristics and basic visions. Thus the impracticality of it's formation cannot be overstressed. Yet we can have a lot of resistance removed, increased assimilation by expecting the State to exude qualities that we believe are fundamental to our ethos. I do deeply admire the way you collate, logically present information and admire the effort you put into that. I also think no one on this board does that part as well as you do with so many different and difficult topics. So in that sense do not underestimate my appreciation of your efforts.

I also acknowledge that the depth of tradition and knowledge in this country is way too valuable to be ever destroyed. It also is the duty of every citizen to be able to seek to preserve and nurture that wealth. The preservation of these traditions as you have earlier rightly mentioned must have state prioritization, though that itself may be debatable and have limitations. However it does fall on the citizenry to be able to understand the import and contribute to it's preservation.

When we talk of Hindutva, for many people in India it implies a rejection also of a lot of other Dharmic strands, which may not be the flavor of HIndutva but none the less have volumes of knowledge within their folds. Even though the roots are all in the Vedic branches many of these do not give much import to the root and that lack of acknowledgement may be a cause for differentiation and more. However i would not like that non-acknowledgement to be a cause of difference. Somewhere there we have to move beyond our stated stances and rally under a State that recognizes each one, the root to branches and leaves as one part of the family.

For a State to be just that i try to look into what should the State reflect that all these branches shine on their own, but will glow harder due to association with the bigger tree. The only best thing i could think was values. In the Dharmic context only. So my first priority here is not a critique of Hindutva/ HInduism for it's ideological meme, but whether it really is capable of bringing about that integration we need. IF we agree that values (taken all from Dharmic/ SD contexts) can bring about integration, then we can specify and work on exact contexts to be allotted. If we don't agree that values can be integrating in their scope the need for context does not arise. Indeed many of the values that are in our traditions are universal in scope.

So the choice remains HIndutva: Risk of alienation and particulars Sampradaya's taking over reins of power. Nodal Values from our various Dharmic texts put in Dharmic contexts that espouses their universality and expectation that the State institutions reflect those qualities. The choice what we build up on this thread is yours. One may end up as a wishlist for it's impracticality, another may have a serious chance of being workable and evolve further in the near future. So rather than rush with framing a Hindutva constitution why not try and see what really integrates and not divides the nation.

Ramay ji, Johnee G i hope that clears up some things a bit on the perspective of the HIndutva critical front.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Pranav »

johneeG wrote: Pranav,
you are repeating what Harbans has already said. The same discussion is repeating. Here is a link of the previous posts on the same topic. Link ...

The word 'Dharma' in itself has no meaning unless it is associated with a specific philosophy that defines the word. Just like the word 'law'. If I say, 'law' allows me to do something without specifying the context, then that statement has no meaning. The first question that would be asked is,"Which law are you talking about? Indian law? paki law? African law? Which law?..." ...

When Hindus use the word 'Dharma', then mean 'Dharma' as enshrined in Hindu scriptures only. Similarly, when Buddhists use the term 'Dharma', then mean it in a completely different manner. Just because both of them use the word 'Dharma' does not mean, they have same definition for that word.

If I keep parroting,"Lets uphold the 'law'...", but do not specify which 'law' I am talking about, then it becomes meaningless nonsense. ....

If you have a problem with the term 'Hindu', then you can use its synonyms like:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma,...etc

But, it seems you have a problem with Hinduism itself. In which case, you can simply reject Hinduism. It seems you want to go one step further and urge everyone to reject Hinduism and re-define it. What you want to say is that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma should be junked.
The word Dharma comes from the Sanskrit root dhr, which means "to uphold". We are talking about the universal order underlying all creation. And by creation we mean not just the material world but also the deeper levels of Prana and Consciousness. So the term Dharma is being used in its deepest possible sense.

Stars and solar systems may come and go but Dharma is eternal.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Why is 'Hindu' non-negotiable?

What does 'Hindu' embody?
  1. It is the term with which our neighbors the Iranians used to refer to us to all Bharatiyas. We accepted the term, as it was neutral geographic and not demeaning in any way. To the Iranians we said, "we are those whom you call 'Hindus'". So the term was given to us, but we accepted it without reservations.
  2. 'Hindu' is also the Flag of Resistance of the Bharatiya Sabhyata against foreign expansionary imperialist religious ideologies which tried to rule over Bharat and to redirect the allegiance of Bharatiyas to foreign power centers, as explained above. So the term was given to us, as they made us Target, but we accepted it as our Banner of Resistance.
  3. 'Hindu' is also a term derived from 'Sindhu' river - the Indus. It points to our geography. So even if it was given to us by Persians, it is a term of some pride, as it connects us to our geography. Today when the Sindhu river is under the occupation of a foreign imperialistic religious ideology, it is all the more important that we retain 'Hindu' as an identifier to remind us of our loss, but also to remind us of our agenda. The agenda is to throw out these forces which occupy our geography, that part of Bharatvarsha.
  4. 'Hindu' is also a term which which the British referred to us. They simply adopted the term as it was prevalent in the Indian Subcontinent. It refers to all natives of the Indian Subcontinent, who have not fallen to foreign religions like Islam, Christianity, etc. The British used it for political and administrative purposes, but we accepted it because the 'Hindu' was an inclusive term, to refer to the collective of all Bharatiyas still holding out against the expansionary ideologies.
  5. 'Hindu' is also a term which gave rise to the English term 'Hinduism', the beliefs of the Hindus. As the so called scholars of Europe started studying the 'Hindus', they started to use 'Hinduism' as a category of study, and at some point the term took on a life of its own, and it became the primary term, and the term 'Hindu' the secondary term. Instead of 'Hinduism' being 'the beliefs of the Hindus', 'Hindus' became those who follow 'Hinduism'. So even though the British coined the collective term 'Hinduism' and there is much colonial legacy to it, we accepted the construct "Hindus are the followers of Hinduism" as it paralleled our thinking that a "<adj> Dharmic is one who follows <adj> Dharma". But we must be aware that there is some colonial baggage to it, because the Europeans created the term and have done their own scholarship on it, and this has been continued by the Macaulayites in India as well. But Hindus too have done well to reclaim Hinduism to properly project their beliefs.
  6. Overall, there will always be some confusion as 'Hindu' is a term which over the centuries has both been imposed on us for some reasons, and a term which we also have embraced for other reasons.
One problem I see with using the term 'Hindu' as 'a follower of Hinduism' is that there is also a Nehruvian-Secularism angle to it. It defines the term 'Hindu' by Content Definition, which apart from the boxing of the term, also does another injustice. It hides the true reasons why the Bharatiyas embraced the term:
  1. 'Hindu' means first and foremost Resistance.
  2. 'Hindu' means the rightful inhabitants of the region around Sindhu river.
  3. 'Hindu' means the non-infested Bharatiya Collective.
By promoting the definition of 'Hindu' solely over Content Definition, the sly Nehruvian-Secularists and Macaulayites have further tried to break the Bharatiya Collective. Of course many genuine Hindus too have played along because they felt that the strength of the Abrahamic comes from a strong anchorage not just outwardly through various icons like prophets, holy books, etc. but also because of a strict content code and laws. The genuine Hindus have tried to duplicate the Abrahamic strength through a better Content Definition. Now this is necessary and laudable especially when Hindu society is under siege, and in a market of proselytizing ideologies one needs to better define oneself, but it has contributed to the distortion that the Nehruvian-Secularists already have been promoting.

Based on Content Definition there are a multitude of labels we can use for Orthodox Hinduism, e.g. Arya Dharma sounds perfect. Or something else for that matter.

But IMHO, even as we embrace the term 'Hindu' with all the passion of our hearts, we should purge 'Hinduism' because it is based on Content Definition which basically hides the true revolutionary meaning of 'Hindu' as the Native Resistance.

The 'Hindu' per definition means one who defies expansionary imperialist religious ideologies with foreign centers which have invaded Bharatvarsha.
Last edited by RajeshA on 11 Feb 2013 19:06, edited 2 times in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

harbans wrote:When we talk of Hindutva, for many people in India it implies a rejection also of a lot of other Dharmic strands
harbans ji,

please read my previous post.

The opposition to Hindutva comes because of the confusion caused by the term Hinduism. As European academics, Macaulayites, Nehruvian-Secularists and even genuine Hindus have tried to define Hinduism over Content Definition, i.e. in a way the Abrahamics have done it, it has pushed the other Dharmic traditions away from 'Hindu' whom they now consider to be the follower of 'Hinduism' as defined by the above, and 'Hindutva' a platform to only cater to the interests of Orthodox Hindus defined as such.

However 'Hindutva' was meant as a platform to cater to the 'Hindus' defined not by some Content Definition but rather by the resistance to the foreign expansionary ideologies.

The day Hindus and others would say, "There is no such thing as Hinduism" any resistance by various Dharmic traditions to Hindutva would also evaporate. But this statement has to be understood in the context as explained earlier.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by member_20317 »

The English tried to define/redefine to their advantage before that there were others after that too there would be a lot.

This resistance is what puts in the correct perspective the fact of Partition and continuing of it. The resistance was disadvantaged compared to their opponents that is why the resisting. Had they been stronger they would have been counter attackers and conquerors.

Much the same is happening on this thread too. A small raid and the veterans come to resist and organize but the Dikvijaya aspect is missing.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Do we need 'Hinduism'`?

More specifically the question means "Do we need the term 'Hinduism'"?

Hinduism as stated earlier is a 'term' invented by the British to refer to the "the beliefs of the Hindus, i.e. those native to the Indian Subcontinent, who did not convert to Islam or Christianity".

However instead of remaining subjected and dependent on the 'Hindu', the term 'Hinduism' took a life of its own and it was called a religion. The term 'Hinduism' attained a certain format.

The Europeans initially coined the term 'Hinduism' as a heading for everything they needed to know about our beliefs in order to understand us and to better control us. Later on it was elevated to religion, but it is not. Some genuine 'Hindus' tried to intervene and say, that that is not the case, and that it is more 'a way of life'. But they too gave recognition to the term 'Hinduism'.

Mostly genuine Hindus have accepted the term 'Hinduism' for the following reasons:
  1. The Europeans were studying us under the term 'Hinduism' and the Bharatiyas wanted to have a say in what was being said about us. We were not willing to let the others do all the definition of us. We wanted a say. We wanted to retake ownership of the process of our definition. But in the process we gave legitimacy to the term 'Hinduism', and so it stuck.
  2. Secondly, just like all Abrahamic religions were defined precisely based on various anchors like holy books, prophets, revelations, etc. and these religions were dominating the political power in India, the Hindus too tried formulate our beliefs in a similar format in order to convince the foreign rulers of the legitimacy of our beliefs at least as worthy of respect as their own and we did all that formulation under the heading 'Hinduism' as it was meant for their consideration.
  3. Some of us have accepted that clear definitions such as the Abrahamics enjoy for their religions is a source of strength for them and that is the reason they have been able to expand into India so rapidly and come to dominate us. So we have tried to duplicate a similar Anchor and Content Definition process such as them and we have done that under the moniker 'Hinduism'
But lets be clear, 'Hinduism' is a colonial term, which the Europeans first played around with and then they for various reasons got Hindus to cooperate in fleshing out. This term and its format does not harmonize well with our Dharma and if we nourish it, it would continue to bite us, because it would decide what the Hindus, the Aryas, the Dharmics should believe in. We will never be able to do our beliefs justice if we pack our beliefs in this container, which has been under the control of others, who have not meant us Hindus well. The term 'Hinduism' distorts reality and imprisons us in another colonial structure.

Just as 'Hindu' means Target from the Abrahamic PoV and 'Hindu' means Resistance from our PoV, 'Hinduism' means 'the beliefs of the Target' as the term 'Hinduism' was initially used from the colonial PoV. Genuine Hindus cannot make it our own by diverting all our beliefs earlier expressed natively into this colonial construct. From our PoV if 'Hindu' is The Resistance, 'Hinduism' can only mean 'belief in resistance', but that is not the semantic that is normally used. Taking the initiative of the colonials further, we have been trying to define 'Hinduism' through Content Definition, which distorts the meaning of Hindu.

Hindutva is a movement to serve Hindus, that is all the Bharatiyas who have not submitted to foreign imperialist religious ideologies, and of course this includes nourishing the Dharmic Tree, including Sanatan Dharma. Hindutva is however not a platform for 'Hinduism' which is nothing more than another foreign construct used to dupe Hindus. "The beliefs of the Hindus" cannot be defined by a foreign moniker.

Hindus mean the Resistance! Hinduism means nothing!

As such it would be difficult to spell out the Content Definition of the beliefs of the Hindus/Bharatiyas as it is an ever evolving and diversifying cultural and philosophical entity, but we can do Content Definition of say the major traditions and collectively use the term 'Dharmic Traditions' to refer to them for the moment, as Rajiv Malhotra has done, i.e. due to pragmatic reasons - in order to better demarcate and define ourselves.

Content Definition of our Beliefs should be done not in our mode of 'Hindus', i.e. The Resistance, but in our mode as 'Arya', or 'Dharmics', i.e. in the native way. Resistance is always imposed from the outside. But if we wish to define ourselves in a positive manner, in the sense of not 'what we are not' but rather 'what we are', then that has to be done on our terms, in a native manner, using native terminology, and not the term 'Hinduism'.

To some extent, I am myself surprised I am advocating this considering I used to consider my religion to be 'Hinduism' not many hours ago but I cannot escape the above logic.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Do we need 'Hinduism'`?

We have actually invested a lot in the term 'Hinduism' and in fact some of us have embraced it as our religion. We have nurtured this term with our beliefs, with our identities, with our vision, but is this justified?

What are the Pros?
  1. It is a collective term, and all the beliefs of the Hindus can be considered within.
  2. It is a recognizable and established category. Genuine Hindus have invested quite a bit into this term.
What are the Cons?
  1. The term 'Hindu' was accepted by the Bharatiyas under a certain context of Resistance. The term 'Hinduism' distorts the context in which the term 'Hindu' was embraced.
  2. The term 'Hinduism' is heavily laden with colonial baggage, e.g. European theories on castes, etc. are all part of 'Hinduism'.
  3. Whereas the term 'Hindu' was supposed to bring the Bharatiya people together, the term 'Hinduism' creates a rift between the Dharmic traditions, thus blocking the use of 'Hindu' as a determiner of our national identity. The Constitution says Hindus include Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and the tribals are also included de-facto, but they all say "no we do not belong together with you."
  4. People associate Hindutva platform with Hinduism as understood by Content Definition, i.e. Hindutva is a platform for only the interest of Orthodox Hindus, and not for others, whereas Hindutva has nothing to do with any particular Moksha Marg and is interested mostly with continuing resistance under the Hindu banner, resistance which started centuries ago against the Abrahamic takeover of India, whose aim was to smother the freedom of faith of the Bharatiyas.
  5. Through the clever use of the nature of 'Hinduism', detractors of Hindus have been able to create other categories like 'Dalits' in opposition to "believers of (Orthodox) Hinduism" and have tried to break the unity of Hindus further.

Just think, we have been fighting over whether castes belong to Hinduism or not, whether Sati belongs to Hinduism or not, even though Hinduism is not even a real religion but some construct formulated by British scholars, which genuine Hindus have tried to influence but the constructs of caste, widow treatment, untouchability, Sati, and all that baggage remains within and can be used as and when the detractors please. How can we allow the colonials to say, "your religion would be called Hinduism from now on!"

So why not say it out loud, "There is no such thing as Hinduism. It is not our religion". And then one can force our detractors to discuss our Moksha Margs, our Samskars on our terms with out definitions, with our contexts.

Also then one can talk about Puruṣārtha, about Dharma, Artha and Kama being separate from Moksha Margs, and even if Dharmic Traditions differ on Moksha Margs, all can agree on Dharma, Artha and Kama.

Yes with the demise of the term 'Hinduism', we may need some other collective term, but that can be arranged.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

johneeG wrote:About Harbans' stand:
So far, my impression is that he is not just opposing the 'term' Hinduism, he is actually denying the very existence of Hinduism. And if he acknowledges it, he considers it to be a narrow grouping that must be done away with. In short, he is against Hinduism/SD, not just the term. Instead, he is proposing a larger grouping under new label. Of course, the first step is for Hindus to give up Hinduism/SD. Do you agree with him?
johneeG ji,

In the meanwhile I too oppose the term 'Hinduism', but I do so because I think it distorts the meaning of 'Hindu' as well as harms the interests of the Hindus, as the term has not been sanctioned or elaborated upon by any of our scriptures, but has included in it lots of prejudiced and mischievous European inputs.

We should embrace the terms 'Hindu' and 'Hindutva' but reject the term 'Hinduism'!
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Atri Mahasaya,

Here is the proof on my salami slicing post and manufactured stampedes. I am posting just one sample. You can read more comments at the link provided...
http://www.firstpost.com/india/allahaba ... 20490.html
Ashu • 7 hours ago −
No idea what kind of religion we are following. People are crazy to take bath at Kumbh mela, dirtying the water of river Ganga. Men are roaming around naked in full glare of public & camera and doing all obscene acts. Gathering of such a huge crowd still shows how backward India and Indian mentality are. We think that bathing in river can clean-up all our sin but we do not want to clean-up the mess that we create each day. Even these naga akhada once known as pinnacle of honesty and sadhuism, now bring beggars and other poor people and ask them to take naked bath in shahi snan, in return of some food and money just to show their strength. And above all, after taking dip at holy Ganga, many people were trying to have free ride on trains, seems like they went to Kumbh to reset the sin count. Pathetic.
Post Reply