The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji, ultimately if one has to unite, it's the part you are possibly glossing thinly over that needs focus on a primary basis. Ethos, the 'feel good' stuff. We have evolved here from sampradayic loyalty to an over arching need for dharmic loyalty. Dharma over the Sampradaya as outlook for the State. Agree. Now if i have the feel good stuff also aligned firmly with Dharma..what is ideally left for Islam and Xtian'ism to fight with at a doctrinal level?

Given a Dharmic States' guidelines that can evolve slowly with the core definitions and the feel good stuff as primary, opposition amongst Xtian and Muslim masses will cease. Conversion may be not to sampradaya loyalties but to Dharmic loyalties themselves will increase substantially. We have to focus a lot on the soft options rather than vengeance based hard ones. If one thinks deeper, we have never played a soft option. We have not given trapped people within excluvist doctrines a fair chance to come out in strength. The Sampradaya's have closed doors on them in many ways. The Dharmic primary needs both to welcome and protect those that may be victims because of making that decision.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh Ji, ultimately if one has to unite, it's the part you are possibly glossing thinly over that needs focus on a primary basis. Ethos, the 'feel good' stuff. We have evolved here from sampradayic loyalty to an over arching need for dharmic loyalty. Dharma over the Sampradaya as outlook for the State. Agree. Now if i have the feel good stuff also aligned firmly with Dharma..what is ideally left for Islam and Xtian'ism to fight with at a doctrinal level?

Given a Dharmic States' guidelines that can evolve slowly with the core definitions and the feel good stuff as primary, opposition amongst Xtian and Muslim masses will cease. Conversion may be not to sampradaya loyalties but to Dharmic loyalties themselves will increase substantially. We have to focus a lot on the soft options rather than vengeance based hard ones. If one thinks deeper, we have never played a soft option. We have not given trapped people within excluvist doctrines a fair chance to come out in strength. The Sampradaya's have closed doors on them in many ways. The Dharmic primary needs both to welcome and protect those that may be victims because of making that decision.

harbans ji,

Some soft options that have already been mentioned as part of Dharma:

1. Faith in the intrinsic capacity of the Atma/Self. => Liberty
2. All are 'Self' => Equality
3. Rashtra as Facilitator => Empowerment
4. Education, Education, Education
5. Recognizing Merit
6. Fair Competition
7. Selflessness, Community-work
8. Respect for "dharmically-enlightened" people
9. Dharmic Individualism

Over several posts I tried to show how all these derive from the basic tenet of being Dharmic. There are many more which can be derived or postulated. The focus has not been solely on hard attributes.

[RajeshA]

Stopping Foreign Financing and Influence/Control of Religious Institutions in India


Cross-Posting from "Cultural Protectionism - Global & Indian Trends" Thread

It is perhaps taken for granted in the Christian community that they should go out and do charity, and I applaud the sentiment.

Another thing that is often taken for granted is that it is okay to receive money from outside India to do 'good' within India. Such money transactions create a dependency relationship, even if the intention of some is for doing 'good'. Subtle proselytization rides piggyback on this carrier wave of charity and humanitarian work. That proselytization is intended towards a certain faith, towards a certain sect, towards a certain group, towards a certain individual residing outside India.

It creates bonds of dependence, and it feeds an agenda of the foreigner. It gives the foreigner undue influence within the Indian society, and that too, through the institution of religion - one of the strongest means of influence over an individual.

The Indian State needs to ensure that

1. No ideological dependency is created between charity in India and funding from outside
2. No funding is allowed to religious institutions inside India from outside

A) I propose a system

1. NGOs register themselves for Humanitarian & Environmental Work
2. These NGOs register themselves as open to receiving foreign donations (indirectly, see below)
3. These NGOs are to work under full and transparent accountability standards
4. These NGOs can register themselves for operating in various regions and for various causes
5. These NGOs are not allowed to be associated with any religious institutions
   • receiving any financial support,
   • entertaining visits by religious figures,
   • visiting religious congregations
6. All foreign funding for humanitarian and environmental work is paid into a single National Charity Account for Foreign Donations
7. Every donation is marked with requests for funding some region, some cause, etc.
8. The donations are distributed by the State to all such NGOs accordingly depending on their line and quality of work

Thus the foreigners can determine where in India they can send funds (at district level), for what causes (other than ideological), but they cannot determine who gets the money to do that work, nor should they be able to determine what kind of ideological messaging is being sent to the recipients of such charity.

Mind you, there can be religion-based NGOs doing humanitarian and environmental work, but they would have to generate their funding from within the country, from organizations and individuals, who are known to not have connections with foreign religious entities (to prevent indirect funding).

So Christian organizations are free to do charity work, if they wish, but they would have to generate their resources in India itself. Same would be the case with other faiths as well.

B ) All foreign funding of religious institutions should be terminated. Not even for the upkeep of their buildings of worship, for which these religious institutions are free to approach the Govt. for upkeep of historically important buildings.

All religious institutions in India should have zero financial dependence on the outside world. Religion is far too much of an influence over the behavior and outlook of a person to allow foreign entities to manipulate it. Money is the most effective forms of influence.

Indian religious institutions are of course free to receive foreign spiritual leaders, but no money from them!

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji, you are a terrible sort of man and so was/is sudarshanji,

I had avoided sudarshan ji in the Indic cultural renewal thread. The scope of the thread was limited and the scope & scale of differences/agreeements just did not justify an engagement.

But as I get it sudarshan ji is talking about the inherent limitations of a system designed around feelings/desires. He is taking lots of pains to put across how the various sampradayas are on common ground, at least, as regards this much and how the system has to be based instead on:

1) a sufficiently large (all encompassing) frame of reference for the frame, to be regarded/disregarded with equanimity, from the generic temporal life; and

2) a consistency in the continuity of life in all its facets and levels, which again is desperately sought by all sampradayas.

Both these bases, as they stand are entirely inconsistent with the 'other'.

You have also taken pains to explain how in the absence of the any agreement on these, the kaam chalau solution, the jugaad, is the multiple safety nets provided in the Constitution for the general well being. Right to Khao/Piyo/Mauj karo kind of Statutory stuff.

You also went on to clarify how nobody is sought to be denied, even if being kept out of a system he/she may not have bought into in the first place due primarily to artificial pressures that the said he/she may have taken on.

harbans ji's point about the 'feel good factor' while irritating, is something that we need to see at least once to understand how to properly reject it, if we have to, else to properly accept it, if we have to. His desires have been persistent enough for this 'feel good factor' to be turned into sudarshan ji's cat.

Schroedinger’s cat? It depends on the desires of the relevant observers and the consequences of their actions. However – the cat is itself an observer.

While this has been put in so many words at so many places in the forums in so many threads that it all becomes a hell of a lot trite to do that again. But then persistence has it rewards too. These cannot simply be denied.


What say you?

[harbans]

harbans ji's point about the 'feel good factor' while irritating, is something that we need to see at least once to understand how to properly reject it,

Cut the crap Ravi G. If you have anything against Value systems a state reflects say so. The very fact that you are pre motivated to reject, depicts lack of objectivity. Hence miles of spin around your pre meditated opinions hardly matter, you've already made a judgement. Only thing self evident is you need help from others pushing in spin to reject what you want to already reject.

To the large sections of the public the image of the hindutvaadi goes out as loud, arrogant, brash, KFC and couple batoning goons spearheaded by Bal and Raj thackeray types. And that image is true. If that is the image that one wants to dole out, then Islamist and Xtian groups really don't have much effort to put in.

Despite whatever efforts Lance Armstrong had put in, ultimately he will be known for his untruth. Whatever Ravana may have been as Vedic and Shastra scholar he will be known for his character or lack of it. The list is endless. You reject it foolishly at your own peril.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ While I had argued with harbans ji earlier on principle, I would like to add:

Observation shows that there are only two 'psychological' conditions where people are inclined to give values the short shrift and become devotees of "pragmatism". The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum of truth:

One is an enlightened mentality, free of ignorant reactions based on pain or memories of pain. Where the method of handling people is based on creative enthusiasm and vitality, backed up by reason. Creative solutions are sought, from inspiration, and requiring persistence and patience. As a last resort, force or deception may be used to fight off an ignorant attacker in order to create space for what is better.

The other is a mentality that is well on its way to actually succumbing, and which is based on a punishment drive, or worse, is based on the constant nullification of the other. This is teetering on the brink of apathy and depression, and is deathbound. It cannot reason, cannot communicate with the other, and basically falls back on a deluded "faith" in the fundamental duality of identities.

Personally, while I do disagree with harbans ji on philosophical principle, I think he sounds an important warning, because there is a fair bit of tamas in Hindu society and that often embraces a taqiyya or a specious "dharma-yuddha" ideology, without any real dharmic change to self.

If an upsurge along dharmic lines is tinged with anger or hostility, I have no problem. But if the external threat is the focus, then it is a problem. Inspired ethics and a vital moral code for a young nation are certainly the need of the hour, and I wholeheartedly agree with harbans on this point. One hopes that the sadhu samaj enjoins this and participates in the rise. Gurus like Baba Ramdev, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, etc., as well as non-"guru" based groups.

Moral leadership is important in putting the "varna" into varnashrama.

[sudarshan]

X-Post

OT

sudarshan ji,

I have cross-posted your posts there. You are of course welcome to contribute. I also re-read your posts and there is some very strong logic in them.

Thank you, saar . But like I keep saying, this is simply my understanding of the logic of SD itself. If the logic is correct, then all credit goes to the geniuses (genii? no, geniuses, I'm sure) who came up with the scientific basis of Vedanta. As also the geniuses who put that scientific logic into enticing stories in the Puranas and Upanishads and the epics.

OTOH, if the logic is false, then that's most likely my incorrect understanding.

Ravi_g, I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know where you're coming from. Do you have any points against the logic I was showing? Like when you say:

RajeshA ji, you are a terrible sort of man and so was/is sudarshanji,

I had avoided sudarshan ji in the Indic cultural renewal thread. The scope of the thread was limited and the scope & scale of differences/agreeements just did not justify an engagement.

Meaning? There's a lot you disagree with? Confused onlee.

[Agnimitra]

Been thinking more about the debate between harbans ji's viewpoint and Rudradev ji's viewpoint on "values" versus "pragmatism". I took these thoughts, some earlier posts I had written long back, and then added some. Put it up here: feedback is welcome.

Who's "communal?" - 'Asmita' politics vs. identity politics - Moral leadership in politics.

[Prem]

A Descendent of Tope Fires the Tope.

Hinduism Calls For An Armed And Vigilant Society

A letter from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) to President Barack Obama proposing new gun control laws claims to be a message containing the Hindu viewpoint. As a person whose ancestor, Tatya Tope, took up arms and died fighting English oppression while leading the Anglo-Indian war of 1857, I find HAF's proposals not only offensive to me as an individual, but also a deliberate and mischievous interpretation of Hindu thought, teachings, and experience in order to advance its political objectives. After the 1857 war, the English created laws to disarm the Indian population. Writing in his autobiography, M. K. Gandhi termed this disarming of India as the blackest misdeed perpetrated by the English.By putting the claim of collective good at the forefront of its argument, HAF has blindly adopted the position of those who label themselves "progressives" and has tried passing it off as the position of Hindus in America. Hindus are active in a broad spectrum of the productive sectors of the American economy and are known to oppose government regulations in overwhelming numbers. Therefore, HAF's position is at odds with facts and it cannot be accepted as the representative voice of Hindus in America.
Hinduism's long continuity has rested on three pillars. First, the traditions and festivals that Hindus follow. Second, the stories that have been passed on across generations, and third, the philosophies that have been preserved in various forms. While this triad encompasses a broad spectrum of ideas, there is one theme that is consistent across all of them. Resisting oppression. This holds particularly true in the countless stories that retell how oppressive forces were defeated using weapons, and in the corresponding festivals that celebrate the successes in defeating such oppressive forces.
Hindu society looked to their kings as leaders, but never outsourced its security entirely to the kings. In fact, the society specifically structured itself so that a significant portion of the civilian population armed itself, and accepted the responsibility of defense against any form of oppression, even their king if necessary. Defending the population became their duty, even if they were not on the payroll of the king. This idea of self-reliance is not only key to the structure of Hindu society, but is also represented in several stories and is consistent with Hindu tradition.
This tradition was put into practice during the Anglo-Indian war of 1857. The English rule was oppressive not only in an economic context, but also in creating laws that interfered with Hindu traditions and customs. This war against the English was led by both men and women leaders such as Nana Saheb, Baija Bai Shinde, Lakshmi Bai, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Firoz Shah, Tatya Tope amongst several others. While the planning of the war was done by the leaders, they received resounding civilian support in the form of transportation, supply logistics, and also military enlistment. When the war did not subside even after most Indian leaders were killed, the English publicized a treaty with the Indian population. In the terms of the declaration, the English withdrew the oppressive laws and scaled back their interference in Hindu traditions even as they continued their economic plunder.This partial victory in the war of 1857 was the result of a large-scale civilian contribution to an armed resistance against an intrusive and oppressive government. This demonstration of voluntary support is rooted in the Hindu experience, which encourages individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions.
The idea that society must defend itself has been celebrated for thousands of years in an annual festival called Vijaya Dashmi (the day of victory). On this day many Hindus perform an important ritual called Shastra Puja (Sanskrit for "honoring weapons") which is a celebration of the day when the Hindu hero Arjuna emerged victorious in a just war after retrieving his weapons that he had hidden away. The weapons used during this festival have changed over time, and today, the weapons in a typical Shastra Puja include not only swords, but also guns of all types. Honoring them as part of a festival publicly demonstrates the underlying desire for self-reliance of individuals in society.This idea of self-reliance is a recurring theme in Hindu thought, be it of the mind, body, or society. This particular aspect of Hindu tradition is consistent with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, like many Hindus, I explicitly support the constitutional right to bear arms.
Any attempt to negate this right is not only against the ideas in the Second Amendment but also against long-standing Hindu tradition and wisdom. HAF's document containing suggestions to deal with the imagined problem due to the existence of guns in USA simply repeats the points authored by some far-left group.
HAF describes itself as a "progressive" Hindu voice and demands an invasion into the privacy of law-abiding citizens who have purchased weapons by asking the government to maintain the records of "buyers whose NICS background checks were approved." It also calls for outlawing weapons capable of inflicting "widespread harm" using language that can be used to justify a complete ban on the possession of weapons. This call for a ban on gun ownership in society is an eerie reminder of the disarming of India and the oppressive English rule that followed. Hindus should remember that the infamous Jallianwala Bagh (Amritsar) massacre of 1919 took place after India was disarmed. It was ordered by an English general on an unarmed public gathering that included men, women, senior citizens, and children, and over a thousand people were killed in a matter of minutes.
Over the past few decades, Hindus have been the first targets of the global leftist movement and have been repeatedly attacked and demonized as "violators of human rights" when they have used arms to defend themselves against terrorism, especially communist terrorism. Hindus in India have also been victims of the Indian government which has imposed the alien concept of socialism on them against their will.Hindus in the U.S., whose traditions and festivals hold a special place for fighting oppressive forces, should reject HAF's cynical call to impose restrictions on the society's ability to defend itself against any oppression. They should also reject HAF's request to the government to "urge" the media to carry only those messages sanitized by the government and thus trample on free-speech rights. In addition, the call to divert taxpayer funds to leftist political groups and their allies for conducting "research on guns, gun violence, etc." should be firmly rejected.

[Pranav]

Now if i have the feel good stuff also aligned firmly with Dharma...

The generic feel-good values stuff is not enough imho.

Dharma gives a comprehensive model of the universe, and those axioms do lead, under normal conditions, to the generic feel-good ideas.

For example, "love thy neighbour" is, under normal circumstances, a consequence of a deeper Advaita idea of the unity of the universe.

But there are cases in which the generic feel-good concepts are inadequate, just as there are cases in which Newton's laws of motion don't give the correct results.

MK Gandhi's dogmatic ideas regarding non-violence are one example of such misguided thinking. The concept of "Ahimsa" which Patanjali talks about has a different meaning - it is absence of desire for violence.

[RajeshA]

harbans ji's point about the 'feel good factor' while irritating, is something that we need to see at least once to understand how to properly reject it,

Cut the crap Ravi G. If you have anything against Value systems a state reflects say so. The very fact that you are pre motivated to reject, depicts lack of objectivity. Hence miles of spin around your pre meditated opinions hardly matter, you've already made a judgement. Only thing self evident is you need help from others pushing in spin to reject what you want to already reject.

Despite whatever efforts Lance Armstrong had put in, ultimately he will be known for his untruth. Whatever Ravana may have been as Vedic and Shastra scholar he will be known for his character or lack of it. The list is endless. You reject it foolishly at your own peril.

harbans ji,

for a moment, imagine that nobody here understands what Truth or Compassion, two "values" you have quoted often, are. They could be the name of two birds on some tree branch or a new kind of bacteria, let's say we don't know. Please try to explain to us,

1. what they are?
2. how these are derived from Dharma?
3. how they work at the Rashtra level?
4. why are they relevant to us?

Please try to do so WITHOUT mere examples!

To the large sections of the public the image of the hindutvaadi goes out as loud, arrogant, brash, KFC and couple batoning goons spearheaded by Bal and Raj thackeray types. And that image is true. If that is the image that one wants to dole out, then Islamist and Xtian groups really don't have much effort to put in.

This public image could simply be the creation of the Nehruvian-Secularist media, aka media sympathetic to the Islamo-Christianist Platform. Or may be there is some truth to it.

Could you go beyond the image, as you say "that image is true", and do an analysis of

1. what were the stated motives of the Hindutvavadis behind the actions, which you refer to?
2. from what political-philosophy, in your opinion, do those motives arise? (Some elaboration).
3. keeping in mind those motives, what would have been better alternatives?
4. why did the media project those actions the way they did?

That would help clear up some of the misunderstandings!

[RajeshA]

Been thinking more about the debate between harbans ji's viewpoint and Rudradev ji's viewpoint on "values" versus "pragmatism". I took these thoughts, some earlier posts I had written long back, and then added some. Put it up here: feedback is welcome.

Who's "communal?" - 'Asmita' politics vs. identity politics - Moral leadership in politics.

Good ideas to ponder upon. Would take them up later.

Carl ji,

the first two figures/images were not visible.

• fields (or scopes) of work
• levels of commitment within any field of work

[Agnimitra]

Who's "communal?" - 'Asmita' politics vs. identity politics - Moral leadership in politics.

the first two figures/images were not visible.

Huh. I re-loaded them on the blog. Visible now?
Here they are anyway:


and:

[member_20317]

Ravi_g, I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know where you're coming from. Do you have any points against the logic I was showing? Like when you say:

RajeshA ji, you are a terrible sort of man and so was/is sudarshanji,

I had avoided sudarshan ji in the Indic cultural renewal thread. The scope of the thread was limited and the scope & scale of differences/agreeements just did not justify an engagement.

Meaning? There's a lot you disagree with? Confused onlee.

Sudarshan ji,

The coherence you talked about between your posts and the background, is here, on this thread where the field is wide open for that sort of ideation/inquiry.

And my reference to your terrible visage had nothing to do with the ‘feel good/feel bad’ content of it. To use an example, Maharishi Durvasa was the enfant terrible of the yogic world, but that does not mean the characterization has any ‘feel good/feel bad content’ in it. It happens at times people do move along the path till quite far and when put over the counter these inquiry becomes intimidating for others. It was for me w.r.t. your treatment of the subject. In this respect RajeshA ji and several others, stand on the same platform. Hope you realize being in awe is not unnatural? Nature of the beast.

Also I am at present unable to disagree. So what remains to engage on? Har post mein ek dusre ki peeth bhi to nahi thok sakte. But then again, perhaps at some point I may disagree. My bet is the disagreement would be superficial and not fundamental (kind of like your transmission and my reception being translated). In that case would you doubt that my reaction would be different from yours. You tried in your own way to bridge the apparent gaps that you encountered and dedicated your efforts to the stalwarts before you. Valid enough for me to follow on, I would say.

Also this is not a ‘tareefon ke pul’/’chane ka jhaad’ that I am pushing you along. It is an equally likely case that I recognized your efforts (or those of several others) because I have walked a similar path in a different direction.

All this was an attempt to put things in perspective. Hope I was successful.


---------------------------------

harbans ji, I see some of my gurujan have already started the process. I reserve the right to join in.

[RajeshA]

The other is a mentality that is well on its way to actually succumbing, and which is based on a punishment drive, or worse, is based on the constant nullification of the other. This is teetering on the brink of apathy and depression, and is deathbound. It cannot reason, cannot communicate with the other, and basically falls back on a deluded "faith" in the fundamental duality of identities.

Personally, while I do disagree with harbans ji on philosophical principle, I think he sounds an important warning, because there is a fair bit of tamas in Hindu society and that often embraces a taqiyya or a specious "dharma-yuddha" ideology, without any real dharmic change to self.

If an upsurge along dharmic lines is tinged with anger or hostility, I have no problem. But if the external threat is the focus, then it is a problem.

Carl ji,

you bring up a good point. This point also has to do with moral leadership.

I personally think that the Hindutva movement has been a huge failure, and I would say, not because of any ideological weakness as espoused by Veer Savarkar but due to comprehensive weakness in the leadership and an inability to timely act upon a cogent strategy.

I very much support

if the external threat is the focus

way.

However if one wants to counteract the external threat, one really needs to consolidate that what one protects behind oneself, and that includes institutions, communities, economics, kshatriyata and morality (one's own).

It does not really bring anything to fight against an external threat trying to save the heart of a civilization, when one has placed the heart in a puddle of acid on the ground to be eaten away, in the mistaken view that it is safe.

We come again to your imagery of solvent to describe the social-political-cultural environment. The solvent right now in India is a mixture of Nehruvian-Secularism (Islamo-Christianism), Cultural Marxism, Macaulayism, Yuppieism, Jaati-Consciousness, and some good old legacy Dharmic traditions. Add to that grinding poverty, middle-class competition, elite deracination and corporate politicization. That creates a brew in which the strength of the Dharmic weakens considerably.

The poor, the rural people, the lower middle-class, they retain their Samskaras but also their Jaati-Consciousness. However they are involved in making ends meet that there is little time left for Dharmic introspection. As we go up the economic ladder, the dog eats dog thinking remains. And all this time, the Hindutva Platform has been mired up only in organizational matters. The iron grip of Nehruvian-Secularism (Islamo-Christianism) over the Indian polity has meant that they could control the pH of this solvent, the CO₂ in the air [Fringe], the temperature of the environment [Borg] to suit themselves.

The non-Dharmic component in the solvent is much much stronger than the Dharmic component. And the Hindutva Platform failed to realize that one cannot leave the heart of a Civilization in the custody of a system which was the continuation of the deracinating strategy of the British - the Macaulayist system.

I think there were two heavy setbacks for the Hindutva - one inflicted on them and one self-inflicted. M.K. Gandhi's death at the hands of Godse was I believe an inflicted setback. It is my view with that act, the British wanted to sideline Hindutvavadis completely from partnership and say in nation-building. In Godse they found a pliable tool. One has to give it some thought why it was the British who made the film "Gandhi".

The self-inflicted setback was that the Hindutvavadis did not push for Sanskrit as the sole national language and advocated Hindi, thus allowing English to co-exist and thrive even further. Sanskrit is the soul of Bharatiya Civilization, and they did not grab the chance to set it right.

In the mean time this solvent has been eating up the Dharmic in society, as termites eat through wood. So the Hindutvavadi focus on the external is correct but not sufficient.

What was important was not only a Purva-Paksha of Islam and Christianity, but also a Purva-Paksha of the British and later on of Nehruvian-Secularism. More importantly the Hindutvavadis lost due to political and media strategy. In fact they believed they could find common ground with Nehruvian-Secularism for the sake of national interest, where there was none to be found as the goal of Nehruvian-Secularism was simply to kill off Hindutva.

Today it is unclear if the heart of the civilization still beats to the Dharmic tune after so much social-cultural engineering at the grassroots level through the Nehruvian-Secularism brand of politics.

So yes, I believe it is important to make the solvent as Dharmic as possible and to ideologically finish off Nehruvian-Secularists (Islamo-Christianists), Cultural Marxists and Macaulayists and to realign Yuppieists and Jaati-Conscious ideologies to Dharmic and Hindutva revival.

To a large extent it can be done through Purva Paksha of the other, that is clarifying to the people what the other is, and to a large extent it has to be done through a program of 'Asmita politics' as you put it.

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

now the images are visible.

[Rudradev]

Been thinking more about the debate between harbans ji's viewpoint and Rudradev ji's viewpoint on "values" versus "pragmatism". .

Carl ji, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my viewpoint as one primarily defined by "pragmatism." I have indeed argued the pragmatic position on Hindu identity, and on questions such as the current semantic status of words like "Dharma", in separate exchanges with Shaurya and Pranav-ji. With respect to Harbans-ji's viewpoint, my primary disagreement stems not from "pragmatism" but from the importance of context.

I contend that "Values" devoid of Context are meaningless abstractions; just as, for example, Words without Language are meaningless mouth-noises. I have an understanding of specific values that was defined completely by how those values were explained to me, practiced by me in my own conduct, and illuminated for me through my experience of the conduct of others, during the course of my upbringing. That upbringing occurred in a certain type of family and society, in a certain part of the world, speaking a certain language, following certain norms, observing certain traditions. My Hindu identity is not the wellspring of my values, but it is a twin sibling to my values. Both arose from a cultural context that has shaped every aspect of my consciousness since I came into the world.

To reject my Hindu identity while embracing an empty Value Set populated by such phrases as "Dharma", "Honesty", "Truth" etc. would be the most Adharmic act in the world. I cannot imagine anything more dishonest than proposing a state constitution based on "Truth" while setting aside the entire cultural context which gives the word "Truth" any meaning for me.

In your blog post you write of Narendra Modi's "Asmita" politics, which you position in antithesis to "identity" politics. However, this is not at all germane to my position, because I specifically emphasize "identity" as a function of cultural context rather than "identity politics" (wherein emblems of cultural context are worn on one's sleeve as the sole justification for one's political positions.) Identity politics may not have much in common with NM's "Asmita" politics, but identity (in the sense of cultural context) very much does.

When Modi talks of "inspiration, dignity, pride in one's work"... he uses these terms (yes, they are "values") in a fashion that is apparently bereft of overt cultural or religious symbolism. He does this with the comfort of knowing that the cultural context in which these values lie embedded is implicit, and need not be spoken out loud. Narendra Modi knows who his audience are. He knows that his audience derive their specific appreciation of "inspiration, dignity, pride in one's work" from the vast framework of epics, kathas, neeti, traditions, norms and, yes, rituals that have surrounded and nurtured their understanding of the world from the moment they appeared in it. Narendra Modi can base a platform on "Asmita" because "Asmita" means something very specific and very evocative to an electorate that shares his cultural context.

Just as, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt could inspire a generation of Americans to rise from the depths of the great depression and march on to global economic dominance, by espousing values of hard work, individual responsibility, fearlessness and perseverance; not because these words have any intrinsic or absolute meaning, but because Americans of the 1930s understood them in the context of Protestant Ethics, a cornerstone of American cultural identity. Just as the Guomindang was able to transform Taiwan from a provincial, refugee-ridden backwater into one of Asia's principal economic powers, by appealing to values inalienably embedded within the Confucian cultural context.

All this was "Asmita" politics as well, and every bit of its success rested on the resonance of ideas in well-defined cultural contexts. FDR's politics might have been "Asmita" in contrast to those of his contemporary, Hitler, who clearly practiced "identity politics" in a much more overt sense. Yet, both systems depended equally and completely on the cultural identities of their respective nations for the "values" they espoused to have any legs whatsoever.

My understanding of "Truth" has more in common with another Hindu's understanding of "Truth" than it does with an American's, or a Taiwanese's. There exist some global commonalities between all these concepts, sure, but these are to be regarded with a critical eye, since they represent happy hunting grounds for systems of predatory universalism to pick off the unwary and culturally unmoored. Ultimately my "Truth" is satya; the American's truth derives ultimately from an understanding of the Biblical "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"; and the Taiwanese's "Truth" is something else again. Each of these interpretatons of "Truth" has diverse implications that reach very far indeed, in terms of personal, social and national conduct. Why is my "Truth" = "satya" rather than "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour?" Because I am a Hindu. If I abandon the "Hindu" part of my identity I am immediately espousing asatya of the worst degree. What use is "Truth" to me then? It is an empty value, a nonentity, and not fit to live a single day on let alone build the constitution of a state. It is "10.2". Q.E.D.

[Agnimitra]

Rudradev guru,

Absolutely agree. I'm sorry if I misrepresented your views - I didn't mean to say that you were advocating a shallow "pragmatism", but rather that that was the way harbans ji seemed to be misunderstanding it.

Yes, 'Asmita' appears as an identity at the point of departure, but in its depth of contextual iterations it is actually the involute of an entire civilization that plays out when it gets to blossom via its own pragmatics! Very different from the stale and entrenched "identity" used in common identity politics, which are merely upAdhi-s.

if one wants to counteract the external threat, one really needs to consolidate that what one protects behind oneself, and that includes institutions, communities, economics, kshatriyata and morality (one's own).

It does not really bring anything to fight against an external threat trying to save the heart of a civilization, when one has placed the heart in a puddle of acid on the ground to be eaten away, in the mistaken view that it is safe.

RajeshA ji, I feel we're both saying the same thing but in two different ways. That's what I meant when I criticized making the "external threat the focus". I agree with you that some of Hindutva politics has failed and even is an obstacle, and personally I hope that more grassroots work is done at a more sensible level by sadhu jan, intellectual leaders and sharper politicians. I wonder if this may have been the thinking of people like K.N. Govindacharya ji when he walked out of the BJP years ago? He criticized the "unscientific" politics that had gotten into the party's habits.

[Sanku]

^^^
Unfortunately many times the reasons are far more prosaic, in Govindachyara-jis case, it was merely ego. "Why is my pov not being given executive prominence now that we have power"

[RajeshA]

if one wants to counteract the external threat, one really needs to consolidate that what one protects behind oneself, and that includes institutions, communities, economics, kshatriyata and morality (one's own).

It does not really bring anything to fight against an external threat trying to save the heart of a civilization, when one has placed the heart in a puddle of acid on the ground to be eaten away, in the mistaken view that it is safe.

RajeshA ji, I feel we're both saying the same thing but in two different ways.

Well there are things that need to be said in as many ways as possible.

I wonder if this may have been the thinking of people like K.N. Govindacharya ji when he walked out of the BJP years ago? He criticized the "unscientific" politics that had gotten into the party's habits.

Profile of K.N. Govindacharya

K. N. Govindacharya was born in the holy city of Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh. His father Shri Nil Meghacharya moved to Varanasi as a lecturer in Sanskrit University when child Govindacharya was of very tender age. Child K.N. Govindacharya started his academic pursuit in Varanasi. He completed his M.sc. from Banaras Hindu University in 1962. As a student in Various stages, Mr. K.N. Govindacharya was very active and closely associated with Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. He became a full fledged RSS Pracharak in 1965.

1974 was a turning point in the history of Indian politics when Shri Jayaprakash Narayan gave the call of Sampurna Kranti (Total Revolution). Shri K.N. Govindacharya played a crucial role in the movement , popularly called as JP movement . At that time he was working in Bihar as Sangh Pracharak. After JP movement he was asked by Sangh leadership to work in Akhil Bhartitya Vidyarthi Parishad, a student wing of RSS. In 1988 RSS sent him to work in Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). He gave his services to the Party till the year 2000.

During his tenure as General Secretary, BJP acquired the status of a ntional Party. He was considered chief ideologue for Bharatiya Janata Party and the brain behind several successful campaigns including Ram Janmbhumi Movement. Legendry Rath Yatra was conceived by shri Govindacharyaji which was undertaken by Shri LK Advani. Shri LK Advani owes a lot to Shri KN Govindacharya. He was the chief architect of the party in mid- 90’s and was responsible for the social engineering philosophy. He stands for Equal Opportunities. He promoted and pioneered Swadeshi and Hindutva Revival.

Govindacharyaji is a walking University on several issues. He forsaw the disastrous impact of Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations and the prospects of World Trade Organization (WTO). His vision for India did not fit India joining the WTO in mid 1990s. It was very much agonizing for him when he found that not only BJP, but all the mainstream political parties are more than willing to follow the dictates of the WTO without caring for its implications. In this background Shri K.N. Govindacharya decided to take “study leave” from the active politics in September, 2000 . He devoted himself to the Study for 2 years on the impact of globalisation on polity, society, economy and culture in India.

In course of his study, Shri K.N. Govindacharya realised that in the Indian context State alone can not be the decisive force. Here social capital and cultural practices play far more important role even in economic development of the country. Today Shri K.N. Govindacharya believes that challenges before the nation have to be confronted on three fronts – creative, intellectual and agitational. Therefore, he founded three organizations to fight on these three fronts.

• Bharat Vikas Sangam : This is working for needed model of economic development directed towards swadeshi and decentralisation.
• Kautilya Shodh Sansthan: This is a research organisation working in the civilisational context of Bharat.
• Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan : This organisation opposes the anti people and anti nature policies of the governments without having any political aspiration of its own.

[RajeshA]

^^^
Unfortunately many times the reasons are far more prosaic, in Govindachyara-jis case, it was merely ego. "Why is my pov not being given executive prominence now that we have power"

Which can be another case of an idealist having to leave because of "pragmatists" more interested in power rather than agenda.

[Sanku]

^^^
Unfortunately many times the reasons are far more prosaic, in Govindachyara-jis case, it was merely ego. "Why is my pov not being given executive prominence now that we have power"

Which can be another case of an idealist having to leave because of "pragmatists" more interested in power rather than agenda.

There will always be a conflict between pushing the ideological agenda and have a pragmatic position on how much can be done, and this is without casting aspersions on any one side. The problem is that, unfortunately that idealists need to feel the need to leave -- if everything is not 100% right.

[member_20317]

That still does not digress from striking the balance.

Mostly this idealist-pragmatist dichotomy is an artificial one. IOW what is there to suggest that an idealist cannot be pragmatist or the other way round.

The history in fact went on to prove that no part of Sangh had the requisite degree of hold on the people to push through any more radical an agenda. I am taking the benefit of the factual history at the risk of discounting the possible history because that is the only one that I have.

Not to deny that the agenda of Govindacharya ji could itself have had some repercussions.

[Sanku]

^^^

I agree with you ravi_g ji

[RajeshA]

Hindu Political Agenda: Retire the Marxist Academics

Even if a Hindu Nationalist Platform were to come to power in the near future in India, there will still be a lot of other chains still in place. Most probably there would also be some parties in the coalition which would be so adamantly sickular that time and again they would threaten to leave the coalition, if the Hindu nationalists do not back down. Also it is likely that the ownership of the media in India would remain in the hands of the foreign-backed.

So what to do?

My suggestion would be instead of going for an open confrontation, make the current players - the media, the Marxist academics completely irrelevant first by promoting alternatives.

For example, it would be controversial to throw out Marxist historians from History Depts. Instead of targeting singular history professors, the Hindu Nationalist Platform should deem the History Depts. of Colleges and Universities, which are chock full of Marxists, to be up for closure in 2-3 years time.

Instead start new History Depts in other universities manned by Bharatiyas, who can promote Bharat-centric history, and who can help the Hindu Nationalist Platform to sell a different Bharatiya-centric education to the masses.

[RajeshA]

Hindu Political Agenda: Law for Protection of Indigenous Culture

"Law for Protection of Indigenous Culture" is one universal value which we can espouse. It allows the State to prescribe exactly what constitutes indigenous culture is some area. That would make it a legal punishment should some preacher or religious group, which tries to talk the locals into getting rid of such customs. Some preacher which tells the converts not to show due respect to the "mythology" of the land, would also show up as a violation of the law. One could shut down his operations, his church or mosque. Such a law would constrain what a preacher can preach.

[member_20317]

^^ This particular one may be dicey.

You see we have over the OIT thread realised that Bhartiya dharohar can only be protected by promotion of the so called unauthorised, pear-demoted Itihaas. The doings fo the Eminent historians should also remain open to study which will enable the new comers to study the differences for themselves, short-circuiting the Left Propaganda - Right Propaganda accusations. And the local traditions need not be defensive here. We we remember one of the early birds on the OIT thread was a non-hindu.

In much the same manner we need to allow a free exchange of ideas between religions, varna, jaatis, sampradayas. The point is the judgement cannot be excercised with understanding and sovereignty, if the opponent is completely buried. This helps in preserving the context of all the back and forth.

What we really require is the allowance of a state protected right to espousal of ideas and also a state protected right to espousal of differences (with others and with oneself overtime). IOW, let every group be studied based on their own statements/commitments of their core. With an


Or am I being too charitable. just kidding. That above is my submission.

[RajeshA]

Or am I being too charitable. just kidding. That above is my submission.

You are certainly being too charitable!

In fact it sounds like the "Truth" drum. As is amply clear, if the AIT-Nazis and AIT-Sepoys had even a shred of evidence, they would have nailed everything down. After two and a half centuries of European AIT Research, they still have found nothing.

There are enough AIT-Nazis to debate AIT with, we don't need AIT-Sepoys!

Or do we?

May be we do! But I think AIT-Sepoys would only behave in an environment completely controlled by the Bharatiyas. Only in such an environment would they try to give logical answers rather than resort to empty rhetoric.

We don't have such an environment at present. At the moment it is the likes of Bharkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghosh who decide on the parameters of debate.

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji, from whatever little I have understood the strong emphasis on 'Swayam' within the Bhartiya traditions is because of the apparent and rather confounding mirroring of the Swayam before the Poorn. The Poorn in between basically leaves every subset Swayam, qualified. To get out of the paradox of the unfathomable the only option that remains is to treat every Swayam as independent of each other and dependent on the Poorn, with due allowance for their respective unique circumstances. In such a situation only a person dyed in a particular tradition would be able to tell what and how the particular tradition evolved.

I had broached the subject of Nicene puja. Now from our perspective it seems prima facie laughable. But if you apply the same logic to say a childs growth through this world you would realise that not all people need to practice on the Ved from the get go. This is not attempted even in the homes of Practicing brahmins. The link is established in a figurative sense by some ritual but not the whole is ever imposed. Cannot even be done. In much the same manner I believe an abrahmic can be allowed to start his search for truth from the tradition that he has gotten. Off course it is not as easy as it sounds but then some start has got to be made some place. And a first step to a return journey starts from little ones. hein ji.

At a pragmatic level that could say for example entail, a setting up of a Counter-Deoband where Muslims can be encouraged and protected to build up a rigorous version of their new tradition. These abrahmics that we have in India have a Paitrik right to all that we are trying to save. Only thing that needs to be communicated is that the right is the right to access and not a right to destroy. Competitive as well as cooperative interactions, both need to be FORMALIZED.

But you are absolutely on the dot regarding the present structure of the Debate where Undie TV types are allowed to run amok. The formalization process must happen under the watchful eyes of a Bhartiya. We have basically to bring back the Shaastrarth culture minus the denouement by drowning etc. that would be too extreme.


Looks like harbans ji ki daant ka jayada hi assar ho gaya. That is why I am writing this agadam bagdam. .


On a serious note harbans ji I have a refutation waiting in the pipeline for the late evening today. So more pains i guess.

[RajeshA]

At a pragmatic level that could say for example entail, a setting up of a Counter-Deoband where Muslims can be encouraged and protected to build up a rigorous version of their new tradition. These abrahmics that we have in India have a Paitrik right to all that we are trying to save. Only thing that needs to be communicated is that the right is the right to access and not a right to destroy. Competitive as well as cooperative interactions, both need to be FORMALIZED.

Indeed! Doctrinal creativity aka Ahmadiyyas need to be encouraged, and those who join it need to be protected.

[brihaspati]

The conflict between idealism and pragmatism is a difficult one to make. I am not sure those who are debating here about the need for "truth" and "values" versus "pragmatism" have actually been into both grassroots as well kursi level politics - within the regular political setup. To top it up, one should in parallel also have seen first hand the sampradaya-based inner-religious politics. I have visited both with a longer experience of how the sampradyas and gurus and mohants and maharaaj's and the coteries that form around them - do politics and economics.

I am a bit doubtful about concepts and claims of "truth". Truth is almost always a matter of perception and belief. So much so that, as long as overwhelming pressures to survive, and carry on the basic biological functioning is not threatened - truth for most is equal to belief. In that respect, the practical onslaught of "pragmatism" is helpful in challenging beliefs which pass for "truth". Truth is an ideal, which is perhaps what is the longer term intellectual and spiritual agenda - but it should forever be kept as a quest.

Even from the philosophical viewpoint, it is dangerous to assume that "truth" has already been reached in the form of a currently accepted or widely held "truth". Even if that conviction is very strong, a small window for the possibility of error should be kept - so that continuous verification takes place. Since we will always be unsure about the completeness of current knowledge, insistence on "truth" makes it absolute and provides for exactly all those features that are exploited by totalitarians, be they religious or political. For many - the most repressive exploitative and abusive memes will be "truth" - because of belief, or tradition, or supposed "self-evidence".

In politics and religion, yes I am talking about the "Hindu", I have seen truth most often used as dogma : truth as self-evident, and that self-evidence is actually negotiated through perception as guided by prior belief, hidden agenda, or subconscious biological desires. In this both the Marxists and the guru-maharajs compete with each other in asinine totalitarianism.

The reason "pragmatism" often trumps over idealism - is because -

(1) idealism typically denies the biological existence and connected desires, drives, needs of humans
(2) idealism often denies the existence of and primacy in driving human actions - of power where social interactions are concerned
(3) idealism may itself be a fatal restriction of choice of actions - something in contrast to pragmatists who keep a larger number of choice of actions open.
(4) idealism fails to realize that the very sustenance of "ideals" depend on the survival of a living human society, and any idealist aspect that threatens the continued biological survival of the group will not itself survive.

Sanku ji's criticism of idealists "leaving" struck a chord personally. I myself have done so in my earlier life, and I do regret it to an extent in a more mature phase. But as I said, most of you friends do give the unmistakable scent of not having gone through the cesspools - and hence you cannot fathom, the explicit and excruciating decisions one has to face when he realizes that the very institutional structure - even idealism - or claims of profound truth - are actually all false : that none of these movements or institutions will ever achieve any of the stuff they formally shout about. The reason for that is because they are stuck on "formal" doctrines of truth, while in reality the points (1)-(4) are those that guide their subconscious individual and group actions.

Truth, or what it is - will be determined by the equations of power existing in the society. There is no escaping the fact of "power". That brings us into the basics of what empowers groups, and start anything here - you will have to deal with the concrete problems of protecting "dharmik" people even at the nascent starting phase. If you cannot do so, physically, economically, and politically - no movement will take off.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati garu,

I myself advocate an idealism-pragmatism combination. Idealism fixes one's goals and Pragmatism fixes one's strategy. Pragmatism without Idealism is useless for then one is nothing more than biology, survival and power for its own sake. Idealism without Pragmatism is a dead end and takes you nowhere.

So any pragmatism which helps your ideals survive is welcome, regardless of what one has to do, taqiyya being the easiest choice. The strategy must ALWAYS be one that has a chance of working out.

Truth is a nice feature to have when one has dominance and your dominance is secure, but really is of no consequence when one is in revolution mode.

[Pranav]

Truth is a nice feature to have when one has dominance and your dominance is secure, but really is of no consequence when one is in revolution mode.

There is an inherent human urge for a better and better understanding of reality. It is a part of the evolutionary process.

You have a better chance of getting an idea across if what you are saying is in harmony with the listener's intuitive feeling for the "truth".

But obviously, some people are not receptive to truth, and furthermore, Dharma Raksha may legitimately require use of deception to deal with evil individuals.

[harbans]

But obviously, Dharma Raksha may legitimately require use of deception to deal with evil

Is Truth so weak that when in opposition we have to sacrifice it as a principle. Then what is the Dharma one intends to protect, if faith in Truth and it's power is so weak. If folks know that a party is being untruthful and deceitful in it's actions to attain power, what credibility is left? What exactly is unpragmatic about Truth?

[ShauryaT]

Truth is a nice feature to have when one has dominance and your dominance is secure, but really is of no consequence when one is in revolution mode.

You have the nation-state, that is India, where you are close to a state of state dominance of power, if not entirely secure but certainly not in "revolution" mode. Your so called "revolt" is against the current ideas of the state. The question you have to ask yourself is - are you going to revolt against a set of people also or find a way to carry all of them with you, as Gandhi tried and failed? MKG would himself view the partition of the land as his failure.

[Pranav]

But obviously, Dharma Raksha may legitimately require use of deception to deal with evil

Is Truth so weak that when in opposition we have to sacrifice it as a principle. Then what is the Dharma one intends to protect, if faith in Truth and it's power is so weak. If folks know that a party is being untruthful and deceitful in it's actions to attain power, what credibility is left? What exactly is unpragmatic about Truth?

One illustration that can be given ... some murderers are chasing an intended victim, who runs past a Yogi sitting under a tree and hides somewhere. The murderers then accost the Yogi and ask him where their man went. The Yogi thinks that he can neither allow the man to come to harm, nor can he say untruth. So he remains silent. The enraged murderers threaten to kill the Yogi if he does not speak up. The Yogi still remains silent. The murderers then chop off the Yogi's head and go away.

Did the Yogi do the right thing? Or did he violate a higher principle of Dharma?

[harbans]

Pranav ji, Truth as a principle cannot be given the short stick. The rule is that. Exceptions to the rule don't become the Rule and must never be made so. Always the danger lies in making the exception to the rule the rule itself. So if an entity to come into power is using untruth and deceit it will possess no credibility. If a State indulges in untruth and deception to stay in power the result again is the same. The principle value of Truth cannot be a drop now, pick up later sometime kind of adherence.

[RajeshA]

But obviously, Dharma Raksha may legitimately require use of deception to deal with evil

Is Truth so weak that when in opposition we have to sacrifice it as a principle. Then what is the Dharma one intends to protect, if faith in Truth and it's power is so weak. If folks know that a party is being untruthful and deceitful in it's actions to attain power, what credibility is left? What exactly is unpragmatic about Truth?

harbans ji,

when you have not explained or clarified much about this bird "Truth", why complain? Please see my earlier post!

[harbans]

when you have not explained or clarified much about this bird "Truth", why complain? Please see my earlier post!

Rajesh ji, have just come back from work. Will go through and try explaining in some detail as i get time. Meanwhile above too holds

[RajeshA]

Sorry harbans ji, did not mean to put any pressure!