The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[harbans]

But I would view all policy decisions through the prism of the state's duty to "facilitate the Dharmic quest of all its people", rather than putting slogans like "non-violence" or "truth" on a pedestal.

Pranav Ji, i have been on using a Dharmic front to unite for several years now and particularly on this forum. I also have never used this terminology in the fluffy sense strawman that you use above. A state that shows compassion is not the same as vowing non violence. There is a big difference. So i am sure and certain of what i have been saying here. When i was talking about Dharma and the parochialism under which Hinduism is being boxed, i was also name called. So i am not changing stances or coming to conclusions in some fluffy rosy huff. I have thought this deeply for a much longer period of time than probably most here. So i am certain when i said Truth as a slogan in 'Satyameva Jayate' and Dharma as a Dharma Chakra in the flag are not good enough for the state to be either truthful to it's people, transparent and honest in approach and function.

I also mentioned why Truth/ compassion other values we consider linked and ascribe to Dharma cannot be anything but nodal in the constitution. Because if it is not, and we have we believe in XYZ but under so and so condition like i mentioned before Freedom of Speech is allowed but is subject to not hurting feelings ==curtailing freedom of speech itself and hence Truth can be blocked, hidden, censored etc. Please read this part and understand why i am saying what i am saying.

[member_20317]

Can I ask which view is closer to yours? Or if it is some other view totally different from both, can you please elaborate?

Thanks.

The words dharmic constitution to me conjure visions of a dharma shastra. So a new dharma shastra is written with the experience of the old one's that were in place in the millenniums past. Its key objectives are to enable the fulfillment of puruSharthas, a society ordered to fulfill VarnaAshrama Dharmas - it is a complete reorganization of society to a more familiar set of objectives and orders recognizable in light of our civilization history and NOT something imported

Seriously I have been thinking from sometime that the right way to go about attaining the objectives of this thread is to find a new Maharishi Vaalmiki or a new Tulsidas.

The earlier ones were in the background of a King and Kingdom. Now we need something for a one man one vote democracy.

Alas if only we could find a new such being.

[RajeshA]

Parameters of Religious Debate

Firstly the Indian Constitution does not honor any of the attributes that i ascribed to Dharma. Where Freedom of Speech is mentioned it is at the mercy of 'Law and Order'. So Truth is restricted from being opposed by clauses like 'Anti Hate Speech' etc.

This can be dealt with through "Rules of Engagement".

1. Earlier one used to have various philosophical debates in various Sampradayas. Often one could challenge the other to such a debate. These debates however did not lead to violence.
2. So public debate needs to be reinstated, where one should be able to question the tenets of any religion, sampradaya, etc. Similarly there should be open debate on how any religion manifests itself in society. Nothing should be above board, except the exceptions listed below.
3. One thing one should not be allowed is ridicule or malignment of any aspects of another's religion which
   1. is symbolical or
   2. has multiple layers of meaning or
   3. is a visualization of mythological or cosmological entities and stories
   as the above is a manifestation of human creativity which has been given religious sanction, and neither creativity and art nor multi-layered semantic can be objectively interpreted, meaning any treatment of such would necessarily be subjective and thus not debatable, which requires a claim of an effort at objectivity. As such such issues would have to be dealt with a certain sensitivity, which cannot be taken for granted in the case of an individual of another religion.
4. Also there should be no ridicule or malignment of the another religion which is based on speculation or reinterpretation which goes beyond that what has been handed down. Whether something is ridicule or not would be ascertained by the aggrieved religious community.
5. Also one should not be allowed to use the symbols of another religious community if they object to such use.
6. Also one should not try to provoke another religious community by knowingly introducing what the religious community considers abhorrent into the precincts reserved for the religious community for a given time, e.g. throwing cowheads and pigheads in processions or festivals of other religious community or at their religious centers.
7. The punishment for any violation would be in the form of a fine, which would be credited to the appropriate religious institution of the victimized religion or imprisonment if one is unable to pay.
8. Any punishment for violation of code of conduct of religious debate would be meted only by the judicial system of the land.
9. Any demonstrations against any alleged hurting of the feelings should remain peaceful.
10. Anybody caught involved in violence on this score would be charged with a criminal offense in addition to any charges that may come for any crimes in the form of threats or physical damage. Any instigators would also be held liable.

[ShauryaT]

Seriously I have been thinking from sometime that the right way to go about attaining the objectives of this thread is to find a new Maharishi Vaalmiki or a new Tulsidas.

More like a new Yaganvalkya - quite prescriptive in approach and fairly organized. Kept allegiance to older knowledge but was not afraid to change to suit his prescriptions based the needs of society as he saw them but yet largely supportive of previous civilizational knowledge. Narda and Brhispati did the same but Brihaspati was too prescriptive for my taste.

[RajeshA]

Another context where Truth is suppressed by the State in favor of appeasement is in it's dealings with neighbors. Chinese aggression of Tibet. It is the pragmatists that favor rapprochement and harmony with China.

Well a regime's hold over information is increasingly deteriorating. With Internet, Social Media, there is not much the regime can do. It would not be able to control information in the way it did in 1962.

Just see the outcry when it was found out that the Pakis had done another beheading of an Indian Jawan!

[harbans]

Another important aspect is that immediate change which means constitutional change to cultural ideals that focus completely on the indic roots is nigh impossible to achieve without major upheaval and further breakup of the nation. Thus changing the constitution in a major way will be pragmatically out for the foreseeable future. So no Dharmic state in the near future is possible with agenda's such as:

1. We consider XYZ Adharmic
2. Intermarriage between Dharmic and Adharmic not allowed unless ABC.
3. Veda has to be the sole basis of a Dharmic State
4. HIndu agenda alone is the one that should rule India.
5. Respect for elders

and so on are not going to happen pragmatically anytime soon. Even if they do i don't see why they cannot be despotic, tryannical and disastrous to the good health of the economy and more.

Yet a Dharmic state is possible to achieve within the present boundaries and even expand as people start learning to share and evolve on cherishing core values. So setting up a State that says we believe in these values even if we call them Dharmic will find a lot of common sense ground with aam janta who want transparency, honesty, truth in there dealings with the state in every day life. It also pressurizes the Govt to allow 'Hurt sentiments' to happen if a Tasleema or Rushdie have something to say. It pressurizes the Govt NOT to hide behind 'law and order' or 'hurt sentiment' and ban books, movies, internet sites for people and groups claiming to be hurt. So Govts cannot take the easy way out and just ban something and claim there would be Law and order issues or hurt sentiment so they banned XYZ. Then knowledge does not percolate down and truth remains hidden.

Thus slipping in Truth as nodal for GoI institutions to reflect not only fulfills the need for increasing operational efficiency through transparency and honesty, it also allows platforms to those that seek to educate and propagate the negatives of some faith that actually is doctrine bound to wage war against those not adherent to it.

When the state displays compassion, it means it's institutions are sensitive and caring to the plight and distress it's citizens may face due to terror, road safety, floods, quakes, being made to stand in long queues, being harassed for basic documents and much more.

In other words by just giving Truth and Compassion prime constitutional import, we make millions of non-dharmic people abide and live under Dharma. Slowly when people realize the Govt functioning and reflection is that of a Dharmic state, people will openly state we live in a Dharmic state and are adherants to Dharma. Open up an option at that stage where people can state their religion as Dharmic, Sampradaya as Vaishnav, Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or XYZ.

We have to get people to be interested in a Dharmic state in the first place without scaring them that some agenda based sampradaya is going to hijack the constitution towards it's ends. The best way to reassure the citizenry is through promulgating prominently the values the state stands for.

[harbans]

Well a regime's hold over information is increasingly deteriorating. With Internet, Social Media, there is not much the regime can do. It would not be able to control information in the way it did in 1962.

Just see the outcry when it was found out that the Pakis had done another beheading of an Indian Jawan!

Indeed, i mentioned this too in the earlier post, that Truth will find a way. But if we protect and nurture it, people will come to know the Truth about Islam and it's doctrine much faster. Thus the suffering is lesser. The later we realize, the chances of overwhelming us becoming higher. So spreading Truth about matters is an imperative. The GoI presently does it's best to suppress it and yes does it through constitutional means.

[harbans]

Rajesh ji, i agree with you that some Rules of Engagement need be postulated in law. These however also can be done in the present day and i am sure some will exist. But there will be a lot of stalling debate from all sorts of vested groups that will try and prevent the formulations as you have listed. That list is something that mature people and those that have a point to make follow in normal course. It's the utter idiots who throw pigheads and cowheads in others places of faith. That leads to curtailing of information flow in the manner you have put in the rules of engagement.

[RajeshA]

Another important aspect is that immediate change which means constitutional change to cultural ideals that focus completely on the indic roots is nigh impossible to achieve without major upheaval and further breakup of the nation. Thus changing the constitution in a major way will be pragmatically out for the foreseeable future. So no Dharmic state in the near future is possible with agenda's such as:

1. We consider XYZ Adharmic
2. Intermarriage between Dharmic and Adharmic not allowed unless ABC.
3. Veda has to be the sole basis of a Dharmic State
4. Hindu agenda alone is the one that should rule India.
5. Respect for elders

and so on are not going to happen pragmatically anytime soon. Even if they do i don't see why they cannot be despotic, tryannical and disastrous to the good health of the economy and more.

1. We consider XYZ Adharmic

The Adharmic tag is very important. It is pejorative. It is like Kufr, an unbeliever.

Just like in the case of Kufr, a Kufr when faced with this pejorative label, has to think about why he deserves it, similarly an Adharmic (with capital A) would have to think why he is being given this tag. It is meant to reactivate one's active consideration of whether one wishes to be continued to be called using this tag or not.

It is not as if one would be calling the other with this tag on one's face all the time, but the tag would be available in public discourse.

A Kufr in India had the choice. Does he wish to be called Kufr? Many looked at the issue and said, "Yes". They were happy to call themselves 'Hindu'. They were not willing to believe in someone from Arabia and his model of God.

Similarly the Adharmics would be constantly faced with the issue whether they believe that an Atma has the intrinsic capacity to access the Supreme without the intervention of a self-proclaimed intermediary or not.

They may decide, Yes, or they may reconsider their previous position and wish to be considered Dharmic.

Just because one is 'Adharmic' (as belonging to a non-Dharmic religion), it does not mean the Dharmic would automatically declare war on the person. One fights the power of Adharmic institutions and not Adharmic individuals. One also fights adharma, based on the conduct.

2. Intermarriage between Dharmic and Adharmic not allowed unless ABC.

All intermarriage should be allowed. No religious community in India should be able to ban it unless the fiancee changes one's religion. Should any religious community demand a conversion for marriage, there should be fines on any priests, mullahs and padres who do so, or for that matter on parents and relatives who also do so.

The religious community is however free to provide positive incentives to the couple if the spouse is willing to convert.

Furthermore all marriages need to registered with the state for marriage laws to kick in and for the couple to be considered married in the eyes of the state.

The religious community which offers the better opportunities would win.

One has to recognize that the individual is free. There can be no pressure from the community in this regard.

The Dharmic partner would however before marriage (both tradition and civil) have to go to Dharmic counseling.

3. Veda has to be the sole basis of a Dharmic State

Veda should be kept far from politics. It is much too precious to be dirtied by politics.

4. Hindu agenda alone is the one that should rule India.

True. But it depends on how one defines Hindu. If Hindu is defined as anybody who resists the takeover of India by foreign imperialist religious ideologies, then only Hindu should rule India.

5. Respect for elders

This is a society level issue, and need not be included in the scope of the Rashtra.

Yet a Dharmic state is possible to achieve within the present boundaries and even expand as people start learning to share and evolve on cherishing core values. So setting up a State that says we believe in these values even if we call them Dharmic will find a lot of common sense ground with aam janta who want transparency, honesty, truth in there dealings with the state in every day life. It also pressurizes the Govt to allow 'Hurt sentiments' to happen if a Tasleema or Rushdie have something to say. It pressurizes the Govt NOT to hide behind 'law and order' or 'hurt sentiment' and ban books, movies, internet sites for people and groups claiming to be hurt. So Govts cannot take the easy way out and just ban something and claim there would be Law and order issues or hurt sentiment so they banned XYZ. Then knowledge does not percolate down and truth remains hidden.

The "Law on Rules of Engagement on Religion" can be introduced under this Constitution itself.

Thus slipping in Truth as nodal for GoI institutions to reflect not only fulfills the need for increasing operational efficiency through transparency and honesty, it also allows platforms to those that seek to educate and propagate the negatives of some faith that actually is doctrine bound to wage war against those not adherent to it.

First, the agenda cannot be "slipping in". It is deceitful! One has to tell the truth to the people about what is being tried out.

When the state displays compassion, it means it's institutions are sensitive and caring to the plight and distress it's citizens may face due to terror, road safety, floods, quakes, being made to stand in long queues, being harassed for basic documents and much more.

That is the general portfolio of any government in the world including our own.

In other words by just giving Truth and Compassion prime constitutional import, we make millions of non-dharmic people abide and live under Dharma. Slowly when people realize the Govt functioning and reflection is that of a Dharmic state, people will openly state we live in a Dharmic state and are adherants to Dharma. Open up an option at that stage where people can state their religion as Dharmic, Sampradaya as Vaishnav, Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or XYZ.

If the state is only partially Dharmic and we start calling it Dharmic, then all the failures of the state can be blamed on "Dharma" and "Dharma" would get maligned for not fault of its.

A state should be called Dharmic only when it abides by a Dharma Shastra in its very foundation, from bottom up.

We have to get people to be interested in a Dharmic state in the first place without scaring them that some agenda based sampradaya is going to hijack the constitution towards it's ends. The best way to reassure the citizenry is through promulgating prominently the values the state stands for.

We need to get people interested in Dharmic state by introducing the right meaning of "Dharmic" in the public discourse, at the society level.

[member_22872]

The Adharmic tag is very important. It is pejorative. It is like Kufr, an unbeliever.

Rajesh ji, we already have nastika for that? I am afraid that in the name of taking the right way, we shouldn't tread the same path as 'them'. Slowly this shouldn't degenerate into exploitation and/or mistreatment of anyone who is a nastika.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh ji, i agree with you that some Rules of Engagement need be postulated in law. These however also can be done in the present day and i am sure some will exist. But there will be a lot of stalling debate from all sorts of vested groups that will try and prevent the formulations as you have listed. That list is something that mature people and those that have a point to make follow in normal course. It's the utter idiots who throw pigheads and cowheads in others places of faith. That leads to curtailing of information flow in the manner you have put in the rules of engagement.

harbans ji,

thanks for bringing up pigheads and cowheads. Have included it in the Rules of Engagement.

In the previous post, I too shared my view that a law on these lines can be passed under the present Constitution also.

[harbans]

First, the agenda cannot be "slipping in". It is deceitful! One has to tell the truth to the people about what is being tried out.

True, bad choice of words there. However at the back of my mind was how Socialism and Secularism were 'slipped' in as nodals just 35 years ago. But agree cannot use the same template of slipping in as in the previous context.

[RajeshA]

The Adharmic tag is very important. It is pejorative. It is like Kufr, an unbeliever.

Rajesh ji, we already have nastika for that? I am afraid that in the name of taking the right way, we shouldn't tread the same path as 'them'. Slowly this shouldn't degenerate into exploitation and/or mistreatment of anyone who is a nastika.

venug ji,

nastika is usually used for those who do not recognize the authority of the Vedas, so nastika is for a Dharmic but non-Sanatanic entity.

Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka are naastik traditions.

There is no question of mistreatment. As I said, in case we live in a Dharmic state, there would be laws to provide for security and freedoms of the Adharmic individual.

However Adharmic is a tag to stop the political expansion of foreign based Adharmic religious ideologies in India.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by Jhujar from the "Indian Interests" Thread

Published on Feb 21, 2013
By Shaikh Azizur Rahman
For India's 'untouchables,' a rare moment of inclusion

Hindus believe a dip in the waters where the Ganges, Yamuna, and mythical Saraswati rivers meet during India’s Kumbh Mela Hindu religious festival cleanses them of their past sins, giving them a clean slate and helping them attain salvation.hen a group of about 100 women from lowest rank of society, dalits – formerly known as “untouchables” or “manual scavengers” – took a bath at the sacred site, of itself an extremely rare if not unheard of event for members of their community, they came out of the water proclaiming that their low status as “untouchable” had been dissolved.Dalits are known as one of the most discriminated against people in India, generally prohibited from even touching members of higher castes. They are not generally allowed to perform most Hindu rituals, including the Kumbh dip.Yet, when the group emerged from their holy bath at the festival earlier this month, Hindu priests who belong to the highest Hindu caste, welcomed them to mainstream society by blowing conchs, chanting hymns, smearing holy ash on their forehead, and declaring that the women were no onger “untouchables.” It’s the biggest sign yet of changing attitudes about India’s outdated caste system, say experts.“This Kumbh ceremony should be viewed as a bold and successful step toward the egalitarian inclusion of the downtrodden in the religio-social world of the Hindus,” says retired sociology professor Hetukar Jha pointing out the historical importance of the high caste Brahmins supporting the women.Swami Anand Giri, one of the 150 religious leaders present at the ceremony said that the “Liberation of the Untouchables,” marked a landmark day in Hindu history.“Following the liberal tradition of Hinduism we welcome these sisters to our mainstream Hindu society today,” says Mr. Giri, who shared meals with the “just-liberated” women.The Kumbh ceremony has had an overwhelming affect on the women from the scavenger community who, shunned by the high caste Hindus, are still marginalized.

[member_20317]

The Adharmic tag is very important. It is pejorative. It is like Kufr, an unbeliever.

Rajesh ji, we already have nastika for that? I am afraid that in the name of taking the right way, we shouldn't tread the same path as 'them'. Slowly this shouldn't degenerate into exploitation and/or mistreatment of anyone who is a nastika.

venug ji,

There are some people who will not say that Ishwar is one, one being only a number.
Then there are people who focus on the gaps between the notes to make their music.
Then there would be people who would want to use the infinite to claim that everything is predetermined.

And all may still be Dharmic.

That is why Naastiks ≠ Adharmic.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 06, 2012
By Ram Puniyani
‘Hindu’ identity and Nationalism

Religious identity has come to the bigger prominence in the social-political space during last few decades. The rise of communal and fundamentalist politics has vitiated the popular perceptions about ‘who are we’ and this in turn has deepened the divides in the society. Recently RSS supremo, Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat stated (September 2012) that, “When we use the word ‘Hindu’, we refer to everyone in the Indian society—be it Hindus, Muslims or Christians—since it is a word that gives us our identity and nationalism.” Will it be acceptable to all Indians? The statement operates at two levels, one religious and two political-national.

Are we all Indians, Hindus, as being stated by Bhagwat? It is true that the word Hindu itself came into use since around 8th century, when those coming from the West, Iraq, Iran to this side of the continent coined the word Hindu for those living on East of Sindhu. In their language word H is used more often for S, so Sindhu becomes Hindu. This word initially begins as a geographical category. Later various religious traditions, Brahmanism, Nath, Tantra, Siddh, and Bhakti, prevalent in this part of the continent started being called Hindu, and Hinduism became the broad umbrella for these different religious traditions. Today while in some parts of the World word Hindu still has geographical meaning, here in India and broadly at most of the places this word is primarily used as a religious category.

Ambedkar, pained by the ignominies hurled on untouchables by Hindu caste system, expressed his sorrow by stating that, I was born a Hindu; that was not in my hands but I will not die a Hindu. He embraced Buddhism and left the Hindu religion. As communal politics started coming up to oppose the emerging Indian Nationalism, the feudal sections and Kings came together to give a religious colour to their opposition to emerging nationalism. In contrast to Indian national movement, they, feudal-lords-kings, posited Muslim Nationalism or Hindu nationalism. The parent organization which in due course gave rise to religious nationalist organizations, was United India Patriotic Association (UIPA) formed in 1888. In the formation of this organization Nawab of Dhaka and Raja of Kashi were the main people. Later some other middle class educated elements also joined in. This UIPA was the parent organization from which Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha emerged.

While Islam, being a Prophet based religion, did not require any redefinition, Hinduism being an umbrella of various religious tendencies required to be defined for providing a base to Hindu religious nationalism. That’s how Savarkar came up with the definition that all those whose Punyabhu (Holy Land) and Pitrabhu (father land) is in this part of the World are Hindus. This was a political definition of Hinduism, as Savarkar was championing Hindu nationalism and wanted to exclude Muslims and Christians from being a part of nationalism envisaged by him. This definition of Savarkar also included Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs into Hindu fold, calling them as mere sects of Hinduism, which is not unacceptable to the followers of those religions. As these religions are also full-fledged religions.

Now to say, as Bhagwat is doing, that all Buddhists, Jains, Indian Muslims and Indian Christians have a Hindu identity is far from true. It is in a way a political imposition of Hindu identity and thereby Hindu rituals etc. on religious minorities. In the similar vein, nearly two decades ago Murli Manohar Joshi, another RSS Pracharak, then BJP President, stated that we are all Hindus, Muslims are Ahmadiya Hindus, and Christians are Christi Hindus and so on and so forth.

During freedom movement, two concepts of nationalism developed. One was the Indian nationalism, which was the hallmark of the founders of Indian National Congress. This was the defining principle of World’s largest ever mass movement, India’s freedom movement. Here nationalism is geographical and religion is personal. Majority of Indians supported this concept and joined the movement, which not only aimed to throw away the yoke of British colonialism but also laid the foundations of caste and gender transformation, and gave the defining principles of Liberty Equality and Fraternity, which came to be enshrined in our Constitution. The other Nationalism was religious nationalism, which began from the landed élites primarily and was later to divide in two parallel nationalisms, which had similar principles. These were Muslim Nationalism (Muslim League) and Hindu Nationalism (Hindu Mahasabha and RSS). These nationalisms not only kept aloof from the freedom movement, were opposed to the mass movement for freedom struggle but they also subtly protected the caste and gender hierarchy of feudal times in the name of ‘our glorious traditions’ or ‘our religion’ and so on. These religious national streams took back their nationalisms to ancient times. Muslim League claimed that ‘We Muslims are a Muslim Nation since the time Mohammad bin Kasim, established his kingdom in Sindh’. While Hindu nationalists claimed that we are a ‘Hindu nation since times immemorial’.

In this understanding; projection of Nationalism to the earlier times is totally flawed. The very concept of Nationalism begins from last three centuries or so, while putting an end to Kingdoms due to changes in industries and education. Even before kingdoms, there were other patterns of society, which can by no stretch of imagination be called as Nations. These concepts of nations glorify the kings belonging to their religions, while they also demonize or look down upon kings of ‘other’ religions, forgetting that the very system of kingdoms is highly exploitative and hierarchical.

At the same time during freedom movement, the ‘religious nation’ concepts gave a status to other religious minorities as the status of second class citizens. This has what has happened in Pakistan with the logic of Muslim nationalism unfolding there and this is what is happening to Indian minorities with the ascendance of Hindutva nationalism. Hindutva word is again not synonymous with Hindu religion, it is parallel to ‘political Islam’, Hindutva is ‘political Hinduism’ so to say. Golwalkar the major ideologue of RSS-Hindutva had formulated in his book ‘We or Our Nationhood defined’ that the Muslims and Christians must subordinate themselves to Hindus, else they will not deserve any citizenship rights. In India unfortunately his prophesy is getting actualized by and by, with the rise of communal violence and its aftermath.

To say that we are all Hindus is a political assertion to subjugate religious minorities on one hand and to uphold caste and gender hierarchy on the other. The later part related to hierarchical inequalities is the unspoken part of religious nationalism, political ideologies based on religion. To identify Hindu with our nationalism-identity is to oppose the very concept of Indian Nationalism, values of freedom movement and values of Indian Constitution. Such political agenda of RSS as articulated by Bhagwat is to stifle the democratic space offered to us by our Constitution to all of us, including religious minorities, and is an attempt to bring back the Golwalkar’s articulation in a more shrewd way. It will also be the beginning of telling the minorities that they will have to follow Hindu rituals, and Hindu holy books, Hindu deities amongst others. So, saying that we regard all as Hindus, is not an expression of magnanimity but is a way to impose Hindu identity on religious minorities. In sum a substance, Hindu is not the identity of all Indians, its religious identity only of Hindus. And of course ‘Hindu’ is not nationalism in any sense of the word as our nationalism is Indian.

1) If Mohan Bhagwat said that Muslims and Christians are also Hindu then I disagree with him. That is not how Savarkar meant it.

2) There is nothing wrong in excluding those from defining the nature of Rashtra, if due to their religious affiliations, their allegiance lies with foreign institutions. The creation of Pakistan is more than sufficient testimony that once converted the allegiance changes. It is a borne out fact and not an opinion. In East Timor, the reason for separation was also religion.

3) It is wrong to consider Muslims and Christians in India as Hindus, but even if it was suggested, nowhere was it implied that they would have to follow rituals and beliefs from Sanatan Dharma. That is a stupid leap of logic.

4) As Savarkar pointed out, 'Hindu' is a political and cultural identity. It does not have anything to do with what one finds in "Hinduism". Again the Trojan Horse "Hinduism" is being used to suggest wrong logic.

5) What is being touted as "Indian Nationalism" here was in the hands of Nehru nothing more than "crypto-Soft Islam", and much of the leadership had been influenced through Macaulayism.

[RamaY]

X-Posting so the debate doesn't become "Hinduism under threat" from "Hindus under threat".

Watched two interesting discussions on similar idea.

One is Tinderbox- India & its Neighbours, with MJ Akbar
and the other is What is Home: geography or idea by Burkha Dutt and Sashi Tharoor

The first discussion tries to define the "Idea of Pakistan" where as the second "Idea of India". I request members to watch them to get the context, location of the discussion, sponsors of the discussion, players etc., It is a very interesting moment in social engineering.

In the first discussion MJ Akbar tried to define the Idea of Pakistan and its consequences

Why the two nation-states India and Pakistan diverged in such different paths when we are the same people? Why is India seem to be evolving while Pakistan seem to be sinking into a stagnant swamp. The reason doesn’t lie in the character of India or Pakistan. The reason is, the “Idea of India” is stronger than the Indian whereas the “Idea of Pakistan” is weaker than the Pakistani.

What is the idea of Pakistan?
Pakistan was created around a notion, which has absolutely no relevance and no past. It is built around an idea that religion could be sufficient as the basis of nationalism. And most specifically that Islam could be the sufficient as a basis for nationalism. T

his happened when Jinnah changed the story from “Muslims in Danger” to “Islam in Danger” after ML’s failure to win Muslim majority constituencies in united Punjab.

In the second discussion Sashi Tharoor tried to define the Idea of India and possible challenges

What is the idea of India?

Burkha Dutt: In India, we say there is this idea of Indianness that unites us. We cannot point, like in other countries, to that one thing; not language, the geographical construct is a left over of British, not ethnicity or not one idea other than a pluralistic, secular and democratic society. What were to happen if someone/something interferes with one of these core aspects of with that idea of india?

Sashi Tharoor: India can only be pluralistic, as it is built into the DNA of India and hard-wired in the very nature of our country. If artificial attempts were made to clamp down on it or to assault the pluralism, democracy and the freedoms we have built into for past 65 years of the workings of this constitution, then I am obliged to fight on the other side of the people who are trying to change that.

So what is the roots of this pluralism that separates the vision, paths of these two nations? Hinduism or Christianity or Islam? Would the secular fundamentalists fight against the ideologies that are fundamentally NOT pluralistic and continue to deny that idea? Can secularism be a foundation when it treats the ideologies that pluralistic same as the ideologies that are not pluralistic?

MJA says India did not become Secular because Gandhi is Secular. Gandhi became secular because India is secular. Where was India when Gandhi was formulating his intellect/worldview/secularism?

[RajeshA]

Question: How can one balance political rights to Adharmics and Exclusively Dharmic Leadership in a Dharmic State?

[member_22872]

Ravi ji, Rajesh ji:
Yes I realized that after typing that in, nastika is someone who doesn't take Vedas as pramana, but still can be Dharmic. But aDharmic could be someone who is not not only a nastika but not dharmic at all. Hope I got that right.

[RajeshA]

Ravi ji, Rajesh ji:
Yes I realized that after typing that in, nastika is someone who doesn't take Vedas as pramana, but still can be Dharmic. But aDharmic could be someone who is not not only a nastika but not dharmic at all. Hope I got that right.

We will be differentiating between Adharmic (with capital A), used for religious institution one belongs to, and adharmic (with small a) used for type of conduct.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by Sushupti in "Narendra Modi vs the Dynasty: Contrasting Ideas of India" Thread in GDF

[Pranav]

But I would view all policy decisions through the prism of the state's duty to "facilitate the Dharmic quest of all its people", rather than putting slogans like "non-violence" or "truth" on a pedestal.

Pranav Ji, i have been on using a Dharmic front to unite for several years now and particularly on this forum. I also have never used this terminology in the fluffy sense strawman that you use above. A state that shows compassion is not the same as vowing non violence. There is a big difference. So i am sure and certain of what i have been saying here. When i was talking about Dharma and the parochialism under which Hinduism is being boxed, i was also name called. So i am not changing stances or coming to conclusions in some fluffy rosy huff. I have thought this deeply for a much longer period of time than probably most here. So i am certain when i said Truth as a slogan in 'Satyameva Jayate' and Dharma as a Dharma Chakra in the flag are not good enough for the state to be either truthful to it's people, transparent and honest in approach and function.

I also mentioned why Truth/ compassion other values we consider linked and ascribe to Dharma cannot be anything but nodal in the constitution. Because if it is not, and we have we believe in XYZ but under so and so condition like i mentioned before Freedom of Speech is allowed but is subject to not hurting feelings ==curtailing freedom of speech itself and hence Truth can be blocked, hidden, censored etc. Please read this part and understand why i am saying what i am saying.

Harbans ji, the "Satya" in "Satyameva Jayate" has, imho, the deeper meaning of "Ultimate Reality". Similar to the usage in "Sat-Chit-Ananda". It can be considered to be the opposite of delusion.

The English word truth does not have the same depth. Satya, to use Rajiv Malhotra's terminology, may be a non-translatable term. As you admitted, truth is not a universally applicable principle. Truth is good as long as it is aligned with Dharma.

As regards compassion, is it not a part of Rishi Kanaada's definition of Dharma, quoted by Carl ji - "Whatever leads to happiness and ultimate bliss or Moksha for entire world – alone is Dharma."

Basically, our differences seem to stem from the fact that I want to work on the basis of Dharmic first principles, whereas you want to codify rules. But Dharma is subtle, and in codification there is the danger of dogmatism.

[Agnimitra]

As regards compassion, is it not a part of Rishi Kanaada's definition of Dharma, quoted by Carl ji - "Whatever leads to happiness and ultimate bliss or Moksha for entire world – alone is Dharma."

Pranav ji, I am not sure if rishi Kanaada's one sutra can be misinterpreted to mean that compassion is not an intrinsic part. Considering the inter-connectedness of the universe, I think it is a fundamental part. But compassion is just different from sympathy, and it is based on seeing all possibilities "astrologically" from the POV of spiritual evolution. It means that sometimes one has to become the instrument that makes an Adharmic entity experience the consequences of its vikarma/akarma in the here and now.

[Pranav]

As regards compassion, is it not a part of Rishi Kanaada's definition of Dharma, quoted by Carl ji - "Whatever leads to happiness and ultimate bliss or Moksha for entire world – alone is Dharma."

Pranav ji, I am not sure if rishi Kanaada's one sutra can be misinterpreted to mean that compassion is not an intrinsic part. Considering the inter-connectedness of the universe, I think it is a fundamental part. But compassion is just different from sympathy, and it is based on seeing all possibilities "astrologically" from the POV of spiritual evolution. It means that sometimes one has to become the instrument that makes an Adharmic entity experience the consequences of its vikarma/akarma in the here and now.

Very well put.

[Pranav]

If Hindu is defined as anybody who resists the takeover of India by foreign imperialist religious ideologies, then only Hindu should rule India.

RajeshA ji, a word of caution - foreign imperialism can work through many guises, not just religious. There are plenty of ostensibly "Hindu" people who are serving foreign imperialist agendas.

[RajeshA]

If Hindu is defined as anybody who resists the takeover of India by foreign imperialist religious ideologies, then only Hindu should rule India.

RajeshA ji, a word of caution - foreign imperialism can work through many guises, not just religious. There are plenty of ostensibly "Hindu" people who are serving foreign imperialist agendas.

Pranav ji,

Hindu names should be no guarantee of not being "branded" "Non-Hindu". Cultural Marxists do not contribute to the Resistance of the Hindus against foreign imperialist religious ideologies but rather work to undermine it. They are certainly not Hindus by definition. Nehruvian-Secularists with Hindu names are either crypto-X or crypto-I, so by definition they have submitted themselves to foreign imperialist religious ideologies and hence are also "Non-Hindus", or they are those who for political reasons are cooperating even though they are Hindus. Well they are just traitors to the cause (by definition).

Now I don't mean to start a witch-hunt type of program here against Crypto-Non-Hindus, but it is important that if the behavior is suspicious, that we do not hesitate to question the people out of political correctness, secularism or whatever.

Questions must be put, and they should come clean on this.

[harbans]

Pranav ji, i never said that the principle of truth has no universal applicability. Satyameva Jayate as national motto is not some mumbo jumbo ultimate reality only. That Truth will always win, irrespective of the opposition to it. Whatever strawmen you create to ultimately try to prove what preconceived notion immaterial. It does not go well that you ignore the Br Upanishads definition that Truth and Dharma are one and same and give credence to another just to prove that Truth as a principle does not work. I could similarly create strawmen and prove that the Kryptonians control ABC. Whether it is that the ultimate Truth will always win or the Truth will ultimately win, to me both are true. The reality of ultimate truth is beyond a win or loss it exists, yet for people in this planet and my personal experience and life around me and in various Indian texts and even elsewhere in millions of examples i always see that ultimately Truth does win. So i won't really get into rhetoric of twisting and turning words and creating strawmens that could be used to prove just about anything. So that is all from my side. You see what you want to see. You cannot see what you don't want to see. Good luck.

[ShauryaT]

1. We consider XYZ Adharmic

The Adharmic tag is very important. It is pejorative. It is like Kufr, an unbeliever.

Kufr is not just a pejorative. It forms the basis for the concepts of Dar-ul-islam and Dar-ul-harb. It is an underlying concept that makes Islam non-universal and sectarian. Your sectarianism like approaches will lead you in the same direction despite your intent.

2. Intermarriage between Dharmic and Adharmic not allowed unless ABC.

All intermarriage should be allowed. No religious community in India should be able to ban it unless the fiancee changes one's religion. Should any religious community demand a conversion for marriage, there should be fines on any priests, mullahs and padres who do so, or for that matter on parents and relatives who also do so.

Why dance around these issues. Ban Organized forces of ANY kind that are violative of core tenets of a Dharma Shastra. Same way RSS was forced to rewrite their constitution and swear to the INC version. Ban the practice of organized religion.

3. Veda has to be the sole basis of a Dharmic State

Veda should be kept far from politics. It is much too precious to be dirtied by politics.

Some will consider Vedas to be nonsense and not applicable a bit, some will consider it to be of marginal importance. It is just a book like any other. Some consider it to be books of knowledge and wisdom. Who is to say, what "book" is to be kept in or out? Sayana has bee criticized for an over emphasis of the Brahmanas leading to a charge that the original meaning of the Vedas are lost. New interpretations of these works keep on coming to this day. Worrying about a book(s) and its role is meaningless. Let a 1000 such books provide wisdom to those who have the courage to enter the field of public service.

4. Hindu agenda alone is the one that should rule India.

True. But it depends on how one defines Hindu. If Hindu is defined as anybody who resists the takeover of India by foreign imperialist religious ideologies, then only Hindu should rule India.

RSS believes ALL Indians are Hindus and I support that. Now who's agenda are we talking about?

5. Respect for elders

This is a society level issue, and need not be included in the scope of the Rashtra.

Why not? Ashrama Dharma demands it. It is the right thing to do for society. Let alone respect, our elders should have legal protections and rights and duties defined. There is also an issue where VanaPrastha and Sanyas stages are not followed, because there is no organized support for it (not refering to forced behavior but support for these Ashramas). Society no longer rewards these actions. It is a reason for the detoriation of the Dharmic peoples. Our civilization heritage is vested in the concept of debts to our elders. It is a time tested principle. Decrepit is a society, where elders are not honored and are not considered as "contributing" members. The problem is not their contributing ability the problem is what is "considered" to be contributing? The rashtra exists to support a certain type of society. At least that is what the Indian constitution tries to do. I do not know of ANY dharma shastra that would make such a broad statement that this is a society level issue and hence not a concern.

We have to get people to be interested in a Dharmic state in the first place without scaring them that some agenda based sampradaya is going to hijack the constitution towards it's ends. The best way to reassure the citizenry is through promulgating prominently the values the state stands for.

We need to get people interested in Dharmic state by introducing the right meaning of "Dharmic" in the public discourse, at the society level.

Agreed. Make SD a mandatory course from schools to PHd levels of specialization with career paths for it. After all one would not want Judge Katju to be deliberating under a Dharmic constitution right? We can get rid of history courses - as we know it - and teach history within the SD classes paying as much attention to world history as someone say in China would learn about Indian history?

[Agnimitra]

harbans -

We have spoken of "context" that determines values. But even more fundamental than exterior context is the personal undercurrent that creates that context in the first place. I blogged this today:

Moral equivalence - Exterior manifestations vs. Undercurrents

Anti-corruption movements for political reform and social justice seem to have one thing in common - seeking a better moral leadership for things like "justice" and re-directing the national sense of purpose. Various ideologies are moving into this space, each vending its version of justice and purpose, its iconic personalities, its enemies, its solutions. Some of these are presented as purely political-economic ideologies, some as religious, some as social ethics. But the question of what is moral is really interesting, and ultimately focuses on a personal exemplar: historical, epic, mythological - or more honestly its usually some mixture of all three, no matter which culture one examines.

In this regard, how does one adjudicate what is a superior morality? The personal exemplars of morality from different civilizational contexts are all complex personalities. Some of the exterior actions and words attributed to the same persona strike me as seductive and others repugnant, some as inspired and others fantasia, some as sterling boldness and other as fork-tongued cunning. Only if I can find a way to appreciate the subtleties, can I create a valid purva-paksha (comparative counter-proposal) to think about it "objectively" - or at least according to a supra-subjective scale of truth. I feel a need for this, because public discourse is swamped with the usual wishy-washy politically correct "no criticizing religion" discourse in India (or the West). Too many times the people who moderate the national discourse pass off a false moral equivalence by a practiced sleight of hand....

[Pranav]

not some mumbo jumbo ultimate reality only

If you want to dismiss deeper meanings of non-translatable Sanskrit terms as mumbo-jumbo, then that is up to you.

i never said that the principle of truth has no universal applicability.

This is what you had said -

someone comes to me and says tell me a lie or i will kill your family, i will tell a lie.

What you want to do is codify rigid rules. You want to avoid dealing with some situations by calling them "exceptions" to your rules. What I suggest is that more fundamental Dharmic first principles be applied, with due discrimination.

[Sravan]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comm ... ly/c8jlp0z

For the sake of comparison. US has a simple constitution and vests all remaining powers in it's people. It seems like the Indian form of governance assumes all power resides with the government, and law determines which rights people have (this leads to vote bank politics). Also the separation of religion and state is a pre-requisite. Rule of law should be impartial not swayed by annotations of the Individual.

This is the single biggest discrepancy between efficient execution and pragmatism vs emotional politics. Indian governance can head in two direction, in it's current form, it is taking away all rights and making individuals fight for privileged status... or being supplanted with a framework where the scope of governance is limited to governance through the will of the people. For the latter option, the power balance between governance and people needs to be adjusted accordingly.

I admit I am a libertarian at heart, but I'm curious to see how people in India feel about hand me down rights in politics. Indian government doesn't fear it's people, and this is the number one flaw, the balance of power between people and government is too lopsided for healthy governance. Without the intrinsic fear to drive the need to perform, the government has too much scope for corruption and can get away with lack of accountability. By cascading laws upon laws, it simply creates more opportunities to be corrupt. What India needs in my humble opinion, is a simplified rule of law and nothing as complicated as it's current format.

Lawyer here. In the past, I've dealt with Constitutional legal issues, one of which was heard before the US Supreme Court, although I was not chief counsel.

First off, I would recommend reading through it if you haven't done so already. I know this may seem obvious, but I find that many people have never done this. A quick reading of it (it's not that difficult a document to read or that difficult to understand) will help give you an understanding of it.

Second, you have to understand a little of the background that precedes the creation and eventual adoption of the Constitution.

The first attempt at creating a new government after declaring independence was the Articles of Confederation. Inherent in this first attempt was a great disdain and distrust for the government. Consequently, they kept many powers out of the government, and the government suffered for it. It was unable to do many things, and it became readily apparent that this new government was ineffective.

When the time came to write the new Constitution, there two basic schools of thought. One school recognized that the Articles of Confederation created too weak a government to actually govern and survive. The new government under this new Constitution would have to be stronger and more capable. More capability, however, carried with it more power and authority.

The other broad school of thought also recognized that the Articles were weak, but felt that that was the lesser of two evils. It was better to have a weaker government than a stronger one that could potentially grow too strong.

So the Constitution was written as a compromise between these two basic camps. The Bill of Rights came later as a means to appease those who felt that the new Constitution created too strong a government. If you look closely at the Bill of Rights, they mostly provide clarification on the Constitution; the Ninth Amendment explicitly states the fact that any right not given to the government inherently rests with the people. Amendments that came later usually provide new rules or authorities.

Third, you have to understand what the Constitution is, who it's speaking to, and what it's saying.

The Constitution represents the framework of our (assuming you're American from here on out) government and, consequently, our society. It lays out the branches of government; it assigns basic roles, responsibilities, duties, and, perhaps most importantly, limitations.

The Constitution is a document directed at the government itself. It is not speaking to you or me. It is a set of rules the government must follow; it is not a set of rules the people must follow. If the Constitution doesn't allow the government to do it, or if the Constitution limits the government in a fashion, the government cannot do something.

For example, the First Amendment does not grant the citizens the freedom of speech. Rather, it prohibits the government from making any law restricting our free speech. In other words, we already have an inherent freedom of expression, and the government cannot restrict it. But private citizens can. Remember, the Constitution does not apply to, and is not directed towards, private individuals. This is why you can protest or picket outside a government office on government property, but a privately owned mall can kick you off the premises for doing the exact same thing with the exact same message.

The basic concept behind the Constitution is that originally any and all rights rest with the people. These rights are inherent and self-evident. The people, however, deemed it necessary to create a system to govern. In doing so, they understand that they must surrender some of these rights and privileges to make it work; likewise, this new government will need to slightly curtail some of their privileges in order to maximize the benefits to everyone. So, they created a document that governs the government. The government is only as powerful as the Constitution says it is. Any right, freedom, or privilege not given to the government stays with the people (Ninth Amendment). Remember that all rights originally lay with the people, so unless such right is explicitly given away, it remains with its natural owner, the citizen.

The Constitution represents inherent fears and distrusts that the founding fathers had with the idea of government. They had just thrown off the governance of a system that invested a high amount of control in one individual (the monarch) and a body of officials with limited authority and oversight of the monarch. This system did not allow for direct representation of all citizens, and many in the Americas felt that it allowed for arbitrary measures to be taken without any opportunity for the affected to be heard, seen, or known.

This is why when the Constitution was written the very first portion of it, after the preamble, deals with the formation of government. And the very first body of government to be identified is the Congress. Article I details the Congress. The president doesn't come until Article II; this is a small detail which serves to demonstrate their reluctance to have a strong executive branch.

Reflected in the Constitution, as well, are various ideals. The very first words are, "We the People." It is a new government founded by the people, for the people, and to be composed of the people. There is no royalty or nobility who head the government or who receive special privileges. (Obviously, this is laughable to some extent given the fact the women and non-whites were treated as anything but "the people.")

The first three articles of the Constitution deal with the formation of the government. They give these three branches various duties and authorities. Importantly, though, these articles are silent on a great deal. Since the government cannot assume a role not enumerated in the Constitution, silence in the Constitution means that no authority is granted. However, the limited authorities that are granted are broad and somewhat vague. The importance in this, and arguably the genius in this, is that it allows for the government to adapt and reform itself to suit the times.

The sections in Article I, for example, are a good example. They range from very specific duties and requirements for the Congress, but they also deal with broad powers. For example, because the founding fathers were so anxious about one branch of the government gaining too much power, they instituted the checks and balances system. Furthermore, they detailed a bicameral system. One house checks the other; one house gives weight to population; the other other house treats all states as equal. One branch is always checked and subject to approval on actions from another branch. (Congress passes a law. The President must approve it, but Congress, if properly motivated, can override the veto if they wish. Any approved law, no matter how passed, is subject to review by the Courts.)

On the other hand, regarding the broad and somewhat vague provisions, they allow Congress the leeway to meet unforeseen demands and situations. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to pass laws that "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This is pretty broad, right? That's the way they intended it. The genius of the founding fathers' actions is not that they thought of everything when they created this new government and country; their genius lies in the humility they showed in recognizing that they didn't and couldn't think of everything. So they built in some wiggle room to the document and to the government. But they built in limitations to this wiggle room. Section 8 further defines what Congress can do. Essentially, any measures that must be taken that deal with interstate or international matters are the duty of Congress and no one else.

What the founding fathers did was to create a system that was flexible; it is limited yet strong. It has the ability to meet the changing needs of a dynamic country and the changing times. It gives the government various duties to perform, and it, importantly, gives the government the power to perform those functions while simultaneously keeping the power vested in the people.

The citizens have the authority and the ability to replace, remove, or otherwise deal with representatives that are not representing the constituents properly.

The parts of the government not immediately answerable to the people check themselves against other branches of the government.

The Constitution is the framework for this. Embedded in that document is the genius of countless people from the formation of the union to today. The hopes, fears, aspirations, and anxieties of its writers are evident in the system they created. It's withstood the test of time; Civil War, emancipation, assassinations, impeachments, and countless other events have proven that the document works and the government it set up is stable capable of moving forward into the future.

Thank you for the Reddit Gold!

[Pranav]

Moral equivalence - Exterior manifestations vs. Undercurrents

An excerpt -

War is a cauldron of human insanity as it is ... false guilt can be a killer in times of insanity (such as war) and is considered a sin in most religions.

One cannot generalize that all participants in a conflict are in the grip of insanity. A combatant may fight for the sake of Dharma-Raksha. Whether a certain act is moral or not would depend on its compatibility with the motive of Dharma-Raksha.

Even though slavery, rape and violence was practiced by the Prophet's own companions with the Prophet's personal sanction in the aftermath of wars, yet these can be rationalized as the inevitable concomitant of all war.

Rapes perpetrated by the companions of the Prophet, with the Prophet's approval, during wars of aggression, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to be compatible with Dharma-Raksha.

[Agnimitra]

Pranav ji, I am walking a thin line in this article - without making a judgment I am trying to analyze and counter moral relativism and equivalence - by pointing to the undercurrent that illuminates the context of action and even context itself. At times, I am trying to use a deliberately charitable viewpoint to bring something to the notice of the reader - something that lurks is in the background. I wonder if this method of mine comes through or not.

Moral equivalence - Exterior manifestations vs. Undercurrents

An excerpt -

War is a cauldron of human insanity as it is ... false guilt can be a killer in times of insanity (such as war) and is considered a sin in most religions.

One cannot generalize that all participants in a conflict are in the grip of insanity. A combatant may fight for the sake of Dharma-Raksha. Whether a certain act is moral or not would depend on its compatibility with the motive of Dharma-Raksha.

I changed the sentence to: "War is a cauldron of human insanity as it is, of tooth and claw, of reaction more than conscious action. Some reactions may be noble, but oftentimes not." I am not bringing the idea of "dharma-raksha" into the picture at this point, because the purva-paksha itself is moral relativism -- "You say you do dharma-raksha, he says deen-raksha. What difference?" As someone here was saying, "dharma" itself has become a relative word, like "religion".

Even though slavery, rape and violence was practiced by the Prophet's own companions with the Prophet's personal sanction in the aftermath of wars, yet these can be rationalized as the inevitable concomitant of all war.

Rapes perpetrated by the companions of the Prophet, with the Prophet's approval, during wars of aggression, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to be compatible with Dharma-Raksha.

Maybe, I dunno. Even in the BG Arjuna does indicate that if war happens, there will be excesses that will affect, primarily, women in society.

[Pranav]

"You say you do dharma-raksha, he says deen-raksha. What difference?"

Then the question becomes what kind of deen it is that requires rapes to be perpetrated with the approval of the prophet.

Even in the BG Arjuna does indicate that if war happens, there will be excesses that will affect, primarily, women in society.

Well women losing their relatives to combat is one thing. Atrocities on women is another. Even if it did happen, it would be considered to be Adharmic, no? I don't think Arjun was legitimizing such crimes?

[Agnimitra]

"You say you do dharma-raksha, he says deen-raksha. What difference?"

Then the question becomes what kind of deen it is that requires rapes to be perpetrated with the approval of the prophet.

Well Shari'ah doesn't "require" rapes to be perpetrated. It merely says that in the context of war or violence with infidels, it is not criminal and can be excused. In cases of hostilities, taking captives is encouraged or given free leave.

Even in the BG Arjuna does indicate that if war happens, there will be excesses that will affect, primarily, women in society.

Well women losing their relatives to combat is one thing. Atrocities on women is another. Even if it did happen, it would be considered to be Adharmic, no? I don't think Arjun was legitimizing such crimes?

Arjuna wasn't legitimizing it, he was actually lamenting the inevitability of it happening - either through violence or majboori. That's all I meant to refer to.

Let's consider a practical case: If Bangladeshi brides were being tafficked to India - to be married, with their consent, and for a dowry payment to their families back home...would that be Dharmic? Some of those women may do it out of majboori - their families need the money, and they lie to their village that their spouse in India is Moslem. If India were to facilitate such a transaction from BD or TSP, would it be Dharmic?

IMHO if India handled it with the right intention and putting in place just modalities, such that the women see an overall benefit and enhancement in their material and spiritual lives, then it is Dharmic. This even though she accepts the initial transaction reluctantly, and it is a form of taking advantage of their circumstances. Even if women were being traficked by mafias in those countries, and India siphoned off some, it would be Dharmic - because those mafias would thrive anyway, and the women may end up in spiritually stifling or stunting environments elsewhere, or their offspring would be raised in those cultures. As long as India remains looking progressive over generations, it becomes an entry point for Dharma.

[Pranav]

Well Shari'ah doesn't "require" rapes to be perpetrated. It merely says that in the context of war or violence with infidels, it is not criminal and can be excused. In cases of hostilities, taking captives is encouraged or given free leave.

OK, maybe one can say Shariah "approves of" or "sanctions" the rapes rather than "requiring" them, since the said rapes were perpetrated with the prophet's sanction.

Let's consider a practical case: If Bangladeshi brides were being tafficked to India - to be married, with their consent, and for a dowry payment to their families back home...would that be Dharmic? Some of those women may do it out of majboori - their families need the money, and they lie to their village that their spouse in India is Moslem. If India were to facilitate such a transaction from BD or TSP, would it be Dharmic?

IMHO if India handled it with the right intention and putting in place just modalities, such that the women see an overall benefit and enhancement in their material and spiritual lives, then it is Dharmic. This even though she accepts the initial transaction reluctantly, and it is a form of taking advantage of their circumstances. Even if women were being traficked by mafias in those countries, and India siphoned off some, it would be Dharmic - because those mafias would thrive anyway, and the women may end up in spiritually stifling or stunting environments elsewhere, or their offspring would be raised in those cultures. As long as India remains looking progressive over generations, it becomes an entry point for Dharma.

Well I suppose those women have the same individual rights as any Indian citizen, and spouses of citizens are in any case legally entitled to become citizens. So I don't think there is any dilemma as far as state policy is concerned.

[Agnimitra]

OK, may be one can say Shariah "approves of" or "sanctions" the rapes rather than "requiring" them, since the said rapes were perpetrated with the prophet's sanction.

Yes. so I raised a question of what are the implications of "godly" sanction for the excesses of human behavior - does it mitigate its effects or merely dissipate the effects after encouraging its widespread perpetration?

Well I suppose those women have the same individual rights as any Indian citizen, and spouses of citizens are in any case legally entitled to become citizens. So I don't think there is any dilemma as far as state policy is concerned.

Yes it could be national policy, but is it Dharmic - or is it morally equivalent to such provisions in Shari'ah law too?

[brihaspati]

Here are a few of my thoughts after getting carpet bombed by most of the debate on the thread:

(1) Vedas, primarily, as well as other texts of the Indic, are important but not the end-point. We should concede the possibility that any text anywhere will necessarily be limited in what it can convey through words. The words in turn are limited in their scope by time, place, people and their understanding of thw words. So the loss in "transmission" is first from individual understanding to expressing in words. Then the second phase of loss is from those words to how they are interpreted by the listeners and readers. How time, place, period gap between them can alter meanings.

So we should be able to separate Veda the text - and Veda the "knowledge/essence" behind it which the text attempts to describe.

(2) So let us take the texts as an attempt to provide a window or a door into ultimate knowledge, which we assume to exist regardless of whether texts falter or not.

(3) Many of the memes we often use in ways we take for granted or already determined, should be looked into seriously as having possible other interpretations too. Without going into the well known standard explanation of "dharma" as that which both holds and is held, I would like to explore the possibility that the "sanatana" - that which existed for ever, without end or beginning - coupled with "hold+held" actually could mean the underlying body of knowledge of everything in the universe, seen or unseen. In this sense "sanatana dharma" is a property of the existential universe that manifests through direct senses as well as indirect "senses", and not necessarily any set of rituals, practices, procedures or laws.

Even though some of what manifests as practice, ritual, procedure or laws could very well be the result of exactly some of the universal properties.

Thus SD becomes an everlasting or neverending quest for perfection of incomplete knowledge. All other purposes - are subordinate to this. This can drive, various spiritual paths, or multiple reincarnations, as much as more mundane methods of building a safe rashtra that protects such quest in all possible ways.

A similar interpretation for the Purusha sukta and varnashrama is possible, at least in my eyes, which takes varna as a descriptive system of the minimal four gunas necessary for a human life. To be simultaneously attempted to be imbibed in all humans. None being superior in value, and all being necessary in the same individual for all round development. A human should try to study and develop intellecually as a Brahmin, should be productive as a Shudra, should be able to carry out normal processes of economic exchange as a Vaishya, and should be able to take up arms to defend that which is to be defended as a Kshatryia.

(4) If sanatana dharma is an universal property of all manifest and unmanifest reality, then the human task or goal becomes seeking it and protecting the very methods and opportunities to seek it. This means that at current levels of tech, [where we still have to die, where we have not discovered telepathy or shortcuts to transfer memory of one dying person into another living child etc.] we have to protect and maintain a healthy society, ensure its health, defense and reproduction.

(5) "truth" should always be sought after, but we should not allow ourselves to think that we have reached it. Therefore what we may think of as truth now, need not be so, and hence any extreme fanaticism over perceptions of "truth" should not be allowed trump the more profound purpose of the quest itself. Hence "truth" is a weaker and secondary principle than "quest".

(6) "SD" as "quest" differs from all other religious prescriptions - because it keeps the question of ultimate answers - open. It is not the same as talking about just a "different" path to "God". No. It is about going beyond such "answers" as "God".

(7) Whether all our gurus, sants, mohants, seers, mathadhipatis, ashram-heads - agree to come to a consensus on this or not will not matter, if we ourselves decide to regulate our lives according to these basic ideas.

I have asked some of the youth who came to me, to make certain journeys. This includes, starting from the source of a river, that ultimately itself or through another river, reaches the sea - and reaching the sea itself. Take a dip at the start and at the end. And then go back to the source again, all the while thinking of the river and self as a twin journey of life from birth to death and rebirth. Then take a journey, from the base of a hill or mountain, to its peak, or as far as one is able to go up, and then return back to the base. And finally a journey that goes around in circles and comes back to the same spot. I asked them to think of it as a symbolic journey through life as well as repeating this journey of life. Each time the journey is repeated, note how impressions and thoughst change from the previous time. How most of the stuff we worry about as so important, all the material, traditional, and dogmatic elements of "religion" - become subsumed as trivial during repeat journeys.

The task is mental - to see the journey as symbolic of something bigger and wider and extending over many lifetimes. One of them had walking difficulties, and so I asked him to do it around his city and a well known stream near his city. He has started changing a lot. Has taken up some "inspiring" of his own.

Maybe, the way forward is to simplify, as well as deepen our vision. Charaibeti. Be on the move. Let us be both humble and firm. Kind and tough. Be truth seeking rather than be stuck on "truth". Distinctions that we feel should be maintained even within the body social of the dharmik [not the Islamic vs dharmik type of divide] should be turned into gunas to be simultaneously practised and imbibed in each individual "dharmik".

If you think dharmiks must maintain distinctions between the Brahmin and the Shudra - as necessary part of "dharma", then both should be imbibed by each dharmik individual. And so on. If both advaita and dvaita is part of dharma, then each individual should imbibe both viewpoints. And so on. Thus in that sense we all become one, because all our desired for distinctive categories reside simultaneously in each of us. We become reflections of each other while not becoming copies of each other. If we can see reflections of others in ourselves, and ourselves in others, we will have to be kind and caring to each other, and be tough on ourselves.

[Pranav]

Yes it could be national policy, but is it Dharmic - or is it morally equivalent to such provisions in Shari'ah law too?

Well if the women are being held in captivity, or if they make a complaint to the authorities, and the authorities do not entertain the complaint on the ground that they are somebody's property, then it would be adharmic, I suppose. This seems to be a situation in which the letter of the law is pretty much aligned with what is "morally right".

[brihaspati]

We should be able to say - even if no religion supports our dislike for slavery or enslavement, or sex-slavery of captive women - that we reject it. If the religion rejects it too, well and good. If it refuses to reject, we reject that religion too. NO religion should be allowed to be practised if it refuses to erase any remnant endorsement of slavery in any way - whether "it was revealed" or "is in our text" excuses or owtherwise.