The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[Pranav]

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. ...

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.

Agree ...

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.

Such all round capability is indeed admirable, but do you think, that in the natural process of individual evolution, a person may, at different stages, be more adapted for some roles than for others. And is it not inevitable that individuals will specialize as per inherent strengths and weaknesses?

"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".

If you define "truth" like how you defined "Sanatana Dharma" - as an inherent property of the universe, then it is indeed something to be sought after. There is a human urge for a better and better understanding of the universe. But in normal use the English word is quite limited in its meaning.

[RajeshA]

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.

Well there different ways of looking this:

1) Morality (the way you are looking at it) - It leads to sectarianism and divisions so it is not appropriate to have any divisive terminology.

2) Instrument of Strategy - We look at it simply from the perspective of what this approach brings to the table. Indeed, the Dharmic-Adharmic dynamic has some parallels with Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb differentiation dynamic.

But has it ever stopped a Dar-ul-Islam land from cooperating with a Dar-ul-Harb land? Or vice-versa? There are clear preferences of course, but cooperation is still possible. So the negative walls are not so high as one would imagine.

At the same time it sets up an expansionary pressure from Dar-ul-Islam on Dar-ul-Harb always nudging Dar-ul-Harb to concede more space to it, to comply ever more with these doctrinal requirements of Dar-ul-Islam in exchange for favors, understanding, respite, etc.

It is in some ways similar to the way the world is divided into Nuclear Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States. . Now for some this division is morally reprehensible, but for the states with nukes, nukes are simply a strategic tool of subliminal and overt coercion.

The Dharmic-Adharmic division is necessary simply without it, we lack a hard shell outwards which can allow much freedom within. Without the shell, without the firewall, one lets everything in, including all sorts of foreign imperialist religious ideologies. Another ideology is the Indo-Pak border which is manned by BSF. It keeps the lunatics out. So on the one hand it is a defensive mechanism.

On the other, it is an offensive mechanism, just like the Dar-ul-Islam which puts pressure on others to comply. It allows us to constantly expand the Dharmic Ghar. Also one needs to look at the definition before one does any moral posturing.

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

The definition alone would make others think whether they wish to remain in Adharmic Ghar!

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.

RSS compromised too much.

Anyway it seems that even though we are here in the process of considering a Dharmic Rashtra which is quite an idealistic position as it is and would demand a very high level of commitment, your position sometimes seems to take this level of idealism beyond the boundaries of rational viability.

One can start banning orgs which do not conform to some regulations which have been institutionalized - say on declaration of funding, or on instigation to hate and violence, or the like, which are all procedural matters. But violation of core tenets of Dharma Shastra sounds like we are about to force everybody to become Dharmic. Even if it is tried, usually one does it gradually, but putting it this way is like declaring open war.

So your position seems to be going like a pendulum from one extreme to another - from full acceptance of the other to full rejection of the other, from individual isolationalism to rashtriya interventionism.

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.

There is certainly eloquence in what you say but it papers over the logical flaws. What is the meaning of "Who is to say what book is to be kept in or out?"

It is the criterion which decides, and not a "who"! For what do we need a book as the basis? For authority, for law, for guidance, for wisdom?

The issue was whether the authority of the Dharma Rashtra should be derived from Vedas, and if the Dharma Rashtra should specifically say so! I am against using Vedas as the founding authority for something essentially political.

If the criterion for choosing books is "wisdom" then of course one would hardly limit oneself to one, the more the books, the more the wisdom! But the issue was not about "wisdom" right?

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?

Well Savarkar does not think so! And if all Indians are Hindus, then one need not use the word 'Hindu' anymore, right?

The RSS seems to be these days full of people who don't think things through. Savarkar gave this some thought and he has already provided a good definition of 'Hindu'.

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.

Well the initial issue was simply one of "respect to Elders", and that is not something the State needs to mandate. The society must be mature enough to provide that by itself.

But you do bring up an interesting issue: whether the Rashtra needs to intervene to support the various Ashrams - Vana-Prastha, Sanyas, etc. Do we even have enough "Vana" for all senior citizens? The issue is of resources, and what model one follows - each citizen saves for his own retirement, or the state subsidizes the retirement providing pensions, children pick up the costs of retirement, there is some sharing, ... Then comes the issue of financing Old People's Care Homes. In the West this is an issue, and in India it is an issue. Should a Dharma Shastra provide a particular model? You tell me. What did earlier Indian kingdoms do? How was it all financed?

But in principle I agree, because the role of the Rashtra has to be one of a facilitator!

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?

Again this is a pendulum swing!

I am not even sure other Dharmic traditions would be willing to accept it the way you put it as mandatory, much less Muslims and Christians. One does not have a magic wand!

One would need to formally separate theology and philosophy in SD, and call the philosophy part something secular like Bharatiya traditional philosophy, which can then be introduced into schools. Similarly one learns about other philosophies originating in India and outside. Islam and Christianity are much more theology-heavy than philosophy-heavy.

Similarly one can formally separate theology and mythology in SD, and teach Bharatiya mythology as part of a broader mythology course on the mythologies of the world, but of course the emphasis remains on Bharatiya mythology.

Also one can formally separate theology and history in SD, and teach Bharatiya Itihaas - Ramayana and Mahabharata as well as Puranas, not to forget the rest of 26,000 years of recorded Bharatiya history. Of course children need to learn all of world history, so some history of Christianity and Islam would also need to be taught, and perhaps at primary school level, they need not be injected with all the BRF analysis. In fact this would be necessary in order to get Muslims and Christians on board as well.

And then one can have extra education on religion where one goes deeper into Bharatiya Samskars, Yagyas, rituals, puja, etc. and one can teach the children something on Islam and Christianity as well. This can be kept to a minimum and most of it can be outsourced to philosophy, mythology and history.

If however we have a Dharma Rashtra then simply as part of the curriculum one would need to teach civics, or political studies, so there too Dharma would be taken up.

The point is we do not need to make everything in India a point of contention between Dharmics on the one side and Muslims and Christians on the other. There can be a level of compromise too where we allow them to also include a few words on Islam and Christianity in the curriculum.

[RajeshA]

Who are the 'Indics'?

I would like to propose another definition - 'Indics'!

Each identity needs to serve the national cause, be they Bharatiya, Hindu, or Dharmic. Similarly one often hears the identity 'Indic'.

I had written earlier

As far as Indic is concerned, I believe it is an identity marker without any revolutionary zeal to it. It is useful for differentiating Indians who are non-Abrahamics from those who are Abrahamics in India in a context where one is more or less agreeable to the present political structure of India. But this identifier is also useful to underline the indigenousness of the Dharmics and foreign origin of the Abrahamics in a non-provocative fashion.

However I feel this identifier can be used more productively.

Our main issue with Islam and Christianity in India is that these are foreign imperialist religious ideologies. Either their institutional headquarters are outside India (Vatican, ...) or their reaffirmation of Brotherhood and Faith takes place in relation to some place outside India (Hajj).

So even if Islam and Christianity are Adharmic by definition

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

it does not mean there has to be conflict and one cannot live in peace in India.

The foreign allegiance or obligations to foreign centers however make this cooperation difficult. So the main effort should be to persuade Muslims, Christians or even others to snap their religious allegiance to foreign centers and in fact create their religious centers in India itself. That in itself does not confer on the the label "Dharmic". One needs to go by definition, but their allegiance does not remain doubtful anymore, and they can be included in the nation-building as fuller partners.

So my proposal for the definition of 'Indic' would be

An Indic is any Bharatiya whose religious community's religious institutional headquarter, main religious pilgrimage places and the focal place for expression of its religious brotherhood lie in Bharat

The 'Ahmadiyya Community' has the potential to be called Indic if it makes certain changes or if certain changes are imposed onto them. Similarly the 'Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church' can be considered Indic. The Zoroastrians, the Parsees can also be considered Indics.

Such a definition gives these communities an additional level of trust from the majority, and also can be used for providing them with Rashtriya support. Similarly non-Dharmic Indics can be given more positions of responsibility and leadership in a Dharmic state which one may not wish to give to Adharmics.

This identity also provides an incentive to the others to make the jump and become indigenous.

[harbans]

Sravan ji, the fundamental mistake people make is thinking the Government/ Constitution as the source of certain rights. The Government/ Constitution is not the source of these rights and these come from a higher principle. The Government/ Constitution exists only to secure them, not to grant them at will and discretion.

In a Dharmic Context i have thus hesitated putting nodal laws or contexts but simple values that anyone in power must reflect. So Truth and Compassion amongst 8 others i posted as primary. Now it is not the Govt that is the source of these values. That is why i used the words the Govt must 'Reflect' these values. So defining the Constitution in that manner, acknowledges

1. That the Constitution/ Govt are not the source of these, and only facilitate/ reflect the higher principles.
2. In the context of the thread and Dharma, i took certain values considered core. Instead of the Enlightenment ones followed in the West, i took a leaf from those within our own books.m

From these principles at the core and being secured by the Govt through it's constitution, liberty, equality, seeking truth, happiness, non discrimination, rootedness in decision making would all emerge. These values i considered fundamental and universal and the State only acknowledging them as primary. In doing so it is important to understand the higher principles themselves are universal. The contexts cannot be nodal and they may only be elsewhere as that is where any limitations, interpretation or need for change in future interpretation may lie. So the limitations can only be in the non nodal area of context, not the basic underlying value principles of Dharma. So if we say Compassion is one such fundamental the limitations to it can be stated in the sub context. Not the primary. The sub context may evolve with time and need change. But the fact that the State must reflect Truth/ Compassion cannot change with time.

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji, frankly i am uncomfortable with your ossification of Dharmic-Adharmic specially wrt Indic Xtians and Muslims. To me a Dharmic is dharmic by conduct alone. Conduct in such case i see as reflection of certain values/ principles. So IMO there may be individuals within the Islamic and Xtian folds that are more Dharmic than amongst traditional Dharmic groups.

As you point out open State forced teaching of some Sampradayic process maybe conceived as next to open declaration of war, certainly at the minimum it is pragmatically unfeasible as even i have earlier mentioned. So i will try and attempt to put some points here:

1. The State/ Constitution should not be considered a provider of rights/ principles. It only secures them as a model for guidance/ order etc.
2. Primary declaration of Dharmic values/ principles that it considers universally apply to all.
3. Secondary declaration of limitations in it's own implementation. Like Secret service agencies not spilling beans in the name of truth, or providing euthanasia to someone in pain, or acknowledging that some POW under torture may spill information. Anything and a lot can be here. Yet these can be in for change and alteration at executive levels. The idea is that any exceptions to the primary are limited and due for explanation from the executive. The Rules of Engagement scenario that you listed would fit in perfectly here for example.

In that process we end up assimilating various Dharmic sampradaya's, we also end up including many Indic Xtian and Islamic into at the minimum giving basic respect to values and executive contexts to them. So just think that we honor Truth in a way but as a secondary work within the 'Rules of engagement' framework. What percentage of Indic Muslims and Xtians do you think will oppose this? I think very few. Folks like MJA will certainly endorse that, yet i think even the Javed Akhtars would do too. And we need the forward looking libertarians amongst these groups to lead and be examples to their community members.

So in the above without overtly saying we are a Vedic Rashtra, Hindu Rashtra or XYZ Rashtra, we already start following and get others to respecting core principles we consider as Dharmics. Such constitutional empowering will enable many Xtian and Islamic followers to break the moulds of the Bukhari's and Owaisi's. Remember the Owaisi's and Bukhari's get power through the constitution itself. I have stated earlier how they are empowered through out present constitutional framework.

So the first and almost immediate change possibly within a short time of such change will be the isolation of extreme elements within the Islamic communities from taking constitutional shelter. Who after all will say a State should not reflect Truth and Compassion in it's dealings for example?

[RajeshA]

Rajesh Ji, frankly i am uncomfortable with your ossification of Dharmic-Adharmic specially wrt Indic Xtians and Muslims. To me a Dharmic is dharmic by conduct alone. Conduct in such case i see as reflection of certain values/ principles. So IMO there may be individuals within the Islamic and Xtian folds that are more Dharmic than amongst traditional Dharmic groups.

Dharmic-Adharmic

Dharmic and Adharmic are categories based on a definition. If you agree with the definition, then you accept these terms. If you don't, you need not accept them.

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

It is the dividing line between what Rajiv Malhotra calls Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic traditions. Instead of simply saying Abrahamic, I say Adharmic.

Rajiv Malhotra had proposed a list of differences, but mostly they were how the core thought manifested differently in Indian traditions and Abrahamic traditions, and as such he lists the differences. He makes history-centricity the main basis though. I make the views on the "intrinsic capacity of the Atma to access the Supreme" as the main basis of my Purva-Paksha. Rajiv Malhotra's history-centrism in Abrahamic Traditions is easily derivable from the definition given here.

Because I have a singular definition, I can afford to propose a positive and negative - Dharmic and Adharmic.

Now these words does not say anything about the conduct of a religious ideology or an institution based on it, however if one were to derive the secondary attributes from the definition, one would see that there is indeed a difference in the expression of the definition. I did this as part of the little Purva-Paksha I did.

1. Differences: Direct Transceivers
2. Differences: Sitting for the Exam
3. Differences: Saving the Native
4. Differences: Clerical Power

At an individual level too one would be able to extrapolate differences. At the individual level too it does not mean that there would be something harmful for others in the conduct of the Adharmic individual, in fact one could even have sympathy for the individual knowing that he is a prisoner of a gatekeeper ideology, prisoner of control freaks.

So Adharmic is the religious ideology as well as the individual who ascribes to it, simply due to allegiance, belief, etc.

But as you say, a Dharmic can have an adharmic conduct, and an Adharmic can conduct himself dharmically. It is possible.

Dharmic traditions have had a completely different evolutionary trajectory than the Abrahamic traditions, laying emphasis on different aspects, so it makes sense to consider them separately.

You have to always keep the definition in mind, i.e. in case you agree with it. If you don't you are free to propose other criteria.

Indic
In a previous post, I proposed the definition of 'Indic'.

It does not exclude Muslims and Christians per se, as things stand, only a very tiny minority from these religions would qualify.

If you don't like the definition, please feel free to propose a different one. If it is just a question of referring to Muslims and Christians who are Indian citizens, one should use 'Indian' as identity, and not 'Indic'.

In fact, it is quite easy for Christians in India to become 'Indic', but for that they would have to cease their subsidiary status with respect to Churches abroad.

As you point out open State forced teaching of some Sampradayic process maybe conceived as next to open declaration of war, certainly at the minimum it is pragmatically unfeasible as even i have earlier mentioned.

So i will try and attempt to put some points here:

1. The State/ Constitution should not be considered a provider of rights/ principles. It only secures them as a model for guidance/ order etc.
2. Primary declaration of Dharmic values/ principles that it considers universally apply to all.
3. Secondary declaration of limitations in it's own implementation. Like Secret service agencies not spilling beans in the name of truth, or providing euthanasia to someone in pain, or acknowledging that some POW under torture may spill information. Anything and a lot can be here. Yet these can be in for change and alteration at executive levels. The idea is that any exceptions to the primary are limited and due for explanation from the executive. The Rules of Engagement scenario that you listed would fit in perfectly here for example.

In that process we end up assimilating various Dharmic sampradaya's, we also end up including many Indic Xtian and Islamic into at the minimum giving basic respect to values and executive contexts to them. So just think that we honor Truth in a way but as a secondary work within the 'Rules of engagement' framework. What percentage of Indic Muslims and Xtians do you think will oppose this? I think very few. Folks like MJA will certainly endorse that, yet i think even the Javed Akhtars would do too. And we need the forward looking libertarians amongst these groups to lead and be examples to their community members.

harbans ji,

once long ago, three and a half years ago, we had a dialogue on similar issues. Please start reading here. I think then we were on opposite sides of the fence!

So in the above without overtly saying we are a Vedic Rashtra, Hindu Rashtra or XYZ Rashtra, we already start following and get others to respecting core principles we consider as Dharmics. Such constitutional empowering will enable many Xtian and Islamic followers to break the moulds of the Bukhari's and Owaisi's. Remember the Owaisi's and Bukhari's get power through the constitution itself. I have stated earlier how they are empowered through out present constitutional framework.

harbans ji,

I follow a very different model as you. For me it is important that the identities of our society are fixed properly, and through these identities they get a subset of their agendas. The identities provide agenda and cohesiveness. It is about providing some measure of clarity in the public discourse, so that Nehruvian-Secularists and Cultural Marxists who thrive by muddying the waters, do not get the same chance. Most of the ideological power that Nehruvian-Secularists wield is by fooling people and this nowhere more than by skewing people's identities.

There are over 80% Dharmics in India and still the onslaught on our Civilization continues unabated by EJs, Islamics, and their collaborators.

The Rashtra would have to be oriented fundamentally towards the Dharmic path and that can be carried out when this course change is carried by willing people, by the over 80% majority.

Inclusion of "Truth" and "Compassion" in the Constitution is for me like sending Bambi to save Sita. Only a people with clarity of their identity and agenda can stop and reverse the abuse by a system designed to finish off Bhartiya Civilization.

So the first and almost immediate change possibly within a short time of such change will be the isolation of extreme elements within the Islamic communities from taking constitutional shelter. Who after all will say a State should not reflect Truth and Compassion in it's dealings for example?

Actually should one proceed to do something like this, inclusion of "Truth" and "Compassion" in the Preamble of the Constitution, there would indeed by little opposition. Everybody would know it doesn't change anything on the ground.

harbans ji,

you feel this will be effective. I don't think anybody in power really gives a rat's ass about what principles are enshrined in the Preamble. I wonder even if all Parliamentarians knows that there is a Preamble.

[harbans]

Rajesh ji, this was from that time. No i have not changed track since then.

Rajesh: I don't know about optimism, but here is one example. It is an example about a Pakistani girl, who converted to Christianity, simply because she had an excuse and opportunity, and she took it.

Harbans: I know about that case, and yes it's true that given the opportunity many would take it. What the numbers are is anyone's guess. But these (given opportunities) are exactly what Islam supresses/ nips right in the bud, very effectively. Even in the relatively liberal West there are few in number on which such stories can be written. Austria itself is being swamped. Look at Denmark. Look at Holland. An awakening on Womens rights in Islam is met at times with murder. Taslima is again coming back to India, lets see what will happen. Again any compromise will be nipped in the bud. They've already got a resolution passed in the UN making it 'criminal' to 'insult' a religion. Liberals have not seen the dangger in that. I think India passed that one too.

While you were saying by making a few changes by empowering women Islam can be changed, i know that that was impossible then and is so today. Here in this thread i am not talking about changing Islam. I cannot. I am talking about weaning people away from Islam to Dharma by making constitutional changes that empower the Govt to be hard on those who block Taslima's, Rushdie's, get hurt at the drop of a hat, book, movie whatever. So no my stance has not changed since then. Yours again clearly has. But that's all right we all learn.

I don't think anybody in power really gives a rat's ass about what principles are enshrined in the Preamble. I wonder even if all Parliamentarians knows that there is a Preamble.

Rajesh Ji, no offense but doctrine is everything. Islam cannot change because it's doctrine is such. What are the pet peeves that people express against the GoI today, even on BRF? The obsession with secularism and doles for vote banks. Little do people realize that Secularism and Socialism have been put right in the Preamble by IG in the 70's. Every Govt institution is governed by these as primary considerations. All landmark cases that the SC who understand the preamble concepts better than the aam junta have been in favor of enhancing Secular and Socialist institutions in INdia. Little do the mango abduls and that includes a lot on this board even understand how doctrine and particularly charter preambles affect us. I would suggest reflection on that.

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji,

I have tried to follow your lead, essentially out of deference to your wishes of doing this peacefully. But I feel like having to jump hoops. Having to change terminology with small letters and capital letters is not coming to me naturally and hampering my train of thoughts.

Besides I am quite ok to let everybody have the benefit of working under the presumption of being a dharmic unless proven otherwise. Proven as in pramaanic and not as in evidenced in a court of law. That itself seems pretty dharmic to me. At the end of the day, if dharm is dependent on the absolute then no amount of logic can ever get you rid of risk. I have decided to run this risk, at least for myself.

For a normal case scenario:

1) I am interested in what is dharmic - a yardstick I would be happy to be judged by. Focusing on what Adharmic is like taking the eye off from what Dharmic is.

2) It makes sense to me to let the other guy define himself in his own definition - And that is what I would like to challenge him on. Basically have him say what he is so I can attack him where he has invested the most. So if an Abrahmic says I believe in literal meaning of his scriptures first I can challenge him on his desire for Secularism as defined by him.


For an abnormal case scenario:

1) Like adamant behaviour despite being shown the contradiction. It is a simple case of hut-dharmita.

2) For Crypto cases, we can never be sure because he can begin to lie from the get go. The question of a debate does not arise. Debate can only be in the presence of a fully formed claim being put up by at least one party. And as I said earlier a claim proper means a 'claim with a belief in it'.

For such abnormal cases debate may not be a solution at all.

[harbans]

Rajesh ji, also form the same 3 year old debate:

B Ji said: The debate has to come round to recognize that no faith or ideology can seek immunity from verbal dissection and debate.

Harbans said: Exactly!! The battle for our survival 80 or 100 years hence is not going to be dependent on WWs or Plagues. It has to be an ideological one. Only in it does redemption lie. And if we don't come around to verbal dissection and debae on faith, we're leaving our future generations in murderous jeopardy. This is the need of the hour. This is what Islamists seek to prevent in the UN or with regards to Taslima or Rushdie wherever.

Ditto i am saying even today.

[RajeshA]

While you were saying by making a few changes by empowering women Islam can be changed, i know that that was impossible then and is so today. Here in this thread i am not talking about changing Islam. I cannot. I am talking about weaning people away from Islam to Dharma by making constitutional changes that empower the Govt to be hard on those who block Taslima's, Rushdie's, get hurt at the drop of a hat, book, movie whatever. So no my stance has not changed since then. Yours again clearly has. But that's all right we all learn.

Well in that regard I too have not changed. I still consider women to be Islam's Achilles heel. In fact on this very thread I have talked about empowering women with the notion that that would crack Islam.

In the West, Muslim girls and women also see the freedoms enjoyed by other women, but there there is still the ethnic difference, and Muslim girls even in the West cannot bear it to fully break with their families over the issue of freedom of choice of spouse, because that means they would be thrown out of their community - their culture, their language, their skin-people.

In India we are the same ethnicity and that cannot be the difference. Here if Muslim women want to break out, the system needs to support it.

On the question of openness, I think we should work on a framework specifically designed for the purpose of dealing with the question of openness in religious matters. With your help, I put together the "Law on Rules of Engagement on Religion". I hope we can improve this framework further.

I don't think anybody in power really gives a rat's ass about what principles are enshrined in the Preamble. I wonder even if all Parliamentarians knows that there is a Preamble.

Rajesh Ji, no offense but doctrine is everything. Islam cannot change because it's doctrine is such. What are the pet peeves that people express against the GoI today, even on BRF? The obsession with secularism and doles for vote banks. Little do people realize that Secularism and Socialism have been put right in the Preamble by IG in the 70's. Every Govt institution is governed by these as primary considerations. All landmark cases that the SC who understand the preamble concepts better than the aam junta have been in favor of enhancing Secular and Socialist institutions in India. Little do the mango abduls and that includes a lot on this board even understand how doctrine and particularly charter preambles affect us. I would suggest reflection on that.

Here some background to Muslim Appeasement in India.

Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru started “Haj subsidy” for Muslims in 1959 though such subsidy is anti-secular and though none of the 57 Muslim countries pays any such subsidy.

So this Muslim Appeasement started much before any "Secularism" was included in the Preamble in the 70s by IG. Under the Congress there has been no change before and after this inclusion.

If it bothers you, why not advocate doing away with these additions of "Secularism" and "Socialism"? Why not attack it directly?

[RajeshA]

Rajesh ji, also form the same 3 year old debate:

B Ji said: The debate has to come round to recognize that no faith or ideology can seek immunity from verbal dissection and debate.

Harbans said: Exactly!! The battle for our survival 80 or 100 years hence is not going to be dependent on WWs or Plagues. It has to be an ideological one. Only in it does redemption lie. And if we don't come around to verbal dissection and debae on faith, we're leaving our future generations in murderous jeopardy. This is the need of the hour. This is what Islamists seek to prevent in the UN or with regards to Taslima or Rushdie wherever.

Ditto i am saying even today.

Well harbans ji, from the 80 or 100 years we can subtract three and a half years now!

[harbans]

Well harbans ji, from the 80 or 100 years we can subtract three and a half years now!

I know Rajesh Ji you've been consistent on the Pakeezah front and who can forget that here on BRF..
Yet we have made progress here too. We have begun talking rationalizing on the basis of not some narrow agenda or samradaya but from the standpoint of Dharma. Yes there are difficulties and rancour as definitions, contexts conflict. But i am certain there will be light at the end. Maybe lets see 50 pages down the line what we all agree basically on.

I also wonder how many here have read about epigenetic experiments. Some very interesting experiments were conducted on animal species separated by thousands of miles. What is being scientifically documented is that learning traits are passed on by god knows what mechanism as yet across completely geographically distant and disconnected species. Thus if we do evolve to some ideas here, i am certain many others will also think on similar lines. Also this forum is not that disconnected as some of the animals where such experiments were conducted on. So yes if there is progress in definitions and some conviction on the way forward, i am sure there could be change in the near future to tackle some of these issues on a wider level as compared to here. So do continue with your efforts.

[RajeshA]

The Potency of the 'Dharmic'

RajeshA ji,

I have tried to follow your lead, essentially out of deference to your wishes of doing this peacefully. But I feel like having to jump hoops. Having to change terminology with small letters and capital letters is not coming to me naturally and hampering my train of thoughts.

Sorry for the trouble! Please don't let it hamper your train of thoughts.

Besides I am quite ok to let everybody have the benefit of working under the presumption of being a dharmic unless proven otherwise. Proven as in pramaanic and not as in evidenced in a court of law. That itself seems pretty dharmic to me. At the end of the day, if dharm is dependent on the absolute then no amount of logic can ever get you rid of risk. I have decided to run this risk, at least for myself.

Of course! Nobody has a monopoly on being dharmic (small d ).

'Dharmic' (capital D) on the other hand has little to do with 'dharmic' (small d). 'Dharmic' is a theological position and based on this theological position (i.e. the definition) some traditions would be Dharmic and other not. Sanatan Dharma, Bauddh Dharma, Jain Dharma, Sikh Dharma are Dharmic traditions. In fact Rajiv Malhotra also refers to these as Dharmic Traditions. It is not my nomenclature.

However I have introduced a variant semantic based on the definition, which basically is compatible with "Being Different" listed differences.

The 'Adharmic' (capital A) addition is my own and refers to Abrahamics. It simply means these religions cannot be classified as 'Dharmic' for they believe in the need for an intermediary, a gatekeeper, a control mechanism, sitting between Self and Supreme, and are willing to believe his truth claims. That is the opposite of what a 'Dharmic' believes in and thus such religions are called 'Adharmic'.

For a normal case scenario:

1) I am interested in what is dharmic - a yardstick I would be happy to be judged by. Focusing on what Adharmic is like taking the eye off from what Dharmic is.

Well for a starter, one can know what 'Dharmic' (capital D) is

1. by looking at the definition.
2. extrapolating what the definition entails.
3. looking at the framework proposed by your Sampradaya, which would call itself as 'Dharmic'.
4. accepting it as an identity, just like Hindu, or Bharatiya.

As for the question, "what is 'dharmic'?", that is a very deep question and would probably preoccupy us for some time. People offer different responses based on different perspectives of the issue.

2) It makes sense to me to let the other guy define himself in his own definition - And that is what I would like to challenge him on. Basically have him say what he is so I can attack him where he has invested the most. So if an Abrahmic says I believe in literal meaning of his scriptures first I can challenge him on his desire for Secularism as defined by him.

ravi_g ji,

of course such debate and dialogue should continue. But we are looking for macro-scale changes. It is about creating a reorientation in the public discourse. It is about giving the Dharmics a ready made tool to counter an Abrahamic advance. You may be intellectually trained for such a discussion, but there are many who have not given the topic the same level of attention, and thus need a ready made response.

I have written earlier on the potency of the 'Dharmic' in such situations. [1] [2]

Of course the "other" can himself describe what he is. But he would not be able to deny that he believes Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah if he is a Muslim, and if he is a true Christian he will not deny that Jesus is the path to Salvation. So I am hardly stating anything here which is variable. The "intervention through a self-proclaimed intermediary" is a given.

[RamaY]

Something to ponder for the proponents of "Dharmic code of conduct" and believe that dharmics exist all over without any qualifier...

The only meaningful response would be that these are not real Muslims. Muslims do not kill Muslims. These are not dharmics. Islam is religion of peace. Per islam even killing one human is same as killing whole humanity....

Birmingham's Muslim community did not inform police of terrorism plot

No-one in the Birmingham bomb plotters' own community tipped the police off with their concerns, despite finding out they were sending young men to terror training camps in Pakistan.

This was despite the fact the families of four other young men recruited from Sparkhill all intervened to bring them back home the moment they found out the real reasons for them travelling to Pakistan.

Same thing will happen in India as well.

UK is a first world country. It provided one of the best social security, education, medical facilities, civic infra etc to all its citizens. It gave all citizens freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It even abandoned death punishment.

Then why Muslim British do not do their basic duty towards their nation?

What guarantee Indian Muslims can offer to India, given numerous opportunities and propaganda to feel harassed?

[RajeshA]

The Potency of the 'Dharmic'

Significantly it forms not only the opinion of Dharmics about themselves, but also of Adharmics about Dharmics.

Today if one goes to any madrassa, or to some Muslim ghetto, or some Paki website, what do we find is their opinion of the Hindus - stone idols, cow urine, linga phallus worship. It is good that sudarshan ji has made an effort to axiomize Sanatan Dharma in a concise way. It need not capture the intricacies of Dharma, the cosmology, etc. but it gives a basic idea of how to present Sanatan Dharma in short to an Adharmic.

Similarly if the 'Dharmic' definition receives a wider acceptance, and the Dharmic identity becomes more widespread the Islamics would have to explain to their talibs in madrassas who the 'others', the Dharmics are, and they will be forced to reproduce the Dharmic definition. They may try to put their own spin on it, but there is no denying what it says - the Dharmics are free to seek the Supreme, whereas the Islamics have to stand at gates, and if one of them wants speedier access, then one has to blow oneself up with AoA!

It is important for the Abrahamics to always have to look at us as Dharmics, according to the definition. Every time they do so, in the eyes of the observer, the part about "intervention of a self-proclaimed intermediary" would always seem irritating, but they will be forced to use it in order to refer to us; after all it IS THE DEFINITION!

So in fact we would have the Islamics in their madrassas doing propaganda for us, telling their Talibs that the Dharmics have intrinsic capacity to talk to the Supreme, say Allah, but the Muslims have to follow all the Dos and Donts of Shariah.

Perhaps then the Islamic preachers may add, "well it need not be true that Dharmics have this intrinsic capacity to access the Supreme, it is just what the Dharmics, think they have".

Talib: "how do we know that they do not have this intrinsic capacity?"
Mullah: "well Muhammad says so that Allah says so!"
Talib : "but isn't Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the the self-proclaimed intermediary"?
Mullah: "No, he is the Prophet sent to us by Allah"!
Talib: "So who proclaimed him to be the Prophet?"
Mullah: "Allah proclaimed him to be the Prophet."
Talib: "So to whom did Allah proclaim this?"
Mullah: "To Prophet Muhammad through Angel Jabriel."
Talib: "And Prophet Muhammad spoke of this to everybody else!".
Mullah: "Yes."
Talib, "Well is then the Prophet, not self-proclaimed because he proclaimed it to his companions himself!"
Mullah: "Huhnnnn!"
Talib: "Can Dharmics become Muslims?"
Mullah: "No, they have to accept the Prophet as the Messenger of Allah!"
Talib: "Wouldn't that be difficult, as they are not allowed to accept the intervention of self-proclaimed intermediaries?"
Mullah: "Yes it would be difficult!"
Talib: "Is that because Prophet Muhammad is a self-proclaimed intermediary?"
Mullah: "Hunhhhh! Enough for today!"

Because 'Hindu' is not defined, the Mullahs have full freedom to tell their Talibs anything they want about 'Hinduism'. That is why one gets the oppression of the Brahmin, caste system, cow urine, etc. Short precise definitions would help rectify this situation. Make the definition of any identity so potent that any Mullah who reproduces it ends up doing propaganda in favor of the Hindus.

[RamaY]

RajeshA ji

You are unbelievable

But the deliberation will not happen the way "we hope it would". It happens the way it happens. As it is happening by the likes of Zakir Nayaks. And highly educated Muslims think his logic and perspective is correct.

This is where we need to do proper purva-paksha. We need to understand Islam and Islamic method of teaching the way a muslim would do. Not as a dharmic would do.

[RajeshA]

The Potency of 'Dharmic'

RajeshA ji

You are unbelievable

But the deliberation will not happen the way "we hope it would". It happens the way it happens. As it is happening by the likes of Zakir Nayaks. And highly educated Muslims think his logic and perspective is correct.

This is where we need to do proper purva-paksha. We need to understand Islam and Islamic method of teaching the way a muslim would do. Not as a dharmic would do.

Indeed RamaY ji, we need to observe the Islamic way of preaching. Each and every statement they make to the Talibs need to have a proper response from our side. We need to understand the pedagogics in play in madrassas. We need to analyze their rhetoric about Islam, about themselves, about victimization, about their glory, about the world and about the Hindus.

Re: definitions, because 'Hindu' is not defined, the Mullahs have full freedom to tell their Talibs anything they want about 'Hinduism'. That is why one gets the oppression of the Brahmin, caste system, cow urine, etc. Short precise definitions would help rectify this situation. Make the definition of any identity so potent that any Mullah who reproduces it ends up doing propaganda in favor of the Hindus.

It would become even more interesting when Mullahs try to train their Talibs on the rhetoric for conversion. They will either have to prove that

• one needs intermediaries to access the Supreme, or
• the merits of having a prophet outweigh those being intrinsically capable, or
• Prophet Muhammad was not a self-proclaimed intermediary, or
• it doesn't matter what humans consider to be the case (aka humans are incapable of thinking)

Basically the Islamics would have to hear again and again that Prophet Muhammad is a self-proclaimed Prophet, from the definition of 'Dharmics' itself, which they would need to reproduce to their Talibs, and they will have discuss whether the Dharmics are speaking the truth or not. Of course it always be denied by the Mullahs, that that is preposterous. But there is simply not only just not any available evidence that anybody other than Prophet saw Angel Jabriel visiting him but the Prophet himself does not claim any further witnesses. So it would be hard for the Mullahs to deny this. And then one would always come back to the suspicion whether that self-claim suffices to be considered a Prophet, because obviously Dharmics would be using 'self-proclaimed' as something "seriously wrong"!

So there is no escaping for the Islamics to confront this issue: Is Prophet Muhammad a self-proclaimed intermediary or not? And if he is why is it a problem for Dharmics to accept self-proclaimed intermediaries? Of course they say they don't need any such prophets because they have the "intrinsic capacity to access the Supreme" by themselves? Can that be true? Do we have this intrinsic capacity or not?

This is where the Muslim would have to open himself to the Dharmic possibilities!

And what better way to initiate this churning, simply by embedding this virus in the visiting card you give to the Muslim - the definition of 'Dharmic'!

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

[RajeshA]

Star Trek: The Next Generation - I, Borg



I wonder if somebody remembers this episode.

This is the strategy I speak of when I speak of the definition of 'Dharmic'

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

[harbans]

Rajesh ji, Muslims will say Koran clearly says that no intermediaries are allowed between Allah and the person. That is what Mohammed too proclaimed. The episode of Allat and Oza in the Satanic verses is just about that. They will ay Mohammed is like a Guru and never claimed to be God. Just like you have been told by some Guru or enlightened person that you can find God within the self without intermediaries so too did Mohamed say so. And they are correct if they do say that. No?

[sudarshan]

Sudarshan ji,

But "trivializing for assimilation" is nothing but the process of "digestion" (at least, as Malhotra uses that term), at a mass level. Just as enzymes destructively catalyze the breakdown of food into its more rudimentary biochemical components...Yoga is trivialized into a fitness craze. Sattvic diet is trivialized into the "Vegan" fad. It takes some amount of thinking for Joe/Jane Sixpack to realize (as you have correctly said) that karma, being about responsibility, negates redemption by a chosen saviour; or that manifestation through our own desire for material fulfillment is not reconcilable either with Biblical ex-nihilo creation or the original sin. Most Westerners will take "what goes around comes around" and say "yes, that is in Christianity also."
.
.
.

Rudradev and Ravi_g saars,
I agree that the aam westerner would not be inclined to think through the implications of the axioms. In that sense, the target of the axioms and the scientific exercise is not the aam aadmi at all. Why are the X-tian overlords unable to trivialize evolution or relativity or quantum mechanics, and why were they unable to trivialize the heliocentric theory in the middle ages? Why did they have to lump it and accept that the earth was not the center of the universe, and why are they going to lump it in a hundred years from now and accept evolution also?

Because of the awe in which the scientific community is held by the average westerner. The idea with the axiom exercise was (in part) to propagate the meme that SD is a scientific theory of the universe, which links our own consciousness to both the material and the spiritual plane. SD is the missing link in the relativists' and quantum mechanists' quest to incorporate our consciousness into their world-view. The idea is to generate this buzz, to have papers written on it, to gain the backing of the academic and intellectual circles in the west. Tall order? Maybe. Would it be worth it? I think so. Because then it's not a question of competing religious world-views, it's a question of "established science" (at least in the eyes of the lay westerner) vs. ossified Christian theology. Just like it was with the heliocentric theory, and just as it will be with evolution.

On the other hand, trivializing for digestion is something that Indics can do too. I presented these ideas in another thread, on how Indics can similarly (and much more easily) trivialize the entirety of X-tianity and assimilate it. The Abrahamics are like a mouse, which ventures out of its hole every once in a while to take bites off a tiger, with the hope of eventually assimilating the entire tiger. The tiger, on the other hand, can dispose of the mouse in one bite. Jesus is a saviour who takes on your sins? Why, this is simply a rewording of the concept of the "Ganga-snaan" and the "tirth-yaatra." I had many more ideas along these lines in the "Reverse Inculturation" thread in the burqa forum.

The need of the hour is creative solutions, and abandonment of the fear complex.

[Prem]

But Muhammad made Allah Goonga, Behra and Andha without him. As Swami Ram Tirath said, "Whats Muhhamad name doing , attached with Allah carrying equal measure , even more importance than the supposed imaginary Boss Itself? Muhamadism is a cult and not true spiritual path by Indian standards of Dharma. The person called Mohamad is the accuser, judge and jury of every practice in Islam and thus no legitimacy outside his cult. Islam disqualify itself from being part of universal or principle based value paradigm which is the common ground of all the spiritual paths of Bharat Bhoomi .

Sudarshan Ji
Agree, its time to launch the Sudarshan Chakra to lay claim on the fatherhood of all legitimate spiritual, moral , ethical, intellectual practices. Onus to be on the present empty Domuses occupied by shallow Domases.

[harbans]

Jhujar ji, but Islam is always saying no intermediaries like Idols are allowed between the person and Allah. And Mohammed ois only conveying this crucial message. It has also been very consistent on this. They will retort that they have been saying this all the while. And these Hindu's believe in worshipping Idols, aka Intermediaries, so they (Muslims) are the true Dharmics and have come to reform Hindu's. I am only pointing to Rajesh Ji's definition of Dharmic. And yes many will agree with the Zakir Naik types who will inevitably say this. Meanwhile our Sri Sri's will mumble into universal consciousness, drop a lot of Sankrit complexities and the aam Ramu Shaymu will generally say Mr Naik has a point, and so will Burkha's on the TV debates and next day all will go to work as usual and quietly more Ramu's will convert to the 'real' Dharmic religion.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh ji, Muslims will say Koran clearly says that no intermediaries are allowed between Allah and the person. That is what Mohammed too proclaimed. The episode of Allat and Oza in the Satanic verses is just about that. They will ay Mohammed is like a Guru and never claimed to be God. Just like you have been told by some Guru or enlightened person that you can find God within the self without intermediaries so too did Mohamed say so. And they are correct if they do say that. No?

No not really. That is because Prophet Muhammad is not just a rasul, he is Khatam an-Nabuwwah - the Seal of the Messengers - the last law giver.

A Nabi, a Messenger, is not some Guru, he acts as intermediary between Allah and the people for without him the law would not reach the people.

One could argue that a Rasul's work is simply to propagate the law that is already there and that has some parallels with the work of a Guru, but a Nabi is a different piecework.

Furthermore, a Nabi or Rasul does not attain their position because of their enlightenment, their siddhi, their qualities, but because they are chosen by "God". This seems to different from the case of Gurus.

[RajeshA]

Jhujar ji, but Islam is always saying no intermediaries like Idols are allowed between the person and Allah. And Mohammed ois only conveying this crucial message. It has also been very consistent on this. They will retort that they have been saying this all the while. And these Hindu's believe in worshipping Idols, aka Intermediaries, so they are the true Dharmics and have come to reform. I am only pointing to Rajesh Ji's definition of Dharmic. And yes many will agree with the Zakir Naik types who will inevitably say this. Meanwhile our Sri Sri's will mumble into universal consciousness, drop a lot of Sankrit complexities and the aam Ramu Shaymu will generally say Mr Naik has a point, and so will Burkha's on the TV debates and next day all will go to work as usual and quietly more Ramu's will convert to the 'real' Dharmic religion.

harbans ji,

either idols are stone, in which case they have neither life nor consciousness, and thus cannot play the part of intermediary. Even if one were to consider that idols can be intermediaries, there is then the question of "self-proclaimed". How can an inanimate object proclaim anything and even if we take the case of communication devices, then there is still the issue with "self-proclaim". There is no Self there. And the machine works through external control.

If idols are however seen as Murtis, then they are the Supreme embodied, so there is no issue of intermediary.

If idols are not to be considered the Supreme, then they are merely passive channels of focusing one's consciousness on to the Supreme. Passive channels are also not intermediaries.

As said earlier, Muhammad is not just saying there are no intermediaries, he is giving the "Law of Allah" to man which makes him the intermediary.

[Prem]

Harbans ji, We have no obligation to work within their one sided framework. Muhamad is no witness of Allah and Allah no witness of Muhamamd's claim. Not what they say or claim but what they practice or Muhammad practiced and their legitimacy , relevance within India is the core issue . Its not the Indians who are seeking Muhamadan recognition and validity. The personality based Quranic injunctions and Hadeeth based practices fall too low to be considered within the realm of reason, intellect or genuine spiritual path.

Rajesh Ji , Muhamad is unbreakable idol made with mental stuff . Stone images you can throw in water, clay ones too can be immersed etc. The idol made of mental ingredients is the most damaging and controlling as it thrives on making followers dumber than the such idol. Comparing to Muhamadans,How many instances in Indian history the threat of death was declared to any one who have insulted the Murtis? The Nabi, Rasul etc are no more in status than the local Mahants etc in various Deras. Asa Ram Bappu is like Prophet,founder of Radhaswami, Nirankari sect too and so is Joseph Smith and Deepak Chopra in USA.
A Guru have the power to make you or anyone Like Guru, Nabi , Rasool etc have no such elevation, knowledge , realization or power. Guru Dakshina is taken before Brahm Gyan as afterward there is no Guru or Chela left to do the honor. IMHO, this distinction is our strength and must be kept separate or shove it forcefully if the need arise. Devtas , local Deities of of ME cannot be put in the same category of Indian understanding of Supreme Reality.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by varunkumar from "Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad - News & Analysis" Thread

Just stumbled upon this. A dated interview but it shows what goes in the minds of Hindu women when they convert to Islam. Apparently, in her last days, she had begun to regret her conversion as she couldn't take all the restrictions imposed upon her by Islam as a woman.

The Rediff Interview/ Kamala Suraiya
'Allah told me that in order to be effective, you should have political power'

kamala Suraiya Kamala Suraiya (Kamala Das and Madhavikutty in her pre-Islamic days) continues to shock the straight-laced Malayalees. One of India's best-known English poets and shortstory writers, Suraiya, who abandoned Hinduism to convert to Islam last December, launched a national political party last week.

Christened as the Lok Seva Party, the new political party, she says, emerged from her conviction that social change could be possible in India only through political power. But Suraiya, 68, and with near-blind eyes puts forward another reason that compelled her to embrace the political vocation -- Allah. "Allah inspired me to launch this party," she says. Before embarking on the political mission, Suraiya says she carried out three months of meditation and prayer before Allah.

Suraiya has been shocking conservative Indians for many years now. It all began with her autobiography, My Story, which told the story of her sexual life, her relationships with men and her views on the world. Then, in the 1970s, Keralites saw an active Madhavikutty entering into politics with a green campaign. She contested the assembly election, traversing the countryside, asking for votes from people in villages. She lost, but that did not deter her from kicking off another controversy -- through nude paintings of young females. Thus when Madhavikutty released her first nude painting in the 1980s, she proclaimed: "I find the nude female body the most beautiful in the world." So her diverse paintings depicting nude females shocked the Malayalees again. Then, on a fine day in December last year, she wore the purdah and bangles and announced that she has converted to Islam.

In an exclusive interview with Senior Associate Editor George Iype, Suraiya, clad in a black purdah and her hands adorned with colourful bangles, spells out how her conversion to Islam forced her to take the plunge into political life.

Is there any link between your conversion and the launching of the political party?

There is a strong link between my conversion to Islam and the political party I have launched. I became conscious of a god only after my conversion. I always had a concept of Krishna within my mind. But Krishna is a lover, a friend, a playmate. Krishna is not the sort of a Hindu god to whom we can pray and appeal. It is probably because of my ignorance. No, guru ever came to teach me the Hindu scriptures. But I began to practice namaz five times every day, a practice which is not there in Hinduism. These days I get up at 3 am every day and pray. That prayer has given me strength and faith which I never had before.

So you never felt this strength and faith as a Hindu?

For me, all gods are the same, whether you are a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian or anyone. I believe in the concept of god. For me, god is the guardian.

Do you think that these changes taking place in your life are out of your conviction?

My conviction is growing. Islam has grown on me. In the beginning I was not at all religious. Now I am really religious because of Islam.

Are you happy with your new religious status? Are you happy with your new life as a Muslim?

If happiness is the negation of unhappiness, I am happy as a Muslim.

You had said you were depressed and disappointed as a Hindu all these years. What were the reasons behind this disappointment?

I was disappointed because I found that Hinduism was full of prejudices. It is not only the case with Hinduism but with most other religions too. And the prejudices keep growing. It is very difficult for youngsters these days to escape from the poisoning of the religious prejudices. Therefore, what worried me was the fact that youngsters moving into the dark areas of prejudices and superstitions. For the last two or three years I have moved around feeling and saying that all religions have crossed their expiry date. We can do without religion if we have a sense of god within us.

I have achieved this sense of god within me. Later on, to make myself feel more secure and safe, I moved into a new religion. I feel secure now. The feeling of security is growing. It is influencing me now.

Is there no prejudice in Islam?

There are people with prejudices in Islam too. But then, as I have always done, I am trying to dispel such prejudices. This is a kind of fight, a lonely fight, against these beliefs and superstitions. I cannot believe in religious superstitions.

When you converted you said that Hindu gods never forgive, they only punish.

My problem with Hinduism was that no religious scholar helped me to solve my problems. Hindu scholars have only abused and hurt me. Therefore, I felt uncomfortable in the religion. I am an ignorant person. I had wished a number of times for somebody from Hinduism to come forward and help me. But nobody came.

That is not the case with Islam. Muslim scholars are always moving around trying to teach the tenets of Islam. I have never seen a Hindu religious scholar or teacher moving around houses saying: "Well, I will teach you the scriptures."

Have traditional Muslims accepted you?

They did accept me in the beginning. But now it seems as if they do not trust me because I have this habit of talking straight. I have said this before and continue to say it even now that the Muslim League's women's wing Vanitha League is a cattle shed and all of them are just cattle with no voices. I was criticised by traditional Muslim leaders then. Now that I have started my own political party, that too has also rattled them. And if I field my candidates in the elections, they will be shocked even further.

Has Islam restricted you?

I chose the religion out of my convictions and therefore I am ready to work within the constraints and restrictions of Islam. Religion cannot chain one's creativity. Islam is tolerant. Allah is the god of love and forgiveness. My mind tells me that Allah has forgiven me my sins. People ask me why a liberated woman like me chose the purdah. But I tell you, the purdah makes me feel more liberal. Because when you wear a purdah you can travel anywhere in the world and you feel safe.

Nobody is going to make any disparaging remarks against a purdah-clad woman because they are always afraid of Muslim rage. Behind every purdah-clad Muslim woman, some Mussalman is lurking with a dagger to ensure her safety. So purdah is always safe. It protects you. It also keeps the dust, the heat and insects away from your body.

You went to the Gulf countries soon after your conversion. What was that for?

I went to the Gulf on an invitation from some Islamic organisations. I stayed there as a state guest. In Qatar, I addressed an Arab audience of 10,000 consisting only of men. It was a marvelous experience delivering a speech to the Arab men.

Does Allah inspire you to write?

Yes, yes, yes. Allah is always whispering in me. Allah is always prompting me to write. I must be having some mission to fulfill through my poetry and writings.

[RajeshA]

When you converted you said that Hindu gods never forgive, they only punish.

My problem with Hinduism was that no religious scholar helped me to solve my problems. Hindu scholars have only abused and hurt me. Therefore, I felt uncomfortable in the religion. I am an ignorant person. I had wished a number of times for somebody from Hinduism to come forward and help me. But nobody came.

That is not the case with Islam. Muslim scholars are always moving around trying to teach the tenets of Islam. I have never seen a Hindu religious scholar or teacher moving around houses saying: "Well, I will teach you the scriptures."

No religious scholar helped her solve her problems! That is something one needs to solve at the community level with Seva Dals.

Also nobody taught her about the beliefs of the Hindus. This is again another thing I have spoken about earlier. The term 'Hindu' does not have anything to teach in the religious sense. It is just resistance to conversion, to submitting to the foreign imperialist religious ideologies, militarily, intellectually and culturally.

If some people look for some spiritual guidance in 'Hindu' they may not find any. Of course those Sanatan Dharma orgs who go by Hindu would step forward, but not all Sanatan Dharma orgs respond to 'Hindu'! If she knew she should look for 'Sanatan Dharma', then she would have found material on it.

Also we have temples with pundits but unlike Mullahs in the mosques they are not preachers. The lady would have to go to an Asharam, for any spiritual guidance. But seldom do SD Acharyas go door to door to explain. That is a weakness, which is exploited by the Abrahamics. So SD people need to become pro-active.

Please read the article in full. She is very honest!

[harbans]

Rajesh ji, i read about Kamala Das and the conversion incidents at that time. I am familiar with her. She tried to outrage. She wrote too much but understood less IMHO. She was in the left lib circles and in the 90's a lot of this circle was in outrage at the Hindutvaadi's/ Babri and stuff. But still i would like to know why you are quoting her now? What is the relevance. I must have missed something here.

[harbans]

Jhujar Ji, i need no convincing about Islam. The points i was making was in context to Rajesh Ji's definitive definition of a Dharmic that:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

If Rajesh Ji considers on the above basis Muslims to be Adharmic then they have a very strong basis on the above alone to say they are the real Dharmics and Hindu's are not. So i am not in agreement with freezing that definition of Dharmic one bit.

[brihaspati]

The Kamala Das incident is relevant for one particular problem I have mentioned repeatedly on BR, but probably it is so sensitive that there has been few response to it apart from I Think RajeshA ji's.

This was the observation that women in general, or a significant portion of them, did look for "strength" in their "men", and by an intellectual extension - expected similar "masculinity" in culture that they wanted to belong to. It is a transference of an ideal of masculinity onto religion and culture - some religion/culture/ideology that will become the substitute for "strong men", who "hold firmly" onto their women.

There are many speculations about this, and this is no space to go into theories justifying the phenomenon. Women across all cultures seem to less resent enforced "submission", and in fact are perhaps quicker to rationalize such submission as a "loving" one, than men are inclined to. It need not be genetic or biological (although there are theories like that) and could be the way we bring up women from birth, now.

My suspicions from observations around is that - "forward caste" women, with higher access to intellectual and economic freedom are more likely to feel dissatisfied with their freedom, with restrained or polite or courteous behaviour from men in the sexuality arena, and inclined to be attracted openly or secretly to look for more "masculine" religions.

It is a serious issue - because the upper creamy layer gets more representation in public space and deemed the representative voice of womenhood. Not torture, not rape, but on the otherhand a very firm hold on the women in your lives - while exploring and teaching the alternative elements of masculinity in the "Hindu", is very much necessary. Probably for a time, "Hinduism" or "SD" whichever term you prefer, should practise mor eof "kshatryia guna" than vaishya or brahmin guna.

Kamala Das was perhaps looking for a strong man in her sexual explorations. Strong not just in the sexual sense. She did not get it and searched for it in ideology because of her exposure to intellectual freedom. I am sorry if I appear macho - but I am lovingly accused of that by shq too. I think I am loved more for that than hated.

[RamaY]

When you converted you said that Hindu gods never forgive, they only punish.

My problem with Hinduism was that no religious scholar helped me to solve my problems. Hindu scholars have only abused and hurt me. Therefore, I felt uncomfortable in the religion. I am an ignorant person. I had wished a number of times for somebody from Hinduism to come forward and help me. But nobody came.

That is not the case with Islam. Muslim scholars are always moving around trying to teach the tenets of Islam. I have never seen a Hindu religious scholar or teacher moving around houses saying: "Well, I will teach you the scriptures."

No religious scholar helped her solve her problems! That is something one needs to solve at the community level with Seva Dals.

Also nobody taught her about the beliefs of the Hindus. This is again another thing I have spoken about earlier. The term 'Hindu' does not have anything to teach in the religious sense. It is just resistance to conversion, to submitting to the foreign imperialist religious ideologies, militarily, intellectually and culturally.

If some people look for some spiritual guidance in 'Hindu' they may not find any. Of course those Sanatan Dharma orgs who go by Hindu would step forward, but not all Sanatan Dharma orgs respond to 'Hindu'! If she knew she should look for 'Sanatan Dharma', then she would have found material on it.

Also we have temples with pundits but unlike Mullahs in the mosques they are not preachers. The lady would have to go to an Asharam, for any spiritual guidance. But seldom do SD Acharyas go door to door to explain. That is a weakness, which is exploited by the Abrahamics. So SD people need to become pro-active.

Please read the article in full. She is very honest!

Please note that she seems to be a well educated woman and a writer too. If she started a political party, that means she is well connected too.

Yet, she complains that no Hindu seer helped HER. See the entitlement. She wanted someone to come to her home and clarify her and issues. What efforts she made? Did she reach out to the numerous ashrams, gurus and teachers?

This is the same complaint we hear from other Hindus. They complain the priest who is working for Rs2,000/month salary looking after a temple didn't answer all their philosophical questions and didn't give the blue pill that gives the instantaneous Moksha.

On H/M women, my old posts... Look at the behavior of this person (same person, two faiths) and compare it with my observations....

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1325860
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1324089

[Prem]

Dharma holds Atma ( So close to ATOM than ADAM= Adharm ) be ever pure, immortal and in image of Parmatma. This is very different than Islamic understanding of Man being dirty scum deserving damnation and always begging to God like Dog constantly asking for food... Unless Mohamad nods his head to Allah to be kind. This qualifying essential fundamental defining difference can or makes Indians separate from Muhamad's followers. Muhamad or his Quran as we know shows no sign of any knowledge about Hind and its Dharmic Thought.

[Prem]

Th
Kamala Das was perhaps looking for a strong man in her sexual explorations. Strong not just in the sexual sense. She did not get it and searched for it in ideology because of her exposure to intellectual freedom. I am sorry if I appear macho - but I am lovingly accused of that by shq too. I think I am loved more for that than hated.

Her own explanation of such exploitation deserve close, sincere reading, especially her first experience which she has written beautifully in Discovery of Thighs Have Eyes episode.

[RamaY]

Nobody is going to make any disparaging remarks against a purdah-clad woman because they are always afraid of Muslim rage. Behind every purdah-clad Muslim woman, some Mussalman is lurking with a dagger to ensure her safety. So purdah is always safe. It protects you. It also keeps the dust, the heat and insects away from your body.

This is the key.

[member_23629]

Probably for a time, "Hinduism" or "SD" whichever term you prefer, should practise more of "kshatryia guna" than vaishya or brahmin guna.

You are absolutely right. Too much domination of people with Brahmin guna (intellectuals and debaters) and vaishya guna (traders obsessed with turnover and profits) makes the society vulnerable to take-overs by hostile forces. Kshatriya guna (people with deep understanding of statecraft and military and strategic matters) should always remain supreme in a society as self-preservation is the foremost virtue.

[member_23629]

^^^ Women gravitate towards men with strength, but many of them mistake violent ruthlessness with masculinity. They live to regret it later.

[member_20317]

This observation about women gravitating towards supposedly masculine religions may actually be a function of two things:

1) An unintended consequence of a culture where we as trained dharmics try to protect our womenfolk from the unbridled criminalisation around us. A criminalisation that is intimatedly linked with the Politics of the land. The necessary but dicey protection may actually be making the women folk accustomed to an environment of safety ensured by Menfolk. A surprising data point was that Punjab had amongst the lowest women to men ratio and also the lowest crime against women. IIRC it was around 9.5 incidents per 1 lac population for Punjab. And this despite the menfolk in punjab being amongst the most uncouth in north India (MC/BC is actually punctuation in much of Punjab) and also the most pampered. This despite the highest incident of narco-addiction. Surprisingly enough this figure was matched by Uttarakhand. Now Uttarakhand has very less of young men folk, the kind who can commit violent crime against women, because most of these menfolk are in other towns trying to make a living. But you hardly hear a Pahaadi involved in crime as often as you hear people from the urban villages in and around Delhi. Both Punjab and Uttarakhand have had retained the strong links to their original religions. These originals religions carried a contextual dharmic basis where it was important to prevent a situation of a weaker getting prayed upon by random criminals. The emphasis on confrontation was not looked as healthy as it was never understood as a cure. I mean it is easy to have a criminal appropriately dealt with by way of confrontation but for political protectionism and vague almost useless laws and many more reasons this confrontational approach was never widespread.

Now all this perhaps created an artificial sense of heightened safety consciousness amongst our womenfolk. Our as both Hindus and Muslims.

Food for thought.


2) Just plain dumb play. The women in a Patriarchal society actually undervalues her links with the maternal side. So if a frigging love jihadi comes along with all the sweetness of honey and some strategically deployed emotionalism &/or promise of some harmless love play, the unknowing women is more likely to fall for the charms.

[member_20317]

Also we have temples with pundits but unlike Mullahs in the mosques they are not preachers. The lady would have to go to an Asharam, for any spiritual guidance. But seldom do SD Acharyas go door to door to explain. That is a weakness, which is exploited by the Abrahamics. So SD people need to become pro-active.

Please read the article in full. She is very honest!

RajeshA ji, the Katha sessions are getting outdated for some of the newer challenges. The folklore has to evolve. The kathas regarding say Karvachauth may actually be dispensed with now and a new katha of a Durga may have to be started.

You see that is why I had mused on the possibility of a new Maharishi Vaalmiki or Maharishi Tulsidas who could take the practice of dharm in easily understandable form to the people in general but with the new background.

All the Keertans, Mata ki chaukis, Satyanarayan kathas are evidence that people take Katha sessions seriously for personal development.

The fact that Indian movies always show the hero winning against immpossible odds is evidence of what the people wish for.

These wishes remaining unanswered is almost criminal behaviour for dharmics. As the circumstances have changed so should the Kathas.


ShauryaT ji suggested a somewhat more prescriptive idea. A new Yagyanvalakya but that is not good for building up organic narratives. That is good for either philosophic people or for doers. But for the general public not very strong on Karm/Gyan/Devotion, it is a new Ramayan that is needed.

JMT.

[RajeshA]

Jhujar Ji, i need no convincing about Islam. The points i was making was in context to Rajesh Ji's definitive definition of a Dharmic that:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

If Rajesh Ji considers on the above basis Muslims to be Adharmic then they have a very strong basis on the above alone to say they are the real Dharmics and Hindu's are not. So i am not in agreement with freezing that definition of Dharmic one bit.

harbans ji,

actually it is a good thing if the Muslims try to claim that they are Dharmics and the real Dharmics are not due to use of Murtis.

The thing is that then they are themselves opening themselves up for scrutiny, and whether Prophet Muhammad can be considered an intermediary or not. Those who make definitions, own the definitions. That is the alpha and the omega about ideologies.

Just as how the Europeans were the first to define the term 'Hinduism', they retained the ownership for ever. They can always open up the can of caste and sati at any time of their choice, regardless of how many times one explains it to them.

Those who define the terms owns them. And if we define that Prophet Muhammad is to be considered an intermediary according to our definition, then so it is.

I hjave earlier [1] [2] on explained why they cannot play with definitions. Same way we cannot decide that we are not doing Shirk.

It is a water-tight case!

But let me try to show a possible hole.

What if the Muslims say, that the souls do have an access to Allah, as they pray to him and not to Prophet Muhammad who does not intervene in the prayer.

The answer is:

Well is prayer access? Prayer is not access, because it is one sided communication. One never knows if one is just pouring out one's fears and wishes into the void or whether they are reaching somebody! Is that all the level of access one can be guaranteed? What about the intrinsic capacity? Anybody can pray! What has intrinsic capacity to do in this context?

Secondly we are not speaking of a procedure but about the overall relationship between the Self and the Supreme.

In fact if they try to explain themselves as Dharmics they may end up the target of much ridicule and jokes. I don't think they will do that.

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji,

The Nehruvian-Secularist Platform (aka Islamo-Christianist Platform) has lost any capacity to inspire people. They have no vision to offer. So people's attention has now shifted to alternative narratives. They are open to be mesmerized. Moreover as long as the people were not economically strong, we lacked the confidence to take on the world on our own terms. That confidence is today there. We are networked.

New intellectual blood is flowing into the Sanskritic narrative. Now I believe there is distinct possibility of a genuine renewal. The 90s revival though significant and on an important theme, was still a bit parochial. Now the people are open to discuss philosophy and society and vision and dig deeper.

It is all a new ball game, and we have to play this well at all levels be it at Tulsidas level or Yagyanvalakya level.