The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
I like your preamble there. But I think we need to include the role of state and it's relationship with the nation. This is to ensure two things
- the role of the state is clear and neither understate nor over stated.
- the state is not defined as a separate entity from the underlying society (then we are back to the contract between state and society).
When extrapolated to a society, the Artha Purushartha becomes the modern concept of National Security. The purpose and objective of any governance system is to ensure that all its citizens are provided this basic sense of security in terms of the social, civilizational and territorial definitions of a given nation. Chanakya thus defines Artha "ManuShyaaNaam Vrutti : ArTha:, Manushyavatii Bhoomirityartha:, Tasyaa: pruThivyaa: LaabhaPaalanOpaaya: Saastram ArThaSaastram Iti = The process of human livelihood is Artham, and the process of acquiring and securing such a society is science of Artha or Artha-Sastram" in his Arthashastra (Chapter 15:1).
No government's mandate goes beyond this Artha-Purushartha, because even the whole universe cannot satisfy a single person's Kaama/desire.
Suggestion (v.0.0.7) for the Preamble of a Dharmic Constitution.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved
to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,
to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,
to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and
to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation
....
do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
Your Suggestion: 246 words (excluding the first line "WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved" which is not there in your version).
It it useful if people can memorize the preamble by heart.
Yes indeed. Crystallization will take some time. But certainly it can be shortened.
but a pathway to absorb everybody into Dharma, in a manner that is as natural as possible.
IMHO the nuanced and principled Dharma is also quite capable of stern Dharma-Raksha when called for. The real strength of Dharma comes from its core ideas. When we lose sight of the core ideas, we no longer understand what is worth defending and why.
Pranav Ji, this is what we have to preserve without upsetting or being excluvist. So framing a preliminary kind of version for a Dharmic State will never be an easy effort. Yet if people from diverse Dharmic spectrums and possibly rigid viewpoints in their visions can agree on something, i think the effort will be worth it.
I like your preamble there. But I think we need to include the role of state and it's relationship with the nation.
Thanks Ramay Ji you liked it. However in the preamble we put the ideological basis of the States' interaction with it's citizenry, flora and fauna, etc. Yes it needs refinement. Maybe have missed a major core point aspect or two too.
RajeshA wrote:
For a nation under siege, in the mission statement one can either have
a) Fight adharma, fight adharma, fight adharma - but that sounds too aggressive (the nuanced principled Dharma cannot leave this out), or
b) Dharmics and Adharmics - the interaction is clear, no hanky-panky would be tolerated (identity differentiation)
IMHO the nuanced and principled Dharma is also quite capable of stern Dharma-Raksha when called for. The real strength of Dharma comes from its core ideas. When we lose sight of the core ideas, we no longer understand what is worth defending and why.
Pranav ji,
often when something speaks or applies to everybody, nobody takes ownership. The listing of various Sampradayas or Mats (Paths) is a roll-call. It calls upon these to take up ownership of the process of Rashtra-Nirman and Dharma-Raksha.
Basically only these would really know what Dharma-Raksha is!
This does not mean others need to stay out. All the other guarantees are meant for all citizens, and the application of Dharmic concepts may themselves be in the interests of all.
The multiplicity of Sampradayas/Mats (Paths) named ensures that there will always be a dialogue between these communities to understand the core ideas of Dharma, and thus it decreases the chance of these being forgotten.
Often a controversial or not fully defined purpose generates much public debate and the debate itself causes the people to remain interested in the national agenda.
I am very much in favor of leaving a few things in the preamble which exercises the minds of generations to come, so that the interest is not lost. Far worse is for people to forget that there is even a Preamble to the Constitution.
Also I would be glad to know any formulations you can propose which strengthens Dharma-Raksha.
Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
my agenda is quite Hindutvavadi (a la Savarkar)! It is oriented towards cultural domination of Bharatiyas over Islam and Christianism in Bharat. I am very happy to see Muslims and Christians feel included in the task of nation building and there should be no hostility towards them. But I am in favor of the Constitution having a hard basis in Bharat's own native traditions and there is no room to look for some middle-way between Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic traditions.
The middle-way we already have in the Secular Socialist Republic of today!
Even if you leave the listing of Sampradayas from the Constitution, Islamics and Christianists would not agree to it anyway.
I am not suggesting a dilution or middle way, but a pathway to absorb everybody into Dharma, in a manner that is as natural as possible.
There are very high barriers for people to leave Islam. As far as making Islam compatible with Dharmic society is concerned, I think that is a useless enterprise. So I am not quite sure which model of absorption we are talking about here.
We, BHARATIYAS, the people of Bharat, inspired by the universal consciousness (Satya) to follow the path of DHARMA in achieving our individual and national Security (Artha) and Glory (Kama); solemnly proclaim that
1. OUR NATION, Bharat, is our beloved mother and we show utmost compassion and equality towards all its Citizens, Flora and Fauna.
2. THE STATE, as our representative, will be embodiment of our commitment to Satya, Dharma and Bharat.
As Proud and Conscious Bharatiyas we promise that
3. Our pursuit of INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY does not submit to any entity outside Bharat
4. Our pursuit of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY does not impinge upon national security
5. Our pursuit of INDIVIDUAL GLORY does not undermine Satya, Dharma and Compassion
SATYAMEVA JAYATE!
Last edited by RamaY on 25 Feb 2013 21:34, edited 2 times in total.
Forget Vaishnavaite or Shaivaite; even a Muslim and Christian can be Bharatiya, as long as they do not seek guidance from non Bharatiya entities, individuals and locations for their Individual Entity.
Quran and Bible, as perspectives on Truth, cannot be limited to space and time. The consciousness and intellect of our Muslim and Christian Bharatiyas will ensure that Muhammed and Jesus are Bharatiyas all along.
harbans wrote:Ramay Ji the Veda's say Truth is ONE: ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh. Sage Brihadraranyaka says Dharma is Truth and Truth is Dharma. Jains and Buddhists too say the same, so why blame the Sikhs for saying it, they are Dharmic too.
So when you formulate a Dharmic Constitution, Truth has to be a primary, no?
Bahut Tarah Ke Truth/s hai.
In this case Truth is that of Supreme Divine Universal Godhood and nothing else . Its not the truth of 2x2-4 or Sun rises in East while its rises in the WEST for people living on the Proxima Xentari. We can say TRUTH=Parbrahm, Wahegru/ OM/ Onkar/ Shunya/ Atma / Parmatma / Hari etc.
The truth that Paki live on the land of Aryas dont make them Arya . If any Non Aryan claim the different name or understanding of Truth then that Truth must pass the test of Dharmic or Supreme Truth to earn the genuine legitimacy.
There is so much that one can say about Dharma. In fact all our scriptures revolve only around understanding and explaining Dharma. The semantics of Dharma are multi-layered, multi-faceted and context-dependent.
What/Who decides which descriptions find their way into the hypothetical Preamble and which are left out?
When we have included some description of Dharma, can we be sure that we have not left out some aspect?
Can we be sure that somebody does not just claim that he is going by Dharma only when he abuses his responsibilities and privileges and does adharma?
Ambiguity is often preferred when one wants to paper over differences among groups, but there is always a price, and that is that adharma spreads in the cover of Dharma, not unlike how Islamo-Christianists have spread in the cover of secularism!
The only way to get over the inherent ambiguity of these very abstract concepts like Dharma and Satya are to reference the body of work in which they have been explored. One can never do justice to such fundamental concepts by throwing in a few words of description. Those words of description can give one the the illusion of doing one's part in extolling some concepts held in high regard but one has not nailed the semantics and thus prevented their future abuse.
Phrases like Dharma = Satya and Satya = Dharma retain their philosophical weight only in the context in which they were dealt with - in the scripture. Without a reference to the body of work, they lose their context, and they lose their philosophical gravitas.
Just so that one doesn't fool around with words like Dharma and Satya as and how one pleases, it is important to give the reference. That is why the statement cannot be played around with at abandon.
to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
It says Sanaatan Dharma or Dharma is to be understood as it is espoused in the scriptures of Aastiks, Bauddhs, Jains and Sikhs, and not arbitrarily by some Yuppie, Macaulayite, AIT-Nazi, Nehruvian-Secularist, or Cultural Marxist. The main body of work needs to be referenced to. Why cut up the definition of Dharma by using just a small part of the semantic that it has been endowed with in the works of the various Sampradayas?
When it says Dharmic State or Dharmic Traditions, then too there is high specificity, as one can append 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.
Any ambiguity one leaves in such a document has to be deliberate for some particular purpose. It should not be accidental.
rudradev, thread has moved on cannot quote your text.
so, rm's work is primarily for putting up a common front against "outsiders" - their attempts to define of who we are. corollary is these are irrelevant for internal self definition purposes. my main problem is that this distinction and qualifier as a 'mere differentiator' does not hold in practice. we are the differentiators and we are the definers. differentiation and definition are not distinct, isolated processes.
my experience has been that this intense focus on differentiation leads to an idealized/skewed definition of the self. the principle vehicle for this is in imagining an ideal perfect past, where if only we could somehow return to our ideal past everything will be ok. people tend to imagine themselves as babies who have been wrongly violated by everybody else.
a simple example of the above is this thread. its aim is to define a new bharath. the source of inspiration exclusively in the distant past and in finding attributes that are exclusionary and are geo-tagged.
Not meaning to make a discourse... just a thought...
Satya is the word for THAT IS. It includes everything any anything including Adharma. How it interacts with individuals thru individuals is Dharma ("Daivam Manusha Rupena! = Godliness thru Humans"; This process is Dharma).
What is Adharma? Any/every action that doesn't take the universality and uniqueness of consciousness (Prudhaktvam Anyena Anyatvat = Separating one from the other) in to consideration is Adharma. One cannot commit to Adharma if one is aware of the universality and uniqueness of consciousness.
shaardula wrote:a simple example of the above is this thread. its aim is to define a new bharath. the source of inspiration exclusively in the distant past and in finding attributes that are exclusionary and are geo-tagged.
1) Geo-tagged with Bharat because we are not in East-Timor, we are looking at a particular country/nation/people.
2) The source of inspiration is in the distant past because the distant past has much to offer especially at the political-philosophical level, which has either not been available in the recent past and where available has been abused.
3) All are aware that the agenda is forward-looking. Just because one gets inspiration from the political-philosophical works of some era, does not mean concepts are being blindly imported without analyzing their current and future relevance.
But it can indeed be that some group mentality may have set in, so perhaps you may like to point out other political philosophical works which helps us bolster our agenda. What would you like to see as a priority?
why struggle with defining bharath according to "true" definition of "dharma" instead of simply defining it as we, who are living in it, see it as fit? challenge is to say what we imagine india to be in simple plain language, without quoting somebody. if you dont use a phrase discussing mundane matters in the family kitchen, dont use it in your definition. if you have no personal experience or insights with an idea dont use it.
what is the definition of the living commons of india, and why is it not good enough to define "bharatiya".
Last edited by shaardula on 25 Feb 2013 23:04, edited 1 time in total.
shaardula wrote:a simple example of the above is this thread. its aim is to define a new bharath. the source of inspiration exclusively in the distant past and in finding attributes that are exclusionary and are geo-tagged.
1) Geo-tagged with Bharat because we are not in East-Timor, we are looking at a particular country/nation/people.
2) The source of inspiration is in the distant past because the distant past has much to offer especially at the political-philosophical level, which has either not been available in the recent past and where available has been abused.
we are not east-timor-walas. but there might be good ideas from outside our social/cultural/geographical spheres no? perhaps composition is a richer buffet than distillation? why should we seek to distill our identity rather than compose it? why restrict ourselves to a limited pool of ideas, going forward?
shaardula wrote:why struggle with defining bharath according to "true" definition of "dharma" instead of simply defining it as we, who are living in it, see it as fit? challenge is to say what we imagine india to be in simple plain language, without quoting somebody. if you dont use a phrase discussing mundane matters in the family kitchen, dont use it in your definition. if you have no personal experience or insights with an idea dont use it.
what is the definition of the living commons of india, and why is it not good enough to define "bharatiya".
shaardula ji,
the reason for defining Bharat anew, that is different from how it is currently defined in the Indian State, is because many do not think that the present course is taking us in any desirable direction.
I personally am certain that the present course takes us towards the situation as in Pakistan and then Talibanic Afghanistan. In fact such a situation is not even in the best interests of Indian Muslims but even they cannot stop this onward march.
The thing is people as you say, don't often look beyond their daily lifestyle. Do many think about how India would look in 40 years, 50 years? Whether their grand-daughters would be looking for the best education or whether they too would be wearing shuttle-cock burkas?
Now it is easy for one to call anybody who presents such a future scenario as a paranoid rabid Hindutvavadi trying to spread fear, etc. etc. but such criticism does not really meet the criteria of logical debate. That is simply the knee-jerk reaction that many Indians have internalized due to political correctness.
If Northwest India (Pakistan) and Eastern India (Bangladesh) have become completely Islamized over a few decades and one has ample empirical evidence of it, from where comes the confidence that India awaits a different future? Silencing this fact is tantamount to lulling the people into complacency so that this outcome becomes even more unavoidable. The syncretic growing together is also a failed experiment, not that it was serious anyway.
So basically we are exploring political-philosophical tools in our history which can help stem this tide. If you can find the necessary tools in your family-kitchen for such an endeavor, please do share them with us!
shaardula wrote:
a simple example of the above is this thread. its aim is to define a new bharath. the source of inspiration exclusively in the distant past and in finding attributes that are exclusionary and are geo-tagged.
The source of inspiration is from both ancient and modern times, it is in fact timeless. The same truths whether from the Upanishads or from Adi Shankara or from Vivekananda. And that wisdom is inclusive, for all humanity, valid at all places and at all times.
Last edited by Pranav on 25 Feb 2013 23:54, edited 1 time in total.
Shaardula I dont think anyone here is arguing for distllation and exclusion *instead of* composition and assimilation. Rather, refinement and definition of self identity is being seen as a necessary precursor to the future compositional process that will invariably follow... so that we remain in control of the subsequent compositional buffet, and have a firm conceptual ground to stand on (as a people, as a state) when exercising Viveka with respect to its ingredients.
The problem with going ahead sans refinement, and simply applying a self definition as broad as possible is that such a broad self-definition will include many irreconcilable contradictions that may prove toxic, causing us to lose control of the conscious assimilative process and in fact, to end up losing ourselves to assimilation by others.
RM and many others argue that this is, in fact, whats happening today. We define Bharatiyata as the sum total of ideas prevalent on the subcontinent now, ignoring [1] the widespread occurrence of irreconcilable contradictions and [2] the abject realities of subcontinenal history, including Islamist and Western colonialism, which [rather than we ourselves] controlled the brewing of the present broth.
Hence the need to step back, distill out Sanatana Dharma from this broth, identify as exactly as possible what characterizes it so that we will never again lose sight of its essence in whatever composition we subsequently choose to formulate. This is a very far cry from excluding all admixture in practice. The need to refer to ancient historical sources should be obvious given this mission: to characterize Sanatan Dharma we must neccessarily go back to a time when the historical process of admixture, composition and assimilation was carried out by Sanatan Dharmics on their own terms- as opposed to an accident of colonialism, genocide, slavery, exploitation or anything else we couldn't help.
Last edited by Rudradev on 25 Feb 2013 23:56, edited 5 times in total.
shaardula wrote:we are not east-timor-walas. but there might be good ideas from outside our social/cultural/geographical spheres no? perhaps composition is a richer buffet than distillation? why should we seek to distill our identity rather than compose it? why restrict ourselves to a limited pool of ideas, going forward?
shaardula ji,
you are in fact quite correct. A composition is indeed a richer buffet, and this composition is getting destroyed because foreign imperialist religious and other ideologies have been incessantly pursuing distillation of Bharatiya composition.
Their strategy of distillation is often based on projecting barbarity and primitiveness onto the Bharatiya composition, or tempting them with some superficial richness of a different dish, or simply putting sufficient pressure on the composition, that parts of it pop out.
This was allowed because the regents of this Bharatiya composition were helping this process of distillation along. Current efforts are in fact tended to stop this further distillation.
Often the responsibility of composition is placed on the majority to integrate ideologies which are not foreseen for composition by their controllers outside.
RajeshA wrote:
often when something speaks or applies to everybody, nobody takes ownership. The listing of various Sampradayas or Mats (Paths) is a roll-call. It calls upon these to take up ownership of the process of Rashtra-Nirman and Dharma-Raksha.
Basically only these would really know what Dharma-Raksha is!
This does not mean others need to stay out. All the other guarantees are meant for all citizens, and the application of Dharmic concepts may themselves be in the interests of all.
The multiplicity of Sampradayas/Mats (Paths) named ensures that there will always be a dialogue between these communities to understand the core ideas of Dharma, and thus it decreases the chance of these being forgotten.
Often a controversial or not fully defined purpose generates much public debate and the debate itself causes the people to remain interested in the national agenda.
I am very much in favor of leaving a few things in the preamble which exercises the minds of generations to come, so that the interest is not lost. Far worse is for people to forget that there is even a Preamble to the Constitution.
It says Sanaatan Dharma or Dharma is to be understood as it is espoused in the scriptures of Aastiks, Bauddhs, Jains and Sikhs, and not arbitrarily by some Yuppie, Macaulayite, AIT-Nazi, Nehruvian-Secularist, or Cultural Marxist. The main body of work needs to be referenced to.
RajeshA ji these are thought-provoking ideas. Good!
There are very high barriers for people to leave Islam. As far as making Islam compatible with Dharmic society is concerned, I think that is a useless enterprise. So I am not quite sure which model of absorption we are talking about here.
What I have in mind is the Soha Ali Khan model of absorption. This young lady is an actress, sister of Saif Ali Khan. In a TV interview about her experiences of being Muslim in India, she said that she did not like to be boxed into an Islamic identity, and that she was in fact quite interested in Buddhism. I found myself sympathizing with her.
The first stage is acceptance of Dharmic ideas. Activities like the practice of Yogasanas could be useful to get people interested. Stories like the Mahabharata, with proper attention to the philosophy that is brought out through various incidents, are also enjoyable and useful. Then there needs to be a certain amount of history re-education, so that Nehruvian-Marxist brainwashing can be countered. At that stage an individual would be ready to return to Dharma. The individual would also need to go through a process of explicitly rejecting those Abrahamic doctrines that are incompatible with Dharma.
why struggle with defining bharath according to "true" definition of "dharma" instead of simply defining it as we, who are living in it, see it as fit? challenge is to say what we imagine india to be in simple plain language, without quoting somebody.
Indeed, the effort should not be one that defines oneself in contravention to something in vengeance, anger, hate etc, but as what we see of ourselves. For that we do need positive self esteem. That is confidence that stems from our own positives. The positives i have tried here to define into nationhood and there are many that we do have in our heritage can be stated in terms of Values we cherish. These itself demarcate us from those that don't share these, yet they emerge from us and ourselves only. Our look into Dharma is exactly for insight.
The Dharmic Bharatiya ideally, and to a large extent practically was always pluralist, always welcoming, always willing to learn and compassionate to life. The folly of the Bharatiya and not the Dharmic lay in not recognizing what we cherish and stand by. Thus the divisions and that is evidenced here too on BRF. But these are to be expected as we try and define our nationhood as is being attempted here, and despite all it's follies it is an attempt. I consider what we stand by and should have as ethics and values as enunciated in Dharma. Not Sampradayic ritual, Hindutva, Shoddy borrowed secularism, socialism etc. Framing a consensus, a structure, a code from which the rest emanate. That is why i laid stress on enunciating a preamble. The limitations and follies are there to see, the differences are visible. Yet the attempt to forge and narrow differences are there too.
The attempts to the preamble are 3 fold we can attempt here:
1. Declare India/ Bharat as a Hindu State.
2. Declare India as a Dharmic State with definitions defining India as above.
3. Declare India as a Dharmic State, but tasking on what values/ Principles the State reflects and works
The 1st option though there are major takers here for that, is fraught with danger. And most of us know the country will split if that happens. Neither will most Indians agree, including Hindu's.
The 2nd if done with hate/ vengeance and an attempt to be excluvist, will again not be successful as Dharma is token. The very reason why we failed in the past will be repeated again. All can see Dharma is being used only to push an agenda. Ultimately the idea will crumble or the Nation will.
The 3rd option is a hard one to arrive at. There are going to be many who have not reconciled to value/ ethics as being core principles as yet. Many have not dwelled on Dharma's integral with principle/ value enough ever. Many have grown on a literal diet Dharma = Religion. So it is to be expected.
Yet, i did not expect something would churn up once the bottom line of charting a preamble (with all it's limitations cropped up). All 3 based on Dharma, gave as preliminary (mine Rajesh Ji, Ramay's attempts)..a fundamental primacy to Flora and Fauna. In other words, with Dharma in mind when one drafts a constitution, this is going to happen. I am gladdened to see that primacy given. I don't think any other approach to writing down a constitutional preamble would have resulted in that.
Pranav wrote:What I have in mind is the Soha Ali Khan model of absorption. This young lady is an actress, sister of Saif Ali Khan. In a TV interview about her experiences of being Muslim in India, she said that she did not like to be boxed into an Islamic identity, and that she was in fact quite interested in Buddhism. I found myself sympathizing with her.
The first stage is acceptance of Dharmic ideas. Activities like practice of Yogasanas could be useful to get people interested. Stories like the Mahabharata, with proper attention to the philosophical aspects, are also enjoyable and useful. Then there needs to be a certain amount of history re-education, so that Nehruvian-Marxist brainwashing can be countered. At that stage an individual would be ready to return to Dharma.
Pranav ji,
The Dharmic-Adharmic division (as per the definition) in India is basically an intellectual category, rather than some war of civilizations. Dharmics and Adharmics can both share India and thrive in India.
The biggest gift one can give the Muslims and Christians in India is really to infuse both the communities with a new intellectual challenge for their internal public discourse. As "minority" communities in India they would be forced to take a stand on how Dharmics define themselves, and this intellectual churning should force them to rethink the fundamentals and loosen the ossified structures.
Muslims and Christians in India and their ideologues in India and abroad are well accustomed to how to treat the various rival ideologies socio-economic-political as well as religious.
But there is something they have never had to face. At the popular level, I am not speaking of theological circles, but at the popular level in masjids, madrassas, churches, charities, ngos, they have never taken on an Dharma philosophically. They have always responded to the superficial, to the external manifestation of Dharma, to the rituals, to gau-puja, to the murtis, to shiv-lingams, etc. and derided these aspects, but they were never forced to take on Sanatan Dharma at the philosophical level in society. That has always been avoided. By focusing on the superficial, they could convince their followers and many psychologically weak Hindus that the religious landscape in Bharat is all rubbish.
But if we inject a philosophical challenge within the definition of our very identity as Dharmics, they cannot avoid the philosophical challenge and this challenge goes to the very root of the difference. Once they process the definition they would themselves be pulled in into the whirlpool. From their perspective we would represent a Black Hole. When they take us on philosophically, they wouldn't be able to escape the gravitational pull and once within the event horizon things start falling apart. That is why it all the more important that religious debate become open and permitted in India.
Carl wrote:During Akbar's time, Hindu pandits were called in to explain their tradition, and they impressed the king and courtiers so deeply that Abul Fazl whines about it in his books.
This however does not happen anymore. This shows that it is possible to shake their confidence and certitude. But they will always avoid such direct debates. Zakir Naiks may give lectures here and there, but he would have trouble with sharp-witted Dharmics in a direct debate who know their stuff and are good at rhetoric. So one way to ensure debate is by injecting the seeds of this debate in our identity itself.
Then there are a whole slew of measures one can take to force opening up of Muslim society. Education here is critical, but not technical education. Technical education just prepares a Muslim to better aid the Ulema and the Islamic core. I am talking about intensive education about Bharatiya Civilization - mythology, philosophy, Bharatiya-centric history, cultural symbology, scientific and technological achievements of ancient India, Sanskrit, and comparative religion studies in schools itself, making this knowledge mandatory for college education in India and thus for jobs.
Third strategy I advocate is empowering Muslim women through co-ed education and jobs giving them enough power and security to break the shackles.
Fourth arm of the overall strategy would need to be security at the ground level, and that means putting an end to all the Mullah-Mafia networks in India.
So yes we can for a composition here but it would have been done having a proper strategy and not by appeasing them and forgetting our identity.
harbans wrote:3. Declare India as a Dharmic State, but tasking on what values/ Principles the State reflects and works
Which practical problems does this solve?
As I have understood is:
a) You wish to enforce more open and transparent criticism and debate on religion which is not possible today.
b) You want to bring more honesty and integrity to governance.
How does it stop India going over the cliff into the Islamic depths?
Rajesh Ji you do realize that today the sharpest and most potent weapon that Islamist doctrine is being fought with is TRUTH? Whether it is manifested through forums on the net, or ToI comment sections, FB or through Ali Sina's sites wherever, the best and most potent answer from the 'infidel' is coming through Truth about Islam. It is shaking it's doctrinal core like anything that has been attempted ever before. So don;t underestimate the power that the truth carries with it. Everyone of the Dharmic values is a weapon too. Seems you have not realized that as yet. Constitutionalizing those values arms oneself from false doctrine (Adharma) in a way one cannot imagine. That is what we must try in the first place.
harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji you do realize that today the sharpest and most potent weapon that Islamist doctrine is being fought with is TRUTH? Whether it is manifested through forums on the net, or ToI comment sections, FB or through Ali Sina's sites wherever, the best and most potent answer from the 'infidel' is coming through Truth about Islam. It is shaking it's doctrinal core like anything that has been attempted ever before. So don;t underestimate the power that the truth carries with it. Everyone of the Dharmic values is a weapon too. Seems you have not realized that as yet. Constitutionalizing those values arms oneself from false doctrine (Adharma) in a way one cannot imagine. That is what we must try in the first place.
harbans ji,
have I ever spoken against exposing the warts of Islam?
And if it has so many warts, what is wrong in demarcating ourselves from Islam? Why cannot we then speak out in what ways we are different? Why is it as you say
harbans wrote:defines oneself in contravention to something in vengeance, anger, hate etc
This is the same moral grandstanding the Islamists resort to - call all demarcation, all criticism as Islamophobia! You don't do anything different. Why do you resort to attributing "vengeance, anger, hate" as the drivers of others here, as if you are the only rational person?
Not Sampradayic ritual, Hindutva, Shoddy borrowed secularism, socialism etc.
I had requested you to explain what your issues are with Hindutva, since you have been using it pejoratively here quite often. You still have not answered and continue to abuse Hindutva.
Why is it okay for Sikhs to have a separate identity than Hindus, but Hindus cannot be allowed to define themselves in relation to Islamics and Christians? Why is it all vengeance, anger and hate, when we do it, but it is all justified protection of culture and identity when others do it?
I fear harbans ji, you use many of the same tactics of Islamists and Nehruvian-Secularists of demonizing others and never responding to any critical query. So much for Truth!
Cross-posting a post by Atri in "Indian Interests" Thread
1. Nothing has changed in past 65 years. Hindus are exactly where they were in 47. 85 crore Hindus are third rate citizens in their own country. No "Hindu cause" was taken to its logical conclusion in independent India - Be it Ram janma bhumi, mathura, kashi, Dhaar-Bhojshala, Vidisha and many other issues (including Uniform civil code and issue of Haj subsidy)
2. GOI has made it easy to divide and rule Hindus and Hindus are responsible for their own fate. They are orphans in their own land.
3. Hindu organizations are not performing their duties. RSS's aim is establishment of Hindu Rashtra. Why has then Gadkari become a prestige issue? It seems that RSS might have forgotten the larger agenda..
4. What is BJP doing instead of replying to likes of Digvijay, Shinde et al, when they cast aspersions on RSS on the issues of Hindu terror. Why aren't they telling people that Pakistan is enemy of India and Hindu? Why are they fooling themselves and Hindus?
5. Reservations based on religion is unconstitutional. India is secular because of Hindus and nobody else.
6. Development of Hindus cannot be at the cost of values of Sanatana Dharma. Hindus have only one country left in world. What has happened to Hindus in Pakistan? Do not teach secularism and peace and tolerance to Hindus. If someone needs a lesson on tolerance, it is Islam.
7. Sabka Maalik ek is a bogus concept. Yudhishthira and Duryodhana DO NOT have same "Maaliks". Yes, it is possible that the father of everyone is ONE. But Maaliks are chosen by people to suite their self-interests.
8. Bhojshala movement is being fought non-violently and system (headed by BJP govt) is busy beating those who ask for Saraswati Puja at Bhojshala. Why does system try to show off its manhood on nonviolent Hindu protesters? If they are itching to show off their manhood, try and curb Maoism. Why are BJP leaders hell-bent on talking secular talks. Let INC do the talk. No matter how much you try, Muslims will NEVER VOTE FOR BJP.
9. There is nothing like Hindu Terrorism. Whatever happened in Gujarat in 2002, was done by ordinary man, not RSS. People were genuinely fed up.. When will leaders talking about Hindu interests heed to this simmering discontent amongst Hindus.
10. Cow slaughter goes on because unfortunately cow is mother of Hindus. had she been mother of Muslims, cow-slaughter would not have continued. Even NM exports beef, which is documented. same happens in MP and CH..
11. JLN was an opportunist
12. We will have to talk about Hindu interests until Hindus do not experience the "tubelight moment" in their collective lives. As long as the popular Kirtankars on TV will continue chanting Radhe radhe, Hindus will not wake up. The most important ingredient necessary for Hindu awakening is that hindus require a thorough bashing. Hindu is a comatose society which requires a dire "Shock treatment". When 10-20 lakh Hindus will bear the brunt of real terrorism and when other Hindus will see their mothers and sisters being molested, only then they will wake up from this collective dream. It is only then that nincompoops like Shinde will realize "what terrorism really means". Time will give this shock treatment to Hindus. HE has already begun with his treatment.
13. The biggest lie is the statement that "terrorism has no religion". 1400 years show that terrorism is Islamic. TSP will eventually die of its own sins and not at hands of India because India's office-holders are competing with eunuchs.
14. Mulayam Singh's relative and SP leader said something about necessity of war with Pakistan to finish off the problem once and for all.
15. It was disappointment when our karyakartas (ABV, LKA etc) talked about aar-paar ki ladai, but did not take the problem of Pakistan to its logical conclusion. All those who came into power using RJB, forgot Raam when they got the office. The Prasadam which Dr. APJ Abdul kalam gave (nuclear bombs) to India, has been rusting in silos, god knows when they will see action.
16. Satyameva Jayate. If Humanity has to survive, it will have to accept Hindutva, there is no other choice.
RajeshA wrote:[
The biggest gift one can give the Muslims and Christians in India is really to infuse both the communities with a new intellectual challenge for their internal public discourse. As "minority" communities in India they would be forced to take a stand on how Dharmics define themselves, and this intellectual churning should force them to rethink the fundamentals and loosen the ossified structures
, But if we inject a philosophical challenge within the definition of our very identity as Dharmics, they cannot avoid the philosophical challenge and this challenge goes to the very root of the difference. Once they process the definition they would themselves be pulled in into the whirlpool. From their perspective we would represent a Black Hole. When they take us on philosophically, they wouldn't be able to escape the gravitational pull and once within the event horizon things start falling apart. That is why it all the more important that religious debate become open and permitted in India.
Then there are a whole slew of measures one can take to force opening up of Muslim society. Education here is critical, but not technical education. Technical education just prepares a Muslim to better aid the Ulema and the Islamic core. I am talking about intensive education about Bharatiya Civilization - mythology, philosophy, Bharatiya-centric history, cultural symbology, scientific and technological achievements of ancient India, Sanskrit, and comparative religion studies in schools itself, making this knowledge mandatory for college education in India and thus for jobs.
Duss Saal pehle humne kiya yeh izzhaar thaaa , apka Intjaar thaa/ Itne saal Kanha Thaa? This thinking was here at the beginning of BR in 90s but then few Mushes got burned and atmosphere got filled with strong After 8/Dinner Paki fregrence. The above churning machine will transform many Hanss out of Kaagas as like in in Ugly Betty. Intellectual transformation is aways a better solution than material nudges.
Tinderbox- India & its Neighbours, with MJ Akbar
MJA says (answering some Sindhi) sub-continental Muslims got Pakistan, Bengali linguistic ethnicity got them Bangladesh. But Hindus did not get India. Secularists got India for themselves.
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?
Suggestion (v.0.0.8 ) for the Preamble of a Dharmic Constitution.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved
to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,
to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,
to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and
to encourage the vitality of the nation through constant introspection, debate and reform especially of society, religion and politics and
to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation
....
do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
Satyameva Jayate!
Revision: added "to encourage the vitality of the nation through constant introspection, debate and reform especially of society, religion and politics"
brihaspati wrote: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.
B ji, I took this and the charaiveti idea and extrapolated it to the global scene, put it together with some old posts of my own and blogged this today:
Popular media and political parties seem to thrive on false dichotomies. Some are more transparent than others. Are faith and reason mutually exclusive? Is secularism and diversity endangered by Hinduism? Is democracy compatible with Islam? Is China's one-party system better than India's democracy at this stage of development? One bloc of countries is invading others to give them the gift of capitalist democracy, another bloc works to cure the disease of capitalism and bring social justice, while a third is trying to give everyone the gift of faith and religious law. Buffeted by internationalist blocs and their local sepoys, some Indians prefer to define themselves merely as "being different" from others based on a shared racial memory. How can Indians think about our identity more creatively while engaging with everyone in a globalizing environment?
Once in 1992, Lee Kwan Yew, the architect of Singapore's successful city-state, was invited to Pakistan as part of a cultural exchange, to discuss ideas for developing an Asian economy using "Asian values", and to make way for investments. His hosts told him about the ideology of Pakistan, the two-nation theory, the inspiration of Islam, its values and mission, and the problems it was facing. At the end, Mr. Lee exclaimed, "How can a culture that places all its value in a life after death create a thriving entrepreneurial and innovation-based modern economy?!" Apparently he correlated purposes with values and virtues, and for a society with a fixation on one particular iteration, he saw a serious problem.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 26 Feb 2013 06:10, edited 4 times in total.
you should start by posting what those ideas are in foreign cultures which have no history of 'existence' in the Hindu fold. if you can provide one such idea, then you can argue about this "composition".
harbans wrote:
The 3rd option is a hard one to arrive at. There are going to be many who have not reconciled to value/ ethics as being core principles as yet. Many have not dwelled on Dharma's integral with principle/ value enough ever. Many have grown on a literal diet Dharma = Religion. So it is to be expected.
Harbans ji: I am open to embedding the idea of value/ethics in a constitutional document. To what degree can be debated. However, Dharma works at a higher level than value/ethics alone. It is the idea of divine law in motion. IOW: We are dharmic, simply because we exist. It is also equally true that humans are capable of being adharmic - i.e: not in conformity with divine law. When you say truth is dharma, to me it is a word entirely interchangeable as to the way I interpret the word dharma and truth is to look at it from the perspective of divine law at work. Verily that which is Truth is Dharma. So in that sense, truth is not just a human value - it is a value embedded in nature and it is up to us to live up to its ideals, as defined by so many of our wise seers. The lakshanas that recommend characteristics for good conduct are at a slightly different level than the concept of Truth as expounded by Bhadranayak, Yajur Veda and MKG.
The word Dharmic without this divine law at work is meaningless to me. Its place is apt in the preamble (although completely opposed to the way RajeshA defines them). At the level of the preamble, it is an acknowledgment of this divine law at work, which is Dhama, what is truth.
Also, slightly OT: Have you traced the growth of the "Bhakti" movement in India, in light of Islam's growth in India and what it did to Hinduism in general and its socio-political landscape? Thought I will ask, especially in light of the rise of the Sikh Panth? There are some interesting works in the area, shedding some well researched light. I guess it becomes relevant to understand the undue focus on Moksha shastras, which I believe has been at the cost of the other three objectives. Anyways, let me know, if you have some insight on the matter.
RajeshA wrote:Cross-posting a post by Atri in "Indian Interests" Thread
1. Nothing has changed in past 65 years. Hindus are exactly where they were in 47. 85 crore Hindus are third rate citizens in their own country. No "Hindu cause" was taken to its logical conclusion in independent India - Be it Ram janma bhumi, mathura, kashi, Dhaar-Bhojshala, Vidisha and many other issues (including Uniform civil code and issue of Haj subsidy)
...
Unfortunately this seems to be a case of unfocused resentment. He does feel that things are wrong, and indeed they are, but there is a need for imaginative and intelligent solutions, which he does not seem to provide.
First the ills of indian society are solely blamed on Hindusim without taking the hundreds of years of Islamic invasions and two hundred years of colonial rule.
Then the Hindus are made to believe that (thru local and international propaganda) that unless they solve all these problems, they cannot aspire to be self-confident Hindus.
Then secularism and kleptocracy (look at how many feudal families hold MP/MLA positions) is imposed on these Hindus so they cannot solve any of these problems.
Thus Hindus are caged.
At the same time no one questions anyone how can they can be proud to be Muslims and Christians inspite of having all the social and religious ills they have.
ShauryaT wrote:Verily that which is Truth is Dharma. So in that sense, truth is not just a human value - it is a value embedded in nature ...
Actually the correct quote is - "Verily that which is Dharma is truth".
So there first needs to be an understanding of Dharma and then truth may be defined in terms of Dharma.
So if you say that you want to use the word truth and say Dharma means nothing to you without that word then that is the wrong track. Dharma is subtle and attempting to codify it in the manner of the Abrahamic doctrines is not a good idea.
There are many aspects like Ahimsa, Satya, Daya which are identified with Dharma at various points in the literature depending on what the author wants to emphasize. The English translations of these terms miss most of the meaning.
Constraints of Preamble: The Purpose of the Preamble is really to provide a Mission Statement for the Rashtra, capturing the spirit of the People. Ideally it should be possible for any educated citizen to be able to know this by heart. So for the purpose of memorization and the nature of a mission statement, the preamble needs to be succinct and concise and still be able to do justice to the aims of a Preamble.
That means we cannot let the Preamble become a whole Dharma Shastra, or include in it huge lists of values and objectives, and then bloat it with still more language trying to capture their semantics and nuances.
Completeness: Now obviously we all in one way or another in this discussion have decided that we wish to establish our Rashtra on the basis of values and principles as we understand them in Dharma. Dharma speaks of many such values and principles often spread out over the whole corpus of literature on Dharma and the wisdom of the living acharyas and gurus. So the issue is do we want to base the Rashtra only on a subset of these values and principles or do we want to have access to all the wisdom embodied in Dharma.
For example if we are in favor of Satyam (~Truth) and Karuna (~Compassion), why not Saucha (~Cleanliness). Don't we want our streets to be clean and that our water supply not be infected and that the garbage be collected regularly and disposed off appropriately? Every little parampara has their favorite list of 5 values. Should the Preamble become similarly a Parampara?
The thing we can keep on including values and principles, and we wouldn't know when to stop! That is because we are only replicating what has already been done elsewhere. So for completeness we would have to import everything into the Preamble itself. This is not feasible.
Protection Against Abuse of Semantic: Unless every term is not definitively and fully defined, there will always be scope for abuse. This has been the case with Secularism and Socialism in our current Preamble. These words have been included but there are no references as to what all this entails.
If the terms included are say in Sanskrit (Hindi) or some Indian classical language, perhaps the term has a unique semantic in the language borne out of historical and cultural use of the term, and thus it would be considered a non-translatable. However if we start using terms from a foreign language, we lose control over the semantics.
However even if it is a non-translatable used, one may still need to constrain the semantic further as the term is being used in a particular context in the preamble.
The more terms we include in the Preamble the more clarifications one would have to include.
Justice to Multi-layered Semantics: Now there are values and principles in Dharma which apply at various levels - as epistemological constructs at level of existence and universe, at the level of human interactions in society, in aarthic fields, at the level of human consciousness, etc.
So any term used, its semantic would have to be explained at what level it is being applied.
Fudging Semantic for Sake of Consensus: One participant may be under the impression that a term, say Satya is being used to refer to the divine, while the other may be interested only in its application in society to ensure honesty in governance and open debate on religion, but because both think that by using the term 'Satya' both their demands are met, they are satisfied, even though the semantic of the term has been fudged and thus truth itself may not have been served by such fudging.
Also disparate ideas may be thrown together bloating the Preamble just so that everybody is happy and joins in. That is a political attitude towards formulation of the preamble and does not do justice to this exercise.
So when one goes about including all sorts of values and principles from the corpus of Dharma into the Preamble, there needs to be some consistency.
The above approach I would call inline values. One can do the same differently: external linkage.
People who understand Html Markup or even Serve-side scripting know the difference between Inline and External linkage of css sheets, javascript files, etc.
So lets look at the alternative to inline values:
to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
This is an example of an external linkage of values and principles.
Constraints of Preamble: External Linkage keeps everything succinct and concise.
Completeness: One does not need to forego of any of the values and principles explored and described in the huge corpus of literature on Dharma. One has access to all the wisdom therein.
Protection Against Abuse of Semantic: All semantic is sourced from the Dharmic literature and where unclear living acharyas and gurus can help explain it. Anybody who wants to mischievously introduce one's own take on it would be forced to explain his position keeping the corpus of Dharmic literature as reference and go head to head with the acharyas and gurus. So abuse is curtailed.
Justice to Multi-layered Semantics: Dharma offers concepts which are treated from so many different facets and at different levels and there is no need to forego this richness and wealth.
Fudging Semantic for Sake of Consensus: Participants in the formulation do not need to avail of surreptitious means to get their favorite term in.
Till now those who have been speaking in favor of encoding values and principles in the Preamble have been making a case that all those who do not support this endeavor are against the values themselves. That is NOT the case!
I am only against the usage of "inline values" but fully support "external linkage" to the corpus of Dharma literature where all these values are properly described.
Let's look at the controversial part again:
to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
founded upon: I have used "founded upon". Initially I had "inspired by". I have also considered "guided by" and "based upon". "founded upon" is a much stronger term. Influence level: "founded upon" > "guided by" > "inspired by". I am comfortable with "founded upon". Others have to see what they prefer.
Dharmic: When I use the word Dharmic Republic, I use it in context of the definition here:
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.
A Dharmic Republic explicitly expresses which worldview the Republic would support - the one in which the individual is free to explore and use his intrinsic capacity or one in which others self-appointed parties tell him what he should do and control him.
The use of "Dharmic" does not go beyond this choice. The rest is an application of this world view and occurs not in this preamble but rather much down the line in the Constitution or in the various Laws or explicit and implicit support to various communities which abide by this general standpoint.
In fact this principle need not even be restricted to the religious sphere, it is a worldview just as applicable in economics. Do we support small enterpreneurs and competition or do we support big companies, corporate consolidation and monopolies? Do we empower the worker or do we empower the employer over him?
This is a principle with a much bigger import! Hence it is the right thing to include "Dharmic" in "Dharmic Democratic Republic"!
Sanaatana Dharma: I have used "Sanaatana Dharma" as per the advice of Atri garu. I have been assured that the term encompasses all the four main Dharmic traditions or paths - "Hindus" (Aastika, Vaidika), Buddhism (Bauddha), Jainism (Jaina) and Sikhism (Guru). Others have used "Dharma" without the Sanaatana. All understand Dharma to be "eternal" (Sanaatana) and "universal". So one issue is if it makes a difference if one uses Sanaatana as an identifier or as an adjective.
The List of Sampradayas: Does this make the Rashtra exclusivist? This is the main critique of many here but one needs to look more closely at how this list has been included. Since we are describing our idea of Dharma through an "external linkage" rather than "inline values", though the medium of this list, we are merely pointing out where the Dharmic values are to be sourced from, where these values have been explained in the right context, where there is no scope for misunderstanding or mischief, where the multi-layered and multi-faceted richness of their semantic is not lost. All this list gives is an external link for all that we need to understand what is this Dharma that we are supposedly founded upon to and how this Dharma can be applied for our benefit.
Nowhere does it say that this Rashtra is not for Muslims and Christians and Confused Hindus. It does not even say here that these Sampradayas would be favored by the Rashtra in terms of rights and freedoms
In fact by not including "Satya" I have tried to make this Preamble MORE inclusive for Muslims and Christians!!!
If Satya is another way to refer to the Supreme, the highest epistemological concept, then by including it either we would be imposing our epistemological view onto Muslims and Christians, or we would be accepting that Allah and Jehovah too are "Satya" but even if it were so, it does not sound so from their holy texts, due to the way these entities have been shown to interact with the intermediaries like Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, etc.
I wished to give an explanation as to why I made the formulation decisions that I made, and according to MHO the suggestion below (v.0.0.8) for the Preamble is the most inclusive of the various candidates, as well as is the one which does a better justice to Dharmic values and principles, and expresses a worldview positively!
WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved
to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,
to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,
to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and
to encourage the vitality of the nation through constant introspection, debate and reform especially of society, religion and politics and
to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation
....
do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
Satyameva Jayate!
Last edited by RajeshA on 26 Feb 2013 20:04, edited 2 times in total.
~20:30 MJ AKbar talks about how religion cannot be the basis of nationalism.
My response:
True religion cannot directly be the basis of nationalism. But "religion" (worldview + identity) can in fact be the basis of a civilization, and if a civilization is on the back-foot as is the case at the moment in India with Bharatiya Civilization or Dharmic Civilization then that sense of siege of a civilization can give rise to nationalism.
I suppose that is the dynamic that took over the Muslim League in the 1940s, i.e. beside the danger of Muslim feudals losing their lands and status and ill-gotten wealth - the dynamic that in post-British India "Islam khatre men hai!", meaning the Islamic Civilization is India was in siege modus. Now the Islamic Civilization itself was also getting a beating everywhere in those days, the Ottoman Empire had crumbled, and the Mughal Empire before that, so the notion of "Islam khatre men hai" is understandable, with the byline that they meant the dominance of the Islamic Civilization.
So the siege mentality w.r.t. Islamic Civilization did help create Pakistan and it was to serve as the national ideology of Pakistan.
That I believe would not have been the problem responsible for their decline.
Even we here are involved in giving our Bharatiya Civilization which is under siege from the Nehruvian-Secularists (aka Islamo-Christianists) a fighting chance by making Dharma as the basis of the Bharatiya Rashtra.
The difference is indeed between Islam and Dharma. Islam is autophagous and will eat its Muslims to make itself purer. Dharma is liberating and will facilitate each Dharmic to realize his intrinsic capacity.
This is an issue often downplayed by all the Nehruvian-Secularists. The evolution differential between India and Pakistan is not just because the idea of India is stronger than the idea of Pakistan, but because the latent Dharma in the land of India is stronger as a concept in nation-building and progress than Islam, and true some part of that Dharma did show up in the Idea of India as well.
The Nehruvian-Secularists are however making the case that secularism is better than religious basis (calling Hindutva religious) and giving the example of Pakistan. This is disingenuous, because they make an equal-equal between Dharma and Islam.
He also makes the case that it is not that the Pakistani is less than an Indian in his capabilities, the Pakistani is worse off because the Idea of Pakistan is weaker than the Idea of India, and the idea we are speaking of here is religion vs secularism.
I think that is also wrong. The Samskriti has a huge effect on the individual, and the difference between the Pakistani and the Indian come from the underlying culture - a culture of loot and entitlement vs a culture of learning and hard work.
RajeshA wrote:
So I think MJ Akbar needs to revisit his research and analyze anew!
The Nehruvian-Secularists are trying to frighten Hindus that if they go for Hindutva, they will end up becoming Pakistanis with their violence!
This false image has to be completely removed and nationalism has to be explained to the Indians.
Hindutva is a political ideology and does not teach any religion on Hinduism.
Key thing here is that Islam is being equated with other religion. This cannot be done at all. Islam has been hijacked and even west uses Islam for their objectives,
RajeshA wrote: Dharmic: When I use the word Dharmic Republic, I use it in context of the definition here: 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 ji, "direct access" is a little weak. In Dharma, the Atma is not considered as separate from Brahma. Self-Realization is the process of becoming aware of this. It is said that the evolving human consciousness expands into the universal consciousness.
This concept is more powerful than "direct access" and it is a core difference from the Abrahamic doctrines.
And there are also other concepts like Karma that are important ...
