The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[RamaY]

Many thanks to RajeshA garu,


Shri Narendra Modi addressing the India Today Coclave 2013



This is the Bharatiya speech that resonates the heart and soul of this thread.

1. Don't give alms to citizens, it makes them beggers. In reference to NREGA, Modi suggests it could have been more successful of the objective was Indian Development program and not employment scheme.

2. Narendra Modi understood Gandhi better than the people who go with the Gandhi family name.

MKG told the Bharatiyas, whatever they are doing is a contribution to pursuit of national independence

"Yadyat karma Karoti tattadakhilam (Bharata) maata tavaaradhanam" = whatever action/karma I do, may all that become service to Bharatamata!. When Bharatiyas make this as foundation of their life pursuit, all that karma will be celebration of Bharat. This is what makes an individual a true Bharatiya.

This is the true secularism.

Saadhu Narendra Modi Bhai, sadhu!

3. Indian Christians and Muslims can too become Bharatiyas by celebrating Bharatiya spiritual places. Make your own tirthapradesas within Bharat. Stop looking at desert lands.

4. Think Eco-sustainability of every project. This includes environment, human resources, and renewable resources.

5. As soon as humanity moves into the jnanayuga = knowledge economy, Bharat will be jagatguru. It will lose its preeminence only when Bharat falls into Tamas.

6. When good governance and development is targeted towards 100% Bharatiyas, the religious minorities will have no reason to be secluded.

[RajeshA]

Your penchant to look at the whole world except to look for guidance on what SD teachings and traditions say is amazing. If you are uncomfortable or want to change the age old institution of Brahmacharya then say so but first do acknowledge that it is where SD streams stand on the issue. You are free to argue what is a better option and how is Dharma better served. But, please this constant compare business smells of being uncomfortable in your own skin.

....

The disconnect IMO is because you have not gotten the pulse of Dharma yet. There is too much purva paksha and less reading of our own works, traditions and systems and more importantly contemplation and thinking through the issues at hand before an articulated view point on behalf of SD. I may have 1000 disagreements with RamaY, but I know he has the pulse of Dharma, his examples, thoughts clearly tell me, where he is coming from. RamaY maybe too harsh for my taste but that is a different matter. With you sir, I have a fundamental disconnect because IMO almost ALL your articulations do not have a dharmic understanding at all. But, no ill intent meant.

ShauryaT ji,

please don't understand it as a personal criticism, but I am glad that there is a disconnect.

1) I feel you are obsessed with application of Sanatan Dharma - be it Varna, be it on consensual sex, be it on support for the elderly. Your articulation seems to be - this is how we have earlier done this, and this is how it should be done in the future. It is orthodox thinking. Any application has to deal with a changed environment and not simply an ideal environment. One has to go back to the basics, the fundamentals, the spirit and see how to apply all that in the changed environment.

2) Secondly you're on the lookout for "othering" of others, simply based on the other's acknowledgment of a world of multiple ideologies competing for mind-space of the individual. It seems that you have lost all touch with the greatest of Indian inventions - neti neti, that you seem to feel discomfort when doing Purva-Paksha. To get to the core of the spirit of Dharma again, neti neti is the light in the darkness that helps you find your way.

3) What you seem to argue for is often an elitist version of Dharma's application. It is about instituting more and more red-lines, divisions and controls in socioeconomic area instead of taking the egalitarian approach and empowering people.

More later.

[RajeshA]

Rashtra & Saṁnyāsa

For example,
An elite can very well take care of the very old. They have plenty of space at home. They can employ extra household help for either easing their burden of chores, or they can employ some nurses to take care of the very old. They have access to the best medical care for the old.

The poor has none of this. They have congested quarters, and little money to go around for care.

You however want to make it a fight over principle that the children (who may be themselves be over 55) need to take care of their elderly parents (over 80). Period. That principle has already been lived up to as care was given, say between 60 and 80. It is not in the interests of society to break familial bonds and responsibilities.

However one has to acknowledge that the generations below (say 60-) among the poor have responsibilities to their own children, their grandchildren and limitation of resources (money, time, etc.) which may not allow them to do justice to the requirements of care for the elderly, logistically speaking. From an economic PoV, if they cannot work, i.e. if they have to look after the elderly full-time, it would bring down the productivity of the society as well.

Families who can deal with this situation, they can continue to have the blessed presence of the elderly in their families, but poor families where the quality of care one can give to the elderly becomes a casualty of circumstances, there the elderly should have the option of looking for alternate care.

Should the children kill themselves for their guilty conscience that they cannot provide their elderly parents and grandparents the best care money can provide. Should the elderly kill themselves because they start feeling guilty that they are a burden on their children, as they contribute less and less to the household!

Instead of helping out, you want to criminalize the whole issue.

The alternate model is that in old age (over 80) everybody can look forward to Rashtriya-supported Senior Citizen Care. One knows one would not be a burden on one's loved ones. One can look forward to a good environment, to good medical care, to better spiritual guidance, in the last phase of one's life.

This should be considered a society's way of saying "Thank you" to all their citizens who have contributed to the nation-building. The better the quality of service one provides in this institution, the better we can say thank you!

Most importantly this service is the same for everybody - from a dirt-poor rag picker to a ex- Supreme Court judge.

This service is what should unite the Rashtra,

• that the Rashtra takes care of its own,
• that the Rashtra acknowledges your service to your families and to the nation,
• that for the Rashtra you'll not be differentiated based on what kind of service you have rendered to it,
• that all service is appreciated,
• that you need not worry any longer after your innings at the crease about your self, now the Rashtra is there to take away your worries,
• that you do your Karma Yoga, the Rashtra will take care of the rest.

At the end of the day, the Karma Yogi should have a right to spend some time in serenity, in greenery, in comfort, rather than in his/her charpai in a dark corner of a jhuggi in some slum infested with diseases, filthy water, and what not, with the children having no time, as they may have to work hard to make their ends meet; and all that after having worked his/her whole life!

That should be the fundamental Dharmic Social Contract - Everybody's elderly are the responsibility of everybody! At the end of the day, there is a piece of "paradise" for everybody, and Swa-Dharma and Karma Yoga are not just some religious blah-blah!

One needs to look at why do we not live by Nishkam Karma, why do we desire the fruits of our actions! Often the reason is to secure a comfortable retired life and old age. The motive need not always be lust for money. Now one is not taking away the motive for a comfortable retired life (60-80), but one should not have to worry about old age (80+). Thus one can do one's Karma Yoga without attachment to the fruits.

The motto should be Maximum & Equal Opportunity, Maximum & Equal Appreciation!

Opportunity = Education
Appreciation = Saṁnyāsa

[RajeshA]

Many thanks to RajeshA garu,


Shri Narendra Modi addressing the India Today Coclave 2013

This is the Bharatiya speech that resonates the heart and soul of this thread.

RamaY ji,

indeed. This was a speech on Bharatiya-centric thinking!

NaMo did not push the issue too much, but he said he was in favor of full indigenization of our military procurement, self-reliance of our military-industrial complex and working towards becoming an exporter of defense hardware.

He did not want to get too much into the security challenge from China and Pakistan, and said he hopes to build relations of mutual cooperation, that he will of course work to protect our national interests (hitt), and that he believes India should establish itself as a "knowledge power". Basically he is talking about security based on upgrading defense technology. He did not allow himself to be talked into as a warmonger but he did put forth his views on what he hopes to do.

[Sushupti]

Why page 3 Hindus are ashamed of themselves?

[RamaY]

UNDTV Debate on secularism


Watch video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/we-the ... ful/268807

[Agnimitra]

I wish this tribunal case triggers a national debate. RM's Being Different can find spotlight...

Shiva worship not a religious act, income tax tribunal says

MUMBAI: Lord Shiva, Hanuman and goddess Durga do not represent any particular religion but are regarded as supernatural powers of the universe, the Nagpur income tax appellate tribunal has said.

The observation came when the tribunal was hearing an appeal by Nagpur-based Shiv Mandir Devstan Panch Committee Sanstan against an income tax commissioner's order denying it tax exemption on grounds that more than 5% of its expenditure was incurred on religious activities.

The I-T act stipulates that for the purpose of tax exemption, an institution or trust must not be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.

Differing with the I-T commissioner's order, the tribunal said, "Expenses on worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, Goddess Durga and on maintenance of the temple cannot be regarded as having been incurred for religious purposes."

The tribunal went on to say that Hinduism was neither a religion nor a community. It consisted of a number of communities having different gods worshipped in different ways. Even the worship of god wasn't not essential for a person who had adopted the Hindu way of life, it said.

"Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called as the fundamentals of Hinduism," the tribunal observed.

According to it, the word 'community' meant people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or Islam but not to Hinduism. "Technically, Hinduism is neither a religion nor a community," the tribunal said.

In 2008, the sanstan had spent Rs 82,977 on maintenance of its building, providing free food, festival prayers, training people in tailoring and yoga, and free distribution of spectacles. The I-T commissioner had said that expenses for building maintenance, providing free food, festival prayers and daily expenses related to 'religious purposes'. This added up to more than 5% of the organization's expenditure. Only Rs 6,700 was spent on non-religious activities, the taxman said.

The sanstan had countered this, saying its temple was open to everybody, irrespective of caste and creed. "The temple does not belong to a particular religion. Installing idols is not a religious activity," the counsel for the sanstan said.

The I-T tribunal's accountant member K Bansal and judicial member D T Garasia agreed. They said the word 'religion' meant belief in, and worship of, a "superhuman controlling power", a particular system of faith and worship.

"It means the trust should not be for the benefit of any particular group of persons having common belief in worshipping of superhuman controlling power or having common system of faith and worship. If the trust is for the benefit of any particular religious community, it would include the advancement, support or propagation of a religion," they said, adding that no evidence or material had been placed on record to prove that the sanstan was promoting a particular religion.

A Lefty pal highlighted it with great irritation and sarcasm...

[RajeshA]

Punyabhumi

Cross-posting from off-topic thread

devesh

Savarkar could be considered the "Pitamaha" of "Hindutva". he went to great lengths to put into writing his ideology in a way which would include the largest possible denomination under his category of "Hindutva". There is no doubt he understood the necessity, both social and political, of getting the largest possible base on a common platform. and he did so without resorting to ideological dilution. His "definition" is a very solid basis to start from. It can and should be "changed" or "transformed" as necessary. but it is certainly a very good starting place.

Atri

Savarkar's definition.

One who considers this land from hindukush to southern ocean as "Bhaarata" and those who consider Bhaarata as their Pitrubhumi (fatherland, land of pitaras - forefathers) and punyabhumi (difficult to translate, vaguely, holyland or most revered land) are hindus.

This is irrespective of their religious practices.

Carl

and punyabhumi (difficult to translate, vaguely, holyland or most revered land) [/i]

This is irrespective of their religious practices.

Atri ji, in my conversations with Moslems, they think the "punyabhu" part is unacceptable because it contradicts their religion. Maybe "punyabhu" can be translated as related to "karmabhumi" to make it broader. After all, if we call it "holy" land, then it is necessarily a religious definition. JMT.

Atri

Atri ji, in my conversations with Moslems, they think the "punyabhu" part is unacceptable because it contradicts their religion. Maybe "punyabhu" can be translated as related to "karmabhumi" to make it broader. After all, if we call it "holy" land, then it is necessarily a religious definition. JMT.

Yes I pondered upon that for long. But do you think that will make difference? BT removed the term punyabhumi entirely and kept only Matrubhumi (not pitrubhumi), yet he found no muslim takers even for this definition. Do you really think that is the problem? Its like once u give up kashmir, will problems cease?

One has to define one's goal. Does one wants to bring muslims as they are under umbrella of common cause of indian (not indic) upliftment? Then secularism is much better harp to play.

Muslims as they are are insulated from mixing into hindu mainstream by arab money and paki+IM nuisance value and 3.5 father blackmail. Punyabhumi or no punyabhumi, it is not possible as long as these state of affairs persist. Once these factors are attenuated, muslims will accept punyabhumi clause and live happily ever after.

So, IMO, no need to change the fundamentals.

Carl

That's true, the objections are mostly just nakhras. Can't sing Vande Mataram because Islam supposedly forbids one to treat a land in an anthropomorphic way. But just read any poem about Hajj, and the plateau of Arafat is treated like God itself.

Anand K

The Wahabbis don't see it that way, right?
A lot of the landscape has been radically changed. and it's not just old shrines/tombs..... It looks like they are going to demolish the Mountains of Light in the near future next. Just like they flattened Ajyad Fort and nearby the hills.

Sanku

The Wahabbis don't see it that way, right?
A lot of the landscape has been radically changed. and it's not just old shrines/tombs..... It looks like they are going to demolish the Mountains of Light in the near future next. Just like they flattened Ajyad Fort and nearby the hills.

That is entirely irrelevant, the Deobandi/Barlevi's who still worship graves in India are raising the bogey in question and hence being called hypocrites of the first order.

Your point has unfortunately no bearing on the earlier statement.

Carl

The Wahabbis don't see it that way, right?
A lot of the landscape has been radically changed. and it's not just old shrines/tombs..... It looks like they are going to demolish the Mountains of Light in the near future next. Just like they flattened Ajyad Fort and nearby the hills.

But they can't demolish the ka'aba itself, no? And they can't whitewash 1400 years of Hajj related literature that worships the holy soil of Arabia. Quite a bit of it in Urdu.
All that is fine by me. But it shouldn't be hypocritically used to worship Arabia and show no regard for India. Indian Moslems need to reorganize and declare that while Islam is their deen, India and "Hindutva" (properly understood) is their qaum.

[RajeshA]

Punyabhumi

Punyabhumi has many aspects but for each religious system, Punyabhumi could have totally different meanings.

For a religion, for which the places of pilgrimage are important, possibly because pilgrimage plays an important part, the location would be of essence. If the places of pilgrimage lie outside the sovereignty of the nation, possibly within the control of a enemy nation, one's allegiance can come under a question mark. If the places of pilgrimage lie within the country, or within the territory of friendly countries, then punyabhumi doesn't suffer.

For another religion, for which doctrine is paramount, the location of the doctrinal center can be the deciding factor - which center makes the primary decisions related to doctrine, whose decisions carry the most influence, to which center to the adherents of the religion look up to, to get their guidance.

For another religion, the mythology or the history would be important, and then the question becomes where lie the important places where the mythology or history took place. If they are outside the country, or country's civilizational expanse, then the punyabhumi could be considered to lie outside.

For another religious group, it can be a question of funding - where do the lion's share of funds come from?

Basically the geographical pull and influence one feels on one's religion decides the issue of punyabhumi. The question becomes whether those who control these centers lying outside the country, how much influence they exert on the religious group, to what an extent one feels beholden to the nation where these centers, that one looks up to, lie?

If the punyabhumi has to lie within the country, then the centers within the country should have sovereignty over doctrine, policy, organization, funds and devotion of the people., even if one cannot ensure that the location of the places of pilgrimage, places of mythological and historical relevance, lie within the country.

However if the doctrine itself is unchangeable, it is frozen in time, it is not amenable to evolution with the changing times, it is not open to freedom of interpretation, then sovereignty over the doctrine would mean very little, as such sovereignty cannot decide much, and the center becomes basically a branch which ensures compliance and not development. Another aspect is what is the function of doctrine - to comply with given laws or to facilitate the individual in his spiritual quest? Thus the nature of the doctrine itself becomes relevant.

Perhaps the more important aspect is the virtual aspect and not the geographical aspect. Does the doctrine support the historical civilizational narrative of and control over the land or not? If it doesn't, then there would always be incompatibility.

[RajeshA]

I wish this tribunal case triggers a national debate. RM's Being Different can find spotlight...

Shiva worship not a religious act, income tax tribunal says

A Lefty pal highlighted it with great irritation and sarcasm...

Problem comes when things are not clearly defined. As Modi says corruption comes when the rules are not in black and white.

Which definition of religion is the income tax tribunal looking at?

I offered a suggestion!

Religion is a framework of observance of rituals and rules which accompany one's faith in

• a particular cosmogony,
• a particular nature of reality and consciousness,
• a particular theory of extra-temporal continuation of life,
• a particular set of non-human entities and extra-temporal laws which oversee cosmology and the human life-cycle,
• a particular temporal narrative of how this knowledge was introduced into human society, and
• a number of miracles performed by human participants in the narrative, which underpin this faith.

Any institution which supports the inculcation and the propagation of such a faith system in society and provides services to support the observance of rituals and regulations can be called a religious institution.

So is Shiva worship "religion"? Yes!

Can the laws which govern society be part of religion? Not really, and thus should not enjoy religious immunity!

[RajeshA]

Vande Mataram

Carl

That's true, the objections are mostly just nakhras. Can't sing Vande Mataram because Islam supposedly forbids one to treat a land in an anthropomorphic way. But just read any poem about Hajj, and the plateau of Arafat is treated like God itself.

Carl ji,

can we have those poems posted here with translations, which treat some piece of land either anthropomorphically or as God itself, just in case it is not too much work.

Also anthropomorphism itself is not really all that uncommon. Panchatantra was quite popular in Arab lands, and one has non-human beings and objects being able to think and speak.

Besides to capture the spirit of Vande Mataram, one needs to treat the country like the mother. True that is anthropomorphization, but it is not to God, it is to human being - the mother. As such this anthropomorphization should not portend any trouble. It cannot be considered Shirk.

The other issue of reverence. That depends solely on how one looks at mother. There are those Hindus who revere the mother the same way one would revere a deity, or the Supreme himself. In general there are many levels of reverence ranging from religious devotion to normal respect.

If fact, there are others who do not do anything of the kind. There was a story from Pakistan, where two men had sold their mother into sex slavery.

So the question of worship, devotion, reverence, respect etc. is a different question, related to a person's or community's own attitude towards one's mother, and has little to do with religion, but the issue of anthropomorphization should be a non-issue as the anthropomorphization is to a human being and not to Supreme.

[RajeshA]

Nehruvian Secularism @Work

Published on Mar 18, 2013
India seeks higher Haj quota this year: IANS

India has sought an increase of 10,000 in this year's Haj quota. The request was made by Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed to Saudi Haj Minister Bandar Najar, when the two met in Jeddah.

"We requested the minister to accommodate an additional 10,000 people this year," an official accompanying Ahamed said, over phone from Jeddah, where the ministers met Saturday.

Every year, India sends 170,000 pilgrims for the Haj. This year, Haj falls in October.

In view of high demand for the pilgrimage, the Indian government urged Saudi authorities to increase the quota of pilgrims.

However, it appears like the Saudi government might find it hard to accede to India's request, as there is a heavy rush of pilgrims from all over the world.

Last year, over 3.5 million pilgrims performed the Haj. The pilgrimage is one of five "pillars" of Islam, and the faithful are encouraged to perform it at least once in their lifetime.

The Saudi minister assured Ahamed that he would consider the request favourably.

The two ministers also discussed arrangements for the Haj as well as the facilities provided to Indian pilgrims during their 30-day stay in the Saudi kingdom.

Saudi authorities have undertaken massive expansion plans for the two holy mosques, which are expected to be completed in two years. Once expansion work is complete, the mosque in Mecca would be equipped to accommodate more than 1.2 million pilgrims at one time.

This year, 125,000 pilgrims will go to the Haj through the Haj Committee of India (HCI), while remaining pilgrims will make it through various private tour operators.

The government has made it clear that pilgrims cannot go to the Haj through the Haj Committee of India more than once.

The Indian government provides huge subsidy to pilgrims who travel through the Haj Committee of India.

The centre offers around Rs.600 crore in subsidy for the travel of the pilgrims.

Pilgrims are ferried by Air India, which also hires the services of Saudi airlines to carry pilgrims in more than 300 special flights to Jeddah and Medina.

[RajeshA]

Cross-Posting from "Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth" Thread



Published on Mar 12, 2013
By François Gautier
Arise Again O Ancient India

Once again, a country, Italy, shows how little respect it has for India, this time by refusing to honor its word to send back the accused marines. Is it not then time to say: “Arise O India, be proud once more of Thyself”.

This should be India’s motto for the Third Millennium, after five centuries of self-denial. For, in spite of its poverty, in spite of the false Aryan invasion, in spite of the Muslim holocaust, in spite of European colonialism, in spite of Macaulay’s children, in spite of the Partition, in spite of the Chinese threat, in spite of the westernised framework, India still has got tremendous potential. Everything is there, ready to be manifested again, ready to mould India in a new modern nation, a super power of the 21st century. Of course, India has to succeed its industrialisation, it has to liberalise, because unless you can compete economically with the West, no nation can become a super power. India has also to solve its political problems, settle its separatist troubles, get rid of corruption and bureaucracy. And lastly, it has to apply quickly its mind and genius to its ecological problems, because the environment in India is in a very bad way, near the point of no-return. Thus, if India can succeed into its industrialisation and liberalisation, become a force to be reckoned militarily, economically and socially, then the wonder that IS India could again manifest itself.

And what is this Wonder ? Beyond the image of poverty, of backwardness, beyond even the wonder that is Hinduism, there is a Knowledge – spiritual, occult, esoteric, medical even – still alive today in India. This Knowledge was once roaming upon the shores of this world – in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece… – but it has now vanished to be replaced by religions, with their dogmas and rituals, do’s and don’t, hells and heavens. For we have lost the truth. we have lost the Great Sense, the meaning of our evolution, the meaning of why so much suffering, why dying, why getting born, why this earth, who are we, what is the soul, what is reincarnation, where is the ultimate truth about the world, the universe… But India has kept this truth, India has managed to preserve it through seven millenniums of pitfalls, of genocides and attempts at killing her santanam dharma.

And this will be India’s gift to this planet during the next century: to restore to the world its true sense. to recharge humanity with the real meaning and spirit of life, to gift to this dolorous Planet That which is beyond mind : the Supra-Mental. India will become the spiritual leader of the world :

“It is this religion that I am raising-up before the world, it is this that I have perfected and developed through the Rishis, Saints, and Avatars, and now it is going forth to do my work among the nations. I am raising forth this nation to send forth my word…When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the Santana Dharma that shall rise, it is the Santana Dharma that shall be great. When it is said that India shall expand and extend herself, it is the Santana Dharma that shall expand and extend itself over the world. It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India exists”. (IUttarpara speech)

This knowledge does not necessarily reside in mystical realms, but in authentic Indian traditional forms of genius which can be very practical. Take for example ancient medical systems, like Ayurveda, or Siddha. Today, allopathic medecines are found even in India’s remotest villages, making people dependant on harmful drugs which are expensive and only serve to enrich the big foreign multinationals. It takes a Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, to remind the world that Ayurveda is one of the greatest medical systems ever devised; that 3000 years ago, when the rest of the planet lived in total medical ignorance, Indian doctors were already performing plastic surgery, knew that the origin of many diseases were psychosomatic, had found in Mother nature the cure for most of man’s ailments and realised that the five natural elements have to be made balanced in the human body for a perfect harmonious life. Not only that, but Indian doctors were also yogis. They perceived that beyond the human body was another divine reality, of which the soul was the vehicle on earth. Today, Western doctors (and many Indian ones) are totally ignorant of the different planes of consciousness which superimpose our terrestrial life. Hence these doctors and the psychiatrists of the West are, as Sri Aurobindo pointed out, « searching with a torch light in the dark caverns of man’s Unconscious ». This ancient knowledge is unfortunately now being neglected. As a result, American companies are attempting to patent medicines using the properties of neem or haldi, for instance, which were known 3000 years ago by India’s forefathers. As in the case of Sanskrit, the Indian Government should thus put its energies and resources towards the reviving of Ayurveda.

Or take pranayama, the science of breathing. The effects of pranayama have been studied for thousands of years and Indian teachers know exactly what results will this type of exercise have on you and what kind of routine you should do to improve that particular problem, or develop this certain faculty in you. Pranayama, in Sanskrit, means breath – and in India, it is known that prana circulates in the whole body and that one breathes not only trough the nose and mouth, of course, but through ANY part of the body, making thus prana flow everywhere. Thus, according to yogis, prana can revitalise all these parts of our body which do not receive enough energy – and which, as a consequence, become weak and lose their vitality, like the eyes for instance. Pranayama is in fact everywhere : in the air which surrounds us, of course, but also in animals, in Nature, in the mineral world even. It is also found in food : today, one speaks of vitamins, proteins, calories – but one does not understand that it is actually the prana in the food which gives us energy; and the quality of this prana depends on the sort of food we are partaking.

Pranayama is probably the best suited Indian yogic discipline for the West, as His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Movement has shown. It is so down to earth, so scientific : there are no miracles, no levitation, no smoky mysticism, as everything can be explained in a rational way. And again, the U.S.A., always prompt to experience new techniques, is using this knowledge : quite a few American companies have included exercises of pranayama in the peps sessions of their executives; sportsmen too are experimenting with it to improve their performances, as the film « the Great Blue », has shown when the hero does a series of breathing exercises known in India as « Viloma », to store as much air as possible in his lungs, before breaking a world record in underwater diving without oxygen.

And what about Kalaripayat, a very ancient multi-faceted martial art, which is still practised in the villages of Kerala ? In 522 A.D., an Indian Buddhist monk named Boddidharma, who had become a master of Kalaripayat (Buddhist monks, who travelled a lot in Asia to propagate their religion, used bare-handed fighting and the bamboo stick they used for walking to defend themselves against attacks) and was the son of the king of Kancheepuram in the state of Tamil Nadu, arrived at the court of the Chinese Emperor Liang Nuti of the 6th dynasty. The Emperor granted him a, audience and gave him travel documents to walk to the Kingdom of Wei (now Junan province) at the foot of the Han Shan mountains, to a Buddhist monastery called the temple of Shaolin.

Father and founder of Zen Buddhism (called C’han in China and Dhyana in India), Boddidharma taught the Chinese monks the barehanded fighting techniques of Kalaripayat, a very ancient Indian martial art, so that they could defend themselves against the frequent attacks of bandits. In time the monks became know all over China as skilled exponents of barehanded fighting, which came to be known as the Shaolin boxing art.

The Shaolin temple which was handed back a few years ago to the C ’han Buddhist monks by the Chinese Government, inheritors of Boddhidharma’s spiritual and martial teachings, is now open to visitors. On one of its walls, one can see a fresco depicting dark-skinned Indians teaching their lighter-skinned brothers the art of barehanded fighting. On the painting is inscribed : « Tenjiku Naranokaku », which means : « the fighting techniques to train the body (which come) from India.

Kalaripayat, or Shaolin boxing as it is came to be known, passed from China to Japan, through the Ryukyu islands, landing in Okinawa to blossom in the art of the Empty Hand, or later, Karate. Later it manifested in the Japanese mainland as jiu-jiu-tso, judo, Shorinji Kempo, etc. Karate, the art of the Empty Hand, father of all Japanese martial arts, is a blend of Boddhidharma’s martial teachings and the local fighting techniques, which existed there before the advent of Zen Buddhism. All Asian martial arts, particularly those of China and Japan, recognize their origin in the Shaolin Temple and honour Boddhidarma, (whom the Japanese call Dharuma). His portrait is often displayed in their dojos, where martial arts are practised.

And what of meditation, queen of all the yogic sciences ? That which is above everything, that without which any yogic discipline is impossible. That which interiorizes us, carries us within ourselves, to the discovery of our true soul and nature. There are hundreds of different mediation techniques, simple, cartesian, easy to experience, which have been devised by Indian sages since the dawn of Bharat. Each one has its own characteristics, each one gives particular results, which has been experienced by the billions of aspirants who have practised them since the dawn of Vedic times. Meditation is being practised more and more in the West and there have been numerous scientific studies, which have shown the positive effect of meditation on heart problems, psychological stress or blood circulation.

The irony of it all is that not only most of the Indian upper class and intellectual elite does not practise meditation and pranayama, ignores what is Kalaripayat and does not gets treated for its problems with Ayurveda, but that none of these wonders are included in the schools and universities curriculum. So you have this wonderful knowledge, which has disappeared from the rest of the world, but if you go to cities like Delhi, or Bombay, you realise that most of the youth there have no idea about meditation, or have never heard of pranayama. They are totally cut off from their ancient culture, from the greatness of their tradition, and even look down on it. So unless Indians start taking pride in their own culture, India will never be able to gift it to the world.

Famous French writer Andre Malraux had said that unless the 21 century is spiritual, then it will not be. What he meant was that the world has now come to such a stage of unhappiness, of material dryness, of conflicts within itself, that it seems doomed and there appears no way that it can redeem Itself : it is just going towards self-destruction, – ecologically, socially, spiritually. So unless the 21st century allows a new spiritual order to take over – not a religious order, because religion has been a failure, all over the world – then the world is going towards pralaya. And India holds the key to the world’s future, for India is the only nation which still preserves in the darkness of Her Himalayan caves, on the luminous ghats of Benares, in the hearts of her countless yogis, or even in the minds of her ordinary folk, the key to the planetary evolution, its future and its hope.

The 21st century then, will be the era of the East; this is where the sun is going to rise again, after centuries of decadence and submission to Western colonialism; this is where the focus of the world is going to shift. And as when India used to shine and send forth Her Dharma all over the Orient: to Japan, Thailand, China, Burma, or Cambodia and influence their civilisations and religions for centuries to come, once more She will emit Her light and radiate, Queen among nations: “India of the ages is not dead nor has She spoken Her last creative word; She lives and has still something to do for Herself and the human peoples. And that which She must seek now to awake, is not an anglicised oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the Occident’s success and failure, but still the ancient immemorial Shakti recovering Her deepest self, lifting Her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and vaster form of Her Dharma”.

Great Article!

[member_20317]

Punyabhumi

Punyabhumi has many aspects but for each religious system, Punyabhumi could have totally different meanings.

<sniped>

If the punyabhumi has to lie within the country, then the centers within the country should have sovereignty over doctrine, policy, organization, funds and devotion of the people., even if one cannot ensure that the location of the places of pilgrimage, places of mythological and historical relevance, lie within the country.

However if the doctrine itself is unchangeable, it is frozen in time, it is not amenable to evolution with the changing times, it is not open to freedom of interpretation, then sovereignty over the doctrine would mean very little, as such sovereignty cannot decide much, and the center becomes basically a branch which ensures compliance and not development. Another aspect is what is the function of doctrine - to comply with given laws or to facilitate the individual in his spiritual quest? Thus the nature of the doctrine itself becomes relevant.

Perhaps the more important aspect is the virtual aspect and not the geographical aspect. Does the doctrine support the historical civilizational narrative of and control over the land or not? If it doesn't, then there would always be incompatibility.

Savarkar ji mentioned Hindu prophets and holy lands too when he mentioned Punyabhu. Which I don’t really understand. A thing can sport ‘this dravya’ or ‘that dravya’ or ‘another dravya that substitutes for both this and that’ but no thing can end up sporting both ‘this’ and ‘that’ simultaneously.

I am not against Savarkar. I am just not acquainted well enough with his work to be able to critique but I know what I understand out of something when I see it.

Punya is translated as merit by the Buddhists. I doubt if hindus would translate it radically different.

So basically Karmabhoomi is where one does his karm. IOW if one is competent then Karmabhoomi is the place where one does the job that he took up and/or the world entrusted him with, without gathering any vritis in the chit. Even if one is not competent, Karmbhoomi would be the place where he would do his karm while gathering new vrittis.

Pitr and Matru bhoomi at least for me is the same concept even if different lands.

Punyabhoomi OTOH would be the place where one gathers merit. Merit as in personal merit, social merit and aatmic merit.

Thus if the a father goes and serves in Umrikha his Karmabhoomi would be Umrikha. If he is for example a businessman and has business both in India and Umrikha then he has two karm bhoomis. But his father has children to care for say back here in Bharat. Then he needs to put in all the effort in his karmabhoomis onto his karms to fulfill the needs of his children in Bharat & so Bharat gets enriched as does the father. So from personal merit POV Bharat is his Punyabhoomi. Again the father can have more then one punyabhoomi for varying reasons eg different kinds of merit, different paatra to his punyaarth.

In such a scenario I fail to see how Punyabhoomi can undermined by or enhanced by (at an aadyatmic level) “sovereignty over doctrine, policy, organization, funds and devotion of the people”. These things would be helpful at a temporal level, yes. But on the whole, Punya is just not dependent on what others do or what others think. It is entirely dependent on what you think and what you do. Punya is as different from any kind of western ideation as Social merit is from social approbration/affected mannerism/conformism.

I think matrimc ji had queried us hindu terrorists and I had definitely replied that I would like to see a promotion of the coinciding of the Karmabhoomi, Punyabhoomi & Pitrbhoomi for all Bharatiya. Note this does not negate anybody’s freedom but enhances the freedom and power of those who will to bind themselves in such manner.

JMT.

[RajeshA]

Hinduism, Hindutva and the Contest for the Meaning of Hindu Identity: Swami Vivekananda and V.D. Savarkar
By Anantanand Rambachan
Published in June 2009

The word, ‘Hindutva’ an abstract noun formed by appending the Sanskrit masculine ‘tva’ to ‘Hindu’, and loosely translated as ‘Hinduness’ is of relatively recent origin. Although it was popularized in Bengal towards the end of the nineteenth century, its current prevalence must be attributed to the work of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966). While the author of works such as Indian War of Independence 1857 (1908) and Hindu Pad-Padashahi (1925), there is no doubt that Savarkar’s most important and influential work is Hindutva ; Who is a Hindu? Written while Savarkar was jailed in the Andaman Islands and subsequently in Ratnagiri, and published in 1923, Hindutva became the source of the principles that shaped the ideology of Hindu Nationalism in the 1920’s and the term is widely employed today to describe various expressions of the Hindu nationalist movement. The popularization of the word ‘Hindutva’ and its extensive use in current discourse to describe a broad range of ideologies and organizations have resulted in imprecision and obscurity of meaning. It is also true that many of the contemporary movements espousing versions of the doctrine of Hindutva seek legitimacy by claiming continuity with the ideals and teachings of Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902). In view of the present significance, religious and political, of various versions of Hindutva and the connections made with the life and teachings of Swami Vivekenanda, it is important to clarify the original context and meaning of the term as used by V.D. Savarkar, assess the claims of continuity made with Swami Vivekananda and consider the implications of any differences in understanding. My paper is a preliminary effort to address these tasks.

In the “Essentials of Hindutva” Savarkar seeks to describe the characteristics of Hindu identity. His work is an attempt to answer the question “Who is a Hindu?” by providing a definition of Hindutva or “Hinduness.”

Savarkar’s criteria of Hindu identity consist of three interrelated attributes.

• The first is geographical. India or Hindusthan, as Savarkar would prefer to call it, constitutes a distinct geographical entity demarcated by mountains, oceans and rivers and a Hindu is “primarily a citizen, either in himself or through his forefathers of ‘Hindusthan.’ On the basis of this first criterion, argues Savarkar, an American, for example, who becomes a citizen of Hindusthan is entitled to be treated as a countryman. He will not be incorporated, however, into the Hindu fold if he does not satisfy the second requisite of Hinduness since the term, Hindu, means much more than geography.
• This second, and perhaps most important requirement of Hinduness is what Savarkar refers to as “common blood” or jati. A Hindu is a descendant of Hindu parents and shares with other Hindus a common blood traceable to the Vedic fathers or Sindhus. This argument rests essentially on an intuitive or affective claim. We are not only a nation but a Jati, a born brotherhood. Nothing else counts, it is after all a question of the heart. We feel that the same ancient blood that coursed through the veins of Ram and Krishna, Buddha and Mahavir, Nanak and Chaitanya, Basava and Madhava, of Rohidas and Tiruvelluvar courses throughout Hindudom from vein to vein, pulsates from heart to heart. We feel we are a JATI, a race bound together by the dearest ties of blood and therefore it must be so.

On the basis of the first two criteria of Hinduness, Muslim citizens of India may indeed be considered as Hindus. This was a possibility recognized by Savarkar.

The majority of the Indian Mohammedans may, if free from the prejudices born of ignorance, come to love our land as their fatherland, as the patriotic and noble-minded amongst them have always been doing. The story of their conversions, forcibly in millions of cases, is too recent to make them forget, even if they like to do so, that they inherit Hindu blood in their veins. But can we, who are here concerned with investigating into facts as they are and not as they should be recognize these Mohammedans as Hindus?

• Savarkar answers his own question negatively by proposing a third criteria of Hinduness in addition to love for a common fatherland (rashtra) and race or blood (jati). This is the tie of homage to Hindu culture or civilization. Savarkar names this common culture as Sanskriti on the basis of the claim that Sanskrit is the language that expresses and preserves all that is worthy in the history of the Hindus. It includes a shared history, literature, art, law festivals, rites, rituals and heroes. This criteria was the basis for the exclusion, not only of Indian Muslims, but also of Indian Christians. Despite sharing territory and blood, they had, in Savarkar’s words, “ceased to own Hindu civilization (Sanskriti) as a whole. They belong, or feel that they belong to a cultural unit altogether different from the Hindu one.”

Savarkar was well aware of the existence of certain syncretistic communities in India, such the Muslim Bohras and Khojas of Gujarat who incorporated many elements of Sanskriti culture into their daily life. In order to exclude such groups from his definition, he turned quite late in his work to a consideration of the religious dimension of Hinduness. Hinduism or Hindu dharma includes all of the religious traditions, Vedic and non-Vedic, that originate from the soil of India. While the majority of Hindus subscribe to what is denoted as Sanatana Dharma or Vaidik Dharma, other traditions having roots in India such as Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism must be included in the generic category of Hinduism or Hindu dharma. It is very important to note that, as the religion of the Hindus, Hindu dharma, for Savarkar, partakes of all the essentials that characterize a Hindu such as common territory, race and culture. In addition, and this may, given its importance for Savarkar, even be regarded as a fourth attribute of Hinduness, all traditions included under the umbrella of Hindu dharma look upon India, not only as fatherland (Pitrbhu), but also as holyland (Punyabhu). In spite of its late appearance in his analysis, Savarkar gives considerable significance to this requisite of Hindutva and uses it as the ultimate reason for the exclusion of Muslims and Christians.

For though Hindusthan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu yet it is not to them a Holyland too. Their Holyland is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin. Their love is divided. Nay, if some of them be really believing what they profess to do, then there can be no choice – they must, to a man, set their Holyland above their fatherland in their love and allegiance. That is but natural. We are not condemning nor are we lamenting. We are simply telling facts as they stand. We have tried to determine the essentials of Hindutva and in doing so we have discovered that the Bohras and such other Mohammedan or Christian communities possess all the essential qualifications of Hindutva but one and that is that they do not look upon India as their Holyland.

In conclusion then, a Hindu, for Savarkar is one who ‘looks upon’ the land that extends from the Indus to the Seas as his fatherland, who inherits the blood of his Vedic ancestors, who claims Sanskrit culture as his own and who ‘addresses’ Sindhusthan as his Holyland.

With this clarification of Savarkar’s definition, we can now turn to Swami Vivekananda in order to assess his understanding of the meaning of Hindu identity. Examination of the lectures and writings of Vivekananda suggest that he understood the terms ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ to indicate primarily an allegiance to specified doctrines and values. He used both terms to denote a religious identity and most importantly, does not distinguish, like Savarkar, between ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism.’ This distinction, we must remind ourselves, was central and integral to Savarkar’s discussion. For Savarkar, Hinduism is only the ‘ism’ of the Hindu and refers specifically to the system of religious belief and practice. Hindu, on the other hand, refers to the territorial, racial and cultural factors constituting the Hindu nation. For Savarkar, one cannot determine the character of Hinduism without first defining who is a Hindu.

For Vivekananda, a Hindu, first and foremost, is a person who subscribes to the doctrines and practices of Hinduism. Although it is true that Vivekananda identifies the essence of Hinduism with the Vedanta tradition and, quite specifically, with the Advaita world-view, he does not limit his use of the term to the Vedanta or Advaita tradition. Hinduism, for Vivekananda, is an umbrella term embracing Vaishnavites, Shaivites, Shaktas, Vishishtadvaitins, Dvaitins and Advaitins. The significant point here is that both terms describe a religious identity. “If a Hindu is not spiritual”, says Vivekananda, “I do not call him a Hindu.” In Swami Vivekananda’s first major address before the Parliament of Religions, delivered on 19th September, 1893, he consistently uses the word ‘Hindu’ as indicative of religious belief. In one of his most important addresses entitled, “The Common Basis of Hinduism”, and delivered the city of Lahore after his return to India from the Parliament, Swami Vivekenanda identified the doctrines shared by all Hindus. A Hindu, according to Vivekananda, is one who believes in the following: the authority of the Vedas, God, the cyclical order of creation, preservation and dissolution, the immortality of the atman and its innate purity and perfection, reincarnation and religion as realization. This is the address in which occurs one of Vivekananda’s most famous and often-quoted utterances identifying a central attribute of Hindu identity.

Mark me, then and then alone you are a Hindu when the very name sends through you a galvanic shock of strength. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when every man who bears the name, from any country, speaking our language or any other language, becomes at once the nearest and the dearest to you. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when the distress of anyone bearing that name comes to your heart and makes you feel as if your own son were in distress.

The significance of this statement, for our purposes, is that his application of the term ‘Hindu’ appears to transcend boundaries of nationality, and language. Since language is so closely related to culture, one may assume that Swami Vivekananda would not hesitate to apply the term to persons belonging to a variety of cultural traditions. In the “Future of India”. Vivekananda explicitly acknowledges, unlike Savarkar who argued for a common jati or blood and culture, that India was home to a variety of racial and cultural groupings.

Here have been the Aryan, the Dravidian, the Tartar, the Turk, the Mogul, the European – all the nations of the world, as it were pouring their blood into this land. Of languages the most wonderful conglomeration is here; of manners and customs there is more difference between two Indian races than between the European and and the Eastern races.

While acknowledging the problematic use of the term ‘race’ by both Savarkar and Vivekananda, it is clear that Vivekananda locates the meaning of Hindu identity in an ecumenical hermeneutic consisting shared religious doctrines and not, like Savarkar, in claims common blood, culture, or territory.

The land of India has special sacred significance for Vivekananda and, like Savarkar, he refers to India as a punyabhumi He uses the term, however, in a more descriptive manner to describe India as a land of spirituality and as the place of origin for several of the world’s religions. There is no evidence in Vivekananda’s lectures and writing to suggest that that he uses the term, like Savarkar, as a fundamental requirement of Hindu identity and as a criterion of demarcation and exclusion. As Ainslee T. Embree notes, Vivekananda’s love for India and Hinduism was never exclusive and, “above all it was never anti-Muslim or anti-Christian.”

It is also important to note that Swami Vivekananda makes no deliberate effort, like Savarkar, to include Buddhist or Jainas in the category of Hindus. While cognizant of the close historical and philosophical ties between Hinduism and Buddhism, he characterizes their relationship to that obtaining between Judaism and Christianity. He speaks of Buddhism as a movement for reformation and a logical development of Hinduism. Both traditions need each other for their growth and well-being.

The clear differences between V.D. Savarkar and Swami Vivekananda in their respective understanding and use of the terms ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ lead to sharply divergent ways of thinking about the nature and significance of Hinduism in our contemporary world. While Savarkar limits the meaning of the Hinduism to religious belief and practice, it still “necessarily partakes of all the essentials that characterize a Hindu.” These include the characteristics of common blood, culture and consideration of India as holyland. A religious or cultural convert, therefore, meets only one of the conditions of Hindutva, and, while willing to do it as an exception, he struggles to receive Sister Nivedita, one of the foremost western-born disciples of Swami Vivekananda, as a Hindu. Swami Vivekananda, on the other hand, does not distinguish between Hindus and Hinduism and employs both terms to designate adherence to specific doctrines and practices.

Savarkar narrowly identifies Hinduism with nation (rashtra), race (jati) and culture ( Sanskriti). A Hindu is a practitioner of one of the religious traditions originating in India, but also one who shares ties of blood, culture, and veneration for India as holy land with other Hindus. Although he was a passionate nationalist and great lover of India and her people, Swami Vivekananda treats Hinduism as a distinctive world-view with a relevance and appeal that transcends ties of nationality, race and culture. In his lectures to western audiences, he presented the Hindu tradition as one that universally addresses the human condition and predicament and as a real option for people who do not have ancestral or cultural roots in the Indian sub-continent. He was the earliest to envisage and articulate the possibility. We may say that, today, being Hindu, for Swami Vivekananda, was not the same as being Indian.

While the tensions between these two very different ways of thinking about the nature of Hinduism are still very much with us and reflected in many contemporary debates and struggles, Swami Vivekananda’s vision of Hinduism as a tradition capable of speaking to human beings across the boundaries of nationality, race and ethnicity is increasingly being realized in various communities across our world. Although not without ambiguities and contradictions, it is already lived out in different ways in the lives of diasporic communities with ancestral roots in the Indian sub-continent but whose, cultural and national allegiance lies elsewhere. Vivekananda’s vision is also being realized by many who have no South Asian ancestral roots but who seek life’s meaning through Hindu categories of thought and practice.

V.D. Savarkar’s parochial identification of Hinduism with what he refers to a nation, race and culture make it difficult for Hinduism to legitimately proclaim itself as a world religion. It cannot do this while clinging to the particulars of territory, race and culture. If the Hindu tradition claims universal validity for its insights, these must, of necessity, transcend the specificities prescribed by Savarkar. Vivekananda’s understanding of the nature and meaning of Hindu and Hinduism, unlike Savarkar, offers true possibilities for the realization of a Hinduism without boundaries, speaking to all human beings.

As Hindu communities grow and flourish outside of India, as well as within India, the alternatives represented by Swami Vivekananda and V.D. Savarkar will be among the important ones that they confront in their search to determine what it means to be Hindu and the character of Hindu relationships with other religions.

• Does not distinguish between Hindus and Hinduism (as Savarkar).
• Sees India as punyabhumi, but does not use it as a requirement of Hinduness
• Attitude to Buddhism and Jainism –do we see the concern to include them in the category of Hindus?
• What are the implications of Vivekananda’s different understanding?
• What is Vivekananda’s attitude to Muslim and Christian communities in India?
• His attitude to the Hinduness of Nivedita.
• Does Vivekananda really address the significance of India’s religious diversity – Muslims/Christians? – does his view of religious pluralism help?
• Vivekananda’s universalization of the meaning of Hinduism?/reality of sepaation of religion and culture in contemporary world – Hindu appeal to those who are not Indian in ethnicity.

Anantanand Rambachan is a Trinidadian Hindu-American scholar with a specific focus on interreligous dialogue. He is the Chair and Professor of Religion, Philosophy and Asian Studies at St. Olaf College, Minnesota, USA

All this confusion would be gone if one understands that what Swami Vivekanand described as "Sanatan Dharma" and NOT 'Hinduism'. The context in which Swami Vivekanand used 'Hinduism' was to remove the misunderstandings that had been integrated into 'Hinduism', i.e. 'the beliefs of the Hindus', a discipline of study which was started by Europeans. As the word Sanatan Dharma was not known to common Europeans and Americans, Swami Vivekanand used 'Hinduism', which inadvertently gave some legitimacy to this discipline of study of the 'beliefs of the Hindus'.

The word 'Hindu' has to be understood the way the rulers of Vijayanagara Empire, Maratha Empire, and Savarkar understood the word 'Hindu', which does not have any religious content, only the requirement to preserve and promote Bharatiya worldview, faiths and Dharma. Otherwise one gets this confused deracinated nonsense as by the professor above.

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji,

I believe Savarkar used the word 'Punya', as merit that one earns by serving the tenets of one's religion. When he says 'Punyabhumi', he refers to the geography which one associates with the religion, so that for religious merit one need not look up to any other geography or to any power centers based in any other geography.

[Atri]

Bingo, RajeshA ji..

Concept of Punyabhumi originates in Savarkar's mind from Shivaji's pledge in 1645 of liberating teerthakshetras and holy rivers from Barbarian (mlenchha) clutches and establishing hindavi swarajya.

Savarkar and Swamiji cannot be compared. Both were vastly different individuals talking from vastly different point of view (Dharmaarthik Vs Adhyatmik) and in vastly different times (1890s were vastly different from 1920s and 30s and 40s).

As you rightly said, the good professor from trinidad is confusing between Sanatana dharma family Vs dharmaarthik ideology of Hindutva (Hindu Polity).

The idea of one race, one language, one dharma एक जाती, एक धर्म, एक भाषा comes up in writing of Savarkar in 1920s.. Savarkar proposed two language solution with sanskritized Hindi as national linking language along with regional language for official purposes. He proposed one script (devanagari) for all Indian languages and was instrumental in convincing Marathi people to give up their script (Modi) and adopt Devanagari. This was decade before lines "ein volk, ein reich, ein führer" were uttered by an European Asura who hijacked our memes and symbols for doing kukarma.

One Jati means it automatically rejects AIT. AIT is now conclusively disproved using genetic studies. One Bhasha (preferably Sanskrit 2.0) and one dharma (uniform civil, criminal code, economic and taxation policies for all residents in Indian subcontinent) is yet to materialize. All this is from dharmarthik perspective of Rashtra-Purusha. On village, community, family, individual level, there are four fold freedoms (of pursuing four purusharthas) given to those respective levels by Hindu polity (along with some duties).

[RajeshA]

Concept of Punyabhumi originates in Savarkar's mind from Shivaji's pledge in 1645 of liberating teerthakshetras and holy rivers from Barbarian (mlenchha) clutches and establishing hindavi swarajya.

That pledge should become sacred again! Even Tibet awaits its fulfillment!

One Jati means it automatically rejects AIT. AIT is now conclusively disproved using genetic studies. One Bhasha (preferably Sanskrit 2.0) and one dharma (uniform civil and criminal code for all residents in Indian subcontinent) is yet to materialize.

Atri ji,

I do hope that we can start on this journey in 2014.

Even if we leave Ram Mandir for the future, where it can be built in its full glory, it is important that the Bharatiyas start rebuilding the Sanskriti Mandir, which injects so much of the old Sanskriti back into the arteries of our national consciousness that it becomes impossible for a Cultural Marxist, Macaulayite, Dhimmi or Yuppie to occupy even the space for a needle in it.

I too think it needs to start with Sanskrit 2.0 and Bharatiya Sanskriti Studies.

Considering that the Sanskriti Studies may be primarily in Sanskrit, it gives Sanskrit a direct scope of application.

As far as Uniform Civil Code is concerned, I think it should be a two-stage process.

1. Empower Muslim girls through intensive education drive and job opportunities.
2. Once empowered get them to demand equal treatment and recognition as "Indian citizens" with their rights => Uniform Civil Code.

[RajeshA]

A good Online Journal which explores Dharma!

The Medha Journal

[Sushupti]

This happened today during parliament debate over anti-rape law. Groundwork for Sharia complaint society starts.

[Sushupti]

deleted

[Sagar G]

This happened today during parliament debate over anti-rape law. Groundwork for Sharia complaint society starts.

MP is BJP ruled so even if both the morons want to proceed they won't be able to do anything.

[Agnimitra]

Speaking of Punyabhoo, possibly one of the biggest mistakes the map-drawers of TSP made was to include Nankana Sahib and other Sikh tirtha-sthanams in their borders and ethnically cleanse Sikhs from them. Like Bethlehem without Christians. It just sets up a stage for a 'crusade'.

The Brits definitely tried to undermine the Savarkarite concept of punyabhoo, and their manipulation of Sikhs is the best example. They first Macauliffe'd them and deracinated them from being an organic extension of Veda. They extended privileges to them and also plied them with racist ideas (AIT, etc.) to do this vis a vis the Hindoos. They tried to Abrahamize a Dharmic religion like Sikhism. They then laid the foundations for a 'Khalistan' fractured from the rest of Bharatvarsha. And in a last cruel twist - they gave away Lahore and the Sikh tirthas to Islamist Pakistan.

By doing this they set Sikh identity and its memes into a vortex, and effectively tried to collapse one of the kshatra arms of Bharateeyam. We need to work to prove that this attempt, especially the last twist, was a big mistake.

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

liberating Sikhism's tirathsthans in Pakistan should be made a common Bharatiya goal. This should motivate the Sikhs to close ranks with other Dharmics.

In fact Bharat can pay Pakistan off and get all the movable relics, as well as the building plans for the buildings there, which can be reinstated when those places have been liberated.

From SikhiWiki

The ancestors of Guru Nanak Dev came to be called as Bedi (Vedi), because they had studied the Vedas, the ancient Hindu texts, according to the Bichitra Natak, the autobiography of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh.

[member_20317]

Sharia pushing is actually pretty serious, though not as serious as modernity pushers. The difference is that with the later, we can identify them, track them and engage at will. Sharia OTOH has implications that are not known widely yet. People tend to focus on triple talaq and stonings but the reality is that the most dangerous manifestation of it is the so called 'Interest Free Banking'. These Sharia walas are pushing for Sharia finance in India and that is not good news. Some time back there was talk of surreptitious Sharia banking in Kashmir valley. The saddest part of it all is that nobody is talking about it even though it can easily get into our homes and lives.

People are just not willing to look at the structuring and the rationale. Our people and laws are simply not geared for dealing with this kind of stuff and that a lot can be pushed in under the guise of Sharia banking.

Its not like Sharia banking is some sort of brahmastra in the hands of Kaurav army. It has its pitfalls for the operators. For the most part the structures these guys talk about are the ones already innovated by others. It is basically old wine in a new bottle. The problem lies mainly on account of the absence of kind of understanding of its mechanics and that leaves a vast gap in the form of people focused on the chamak-damak of the bottle. The other guys are willing to follow by now well established rules but this label banking can easily be used to push agendas using only a few willing agents.

A few months back somebody (Bji!) had explained Nazarana, Mehnatana etc. Sharia banking is especially suited for these kinds of concepts.

The regular banking has its shortcomings and challenges but these are well understood and even if not so there are people well trained in them.

[brihaspati]

Well the "world religions" [assuming it means presence of followers at all corners of the populated world], do have their own punyabhoomis too. The Jews wail at the remnants of a wall and hold mountain peaks, temple ground and sundry other places as punyabhoomi. They held it so even when they did not have state power over those sites. The Christians fought crusades overtly for this reason [whatever be the other historian invented or constructed financial/trade etc motives] - simply because their punyabhoomi had gone out of their ideological control. The European Christians had no problem with having a punyabhoomi far from their birth land or land of occupation. Muslims have been taught to think of Mecca and temple mount as punyabhoomi - whether they are the looked down upon kaala aadmi from the Bengal delta or from Indonesia.

So thinking of the Indian subcontinent as punyabhoomi while having a global or universal acceptability - is not problematic, at least by precedence.

As for identity by descent, again there are precedences. Most people in the "world religions" are actually born into such religions, with practically no alternative choices available to them.

But the door should be open for those who were born into other streams - to come in. Even if we suspect that they may revert and cause damage, or they are double agents, or potential corrupting agents - even then.

Moreover, punyabhoomi has a core - but no boundaries. The key bridge between the Savarkarite and Vivekananda lines is some adaptation of the "Aryakarana" meme. If boundaries hem in punyabhumi now - it is becuase of temporary military and political power balances. Even within the conceptualized territorial dominions, we dont own or control significant portions. That does not make a-punyabhoomis. Hence actual political or military ownership is not the final criterion.

If current non-ownership does not disqualify a place from being punyabhoomi, a future occupation of other areas not envisaged now - but which has been "Arya-krita", will also become punyabhoomi. Punyabhoomi is where the civilization flourishes.

[Agnimitra]

Collected some old material from GDF and blogged it:

Bruce Lee and Bhakti - 1

Modern Indian religion, philosophy and politics is overwhelmingly influenced by the concept and practice of Bhakti - devotion to God and service to the Earth. This includes all schools of Hinduism (even agnostic schools admit that Bhakti is a catalyst), Sikhism, many major Buddhist schools, etc. Historically it has been a controversial concept, with different schools taking guarded positions. That's understandable, because ignorant 'religious' devotions can be toxic to spiritual and civilizational life. This is candidly admitted by the core texts of Bhakti themselves - like a statutory warning on the bottle's label. Non-Indian religions (Christianity, Islam and other religious cultures from the Middle East) are also mainly devotional cults around an idolized personality, real or imagined. Their history makes a compelling case for some of the above concerns, sometimes for the better but usually for the worse.

Politically and socially, a lot of problems arise due to ignorant devotion - whether it is to some theistic ideal or non-theistic ideology (such as Communism). In India, we have the benefit of a vast literature that has analyzed and described the process. Today we fail to benefit from this treasure because it is locked up in the Sanskrit language, which has been deliberately crushed by ruling powers for the past few centuries, and continues to be neglected. Here's a small sample of how Bhakti is discussed, and how misleading its stereotypes can be.

[RajeshA]

Well the "world religions" [assuming it means presence of followers at all corners of the populated world], do have their own punyabhoomis too. The Jews wail at the remnants of a wall and hold mountain peaks, temple ground and sundry other places as punyabhoomi. They held it so even when they did not have state power over those sites. The Christians fought crusades overtly for this reason [whatever be the other historian invented or constructed financial/trade etc motives] - simply because their punyabhoomi had gone out of their ideological control. The European Christians had no problem with having a punyabhoomi far from their birth land or land of occupation. Muslims have been taught to think of Mecca and temple mount as punyabhoomi - whether they are the looked down upon kaala aadmi from the Bengal delta or from Indonesia.

So thinking of the Indian subcontinent as punyabhoomi while having a global or universal acceptability - is not problematic, at least by precedence.

I think the issue is not necessarily where the punyabhumi is. The punyabhumi can be anywhere. The question is which civilization does one think should have political and military control over that punyabhumi.

The Christian Gentiles considered themselves a separate civilization to the Moslems of Jerusalem, and so they had the Crusades. Similarly the Jews scattered around the world too had their Punyabhumi in far off Jerusalem, and ultimately they conquered it for themselves. Today the Sikhs have Nankana Sahib, Panja Sahib, Dera Sahib, etc. in Pakistan. But these places belong to them and not to the Islamic "Civilization". Even for the Sanatan Dharmics, Mansarovar and Kailash Parvat lie outside India, but in our hearts we still claim them for us.

So tirathsthans can be anywhere. The question is whether one separates oneself emotionally from the nation in order to belong to the tirathsthan, joining a separate brotherhood revolving around some tirathsthan or does one assert the brotherhood with the rest of the nation, and claim the tirathsthan for the nation in one's heart.

As for identity by descent, again there are precedences. Most people in the "world religions" are actually born into such religions, with practically no alternative choices available to them.

But the door should be open for those who were born into other streams - to come in. Even if we suspect that they may revert and cause damage, or they are double agents, or potential corrupting agents - even then.

Sanatan Dharma should be an open garden allowing all in, but keeping the weeds out.

Moreover, punyabhoomi has a core - but no boundaries. The key bridge between the Savarkarite and Vivekananda lines is some adaptation of the "Aryakarana" meme. If boundaries hem in punyabhumi now - it is because of temporary military and political power balances. Even within the conceptualized territorial dominions, we don't own or control significant portions. That does not make a-punyabhoomis. Hence actual political or military ownership is not the final criterion.

If current non-ownership does not disqualify a place from being punyabhoomi, a future occupation of other areas not envisaged now - but which has been "Arya-krita", will also become punyabhoomi. Punyabhoomi is where the civilization flourishes.

Agree. Punyabhumi is where the civilization flourishes but also where it has flourished. Punyabhumi can never be made a-punya.

[ShauryaT]

The state government has made it compulsory to recite the preamble to the Constitution on a daily basis in schools in the state. A government resolution said this would apply to schools of every board and medium.

The preamble will have to be read by students in the morning assembly . The preamble reads: We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty, of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.

"The intention is to make the students aware of their responsibilities and duties," a senior official from the Education Department said.

This is in MH. This is what a cultural war is all about and why a preamble level of thought process extremely important.

[RamaY]

^ I remember us reading the constitutional preamble in our school days. We used to call it a "pledge!".

When I wrote the preamble i posted, I had this ritual in mind. Imagine every student remembering his national pledge on a daily basis...

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 practice dharma and equality towards all its Citizens, and utmost compassion towards the 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 towards Flora and Fauna.

SATYAMEVA JAYATE!

[Atri]

Why Compassion, saar? Isn't Satya-Dharma enough..

[RamaY]

Fixed saar... unquestioned compassion is shown only towards the flora and fauna. Not people, for them it is simple Dharma and Equality.

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

perhaps one can have a preamble AND a pledge.

Preamble: The View of Rashtra & Mission Statement

Pledge: All the Donts

[Atri]

Fixed saar... unquestioned compassion is shown only towards the flora and fauna. Not people, for them it is simple Dharma and Equality.

Again why, saar?

When Krishna and Arjuna burnt down Khandava forest, was there any compassion for the forest and wildlife therein? No.. does that mean Krishna an Arjuna were devoid of compassion? No... Why did they burn the forest down? to build Indraprastha.

Dharma takes care of everything. If we want to reclaim iron mines in forest of Bastar, should we show compassion towards wild life and flora? Delicate question, no? Answer is - Does Rashtra require to take the steps to get what it wants? Is Rashtra truly Dharmik? Has Rashtra done enough elsewhere to protect and enhance environmental integrity? Are the actions of Rashtra, in the process of iron-ore reclaimation accurate, optimum and just? Have the human inhabitants been taken into confidence? Are we wasting and in the process harming the environment by being negligent and inefficient?

When a policy formulates after such questionnaire, it is dharmik. compassion is an emotion. Dharma asks for Nishkaama and Akrodha (being dispassionate) in action.

[RamaY]

^hmm.. makes sense...

need to think some more...

[ShauryaT]

Critiques on this one?

We the people of Bharat, inspired from its civilizational heritage, in order to form a more perfect union, establish dharma, undertake common defense against adharma, promote harmony amongst all beings, pursue wealth and happiness, and secure the blessings of the divine, establish this constitution for its peoples

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT ji,

interesting preamble! Why "undertake common defense against adharma?" Shouldn't Dharma seek out Adharma and finish it? Shouldn't we be proactive? Preemptive?

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT ji,

interesting preamble! Why "undertake common defense against adharma?" Shouldn't Dharma seek out Adharma and finish it? Shouldn't we be proactive? Preemptive?

The word undertake means to take on. How one chooses to do it is left to situations. One thing NOT to do in a preamble is to make it scenario specific and to also try make it as much as possible very broad scope. All men are created equal, was used in 1776 and applied to slaves and even today women are technically not part of it, both were considered "property". Things change, preambles should not!

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT ji,

I very much like your preamble!

[RajeshA]

Preamble to the Constitution of Dharmocratic Bharat: Suggestions

RajeshA

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!

harbans

To constitute Bharat into a REPUBLIC inspired by DHARMA, which for the purpose of this document is understood as the core universal ethical principle.

That this Dharma is eternal and universal, it is the natural order underlying the universe, and it is what each human needs for their ultimate fulfillment.

That this Republic through it's Institutions will strive to uphold, evolve to and encourage

1. Truth (Satya) and thus Honesty in it's dealings.
2. Compassion in it's dealings towards it's Citizens, Flora, Fauna.
3. Equality of Opportunity for all it's citizenry.

In honoring the above the Dharmic Republic of Bharat/ India will strive in

4. The Pursuit of Happiness for it's citizenry.
5. The pursuit of Liberty of thought and expression for it's citizenry.
6. The Pursuit of Justice for it's citizenry.

In honoring the above the Dharmic Republic of Bharat/ India will strive to

7. Uphold the Prosperity and Enrichment of the Bharatiya Civilization.
8. Promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation.

With these Principles the State emphasizes to endeavour 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.

The State also endeavours to provide those Dharmics that seek release through Recluse, the security and peace to pursue recluse and merger with with the Supreme.

WE DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

RamaY

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 practice dharma and equality towards all its Citizens, and utmost compassion towards the 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 towards Flora and Fauna.

SATYAMEVA JAYATE!

ShauryaT

We the people of Bharat, inspired from its civilizational heritage, in order to form a more perfect union, establish dharma, undertake common defense against adharma, promote harmony amongst all beings, pursue wealth and happiness, and secure the blessings of the divine, establish this constitution for its peoples