The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Apr 2013 10:05

Actually first I was shocked to read Omar Akhtar's article, but I was dismissive of it as the rant of an Indian Islamist who wants to hide and compensate his weakness.

Rudradev garu has put the article into perspective. It is an open threat to Hindus that trying to integrate Kashmir into India would be met by an Islamic insurgency all over India, even though Indian Muslims should be welcoming Kashmir's integration into India.

The Islamists see each and every Muslim as an asset, as a willing warrior ready to rain down violence on the Kufr in the name of Islam. Many Muslims in India may not see it this way of course, but the ideology sees it that way, and the article by Omar Akhtar makes that more than clear.

That is the reason I am of the view that each and every Hindu should be best prepared to respond to this, by defending his home, his family, his neighborhood. That is the reason I proposed

Mandatory Military Conscription for all Bharatiyas
An end to Varnic social divisions.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Apr 2013 10:35

RajeshA wrote:Actually first I was shocked to read Omar Akhtar's article, but I was dismissive of it as the rant of an Indian Islamist who wants to hide and compensate his weakness.
Rudradev garu has put the article into perspective. It is an open threat to Hindus that trying to integrate Kashmir into India would be met by an Islamic insurgency all over India, even though Indian Muslims should be welcoming Kashmir's integration into India.The Islamists see each and every Muslim as an asset, as a willing warrior ready to rain down violence on the Kufr in the name of Islam. Many Muslims in India may not see it this way of course, but the ideology sees it that way, and the article by Omar Akhtar makes that more than clear.That is the reason I am of the view that each and every Hindu should be best prepared to respond to this, by defending his home, his family, his neighborhood. That is the reason I proposed

One has to read and understand the Inbred "O"maar Aakhtoo's dream in view of recently Jahanam Nasheen Omar Khalidhi and his ilks here in US and India trying to set up religious quota in Indian Defense Forces/ Institution. My heart ached as an Indian, when UPA Sarkar actually asked armed forces to find the way to implement this treacherous quota demand by known RNIs/Islamists .I almost threw up looking at the picture of smiling MMS with Khalidhi and other BCs from US in the PM office. Good to know that the fear of Modi already making them run to Maai Baap Ki Gowdi.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Apr 2013 14:39

Cross-posting a post by Sravan from "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

All these theories are nice. What remains to be a blatant fact after reading years of geo-political dialogue across these forums is that India doesn't define what India represents. Indians do not own their history and are confused about their own culture. The real problem is obfuscation of knowledge. It is not which caste in India that is responsible for what that is the main intrinsic problem, it is the ineptitude of the individual to define who he is. We Indians like to classify and group people into categories and exclaim that certain people are forward thinking and certain groups should be suppressed. This is very dangerous thinking and only fuels further class division and separatism.

Even a simple separation of right and wrong is obfuscated. Ambiguity is the biggest enemy of India. This ambiguity introduces a fuzzy principle of right and wrong that is being exploited by every individual or group of individuals for their own purposes in oppressing others. This creates a system of snake and ladder where one measures their success on suppressing others. There are two kinds of people in the world, one that builds value and another whom tries to exploit others. In India, I am not yet confident that the individual seeks to build value more than he/she tries to exploit others for their own benefit. In fact individuals who seeks to build value are considered naive or not street smart. Parents encourage classism and getting ahead of others rather than uplifting those arround you.

I'll give you an example. We have a tremendous waste of human capital because we prefer to have servants drive us around and wash our clothes or do some other remedial tasks. Indian's adjusted to our lack of infrastructure by resorting to depending on human capital. This creates a class system where an individual might be overly egotistical in terms of class status or lack the confidence to be seen as an equal admi. A pivot in realizing how much human capital we are wasting is step one to first giving the individual the self confidence to speak up about right and wrong. When Indians consider themselves as equal citizens, then we can speak of nation building. Solve the intrinsic problem of valuing individual identity and self of belonging to a larger nation.

Once this pre-requisite is fullfilled, the culture of exploitation will have less leverage over the current political system. Then Indians can implement possible change as a responsible power. Now let's pivot to dealing with Pakistan.

Assuming the individual in India is empowered, the rights and value of human life will have a higher political weight to political lobby groups. There is momentum in this regard, ex. the recent case in Delhi, ex. the importance given to the fisherman in Kerala. This is the first time that governance is taking accountability of human life. The supreme court ruling on the Novartis patent issue is also another example where the importance of saving lives is given preference as opposed to succumbing to lobby groups.

There will be an inflex point in Indian culture as we gain more economic wealth where the common citizen will stop putting up with the bullshit of misgovernance. The goals of every Indian should be to accelerate that process rather than blame an entire blanket population. Lead by example and enhance rule of law, so this anti-national tamasha doesn't have any room for maneuvering. The class division and separatism is what drives a wedge between the Republic of India.

Step two, establish a uniform civil code. No subsidized preferences to any individual on the basis of religion or caste. Change reservation model to one based on economic standing rather than caste background. A better option would be to increase capacity that reservation isn't required. Improve the coherent national identity, such that others can't have the liberty of defining what that is.

Step three, invest in indigineous defense heavily. Over amplify a response if we get attacked. Be quick and thorough with regards to the traitors. Put a 10 million dollar bounty on the mastermind of the attacks. Reward patriotism, punish for treason.

With confidence in a political choice, comes better voting. When citizens vote for the Nation's interest, the governance improves. How many of you can vouch for supporting a campaign for a solid candidate vs abstaining from voting or succumbing to the lesser of two evils? That is the reason why Americans don't put up with bullshit misgovernance and that is why they will dispatch an entire contigent to save one citizen if need be. America is no golden egg with perfect governance, but they do fear the citizens. The only reason the governance in America is degrading is because it is deviating from the core principals it established centuries ago. But the main point is that the American government still fears it's citizens. Citizens have the right to overthrow the government as a basic right, if the government loses the confidence of the people. Government should be scared of its people. If India accomplishes this, expect every other goal to be easy pickings. I do admit, that is why American governance prefers to keep it's citizens dumb regarding geopolitics. They want to avoid the accountability they face at home.

Indians need to make Indian lives more expensive to the Indian government. Lapses in security should result in jail time and exemplary punishments for the politicians. Give all importance to rule of law and raising the value of an Indian life. Cycle out the bottom 10% of poorly performing politicians in any political party. Encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.

India first needs to earn the confidence of it's citizens prior to expecting it from abroad. Let's focus and solve that first, then we will have a strong voice that will be respected. If you feel that the above can't be accomplished... then take a step back and isolate the intrinsic flaws in our societal culture and fix them so it's possible. Self criticism is step one to improving efficiency and building confidence in the methodology of nation building. Focus on doing what's right versus what sounds good politically or the easy option. There are no shortcuts to superpowerdom.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Apr 2013 19:25

The Dharmic approach is based on duties and obligations. Some issues noted by the author with the current approach and the inefficiencies they bring up are highlighted below. We have moved far, far away from our social mores and in adopting western memes moved away from the obligations that each entity has to society. In a dharmic society we live by different roles for different people, in context of the society we live in. Each of these roles as individuals and each of the major influences (wealth, knowledge and power) have obligations to be fulfilled.

These issues will keep on cropping up, unless the terms of reference and value systems are not changed to be harmony with Dharma.

Do rights-based legislations help?

Rights are not a solution to poor implementation, they amplify the need to build state’s implementation capability
Before the current Parliament session comes to a close, our Parliamentarians are likely to debate and pass two crucial pieces of social policy legislation—the Right to Food Security Bill and the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Service Delivery and Redressal of their Grievances Bill. With the passage of these two Bills, the citizens of India will have two new additions to the ever-expanding basket of ‘rights’—the right to information, the right to work (through the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, MGNREGA), the right to education—delivered to us by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Taken together, these rights mark the beginning of an alternative social policy vision for India and are likely to go down in history as one of the most important legacies of the current government. Now that the UPA is preparing to go to the polls, it is worth taking stock of this legacy.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 11 Apr 2013 19:29

How do we deal with organizations like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind whose ideology comes into direct conflict with dharmic philosophy? I think it's too late to bring many of their cadres back into the dharmic fold.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Apr 2013 20:08

RoyG wrote:How do we deal with organizations like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind whose ideology comes into direct conflict with dharmic philosophy? I think it's too late to bring many of their cadres back into the dharmic fold.

RoyG ji,

the first step is always to recognize a problem and to call it by its correct name. We in India have not done that. For that one needs clarity on who we are and what we believe in and who are those who believe in its antithesis.

For the first part we need Neti-Neti, we need History, we need Sanskriti. For the second part we need Purva-Paksha.

Under our Macaulayite secularism, we have diluted the first part to such an extent, that confusion of who we are is writ large in our psyches. The Islamo-Christianist combo in India under the leadership of Nehruvian Secularism has ensured that our roots are cut off from the tree. As for Purva-Paksha, hardly any Indian writers really have analyzed the whole body of Islam from the Dharmic prism.

As long as both of the above are not available, we really cannot engage Islam on our terms. Simply throwing abuses at Islam is hardly going to do the trick.

If anybody finds any treatise on Comparative Purushottamta, Sajjanta or Aryata in Sanatan Dharma and Islam, please enlighten me!

Islam has been in India for such a long time and still one lacks these basic tools of understanding it. Instead the "intellectuals" try to pretend to show how fanatical thinking is not part of Islam citing something or the other from the Qu'ran. Others try to show the Hindus that Islam is simply another path to the same Eeshwar, a bit of a cuckoo path going by its followers, but still worthy of tolerance, acceptance and respect.

Why can't we do proper analysis anymore? I wonder if it would even be legal!

So first thing is to know oneself and to know the other! That is what this thread is all about!

Once one knows how a beast behaves, one can always find a trap for it!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Apr 2013 03:03

Cross-posting a post by RamaY from "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread as it alludes to one driving political ideology in India not serving the interests of Bharatiyas. Such initiatives of peace should be looked at exclusively from the prism of Bharatiya interests.

RamaY wrote:IMO there are three kinds of "Art of Pyar" (Aman ki Asha) strategists

First group is the "Families without borders". I do not know if these families did not relocate to India/Pakistan during partition for financial (have significant assets on both sides of the border) or religious reasons (have religious affiliation on both sides of the border). I cannot understand why a family decided to leave some of it in a (real & perceived) hostile nation.

Second group is the Mughalai-political system. This group has interdependent political and financial interests to keep the majority under their rule. I would put the Paki RAPE class and the Desi Psecular parties in this group.

Third group is the agents of external super-powers. Majority of NGOs fall in this category.

Now the question is what is the interest of Congress System? Who do they represent, 2/3 group?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Apr 2013 03:08

RajeshA wrote:Cross-posting a post by RamaY from "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread as it alludes to one driving political ideology in India not serving the interests of Bharatiyas. Such initiatives of peace should be looked at exclusively from the prism of Bharatiya interests.
RamaY wrote:IMO there are three kinds of "Art of Pyar" (Aman ki Asha) strategists
Now the question is what is the interest of Congress System? Who do they represent, 2/3 group?

Present Congress is the middleman, co-ordinating , entity among these RNI groups. They are the administrator of the distribution system of the Loot, Khassoot and Jhooth.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2013 07:24

Bade wrote:US employers looking for foreign workers for 'dirty' jobs
The new W visa program would admit 20,000 low-skilled foreign workers starting in 2015 and could gradually grow up to a cap of 200,000 after five years. The number of visas would fluctuate, depending on unemployment rates, job openings, employer demand and other data.
This is strictly not R2I but the other way around. Maybe all our semi-skilled folks with a knowledge of the English language can make a living and spread the genes by taking roots outside of indic boundaries. It is high time US admitted people who are not top of the cream H1-B types.

RamaY wrote:^ So

1. There exists some 'dirty' jobs even in modern western societies.
2. Those 'dirty' jobs are not preferred jobs by the so-called 'educated and upward moving' sections of the society.
3. There is a need push those 'dirty' jobs on to someone. The criteria is lack of 'sufficient' education. These qualifications are 'set' by whom?
4. There is no study on how many of these 'dirty' job seekers have parents who do the 'non-dirty' jobs.

where did we see this social/academic/economic/professional structure? hmmm... COLORed (White/Brown/Yellow/Black) system anyone?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 14:35

On BRF, there are several threads which have made us understand ourselves better through introspection, to understand our "Bharatiyata", and which have helped us both to understand as well as find solutions for our civilizational and in that sense also our national challenges, challenges which weigh over the Indian Subcontinent. The path to such an awakening requires first a deep deconstruction of our brainwashed psyches before the psyche can be rebuilt. It is a path not of rhetoric but of understanding the world behind the rhetoric. Some threads which I feel, have been useful are given below:

Analysis Threads:

Solutions Threads:

There are certainly many many more threads which help us understand ourselves and the world and many posts in them which look at the world through the Bharatiya civilizational prism, which I have not listed above. The list above is not exhaustive.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 23:19

Islam is a fourth degree corruption of Vedic Thought! Muslims need to be told that!

I think in India another field we ought to emphasize is to look at religion as an historical evolution going back to the Vedic thought.

'History of Evolution of Religion' would help people see religion not as revelation but as social evolution. It must be emphasized here that Vedas are considered apaurushya and eternal.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 14 Apr 2013 17:03

^
I also have at times felt like that. Also about Christianity. Probably they caught the flu from Buddhists who were looking for new converts among the people they should not have touched in the first place. Who knows.

In this context I also find it relevant to introduce the reality of Vedas to these guys, though I would personally be uncomfortable doing that or seeing that being done. A twisted mind will only read it upside down.

I would rather the Vedas are taken to hindus themselves shorn of all the vanity contests between practioners and theorizers. That is before they are taken to outsiders who have no stake in its well being. No fun in getting shafted because our people were unprepared. Besides the no small matter of 'Secularization of eduction' which will pull the Vedic practices to its own level.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 14 Apr 2013 21:27

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 15:10

Cross-posting from "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

Tribalism: Islam viz-a-viz Hindu

Here is a hypothesis:

For a moment, let's suppose that in Hindu society there were no birth-based Varnic social divisions, but only Jāti divisions, which means that ideologically Hindu society were egalitarian from the religious perspective and there was a mobility among the various Jātis to rise (and fall). In fact this would have been a much more competitive and robust social structure, though also only formally egalitarian but not operationally egalitarian, but that is on tangent here.

In that case I propose that Islamic society and Hindu society structurally would have been the similar, EXCEPT for the currency of social ascent.

In Sanatan Dharma, the currency is

Sajjanta,
Jñāna,
Raj-Dharma Palan,
Dhan Vridhi,
Parishram, etc.

In Islam, the currency is imperialism and conquering of

Mind Space - Display of Islamic Psychological Dominance over the Kufr (terrorism, killing, robbery, rape, blackmail, jizya, bullying, even victimization, which demands apology, etc.), and Increasing Allegiance Level to the cult, i.e. piety, purity, brotherhood, networking, security, etc.
Human Resources Space - Conversion of the Kufr (thus increasing the followership of the Muhammadan cult, Islam), Demographic Explosive Growth (migration, higher fertility rate)
Geographical Space - Conquering the land for the Ummah, making it Dar-ul Islam, and quiet increase in strength if a minority (ink-drop, demographic expansion, weapons, resources, etc.)

.

Now why do I try to focus on structural similarity between Hindu Samaj and Islamic Society? Because there is a tribalism in both and the driving motive of tribal society in general is the same - recognition, prosperity and power for one's genealogical line.

The ideological currency for tribal upliftment however decides how over several generations one's genealogical line gathers power - allegiance of others to one's person, money, land, women, fear! Of course this churning always remains, and just as one speaks of increasing the economic pie so that all get a chance to have more prosperity, similarly the effort in Islam is to increase the Islamic Pie of influence so that the Ashraf Islamic genealogical lines have more power - more Ajlafs at one's beck and call, more land, more money, more concubines, etc.

The common denominator however is that genealogical lines whether among Hindus or Ashrafs want that they and their progeny have a high standing in society and prosperity to enjoy their lives. There are of course some who sacrifice their comfort, but that too is to ensure that their genealogical line further down in the future can continue to enjoy these privileges, and even those who "sacrifice" their comfort, still retain a very high standing in society for themselves.

But from here onwards, the society changes because the currency for gaining social recognition and upliftment is different and thus the society works differently.

What one can take from this discussion is however that in Islam, tribalism is strong and Islam is there only to provide a currency according to which social movement can take place.

One would notice how fastidious and meticulous the Ashrafs are in keeping records of their genealogical trees and the services their ancestors have provided to the cause of Islam.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 15:12

Cross-posting from "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

Earning Islamic Capital

Past services rendered by one's ancestors to Islam is Islamic capital that does get spent after some time, and as such one way to stop this Islamic capital being spent is to ensconce one's progeny in an Islamic order, say Darul Uloom Deoband, etc. These Pirzadas continue a hereditary Islamic order.

TTP movement is an effort to overthrow the exhausted Pakjabi Ajlafi Elite order (converted Muslim Rajputs, Brahmins, Gurjars, etc.) whose ancestors may have served various Mughals and even Afghan warlords and thus may have received some Islamic capital and to deny them their current privileges as recognition by Muslims for their contribution to Islam seems to have petered out. Similarly Punjabi Taliban is also a movement which is telling the Pakjabi ruling class that their Islamic capital has run out.

Since there are hardly any more Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, the usual way of earning Islamic capital is also not available. That is also the reason why the Pakjabis cannot make peace with India or let go of Kashmir, and they are busy sending LeT terrorists to India - to earn Islamic capital in the eyes of the more Islamically motivated Taliban, who are mostly Pushtun but now the lower Ajlafs in Pakjab itself have taken up Talibanism and are similarly willing to question the ruling Pakistani elite about their spent Islamic capital challenging them to either earn more or to let them take over.

At the moment the Taliban are busy earning their Islamic capital through reconquering geographical space in Afghanistan and increasing the allegiance level of their ranks to Islam through piety and purity. The Pakjabis however have had to put Kashmir on the back-burner and their LeT operations have caused India some taqleef. If the Pakjabis were able to pull India into a limited war, which they can sell as a victory, they may earn some brownie Islamic points. Musharraf tried in Kargil but was sent home in ignominy.

So the tribal rivalries and competition is Islamic societies is fought through the medium of Islamic currency and one wins based on how much Islamic capital one has earned.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 15:46

Cross-posting from "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

Earning Islamic Capital

Islamism itself is a reaction to the Ashraf hold on power and an effort to realign power to Islamic capital earned. Hyperinflation actually means that there is untold terrorism from Islamists onto the Kufr, because one would have to earn more currency for it to have the same value, for one's Islamic deeds to be recognized as worthy of transferring more power to the individual or the tribe. Islamism is a means to earn Islamic capital by those who as yet do not have any or by those who wish to retain what they have.

That is also one reason why one sees Muslim youth in the West, who have generally had a secular upbringing turn radical, because they have as yet no Islamic capital.

As long as the currency used is piety, it does not hurt the Kufr, but under Islam, it is easy to try to earn Islamic currency in other ways, and if it is through showing dominance through means of conquering mind, human or geographic space belonging to the Kufr, then it does become a problem for Kufr.

In India one sees many Indian Muslims who are very pious, very orthodox. That in fact is creation of Islamic capital which harms the Kufr, the Hindus, much less, than when Muslims receive secular education and are brought up in a more liberal environment, because then these Muslims have no Islamic capital and the chances for them to turn radical are much higher. So those pleading for more secular education for the Muslim youth need to keep this into consideration.

It doesn't mean that all Muslims receiving secular education would turn radical. As long as the Muslim is not confronted with the pressures of Islamic society, and remains integrated in Kufr society, he would of course remain "a productive member of the Kufr society", but it is easy to get disillusioned considering the many ills that also affect Kufr society, and then there is no telling how radical the Muslim may turn once he discovers the mosque and introspection tells him how little Islamic capital he possesses.

In such a situation, the probability is high that the "introspecting" Muslim would shift the blame for his lack of Islamic capital onto the Kufr society of which he had been a part, and act vengefully towards it. Moreover the orthodox pious Muslim society has often been the preserve of the poor Ajlaf Muslims, and in his drive to earn Islamic capital quickly as well as his tendency to look at Islam more intellectually rather than spiritually or mystically, being educated and deracinated, the chances are also high that he would decide for the radical political Islam - hard Islamism, rather than simply piety.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 17:24

Cross-posting from "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

Earning Islamic Capital: Hyperinflation in Pakistan

What we are seeing in Pakistan is actually Hyperinflation of Islamic currency. One is needing to earn more and more Islamic currency for it to have the same social worth.

The lack of much Kufr in Pakistan has also caused the channels of earning Islamic capital to turn inwards, i.e. to use the Purity Industry.

Piety as a channel is one way of earning Islamic capital, but the competition has become so high that piety itself does not suffice, and Pakistani society has thus has no other alternative than to turn to the Purity Industry, which naturally means that one sect in Islam would be considered Pure and all other sects would have to accept its domination and convert to it.

This would allow the leaders of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar e-Jhangvi to claim having earned the most Islamic capital and put them on top.

Hizbul Mujahideen and other Pakistani-sponsored Tanzeems targeting Jammu & Kashmir have of course had a different "business model" for earning Islamic capital but they haven't been able to earn much lately. Lashkar e-Taiba has increased its sphere of operations and it too has only been moderately successful, which means that Pakjabi model of earning Islamic capital directed at the Kufr by hurting India, has had very little success, which has also brought it into the cross-hairs of other competitive companies like the "Bad Taliban".

The Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar e-Jhangvi are Islamic business models supported by the Pakjabi establishment which are needed to keep these stakeholders above water, without needing to claim Islamic bankruptcy in which case Pakistani Army's human assets would need to be auctioned off to various tanzeems and the leadership would lose out completely.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 17:26

Cross-posting from "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

Earning Islamic Capital: Secularism and Recession

What Secularism tries to do in Islamic societies or to Islamic societies is to cause Recession, where the demand for social recognition and upliftment in an Islamic society is tried to be curtailed. Secularism tries to set up demand for other goods - education, jobs, consumption, peaceful interaction with the Kufr, etc. instead.

However Secularism is generally an effort at the political-social interface - education, administration, public services, trade, multi-cultural society, etc. but it stops its intervention at the community's social level. At the social level, the currency still remains Islam, and thus in any interaction, any individual possessing secular currency - education, job, prosperity, social service is still not recognized as worthy of respect and the person's status remains low. The social service such as a medical practitioner may be recognized as it may have some overlap with Islamic currency.

As secularism does not try to revoke the use of Islamic currency at the social level, it is really ineffective as a tool to cause a durable recession in Islamic society. In fact it can cause a reaction rather against secularism. So secularism can never work in an Islamic society, which has a complete different set of goods which cannot be bought using secularism.

In India however secularism is never used to impose a different currency on Islam. That is why there is hardly any effort by the state or the Muslim leadership to increase education, jobs, consumption, interaction with the Kufr, etc. among the Indian Muslims. The Islamic currency for social recognition retains its preeminence. The lack of secular goods in fact is used by the Muslim community to earn more Islamic capital through the use of victimization rhetoric, requiring Hindus to feel responsible and sorry.

In fact the non-implementation of secularism for Indian Muslim society benefits both the Kufr to some extent as well as the Islamic power-brokers in India, because it keeps the society stable. There is social recognition based on certain channels of earning Islamic capital, namely piety, but social upliftment is completely taken out, which would have caused upheaval in the Muslim society in India. Through non-use of secularist currency among Muslims, the Hindu-majority state does not challenge the validity Islamic currency, and through the suppression of social upliftment according to Islamic currency, which would have caused competitive Islamism, the traditional Muslim power-brokers do not challenge the Hindu majority.

However it is a tenuous balance.

Competitive Islamism can however break out any time and there is plenty of potential in India for earning Islamic capital as there is a billion plus population of Kufr on whom domination operations can be applied. This urge is however being kept in check because of the danger of a reaction from the Kufr whose majority still seems formidable. So the ethnic cleansing that took place in Pakistan say at the time of Partition is a policy which cannot be adopted in India at the moment due to strength differential, even though the likes of Owaisi seem to think that the time is approaching when it should be possible.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 17:29

Civilizational Currency Wars

Basically for a stable society, e.g. in Bharata, it is an imperative that no two civilizations coexist whose currency for social recognition and upliftment are completely non-convertible and in fact one currency's value is intrinsically based on the devaluation of the native culture's currency's value, i.e. there exists an inverse proportional relationship.

The Bharatiya Civilization's effort should be to make the Islamic currency completely lose its value. However that cannot be done through hyperinflationary Islamism for that would cause harm to ourselves as it has done to Pakistani society too. Nor can it be done through recessionary Secularism as it is not a viable strategy and is in fact ineffective.

So the way to go about it to change the currency at the social level through durable and permanent means using a multi-stage strategy, which has been the topic of this thread.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 18:56

Ajlafism vs. Ashrafism

Ashrafism basically says that Ashrafs would always look after the interests of the Arabs, Turks and Persians due to their genealogical lines.

However it is not just the Ashrafs doing that. Islam itself is based on a brotherhood, and even if there are no Ashrafs and Ashraf genealogical lines, Islamic Ajlafs too would act similarly giving more weight to the interests of the Arabs than the interests of their own country - but that would be due to Ummah considerations and as the holy places of Muslims lie in the sands of Arabia, and not just for considerations of Arabia-originating genealogical lines.

However what Ashrafism does is that it frames an ideological tendency in Islam to serve outside interests and connects its with tribal discrimination in Islam towards the Ajlafs, which goes against Islam's formal egalitarianism. Framing of Ashrafism this way, one can press Muslim society to purge Ashrafism from their midst.

Ajlafism, which can be considered as a response to Ashrafism, can thus be formulated as Muslim nationalism, thus bringing in an additional currency component - native pride, into the Islamic currency mix. It does not mean that Ajlafs would automatically only be caring about the interests of Bharat, but if one sufficiently demonizes Ashrafism, one could even use it as an invective and a means to vilify the particular Ajlaf, should he show any hint that he is acting against the interests of Bharat.

So suppose an Ajlaf advocates violence, pro-Pakistanism, pro-Arabic stance, too much Ummah-brotherhood, etc. one can accuse him of being afflicted by Ashrafism, a state of mind, where one identifies himself with the interests of the Arabs over and above those of one's native country, and then sideline him.

So Ajlafism is basically Muslim Nationalism towards India, responsible behavior towards the Bharatiyas and an eagerness to be aware of Bharatiya Sanskriti, as long as it can be packaged in a "secular way".

It doesn't mean that one has removed all the Islamic memes from the man, but it opens options for Bharatiyas on how to deal with Islam in the interim.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 20:55

Need we be formally Anti-Islam?

Cross-posting from "Vested Interests in India for Giving In to Pak Blackmail" Thread

shiv wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1439754

May I ask, once again, why is India so keen on declaring itself as not anti Islam.

1. Pakistan, a state set up ostensibly for subcontinental Muslims accuses India of being anti Islamic. That viewpoint is supported by western thinkers and by the testicle-less OIC. The US and Chin believe that Pakistan's grivance against India is enough to warrant military support
2. The argument that Muslims in India are as free as anyone else is countered by many Indian and Pakistanis who point of many examples where Muslims in India are not free
3. An entire segment of Indians who call themselves Hindu and secular agree with both the above points and claim that "right wing Hinduism" is responsible for all this.

If the facts on the ground are that India is anti-Islam, then why do we tray and buck that question? Clearly the pretence that Islam causes us no grievance is fake. We are Islamophobes par excllence for this reason.

Why not accept that and move on?

I must add that it was I who once described India as "pale green" almost sharia compliant. India is anti Islam simply because it is not fully sharia compliant and we don't intend to be either. What is the problem in saying that? What are we hiding? And from whom?

shiv saar,

My View
you're perfectly correct. Being Hindu is all about being against foreign imperialist religious ideologies like Islam, and since India is thought to be a Hindu majority country, one should expect Indians to be anti-Islam.

The "Nehruvian Secular" View
However due to Nehruvian Secularist brainwashing, one cannot say all this for certain today. Secondly Hindus never really did any serious Purva-Paksha of Islam, so they theoretically would not know what is it they don't like about Islam. They however do know that the Muslims committed many atrocities on them, and so they have legitimate grounds to be against those Muslims. However those who did commit those crimes are long gone, and so many Thaparites make the argument that Hindus may or may not have a reason to hate all those Islamic rulers, but that is no cause to hate Islam and what have the current Muslims done to them, which was uncalled for, and even if some body did so, it was exception to the rule and one cannot hold the grudge against all Muslims. Besides the Muslims today in India are overwhelmingly local converts and as such can't be held responsible for the crimes of some Islamic invaders and rulers. Also no Purva-Paksha of Islam itself is allowed for fear of hurting minority sentiments.

So it is hard to say whether Hindus are anti-Islam. Do we have any surveys?

The Strategic View
Islam is against Kufr. All Muslims, in some capacity, known or unbeknownst to them, are working on the anti-Kufr project. They receive some form of support from outside India too, but the main responsibility for the project lies with the local Muslims. That is the default situation.

However if we formally declare that we are all anti-Islam, then basically we are inviting all of Ummah to wage hot war on us at every level giving them legitimacy in their own societies to destroy India however possible, i.e. to make maximum war. Some may say, at least that would waken up the Hindus and they too would wage total war, instead of being cooked like a frog in hot water. They may be right, but it would also mean a high cost.

There are however other means of winning with lower costs than what a total war would exact on us. We can do salami-slicing or icesheet fragmentation. We can use Ahmadiyyaization or Ajlafism to that end. This means however that we use a precision knife on Islam, e.g. Ashrafism, and try to solve the issue of Islam through a variety of "secular" tools which however should have a prerequisite that they do have an effect on Islam directly rather than on many straw-men Islam has put up. Muslim control over their women is I believe the crux of Islam, without which it has zero relevance, and relieving that control should be a sustained effort.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 20:58

Cross-posting a post by Carl from "Anti-Hindutva Literature & Rhetoric Monitor" Thread

Carl wrote:Regarding others' demands for a "definition" of Hindutva:

Hindutva philosophy is defined as an unlimited collection of sane points of view, and a rejection of insane packages that come bundled with beliefs, affiliations, etc. The sanity is measurable in terms of holistic processes and genuine relationship with all branches of knowledge.

the fact that there are unlimited points of view is emphasized in Hindu philosophy itself. Yudhishthira says in Mahabharata, Vana-parva, 313.117 -

तर्कोsप्रतिष्टः श्रुतयो विभिन्ना
नासावृषिर्यस्य मतं न भिन्नम् ।
धर्मस्य तत्तवं निहितं गुहायाम्
महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः ॥

"Dry arguments are inconclusive. A philosopher/teacher (muni) whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a purified intellect. Simply by studying the shrutis, which are multifarious, one cannot come to the right path by which Dharma is understood. The solid truth of Dharma is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the shastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the great ones advocate."

Self-realized people all have a unique and different point of view! This is an astonishing assertion of Hindutva. Yet Dharma is one and unified, as is the multifarious tree of knowledge - i.e. there is a consilience of knowledge.

Therefore, "Hindutva" cannot be defined by some manifesto like other religious cults. Finito.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Apr 2013 23:15

Carl ji,

I still have to look at Pakistan from the Purusha-Prakruti model, but I am tending to believe that it is basically structure-behavior model - class diagram + activity diagram.

So in case of Islam Purusha would be the Tribal Social Structures (Tribalism, Ulema, Ghazis, Tanzeems, Dawas, etc.) and Prakruti would be Islamic Doctrine, Memes and Customs.

I am not sure if one can see it this way! The organism has its own competitive vibrancy and robustness.

Sravan · Post by **Sravan** » 16 Apr 2013 07:55

Securing Bharat

There are multiple layers of security in India.

1) The street level security where citizens are responsible for keeping vigilence
2) The municipal level security which implements surveillance based on governmental funds
3) The district level resource allocation of funds based on the security parameters
4) State level initiatives to secure state borders (ex. anti-naxal movement in Andhra)
5) National level security which ensures internal and cross border security
6) International laws which protect the economic and military interests of India.

Now based on the problem we are trying to solve with relation to security, we need to focus on the layer that is most applicable. Ex. in Kashmir we currently focus on 4, 5, 6 through heavy expenditure of national resources. The anti-naxal initiative in Andhra was focusing on 1, 2, 3, 4. One implementation was vastly more successful than the other, as it involves the citizenry in the securement of it's security. In this case, for India to achieve stable security across it's geographical borders the key point we need to focus on is DEMOGRAPHICS. Indians need to cross migrate across states and increase their engagement with other states. Mobility and inter state relations should be promoted. Cross state migration and leveraging resources both human and capital across state borders should be a requirement.

The one major flaw in India law vis a vis Kashmir is the restriction placed on non Kashmiri citizens of India being barred from purchasing land there. This creates an imbalance in settlements in that state. It creates an US vs Them attitude vis a vis Kashmir. If Indians consider Kashmir part of India, then we need to migrate to that state in droves and make it a forward post for expanding the sphere of influence for India.

This is exactly the reason why China invaded Tibet in the 50's. India is inward looking by nature and there is no mix of class or creed in terms of personal life for the most part, except per se in the metropolitans. The security models where we have a lot of success is when we involve the citizenry and crowdsource the policing of our state. Do not expect the government to provide you with securing every aspect of your life.

Demographics determines the momentum of the Indian security apparatus. The inertia of any initiative can be accelerated if the momentum is provided by demographics. If India spends a ton of money, but the demographics is against the security model, it will be rendered ineffective. Demographics can be improved by improving infrastructure and incentivizing states to do cross-border business. Require the rhastra to maintain security in the trade corridors of India and the whole citizenry will become integral in propagating the security model. Incentivize the demographics to support the state, and in areas where the demographics aren't in your favor, ENCOURAGE migration such that the perspectives change over time. If there are hate crimes, crack down heavily on them and leverage the police resources such that law and order is maintained.

This momentum will translate into the government doing more with less and focusing on the real issues. Power projection (both hard and soft) and shifting focus to number 6 to grow the country as a super power.

I encourage that we need to deeply analyze how to build momentum towards a pro-national initiative across all geographic regions of India. Provide all locals with more economic opportunities through cross border trade. Give tax incentives to companies that are in multiple states and for companies which hire from multiple ethnicities. Create special economic zones in sensitive parts of India and incorporate the local population in that growth.

The important point here is convergence of interests between the citizens and government. Without this convergence, the model will face a lot of frictional resistance. For this convergence to take place, we need to examine which issues we can take off the table such that citizens are focused on making the country grow and not scared to engage each other because of trust issues.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2013 13:52

Secularism vs Communalism

Cross-posting some posts from the "Vested Interests in India for Giving In to Pak Blackmail" Thread

rsangram

rsangram wrote:Well, folks, let us define….”Secular”. Well, language is a funny thing. If day was called “night”, then night would be called “day”, right? “good” can be called “bad”, “bad” can be called “good”, what difference does that make? Its only language, only words. Take the word “sacrifice”. Some people think “sacrifice” means taking the trouble to do something for others or for a larger cause. Some think, it means slaughtering a poor helpless cow or an even more helpless goat, and that too slowly…..very slowly. So that brings us back to “Secular”.

Some people can think that “secular” is a synonym for corrupt. For cowardice. For looking the other way, when your wife is getting raped, or your sister, or your daughter or maybe….even your mother. After all, to retaliate against the rapist is, well, being an extremist isn’t it, perhaps disturbing the peace, or be disruptive to communal harmony. Or maybe, some people think being secular is, sweeping acts of extreme violence against our fellow man, under the rug, such as decapitations and torture, systematic conversion by force or through bribes, taking away of our communal property and territory. Sweep such acts under the rug, so that some people can go on robbing the same miserable victims over again via organized corruption misusing their positions of power. Forget about retaliation, even acknowledgments of acts of war against our people, Lord forbid, may interrupt this frenzy of corruption. So, we peddle the word, “secular”. We are secular, we should not retaliate, hell, we should not even acknowledge, in fact we should sweep all those acts by our enemies under the rug, lest our money making is interrupted, lest, our hollowing out of our national security apparatus which includes compromising of our intelligence, our armed forces, our weapon systems, all due to corruption, is found out. How can we go to war when our army and the Defense ministry bureaucrats and the politicians have bought artillery pieces that don’t work, bought planes that fall out of the sky, air force that has problems providing air cover in high altitudes or even at night, an army that is guarding a predominantly mountainous border but has no snow shoes or winter jackets. Wont it all be found out by the poor miserable suckers who we are looting in all other ways anyway? No, no. We cant go to war. We are “secular”, after all. What do you think we are? Those nutty “hindutva-vadis”? Those dhoti and tilak wallahs?

Now let us define the word “communal”. The “communal” is the one who simply wants the freedom to practice his own religion. He doesn’t want his religion attacked, his people considered inferior, his people used as easy prey for conversion, calls out those who indulge in religious warfare (jihad). The “communal” doesn’t attack another’s religion, doesn’t disrespect another’s religion, all he wants is to be left alone to practice his. The “communal” doesn’t believe that there should be less rights for other religions, he simple doesn’t want less rights for himself. He doesn’t even bad mouth other religions, leave aside proclaiming the exclusivity of his own. He of course is “communal”. This is not to say that there aren’t people in India who actually want to persecute other religions, but there are all of 16 of those. A few more than you can count on your fingers. Not even most Sadhu or Shankaracharyas belong to that category. But of course, every self respecting Hindu, who simply wants to be equal and be free to practice his religion is, a “communalist”.
So, words can be hijacked. Just because the word “secular” is hijacked, doesn’t make the hijackers, secular. People can be demonized by throwing words such as “communalists” at them. Doesn’t make the demonizers, secular and doesn’t make the victims, “communalists”. Victims are still victims. Hijackers are still hijackers.

Let, at least us, not fall into the word trap. If 70% of the population constitute the hijackers of the word “secular”, at least let us call them out. Secular can have many definitions, but secular cannot mean the exact opposite of the word. Secular can not mean "non-secular". Up is not down, life is not death, massive corruption of all kind and those condoning the extreme exclusivity of Islamists, cannot be “secular”. And self respect, cannot be called “Communal”.

shiv

shiv wrote:Sangramji, interesting thoughts, but I believe you have forgotten the biggest example of hijacking of the word "secular" - and that is "Sacular means not Hindu" or "Hindu means not secular"

Hindu has been made synonymous with not secular, and the word communal has been associated with Hindus.

This is rape of the word secular.

Secular means non-religious. Religions are not secular. people who follow religions can choose to be secular.

if a person who follows a particular religion refuses to be secular because his religion tells him that secularism is wrong, then that person is not secular.

Technically any Hindu or any Muslim can be secular in his personal life. Hindu religious leaders tend to speak for secularism. This however is not true of all Muslim religious leaders.

However Muslim religious leaders in countries with secular laws sometimes do rationalize the status of Muslims by saying that secular laws of the land must be respected. But this is not true of Muslim religious leaders on most Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia has fundamentalist laws that would be called human rights abuses in western nations who cheerfully lick Saudi lollypop. Just goes to show what a cheap and changeable concept "human rights" is.

rsangram

rsangram wrote:Secularism does not mean non-religious. A religious person can also be secular. How ? By simply respecting all religions equally (not excluding his own, and I only put that qualification for Hindus, because it doesnt apply to persons following other religions, no other religion excludes themselves). A religious person can be secular when he or she accepts that there are laws for governance that can be not derived from any particular religion, because then it will be unjust to other religions. He however, practices his religion in the privacy of his home or his religious place of worship. This is true secularism. I for instance am not a secularist, even by that definition, but that is a secularist I can respect.

But secularism cannot mean self flagellation, self hatred, appeasement, kow towing, ignoring the atrocities committed in the name of other religions, tolerance of physical genocide, tolerance and condoning of cultural genocide (total conversion or mass conversion of people from one religion to another is certainly a form of cultural genocide), all motivated by a burning desire among the ruling classes to keep making money, money and more money, and supported by vote banks who also simply want to "extract, extort and take" (in the forms of subsidies and reservations) rather than through creation of a merit based society where there is equal opportunity for all. These people are not secularists, they are thieves, scoundrels, low lives and cockroaches, who have simply wrapped themselves around the word, "secularism", which gives them a cover to indulge in this orgy of thievery that they all indulge in. It is like Hitler calling himself a man of peace (I dont believe even Hitler ever called himself that, Chamberlain may have called him that) or snakes calling themselves tigers.

A muslim, as you say can also be secular in theory, but only if he takes a radically different interpretation of Islam than is currently prevalent even among the most liberal Islamic sects such as the Barelvis or the Ahmediyas. Only if a muslim interprets Islam to mean that it allows for co-existence among all religions and permits civil laws other than that of Sharia, can he be a secularist. A very high bar indeed. To be fair, taking such an interpretation will be going totally against what is clearly mentioned in the Quoran. To begin with it would mean a total doing away of the concept of "Kafir", Jaziya, Taquiyya etc. Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity. Hindus for instance dont have that problem. Hindus are permitted as per any interpretation of Hinduism to respect other religions as much as their own and accept civil laws not derived from Hinduism. Therefore, it is not true that there is an equal-equal between Hindus and Muslims. There is no logical contradiction in a Hindu being a practicing Hindu and also be secular, while there is a logical contradiction between being a practicing Muslim and being secular. That is exactly the reason most practicing Hindus are secular, barring an extremely small number, while most practicing Muslims are not, barring an extremely small number.

And most Muslims dont even claim to be secular. If you leave aside Shabana AAzmi and 3/4 of Javed Akhtar, I think you would be hard pressed to find any muslim who even claims to be secular. And we all know that Shabana and Javed are liars of the first order.

So, true secularists, I can respect while disagreeing with them. And I only disagree with them in the current time and context. When Islam and other religions have re-interpreted their doctrine to allow for co-existence, then even I will become a secularist, but not until then. Nevertheless, a true secularist even in today's context, I can respect. But just like I said about true extremist Hindus, there are all of 16 of them in India, I think true secularists are all of 15 in India, not any more. The rest are all scum, using the word secular as a cover to continue to loot, rape and pillage their country, their people and all of us decent people.

shiv

shiv wrote:
rsangram wrote: Secularism does not mean non-religious. A religious person can also be secular.
You are confusing the word "secular" with the definition of a secular person. A secular person can be deeply religious and still be secular.

Secularism means non religious. Please look at the dictionary. Your ideas are not wrong but you are mixing up the word "secular" with behavior of people who may or may not be religious and whose behaviour may or may not be secular.

Please stop and have a think about what you are writing.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2013 14:18

Secularism vs. Communalism

I see it as follows.

Secularism has two variants.

Hard-Secular: A field of society shorn of any religious considerations is secular.
Soft-Secular: A field of society shorn of any religious preference is secular.

France tries to follow hard-secularism. USA, India try to follow soft-secularism.

Secondly the term "secular" is used both for a social field, say politics, administration, education, etc. as well as for an individual. An individual is secular if he believes in secularism, and thus concurs that it is appropriate for certain social fields to be secular, i.e. giving no preference to any person involved in the given social field based on his religious identity.

Communalism can be juxtaposed only against soft-secularism, for communalism is all about believing in the preeminence of the interests of one's community, in our case religious community, especially in the social fields marked as "secular", i.e. asking for special privileges for a particular religious community. If however no social fields are designated as "secular", there can be no case of "communalism", e.g. in Saudi Arabia.

. Nor can there be "communalism" if the people in the land do not have any recognized "religious persuasions", e.g. say in old Soviet Union.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2013 14:44

Secularism vs. Communalism

The Hindu notion of Secularism is "sarva dharma samabhAva", which means all truths are equal, or all "dharmic paths" are to be treated equally.

The crucial word here is "dharma". It doesn't mean all ideologies are to be treated equally. And if a religion is an ideology, it also does not mean that all religions are to be treated equally. Why not?

Because then some adharmic ideology too would be given the same preference as a dharmic path, and that cannot be dharma.

Here is what Carl ji wrote on his blog

Thus, a statement of 'Truth' at any point of time has been described as a Finger pointing to the branch of the Tree (of Knowledge) that is pointing to the Moon in its current astrological position.

Any consideration about life in its complete sense is 'astrological' - i.e., as applied to Thought and Emotion. (I am only beginning to learn something about Vedic Hora shastra, and so far I understand a distinction between the astrology of Parashara versus Jaimini's application). The Latin word "consider" is itself an astrological term.

[Etymology of Consider: 1350–1400; Middle English consideren (< Anglo-French ) < Latin consīderāre con- + sīder- (stem of sīdus ) star-group, sky (see sidereal) + -āre infinitive suffix.]

Therefore, a statement of Truth may be understood in that perspective, as a concept that invokes a set of perceptics which ought to point to a branch from the multifarious Tree of knowledge that, in turn, indicates the Moon.

The Bhagavad Gita also talks of this Tree (15.1). This applies to any and all philosophies - Indic or non-Indic. This Tree is universal. India has simply been a changing microcosm of it through time, and therefore Hinduism probably understands it best.

Politically, it follows that all bona fide sectarian cultures must point to the unified Tree of supra-subjective knowledge. The ideological sources of any religious or ideological sect can be objectively evaluated for this complete structure and continuity with Knowledge. If it fails in this due to a fixation on one point in history, one personality, or one obsession with an ideal, then its destruction is written in the stars and the politics of Dharma must aid this process. Any political party that seeks to prevent their destruction is doing so at the cost of the general sanity of the environment.

I too dwell a bit upon acceptable paths which can be termed dharmic, for these need to show that they are Arya and represent Wisdom & Knowledge.

So one criterion is that the religion making a claim of equal treatment should show itself to be "dharmic" in nature.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2013 15:37

Secularism vs. Communalism

Then there is a much broader politico-philosophical debate on the place of the individual in society, his rights, his obligations, his conduct, and all that can be tempered by the various identities of the individual - jāti, varna, sampradaya, cult, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political thinking, etc..

I'm speaking of constitutional rights, human rights, civil liberties, etc.

Each civilization tries to establish a framework for this - a framework for politics, socio-economics and ethics. This framework may have some inspiration in the religious thinking of the people. It may be an intrinsic part of the religion, as is the case of Shariah. It may be explained by the cosmological worldview as is the case of Dharma. It may be inspired by a popular religion, Judeo-Christianity, as is the case of current Western system of human rights.

This socioeconomic and ethics framework is in our civilization called Dharma. As said its existential justification is derived from our cosmological worldview, but it can exist independent of it, based on common sense of the temporal social reality and need for justice, and thus it transcends the cosmological view. Similarly the Western system of democracy and universal human rights too tries to transcend its religious inspiration. Islamic system of jurisprudence, etc. makes no such effort.

Actually every nation needs to make a decision on its socioeconomic and ethics framework. In India we have not been able to make this decision. The political structures are based on Western concepts, society however runs on Dharma, and we have given full permission for Shariah to establish its own sub-domains within the nation.

This hodge-podge of concepts in such a vital field leads to a lot of confusion, and this is exactly what we see in India.

The socioeconomic and ethics framework as designed by the political class in India is not in sync with our civilizational legacy, with Dharma. Nor can another framework be active in India in certain subsections of the populace, e.g. Shariah! This needs to change. A Uniform Civil Code would help in this direction.

However our political framework too needs to be argued from and formulated according to Dharma. There would be many overlaps with the current, but one needs to insert a new foundation at the bottom.

How does this impact on the desired secular character of our country?

Not in the least, because Dharma is itself secularism, for it allows all Mokshic paths and does not purport to discriminate people based on that. It however does not allow Adharma. Moreover Dharmic principles' relevance can be argued based on temporal logic and require no cosmological reference.

So demand for Dharma as the foundational basis of Bharatiya Rashtra is NOT COMMUNAL in nature. The political dispensation would have a tough time explaining why the current framework is more secular than one based openly on Dharma!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2013 16:29

Secularism vs Communalism

We also know that fields of society, e.g. administration, education, etc. are not machines but are driven by people and people do look for their inspiration to act ethically in their religion.

So if Dharma is considered by the huge majority of Indians as the socioeconomic and ethics framework of India, which we argued in the last post, is secular in nature, in that case it does not harm if the people who work in various secular fields are motivated to act according to Dharma, for then they would be acting secularly, and if for this purpose the people think they need to use religious symbology, then it should be permitted.

Published on Apr 15, 2013
BJP slams police commissioner's order to police stations: PTI

BJP's Maharashtra legislative assembly opposition leader Eknath Khadse today demanded a roll back of Mumbai Police Commissioner Satypal Singh's order asking police stations to remove photographs and idols of deities inside their premises.

He said the order violated the constitutional right of religious freedom available to citizens.

"Even the British did not impose such restrictions," Khadse said while speaking about budgetary demands of the Maharashtra state home department.

He said the order also bars police officials from performing puja and other worship rituals inside police stations.

"The order states that action would be taken if such photos and idols were not removed within 15 days," he said.

He questioned the restrictions, claiming that pujas conducted by the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister at Pandharpur are accorded the status of "state pujas".

Meanwhile, Samajwadi Party legislator Abu Azmi supported the Police Commissioner's order and demanded similar orders be issued by the state government to all government and semi-government offices.

So this is an issue of allowing public officials ways and means to strengthen their adherence to ethical standards, as required by Dharma, the socioeconomic and ethics framework of the Bharatiya people. If the public officials feel that having the pictures of deities at the precincts of their work would inspire them to do their work better, which involves abiding by Dharma, which in turn involves acting secularly to all those who seek their service, then what is wrong with it.

The main issue is whether Dharma is accepted as the socioeconomic and ethics framework of society in Bharat or not and that is a political issue that needs to be answered by the custodians and framers of the Constitution.

They should either spell it out that India does not follow Dharma, nor intends to do so, or they should state otherwise.

It is exactly because Dharma urges one to act secularly that those pictures should be allowed.

What public officials do in their breaks is also their own business. They can do puja or they can do namaaz or yoga or whatever, as long as they do not disturb those who do not wish to partake in it and do not cause any interruption in the operations of the public office.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Apr 2013 21:16

Can dharma be separated from Hinduism? Can such dharma self-sustain?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 17 Apr 2013 21:28

^^^ RamaY garu, If dharma is self evident truth, it should no? Dharma is independent of Hinduism. Please correct me.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2013 21:37

RamaY wrote:Can dharma be separated from Hinduism? Can such dharma self-sustain?

RamaY ji,

as you know, I dislike the use of "Hinduism", so I would try to avoid the word. Of course, no compulsion on others.

I would say this, Sanatan Dharma as religion and Dharma as a framework of ethics are two sides of the same coin. These cannot be separated, but at any given time one can decide to look at only one side of the coin.

The principles of Dharma are of course laid out through the means of religion, through which means they attain this level of gravitas, but they are just as much accessible through human common sense.

So when we integrate Dharma as the cornerstone of Bharatiya Rashtra, we would have to besides giving the religious reference also need to lay out the common sense of the application of Dharma in formulating a law or a code, which forms the "secular" sense of Dharma.

This is often what harbans ji referred to when speaking of "values", but IMHO, BOTH aspects have to be laid bare.

The first one - the religious-civilizational argumentation is needed to underline the continuity of our civilization, and for many it would also provide the gravitas, the authority, and secondly the secular argumentation is needed so that the authority of law and codes is not undermined simply because somebody rejects the civilizational underpinnings of Bharat.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 17 Apr 2013 22:05

RamaY wrote:Can dharma be separated from Hinduism? Can such dharma self-sustain?

Dharma exists independent of any culture and any culture can be adjusted to serve the cause of Dharma. But human understanding of Dharma usually needs some cultural map that has a certain bandwidth and a certain focus. So "understanding of Dharma" is closely intertwined with Hindu-like cultural spectrum, its mythology and philosophy IMHO.

The reason I think its important to state this is because otherwise some people again start making Dharma simplistic or super-abstract, and start dragging issues into a cultural-relativism framework, and draw a false moral equivalence between particular "acts/behaviors" in one culture and another. But Hindu-like etiquette, mythology and philosophy puts acts/behaviors into context by revealing the undercurrents that create circumstances for acting out.

Moral equivalence - Exterior manifestations vs. Undercurrents

But it did occur to me that in India, the ethos of Dharma is illuminated and energized by the sun of its Mythos. Conscientious discrimination (viveka) cannot but bask in its reflected glory.

Another case study:
Blasphemy and Multicultural Democracy

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Apr 2013 22:26

RajeshA garu,

For now assume that Arsha-Samskriti=Arya Sampradaya=Sanatana Dharma=Hinduism. It is like RamaY=YamaR=RamYa=.... all these different names people use to refer the same thing, in spite of all those 'colored' view points.

As a related question what is Dharma - Hinduism and Hinduism - Dharma as in Set theory?

I request members to present their perspectives and I too will post my thoughts...

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 17 Apr 2013 22:30

Carl ji, thank you. Question for you in philosophy thread.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 17 Apr 2013 22:45

Dharma superset. Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is a set, may be a subset of Dharma, but I view it is more like a conduit which serves to know dharma by.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Apr 2013 22:46

^ Then what is Dharma - Hinduism (A-B)? or B-A if it is otherwise?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 17 Apr 2013 23:01

RamaY ji, Hinduism is an emanation of Dharma. It is observed as projected on desha-kaala-paatra. The best desha in its Earthly projection is Bharatavarsha, the best paatra is Brahmana, etc.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 17 Apr 2013 23:05

Two cases:
1. Hindusim subset of Dharma -> if Dharma is a infinite Superset A, Hindusim set B, A - B depends on the size of set B.
2. If Hindusm is viewed as conduit, A-B is no operation. Dissimilar sets

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Apr 2013 09:54

Rejuvenation Models for Bharat

Cross-posting a post by johneeG from "Narendra Modi vs the Dynasty: Contrasting Ideas of India" Thread

Atri wrote:
Sanku wrote:This may not be his style, but like Atri ji said, a lot of mechanisms are used to get Yuddhister to the throne. The idea is to not throw you best card into the winds on a prayer and a hope.

That is the nature of politics, a straight forward Kesariya after drinking opium is gallant in the extreme, but we can not afford it anymore. We have no men to lose.

Shivaji tactics are what we need. (Atri-ji would say post Shivaji tactics)
Funny that you brought in Shivaji..

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p911202

Indra gave Karna a shakti which was unanswerable (this is the impending global crisis post 2014). Now, no matter who, when this shakti is unleashed, no one, not even Shri Krishna with his sudarshana can withstand.. Whole point of MBH was to put Yudhishthira on throne and bring about systemic changes in the way Dharma functioned (or malfunctioned). The global players (DIEnasty included) have screwed up the economy, created shitloads of debt and this is going to hit west back. They averted this in 2008 for time being. But signs are beginning to show in EU. One has to look at this Boston Blast from that perspective - to create a motive to start a new war and keep the "demand" going without people asking uncomfortable questions about where the money came from and where it went.. Most of EU nations are now printing money. They are in buffer and so far so good. But buffer is running out. Unless this dodgy debt is not settled, it is going to raise its ugly head. In other words, this is the Indra's Shakti. No Tod...

Now, I do not know whether NM is the Yudhishthira who will bring about change OR whether he is the Arjuna who is shielding the real Yudhishthira. But whoever he is, he is not expendable as Ghatotkacha.. It is possible that the real Yudhishthira has not even arrived on national scene yet. But battle waits for none. DIEnasty has played its role in creating similar situation in India - Thanks to NREGA, multiple scams all over (koi ginti nahi), other free-loading schemes, appeasement politics. We have our own dodgy debt which will raise its head.

He who is in power will incur the wrath of people when Indra's shakti strikes. Couple that with Jihadis from AFPAK pouring in J&K and rest of India after USA decreases its presence from AFG and taliban enters in agreement with kabul - they will be doing what they do best. Brace for multiple exploding pressure-cookers, multiple Owaisi like speeches and multiple Azad-Maidan like rallies and multiple Assam like cleansings.

Now, all this is bad karma of DIEnasty and their international handlers. Indic janta is only beginning to realize how they have been taken for a ride by DIEnasty. It will dawn upon them even more then. I want DIEnasty to be in power and seen responsible for this mess by Janta. If NM is in power (or even NDA), this rage will be of no use - it will cancel itself out. I do not want that wave to cancel itself out. I have been saying this on forum for past 2-3 years. BJP does not want to be in power for some reason. It dawns upon me now that perhaps this is the reason. They are passing the parcel, because they can hear it ticking..

What if NM becomes a PM and then shakti strikes. True to his dharma, NM will take stringent steps, try and shield India (and I think he will do so successfully) bring economy back on track and then there is 2004 moment again where people pissed off due to stringent measures, vote NDA out and DIEnasty (or UPA) is back with its populist promises. IOW, most of NM's energy would be spent on fighting off this shakti and still remain standing to introduce systemic changes without loosing popular mandate and keeping allies together. OTOH, if he cannot withstand the shakti, then it will be doom for nationalists. Apeksha-Bhanga (disappointment) is one of those emotions which brings about bitterest responses.

If, OTOH, RahulG or his MMS is in power when shakti strikes, the wrath of people will be faced by DIEnasty. NM will come riding on this wrath-wave without public associating him with downfall and without needing to care about loosing public mandate, for he will be projected as repairman and not the one who broke the country. Public has short memory. They were praising MMS for his leadership when India was growing 9% forgetting the fact that it was ABV and his govt which brought economy on fast-track. MMS simply ate the fruits of tree sown and nurtured by ABV and squandered it off in 123, NREGA, scams and other stupid things..

If recession strikes before general elections in India, NDA should declare NM as PM candidate. If not, they should wait until it strikes and then declare NM for PM.. Meanwhile let him do what he is doing (giving speeches in various parts of India and forcing people to focus on real issues, presenting a contrast between GJ and rest of India). If recession does not strike before general elections, 2013-14, then find someone who will buy time and make sure DIEnasty is weakened and yet is seen accountable for ill-deeds. I think 1996 like scenario will repeat itself and there will be elections within year or year and half after 2014.

Saar ji,
IMHO, what you are saying is wrong at several levels. You are characterizing the potential threats as 'no tod'(invincible), I don't agree with this characterizing. There is always a 'tod', even the shakti had the 'tod': divert its use on someone expendable. So, everything has a 'tod'. All the threats that India and Hindus face have 'tods'. Modi is being supported by people hoping that he will find those 'tods' and minimize the loses. And if need be, Modi's career is put on firing line, to save the country and people. So, according to the scenario presented by you, if there is no other way out then Modi has to become the Ghatotkacha(i.e. risk his political career), to save the desh.

What you are saying is that people need to experience worse before they are prepared for the better. This kind of thinking, I believe, is really really wrong. I am reminded of a story where the king is asked to decide who is the mother of the child. Two women claim to be the mothers of the same child and the courtroom is at loss of finding out who is the actual mother. The king declares that both women will get the child and for this the child will but cut into two halves, and one half will go to each woman. This declaration forces the real mother to say that she rather have her child live(even if the child is estranged from her) than die(and she gets a half part of his body). What is the difference between fake mother and real mother, if both of them had agreed to cutting the child into two pieces? Similarly, what kind of thinking is it to want one's own people to suffer(whatever the reason maybe)? I can understand someone saying it in frustration or anger, but to bandy it as a strategy!!! That is plain wrong.

This so-called strategy is based on the formula that 'things have to go bad, before they get better'. But, this is not some universal truth. Prevention is always better than cure(in many ways). So, one must always try to prevent(until the very last). One does not have to let the things go bad. Next, things are already pretty bad. People are already fed up. And they are looking for a good leader. If Modi is such a leader, then let him stand up to occasion and deliver. If he is unable to do so, fine. But, atleast, let him try. The whole defeatist attitude even before he tries, is really baffling. The same applies to those who talk about Modi not being able to attract allies. As if Kongis had any allies before 2004! UPA was formed after the elections. It is a great thing that NDA has survived despite being in opposition for so long. But that does not mean parties give up their best leader to please some unreliable ally(who may jump ship anytime). The right way is to project the best leader, go full throttle, expose the corruptions and flaws of the present setup and propose solutions. Then the ball is in people's court. Either way, one has done one's job. That is the message of gita: Karmani eva adhikarah te, ma phaleshu kadachana(you have authority only on actions, never in the results). No one can guarantee results. No one knows what is stored for tomorrow. Any thing, literally anything, may happen any second. All that one has in one's hands is to do the best that one can. Thats all. The results are a pretty complex thing. It is simply impossible to calculate the affects of any action. Otherwise, there would have already been super-computers predicting the future. It is not possible because the results are simply unpredictable and can vary on the slightest remotest factor. And no individual or group has control on all the factors that affect a result. So, everyone is taking a risk of failure whenever they attempt anything, anything! So, what to do in such circumstances? Karmani eva adhikarah te, ma phaleshu kadachana. Thats all.

You are also making another mistake in assuming that things will always get better after they have gone bad. This is a false assumption. India and Hindus are very lucky that even when things went really bad, they survived. That does not mean, that things always get better after they have gone bad. Look at so many other cultures and countries in the past and present! They have just gone bad and from there to worse. So, things don't get better just because they have gone bad. There is no limit to degradation. One can keep degrading. It is like a bottomless pit... There is no way to bounce back. So, it is imperative that things are set right before it is too late. The dienasty and other assorted foreign chamchas will jump the ship(many of them already consider themselves as foreign). So, they lose nothing. Even if they lose something and in the process, the desh is irretrievably damaged, then what is the use? Is it a consolation?

I think that now is the critical time to save the desh. Another term of this kind of disastrous governance can have serious impact on desh for generations. It will also weaken the desh in its fight against the jihadi and EJ. Already the last 10 years have done a tremendous damage.

There is a limit to how much pain a body can take. Beyond a certain limit, the body will die. The same applies to the culture, civilization and country. Indian and Hindu culture, civilization and country have shown tremendous resolve and have survived(by fighting back) for ages against different kinds of threats. But, that does not mean one willfully wishes more pain on the body, especially when it is weak, emaciated and diseased. If there is a poisoned organ that needs to be removed, it needs to be done is a surgical fashion. Not in the manner of a butcher...

Anyway, the threats will never cease. This will keep on going. One is neutralized, another pops up. Malsi is not going to last forever. It will be the neutralized or it will mutate, then something new will be born. When that is gone, something else will come up. It is an eternal struggle: deva asura sangrama...

Each generation has to do what they can do. Thats all. There are no permanent threats or permanent solutions. Today, Modi is seen as the solution to the problems, so he is being supported and encouraged. Trying to shield Modi(his political career) is counter-productive. One need not shield Modi(his political career). One needs to shield the desh.

Karna with Shakti weapon is much lesser threat than Karna with Kavacha(armor) and Kundala. Karna traded Kavacha and Kundala for the weapon. And he was foretold that Arjuna is invincible and Krishna is the God. No shakti can do anything to them. Still, Karna decided to try it out. He did not simply accept the defeat. He decided to try his best and if he still failed so be it. Karna gave a great account of himself in the final battle and is still remembered today as a great warrior. That is all one has to do, do one's job to the best of one's ability, if one still loses, then there is no shame in it. But to start out with a defeatist mindset is a total no no.

----
Loh purush was the one around whom people rallied in the 90s. Now, its Modi, tomorrow someone else will come. When a thing is not used in the right time, then it becomes negative. Alasyam amritam visham. A nourishing dish will rot and become uneatable after some time. Similarly, leaders or ideologies, are not evergreen. They have a shelf life and have to be used when they are useful. If they are not used at the right time and instead are used in the wrong time, they play a negative role. Loh purush should have become the PM, it was he who won the seats for the party. But, he could not. Now, he is playing the negative role. If Modi does not get his chance, then in the same manner modi will also become a negative for some future leader.

Loh purush has been in contact with the salt water for too long and has become brittle. He was taking up the Hindutva cause when everyone was enamored(or perceived as) enamored by the nehruvian secularism and socialism. But given his formative years, he is bound to have limitations. I think Negi saar said this.

Loh purush time is now gone. All said and done, he could not even defeat the MMS. Even MMS was successful in mocking him. That is a serious failure. It shows that the people(specially, the supporters of BJP) simply rejected him. It means many of them didn't care to vote. He was that uninspiring. He is not inspiring anyone now. He does not fetch any votes or seats.

As for his dilli cotorie, all of them are useless dilli billis. Many of them are completely compromised by the mainos. Even the SS! Mere oratory skills are not enough. One needs to be able to bring votes and seats.

Rajnath Singh, the president of BJP, has openly admitted that Modi is the most popular leader. All the surveys are showing the same thing. MSM and SM are reflecting the same thing. Most people's daily interactions are in similar vein. There is absolutely no doubt at all that no one can compare to Modi, rightnow, in terms of popularity and vote catching ability. Modi is in a completely different league right now. That does not mean he will always be popular. Remember a big part of Modi's charm is that he is successful i.e. he has continued to win elections despite all the mud and dirt thrown at him by msm, ngos and assorted kongi chamchas. So, if Modi loses the election(regardless of whether he is projected as a PM or not, the defeat will be seen as a defeat of Modi's brand), then the charm of Modi will take serious dent.

Anyway, I don't think voters appreciate this kind of backroom nonsense put up by the lohpurush. Such things will have negative impact on voters. Many supporters will not vote as a sign of protest. Some will even vote negatively. And finally, the fence-sitters will refrain. That leaves the regular c-system and its adherents.

So, Modi is straightforward choice for PM candidate. BJP should project him and aim for the largest party in parliament. Simple. If it can do that, then all the allies will automatically come. If it cannot do that, then no ally is going to be useful. If after the elections, there is a need for compromise due to lack of seats, then that is understandable(perhaps), but to start out with compromises is silly.
----

Arjun wrote:
Sanku wrote:Wide across the table acceptability -- politics is all about convincing people.
Experience of running the government at central level at highest positions
A long history of proven party building
A strong Hindutva votary (original one -- more Hindutva oriented than even NaMo perhaps)
Economically liberal politician

In India whether you like it or not, age and experience brings acceptability and deference, there is a reason why Indian PMs have been old. And a 70+ PVNR is a better choice than a 40 year young RG etc.
The ONLY thing I will grant is that he seems to be a good consensus candidate...

Other than that, frankly - there is NOTHING that stands out about Advani. He's nowhere near as good in oratory or ability to connect with the masses (or intellectuals) as Modi (or even Sushma) - there is no overarching vision for India which Modi undeniably has, Advani has no track record of performance to fall back on unlike Modi.

So really - there is NOTHING in Advani to enthuse anybody.

Even in terms of Hindutva - I agree Advani is more associated with RJB. Whether this exclusive focus on RJB to the exclusion of other religious issues can be considered 'hard' Hindutva or soft Hindutva is very much open to debate. I personally consider the RJB types to be 'soft' Hindutva - though they clearly regard themselves to be the 'hard' types in their own minds.

It is considered 'hard' Hindutva because there is an emotional connection. I mean a 'hard' hindutva guy is not able to fathom the lack of Sri Rama's temple at His birth place. And to add to it, if there stands another monument, it is like adding salt to the injury. I'll give an example: lets say there is an X and Y. The families of X and Y are kidnapped and are being tortured. Now, X wants to immediately save his family. Y wants a more long term solution against kidnappings. X is a 'hard' familyman. He is unable to bear the pain being undergone by his family. Compared to X, Y is a 'soft' familyman.

Originally, RJB had much bigger potential. Initially, it had included Kashi and Mathura also. And there was a real fear that there would be a demand that all the monuments that were erected after the willful destruction of the Indic places of worship are restored to the original owners. If that demand had come up, then it would have been a death knell to the present setup. It is like 100 megaton. It would have achieved much more in few months than what a generation of 'saffronizing' of education would do.

Most(if not all), the malsi monuments in India are occupied or built after the desecration or destruction of local monuments. Sita Ram Goel has compiled a list of 2000 Hindu temples which are recorded to have been destroyed or desecrated to build or modify them into a malsi monument. He says that he has compiled thae list from impeccable malsi sources and records. Further, he says that 2000 is a number that is merely the tip of the ice berg. The actual number would be much much more. If ASI starts digging around, then many more details will tumble. If those monuments are restored to the original owners, the whole facade built around Malsi in the desh will crumble. Such a movement has many far-reaching implications. It would have led to the so-called commie 'eminent historians' and how they have weaved a narrative in support of Malsi. Actually, it was VHP which took up the RJB movement. BJP highjacked it. And in many ways, diluted it. Loh Purush was the one who dropped Kashi and Mathura from the list and only Ayodhya remained. Even on Ayodhya front, BJP did not deliver anything when they came to power.

It is movements like RJB that truly shape the narrative and discourse of a nation. If RJB had attained its full potential, then social discourse would have been completely different. RJB, still, has much bigger potential. Even in its limited 10% avatar, RJB movement has achieved a lot. It can still do a lot.

If Modi(or some other fresh leader) is unable to get to power in 2019, on the plank of development(or governance), they can make use of RJB. I think Modi would need RJB in 2019 because results of development will not be immediately noticeable by that time assuming Modi is in power in 2014 and starts rectifying the situation.