Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 30 Jul 2014 17:54

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ... 58  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 18 May 2013 06:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14956
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
Future Chanakyas and Chandragupta will come from here :D

Watch video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/v ... ory/275528


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2013 11:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4270
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
^^^ Made my day. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2013 12:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Organic vs. GM Ideologies

Continuing from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

Arjun wrote:
RamaY wrote:
Who wants/needs the label Secularism and not Hinduism, even though in practice both provide same religious freedoms to all Bharatiyas? Why?

I do.

Because the underlying need is to propagate the core values of the Indic civilization - rather than to spread the nomenclature. In fact by stressing on the nomenclature that identifies itself with a particular 'religion' you are preventing the spread of the underlying idea.

The West has carved out 'Secularism' and 'Western Civilization' as concepts that are distinct from Christianity - even though these are ultimately derived from the latter. Why ? - because these are marketed as Universal values that other cultures need to subscribe to. India needs to have its own version of Universal values that are distinct from Hinduism as a religion.

The need therefore is to resist the current hijack of the meaning of Secularism away from the underlying spirit in which it was intended. Or alternatively to come up with another Universalist nomenclature that is not linked to Hinduism as a 'religion', though it might be marketed as strongly linked to Indic civilization.


There are a few points to remember:

1) Bharat has had a long history of propagating Sanatan Dharma throughout Asia and may be beyond. Southeast Asia is still testimony to that. So history does not bear witness that we need to somehow "secularize" our Dharma and Sanskriti.

2) Our Sanskriti and Dharma may not be considered as "religion" at all, and so whatever need the West felt for this "secularization" may not be there for us.

3) The alternative political philosophies that came up in West as replacements for religion, e.g. "secularism" were also to some extent a reaction to the fact that the Gentiles in the West could not entirely own up "Christianity". Christianity was itself a West Asian "Semitic" ideology that undermined European native cultures. One finds hints of such feelings in National Socialism movement.

4) "Marxism", "Secularism" and all other ideologies produced in the West have failed miserably. The fact that Europe despite its "secular" values is seeing itself being overrun by Islam is evidence that these European frameworks are ineffective.

5) One of Bharat's best selling points is in fact that our systems form a continuity to the very birth of civilization itself. It is a system of evolution. The difference is between respecting "Nature", a product of organic evolution, and "Genetically Modified Foods", a product of technological revolutions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2013 13:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14
Posts: 1193
RamaY wrote:
Future Chanakyas and Chandragupta will come from here :D

Watch video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/v ... ory/275528


Good to see an Indic version of boarding school in India, wish the parents and children going there a huge success. It takes a lot of emotional investment to send children to study away from home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2013 13:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52
Posts: 3075
RajeshA wrote:
There are a few points to remember:

1) Bharat has had a long history of propagating Sanatan Dharma throughout Asia and may be beyond. Southeast Asia is still testimony to that. So history does not bear witness that we need to somehow "secularize" our Dharma and Sanskriti.

2) Our Sanskriti and Dharma may not be considered as "religion" at all, and so whatever need the West felt for this "secularization" may not be there for us.

3) The alternative political philosophies that came up in West as replacements for religion, e.g. "secularism" were also to some extent a reaction to the fact that the Gentiles in the West could not entirely own up "Christianity". Christianity was itself a West Asian "Semitic" ideology that undermined European native cultures. One finds hints of such feelings in National Socialism movement.

4) "Marxism", "Secularism" and all other ideologies produced in the West have failed miserably. The fact that Europe despite its "secular" values is seeing itself being overrun by Islam is evidence that these European frameworks are ineffective.

5) One of Bharat's best selling points is in fact that our systems form a continuity to the very birth of civilization itself. It is a system of evolution. The difference is between respecting "Nature", a product of organic evolution, and "Genetically Modified Foods", a product of technological revolutions.

I agree. Dharma and Sanskriti are meant to be Universal concepts - and are perhaps Indic equivalents of Western Values and Western Civilization respectively.

So we need all Indians irrespective of religion, taking ownership for Dharma and Sanskriti as two meta-concepts that go beyond 'religion'.

Sapeksha Dharma is one tenet of Dharma that is perhaps an Indic answer to Western secularism. As are some aspects of Raj Dharma. So both of these need to be marketed as the Indian answer to Western Universalism.

My problem with RamaY's proposal was that he was proposing to substitute Secularism for Hinduism. I am saying the marketing should be of Dharma and Sanskriti as Universal concepts that go beyond Hinduism, though obviously derived from Indic civilization.

I would rephrase RamaY's question as "why do we need Secularism when we have tenets of Dharma and Sanskriti that address the same needs". And to this, my answer would be - we don't. Though Secularism as nomenclature can still be used as the English translation for some of these concepts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2013 13:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Arjun wrote:
I agree. Dharma and Sanskriti are meant to be Universal concepts - and are perhaps Indic equivalents of Western Values and Western Civilization respectively.


I would translate Sanskriti as ~culture and Sabhyata as ~civilization.

Arjun wrote:
My problem with RamaY's proposal was that he was proposing to substitute Secularism for Hinduism. I am saying the marketing should be of Dharma and Sanskriti as Universal concepts that go beyond Hinduism, though obviously derived from Indic civilization.

I would rephrase RamaY's question as "why do we need Secularism when we have tenets of Dharma and Sanskriti that address the same needs". And to this, my answer would be - we don't.


I actually hate using the word "Hinduism" because it is actually a European discipline of study on the faiths of the Hindus, and thus full of their biases and prejudices. The problem is that the Hindus have invested too much into this term, which they shouldn't have.

If we do away with "Hinduism" as a term, new possibilities open up!

Arjun wrote:
Though Secularism as nomenclature can still be used as the English translation for some of these concepts.


We should make an effort to use always Sanskrit-derived terms, terms which come from our own traditions, and even in English use them as non-translatables. Only upon inquiry and insistence should we try and give the English equivalent and that too in a qualified manner. (e.g. using '~').


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 11:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - Secularist's Reluctance to Define or Discuss it?

Cross-posting some posts from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
I see a lot of complaints but no crux of the matter.
No alternative is being offered that I can see.
If you want a religion based state why not come out and say so.
There is nothing wrong in advocating for one.


I too have a request to make of you!

Could you define "religion" please! I know there are some variations here and there. Just define it as you deem fit. Also specify which aspects of life of an individual, society (and state) religion can/should occupy and as such should be outside the purview of secular state.

May be then I can decide whether I want a religion-based state!
____________________

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
I’m usually careful to use the term faith. I’m not sure that is what you want however.
It seems you want to take one step beyond faith.

What I would say is there can be no agreement and there is no way to decide the issue once one resorts to faith.


Whatever Secularism one proposes, it ultimately is defined through some rejection of "religion" in some aspect of life or another. So in order to define Secularism, you need to give a definition of "religion". Only then one can know what is to be rejected in that aspect of life.

If you want to suggest that Hindutvavadis are asking for a religion based state, again you need to define what "religion" is, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to confirm whether that is true or not!

The reason I am asking you this is because in the post, I wrote exactly what the alternative to Secularism in India was, but you refused to agree that it was a valid response, and you wanted a response in terms of "religion"! So I ask you, you define "religion", and then I can answer whether it is a religion-based state that I want or not!

____________________

RajeshA ->

First two questions to the Secularists:

  1. Those who believe in secularism and consider it as "separation of state and religion", should at least do the honors of defining what is the scope of "religion"!

    How can one otherwise do this separation! After all the state has some responsibilities towards its citizens and one doesn't want religion to be impinging on that either. A simple political-philosophical argument should suffice.

  2. One of the state's primary responsibility is its preservation - its unity and integrity. In the field of global politics, there is rivalry and competition, and it is natural for state to put up various defenses against external threats. Benign influences should be allowed in, subversive influences need to be kept out.

    Considering the history of Islam, Christianity and Marxism, and that can be looked upon objectively, it is obvious that these have been destructive invasions destroying the delicate fabric of native cultures, and subverting other countries to their will.

    So are the Secularists willing to accept the State's need to eliminate all forms of external influence (funding, propaganda, training, etc.) on Christians and Muslims by external forces which use these ideologies for imperialistic outreach?

    Foreign Affairs are in fact a responsibility of the State and religion too should not interfere with that. Right? After all it would not be in the spirit of secularism if religion were to impose its will on the affairs of the State.

____________________

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
All are free to withdraw from the secular state and retreat to vaanvas where they can build their own 'more perfect' society. In fact many have tried and many will keep trying. It does not even matter what the state does or does not do.

At the risk of being a broken record, "The state shall not establish a religion."


Going by this logic, one could say all secularists, many of them could be religious minorities but marxists too, are free to retreat to places where they find higher secularism, or even with their co-religionists.

You see they all have a place on this Earth where they can retreat to. Hindus don't. For Hindus this is their only land, and not just any land, but their punyabhoomi and pitribhumi.

Of course, secularists after having considered that this is the sole alternative for Hindus, they would willingly accept to retreat themselves to far off secularism-heavens!

____________________

RajeshA ->

It is interesting that the word "complaint" is becoming the most popular way of hand-waving by the "seculars"!

I have never really seen any "secular" really willing to discuss the issue! It is always hand-waving! Never answering a query! Intellectual bankruptcy has always been the hallmark of seculars starting with the low IQ JLN (Off-Topic) here. Seculars have only two arguments - 1. Constitution requires 2/3 majority, 2. Everything Burns.

____________________

abhishek_sharma ->

RajeshA wrote:
It is interesting that the word "complaint" is becoming the most popular way of hand-waving by the "seculars"!


It is also called "whining" and "lamentation". The message is: Don't talk about it. We don't really have good answers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 12:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - Bharatiya View of its Definition

Cross-posting some posts from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

RajeshA ->

  • Folk Secularism: 'sarva dharma sama bhava'

  • Constitutional Secularism: 'panth nirpeksha'

  • Congress Secularism: Islamo-Christianism but they sell it as secularism and Hindus buy into that.

  • Pseudo-Secularism, Sickularism: Bharatiya Nationalists calling out Congress and its offshoots for what they practice - something which is certainly not secularism as understood by the people or as written down in the Constitution.

____________________

RamaY ->

JE Menon wrote:
Three pages in can someone define secularism and pseudo-secularism... Come on now, lets chase our tails. Be sure to introduce some mysterious one liners about how "they" want this and "they" are doing that...


Secularism = Christianity without Church.
Pseudo Secularism = Islam without Mullah.

The people who want secularism but not psecularism are dhimmis, who view the whole world from western-worldview and cannot comprehend a Bharatiya/Hindu worldview.
____________________

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Good luck guys. Have fun.

The west has been secular for 400 years and they are still arguing over what it means. Or even if they are truly secular. And what the place of God/god is ...


Does that mean that Secularism is an unproductive pursuit and we should let it be and get back to Hindutva as Bharat was? If yes I agree with you!
____________________

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
The only agreed upon rule for secularism is, “The state shall establish no Religion.”
All else appears to be negotiable. Do what works is what folks have done beyond that.


Yes too much seems to be negotiable! There is no need to establish Religion. It suffices if "Secularism" allows predatory religions to spread and expand. When they are strong enough they can themselves establish State Religion! Then Secularism would not be needed any more!

Secularism seems to be only a transitional measure until the predatory religions have enough strength!
____________________

prahaar ->

Indian state is as confused about secularism, not only individuals. On one hand it is said that religion and government do not mix, but OTOH, we offer Haj subsidies, Break coconut as an offering to Varun Devta while commissioning ships, have our regiments proclaim Jo Bole so Nihaal, Sat Sri Akal. All this happens in the name of "Secularism in Indian context".

This Indian context is supposed to mean "Respect all religions and allow freedom of practicing all religions" - in fewer words "Jiyo Aur Jine Do" (Live and Let live). All this sounds well on paper, what happens if someones religion does not allow even the sight of blood and someones religion requires an animal sacrifice. I am not being politically correct in not taking the names of the respective religions, I just want to say that irrespective of the religion involved (or even atheism), there is a high likelihood of incompatible requirements.

This "Indian context secularism" of being "Panth Nirpeksh" or the modern term "Dharma Nirpeksh" leads to arbitrary behavior by state machinery. This behavior is more guided by local exigencies and power equations rather than a nation wide policy. So even though the state may commit an incorrect act of omission or commission, the effect is felt in a much wider area. Basically the state actions are not based on a well defined policy (because it does not exist to cater all the situations that occur across the country). When there is no unified policy, actions can never be congruent.

Again many people talk about making religion a private affair, because some individual or group's religious duties should not impair other people's lives. Again in this case, in most cases there is no policy only arbitrary decision making about what is not allowed and what is allowed. For example, irrespective of the fact that 99% of residents around Allahabad vote against a Kumbh Mela (hypothetically), Maha Kumbh will be organized on the specified date. But OTOH, Ramlalla did not get any special puja or prasad on Ram Navmi this year (even though many Ram bhakts were unhappy about it). This discrepancy in action of the state can be explained by a simple test, what the administration can influence (it tries and does), in cases it cannot influence, it gives in to pressure.

The issue gets more complex, because law enforcement in India is done on the whims of the Raja (CM or PM or any person in control).

The basic point being, Secularism in India is a blank check to the nation-state apparatus to do ITS THING, to some how maintain a semblance of L&O, without ANY concern for concepts of rights, justice, etc.
____________________

RajeshA ->

viv wrote:
RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that.


Not so fast! :)

Here is what Wikipedia says

Quote:
Panthan (meaning "path" in Sanskrit) is the term used for several religious traditions in India. A panth is founded by a guru or an acharya, and is often led by scholars or senior practitioners of the tradition.


Panths are not founded by prophets. In fact Panths are not even founded by Avatars. Neither Rama nor Krishna founded their own "Panth".

Panths are founded by Gurus and Acharyas. Usually they come into being when there is a philosophical deviation or expansion on the previous spiritual and philosophical knowledge base. It is a branching.

Important thing to note is that these "Panths" have the same origin - the Bharatiya Philosophical and Spiritual Knowledge Tree.

So Christianity and Islam which like to call themselves "religions" do not really qualify to be called panths! Basically the "Secularism" in Indian State only promises non-preference between the various Dharmic Panths, and it can thus be considered only a promise made to the Hindus (incl. Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs)!

Islam and Christianity are not covered by Panth-Nirpekshta!

Should one even use the term Dharma-Nirpekshta, that would only make matters worse for Islam and Christianity because they would have to prove that they are Dharmic!

____________________

RajeshA ->

perhaps I should have said Nicene Creed Christianity is excluded as a Panth. Thanks for pointing it out!

But there is also the issue of whether the Essenes or Gnostics were in fact influenced by Buddhist and Brahmin embassies in Alexandria and Syria or not. If the thread between Early Christianity and Dharma can be found then yes one could call pre-Nicene Christianity a Panth as well!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 12:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - Bharatiya View of its Definition

Cross-posting some posts from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

Agnitmitra ->

Dharma and "religion"/"faith" are not the same things. My only problem with pseudo-secularism is a conflation of names and words.

There are two types of dharma - the philosophically universal operating system is Sanatana Dharma, and then there are customized dharmic applications per Varnashrama. Among the second category, again there are two types of dharmas - "managed" dharmic solutions and "unmanaged" dharmic solutions.

Of all of these, only those "managed" dharmic solutions from Indic traditions can be compared with what Christians/Moslems call "religion". All other "religion"-looking things are not religions at all.

First these terms need to be made clear.

Then, all "managed" solutions (Indic or from anywhere else) should be given a level playing field - not just in the Indian context but considering the international scene, too. While all other "unmanaged" dharmic solutions should be supported by the state as a matter of administrative and public ethics.

If RajeshA ji is suggesting state support for "managed" Indic traditions, then I am against that.
If RajeshA ji is making the distinction between "managed" and "unmanaged" traditions, and suggesting state support only for the latter, then I concur.

____________________

RajeshA ->

Agnimitra wrote:
If RajeshA ji is suggesting state support for "managed" Indic traditions, then I am against that.
If RajeshA ji is making the distinction between "managed" and "unmanaged" traditions, and suggesting state support only for the latter, then I concur.


I am basically asking for a complete state embrace of Bharatiya Sanskriti (products) and Bharatiya Sabhyata (process).

I think even "managed" Indic traditions should receive support in the way of amenities for lodging, travel, sanitation, assembly and security but also courtesy towards the Gurujan!

____________________

Agnimitra ->

RajeshA wrote:
I think even "managed" Indic traditions should receive support in the way of amenities for lodging, travel, sanitation, assembly and security but also courtesy towards the Gurujan!

I don't think "managed" dharmas should receive active state support. State can provide an overarching policy framework that, say, encourages faith-based initiatives, etc., but those should be available to any faith. However, the state can neutralize the unfair advantage that non-Indian "managed" religions have over native ones, by a reciprocity arrangement - if you won't allow XYX religions to proselytize in your country, then I won't allow you to fund madrassahs ni mine; or, one can limit foreign funding for NGOs involved in conversion work, etc. That's all.
____________________

Agnimitra ->

Blogged this:
Priest-craft: Managed solutions vs. Unmanaged customizations

Image
Quote:
Administrative Policy
Practically speaking, how to engineer the optimal dynamics between Managed and Unmanaged solution? Simply by preventing or countering the necessary things that a wrapped, bundled and strings-tied managed solution needs to deploy and survive. In this regard, the "neti neti" process is relevant in terms of self-definition, as an individual or as a civilization.

It would then be an interesting exercise to jot down how governmental policy can incorporate Dharmic ethics by being an able System Administrator with sound policy on the kinds of Managed and Unmanaged solutions that can be deployed in the system, as well as the relative order in which they are deployed.

As a guideline, a truly secular government cannot extend active support to Managed solutions, though it may have a policy of, say, incentivizing faith-based initiatives applicable to all. However, the government can actively ensure that all Managed solutions have a level playing field. Native Managed solutions must be protected from Managed solutions with wealthy and powerful foreign vendors and priesthoods. E.g., a principle of reciprocity can be introduced - if your country will not allow XYZ to be deployed in your environment, we cannot allow you to sponsor the deployment of ABC in our environment. Or, a low ceiling on foreign-funding to NGO's active in deployment of Managed solutions can be set by governmental policy.

However, a truly secular government can and must define its value system in Dharmic terms, in terms of its overall worldview. This worldview has, for instance, been talked about at length by India's Constitutional fathers such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The revitalization of certain Dharmic memes in the mainstream are an important part of this. E.g., Dr. Ambedkar was a vigorous advocate of Sanskritization. [See 'Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 1'].

The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the 'PH value' of the Indic solvent remains Dharmic. That means not just in name but in actual values. Practically, that means that all pseudo-'Dharmic' impostor memes in our society need to be broken down, especially when they have outlasted their legitimate purpose and usefulness. That means any structures or forms that are obsessed with reinforcing the need for their "wrapper" - the fixed integrity of their priesthood, bodies and cultural exclusivity based on being legatees of some past vendor.

____________________

RajeshA ->

viv wrote:
RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that.
RajeshA wrote:
Quote:
Panthan (meaning "path" in Sanskrit) is the term used for several religious traditions in India. A panth is founded by a guru or an acharya, and is often led by scholars or senior practitioners of the tradition.


Panths are not founded by prophets. In fact Panths are not even founded by Avatars. Neither Rama nor Krishna founded their own "Panth".

Should one even use the term Dharma-Nirpekshta, that would only make matters worse for Islam and Christianity because they would have to prove that they are Dharmic!
viv wrote:
I took your definition as equivalent to Dharma Nirpekshta where Dharma colloquially is taken equivalent to religion.


Well I have requested many to define religion and its the scope so that one can be more clear about secularism! However there seems to be some inexplicable silence on it.

viv wrote:
But the basic point is if the grievance is some specific issues then the issues need to be fixed rather than lament how the nirpekshta is defined. The constitution states it is religion blind. The governance is not exactly and pains some. So only the latter is the issue. Isn't one aspect of praise to Modi that he has not favoured any particular religion nor put any down?


My only grievance against Secularism is that it is stopping Bharat from asserting itself as a strong independent civilizational pole in the world!

May be you can provide some constructive solutions in this regard!

TIA
____________________

Agnimitra ->

A truly Secular Government would not discriminate based (primarily) on belief-system, but rather on its ethical effect in the environment. IOW, government should not practice मतभेद but rather धर्मविवेक.

The upshot of this is that no belief-system can consider itself immune to criticism or questioning, either in terms of its beliefs or the actions and opinions of its people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 12:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - Hollow & Contradictory Assumptions and Claims

Cross-posting some posts from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

brihaspati ->

nachiket wrote:
How will this Hindu State be different from the current Indian state? Specifically, what parts of the current constitution will be removed and what new clauses added?

It is not possible for people to support such a state unless they know how it will impact their daily lives. For example, will cow slaughter be completely banned throughout the country?

Quote:
If any religion is not Adharmic, it has nothing to fear, and this is so the case irrespective of whether the religion is Indic or not.

Who makes the determination whether a particular religion is Dharmik or Adharmik?

Why should the banning of slaughter of one particular animal be a source of national crisis? Pigs are not slaughtered [supposedly] in several countries. Those nations are not collapsing. If a certain subpopulation becomes extinct simply because it cannot slaughter cows in a modern India with many alternatives for proteins - then there is something very very wrong with the similar banning of slaughter of pigs in other countries too.

____________________

brihaspati ->

Supratik wrote:
RamaY wrote:

1. Why a Hindu state is not necessary?
2. Why a Hindu state is not desirable?


2. A religious state has not worked in the modern age. Yes, SA and Iran have a lot of money to spread around but I don't consider them to be successful states and I don't think beyond a point they will be successful.


Almost every modern state follows religious values - the more sophisticated ones, simply label the religiously sourced values as secular ones. The British and north-western European "secularism" is primarily post-medieval editing of Christian values.

In India, the value system has been constructed on a conflation of reconstructed Buddhist, Christian and Islamic values. [The reason that onlee "hindu" values are criticized, deconstructed, and seen to be needing "reforms" - the two others are "protected" and are not seen to need any reforms. Most of the civil laws stem from the British reconstruction of Indian laws and carry the unmistakable stamp of 19th century British Christian values.]

Quote:
But more importantly, it is no. 1. I don't think we are in a situation where a declared Hindu state is going to bring any advantages.


Maybe this hesitation comes from the propagandized devaluation and resulting lack of confidence in the "Hindu"?

Quote:
This is not to say everything is OK. We need to have safeguards in place.


Safeguards are always cultural, and almost always driven by an ingrained religious value system. Once that identification is weakened or devalued, since most people need certainties and instinctively attach themselves to "strength" and away from "weakness" - any religion that provides certainties and authority, always win over those who relax.

Quote:
But more importantly make the existence of pseudo-secularism untenable in India.

Impossible from pure "secularism" - because this pseudo-secularism is based on concrete religious memes.

Quote:
I think this "Hindu state" idea is diverting attention from real issues. It is just an ammunition for Nehruvian Marxists to perpetuate their agenda.


If we accept that "Hindu state" is a "diversion" - this is exactly what the Nehruvian Marxists want : they want us to accept that the idea is irrelevant. For they know very well, that once that idea takes root, it will be more immune to pseudo-secularism than it is now. Marxists were very much aware of the Christian roots of their creed. Look at Engels's writings in German Social democracy phase, and Marx on the 1948 uprisings.

Quote:
Once, "secular" India becomes successful it is automatically going to radiate dharmic ideas to the rest of the world. Just like it used to do many centuries back. This is why no matter how economically well-off China becomes beyond a point it is not going to radiate new ideas unless it goes back to its roots.


This automatic dissemination thing might not be supported by evidence. It seems to have been more successful piggybacking on the expansive power of Indian empires.
____________________

brihaspati ->

Please ! the church was never completely "separated" in Europe. They divided on sectarian lines, but still aligned to respective competing centres for global domination. They remained in politics maybe under the radar, and in a more indirect and sophisticated control mechanism. The apparent manifestation and claims of "separation" are linked to a complex sequence of historical contests between aspiring imperial ambitions from within the same religion. It really has less to do with "going against the Church" than an ideological skullduggery to justify respective political lines.
____________________

brihaspati ->

Nehruvian Marxists did not drop out of thin air, and Nehruvian imposition could not have succeeded, unless a great majority of the population decided not to oppose him. The reason for not opposing Nehruvian marxists - stems from exactly the sort of hesitation, or what often is actually driven by a conditioned shame in being identified with a non-doormat version of Hinduism, that starts questioning the very right of "Hindu" values to predominate within a state structure.

While western style or communist proclaimed pseudo-secularism is essentially reconstructed opportunistic and contextually strategic application of Christian value systems - pushing for such "secularism" has no inherent conflict with the "religion" per se - and its imperialistic version of Christianity which then becomes the state value.

The weakening came before - Nehru ji could utilize it.

The failure here is to recognize that religions which do not occupy state power - directly or indirectly - will always fade away, before the tiniest, apparently weakest, "minority" religion that succeeds in getting the state to actively protect it - while it assiduously and relentlessly targets the state power for eventual control. The current state itself is an instrument of protection and nurturing of certain religions, often using the resources available to the state from extraction of such from other "religions", and therefore the process is irreversible as long as this state functions.


The religions which have failed to influence or trap or coopt key institutions and functionaries/political power generation sources of the state, will be forced to accept definitions, reconstructions, imposed on them by the state. Not only that but the state will consciously or subconsciously do so in a selective manner and in ways that leaves intact or even enhance the power of those minority religions which ideologically dominates the state and weakens the competitors of those state-aspiring "minorities". This is what is happening to the "Hindu". The militantly organized religious orders are doing just fine - with a tacit default patronage from the state - which in turn has been inherited as an intact power structure from the earlier foreign imperialist power which similarly saw the currently patronized "minority" religions as superior ones compared to the majority pagan "desperately needing reform" one.
____________________

brihaspati ->

There is this very funny but interesting line from pseudo-secularists about historical continuity. Every atrocity from Islamic or other ideologies, in India or elsewhere - is always in reaction to some claimed previous atrocity on the Muslims or that ideology. So for example the discussable riots in India [the onlee valid "communal" riots are those that can be clearly pinned on the non-Muslim and the non-Christian, the others if not falsifiable as to "community" affiliations are always by "extremists" from those communities] all have a starting point in some previous claimed "Hindu" atrocity. But if every such communal riot is a reaction, why is not the "Hindu" riot a reaction to what the muslims perhaps had done before?

This p-sec historicity therefore fixes chosen starting points of history - with the hilarious paradox that their whole argument is actually based on historical continuity which in turn is dependent on historical anti-continuity.

By dismissing the role of what happened before 1947 on what happened after 1947 - we make the same false argument as the p-secs.

Individuals cannot play their negative roles in a vacuum. Hitler could not have become Hitler for all practical purposes if a sizable and significantly dominant portion of the German electorate had not switched over to him in the 1931-33 phase. Same goes for the Bolsheviks. I agree it does not have to be the numerical majority - but the aggressive, dominant, and audacious minority can do equally well.

By dismissing the deviations and mercantile/collaborationist lines started from imperial/state linked Buddhism, or Jaina mercantile interests in west-coast, or those who collaborated with the sultanate, or the Mughals, or the EIC, and justified doing so on reconstructions of "tolerance/acceptance of everything" type of "Hinduism", had sown the seeds of self-doubt and weakened the foundations.

Denying that contribution - glosses over an important destructive process still continuing in the thought processes of the dominant ideological streams in the nation.

For every Nehru ji in Indian history - there was a coterie and a subservient class that saw its monetary and privilege interests tied to what he was doing, and helped in carrying out the difficult task of maintaining the twin hegemony over the cultural as well as the state arena. Not being aware of this allows such classes to foist new "supreme leaders" when the pre-existing one gets too embarrassing for maintaining the cultural hegemony which in turn helps in control of state hegemony. But the system continues.
____________________

brihaspati ->


"pseudo-secularism" is more about excessive concentration on only one aspect of life and corresponding construction of desirable goals for the individual and national life. Buddhism had overwhelming obsession on renunciation, which in turn led to institutional obsession to the exact opposite - material profits and physical/sexual "purity". Islamism had overwhelming obsession with sexuality and power and totalitarian control over thought. This led to paranoid destruction of the vitality of the economy and society. British imperialism had overwhelming obsession about racial supremacy and profits - leading to sexual deviation and super massive repression and financial corruption. Communists had overwhelming obsession with guilt of being born "Hindus". The mercantile line in Indian politics had always contextualized profits over all else and hence led to monetizing all values.

Each of these forces had chosen to focus on one particular aspect of life that the ancient Indians did look upon as only a part of spectrum of a full life - and not the whole. The balance aspect of life was forgotten. The current -p-sec is therefore driven by a need to distinguish itself from almost every Indian aspect that has been decried upon by the deviationists in their obsession with narrow foci in isolation. The result is a complete vacuum of values, and therefore a space in which every opportunistic foray can be justified by contextual application, modification or rejection of "values".

This leads to paralysis in national life and the state decision making. If we do not have a system of value sto evaluate our decisions - how are we going to take decisions? Is going to war over a territory of higher "value" than the next electoral win with potential for monetary profits benefiting individuals and circles? How do we measure such values - if we do not have a reasonable system in place? This is the fundamental problem that "secularism" has landed us in. Making the nation devoid of values, substituted perhaps weakly by monetary profits - but which is well known to be notoriously fuzzy and indecisive on non-material aspects.
____________________

brihaspati ->

why step into the diversionary tactics unleashed on {us}?

Take the gems of understanding already thrown by the wise into the ring, one by one:

(1) secularism must be defined by separation of state from religion : try to get a concrete example of that in "history", even immediate past "history", from those who are touting this line of thought. If they mention any European country, any of the ME countries, any of the Asian "giants", or lilliputs, or US of A, there is going to be fun. Let them try with India as a shining example, there will be greater fun.

(2) since "definitions" must be pinned down to the last d and last s : you should ask rigorous definition seekers - what constitutes rigorous proof of "separation" of state from religion. No hemming and hawing of pious wishes as substitute for concretization. Is it just in absence of religious institutional functionaries in state functionaries? what exactly is patronization by the state and what is not? This will not be forthcoming much for India, in any case. It will get stuck in the pious wish expressed in parts of the Indian Constitution without any discussion whatsoever as to the other illuminating parts of this epitome of nirapeksha constitution that disses the pious intent of the previous parts.

(3) Do religions really need to be in state power overtly to control or use state power for their own protection or growth against other religions? What are the characteristics necessary in a religion to do so and which religions satisfy such requirements? The volumes of information out there also include elaborate studies and theories of "manufacture" of consent, imposition of ideologies by using the coercive powers of the state, or the Gramscian understanding of twin floors of hegemony. It would be fun to explore this side of the game too - yes, from the voluminous information out there in history and "current history".

(4) is it possible to have any state completely free of any value system? are value systems all autochthonous and shayambhu? Why do Indian state value systems - as seen in law formation, and educational or cultural coercive mechanisms sponsored by the state - see nothing wrong with the values claimed and propagated by certain religions, and lots of "wrong" needing reform in onlee one religion? If it was completely so neutral in religious affiliations, covert or overt, it would find nothing wrong with any religion/faith/philosophy whatsoever.

It would be interesting to know why people think what the Islamics or some other religions [not the "pagan" ones] have done in India - or globally - in imposing their line of "exceptionalism" has harmed them in any way, or that they have somehow gone "down"! The facts - of which people are so fond of - must be supporting their theses? Can we have them here please?
____________________

brihaspati ->

RamaY wrote:
Vivji

1. If the only Nirapekshata is constitutional Nirapekshata, what is the need for adding "Secular" word to the preamble of the constitution and now the socio-political intellectual debates that the "idea of India" is Secular democratic nation?

2. How could all the governments since 1947 go wrong in implementing that constitutional Nirapekshata? Does it mean all these govts are unconstitutional in their governance? How could so many people from different ideologies go wrong?

3. I can and will define the difference between Hindu and Christian Nirapekshata as we go (I already gave some insight into it)

Nobody is forcing people to post in this thread. If anyone thinks this is whine thread they can ignore this thread.

Thanks


RamaY ji,
please do not be provoked into the trap of inter-religion comparisons. Ask the questions I have asked. People must have very concrete ideas about the ideal of secularism to find yours problematic. Pinning down the concrete details of those ideals is important. Once the actual nitty gritty is sought for - it will get interesting.
____________________

abhishek_sharma->

One of the properties of pseudo-seculars is that they do not point out the bad effects of "settlers" and "assimilators". You were worried that some views mentioned here are code for "Hindu proselytizing". You did not get time (or motivation) to mention the proselytization that is already going on.

We would not be having this discussion if everyone was honest about the good and bad effects of all religious groups. How sad.
___________________

abhishek_sharma->

One of the properties of a good and correct (secular or not) society/country would be that textbooks will include complete and accurate history. In other words, some events will not be brushed under the carpet. Is that a desirable property? Do we have it now?
____________________

brihaspati ->

amit wrote:
Brihaspati ji, why don't you define what true Secularism is? You don't need to write a thesis a couple of sentence would do.

On the other hand you could also clear the air by saying the Secularism per se is a bad word and should not have a place in India. That would also suffice.

You see any one of the two options above would clear the air here and then I'm sure the discussion could be more focused instead of being one of a dog chasing its tail as someone wrote.


ah Amit ji,
why should I go forward and define "secularism" when others seem to know why RamaY ji is so wrong in his views on whatever passes for Indian "secularism"? If RamaY ji or RajeshA ji's concepts are so wrong and ridiculous, maybe those who find them so - have an inner clear cut definition of what "secularism" means as it exists!

There has been wise gems - I agree the minimalist ones - the ones that do not go into a thousand lines where 10 is required, perhaps just like the Indian Constitution, leaving wide open spaces of interpretation and therefore discretionary powers to the state and its organs like the judiciary which chooses to define "Hinduism" on behalf of "Hinduism" but no other "religion".

I was just trying to flesh out those minimalist 10 or lesser word gems: in order to understand what exactly is meant by those minimalist gems. If it is not for the same purpose as that of minimalism on the crucial stuff in the Constitution, which makes a wonderful job of pious wishes regarding "secularism", leaving it just sufficiently vague so that the other selective patronizing can go on, then "folks" here must be knowing what they are talking about when they claim "separation of state from religion"? No? Why is it a crime to ask a bit more details on that 5 word quintessence of wisdom?

What I think of "secularism" (the word, or as it is used, or as it exists, or as it is practised - which one?) is irrelevant for this thread.
____________________

brihaspati ->

viv wrote:
JE Menon wrote:
you see nobody wants to take a stab at defining secularism, just like no one wants to take a stab at defining Hinduism...

In short, no one wants to foreclose options :D Baniyas one and all, and I love it... Keep going.

Boon or Bane

Splitting hairs to sub-atomic level. With every split, we are getting closer and closer and closer... We are getting closer to the truth right?

Madhava's carbon atoms spread over a bit of the solar system at least by now must be resonating with that life memory imprint.


Bji and you are making the same mistake. RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that. The government for different reasons may bend this way or that (like no tax on 'minority' temple or schools) but we do have a good definition and a respected document (Bharatiya Sanvidhan). With that there is hardly and discussion required other than list the issues that are bothersome. So it is not secularism that is boon or bane - it is the areas where it is not applied fully or properly.


If the government is continuously "bending" this way or that - then it might not be an accident. It could be related to the very concept of "secularism" as it means to the government [whatever that means]- which is simply from that apparent standpoint, a preference hierarchy of religions to protect and allow resources to grow.

If religion/sect blindness is not apparent in the state, no amount of repeating selected lines from the Constitution establishes otherwise things on the ground.
____________________

brihaspati ->

Really, all the knowledgeable posters who have specialized info on glorious "secularism": I am looking for examples of countries/ regimes/historical-eras that were/are "secular". Give me some concrete examples of "separation of state from religion".

I was also looking for corroboration of the statements that went along the lines that : the exclusivism of Islamism and other religions have somehow forced these religions to be on the "retreat", in India and globally where they showed their exclusivist teeth at one stage in the past. Concrete proofs of "retreat" would be decreasing numbers of followers [even proving that is not going to be easy - because "following" can be measured in different ways and not always proved by lack of public show of following], decreasing influence on regional or relevant state powers, decreasing power to block/influence/ other religions or communities in political, economic or military terms - etc.
____________________

Surasena ->

They "assimilated" so well that less than 70 years ago they demanded and got their own country in an ocean of Hindu blood while the oh so secular "founding father" JLN watched on with non chalance or talked about air bombing Hindus.

Some "assimilation".

If this is assimilation, one wonders what refusal to assimilate would mean in some peoples make believe world.
____________________

brihaspati ->

Comparing historical 700 years == survival of 50%, and greater proportion in a subset/subzone from 1947 - although still showing the relative higher propensity for growth in the "other", after a reset of temporary reversal due to the Partition, is perhaps very very wise. Especially when we deliberately ignore the fact that for most of those 700 years, non-Muslims had the opportunity/territory/and legitimacy to fight physically and wage war - defensive or offensive against the "invaders". Modern Indian centralization of all military power into the hands of the state which again makes pious declarations of being "secular" while it practically protects and allows the growth of specific imperialist ideologies passing off as "faiths" while promptly taking measures to prevent any or all threads it sees as potential obstacles to its effectively selective promotion policies, combined with the disarming of the populace, means that this time around the - non-Muslim has no defence. Against religions which claim the right to obtain state power, immunity from all criticisms, and erase all other religions/faiths if necessary by use of military or coercive powers as part of their core faith and hence should be allowed to be preached in their institutions - the Indian state provides no defence for the non-Muslim.
____________________

brihaspati ->

Surasena wrote:
They "assimilated" so well that less than 70 years ago they demanded and got their own country in an ocean of Hindu blood while the oh so secular "founding father" JLN watched on with non chalance or talked about air bombing Hindus.

Some "assimilation".

If this is assimilation, one wonders what refusal to assimilate would mean in some peoples make believe world.


They will immediately cite the "nationalist Muslims" who stayed back. This comes out of the careful amnesia and avoiding studying the standard historical evidence of Islamic clergy to keep institutional presence among sympathetic non-Muslim powers and regions. Also the amnesia about the comments made by some of the "nationalist Muslims" regarding their dream of having the "entire" subcontinent under Islam one-day, and the official reasons given by the Ulema sitting in UP who "opposed" Partition - the same reason, that this Partition would make it difficult for the eventual Islamization of the whole - or delay the process.

The aim was never different - that of Islamization of the entire subcontinent, and once the initial phase that required pacifist posturings until numerical and military dominance was achieved [not necessary to have initial numerical superiority as per evidence of all now Islam majority areas in the world], erase all other cultures. Only the tactical finer points of the road to that achievement were in dispute.

But it is true that one individual - like some do - citing JLN, or else, should not be seen as the sole culprit. That is an individualistic reading of history that is patently false. The greater support of this line comes from a deceptively "Hindu"-facade maintaining section, who often claim "Hinduness" or their birth in Hindu families, to pass off their self-hatred or the hatred of the community at large - as also "Hinduism". So that their overt identity origins becomes a masochistic weapon in them to carry out their deligitimization of their claimed identity.

The argument goes like this :
(a) " I am a Hindu/[by birth/pride etc] and I think that anything and everything goes since they have been assimilated [ I don't see the need to clarify why I think they were assimilated or how or whether it was mutually agreeable or one-sided impositions]"

(b) "Because I am claiming to be a Hindu who believes so - anyone else who does not agree with me and also claims to be a Hindu, only shows that Hindus cannot and should not agree on everything"

(c) "Therefore not having fixed common core beliefs where practical points of survival and existence as a culture/belief/ideology of the Hindu are concerned, especially on crucial points of attitude/strategy/ towards dealing with declared-ly hostile eradication-agenda faith systems - is part of and should be the defining characteristic of "Hinduism""

The reason this could happen relatively easily under Islamic or British rule - should have been so obvious, that it surprises me that people do not or refuse see the connection. Its the loss of state power that prevented Hindu ideological institutional structures from being able to stop/correct/penalize this opportunistic modification of the outlines of "Hinduism" by people born into the community - but who saw advantage in shaping themselves up along lines they knew would be more comfortable and patronizable for the ruling militant forces.
____________________

brihaspati ->

Theo ji,
I am genuinely curious : looking for concrete examples of manifest "secularism" in other countries, periods, as well a sIndia. Second looking for proof as to how exclusivism in religions have led to their "downfall" - in measurable terms.

____________________

brihaspati ->

matrimc ji,
for me personally, freedom of thought and speech takes paramount importance, for the history of human civilizational "progress" [again perhaps a debatable value] in terms of understanding and using the environment/nature/earth in knowledge terms is crucially linked to the two above. [Again there are perhaps citable contradictions, but they are rare].

The dogmatic creeds do not allow this, and not ony that, they have a built in targeted agenda of capturing state power with what is epitomized in the bald Leninist statement that all state formations are instruments of coercion. These ideologies/religions are not against the coercive nature and repression of the state per se - but they want to control it to repress those who do not belong to them, and try and eliminate all such non-their-religionists.

Given the trajectory of Islamic institutional infrastructural propagation and preservation of their textual doctrine of "expansion" and elimination, on the excuse that it is imply an unchallengeable, uncriticzable text - added to which is the dual deception of mumbling about the violent bits as "historical" or "weak sourced" [but never ever anti-islamic -so that when military strength is obtained the same memes will be applied as being very Islamic] when the military strength is still not there, as well as lying about long term intentions - I do not want to see an Islamic majority develop in India. There has been not a single exception to the rule that a Muslim majority region which was not conquered militarily by non-Muslims and its Islamic teaching/mullah manufacturing processes systematically crushed and dissolved - has preserved and/or not diminished non-Islamic cultures/thoughts/knowledge-systems/philosophies.

Islamic societies lose all inner or internal voices of criticism so crucial for "modernization" [again a debatable term - but lets say broadly - an attempted shift towards more of rational and science approaches to society instead of claims of everlasting dogmatic revelations by unchallengeable supra-human authorities].

Since I have not seen a single actual instance of "secularism" as being hinted at here - totally neutral, valueless, no-patronizing-religion state structure anywhere, geographically or in historical periods - [most are myths based on selective pushing of narratives aimed at whitewashing various Christian or Islamic regimes], I do think a debated, discussed, value system based on the "Hindu" is a good bet for preserving my freedom of thought and expression. Much better than the two imperialist ones now masquerading in India.

The other alternative is to have a debate on a common value system - to which all - Hindus, Christians, Muslim, Sikhs, Buddhists - theologians concur, or their "following" is okay with.

One way or the other - there will always be underlying values by which people, whether they be commons or ruling regimes and their organs of power - judiciary, executive etc, - who will fill up the gaps in practice never possible to cover by law books or the Constitution. The fight is over this underlying matrix of values - which has been cleverly and through sustained state sponsored educational campaigns, or legislative discretionary powers of interpretation, been made over to deconstruct Hinduism in such a way that leaves it open for predatory proselytization and eventual destruction, while jealously guarding and raising the image of the two imperialist ones.
____________________

brihaspati ->

matrimc ji,
Indian Constitution is only one part of the story of the issue of secularism in India. It contradicts itself on the question of attitudes towards religions, and in a way that is patently paralyzing for the state before any well coordinated imperialist manipulation of the system internally and externally. Which is exactly what has happened.

First it does not propose any independent set of values on which to measure or evaluate religious claims.

Second, it does not provide a fall-back or default option when religious values are insufficient or contradictory.

Third, it relies on terminology and phrases that are not always formally mappable to well defined concepts or are unambiguously constructable sub-concepts.

Its shows the irony that might result when Indians had tried to think like the British born incarnation-aspirants of Roman imperialism, based on a regurgituration of what had been taught as history by the British, desperately trying to find practical Indian memes and items that could be made to fit this fantasy.

____________________

Surasena ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Bji,

How can you change what some fool organization thinks. You can not fund it or avoid its message. Beyond that society has to be robust enough to deal with these things. You want to seal everything into a hermetic bubble where nothing bad is said or done. You want to censor what folks say or believe, when the reality is we can only deal with actions.

This is a secularism thread yet even this place has turned into a relentless whine about Christian this or that. Is Hinduism really that fragile? In my experience not so. The Catholics constantly try to convert Protestants, the pentecostals try to poach every person they can, the mormons try to convert everyone, the hare-krishna crowd are every where with their tracts, one of my cousins now follows someone called Adi-Da, incredibly I had a buddhist who tried to suck me in at a karate meet of all things. We all put up with this constant drone. The USA/UK is now 1% Hindu and rising. Everyone is adjusting. Why this constant kola-vari.

Did the USA give up 1/3rd of its land for a Muslim nation without population exchange & genocide of white Christians?

Did the USA have an anti Christian inquisition like the one Christians ran in Goa against Hindus for centuries or the prolonged and brutal colonial Christian British tyranny?

Does the USA have separate civil laws for Muslims, haj subsidy, constant terror attacks and riots by Muslims?

Does the USA have lakhs of white Christian refugees rotting in refugee camps for the last 20+ years after being ethnically cleansed from an entire state by Muslims like the Hindu Kashmiris?

How was the USA built?

By Christian extermination of Native Americans.

So what exactly is comparable between India and the USA?

A fraction of the shenanigans that Abrahamics pull regularly in India will get their butts kicked badly in the "oh so tolerant" USA if Muslims or Hindus pulled the same. Let Muslims demand and carry out a Partition of UK or US with ensuing genocide of Christians, see how many Muslims these great "adjusting" saints of USA & UK will leave alive after that.

A couple of riots like Bradford riots and "grooming" have led to formation of groups like the EDL, these are kids play when compared with what pious Muslims are doing to Hindus everyday in India.

Hindus should always bend over, adjust, tolerate any humiliation, this is the essence of secularism it seems. Thanks but no thanks.

Wonder how well Americans would "adjust" to a Hindu terrorist organization demanding "South Carolina for Sri Krishna" the way NSCN-IM demands "Nagaland for Christ".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 13:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - The Nemesis of India's Soft-Power

Cross-posting some posts from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread


RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Can you post the crux of the idea here and why you think that will work. I must warn you that you are up against a system that does not discriminate on the basis of Identity, vison, agenda or proposition. None of them matter.


Theo_Fidel ji,

the crux of the idea is that India is simply not any x,y,z country which should play neutral in a war (competition) of other civilizations which are keen on making India a theater for proxy wars. As the mother civilization of many others which came later on, as the dominant civilization just a thousand years ago, as a civilization which once represented a third of the world GDP, as a civilization which basically wrote the book on scientific thinking, excelling in Maths, Astronomy, Medicine, Metallurgy and Textile Industry among other things, Bharat has the right to be counted as a civilizational pole in its own right!

Islam is the aggressive ideology of the Islamic Civilization nurtured by Ummah. Christianity is the aggressive ideology of the Western Civilization along with Western Universalism nurtured by the West. Mandate of Heaven and Mao-Marxism are the aggressive strategies of the Sinic Civilization nurtured by China.

If Bharat has to stand up and be counted as a civilizational pole, Bharat cannot play shy and neutral. Secularism not only does not allow us to project Bharatiya Sabhyata with it full soft power across the world, but it also smothers our huge reserve of soft-power - our Sanskriti with time at home by denying any state support to it.

The discrimination in India among the "religions" comes simply from the fact that Islam in India is being fully supported by Ummah - the Islamic Civilization, and Christianity is being fully supported by the West - the Western Civilization, but Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism if you wish) receives support from no quarter in the world. From that perspective Secularism in India is useless because it cannot work. The playing field is not level.

Even in practice external pressure from other countries (Ummah and West) on the GoI and internal pressures due to tactical vote-bank politics ensure that other "religions" would receive preference from the Indian State.

The "Identity, Vision, Agenda and Proposition" do not matter if India is to be only the theater for proxy civilizational wars after the local civilization has been finished. However if India wishes to stand up and be counted as its own civilizational pole, then these are of the utmost importance, and the fact that secularism does not allow that, as per your own words, secularism is simply not in our national interests.

Each citizen has a right to choose his or her own path of Moksha or Salvation, including those proposed by our rival civilizations, even as we are aware that these paths are simply tools for their imperialistic outreach. This freedom is given simply because Dharma allows it. However a minority of such citizens eager to suckle on milk of these rival civilizations have no right to deny Bharatiya Civilization her place in the Sun!

____________________

RajeshA ->

amit wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Secularism not only does not allow us to project Bharatiya Sabhyata with it full soft power across the world, but it also smothers our huge reserve of soft-power - our Sanskriti with time at home by denying any state support to it.


Since we are charting new territory by manufacturing new definitions one would certainly like to know what is meant by "Bharatiya Sabhyata"? Is that code language for Hindu proselytizing activities? Or does it mean a literal translation of Sabhyata that is culture?


In my view, one could translate these terms approximately as Sanskriti ~ culture and Sabhyata ~ civilization. Sanskriti is the product. Sabhyata is the process.

Sabhyata includes history, ethnicity, geography, identity. It relates to the churning which produced the Sanskriti. But through Sanskriti, the Sabhyata expands to other geographies and ethnic groups, often inviting others to be a co-traveler on the common journey, thus integrating them into the common Sabhyata! A Sabhyata decides a concrete evolutionary origin for itself and uses this at its anchor. This anchor can be some personality, some event, some geography, some ethnic identity, some book, some revelation, a certain mythology or some other icon!

Sanskriti includes language, philosophy, spiritual techniques, political models, ethics, scientific knowledge, technology, literature, aesthetics, designs, dance forms, art forms, sanskaras, customs, shastras, etc.

So Sabhyata produces Sanskriti and Sanskriti helps Sabhyata expand, and thus in a way Sanskriti also creates Sabhyata!

Since Sanskriti helps the Sabhyata expand, of course according to the Sabhyata-Sanskriti model, a Sabhyata would do its utmost to encourage, to develop and to enrich Sanskriti and to intensify and to extensify Sanskritic dissemination.

Since Panth-Nirpekshta is the credo of a Dharmic Rashtra, of course the Rashtra would not be favoring some particular Panth. One can compare it with industry. It is in the interest of a country that the exports rise, but it would not try to favor one car maker over another in exporting. What the state would do is to help build a financial and logistical infrastructure, based on which the local exports are competitive in the external market and from which all exporters of cars can profit. That is udhyog-nirpekshta. At the same time even in the internal market, a country would want that its own cars are competitive and sold. Similarly a Sabhyata would try to give across-the-board support to its own Sanskriti both within and without without showing preference to a particular Panth.

amit wrote:
If it is the latter, then question arises is what is Bharatiya culture if not an amalgamation of various cultures of people who have come to India over the centuries and settled here and assimilated? Is the tribal dances of Advasis in Orissa - who are some of the oldest inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent the true representation of Indian culture? Or is it Bharat Natayam or is it Ghazals? Are Hindi films which are popular all over the world a representation of Indian culture? (I once saw a Amitabh-Rajesh movie while cruising down the Nile!).


Bharatiya Sabhyata does not need to try to fit itself into some neat homogenized box. The gradual fusion of Bharat's various people and their customs and culture is the story of Bharatiya Sabhyata. The beauty of Bharatiya Sanskriti is that the various streams merged to become part of the overall Bharatiya Sanskriti through a process of sturdy philosophical blending and mythological interweaving and as such there was harmony. If there wasn't then the philosophers, our Gurus and Acharyas, our national integrators have pursued the process until there was. Adivasis and their culture are part of the Sanskriti we call ours, we call Bharatiya.

But at the same time one needs to acknowledge the historical cultural influences that penetrated India from outside, ideologies and customs which had a different history-centric bases.

These too have left their imprints on the Indian cultural landscape. There are aspects of these influences which have been able to create some sort of fusion with preexisting Bharatiya Sanskriti, notably in language, music, perhaps in architecture. We call this syncretism.

This is the region of overlap between Bharatiya Sanskriti and say Islamic culture.

Similarly we have had an inflow of Western ideas, Western technology, etc. These too we have merged with our national life. But even as one may think these have their origin in Western Civilization and Bharatiya Sanskriti may not have contributed to it overtly, we should not forget that without India's contribution in language (Indo-European), linguistics (Pāṇini, etc.), mathematics (through the Arabs), astronomy (Georgian Calendar via Kerala School of Mathematics), technologically (something what the British transplanted from Bharat to Britain) and with India as a market, Western Civilization may not have picked up and become what it is today. So from Bharatiya PoV, even all this product is a fusion of two cultures. Thus there is also an overlap between Bharatiya Sanskriti and Western culture.

Now all these overlaps are simply just that - overlaps.

Because these overlaps exist, it does not mean Bharatiya Sanskriti should give up its identity as something originating within the Bharatiya Sabhyata.

And also just because Bharatiya Sabhyata should push for Bharatiya Sanskriti it does not mean the agenda should be to finish off all historical external influences from Bharat.

Other cultures in India can coexist with Bharatiya Sanskriti in India and perhaps enrich it too.

But today in India there are cultures which have not syncretized with Bharatiya Sanskriti and thus cannot even be called overlaps of two cultures allowing Bharatiya Sanskriti to claim some ownership of it. All these cultural influences do not represent Bharatiya Sanskriti.

All this however does not change the proposition that the primary responsibility of Bharatiya Sabhyata is to push for intensification and extensification of Bharatiya Sanskriti.

amit wrote:
But the more important question is, who gets to decide what represents true Bharatiya Sabhyata and what doesn't? Who has the final say and why? And even if we were to decide that only Hindus - that is those who haven't been tainted by pesuo-secularism - get to decide what Sabhyata represents true Bharatiya Sabhyata, is there a full consensus on this? And if there is who is this group? Remember one problem here is that Hinduism unlike Christianity or Isam is a very decentralised religion and every single Hindu has power to decide.

Postscript: The fallacy that I see here is that the same deductive Western style reasoning that is being criticised is being used to fine tune what represents true Bharatiya Sabhyata. The same for Secularism where everybody knows what a pesudo-secularist is but nobody seem to able to agree on what true Secularism is.


I hope the above Rashtra-Sabhyata-Sanskriti model was able to answer your questions.

____________________

RajeshA ->

amit wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
I hope the above Rashtra-Sabhyata-Sanskriti model was able to answer your questions.


But then as you said, Sabhyata is not a static concept, rather it is something which is constantly evolving and imbibing new concepts and moulding them into one whole, much like how a protozoa ingests its food and makes it a part of itself. Rather than becoming like the food it eats.


Basically Sabhyata would imbibe external cultural content wholesale, making it part of the overall Sanskriti, when the external entity (area, people) have been integrated into the Sabhyata definition.

For example, should Bharatiya Sabhyata extend to Australia, then after some time of cultural, philosophical, linguistic and mythological interweaving and blending, the Aboriginals may accept themselves as part of the larger Bharatiya Sabhyata. Just an example.

Rajiv Malhotra may call this digestion, however in this digestion, except for a separate peer identity, everything is kept intact. The native culture is preserved.

Also if an external civilization is thrust upon us, as was the case of Islamic and Western, then too there would be portions which would be syncretized. These would be overlap cultural expressions. These expressions are however the positive part of the news. The other part where the other civilization completely overwrites Bharatiya Sanskriti and Bharatiya Sabhyata in whole geographical swathes of Bharatvarsha or converts large segments of our population deracinating and alienating them completely from Bharatiya Sanskriti (lifestyle) and Bharatiya Sabhyata (civilizational identity), that is the bad news.

So in such an aggressive environment of civilizational rivalry, what do we do with the "good part" - the overlap of cultural expressions.

Some civilization may decide to completely erase such expressions or at least to withdraw any civilizational support from them leaving their survival to fate. Such voices are raised among Hindus as well - what to do with Urdu Shayri, Ghazals, Qawali, Mughal Architecture, Bollywood Khan Movies.

I think we should allow these overlap cultural expressions as Bharatiya Syncretic Culture, but these do not become part of Bharatiya Sanskriti.

Indian Rashtra can also support these expressions and include these as part of our over Soft-Power out of pragmatic reasons, for our outreach to the West Asia and North Africa, or even to keep Islamicized Indian Subcontinent still hooked. One can call it Reverse-Sufism. The advantage is that it brings the target audience closer to accepting Bharatiya Sanskriti as well. So it is a tool.

However we should be clear - overlap cultural expressions (syncreticisms) are not core of Bharatiya Sanskriti and expansion of Bharatiya Sabhyata in the end means fusion of the other culture with the core Sanskriti. It is Core Sanskriti that we wish to push into the world.

amit wrote:
However, all that is moot. If we accept that Sabhyata that we have today has elements - benign ones as you say - that it has incorporated from outside influences, then, coming back to your original point which I pointed out, how does Secularism not allow us to project Bharatiya Sabyata with its full soft power across the world?

Again it all boils down to what we mean by Secularism.


Secularism as it is today understood, it is founded in British India where there was allegedly equal distance from the British masters to their subjects both of Bharatiya Sabhyata and Islamic Civilization, in other words to Hindus and Muslims.

Republic of India is trying to preserve this equidistance. Since India cannot consider it as part of the Islamic Civilization and espouse it wholeheartedly as Pakistan is doing, it also refuses to don the mantle of Bharatiya Sabhyata to preserve the equal distance.

Thus the only culture left for Republic of India to use as soft power is the syncretic variant - Taj Mahal, Ghazals, etc.

One would say that is not correct, India has been in the forefront promoting our "Bharatiya Sanskriti" as well. That is also true, but basically it is all kept at a very superficial level with the focus staying only on aesthetics. Republic of India uses aspects of Bharatiya Sanskriti simply as a colorful calling card for Tourism.

The whole potency of Bharatiya Sanskriti which made it the defacto culture in much of Southeast Asia, in East Asia and elsewhere is completely missing. Republic of India has used none of our philosophical and spiritual strength present in Bharatiya Sanskriti as our sword, the same way Ummah uses Islam, West uses Western Universalism and Christianity, China uses Mandate of Heaven and Marx-Maoism.

Republic of India does not do so because RoI does not embrace Bharatiya Sabhyata as its foundation but rather chooses to look itself historically as the successor of British India.

Were Republic of India willing to embrace Bharatiya Sabhyata, India would become Bharat, and as Bharat, India would again become a competitive civilization willing to use all her Sanskritic assets to fashion the world in our image and to sit at its peak! This mission is otherwise known as making the world Āryā.

Tragically Secularism also does not want Bharatiya Sabhyata because after all that is also the root of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, so wouldn't embracing Bharatiya Sabhyata also mean support for all these "religions". And such idiotic thinking has sapped away the strength of our civilization and our nation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 13:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - All Power, No Responsibility

Cross-posting some posts from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread


RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
As I said lets stop beating around the bush folks and say what you want.


Those not pledged to Bharatiya Sabhyata should have no voice in determining Bharat's past, present or future!

____________________

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel wrote:
But I'm assuming some sort of dis-enfrancising people is being proposed. What you are saying is my way or the highway.


You are correct! I am proposing disenfranchisement. Everything in the world requires qualification. If one is not qualified, how can one demand being franchised.

And so, franchise derives from one's pledge to the nation! And this is how our nation is defined:

Article I of the Constitution of India

starts off as

Quote:
PART I
THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY

    Name and territory of the Union.—
  1. India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
  2. The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
  3. The territory of India shall comprise—
    1. the territories of the States;
    2. the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
    3. such other territories as may be acquired.


India is Bharat. Period.

India is the name, but it states it refers to Bharat. Bharat is the essence.

Bharat has a history, and it goes back thousands of years. It constitutes the Bharatiya Sabhyata (~ Indian Civilization).

So if one cannot pledge oneself to serving it, what right does one have of being "franchised"?

The Constituent Assembly Debate on the name for the country!

____________________

RajeshA ->

Theo_Fidel,

Nobody is imposing disenfranchisement.

It is something in everybody's hands. It is a criteria-based approach. It is not based on birth. It is not based on religion even, or any other such factor. Simply based on a pledge and a minimal civilizational awareness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 13:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
My apologies if I have not categorized and cross-posted all posts from the Secularism thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 May 2013 18:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Online Books

Image

Pakistan or The Partition Of India
By Dr. Babasaheb Bimrao Ramji Ambedkar
Publication Date: 1946

The book presents some of Ambedkar's views on Muslims among other things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 02:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - Antivirus

Cross-posting from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread


amit wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
The Macaulayite education and system as well as the ghetto isolation is what is stopping this immersion! Once the immersion is there, only then one can look into it whether the hardware is still infected or whether the virus has been quarantined.

Infected hardware don't get a veto on this.


Rajesh ji,

Interesting concept and use of simile.

But I wonder, who is going to supervise, conduct as well as monitor this "immersion" process? Are you thinking of some kind of Religious Police, er, I mean Dharmic Police/Supervisor force? What is going to be the measure of this immersion process and its progress? I take it will be a process driven with Ahimsa but what if the Abramanic religions respond to this Dharmic way with violence? What then?

For the sake of your (and other's) vision of Dharmic Secularism, I really think you'd need a Minority Affairs Minister who will have to work in close collaboration with a Religious Affairs Ministers - and both would need to have Cabinet Rank to ensure smooth decision taking. Only then we can have true Secularism.

And since this can't be a overnight affair (in fact I would humbly suggest it would be a decades long affair) how will we conduct the country in the interim?

And there's the small matter of dealing with the tainted Bharatiyas who have been brainwashed by the Christianist version of Secularism. A rocky road ahead. Many miles to go before we can sleep...

In short who will be the technicians who first ensure the hardware is disinfected and will then monitor the hardware to ensure it is no longer affected? Once unaffected who is going to install the firewall to ensure no future infection of the vulnerable hardware?

So many issues that need to be addressed!


amit ji,

I am not recommending some sort of education-reeducation camps in the style of the Chinese.

The six most used tools of brainwashing, I would say, are desperation, fear, reward, grievance, pride and attention satiation! Whereas desperation comes from the target individual's current situation, fear and reward come from the ideology's memes, doctrine and rhetoric.

However grievance and pride come from the kind of history one is taught, with what focus one is taught and how one is taught!

My recommendation is to try to achieve a dominance in imparting of history to the child in India and thus to control his perception of grievance and pride, thus making him immune to a brainwashing attack on him. Furthermore through attention satiation the child may not have any time and energy left for other versions of history.

Basically my suggestion is to include a series of civilizational subjects which can be taught to all children and one makes passing examinations in these subjects as essential to finishing one's school education and thus becoming eligible for the job market!

If one has completed a minimal required level of civilizational education, the citizen can with 18 be requested to make his vows of allegiance to Bharatiya Sabhyata and Bharatiya Sanskriti as well as to the Nation, and then one can be considered as qualified for voting.

Mind you, the recommendation is for all Indians and not just those affiliated with the non-Indic religions in India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 02:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 1562
RajeshA wrote:
I would translate Sanskriti as ~culture and Sabhyata as ~civilization.


RajeshA: a humble suggestion to you and others. For most people, words like the above dont carry any meaning. Add to it other words like Hindutva, Indic etc. The level of knowledge of Sanskrit amongst the average Indian is pretty low. I know Rajiv Malhotra believes that many Sanskrit words lose their essence in the English translation. I dont doubt that, having learnt Sanskrit for several years.

However, whether we like it or not, we need to communicate our ideas/concepts in English and make the effort to identify English phrases that mimic the original meaning as closely as possible. Otherwise, the audience is limited.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 03:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Prem Kumar ji,

I do not agree fully. In rhetoric it is important to dominate the categories and force others to accept your terminology. The fact that the others may not fully be aware of one's terminology simply affords one a crucial additional window for initiating a conversation on the meaning, a conversation that could deepen and lead to some ability to influence.

Often using run-of-the-mill words do not have that much impact and these fail to capture the other's attention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 18:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Secularism - Hindu Ideological Disunity

Cross-posting from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

devesh wrote:
the greatest "assurance" that Secularists have is in "official data". the rules and definition of what is "official data" are also set by the Secularists in India. this is also the greatest weakness that anybody who doesn't subscribe to the regime sponsored kow-towing to certain religions has. after going through several posts over the past few pages, it looks like Hindus are damned to remain inactive until disaster strikes. to be honest, this is not a whine from me. it's a simple observation: there is too much dissent and no common unifying program or agenda. even the very existence of the common threat seems to be lost on most people. nothing can be done in this atmosphere. whatever will be done...will only come after the blinds are forcefully ripped off.


devesh ji,

the question is why is there Hindu disunity? Why are Hindus still buying this "Secularist" balderdash? What stops Hindus from coalescing around a nationalist position.

Of course there are vested interests, there are constituencies that have been bought over through incentives. However is there any psychological-philosophical-ideological-political reason why so many have succumbed?

The national debate has been monopolized by certain sections who have conveniently positioned themselves on all three sides of any issue!

The "Secularists" want to show that they form the mediating center between two extremes. That is where the power lies. Anybody who wants to adopt the center mediating position has to push everybody else to the extreme.

How would one do it, especially in a country of Hindus who are in general tolerant and form 83% of the population.

  • Encourage Islamic Extremism again in India after Hindus had thought they had kicked it over to Pakistan. This forms one extreme. The more extreme and dangerous this position is, the more it allows the Center to move in that direction.
  • Tarnish Hinduism and create an artificial Hindu Right. Anybody speaking in the name of Hindutvavad, which is nothing other than Hindu nationalism are termed Far Right.
  • Through NCERT education, by marketing an intellectual midget as "Tall Founding Father" or rather Chacha, by getting pats on the back by the "international community", a captive media, one creates a new center, which can market an ideology "secularism" which is the only viable ideology and which can keep the "Loony Fringes" apart. For this the threat and fear from Islam has to remain palpable.

This is the "Secularist" positioning!

That is how the "Secularist" bandwagon has tried to push the Hindu center out and take its position.

The question arises why would the Hindus really allow this? And so we come to the mystery of Hindu disunity!

Of course, Jātivad has played a major role in this, but the question really is why has there hardly been much of an exposition of this "Hindu" ideology, of Hindutva. Sure one hears a lot about the word but apart of Jayaswal, Savarkar, Goel, Swarup and some others, not many have come forward to articulate this position.

The Hindutvavad's ideological exposition has remained underdeveloped. In fact it has been overwritten by the RJB imagery. Was it planned to be overwritten? RJB in parallel to the Hindutvavad narrative would have been great, but overwriting it has almost finished off Hindutvavad.

One would expect that the leadership of the Hindus would come from Hindu intellectuals - the Chanakyas, the Brahmin community, who would formulate and debate issues of national importance. The Hindus expect the Brahmins to take a lead in telling us how to do our Dharma, how to build Bharat, how to get rid of the Asuric scourges.

Of course we would get such leadership from them also, but there are simply too many of them who have entrenched themselves in a system which works to undermine the national cause.

On the one hand we have Marxist fortresses in India replete with Brahmins, and they are carrying out full ideological attack on Hindutvavad. It is extremely disconcerting, disorienting, dissonant to see some Brahmins carrying out an ideological war against Hindus. The head has difficulty in getting around this idea.

Then one has Brahmins in leadership position in the VHP. Now that is to be expected. But this leadership too has focused the whole movement around Bhakti and temples, and taken a political position of being anti-Muslim, anti-Chrisitian without undertaking the necessary preparatory work of analysis and deconstruction of Islam and Christianity.

So on both ends of the spectrum, one has intellectual vacuum.

What is more troubling is the phenomenon where the Brahmins on both sides of the aisle try to assert their predominance in matters of religion. The Marxist Brahmins do so by trying to tell the historically oppressed Jātis that Sanatan Dharma is not worth indulging in, telling them it is better to become a Marxist atheist or to convert to Christianity and Islam, rather than take ownership of the Vedas. The VHP Brahmins do the same by keeping as much of the leadership within their own ranks without causing too many ruffled feathers, which to me explains why they have allowed the deracination of Hindus, why they have not tried cultivating people from other Jātis into their fold and spreading Dharma to the people, in much the same active way, as Mullahs and Priests are doing. Sure they do it, but the effort is minimal.

What this has allowed is that a numerically small minority could determine the parameters of the debate and the debate has been kept away from Savarkarite Hindutvavad. The Brahmins in each camp have actually fed the influence of the Brahmins in the opposite camp. And between them remains mutual respect and accommodation. One can understand that the previous loss of prestige and authority over the people, e.g. say during the Islamic and British rule, may have caused them to look at other ways to retain their influence, but is that needed today?

The fact that the people involved are Brahmins, it gives them inordinate level of respect from the aam Hindus. When Marxist Brahmins piss upon Sanatan Dharma, aam Hindus start thinking there must be something to it, as why would otherwise a Brahmin piss upon his own religion, of which he should be an intellectual authority. VHP Brahmins receive respect simply because they at least are looking out after our cultural and spiritual treasure. So their utterances too determine the people's mood.

I call the root of the problem Gotravadic Chhal (गोत्रवादिक छल). Yes, I duly apologize to all who may feel being attacked. That is not my aim.

What the Gotric Brahmins need to understand is that Hindus need real leadership and not some stupid debate around Secularism nor singular focus on Bhakti, and that they should rethink their obsessions and loyalties to their movements. If they don't rise to the occasion, then others would. Jātivad has to end and they should look for political power through nationalistic means.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 18:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Establishing the Supremacy of Motherland and Revered Land

Cross-posting from the "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

Atri wrote:
Start considering India as motherland and revered land and one becomes Hindu.. Nothing else matters.

This is in itself, secularism. Anyone who considers himself as above, he irrespective of his personal spiritual path is a Hindu. And only such Hindus should be allowed to bear offices and allowed to Vote.


Fully agree with the sentiment.

Considering Bharat as motherland and revered land can only happen if Indians go through intellectual and emotional immersion into Bharatiya Sanksriti and Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Intellectual immersion can be ensured through a school education program which gives one sufficient logic training and knowledge to withstand all brainwashing attempts from Western, Islamic or Sinic sources. One's intellect needs to be coated with slickly oil in such a way, that Islam, Western Universalism, Marxism, Post-Modernism, Consumerism, Fascism, Macaulayism, Dhimmiism, etc. have severe difficulty to get any foothold on the individual's intellect. Education should anchor one to the Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Emotional immersion may come or may not come, one cannot really control it.

Without a successful examination in Bharatiya Sabhyata and Sanskriti nobody should be considered as having passed 12th class or be accepted in higher education in India.

That would ensure that nobody not immersed can apply for any decent job in India.

Secondly only those who have passed the examination and taken a pledge to protect Bharatiya Sabhyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti and Bharatiya Rashtra should be given the right to vote or to stand as candidate!

Closed economic opportunities and loss of political power would be sufficient incentive for people to make Bharat their motherland and revered land.


Last edited by RajeshA on 22 May 2013 13:29, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 18:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14956
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
RajeshA garu,

The gotravadi brahmin problem can be solved only thru education. Education of masses in Indic thought process. Now Hindus are becoming prosperous and are willing to spend money to give their children right education. This is where the change has to come.

Slowly but surely parents and children are getting tired of the modern, competitive education methods that are in practice today. Next five years offer a great opportunity for Indics if they want to do anything substantial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 19:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
RamaY ji,

Marxist Gotravadis would try to discredit the new movements emerging in Sanatan Dharma outside the influence of Gotravadis, where Sanatan Dharma has been kept in stasis, on a low burn, without any dynamism.

One notices their hostility to Baba Ramdev, a Ahir and towards Swamy Nithyananda, I believe also from a less privileged Jāti.

The effort should be to get these strayed "Brahmins"/Dvijas/Gotrics on board and push them to become active again in bringing Sanatan Dharma to the masses, and not just as Bhakti, but also as Jñāna and Samaj Seva. They should take on the challenge to strengthen the foundations of Bharatiya Sanskriti, Sabhyata and Rashtra, instead of jealously guarding their dwindling legacy influence or as Marxists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 May 2013 19:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14956
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
RajeshA garu,

Slowly but surely the Gotravadi brahmins are getting sidelined. Next 10-15 years are sandhikalam. We will see more and more internal turmoil within Hinduism. I have a strong feeling that what comes out of it would be better for our civilization.

This transformation would have been inclusive and fast paced if the national education system is indic driven. But with opening up of education system for private organizations (which was not easy before) is bringing back the education system back in to Hindu control.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2013 03:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36
Posts: 4670
Location: My mind is slower than molasses going uphill on crutches
RajeshA wrote:
Bharatiya Sanskriti Studies
<snip>
[list=1]
[*] Sanskrit
[*] Bharatiya Philosophy,
[*] Dharma,
[*] Bharatiya Mythology,
[*] Itihaas (Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas),
...

I was under the impression that all these subjects taught in Indian schools today under some heading or the other. For example, when I was in school, we did learn Itihasas (M Bharatha and M. Bhagawata) in Telugu under Tikkana, Potana, some parts of history again in Telugu (under Srinatha) and Ramayana in Hindi from Tulasi Das. It would be impossible to understand the beauty of the poetry of Tikkana etc. unless the students have some inkling of the story (in case of the Itihasas) and Srinatha unless students have some inkling of historical events that are being described. Somehow we picked those up along the way - I can't say how but it seemed to have happened. Of course, some things else had to suffer - like intensive Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. IIT JEE requires knowledge of the first three in lot more depth than what was in the state vernacular syllabus, where as for JIPMER, AIIMS, Vellore, or other Med Entrance tests, the latter three.

Is it the case that in English medium convent schools vernacular languages are given a short shrift forcing students to source from Amar Chitra Katha? The comic book format can serve as a tool to spark interest but cannot be a replacement class room lecture/Q&A/home works/testing cycle.

It seems there are some deeper issues with our K-12 education which need to be fixed first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2013 03:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14956
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
Matrimc garu,

This days are long gone. We used to have these itihasas and epics as part of Telugu (that is how I learned the difference between Sanjaya/SriKrishna rayabaram, story of Bali and Vamana etc).

Nowadays "contemporary" poetry replaced most of these lessons. Contemporary poetry is often about the leftist and Dalitist perspectives.

Nothing wrong if they were in additions to itihasa stories but they are mostly replacements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2013 04:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36
Posts: 4670
Location: My mind is slower than molasses going uphill on crutches
^ RamaY garu, there may be ways to fix this by taking a leaf from the west. There is a lot of fiction (usually under YA and SF&F) in English that is based on Greek/Norse/Roman/xtian mythology. We need fiction in that genre in all Indian languages including English. For example, my interest was sparked in sciences through the books of Dr. Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao and (his father) Mahidhara Rammohana Rao when I was 13 yr old. For history, I read several of Telugu historical novels including Vishwanatha. I was reading about Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao on Wikipedia which mentions that none of these books are in print today. What we have are pale imitations of Frederick Forsythe ("Dabbu to the power Dabbu" is an exact copy of No Comebacks for example) or other popular English authors.

Technology should be used not only for entertainment but for a little more intellectual development and sparking of interest in a wider variety of subjects for all (especially kids) than simply preparing for IIT JEE.

Added later: Just a quick correction - Mahidhara mostly wrote books popularizing science, specifically astronomy, as RamaY said below. The above is para of mine is giving an impression that he wrote YA, SF&F, and historical (not alternate history) fiction. The point I wanted to make was that there is a dearth of material in all these genres as well as non-fiction in general science, maths, and history.


Last edited by matrimc on 23 May 2013 02:29, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2013 05:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14956
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
^ True.

Especially Sri Mahidhara wrote some wonderful science books in the field of astronomy etc.

I think the need of the hour is to come up with a private university that provides quality Indic education while offering exceptional scientific education/temperament.

This is a 500-1000 crore enterprise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2013 13:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Bharatiyata Criteria for Islam

There are voices among Bharatiyas that say Abrahamic Religions should relent on their claims of Exclusive Monotheism. I don't agree with this view. I don't think it is needed. After all one should be allowed to believe anything one wants. Indian Constitution gives one the right of freedom of conscience (think).

That is I believe not the fundamental grudge between Hindus and say Islam.

What should Bharatiyas be expecting of the Muslim community in India? What is it that we need from them?

  1. Peace
  2. Identification with and Allegiance to Bharat
  3. Acceptance of Rashtra founded on Raj Dharma
  4. De-ghettoization and Integration with the Hindu Mainstream
  5. Doctrinal and Financial Autonomy from Coreligionists outside India.


1. What is Peace?

The point is "You cannot be part of Bharat and be at war with Bharatiyas or for that matter Hindus and their religion and culture". Healthy competition of worldviews is welcome. Even potential Jihad is unacceptable.

What "Secularists" in India are trying to sell to the Hindus is that any day when some Indian Islamic does not attack a Hindu is a sign of Islam's intrinsic peaceful nature.

This does not fly as peace! What Bharatiyas want is that even the last vestiges of any doctrinal sanction or memetic tendency needs to be completely uprooted.

There can be absolutely no Islamic religious literature which exerts any form of influence or authority on the Muslim masses which espouses any form of hatred or violence (Jihad, intimidation) onto them! All such mentions need to be removed from any copies of these materials - print or digital. Furthermore all Islamic sites which do not have a "Peaceful Coexistence Certificate" from some Indian state authority, should be considered banned and blocked, and they alone should be responsible for the content - editorial, syndicated or user-generated.

The whole material needs to be sanitized of all references of hatred and violence. Only abridged and sanitized Islamic texts should be permitted to those who ascribe to Islam. Possession of unabridged and unsanitized versions can be allowed only to researchers after proper background checks. Otherwise such possession should constitute a criminal offense and waging war against the Rashtra.

Furthermore no Mullah or Madrassa teacher or their associates and family shall be allowed to discuss or teach portions of Islamic texts which are considered removed. Generally they should try to talk out the Muslim from referencing this material.

Also no media outlet in India whose main readership are Muslims and editorial board is mainly Muslim should be either printing or discussing this objectionable material or carrying any messages and speeches of prominent Islamic preachers in other countries who speak of Jihad or hatred towards Bharatiyas.

Also any Islamic in India advocating hatred or violence against Hindus should be convicted and heavily fined.

No excuse that this material has divine sanction and thus is untouchable should be entertained.

Only if this happens, can one start speaking of Islamics being willing to have peace with Hindus. Of course this needs to be checked on the ground.

2. Identification with and Allegiance to Bharat

Quoting what I had written earlier on this.

RajeshA wrote:
Considering Bharat as motherland and revered land can only happen if Indians go through intellectual and emotional immersion into Bharatiya Sanksriti and Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Intellectual immersion can be ensured through a school education program which gives one sufficient logic training and knowledge to withstand all brainwashing attempts from Western, Islamic or Sinic sources. One's intellect needs to be coated with slickly oil in such a way, that Islam, Western Universalism, Marxism, Post-Modernism, Consumerism, Fascism, Macaulayism, Dhimmiism, etc. have severe difficulty to get any foothold on the individual's intellect. Education should anchor one to the Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Emotional immersion may come or may not come, one cannot really control it.

Without a successful examination in Bharatiya Sabhyata and Sanskriti nobody should be considered as having passed 12th class or be accepted in higher education in India.

That would ensure that nobody not immersed can apply for any decent job in India.

Secondly only those who have passed the examination and taken a pledge to protect Bharatiya Sabhyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti and Bharatiya Rashtra should be given the right to vote or to stand as candidate!

Closed economic opportunities and loss of political power would be sufficient incentive for people to make Bharat their motherland and revered land.


3. Acceptance of Rashtra founded on Raj Dharma

It is of course the Bharatiya endeavor to move the foundations of Constitution of India from its British framework onto an Indic dharmaarthik framework, onto Raj Dharma.

Raj Dharma should become lens through which we should make our laws and policies.

Islamics in India would have to accept the primacy of Raj Dharma in India. This acceptance would have to be expressed explicitly when it comes to having One Law for All Indians, i.e. there would have to be a Uniform Civil Code. Issues of Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance, Domestic Violence, various rights, etc. would have to move from Muslim Personal Law to the Uniform Civil Code.

The Indian State has responsibilities towards all its citizens and the Muslim Personal Law cannot take precedence over this responsibility.

4. De-ghettoization and Integration with the Hindu Mainstream

This means the Rashtra would have to intervene here and increase its presence in such Ghettos as well as of willing Hindus.

The promotion of Bharatiya Sanskriti is a responsibility of a Dharmic Rashtra. As such all Hindus who are willing to move into officially recognized Muslim neighborhoods, and be Ambassadors of Bharatiya Sanskriti in such neighborhoods. Such Hindus should be accorded extra security and be given stipends for their courage and willingness to work for national integration.

In the end the more Indian Muslims feel aligned with Bharatiya Sabhyata and Bharatiya Sanskriti, the more they would be able to integrate in the nation's political, economic and social mainstream.

5. Doctrinal and Financial Autonomy from Coreligionists outside India.

Please check:

Law for Restricting of Foreign Funding for Religious Purposes in India


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 May 2013 18:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 14956
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
On a related topic...

Yesterday TRS leader KCR made an interesting comment on the Hindu sampradaya related to "Mangalasutra". He suggested that this is not a vedic tradition but something started after Ghazni Muhammed's invasions on Hindu India.

However Wiki says this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalsutra
Quote:
The significance to the Mangalsutra was first given by Adi Shankara in his famous book Soundarya Lahari. According to Hindu cultural ethos, mangalsutra symbolizes the inseparable bond between a husband and a wife. During the wedding ceremony, the bridegroom ties the mangalsutra to the neck of the bride uttering- “May you live long by wearing this sacred Mangalsutra, the reason of my life”. Married women are entitled to wear Mangalsutra throughout their life as it is believed that the practice enhances the well-being of her husband and family. It is also considered that the mangalsutra protects the marriage from any evil. Three knots symbolize three different aspects of a married woman - the first knot represents her obedience to her husband, the second to his parents and the third represents her respect for God.


We all know that Adi Samkara lived before Islamic invasions into Bharat both based on western-dating as well as Indic-dating (which puts the date many centuries before the western-dating).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2013 02:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36
Posts: 4670
Location: My mind is slower than molasses going uphill on crutches
RamaY wrote:
^ True.

Especially Sri Mahidhara wrote some wonderful science books in the field of astronomy etc.

I think the need of the hour is to come up with a private university that provides quality Indic education while offering exceptional scientific education/temperament.

This is a 500-1000 crore enterprise.


One book I specifically remember is "ksheera sAgaram" (about the Milky Way - our galaxy). Another book I read (may be by some other author or is it in the same book - do not remember now) which described in detail all the nucleo-chemical reactions that take place in different kinds of stars. Another v.v. famous scientist - Jayant Narlikar - has written SF books in the same vein as his colleague (his adviser?) Fred Hoyle. Both were nominated for a Nobel a couple of times for their work on the origins of the universe. One book of Narlikar I remember is "Black Holes and White Holes".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2013 10:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Bharatiyata Criteria for Foreign Religions in India (Cont.)

Cross-posting from Secularism in India - Boon or Bane Thread

Theo_Fidel wrote:
These very much are blasphemy type laws.
Censor your thoughts and words and we will come in later and decide if what you said was kosher or not.

There is a reason there are severe restriction on a secular state from taking such actions.


Theo_Fidel ji,

I did propose a law to allow both free speech as well as to define what constitutes blasphemy in Bharatiya view: Law for Promotion of Religious Harmony.

However I think, you are referring to something else here, and that is regarding the Rashtra to stop propaganda of religiously sanctioned violence and hatred upon the Hindus.

If you mean the later, then I really do not understand how you can equate the two. How can demanding from the other to stop propaganda of hatred and violence constitute blasphemy? If there verses in the Qu'ran extolling the Muslims to convert, to slay or to enforce jizya onto the Kufr, then how can abolishing such verses constitute blasphemy for the Hindus. If there are verses pouring scorn on idol-worshipers and promising them Hellfire, which constitutes hatred, then how can removing these verses constitute blasphemy for the Hindus?

It is one thing to say, something is Shirk, it is quite another to generate hatred and encourage violence against those who may fall under the category of Shirk, say the Hindus!

I do want to allow serious debate in society on religious issues. If Islam accuses Hindus of Shirk, then Hindus too should be allowed to make accusations on Islam, all in the spirit of healthy debate.

How can I be proposing blasphemy laws when I actually wish to encourage a healthy debate. But violence and hatred cannot belong in this mix for healthy debate. These parts need to be amputated from the body and banned.

Theo_Fidel wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
What I am asking for is the Rashtra to stop propaganda of religiously sanctioned violence and hatred upon the Hindus.


You are kidding right. Have you been to a recent election rally.

I was at one in 1996 or 1997 by the BJP in S.TN. About 1/3 the attendees were Christian per my estimate.
The speaker was from somewhere in the north and was pouring scorn on Christians of every make and stripe.
Folks scratched their heads, hindu relatives apologized to us, we all went and had some toddy later.

If you go to ThiMuKa rallies often times you will realize that a few hundred attendees are Brahmins. When KK goes off
on his ‘destroy the brahman’ rants we look at each other apologize to our Brahmin friends and move on.

I have often said that there is a deliberate and well funded effort to destroy relations between Hindu & Christian.
Probably the 2 most closely linked and inter-married groups in India. One must question who gains from this.

I can’t even imagine what goes on in those RSS type rallies but I’m sure muslims come for some special treatment.


Thanks for the interesting anecdotes.

In the thread "Understanding Islamic Society", ramana garu has introduced the model of the reptilian brain, abhischekcc ji adds

Quote:
It is not possible to communicate with the reptilian brain. This part of the brain is concerned only with self preservation, and perceive security as a zero-sum game in most circumstances. Its impulse is to grab power, its favored method of dealing with others is violence, and it finds solace in controlled hierarchies (either the hierarchy is imposed on others, or the person accepts the hierarchy imposed by the others).


The problem is that a siege mentality has been created in various communities - some due to the foreign invasions and ideological impositions on Indians and some due to the reactive violence due to aggrievement. This siege mentality is activating reptilian responses in various communities.

What I am trying to do is to take these grievances and trying to get these resolved at the neo-cortex level. For this one needs partners on both sides who are willing to understand the problem of the other. Instead these differences are being thrown up at the power-political level and are being dealt there, which is the last place these should be dealt at, for there the politicians would only try to widen the differences for their own politics.

For the Bharatiyas, what is important is that if natives wish to embrace foreign religions, then one needs to ensure
  1. that this embrace does not constitute alienation from Bharatiya Sabhyata (Indian Civilization) and Bharatiya Sanskriti (Indian culture) to which this nation is the heir,
  2. that the religion does not advocate war against those with native beliefs,
  3. that the foreign religion does not undermine the code of ethics and tolerance that has been the bedrock of the state in Bharat,
  4. that the foreign religion does not encourage the converts to seek segregation from the mainstream,
  5. that external powers are not able to exert undue influence on the natives via the medium of religion, and
  6. that for proselytizing no foreign funding, illegitimate methods, false propaganda and tricks are used.

The Bharatiya very well understand that those ascribing to foreign religions, the religious minorities of India do need security and that the right to freedom of religion - to profess, practice and propagate it should be maintained. The Bharatiyas believe in the same and believe in the same very deeply. This belief is anchored in the "Sarva Dharma Sambhava" and "Panth Nirpekshta". For that we do not need a European import: Secularism, born in a European historical and religious context.

However all this freedom needs to be qualified with the above-mentioned legitimate demands.

The Secularists however are contributing to the general siege mentality for political reasons. By not going in into these demands and ignoring them with a hand-wave, the Secularists too are pushing the differences into a conflict, pushing into the reptilian brain behavior.

The intention of the Bharatiyas is not to smother Christianity or to finish off Christians, as the Secularists are trying to convey to the Christian minority, and trying to project themselves as their saviors and defenders.

Theo_Fidel wrote:
As long as you are focused on foreign money, should we ban all the non-citizen NRI’s from sending money to their
Pet political cause all over India. How about the money someone like ISKCON raises in the US.
Last year the temple my wife goes to raiseD $200,000 for a religious rally somewhere in CI for which we contributed.
Should that be illegal.


Yes I do believe ALL foreign funding for religious activities in India has to stop. There should be NO funding of even "Hindu" causes in India, because even these can be hijacked. All funding for religious activities should be generated in India itself through legitimate means.

Theo_Fidel wrote:
This is India, people put up with a lot without complaining.
Ultimately we have to live next to each other and share the same toilet the next day.
All the frustration is taken out in extreme posturing and political point scoring.
Next day we all go to the same toddy shop.


Yes we have to live next to each other, in peace and friendship. That is why it is important that the "Secular" political parties are not allowed to misrepresent the demands of the Bharatiyas. That is why it is important that these demands not be ignored and muzzled. If that happens, then everything would start going into the reptilian brain behavior and peace would be a casualty.

Theo_Fidel wrote:
That said violence must stop.
And if the state does not intervene it is a governance issue and failure of governance.
Attack the state for being lazy and incompetent all you want.
Don’t attack its allegiance.


The Partition of India was a huge act of violence. I don't mean simply on the individuals. I mean it on the body of our civilization. The little acts of violence here and there are nothing compared to that scale of violence, where our mother was torn into three. That is a lesson on violence that we cannot forget.

The day-to-day violence can be attributed to the governance, but for that scale of violence one has to look beyond.

What secularism in India is doing is recreating the circumstances for a repeat of that kind of violence. By not wholeheartedly embracing our civilizational inheritance, we are in fact telling all such forces, that we are food, and they can prey on us. Secularism is just another way of saying - we do not stand for anything. And those who do not stand for something, fall for anything.

Secular India does not have any political-philosophical tools to stop Muslims from again demanding a separate "Homeland" in India where they can go about their religious and cultural needs. Secular India does not have any political-philosophical tools to stop some demands of separation coming up in South Tamil Nadu on the basis of say Christianity, of course conveniently camouflaged in Tamilian nationalism. All Secular India can speak for is "Geographical Unity" of the country, but it has no civilizational argument behind it. Even the opposition to the Two-Nation Theory stands on weak grounds in the hands of Secularists because the Secularists have no way of explaining why we are a Nation, except on the grounds of geographical contiguity. Even the Secularists then fall back on Sevarkarite definitions.

So Secular India does not have the tools to deal with civilizational level threats of violence and Secular India is allowing these threats to increase.

What is desirable is for Christians and Muslims to come forward and discuss these issues in earnest, at the neo-cortex level, and not allow everything to degenerate to the level of reptile brain responses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 May 2013 18:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Shri Narendra Modi inaugurates Lakulish Yoga University in Ahmedabad on May 23, 2013



Yoga is not only a way towards Rog Mukti but also towards Bhog Mukti: CM at inauguration of Lakulish Yoga University


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2013 09:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4270
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
Combined some recent points from BRF and puts this together:

Violence and Kshātra: War, Religion & Philosophy

Image

Quote:
It must be recognized that the religious commandment-philosophy of jihad is a very refined tool, indeed. It is not merely a childish, "irrational" eccentricity. Communist anarchists have a secret admiration for the ability of Islamist elites to mobilize "Koran rage" demonstrations across the planet. As the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have said, "If one can ride the Ego like a well-trained and blinkered horse, one will reach the goal very swiftly."

And that is true. But it is the other ingredients of training and of being human that make the difference between whether one is riding a horse or a tiger. Separating the means and the end is a big part of sanity. If Service is the end, then Conflict is only a means. In terms of varna, the kshatriya must always be trained to be strictly subordinate to the brāhmana limb of consciousness or society; never the other way around.

As per Swami Dayananda Saraswati's commentary (Arya Samaj), the Vedas say that a Complete Man (Arya) is one who has the following abilities:
1. Domesticate animals (and the animal within) to perform constructive works for nation-building,
2. Cook a delicious meal from a balanced assortment of natural ingredients for a mainly lacto-vegetarian diet,
3. Use weapons expertly in battle - not in rage, but channeled with the clinical intention of killing or repulsing the enemy who hates him,
4. Know the science and art of music, especially for Vedic chants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 May 2013 18:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Dharma-Yuddha vs Jihad (Cont.)

Agnimitra ji,

your blog posts are always an intellectual adventure park! :)

Some ideas on this from my side ...

Puruṣa and his Immune System

Before understanding the violence in Dharma, we should have a look at integral unity, something Rajiv Malhotra has spoken of. I think the grand model of unity among Dharmics is basically based on the Puruṣa as well as the Ātman-Paramatma equation.

At this highest level we do not differentiate between Dharmics and Adharmics, Ārya and Anārya, etc. All belong to Puruṣa. All are Ātman. We take the integral panentheistic approach.

So how would we understand violence within Puruṣa, the cosmic Man, the cosmic Consciousness?

If we consider Puruṣa as the Human Body, our ideal is to keep it healthy and as such so should our efforts be directed. That should be our Dharma, to keep Puruṣa healthy. Same is the case when we extrapolate Puruṣa to be Samaj (society) or Manavjāti (mankind). Our Dharma is to keep it healthy and to enable it to seek self-enlightenment, the unity with the higher Puruṣa.

In the Human Body too there is a lot of violence. Some violence belongs to its nature, e.g. the dying and regeneration of the human body cells. In mankind too, natural death and birth is part of the cycle.

Then there is the violence which tries to invade the system and to break the balance, which destroys the health. These are the pathogens. They make the human body sick. So too is the case with human society. There are ideologies, networks, groups and criminals bursting onto the scene trying to subvert the health of the Samaj and of Mankind. This violence is harmful.

To counter pathogens, the human body possesses an immune system. Just as Samaj too possesses one in terms of law and order, i.e. if man is able to organize himself into Samaj for that too can break down and then it is only a sea of humanity plagued by violence that derives from the lowest urges of man.

The violence sanctioned by Dharma is to heal the Puruṣa, to heal Humanity.

Dharmic violence is Puruṣa's immune system.

When Dharmics do violence we never forget that what we are trying to do is to heal the system, make it a better world, where Ātman can again rebuild its integrity and seek Jñāna. The violence is designed to keep the pain to Puruṣa to its minimum, and to not destroy its parts, when they can be saved. No undue hurt should be caused to the Puruṣa.

So the aim of Kshātra is clear - to save Puruṣa, to heal Puruṣa and to put it again on its path of Jñāna and Bhodi.

As such Kshātra has a huge responsibility and to fulfill it this immune system has to be robust, intelligent and discriminatory. But more importantly it has to always be successful. It cannot compromise on success.

This is the crux of Krishna's message to Arjuna on the battlefield of Mahabharata.

Underlining all the wars in Ancient Bharat for power and territory between any two Dharmic rajas, there always was the explicit code that it would remain a competition at the Kshatriya level, at the level of leadership, and the population should not suffer for it. Life among the populace went on normally regardless of any changes in the political set up and changes in administration, nor was there any significant effect on the religion of the people. The purpose of these wars, of this violence was to test Kshātra but not to harm the Puruṣa. In ways all this testing kept the quality of Kshātra high.

However when Adharma attacks the body of Puruṣa, then the Kshātra too has to unite and face the challenge. Then it becomes dharma-yuddha.

Even though Yuddha and Jihad may even be linguistic cognates, Islamic Jihad is based on totally different fundamentals. In Abrahamic religions, and Islam in particular, the duality, the lack of this concept of integral unity as well as its history-centrism revolving around the iconic Muhammad, means that violence instead of being the immune system is in fact the pathogen, and its service to a God, in the form of Allah, separated from His creation is basically a formalism without any philosophical foundation.

By making Jihad a sacrifice for Allah, rather than a healing for the Puruṣa, Jihad becomes a goal, an end rather than a function unlike Dharma-Yuddha.

Since Dharma-Yuddha cannot compromise on success and its strategy and tactics have to be based on the nature of the pathogen, we cannot restrict the kind of tactics one may use! Nor can we say that Dharma-Yuddha cannot be expansive in nature, for after all Puruṣa is universal. So I don't think we should necessarily be looking for differences with Islamic Jihad in this respect.

Only the philosophical approach of Dharma-Yuddha should be its one big constant!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 May 2013 04:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4270
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
RajeshA wrote:
Since Dharma-Yuddha cannot compromise on success and its strategy and tactics have to be based on the nature of the pathogen, we cannot restrict the kind of tactics one may use! Nor can we say that Dharma-Yuddha cannot be expansive in nature, for after all Puruṣa is universal. So I don't think we should necessarily be looking for differences with Islamic Jihad in this respect.

Only the philosophical approach of Dharma-Yuddha should be its one big constant!

This is very true. Bharateeyam has to develop its War culture in all its variegated forms. That includes the subculture of cavalier sacrifice, of subterfuge, of asymmetric attack, annihilation-without-reservation, etc. This also includes a war-cult cast in the mould of religion. This will not endanger the system too much because it is grounded in panentheistic worldview. Its utility is as in one thorn to remove another. The memes are already there, they just need to be reactivated and developed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 May 2013 11:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Agnimitra ji,

I would hope that some combat sports get popularity in India. Also I would hope some Shaolin type Kshatriya monasteries spring up in India but based around Sanatan Dharma teaching a combination of meditation, yoga, Sanskrit, Vedas and martial arts. We need both Samurai and Ninja traditions taking root in India though derived from our own ancient traditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 May 2013 16:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Image

Published on May 25, 2013
Sri Lanka monk protesting cow slaughter sets ablaze

Quote:
Colombo, May 25 (TruthDive): In the sacred city of Kandy, where remains of Buddha were kept in the Temple of Tooth, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk committed self-immolation today opposing cow slaughter.

Reports said that the monk identified as B. Indarathana Thero of Kahawatta expressed concern over slaughter of cattle and all of a sudden committed self-immolation dousing him with gasoline and set ablaze near the entrance of the temple Sri Dalada Maligawa .

The man was immediately rushed to hospital by policemen who doused the flame. The monk who set himself ablaze was transferred to Colombo National Hospital with 90 percent burn injuries. Police are looking for the man who gave the monk petrol to set on fire.

According to eyewitness, a few minutes before setting himself ablaze, the Sri Lankan monk raised a huge hue and cry protesting the slaughter of cattle. Sources said in wake of the celebration of Wesak, which marks the occasion with two days of holidays in Sri Lanka the monk protested against the slaughter of cattle.

A group of animal rights in Sri Lanka have been earlier protesting against meat eating seeking a ban, but went futile.. Following a protest by a number of Buddhists and their supporters, who even staged a rally to boycott halal-slaughtered meat as well as other products that carry a halal certificate, came the protest in the island.

Though eating meat has been common in Buddhist culture, killing animals is a sin according to the religion, said Sagarika Rajakarunanayake of Sathva Mithra. “At the same time taking one’s life is also not right,” said the social activist adding that this is also an evidence of many people displeased over the cruelty to animals.

The monks warned Buddhists not to eat food prepared according to Islamic rites. Since 2009, over 110 Tibetans have set themselves ablaze demonstrating against the Chinese domination in their homeland.


Self-Immolation or any other form of suicide is not to be condoned. However the strength of conviction of this monk is worthy of respect. He has focussed our attention on to the fact that cow-slaughter, i.e. slaughter of bos indicus, is against the culture and sensibilities of Bharatiya Sabhyata!

Each of us here may have a different view on dietary norms. Some may like to restrict their diet to lacto-vegetarianism. Others may be non-vegetarians. But most Bharatiyas would agree that the cow (bos-indicus) has a very special place in Bharatiya culture and cows should not be slaughtered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013 15:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Hindus and Bhrasht-Hindus

What we often see is that when something bad happens in India, everybody including many Indians start gunning for the Hindus. Often there is massive propaganda outside India as well, which targets Indians.

In discussions with Muslims, I have come across their efforts to put all that ails India at the doorstep of Hindus. Whenever there is a rape, then their propaganda is that it is the Hindus values which cause it. All the corruption taking place in India is also attributed to Hindu traits.

As such I would like to propose a new terminology: Hindus and BhraST-Hindus (भ्रष्ट-हिंदू). In the thread "Deracination - From What?" started by Atri garu, we have gone into symptoms and reasons for deracination. Also in the thread "An Indian sense of inadequacy and inferiority" started by shiv we have also gone into the psychology of Hindus. Also on the political side, we have a number of afflictions and group interests that are followed by Hindus which place them as opponents of Hindutva revival. These are

  1. Cultural Marxism (destroy majority culture and religion and bring atheism)
  2. Macaulayism
  3. Dhimmiism
  4. WKKism
  5. Yuppyism
  6. Gotravad
    1. Marxist Gotravad
    2. Secular Gotravad
  7. Sell-out-Posterism (Birth and Education background confers on someone the title of "defender of Dharma", which can be sold then to those who wish to undermine Dharma, so that the buyers can falsely claim that they are in support of Dharma)
  8. Guilt by Association (in case of "Higher Castes")
  9. Dalitism (alienation from classical culture, convinced by outsiders of its "oppressiveness")
  10. Crypto Islamo-Christianism
  11. Political Opportunism by Jātivadis
  12. Inertia in changing legacy political affiliation
  13. Denial of the Abject Failure of Gandhian Experiment in the form of Two-Nation Theory and Partition
  14. Protector Syndrome (Beta Rabbit assuring a pack of jackals to protect them from the teeming rabbits)
  15. Case of Mistaken Identity (in case of Hindus) who equate Secularism for "Sarva Dharma Sambhava" and "Panth Nirpekshta"
  16. Fear of political unrest and Jihad
  17. Not-Thought-Through-ism

Then we have Hindus who are swept by the pressures of criminality, corruption, nepotism, ego-centrism, etc.

This whole degeneration has taken place mostly as since the advent of Islam in the subcontinent, Hindus have been either needing to work under a foreign rule and have gone into defensive mode giving rise and emphasis to Jāti and group interests, or have seen others acting solely for their own interests and out of cynicism have adopted similar attitudes, or have seen their education systems and economies degraded.

Yes Hindus too have fallen from the high ideals. History and circumstances have led the Hindus there. Their motivations however for depraved behavior however are not arising from their Hindu identity or values.

Those Hindus who have not fallen to the lure of other foreign imperialistic ideologies but have fallen to decay, deracination and deprivation are Bhrasht-Hindus.

It is important to make the distinction between Bhrasht-Hindus and Hindus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013 17:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14030
Regionalism

Continuing from "Narendra Modi vs the Dynasty: Contrasting Ideas of India" Thread

Atri wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
I think regional satraps are getting stronger in India. Whereas Third Front would be more of an arrangement of regional satraps coming together, choosing their own leader, and then ruling Delhi, in BJP too power has moved to the Chief Ministers of various BJP ruled states.

Those sitting in Delhi would have ever less chances of deciding the constitution of the governments in Delhi.

What puts the breaks on this new evolution is the dynasty. When the dynasty goes, the whole glue keeping UPA together also vanishes. UPA is in fact the Third Front without the dynasty.

What Third Front would of course lack is a process of deciding who should be the leader who forms a government, and the lack of an overall organization too would hamper a cooperative climate among the various constituents of the Third Front.

In this case the BJP has a distinct advantage - ideology, organization.

Another difference would be that Third Front is a post-poll understanding, whereas in BJP it would be a pre-poll decision.

BJP becomes unassailable if it can increase its presence around the country, where it could get 220 seats in any election.


True..

There has to be a careful engineering of the process where the power slowly shifts from capital to provinces. One has to be careful if one is determined to save the integrity of nation-state. Else Mao like war is an available option. But consensus throughout the political spectrum of India is that ROI should not unravel as power shifts.

I have tried to address this issue on deracination thread (with inputs from others, especially ShauryaT ji)..

One of the key features to ensure a federal structure whilst keeping ROI intact is that the new satraps are bound together by a common thread. For BJP, Hindutva (with all its soft and hard interpretations) is that thread. It may be so that the thread is not very well defined and hence not strong yet (especially the economic aspects of Hindutva). But the Nawab-esque satraps of mughal-british DIEnasty have to be thrown out of this equation. Else ROI won't remain one. This transition has to happen smoothly.

The Indic federation made up of PIF regional satraps is the preferred endgame. The Non-PIF satraps have to be eliminated.


Atri garu,

that is why it is important that the speed of Bharatiyaization of India continues apace. The "anti-BJP" political platform should itself be securely based in Bharatiyata. The effort should be to move all regional parties to accept the fundamentals of Bharatiyata - Bharatiya Sabhyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti and Bharatiya Dharmic Rashtra.

Or perhaps when BJP is itself strong enough, the egos of the politicians or economic policies, etc. would push the BJP to split, and both BJP parts can then absorb the various regional outfits into them.

All this requires that the Indians be immersed in Bharatiyata in the next years, perhaps after 2014 under some Bharatiya PM and dispensation, that thinking outside of Bharatiyata becomes inconceivable for Indians, much on the same lines that many think or used to think in terms of "secularism". Also it is important that Indians adopt a single language like Sanskrit as our national language, so that the centrifugal forces or regionalism can never get out of hand.

Within these parameters, regional satraps should be free to function.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2013 00:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4270
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
X-posting from Narendra Modi vs Dynasty thread:

Modi invokes Indian culture to preach against female foeticide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2013 02:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36
Posts: 4670
Location: My mind is slower than molasses going uphill on crutches
That is a good move on CM Modi's part.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ... 58  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Jayan Menon, Neela, patel, saket and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group