Indian Interests

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

Perhaps before calling ourselves Hindus we used to call ourselves simply Bharatiye. But they are synonymous.

Of course, Rama and Krishna fought to uphold Dharma. But understanding what is Dharma is an issue of wisdom and not one of a listing of some abstract values. How to act in any given situation would be determined by an individual's understanding of Dharma for him for that given situation based on his learning and training.

But an individual would hardly be inculcated with the Dharmic values by knowing the Constitution which may speak of Dharma or reading a manual. That inculcation happens through upbringing and inculcating a certain perspective of how to see the world.

You are equating Rama and Krishna with the State, which I think is not the same thing. It is the holder of the office, that has to be seeped in Dharma. The manual lying next to throne is not going to be deciding how the office-holder would act.

I think one would have a hard time (re-)establishing a Dharmic society in India without first imbibing Indians with the knowledge of the various aspects which form their identity as well as making them feel pride in those aspects of identity. Without identity, without group-feel, no value system can hold ground.

And putting a value system in the Constitution wouldn't really change anything on that score.

[harbans]

The manual lying next to throne is not going to be deciding how the office-holder would act.

Rajesh Ji i disagree. Read the post last page above Pratik Ji's. The INC is correct in the eyes of large sections of the people. It is voted into power precisely because the adherents of the state think that it follows the manual next to the Office holder at best. The manual that puts Secular and Socialist right at the top. All Institutions in India are geared to uphold these values first before thinking about basic values that most of us cherish. When funds go to largesse doled out, we don't attack the socialist preamble. When minority votes are sought we don't go against the Secular plank. We give it names and call it Pseudo Secular. When we find that some Muslims don't mind denigrating our symbols we hide under a Hate Speech clause.

When an Akbar charges a token sikka Jizya tax we say what a kind king. When next an Aurangzeb comes and takes a huge slice of earnings as Jizya we cry foul. We are outraged not at the fact that Jizya was imposed, but the money charged under Jizya. When the reason for our outrage itself is wrong..we know we have moved away from our core value systems. We will be thoroughly punished again and again, till we stand by and fight for the right value systems and their primacy in the manual next to the Office holder. When we realize that i think Indian interests will be best served. Till then..confusion will prevail.

[RajeshA]

One does not want to accept Hinduism as the basis and instead wants some vague 'Dharma' as the basis. The term 'Dharma' is being propped as a proxy.

Johnee G, no proxy here. The vagueness is not in the 'upholding of Dharma' that is the core of what Ram and Krishna propagated, but in the term Hindu itself. No none of you gave an even definition of HInduism. Every definition and the threads are open are imprecise and different.

harbans ji,

the difficulty in definition arises when we try to define Hinduism in a similar way as Abrahamic religions - a founder, a set of practices, a list of do's and don'ts, some mythological stories sold as history.

Hindu-ism is based on continuity, continuous historical, mythological, cultural, genealogical and philosophical churning!

No snapshot of this continuity, no geographical pinpoint, no list of commandments determines Hindu-ism. It is the continuity itself.

Here I disagree with Rajiv Malhotra to some extent. He says Abrahamic traditions are history-centric, while Dharmic traditions are not, and if he were to lose all the historical background, unlike an Abrahamic, he could find Dharma again. Dharma is not history-centric. That may be true.

But Hindu-ism is absolutely history-centered and based - not on a single historical event or personality, but it is based on the whole historical continuity of the last ~26,000 years.

So in that way, I differentiate between Hindu-ism and Dharma. Hindu-ism is our identity, Dharma is our creed.

And it's not for me to say. The proof is there since independence. When have Hindu;s actually united under the Hindu banner? They've voted in INC over Hindu parties most times. Now you will say they are foolish to have been doing so. But the fact of the matter is Hinduism failed to unite. Even Nepal a Hindu country for long fell to a crass maoist uprising. Something must have been weak for it to fall so easily. Or is there some other strength that keeps us together apart from the fact we have been termed Hindu's?

That is the case I am trying to make. Hindu-ism is based on historical continuity - continuous historical, mythological, cultural, genealogical and philosophical churning!

If one breaks that continuity, everything collapses, and to break that continuity all one needs is a few generations of deracinated Hindus. Islam could not really break the continuity. They humiliated Hindus and they were able to convert many who were to some extent kept marginalized from Hindu mainstream, and thus easy prey, or they converted those, for whom continued prosperity outweighed their bonds to their Hindu identity or they converted those who decided to fight another day. But by and large Islam failed to break the Hindu backbone which is based on continuity.

Macaulayism on the other hand went straight to the root of Hindu strength - education (Modern?), history (AIT), linguistic continuity (Sanskrit) and pride (Deracinated Babus) and was content on having it as a multi-generational process.

So if we feel united, then it is because of legacy inertia. If we feel fragmented, then it is because only little of it is left today.

Let's not forget, it's been some time since we have had a Vikramaditya!

[RajeshA]

The manual lying next to throne is not going to be deciding how the office-holder would act.

Rajesh Ji i disagree. Read the post last page above Pratik Ji's. The INC is correct in the eyes of large sections of the people. It is voted into power precisely because the adherents of the state think that it follows the manual next to the Office holder at best. The manual that puts Secular and Socialist right at the top. All Institutions in India are geared to uphold these values first before thinking about basic values that most of us cherish. When funds go to largesse doled out, we don't attack the socialist preamble. When minority votes are sought we don't go against the Secular plank. We give it names and call it Pseudo Secular. When we find that some Muslims don't mind denigrating our symbols we hide under a Hate Speech clause.

When an Akbar charges a token sikka Jizya tax we say what a kind king. When next an Aurangzeb comes and takes a huge slice of earnings as Jizya we cry foul. We are outraged not at the fact that Jizya was imposed, but the money charged under Jizya. When the reason for our outrage itself is wrong..we know we have moved away from our core value systems. We will be thoroughly punished again and again, till we stand by and fight for the right value systems and their primacy in the manual next to the Office holder. When we realize that i think Indian interests will be best served. Till then..confusion will prevail.

harbans ji,

when you speak of Akbar, you agree that besides charging Jizya, another thing that is clear is that he wasn't even a Hindu, let alone a committed Hindu.

In a democracy normally it is the will of the people that is to be projected, through their elected representatives. As far as identity and all the associated aspects of identity are concerned, that will is not being projected, possibly because of the fragmentation of that identity and discontinuation of the continuity underlying it.

When the people are re-immersed in that continuity through a changed education and training, and they become again aware and proud of their Hindu heritage, then they would insist that the popular will be projected in the halls of power.

With that will also comes one of the finest "products" of our civilization - Dharma!

So there is no question of accepting any Sickular, Macaulayite, Marxist, Islamist or Yuppy in an office of power or influence. Even if there was a Dharmic Manual lying next to Akbar or Aurangzeb they would still have extracted Jizya!

[johneeG]

One does not want to accept Hinduism as the basis and instead wants some vague 'Dharma' as the basis. The term 'Dharma' is being propped as a proxy.

Johnee G, no proxy here. The vagueness is not in the 'upholding of Dharma' that is the core of what Ram and Krishna propagated, but in the term Hindu itself. No none of you gave an even definition of HInduism. Every definition and the threads are open are imprecise and different. And it's not for me to say. The proof is there since independence. When have Hindu;s actually united under the Hindu banner? They've voted in INC over HIndu parties most times. Now you will say they are foolish to have been doing so. But the fact of the matter is Hinduism failed to unite. Even Nepal a Hindu country for long fell to a crass maoist uprising. Something must have been weak for it to fall so easily. Or is there someother strength that keeps us together apart from the fact we have been termed Hindu's?

Saar,
you are repeating yourself and so, I have to repeat myself:

What is Hinduism?

Regardless of the origin and original meaning of the term 'Hinduism', it is now in vogue as a synonym of Sanatana Dharma.

So, what is Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma?

In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.

-----
Then, there are Tantras or Agamas. The Tantras like Darshanas(Philosophies) can also be Vedic or Non-Vedic. All the Tantras/Agamas (or the aspects of Tantras) that are in consonance with Vedas are acceptable. Rest are rejected.

The Tantras also claim their origin from divine beings. Even so, if the teachings are contradictory to Vedas, they are rejected.
-----

Then, there are Smritis or Dharma Shaastras. Smritis are authored by the Rishis. They deal with the rules of conduct. There are several Smritis.

The general rule is that the whole (or part) of a Smriti which is conflicting with Vedas is rejected.

-----

Then, there are Itihasaas(Ramayana & Mahabharatha) along with the 18 Puranas and 18 Upa-Puranas. Generally, they can be treated similar to Dharma Shaastras.

-----

Finally, there are traditions of family. Each family follow certain traditions and customs which it has inherited from its ancestors. These traditions are also acceptable and encouraged as long as they are not in conflict with the above mentioned scriptural teachings.

------

IMHO, the above is the outline of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

I like this approach. It seems more encompassing

But, why should it be 'more encompassing'?

One should accept a definition based on whether it is correct or wrong. And not whether it is 'more encompassing' or less encompassing.

and less confusing.

[quoteIndia has existed for several millennia; it is rooted in history and enshrined and encompassed by a civilisational ethos based on the attainment of Consciousness (self-realisation). India s ancient religion, Hinduism, is not a codified creed in the manner of other world religions. Properly known as the Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Tradition, it is simultaneously a religion and a living civilisation or way of life, and is inspired by the ideal of universal welfare of all beings, both human and other creatures. Dharma is natural (cosmic) law. As Hinduism, it takes on a formal structure, creed and ritual; yet it is never the captive of absolutism. The sanatan dharma recognises even the atheist as morally valid, and does not deny him space in the religious-spiritual spectrum. This is because sanatan dharma is all-embracing: it is righteousness, duty, and the eternal law that is not fixed (in time or space) but eternally renews itself in response to changing times and provides for as many paths to salvation as there are individual souls who seek it.

Dharma demands that all faiths be treated with respect and courtesy, as they are all attempts to attain Godhead. Its quintessential argument is that each soul must chart its own evolutionary course, and that it is not given to any human agency to arbitrate a final truth for all mankind. Hindus do believe that the Vedas are the revealed truth that was heard by the Vedic rishis (Sruti). But that is no reason that they should be imposed upon the world by human regents who claim to be sole prophets of the only true revelation. This is the reason why, despite the belief in One Supreme Being, non-monotheism has been the hallmark of all Indic religions. Our polity and innate secularism has flowed naturally from these values; it is not for nothing that Aristotle observed that the Hindus were the only people to have successfully made dharma the basis of their public life (Politics). /quote]

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/144.htm

PS: Written by a Jain

Actually, this definition is more confusing. If 'sanatana dharma is all-embracing' as the author claims, then Islam, Judaism, X-nity,...etc would also must be embraced, no? If everything is being embraced, then what exactly is Hinduism defending itself from?

This definition provided by the author is high on words but low on matter. In fact, it seems the definition is kept so flexible just so that no one is offended. It is precisely such type of definitions that lead to unnecessary confusion. It is such views that lead to the ideology of 'Sarva dharma sama bhava'(All religions are equal). BTW, if you are looking for an all encompassing approach why not take up the ideology of 'Sarva dharma sama bhava', instead of trying to redefine Hinduism?

Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma is quite clear about what it is and what it is not. One may like that definition or not, but one must not try to misrepresent it.

Hinduism is not same as Buddhism or Jainism or Islam or X-nity or Secularism or Communism or whatever. It would be silly to ignore the differences between them by clubbing them together.

Of course, broadly we can divide them into 2 categories:
a) Abrahamic creeds
b) Indic religions(or Pagan religions).

Indic religions(or Pagan religions) face threat from the intolerant, violent, tyrannical, and vile Abrahamic creeds. So, there is a definite need for all followers of Indic religions(or Pagan religions) to come together and face the threat posed by the Abrahamic creeds.

For people or groups or ideologies to work together, they don't have to change their self-definition. It suffices if they have common interests. Here, the common interest is to face a common enemy.

Just take a look at how commies, EJs and Islamics are working with each other in India against the Indic religions. The same ideologies are hardcore enemies generally. The point I am making is that ideologies need not be friends with each other to work together, they just need to have common interests. So, all Indic religions can work together. Of course, all Indic religions share some common features. But, they also have their unique points which gives them their individuality.

But, to insist that one needs to change the definition of Hinduism because other religions would not agree with it, is quite silly. If someone says that Jains must change their religious beliefs because Hindus and Buddhists don't agree with it, then it would be silly, no? The same applies to Hinduism and Buddhism also. The Indic religions differ from each other. And one must appreciate the differences. Yet, we need to understand that they must work together against a common threat being posed by the Abrahamic creeds.

Indic religions have competed with each other and there are established ways to do so(like debates). Violence is not considered a way to prove superiority of a philosophy. This an indic trademark. On the other hand, Abrahmic religions have risen on the back of their weapons and wiles.

History shows that Indic religions can reconcile the religious/philosophical differences in non-violent manner unlike Abrahamic religions.

Finally, Hinduism is what it is. If people are not happy with it, fine... They will find some thing else that will suit them. But, there is no need to remould Hinduism into what people believe it must be. Of course, the same applies to other religions also.
----
harbans,

What is 'Dharma'? Who are 'Dharmics'?

Would followers of 'Isai Dharma' qualify as 'Dharmics'?

Ramana Ji, the Dharmic is ruthless in treating Adharma. Krishna showed and allowed some rules to be flexed. When Rama was in exile and protecting Vishwamitra and his Ashram he was ruthless with those that tried to disturb the seers meditations. Sita even mentioned this to him. Krishna was hard on Arjuna who claimed 'Dharmic' immunity that killing cousins and family members shamed him. Parsuram was ruthless too in dealing with Adharma. Protecting Dharma has always been stressed to involving ruthlessness. Rama, Krishna did that. Protecting the real seekers. Bhagavad Gita's first word is Dharma...this is a misconception people have that Dharma is some dove towards Adharma.

+1.
Indeed, it is misconception. Some more examples:
Lord Sri Rama killed Vali, Tataka(woman) and Ravana(Brahmin from father's side). All of them were slayed in a ruthless manner. Of course, He did give them one chance to redeem before proceeding with the punishment.

But, this 'Dharma' you are talking about is Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. Buddhist Dharma or Jaina Dharma is not the same. I think the idea that Dharma is a dove came from Buddhist and Jain view of Dharma.

Jainism and Buddhism stress on Ahimsa as primary 'Dharma'. Hinduism also places great importance on Ahimsa but realises that absolute Ahimsa is simply impossible(not just impractical). For example, a very existence of one creature leads to the death of many others.

Therefore, Hinduism comes up with the concept of Sva-dharma. Sanyasis are expected to follow the concept of Ahimsa in strictest manner, while others are expected to abjure from injuring others as much as possible in course of performing their Sva-Dharma.

X-posting from 'Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas':
-----------

Not Hinduism again..

If you do not like that term, you are free to ignore it. As I said, it is in vogue as a popular synonym of Sanatana Dharma(not just any 'Dharma'). So, please bear with me if and when I use it...

Dharma will protect when it is protected or you make the right kind of noises in verse and action. But it will injure when you don't. That is nature. Not protecting Dharma and the values it seeks to protect in humans will lead injury.

Dharmo rakshati rakshitah... right.

But, which 'Dharma'? Sanatana Dharma? Baudha Dharma? Jaina Dharma? or even the latest pretenders like Isai 'Dharma'?

As I understand, you are contesting the usage of the term 'Hinduism' and want people to adopt 'Dharma' to replace it. You reason that the term 'Hinduism' is not large enough to accommodate certain differing views, while 'Dharma' will be acceptable to all. Also, you say that there is a lot of confusion about what exactly 'Hinduism' is.

So, I quoted a post of mine where I tried to outline what Hinduism is(according to the traditional and orthodox view). There is complete clarity about what is Hinduism and what is not Hinduism. The primary point is that Vedas are the basis of Hinduism. If you accept Vedas, you are a Hindu, otherwise not. Simple.

You quoted another definition of 'Dharma' because you claimed that it was more encompassing and less confusing. In that quote, the author says that Dharma is 'all embracing' and no 'human regent' is fit enough to be 'prophet' of claimed revelations(including the ones in Vedas). This position of the author contradicts the position of Hinduism.

I replied that there was no needs for the definition of Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma) to be 'more encompassing' or 'all embracing'. Strictly, speaking no ideology can be 'all embracing'. If any ideology defines itself as 'all embracing' it leads to too much confusion especially if it faces threats from various directions. I pointed out that this definition is more confusing than the one I posted.

I said that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other Indic religion(or philosophy) can work with each other to collectively face the threat from Abrahamic religions without having to change their primary ethos. To work together one needs to have common interests, thats all.

Then, I asked you what you meant by 'Dharma'.

Then you posted the following:

If 'sanatana dharma is all-embracing' as the author claims, then Islam, Judaism, X-nity,...etc would also must be embraced, no? If everything is being embraced, then what exactly is Hinduism defending itself from?

That's the question i put to Nakul a post or two above yours.

Ok, so you do agree that Santana Dharma or Hinduism cannot be all encompassing?

I posted Jain's article to show that various strands of Dharmic thought can be got under one umbrella.

2 points:
a) What is the need to get various strands of 'Dharmic' thought under one umbrella?
You don't want to acknowledge that many of the so-called strands of 'Dharmic thought' already accept that they are part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. Some of the other strands of 'Dharmic thought' are not part of Hinduism. Fine.

What your are saying(and what Jain is saying) is that Hinduism should give up its fundamentals(Vedas) so that it is acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'.

b) Various indic religions can work together without them having to give up their fundamentals.

The majority would happily endorse such.

Which majority? Hindu majority? Secular majority? World majority?

If you say 'Dharmic' majority, then you have to explain which 'Dharma'...

I don't agree with everything in the article. Yet the author makes a crucial distinction..see last quote..

I didn't get what that crucial distinction is. Please explain...

Agree. Thats why i used more encompassing. I want to include Jains, Sikhs, Hindu's, Buddhists, Arya Samaji's, Dvaits, Advaits which are different strands of thought within the Dharmic fold under one umbrella.

You don't want to acknowledge that many of the so-called strands of 'Dharmic thought'(like Dvaits, Advaits, and so on) already accept that they are part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. Some of the other strands of 'Dharmic thought'(like Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists) are not part(or don't want to be part) of Hinduism. Fine.

What you are saying(and what Jain is saying) is that Hinduism should give up its fundamentals(Vedas) so that it is acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'. Why would Hinduism do that and negate itself?

So, you keep talking about 'Dharma' without clarifying which 'Dharma' you are referring to. You go on to say that your definition of 'Dharma' will bring all strands of 'Dharmic thought' under that umbrella. That can only mean that one or all of those strands would have to give up their fundamentals.

In simple terms, according to Hinduism: Buddhism or Jainism or any other ism(that does not accept Vedic authority) is not Dharmic.

I understand that such a stand will not be appreciated by others. But thats how it is. I would imagine that Buddhist and Jaina stands would also be similarly exclusive. That means, according to Buddhism, Hinduism would be wrong.

But the point is that these differences were resolved or reconciled or put to test using a well established mechanism: Free and fair debates.

On the other hand, Abrahmic creeds depend on force and fraud to spread themselves instead of proving the superiority of their philosophy or religion in a proper debate.

This is the chief difference between Indic religions and Abrahamic religions.

Something that can evolve to a preamble, constitutional, instituted approach for Governance. I want someting in that Constitution of Bharat to say more than the Dharma Chakra in the middle of the Indian flag. Dharma i defined in 5 words just yesterday to Ramay Ji. Those 5 words can form the value basis of the constitution. It was a start and once i find it will add it here to this post.

Ok. So, you want a definition that can cover all Indic religion and philosophies. Fine. I support your effort. But, why are you wasting your time in asking Hindus(or Buddhists or Jains) to remould their religion to suit your definition? Instead, you can simply create a definition based on the common traits of all Indic religions like belief in Karma, reincarnation and moksha(or nirvana).


Coming back to your present post:

India is being injured today because it rejects Dharma in many ways through it's so called secular manifestations..

I would have agreed. But, now I think it would be better if you clarify what you mean by 'Dharma'? Which Dharma are you talking about? Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism) or Baudha Dharma or Jain Dharma or Charvaka Dharma or ...?

Vashista or Vishwamitra were seekers..

Vashishta was a Brahmarshi. Vishwamitra attained the same status through prolonged perseverance.

Rama protected them with ruthlessness. Our State must protect seekers. Even diverse view points.

This is where the glitch is. Sri Rama did not protect all seekers. He protected only those seekers which acted according to the diktats of Veda. Sri Rama killed Shambuka(a seeker). Sri Rama does not tolerate the atheistic teachings of Jabali and goes to the extent of saying that His father, Dasharatha, erred by appointing Jabali as a minister. All this according to Valmiki Ramayana.

Actually, we find that Hinduism's portrayal of Rama, Krishna and other personalities differs from the portrayals of Buddhism, Jainism, and so on.

So, you should not merge Santana Dharma with other 'Dharmas' or vice versa. Such merging leads to confusion.

AFAIK, the ruthlessness is not supported by Buddhism or Jainism, which stress on absolute Ahimsa(at least in theory). It is only Hinduism(Sanatana Dharma) that accepts violence as a valid tool.

AFAIK, early Buddhism rejected the Vedic authority because of violence in Vedic rites. So, this is a major difference of opinion(on validity of violence in certain scenarios).

America does that in it's Dharmic quest to protect in it's own charter those that seek life, liberty and happiness.

You are working with a very loose definition of 'Dharma'

The American founding fathers chose Dharmic concepts to base their future civilization, and Ram/ Krishna rewarded them and lakshmi and Saraswati both touched America.

Richness or power does not mean that one is dharmic presently. Ravana was rich and powerful while Rama was in exile. Does that mean kidnapping Sita was 'Dharmic'?

Saudi is blessed by crude oil(and consequently Lakshmi), so by your logic Rama and Krishna must have rewarded them. Are Saudis also 'Dharmic'?

Present luxuries or troubles are not necessarily the result of present actions(if we go by Karma theory). Present status is the result of past actions(including past lives).

They fought against Fascism which seeked to overturn Dharmic values..they were rewarded and appreciated.

There are umpteen instances in history where America did many Adharmic things.

India was not because of it's mediocrity. We should have spilt blood to protect Dharmic Tibet from Adharmic Han Commies.

Yes, India should have done that due to variety of reasons.

We chose not to. We should have spilt blood and united to protect ourselves under the onslaught of the Islaimist those centuries we chose not to rally under those banners.

True.

So we were injured..by not protecting Dharma in our lands.

True. But, which Dharma?

Ram and Krishna only exhorted followers to uphold and stand by those that seek, are compassionate, good normal human beings against the Thug an Rogue civilizations and concepts that will emerge.

Hmm...no. Rama and Krishna say a lot more. Part of their teaching is to defeat rogue ideologies and thug civilizations. But teachings are not limited to only this aspect. Some of their teachings clash with teachings of Baudha Dharma and Jaina Dharma(at least according to Hindu portrayals like Vyasa Mahabharata and Valmiki Ramayana).

Portrayals of Rama and Krishna according to other Indic religions can clash with Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma).

We failed. We are not lost yet.

Yep.

We have to re establish Dharma in this land of ours..even if it means questioning some terminology.

Which Dharma do you want to establish? Please don't give loose airy fairy definitions. Please clearly explain what you mean by 'Dharma'?

Even in pious vs less pious..the more pious wins over the less pious. Same in Dharma. Higher levels prevail. For a State it is imperative that the very basics we all agree upon are enforced and defended by the Rajya. The 5 Basic Dharmic references (Righteousness, Compassion, Equality, Search..Truth) that i provided are applicable to all the above, though maybe not to Isai as those who believe in Jesus are more equal.

The search for the absolute Truth and conviction in it, is Dharma in its highest form.

The search for a relative is an evolving quest and upon the peeling of one layer another layer is revealed. Take for example, trying to get a coveted seat say in an IIT or even a particular department within it. Everyone cannot qualify to an IIT Kanpur Comp science position. So Dharma dictates a fair entrance. Dharma dictates fairness of choice, equality to all who participate in that desire for that course. If that is accepted Dharma also dictates one righteously accepts the decision that has been made with equanimity, even if one loses out on it. The State and it’s institutions, the Private entities that it allows to function under it’s value systems must display such relative levels of Dharma expected. The quest here is not about the ultimate Truth, the highest Dharma. Yet the State and it’s Institution practice Righteousness, equality in conducting a fair exam and the persons involved take the results with equanimity.


No there is no clarity regarding that. When foreigners gave the word Hindu’s to a whole lot of people with diverse beliefs, 99.99% people in that group did not know what the Vedas were, what they sounded like or what they implied. Yes a small subset of them knew, understood and were well versed. Not anyone else. Today less than a few dozen people can comprehend the Veda’s. Millions may have belief in them, but those millions apart from calling Pandits to recite the Vedas in birth, marriage and death have little comprehension about what they deal with. Yet those millions have vastly greater intimacy with the Vedanta. The Philosophical discourses in the Upanishads, MB, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Buddha, Jain and Sikh versions of how to deal with others. The Veda's deal with evolving to Indra's material Heaven not Moksha. The essence of the Vedanta is crux, though if confused, fall back to the Veda. The Veda is a fall back option for the enlightened astray.
.
People are more closer to the values enunciated by Lord Rama, Krishna, Gautam Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Ramakrishna than what the Veda’s say or do. Comprehending that Shri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says:

“Those who follow the science of the three Vedas and drink the Soma, their sins purified, aspire to go to heaven through sacrifices. Having reached the pious world of the king of gods, they partake in heaven of the celestial enjoyments of the gods. Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven, they fall to the mortal world when their piety is exhausted. Thus those who desire sense gratification, and who have consistently resorted to the dharma of the three Vedas, achieve only going and coming.” (Bg. 9.20-21)

“The purity of Yog is to pass
Beyond the Sabdabrahm, the spoken Ved.” (Bg. Chapter 6)


India is the land of Dharma. The issue is not which is more encompassing and less confusing. The issue is what do the majority of us truly believe in? Are we all just Vedics/ Hindu’s? How many of us understand the Vedic/ Hindu?

What does the common Indian understand? What will he endorse from the Raj/ State? That is why I stated a few fundamentals that took the West millennia to come to state in their National Constitutional Charters: Righteousness, Compassion, Equality, Search, and Truth. Not that they have arrived, but they certainly have made an attempt, even though I consider it has been brokered through Western Philosophers who themselves were awed by the Vedanta.


Many mistakenly think all religions preach these values. No. Christianity does not. It took bloody revolutions to charter some of these provisions into State Codes. They may not have been perfect, but they were a start. It also entailed putting Papal primacy in the backburner with regards to State functions. Europe and the West prospered because some provisions of that charter they followed with rigor and defended too at a relative level. Those that followed such and imbibed those value systems are today the Worlds most modern societies. Yes with their blemishes, but they have opportunities and avenues for correcting them further. India being the land of Dharma, still falters in enforcing these value systems. Nepotism, Vote bank politics, favoritism still rule the roost against ethical state instituted principles based on Dharma.


Most people who take the Human form are Dharmic by nature. Yet very few amongst them take the strong stance and defend the Dharmic values I enunciated. Even Arjuna tried to obfuscate his way out. God obviously knows from many experiments it is these bravehearts that save the day for what the majority of Humans really wish for. That is why Rama and Krishna stand out as saviours of Dharma. That is why the Upanishadic Seers, Buddha and Mahavira stand out for enunciating values that deserve saving and fighting for.

Their followers are not wrong. The State must exhort Value systems as we commonly know as Dharma, be that be in Work ethic, dedication, Charity, Compassion, Non violence, Equality, Righteousness, Search for Truth. The State has also a Dharmic right bestowed to use all means to see that these values remain enshrined. Lord Rama/ Lord Krishna have shown that it is justified to use force to remove any forces that undermine these value systems.

Rally around these basic value systems, and follow any higher one that you deem. The State will protect the higher one and keep evolving as people too imbibe the basics and move next step. So what problem do you have with the basic version of Dharmic values a State should protect for starters?

“You are the indestructible, the supreme object of knowledge. You are the transcendental receptacle of this universe. You are inexhaustible, the protector of everlasting dharma. I conclude that You are the eternal person.” (Bg. 11.18)
Lord Krishna later declares as much in the fourteenth chapter: “Indeed, I am the foundation of Brahman [spirit], and of unending immortality, and of everlasting dharma, and of the ultimate happiness.” (Bg. 14.27)

In the last verse of the twelfth chapter also, Lord Krishna indicates that there is a truly eternal dharma: “But those who fully honor this immortal nectar of dharma as it has been spoken [by Me], having faith, taking Me as supreme—those devotees are exceedingly dear to Me.” (Bg. 12.20)

I am- of all this boundless Universe-
The Father, Mother, Ancestor, and Guard!
The end of Learning! That which purifies
In lustral water! I am OM! I am
Rig-Veda, Sama-Veda, Yajur-Ved;
The Way, the Fosterer, the Lord, the Judge,
The Witness; the Abode, the Refuge-House,
The Friend, the Fountain and the Sea of Life
Which sends, and swallows up; Treasure of Worlds
And Treasure-Chamber! Seed and Seed-Sower,
Whence endless harvests spring! Sun's heat is mine;
Heaven's rain is mine to grant or to withhold;
Death am I, and Immortal Life I am,
Arjuna! SAT and ASAT, Visible Life,
And Life Invisible!

Yea! those who learn
The threefold Veds, who drink the Soma-wine,
Purge sins, pay sacrifice- from Me they earn
Passage to Swarga; where the meats divine
Of great gods feed them in high Indra's heaven.
Yet they, when that prodigious joy is o'er,
Paradise spent, and wage for merits given,
Come to the world of death and change once more.
They had their recompense! they stored their treasure,
Following the threefold Scripture and its writ;
Who seeketh such gaineth the fleeting pleasure
Of joy which comes and goes! I grant them it!
But to those blessed ones who worship Me,
Turning not otherwhere, with minds set fast,
I bring assurance of full bliss beyond.

Clearly Shri Krishna focuses beyond the Vedic rites and rituals.

There are 2 options:
a) Accept the present form in which a word is being used.
b) Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used).

(a)one is ready to accept the present form in which a word is being used regardless of who invented it:
Hinduism is presently used as a synonym of Sanatana Dharma. It does not matter what the original context or intention of the word was.

Synonyms of Sanatana Dharma are:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism,...etc.

Presently, Dharma is being used as a generic term. Generic term has no meaning unless the context is specified. That is the reason I kept asking,"Which Dharma are you talking about?"

The word 'Dharma' in itself has no meaning unless it is associated with a specific philosophy that defines the word. Just like the word 'law'. If I say, 'law' allows me to do something without specifying the context, then that statement has no meaning. The first question that would be asked is,"Which law are you talking about? Indian law? paki law? African law? Which law?..."

I asked the same question. You did not specify any single philosophy according to which you were referring to the word 'Dharma', instead you came up with some words(which are also generic) which you said sum up 'Dharma'. You provided your own definition of Dharma whixch you think should be enshrined in constitution. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism come up with their own unique definitions of Dharma. The followers of a particular religion would believe that the definition provided by their religion should be enshrined in constitution. The others' definitions of Dharma are acceptable only to the extent that they agree with the definition provided by one's own philosophy. I presume that your stance is same. You provided a definition and you are willing to accept the others definition of dharma as long as the others do not contradict your definition. Your original goal was to 'bringing different dharmic strands under one umbrella'. As you can see, you are not going to achieve that unless everyone(and all philosophies) give up their definitions of dharma and accept yours. In short, you are adding one more definition into the ring claiming that yours is best suited. In a way, you are starting a new a religion/philosophy with your own definitions of dharma. And moreover, anyone can come up with their own definitions that are convenient to them. Why should they accept your definition? Why should Dharma be defined as righteousness? Why not as faith in prophet X?

The original conundrum also started similarly. This is a good cue to our option (b):
Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used):
You have insisted that the word 'Hinduism' is unfit because of the original context in which it was coined. Actually, the original context seems unclear to me but lets assume that what you say is true. Then, one should also insist that the word 'Dharma' should also be used in the original context that it was first used or coined. So, when was the word 'Dharma' first used?
Answer: Vedas.

So, by your own logic we should stop trying to redefine Dharma(just as we should not redefine the word Hinduism) and accept the definition provided by the first users. If that is the case, then Dharma would automatically mean Sanatana Dharma. Then, Dharma would not be generic anymore, therefore anyone who defines dharma in a way that deviates from the Sanatana Dharma would be wrong.

PS: When you talk about Rama or Krishna or any other figure, could you specify which source you will accept as authoritative?

If you have a problem with the term 'Hindu', then you can use its synonyms like:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma,...etc

But, it seems you have a problem with Hinduism itself. In which case, you can simply reject Hinduism. It seems you want to go one step further and urge everyone to reject Hinduism and re-define it. What you want to say is that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma should be junked.

Coming to the term 'Hindu', it seems to be a middle-eastern word for Sanatan Dharmics(not any dharmics). Similarly, the word 'India' seems to be a greek(or western) word. There seems to be a phonological similarity between the words 'Hindu' and 'India'(or 'Indica'). So, it is not a new term invented by the Brits. It was ancient term for Sanatana Dharmics.

When Hindus use the word 'Dharma', then mean 'Dharma' as enshrined in Hindu scriptures only. Similarly, when Buddhists use the term 'Dharma', then mean it in a completely different manner. Just because both of them use the word 'Dharma' does not mean, they have same definition for that word.

Let me give an example:
Dharmo rakshati rakshitah...
Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara... These are Hindu concepts of 'Dharma'.

Buddham Sharanam Gachami
Dharmam Sharanam Gachami
Sangam Sharanam Gachami... This is a Buddhist concept of 'Dharma'.

Both of the above differ completely from each other. Bhagavad Gita along with rest of Vyasa MB, Valmiki Ramayana and other Puranas are not just any Dharmic books, they are Hindu(or SD) books. These books are teaching Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism). They will not be acceptable in its totality to Buddhists or Jains, or other so-called 'dharmic strands'. Even Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture and will not be acceptable in its totality to all these so-called 'dharmic strands'.

Sri Rama and Sri Krishna followed Vedic 'Dharma' or Sanatana 'Dharma' or Hinduism, not just any 'Dharma'... if you accept the portrayal of Vyasa MB and Valmiki Ramayana.

The point you are missing or ignoring is: 'Dharma' is a generic word. 'Dharma' broadly means 'rule'/'duty'/'religious law'. Without a context(that means an associated philosophy/creed, that word becomes meaningless).

If I keep parroting,"Lets uphold the 'law'...", but do not specify which 'law' I am talking about, then it becomes meaningless nonsense.

[harbans]

when you speak of Akbar, you agree that besides charging Jizya, another thing that is clear is that he wasn't even a Hindu, let alone a committed Hindu.

You didn't follow the point i was trying to make. The people called Akbar kind because he charged token Jizya. They were enraged at Aurangzeb because of the amount charged. Not the fact that there was in the manual next to the ruler a diction on Jizya. The reason people should have been enraged/ outraged should have been the fact that Jizya is being charged, not the amount being charged. The reason for the confusion in people was that they did not lay much stress on the principle of Jizya. That is precisely what i am stating is the problem when people dismiss Value systems as secondary.

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

the whole chapter of Akbar and Mughal rule in India or Aurangzeb's rule was not only about the rightness of collecting jizya. Also the protest would hardly be expected on the lines of Arab street tamasha or some bus burning.

Those were times when military and political compromises were made and judgments were made based on how much pain can be taken, all due to some battle defeats.

So the issue of principled opposition is actually moot. There were many reasons to throw out the whole bunch, but that was a function of military strength and strategy.

[harbans]

johneeG wrote:
In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.

Johnee G i read that all and had even responded to you. Even Upanishads and Shri Krishna rejectd Vedic authority. I posted the relevant verses to that effect too. So are they (Upanishadic texts and BG) Nastika also?

Also you definitions of Hinduism are different from what every other person are saying. Some clearly don't want to define it and leave it as some open ended thing, some wrt Vedic authority. So lets leave these long quotes. They make lousy reading and spoils the relevant flow.

Coming to the term 'Hindu', it seems to be a middle-eastern word for Sanatan Dharmics(not any dharmics). Similarly, the word 'India' seems to be a greek(or western) word.

Please try and tell that to other Hindu's that don't believe so. From what i know Hindu was a term given to an entire bunch of people in a particular location on the planet. Later when the very sort of confusion in definitions came about many started leaving the fold. The Constitution tied itself in knots trying to define what a Hindu is.

[Sanku]

The people called Akbar kind because he charged token Jizya.

Which people? Only Nehurvian historians making up past.

[harbans]

the whole chapter of Akbar and Mughal rule in India or Aurangzeb's rule was not only about the rightness of collecting jizya.

Sure, that is an example. The point to see is the reason for outrage is wrong. in the run up to the 71 war a Bangladeshi approached someone i know in UK and said "look what the Pakistani's are doing. They are killing everyone..they don't even see who is a muslim and who is a non muslim..they are killing everyone!" he blurted.

The Indian who was collecting funds for Bangladeshi victims walked away..do you know why?

[Anindya]

Harbans - I remember being told by my friends in the Bay area, that after the Gujarat earth quake, Muslim contributors wanted to make sure that their money only went to Muslims.

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

the issue is not that somebody here is against Dharma, or that one doesn't understand that it is good to have the right values guiding our elected (and non-elected) representatives.

My objection is only that Dharma is not codifiable as you would need it to be for it to be part of the Constitution. If you see such references in our sacred texts, then understand that these words all alone without the context of the text and the history surrounding it, these words would not have any power and everyone would use them according to their whims again.

My second criticism is that people today lack Dharmic values, simply because they do not appreciate the context in which they evolved, and that appreciation can come only when the understand their identity, and that can be realized better in their understanding of being Bharatiye, being Hindu, being Arya! Dharmic values can only come about among Indians in an ecosystem where their identity and the unity of that identity is nurtured, and not by cramming a list of "Dharmic" values listed in some Constitution.

My third criticism is that in this Constitution Amendment process, any effort to include "Dharma" etc. would lead to a lot of dilution of its import as there would be haggling and compromising, and hence it should not be tried.

[johneeG]

johneeG wrote:
In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.

Johnee G i read that all and had even responded to you. Even Upanishads and Shri Krishna rejectd Vedic authority. I posted the relevant verses to that effect too. So are they (Upanishadic texts and BG) Nastika also?

I know you responded. Your responses were mostly a rehash of the same points, so I did not reply.

Upanishads are part of Vedas. Upanishads are called Vedanta(End portion of Veda). Sri Krishna's quotes where he allegedly rejects the Vedas are a misreading. What He is saying is that people can perform rituals as mentioned in Vedas and obtain the fruits(including heaven). But, those fruits are not everlasting(including the heaven). Vedas contain rites and rituals to satisfy all kinds of needs and desires(Sattva, Rajas and Tamas). But, one needs to go beyond these Gunas. For that, one needs to perform one's duty(Sva-dharma) without any desires and by dedicating it to the God.

Sri Krishna is showing the limitations of Karmas while explaining the truths in Vedanta(Upanishads).

Also you definitions of Hinduism are different from what every other person are saying. Some clearly don't want to define it and leave it as some open ended thing, some wrt Vedic authority. So lets leave these long quotes. They make lousy reading and spoils the relevant flow.

Those are not my definitions. Each person cannot come up with their own definitions. If they do so, they would be in wrong. Can every communist define communism? Can every catholic define his religion? Can every shia define his creed? No, there are official definitions.

Similarly, there is an orthodox official definition of Hinduism. I gave you the orthodox official definition of Hinduism. Official because it is accepted by all the traditional orthodox Hindus and Hindu gurus and supported by the scriptures and various schools. Whether individuals accept it or not, is irrelevant.

Most of the points have already been covered in the previous posts, but you continue to raise the same points again and again. So, I had to quote them.

Coming to the term 'Hindu', it seems to be a middle-eastern word for Sanatan Dharmics(not any dharmics). Similarly, the word 'India' seems to be a greek(or western) word.

Please try and tell that to other Hindu's that don't believe so. From what i know Hindu was a term given to an entire bunch of people in a particular location on the planet. Later when the very sort of confusion in definitions came about many started leaving the fold. The Constitution tied itself in knots trying to define what a Hindu is.

Constitution makers have their own limitations. Anyway, why should constitution define Hinduism? It is not the job of constitution to define a religion. It should simply ask the religion to define itself and accept that definition given by religion.

Is the term 'Hindu' geographic? Why did you reach that conclusion? It is used for religious community. Anyway, the geography(India) and religion(Hinduism) are connected intimately. So, it may have been used for both.

Anyway, you keep insisting about the original usage of 'Hinduism'. What about original usage of the term 'Dharma'? It was first used in Vedas.

Lastly, a straight-forward question:
Do you have a problem with the term 'Hinduism'? or
Do you have a problem with Hinduism itself?

[member_20317]

Request all the usual suspects to kindy conserve some energy for the Katha thread also.

In that thread I have done a Sthapana of you people as Guru. And Guru has to respond to the needs of the Shishya. If you guys do not then you will become adharmi and your reincarnation will not be to your liking. And yes it will be reincarnation, you guys do not deserve Moksha yet.

[Manish_Sharma]

It is Hindu Dharm, not some amorphously delineated "Dharmic Value System", which propounded the national movement for independence under Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal. It is Hindu Dharm, not some confused notion of "Dharmic this or Dharmic that" which Vivekananda restored as a beacon of inspiration for the modern nation of India. And it is Hindu Dharm, not some vague high-minded abstraction, which keeps 80% of the people of India invested emotionally, psychologically and spiritually in the welfare of India today.

Rudra ji, irrespective of whoever said what about Hinduism, truth is it was a term given by foreigners. .....

I also used to think so, but Poster Shri Gandharva educated me through this link, this pdf has ample proofs that word 'Hindu' was used in our shastras:

https://sites.google.com/site/sarasvati ... edirects=0


Here is the original post of Shri Gandharva:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 21#p781421

Sharma Ji this is for you.

Quote:
Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

Please download this pdf and read it, its just 7 pages.

[devesh]

there is nothing wrong if we start defining by what we are not.

first, we are not Abrahamics.

meaning, we are not monotheistic exclusivists.
meaning, we don't believe in any idea or concept which says that people are born with sin and therefore are condemned to eternal hell UNLESS AND UNTIL the ONE GOD saves them.

as a starting point, that is what we are NOT. so, we have actually defined what we are, to an extent.
we will strike down and refuse to accept ideas like above, otherwise called the Original Sin by the Christians.

similarly, we should start laying out things that we are not.

that gives us a better picture of what we are, than trying to build castles in the air about imagined glories.
whatever glories we once had, they are gone now. we need to start from scratch. we need to define our nationhood all over again, because the past frameworks have been irreparably damaged.

what we can do is learn from our distant past. all the texts, literature, etc give us a glimpse of how the ancients dealt with the complexity of Bharat and how they thought and defined the idea of Bharatiyata as a unifying framework, regardless of the various bhashas and cultures and subcultures.

[member_22872]

My third criticism is that in this Constitution Amendment process, any effort to include "Dharma" etc. would lead to a lot of dilution of its import as there would be haggling and compromising, and hence it should not be tried.

Rajesh ji, there is another implicit danger to Dharmic fabric once included in the constitution. Say one wants to 'amend' the constitution keeping in view the present times and need for certain social change. Now since constitution changes, there is a danger of confusing such a change equivalent to dharmic change itself. Should changes to Constitution mean changes to dharmic values too? if that is so, then there wont be any difference between dharmic religions/philosophies and history-centric religions because for them codification of judeo-christian-islamic cannon is imporant, which then makes Hindu dharma history centric and will have the same pitfalls as desert religions because for them, who did what, when and how and why are important as they provide guidance. Same with law, you need huge data base of historic decisions etc. So constitution based on Dharma could have pitfalls if not careful.

[member_22872]

Rajiv Malhotra in his book "Being Different" explains, the basic difference between desert religions and Dharmic traditions is that the former is collective while the latter is personal, introspective and self/non-self developmental in nature. Look at the problems this collective salavation POV is causing to the world. Western point of view is the cause for violence and destruction for they want collective subjugation and want everyone to follow their religion, those who don't are kafurs and heretics, hell awaits them after death. Every social change that interferes with their holy books causes friction, take gay rights, the chruch has a different take, their govs have different take. Some US states are favourable whole others differ, Russia is against...so the same will happen if you link dharmic practise and make it into law. Let us not redefine dharma. Rishis experimented it, we are fortunate that bharat has a long experimentation and maturation period spanning several thousand years. Now if dharma is for self development at micro level, lets not disturb it and make it collective and macro level. Units make whole, lets concentrate on unit perfection leading to macrocosmic perfection.
Let the west deal with the choices they made.

[abhishek_sharma]

Views from the Right

Remembering Vivekananda

The two weeklies of the Sangh Parivar, the Organiser and Panchjanya have come out with their special editions celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, setting aside other topics.

The editorial in the Organiser calls Vivekananda the icon of resurgent India for propounding “the most virile and practical form of Hinduism”, when Hindus were “drained and depressed, a defeated and humiliated race uncharacteristically inadequate and unprepared to fight back” after the 1857 peak of British rule. It was against this backdrop that “Vivekananda came like a colossus, a conquering prophet. He won hearts, bloodlessly, not territories. He restored India’s pride...” The editorial, however, does not hesitate to acknowledge that although Vivekananda took on a “herculean” task, he was no avatar: “He was very much human, perhaps the greatest humanist India produced in the last two centuries.”

In another article, S. Gurumurthy underscores Vivekananda’s significance as someone who challenged the Indian “mentality of looking at us through the prism of aliens” influenced by Western scholars and philosophers. He says Vivekananda did not want India to copy the Western model of economic development and had “development with culture” as his “agenda”. Gurumurthy, consequently, points out that “cultural orientation is self-evident in the Indian economy” in the form of higher family savings rates, guided by the Indian “family culture”.

However, while both weeklies fail to provide any insight into Vivekananda’s thoughts on the caste system in India. Both issues have dwelt relatively briefly on his opinions of women in society. An article titled “Women and Modern Hinduism” in the Organiser does not go beyond describing Vivekananda as one of the earliest “champions of women”. Another article in Panchjanya, however, dwells at more length on his opinions about women in India, where he has talked of the respect given to them in Indian society. He has been quoted to have said that India’s “social customs and norms towards women” are guided by the need to “protect” them and should not be construed as a reflection of their “inferiority”.

Panchjanya has a series of articles commemorating Vivekananda’s anniversary. It has also published an article by late author Ramdhari Singh “Dinkar”, declaring Vivekananda the “father of cultural nationalism”. Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, in another article, seeks to legitimise the parivar’s version of Hindu India saying that Vivekananda “fervently believed in the Hindu identity of India, which today we call Hindutva”. In this context, a report about the RSS youth camp addressed by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat quotes Swami Gitananda of Ramakrishna Math on how, in the last 50 years, “even the political elements” have realised Vivekananda would become a “vote-catcher” for them. Of course, the article does not mention the Swami Vivekananda Yuva Vikas Yatra undertaken by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi just ahead of the assembly election late last year.

CRITICAL TOGADIA

The Organiser has found space for VHP leader Pravin Togadia, who has attacked the “weak” UPA government for “sacrificing Bharat’s safety and self-respect”, given the Pakistan army’s brutality against the two Indian soldiers killed along the LoC. Togadia demands that the “Indian government at least now should severe all ties with Pakistan, get the armed forces consolidated and attack Pakistan to regain all our lost territories.”

PARIVAR MEMORIAL?

Both weeklies have carried an article detailing the creation of the Vivekananda Rock Memorial at Kanyakumari. The emphasis of both articles is on the role of the RSS in immortalising the site by getting a magnificent memorial built at the location. For this purpose, the articles highlight the role of RSS functionary Eknath Ranade’s role in getting it done.

Compiled by Ravish Tiwari

[Vipul]

Cross posted from TIP thread:

Today is the birthday of Hindu terrorist Subhash Chandra Bose.

For congress he was literally no less than a terrorist.

Netaji: The man who defied Gandhi and still won over a nation.

Subhas Chandra Bose, fondly known as Netaji, was one of the most prominent and highly respected leaders of the Indian independence movement against the British Raj.

Born on January 23, 1897 in Cuttack, Orissa, Bose was the ninth child among fourteen siblings. His father Janaki Nath Bose was a famous lawyer and his mother Prabhavati Devi was a housewife. Bose went to England in 1919 to compete for Indian Civil Services. In England he appeared for the Indian Civil Service competitive examination in 1920, and came out fourth in order of merit. However, Subhas Chandra Bose was deeply disturbed by the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, and left his Civil Services apprenticeship Bose was jailed during Civil Disobedience movement in 1930. After returning to India, Bose came under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and joined the Indian National Congress.

He showed his leadership mettle and gained his way up in the Congress' hierarchy. Bose was elected president of the Indian National Congress for two consecutive terms but resigned from the post following ideological conflicts with Mahatma Gandhi.

Bose believed that Mahatma Gandhi's tactics of non-violence would never be sufficient to secure India's independence, and advocated a more aggressive resistance.He was released in 1931 after the Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed.

He protested against the Gandhi-Irwin pact and opposed the suspension of Civil Disobedience movement specially when Bhagat Singh and his associates were hanged. (Gandhi had the choice to appeal to the British to pardon Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdeo who were inclined to do so as the civil disobidience movement was being called off, but he did not do so even as he entered into a pact with British and suspended the civil disobidience movement) The Congressi culture of seeking personal gratification at the cost of fellow contrymen or even the country is not new. MMS is just following in the hollowed footsteps of Gandhi.

During his second term as Congress President, he talked of planning in concrete terms, and set up a National planning Committee.

Signs of World War II were on the horizon and he brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt in January 1942, he began his regular broadcasts from Radio Berlin, which aroused tremendous enthusiasm in India. In July 1943, he arrived in Singapore from Germany.

In Singapore, he took over the reins of the Indian Independence Movement in East Asia from Rash Behari Bose and organised the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army) comprising mainly of Indian prisoners of war.

He was hailed as Netaji by the Army as well as by the Indian civilian population in East Asia. Azad Hind Fauj proceeded towards towards India to liberate it from British rule. Enroute, it liberated Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The I.N.A. HQ was shifted to Rangoon in January 1944.

However, defeat of Japan and Germany in the Second World War forced INA to retreat and it could not achieve its objective. Bose was reportedly killed in an air crash over Taipeh, Taiwan (Formosa) on August 18, 1945. But no traces of his body or information on his death were found and his death still remains a mystery and a much debated subject among many Indians.

Famous Quotes of Bose:

'One individual may die for an idea; but that idea will, after his death, incarnate itself in a thousand lives. That is how the wheel of evolution moves on and the ideas and dreams of one nation are bequeathed to the next'.

'Give me (your) blood and I will give you freedom'

'Freedom is not given, it is taken'

After reviewing INA parade at Singapore in 1943, Bose's concluding words were: 'I have said that today is the proudest day of my life. For an enslaved people, there can be no greater pride, no higher honour, than to be the first Soldier in the Army of Liberation.

What others said about Subhas Chandra Bose:

In the book The Last Years of British India, Michael Edwardes, the distinguished British historian of the Raj, wrote of Bose: 'Only one outstanding personality of India took a different and violent path, and in a sense, India owes more to him than to any other man'

Historian Leonard Gordan on Bose's religiosity: 'Inner religious explorations continued to be a part of his adult life. This set him apart from the slowly growing number of atheistic socialists and communists who dotted the Indian landscape'

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from GDF Thread: "Constrasting Ideas of India"

I think the Hindu nationalists have played along with INC's mantra of secularism for too long. Basically there is no "secular platform" in India.

The ideological platforms available today in India are

1) Bharatiya Nationalist Platform (Hindus, RSS, BJP, Neo-Dharmists, ...)

2) Jaati-based Platform (BSP, SP, etc.)

3) Islamo-Christianist Platform ( Congress, Janta Party offsprings, Islamist parties, Christianist orgs)

4) Cultural Marxist Platform (Communist parties intent on destroying any culture of the majority)

5) Yuppie Platform (Indian Elite enamored by West, ignorant of Indian values, Economic progress above all else)

6) Macaulayite Platform (Congress, Media, ...)

These are the six ideological platforms. There is no "secular" platform. What we call "Secular" Platform is actually just a claim by the last four platforms together, and all these four platforms are in fact against Indian Civilization and Culture. The second platform based on "Jaati-Consciousness" is really the swing platform.

By rejecting any existence of any "Secular" platform, even in the form of "Pseudo-Secular", one gets to the reality of what is going on. So let's start using the correct terminology.

Just a humble suggestion!

[RamaY]

The third platform above IS the secular platform.

By separating 'secular' platform, we will be allowing the smoke screens to continue.

Secularism is "Christianity without Church".

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

that may be true in the West, but in India, Christianist orgs are very much a part of the mix, and consider themselves formally aligned to the alleged "Secular" Platform, but in reality is the "Islamo-Christianist Platform".

[RamaY]

RamaY ji,

that may be true in the West, but in India, Christianist orgs are very much a part of the mix, and consider themselves formally aligned to the alleged "Secular" Platform, but in reality is the "Islamo-Christianist Platform".

I am saying Islamo-Christianist platform == secular platform. That is why you have INC and Janata types in that group. I agree that we must call this IC Platform and not Indian Congress platform but we should not separate secularism from it.

[AbhiJ]

List of Diplomatic Missions in Select Indian Cities:

Agartala
Bangladesh

Chandigarh
Canada

Panjim
Portugal

Hyderabad

Iran
Saudi Arabia
Turkey

Pondicherry
France

[RamaY]

^ That is to have the consulates nearby so when sh1t hits the fan the citizens can run into the embassies.

[member_22872]

If they INC is called Islamo-Christianist platform repeatedly, this could help in two ways, one it will make Hindu voters think who they are really voting for, those Hindus who think highly of INC because of false assumption that INC of Independence days is the same as today will open their eyes or atleast will try to find why INC is being called so...there is chance some Hindus could be weaned away -> job for other parties to enforce.

Secondly, I think INC wants to play safe and be seen as secular party, they also don't want to be seen panderers of Christio-Isamic groups, hence Raul is called Rahul for example. So when constantly calling them Islamo-Christianist, then will be boxed and that could work against their designs.

[AbhiJ]

^ That is to have the consulates nearby so when sh1t hits the fan the citizens can run into the embassies.

Air India Flight is always on Stand by for them like Wan Anderson.

[johneeG]

The third platform above IS the secular platform.

By separating 'secular' platform, we will be allowing the smoke screens to continue.

Secularism is "Christianity without Church".

That is the western phenomenon. In India, its the reverse. Secularism, in India, means uniting state with church/mullah and separating the masses from Temples/Gurus/Gods/Shastras...etc.

Remember, the X-ianity was introduced into Roman Empire by Constantine through a 'secular' law:

In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan, where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith without oppression.[204] This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred in persecutions of Christians, and returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose. A similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy; Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them.[205] The Edict of Milan included several clauses which stated that all confiscated churches would be returned as well as other provisions for previously persecuted Christians.

So, the emperor legalized X-ianity in Roman Empire in the guise of Secularism. Where did it end?

X-ianity was declared the official state religion of Roman Empire after merely 70 years of 'secularism'. It was not a co-incident or accident. It was deliberately planned and executed. The period of 'secularism' was to prepare ground for the complete take over of the state and masses. Once the X-ianity had state support, all other religions were banned, including the religion that was followed by Romans from ages. X-ianity, with the help of the state, persecuted all the other religions and its followers, establishing itself firmly in the saddle. Once it was in power, X-ianity and its clergy had no use for 'secularism'. When X-ianity became the state religion, pagans were not offered any 'secularism'. No. Instead, they were hounded, even in their private homes. Homes were confiscated, if any pagan ritual was conducted. Rituals and ceremonies that were being followed by generations of Romans were prohibited. Temples were demolished. Eternal burning fire(Akhand Jyothi?) was extinguished. It did not stop until the masses had completely converted to X-ianity. It did not even stop then. This was only the beginning... of dark ages.

On 27 February 380 he, together with Gratian and Valentinian II published the so-called "Edict of Thessalonica" (decree "Cunctos populos", Codex Theodosianus xvi.1.2) in order that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith).

Theodosius, the Roman Emperor from 380 to 395 AD, decreed that adherents of other religions should not hold meetings and that the buildings used for such meetings would be confiscated. It was also decreed that there would be no freedom at all for non-Christians (Gibbon?s Decline and Fall of Roman
Empire Vol-3, page 412). In those days, if non-Christians refused to part with their properties, they were likely to lose their lives.

(Kristumata Chedanam -Chattampi Swami)

The Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce anti-pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

Between 389–391 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees," which establed a practical ban on paganism;[17] visits to the temples were forbidden,[18][19] remaining pagan holidays abolished, the eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, the practices of taking auspices and witchcraftwere punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by pagan senators.

In 392 he became the Emperor (the last one to claim sole rule over the Empire). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration,[20][21] he authorized or participated in the destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the Empire,[22][23][24][25][26] and participated in actions by Christians against major pagan sites.[27]

He issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any pagan ritual even within the privacy of one's home,[28] and was particularly oppressive of Manicheans.[29] Paganism was now proscribed, a "religio illicita."[30] He is likely to have suppressed the ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration was in 393.[31]

Not just pagans but even other sects of X-ianity were not spared.

After the Edict, Theodosius spent a great deal of energy suppressing Arianism and other heretical sects, and in establishing Nicene orthodoxy throughout his realm.[4]

The Edict was followed in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, which affirmed the Nicene Symbolum and gave final form to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. [5] In 383 the Emperor ordered the various non-Nicene sects (Arians, Anomoeans, Macedonians, and Novatians) to submit written creeds to him, which he prayerfully reviewed and then burned, save for that of the Novatians. The other sects lost the right to meet, ordain priests, or spread their beliefs.[6] Theodosius prohibited the residence of heretics within Constantinople, and in 392 and 394 confiscated their places of worship.[7]

This fanatic's rule sowed the seeds that were prime factors in the eventual decline of Roman Empire. Directly as a result of the policies followed by X-ian Emperors of Rome, Western Roman Empire ended. It was followed by take over of the barbarians of the west. X-ian clergies cut a deal with these Barbarians and continued in positions of power and privilege. Persecutions did not stop. Inquisitions and Witch-hunting were to follow in the next few centuries and progressively Europe declined and X-ianity rose.

That is X-ianity's history.

If you look at Islam's history(ahadiths, if one assumes their historic authenticity), it follows similar pattern:
When Islam's so-called prophet was initially in Mecca, he made full use of the 'secularism' of the Meccans. At one point, he is supposed to have issued 'satanic verses' to lure the Meccans into his new creed and taken them back after criticism from his followers and detractors.

The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him. The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note. Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:

[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)

Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence. His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them. Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.

Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301). This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.

Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.

The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself. This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326). No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.

Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza (below), in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.

The year that Muhammad fled Mecca for Medina was 622, which marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar.

Once Mohammad reached Medina and acquired some followers, there was no need for 'secularism' anymore. It was outright war: Jihad.

Medina and the Origin of Jihad

Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power. Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.

It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.

To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina.

Initially, he used Medina as a base to attack others(particularly, Meccans). Finally, he turned on his hosts in Medina itself. Initially, he was tolerant towards Jews. One may call it 'secularism' if one wants to. But, once he was firmly established and no use for the support of Jews, he went after them.

Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina. Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets. His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own. (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).

How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.

First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.

The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God. They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation. Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed. (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).

While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force

Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.

After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).

This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment. (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).

Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).

In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).

By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.

...

Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.

Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.

The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.

In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased. But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well. In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.

Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him. Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were doled out like party favors to others.

At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create." (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Rape)

Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).

Link

As one can clearly see that 'secularism' and tolerance are acceptable only as long as they are useful. They are used like a ceasefire(or a truce) when the enemy is too strong. These periods are used to prepare for the next battle and to lull the opposition meanwhile. Once the ideology thinks that it is strong enough to take on the enemy, the ceasefire(or truce or peace deal) are not worth anything. The 'secularism' is junked. And when the ideology is dominant, they never offer any 'secularism' to its enemy. The enemy is finished off ruthlessly.

PS: Of course, the doubts about historical authenticity on biography of Mo remain. They were created long after he is supposed to have lived. So, it is quite possible that much of those biographies(or maybe the entire work) may be later-day fiction. It may have been created at the behest of the later-day rulers to satisfy their political ends.

[RajeshA]

Secondly, I think INC wants to play safe and be seen as secular party, they also don't want to be seen panderers of Christio-Isamic groups, hence Raul is called Rahul for example. So when constantly calling them Islamo-Christianist, then will be boxed and that could work against their designs.

Raul is Spanish/Portuguese/Italian for Ralph. So the right way to address the Viceroy-in-Waiting would be as Ralph Maino Gandhi. He is no 'Prince'! 'Prince' would suppose that India is an independent monarchy, and independent we are as yet certainly not.

[member_22872]

It is time RSS/BJP or anyother party which has national interests at heart to grow ball$, yes big ones and call these Aiyer, Shinde buggers out, take the fight to their turf and expose them, we need very big mouth and dirty mouthed guys, someone who can slap some sense into these nut jobs. Let guys like Diggy scurry for cover and not come out of their latrines for days together. Enough is enough with respect to calling Hindus terrorists.

From Beheading of Indian Soldiers in Aug 2011 and Aman ki Ash thread:
Philip ji wrote:

So what is emerging from the various evidence,Headley's wife's confession,etc.,is that there is a deliberate attempt to suppress the truth.The aim is obvious-to tar the "saffron" parties as being India's equivalent to the LET,HUJ,whatever ungodly species of terrorists active in Pak who are i=engaged in cross-border terrorism.

This conspiracy therefore has to involve all parties to the game.The two players,the respective govts. of India and Pak,and the referee,Uncle Sam! The like-minded capitalist cronies in India and Pak want to loot and scoot their national treasuries and sell-off the family silver to the western robber barons.To allow this to happen,they must be "preserved in power"."Small" irritants like terrorism must be swept under the carpet or an "equivalent" found,to equalize such anti-social behaviour.Each side will get its prizes,for both on-stage and backstage actors,who enjoy being used as "track-2" agents who will be wined and dined and caressed into toeing the line.Hence the shindig after Shinde's myopic and asinine utterances,supported by an evergrowing cast of Congress flops and flunkeys

and ramana ji wrote:

Philip, A tubelight moment.
The whole Hindu terror drama is maya to impresss the TSP establishemnt that its better to settle with the UPA dispensation otherwise the foaming mad Hindoos will takover and can forget any hope of a deal?
Also note that its in MMS interest to be seen as a fool, moron, and a soldout junior in INC. Each actor in this drama is playing to a script and says his/her lines.
Also about the Daoud Gilani etc., what does Abu Jundal say?
Afterall he is supposed to be #3 in LeT.

To me the above reasoning seems on the money, if so the conspiracy needs unraveling and should be exposed, else we will get stuck in quick sand from which there can't be any escape but leading to eventual "breaking India". This term should be the last for UPA, else it is not good news for India.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from GDF Thread: "Constrasting Ideas of India"

3) Islamo-Christianist Platform ( Congress, Janta Party offsprings, Islamist parties, Christianist orgs)

I agree, with the minor caveat that since 'Islamo-Christianist' is a bit of a mouthful - the INC should properly be termed an 'Islamist' Party to begin with. This also has the added advantage that Westerners start becoming more appreciative of the reality (Hindutva Party suddenly starts to seem appealing when pitted against an Islamist one...)

Arjun ji,

it would be wrong to abbreviate the "Islamo-Christianist" Platform label. It is actually the hidden or not-so-hidden Christianist aspect of the platform that gives it respectability. When one says "Islamist" for Congress, it would not sound convincing, because people would start thinking that the leadership does not have any Islamist credentials.

The labels of the platforms are for Indian consumption and introspection, and not meant for the Westerners. The Westerners have to decide whether the support they are willing to give to the "Islamo-Christianist" platform is worth it, because it facilitates not only Christianist agenda but also Islamist agenda. It may subdue the "Bharatiya Nationalist" agenda, but over the long term, they would end up supporting the Islamization of India, and not our Christianization necessarily.

From the Indian PoV, the label "Islamo-Christianist" is important, because it tells of the pact between these two groups, how Islamic street muscle and Christianist media monopoly together prop up this setup all in the name of "secularism". Without telling the Indians about the pact that exists between the two, they will not understand why the purportedly "secular" leaders support Islamist resurgence in India, why the media do not criticize Muslims.

There is a substantive group carrying Hindu names which oversees to the interests of the "Islamo-Christianist" Platform, which confuses the people. This group is wedded to the whole platform in general for various reasons like political power, influence, etc. even if some of them would neither identify themselves as Islamic nor as Christianist. They simply nurture the bridge, the pact between the two. This group also gets promoted in the setup because their Hindu names help this platform hide its true nature and agenda. They serve the Islamo-Christianist Platform in lieu for this influence. And they are to be found all over the media especially. For this platform it is absolutely crucial to hide its true nature and the pact that is in place.

Lets also not forget that the "Islamo-Christianist" Platform also tries to form alliances with other ideological platforms - the Macaulayists, the Yuppies, the Cultural Marxists and often with the Jaati-Conscious also.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from GDF Thread: "Constrasting Ideas of India"

The Macaulayists, the Yuppies, and the Jaati-Conscious can all be saved and be redeemed, except perhaps the hard-core, but the "Islamo-Christianists", the "Cultural Marxists" are not redeemable.

However considering that Marxism has in the world overall taken a beating, there may be a shimmer of light, but Maoists/Naxalites are kept in steady state of agitation for any redemption, for bringing them back into the fold, for dialogue and they are also too strongly controlled by PRC, and often supported by others simply for their contribution to anarchy.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from GDF Thread: "Constrasting Ideas of India"

When one says "Islamist" for Congress, it would not sound convincing, because people would start thinking that the leadership does not have any Islamist credentials.

Lets say the argument is "What Islamist? How do you define Islamist?" one counter is to ask what they mean by calling BJP a Hindutva party. How do you define Hindutva? And since defining Hindutva is no easy task in itself, its kind of easy to followup with an == between BJP as Hindutva and INC as Islamist based on which vote-bank the parties seek to appeal to.

If you think you can popularize 'Islamo-Christianist' then that's fine, but if it turns out you need something more catchy Islamist is also defensible.

When I say Islamist, then I mean

1. supported by Gulf money
2. supportive of Islam's expansion in India - through
   1. geographic expansion;
   2. increased birth rate;
   3. migration of Bangladeshis and Pakis;
   4. consolidation of Muslim ghettos;
   5. consolidation of Mullah's control over the Muslim masses;
   6. elevation of Mullahs as the legitimate dialogue partners w.r.t. issues involving the Muslim community;
   7. tolerance of Muslim mafia, underworld and muscle;
3. Appeasement of Kashmiri separatists and Pakistanis
4. supportive of Islamic-British historical narrative at the cost Indian Civilizational history

However Congress can push back any labeling of it as "Islamist" because it can quote its historical role as opposition to Muslim League, its opposition to Two-Nation Theory, etc. This is all legacy and something that happened a long time ago, and under the guidance of more stalwarts than just the monopoly on power of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty!

The Congress trick is to portray the ideological fragmentation of Indian polity as something between "Secular" forces and "Hindutvavadis". Many other ideological platforms also are happy to play this game.

Because the Indian Muslims vote strategically, they know how to play the various parties and let the "Islamo-Christianist" Platform compete with other platforms for their votes - the Cultural Marxists (who are against only the majority culture), and the opportunist Jaati-conscious parties (who too are open to such alliances). That is how the Muslim vote bank ensures that ideologically there is an understanding between the various platforms on the national level, supportive of Islamic expansion in India.

And because there is this competition for Muslim votes, Bharatiyas get the impression that Congress is not per se "Islamo-Christianist", which also suits Congress, because it allows them to get the votes of others as well, as their true nature can thus be clouded and hidden.

The Macaulayites, the Yuppies, the Communist-minded, the Jaati-conscious common people all thus fooled to support the "Islamo-Christianist" agenda because of this deceptive label of "Secularism".

That is why it is important to speak out all the various platforms individually and to reject the existence of "Secular Platform"

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

that may be true in the West, but in India, Christianist orgs are very much a part of the mix, and consider themselves formally aligned to the alleged "Secular" Platform, but in reality is the "Islamo-Christianist Platform".

I am saying Islamo-Christianist platform == secular platform. That is why you have INC and Janata types in that group. I agree that we must call this IC Platform and not Indian Congress platform but we should not separate secularism from it.

RamaY ji,

you do not want to separate the "Secularism" from the Platform label,

1) because you may consider it as inferior to say Dharmic or Indic, but there would be many people in India, who have been nurtured to consider it as a positive word - be it in the form of separation between religion and state, or be it in the form of considering all religions equal.

2) because you may think you can taint secularism by equating it with Islamo-Christianist Platform. This is something that has been going on for some time, but still the Bharatiya Nationalist Platform has not been able to make a dent in the popularity of the "Secular" label. Most Indians would always see the "Secularism" as something positive. It is part of the Constitution and many feel proud of that label. So this strategy is I believe already used up and found to be wanting in its effectiveness.

The "new idea" I want to put across is that the Bharatiya Nationalists should completely reject the existence of the "Secularist" Platform in India. We all know that "Secularism" is a mask they all wear. What we always do is we say no you are not true secularists, but rather pseudo-secularists. All we do is we contest about the nature of the mask/face. They retort that no they are secularists and that our attack is typical of Hindu fundamentalists. So our criticism is easily deflected and neutered. This "True"-Secular vs. "Pseudo"-Secular debate is old and has run into the quicksand. We let them keep the mask, without really tearing it away. We say "Pseudo", we are only trying to contest the level of their secularism, but we are still failing to tell the people what they really are. I am saying that without the mask, they are "Islamo-Christianist Platform". Period. No Secular. No Pseudo-Secular.

So if somebody says, he is "secular", we say "no, you are an Islamo-Christianist".
If somebody says, he is "secular", we say "no, you are a Cultural Marxist".
If somebody says, he is "secular", we say "no, you are simply a Yuppie".
If somebody says, he is "secular", we say "no, you are a full-blooded Macaulayite".
If somebody says, he is "secular", we say "no, you are a Jaativadi tactically allied with the Islamists".

We should deny the other person, the cover to call himself a secular even though his agenda is something else. Has any of the "secular" parties ever allowed BJP to call itself secular? No! So if they have never allowed Bharatiya Nationalists to call themselves "secular", why should the Bharatiya Nationalists allow them that "privilege"?

[RajeshA]

If they INC is called Islamo-Christianist platform repeatedly, this could help in two ways, one it will make Hindu voters think who they are really voting for, those Hindus who think highly of INC because of false assumption that INC of Independence days is the same as today will open their eyes or atleast will try to find why INC is being called so...there is chance some Hindus could be weaned away -> job for other parties to enforce.

<snip>

So when constantly calling them Islamo-Christianist, then will be boxed and that could work against their designs.

venug ji,

that is the whole intention. The intention is to make Indians fully conscious of the platform they are voting for or otherwise supporting.

The problem today is that these platforms take votes from Indian citizens while wearing masks of "secularism" and "modernity". Bharatiya Nationalists do not rip away these masks. At the most we raise suspicions as to their veracity or comprehensiveness of their claim to "secularism", but we don't rip away the mask.

The mask can be ripped away in that we tell the voters there is no "Secularist" Platform existent in Indian politics or media, so there is no one one could give one's vote in the name of "secularism", and those who ask for votes in the name of "secularism" actually belong to various other political-ideological platforms. Of course Indian voters are free to give their votes to those platforms as well, but they should at least be conscious of the basis on which they are giving their vote.

Congress has become Pakistani National Congress. There is no Indian National Congress left. It has become an "Islamo-Christianist Platform". If the voter supports, fine then he can give his vote to them, but he should not be confused that they are "secularists"!

[harbans]

Firstly it is complete nonsensical to translate Indic/ Dharmic/ Hindu in contrast to Abrahmic/ Christo/Islamist/Secularilst whatever. Alll contrasts are nothing but a clash of value systems. Not effects or rituals. Clashing about rituals is a small minded affair. The dawning of the realization that protection of India's interests lie in the state being bound to uphold value systems primarily, exclusively is the beginning of the era when we reverse a millennium and more of neglect to value systems. The vocal and rabid protagonists of Hindutva that raise the spectre of ritual adherence above value systems will never find voice in India. They will always find Dharma vague and unrepresentative. They will value ritual adherence over value systems. They will fail to realize why value systems are paramount. They completely fail to realize that worldwide clashes till date and the future are at the core about value systems. When you devalue value systems, you will consider all clashes to be of material interests and nothing else. That reasoning is taking vogue nowadays, whereas it is necessarily the truth.

Seculars in India think that peace with Paki's is possible because we equate the desire for common material benefit amongst people as the singular reason reason why we can have peace. They fail to realize that the value systems are intrinsically different. When we reach a stage that values don;t matter, the next thought that enters is what difference does it make if i do namaz 5 times compared to visit a temple twice a day. The difference to that observer devoid of faith in value systems is only a difference of superficial ritual. When that happens large sections convert.

Towards India's core interests, the imperative to binding the constitution and it's upholders to primarily upholding value systems that we Indians agree to is CORE imperative present day. We face clear and present danger if we do not realize that. Our civilizational and ritual heritage will vanish if we don't realize that simple fact today. It is of VITAL import to understand this.

[RajeshA]

Firstly it is complete nonsensical to translate Indic/ Dharmic/ Hindu in contrast to Abrahmic/ Christo/Islamist/Secularilst whatever. All contrasts are nothing but a clash of value systems. Not effects or rituals. Clashing about rituals is a small minded affair. The dawning of the realization that protection of India's interests lie in the state being bound to uphold value systems primarily, exclusively is the beginning of the era when we reverse a millennium and more of neglect to value systems.

One can call them "value systems" or one can call them "ideological memes". It is not just contrasts happening here, but also competition and rivalry AND war.

Roughly speaking, the competition is between Cults. The Cult of Muhammed vs. the Cult of Jesus vs. the Cult of Moses vs. the Cult of Buddha vs. the "Cult of the Rishis"!

Of course all these cults have different memes. They also have different emphasis on various values. But if one puts up some values like Truth, Honesty, Compassion, Brotherhood, then perhaps all would hold up their hands. So values really are hardly sufficient to make the contrasts.

So value based guidelines would always be up for interpretation and would be adhered to differently depending on the office-holder in charge.

The vocal and rabid protagonists of Hindutva that raise the spectre of ritual adherence above value systems will never find voice in India. They will always find Dharma vague and unrepresentative. They will value ritual adherence over value systems. They will fail to realize why value systems are paramount. They completely fail to realize that worldwide clashes till date and the future are at the core about value systems. When you devalue value systems, you will consider all clashes to be of material interests and nothing else. That reasoning is taking vogue nowadays, whereas it is necessarily the truth.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here that the contrast is between ritualism and value-based systems. Hindus would define themselves over more than just the dimension of rituals. Hindu-ism comprises of other aspects like culture, history, mythology, genealogy, iconry, AND philosophy as well.

Seculars in India think that peace with Paki's is possible because we equate the desire for common material benefit amongst people as the singular reason reason why we can have peace. They fail to realize that the value systems are intrinsically different. When we reach a stage that values don;t matter, the next thought that enters is what difference does it make if i do namaz 5 times compared to visit a temple twice a day. The difference to that observer devoid of faith in value systems is only a difference of superficial ritual. When that happens large sections convert.

There is a little flaw in this thinking. The value systems one adheres to is a function of one's identity, upbringing and environment. Each identity is based on cultural and political history in which certain memes and values have taken shape. So yes upbringing and environment are factors, but identity is the biggest factor in this. Values flow from that. Values don't exist in vacuum. They are a product of historical development.

You look at value systems disengaged from the cultural environment in which they have taken shape and matured. Also you are considering "ritual" as devoid of meaning and comprising only of "steps of execution".

Towards India's core interests, the imperative to binding the constitution and it's upholders to primarily upholding value systems that we Indians agree to is CORE imperative present day. We face clear and present danger if we do not realize that. Our civilizational and ritual heritage will vanish if we don't realize that simple fact today. It is of VITAL import to understand this.

The Core imperative is to bind Indians and India to protection of the Indian Civilization, the entire gamut of all the aspects of Indian Civilization.

The right values would flow from that.

[harbans]

There is a little flaw in this thinking. The value systems one adheres to is a function of one's identity, upbringing and environment.

Incorrect. Your environment, identity are a result of your value systems. The majority of Indians abhor Pakistan because because their value systems are different. The fact they are unable to understand that is another matter. The Indians who think the Paki's are same as us, bark all over after a basic understanding that ritual differences don't necessarily differentiate humans. They fail to see beyond that it's not the ritual differences that separate the Paki from the Indian, but differences in basic value systems. The GoI today acts only after outrage. Why are we outraged at Rape? Because we pray in a temple? Because we are some Sanskritized, vedic descendents with great knowledge of vedic texts? Assram and Bhagwat and dozens others showed you what they really felt for the victim. My thinking is not flawed. The more time you take to realize this basic the more you delay India's interests. You don;t have a choice but ultimately to come to that realization. There are no other options left. Zilch.

[harbans]

The Core imperative is to bind Indians and India to protection of the Indian Civilization,

The entire Indian civilization in USELESS and WILL loose if it cannot identify value systems it must stand up for.