Bharat Rakshak

Pranav ji,

I tried to come up with a definition which includes all Dharmic Sampradayas, including the nastika ones (Buddhism, Jainism) and the new one, Sikhism, so every Sampradaya can define for itself how they characterize "Supreme" and how they characterize "direct access". That is up to each Sampradaya, as long as there is no intermediary who intervenes and says that the access can only be thorough him.

In the case you mention: the Self-Realization breaks down the barriers between Atma and Brahman. The intrinsic capacity is for this the capacity for Self-Realization. Supreme is Brahman. Atma is Atma. "Direct access" is the unity.

RajeshA wrote:I tried to come up with a definition which includes all Dharmic Sampradayas, including the nastika ones (Buddhism, Jainism) and the new one, Sikhism, so every Sampradaya can define for itself how they characterize "Supreme" and how they characterize "direct access". That is up to each Sampradaya, as long as there is no intermediary who intervenes and says that the access can only be thorough him.

RajeshA ji, I had once made a post on anold locked thread that has this table. Perhaps you could use it:



In this, the fullness of "knowledge" is when approached with a "philosophical" vision. At that intersection we can find what can be called "philognosis" - where one has practical knowledge of whatever one "worships".

The Adharmic cults can be understood by going down the column of "religion". Their idea of knowledge is "fundamentalism" which means they rationalize everything observed or experienced to align with a book and its interpretive priesthood. It is a rationalizing mentality and not a learning mentality. Etc.

I think this is a good table, which I found on The Order of Time website. You can use it. I think I will also blog on this point.

del

Rajesh ji, Hindutva is a political ideology to achieve power.

1. Achieving Power is it's Primary objective.
2. What sort of Governance and ideals it forms once it achieves power is not given much thought.

For 2: There are many vested groups within the fold that have immensely different idea's. From Vajpayee to Togadia to a Thackeray to a Modi, there are completely different takes on what to do next whence in power.

There are clear uniting points though.

1. Rootedness in the 'original' culture of the land
2. Romanticized ideas and a yearning for the ideal of Ancient Pre-Islamic Bharat.
3. Scorn at the increasing influence of Desert based religious meme's.

Clear points of divisiveness and derision/ scepticism for others:

1. Unsure of what Governance to achieve.
2. Unsure how much hold will dogmatic Sampradaya's achieve whence in power in the setup.
3. Unsure whether democratic norms will be upheld.
4. Unsure how economically sound their policies will be.
5. Unsure how much modern freedoms we take for granted will be allowed under their dispensation.
6. Unsure how major minorities will react to any declaration of a Hindu State.

Now, the INC has been guilty of many violations on all the 6 points in major ways right since independence. Yet that does not imply the citizens will allow others to function in a similar manner for another 60 years. So if Hindutvaadi's seek change and power, they have to better define themselves on the above 6.

I don't think any one here should by and large have any objections to what i have written so far. Let us for a second refer the above six as the Core 6 Governance fundamentals. C6.

To assure people it is always better to spell out what kind of ideal state one envisions. The exercise is a theoretical constitutional preamble type effort. The kind that has been made on this thread after a score pages. Maybe it is flawed. But it is an effort at consensus to define our core.

Has The Hindutva ideology done that Rajesh Ji? If so can you relate them to the C6. Is the Hindutva ideology satisfied to operate within the confines of the present Constitution. What kind of changes does it seek if not.

I am surprised that you rooting for Hindutva ideology did not quote a Preamble of what they would like or spelled the same from their sources. It's been around for 100 years now. So what is their preamble effort to day on the C6. Would be glad to know.

Constitutional Hindutva is perfectly possible!

Constitutional Hindutva is perfectly possible!

Yes Constituional Fascism is possible, Constitutional Secularism is possible, Constitutional Islam is possible, Constitutional Xtianity is possible. But as a i mentioned before, has there been any attempt to define in clear terms what a Hindutva constitution would be like? Like the preamble exercise carried out here. I gave the C6. I think it should be a given that part should be much more clear.

Narendra Modi talks about the Greatness of Veer Savarkar

harbans wrote:6. Unsure how major minorities will react to any declaration of a Hindu State.

Has The Hindutva ideology done that Rajesh Ji? If so can you relate them to the C6. Is the Hindutva ideology satisfied to operate within the confines of the present Constitution. What kind of changes does it seek if not.

harbans ji,

when you don't even understand the simple meaning of what 'Hindu' is, how are you going to go about understanding what Hindu State would be!

In your mind you may have some concept of what 'Hindu' is! But is it the correct meaning? And even if anything were explained by the Hindutvavadis do you think you would be able to understand with your biases and prejudices?

So before we go about discussing what Hindutva has to offer, here are a few questions for you to think hard about:

1. As far as minorities are concerned, what minorities are there which exist beyond the Hindu fold?
2. And why do they exist beyond the Hindu fold?
3. And if they have decided to exist beyond the Hindu fold, why is it of any importance what they think for this country?

Essentials of Hindutva
Author: V.D. Savarkar
Published in 1920-1921

Hindu Rashtra Darshan
Author: V.D. Savarkar

when you don't even understand the simple meaning of what 'Hindu' is, how are you going to go about understanding what Hindu State would be!

I mentioned this before and it's known that a 100 Hindu's will define themselves differently. So cut that rhetoric out.
Second defining a Hindu/ HIndutva State..goes why not answer this objectively?

Clear points of divisiveness and derision/ scepticism for others:

1. Unsure of what Governance to achieve.
2. Unsure how much hold will dogmatic Sampradaya's achieve whence in power in the setup.
3. Unsure whether democratic norms will be upheld.
4. Unsure how economically sound their policies will be.
5. Unsure how much modern freedoms we take for granted will be allowed under their dispensation.
6. Unsure how major minorities will react to any declaration of a Hindu State.

Rosy rhetoric and wishlists don;t help your cause. Clear definitions do. Truth is no one is sure. Neither are the Hindutvaadi's. Each has fanciful ideas. And in the frustration of being pointed out, you resort to accusation and aggression.

Hindutva is for all political parties inside India. It is for a national vision and for inclusive of all Indian citizens.
It is for national unity and nationalism for all citizens. There is no religion.
This political ideology is not for any single party or NDA or BJP

It removes the politics of fragmentation and politics of regionalism

harbans wrote:I mentioned this before and it's known that a 100 Hindu's will define themselves differently. So cut that rhetoric out.

No you cut the rhetoric out!

Do you know what a Hindu is according to the Hindutvavadis? It is after all their model you wish to know about. What does it matter how your neighbor defines 'Hindu'? If you want to understand the Hindutva model, you have to first accept their definition of 'Hindu'!

Hindutva is for all political parties inside India. It is for a national vision and for inclusive of all Indian citizens.
It is for national unity and nationalism for all citizens. There is no religion.
This political ideology is not for any single party or NDA or BJP

It removes the politics of fragmentation and politics of regionalism

Is not the present constitution meant exactly for that:

HindutvaThe Present Constituion is for all political parties inside India. It is for a national vision and for inclusive of all Indian citizens.
It is for national unity and nationalism for all citizens. There is no religion.
This political ideology is not for any single party or NDA or BJP

It removes the politics of fragmentation and politics of regionalism

That is why i asked a specific question on the C6. Why does it take so much heartburn, arrogance, dominative behaviour, name calling, aggression to answer simply? The latter is not necessarily addressed to you Acharya Ji.

Do you know what a Hindu is according to the Hindutvavadis? It is after all their model you wish to know about. What does it matter how your neighbor defines 'Hindu'? If you want to understand the Hindutva model, you have to first accept their definition of 'Hindu'!

Arrey you are the Hindutvaadi here, along with many others. Why don;'t you do the honors of defining Hindu then? I just asked a simple question:

Clear points of divisiveness and derision/ scepticism for others:

1. Unsure of what Governance to achieve.
2. Unsure how much hold will dogmatic Sampradaya's achieve whence in power in the setup.
3. Unsure whether democratic norms will be upheld.
4. Unsure how economically sound their policies will be.
5. Unsure how much modern freedoms we take for granted will be allowed under their dispensation.
6. Unsure how major minorities will react to any declaration of a Hindu State.

And all i am met with is arrogance, aggression, anger, frustration. Great qualities to nurture a democratic, respectful set up.

harbans wrote:

Do you know what a Hindu is according to the Hindutvavadis? It is after all their model you wish to know about. What does it matter how your neighbor defines 'Hindu'? If you want to understand the Hindutva model, you have to first accept their definition of 'Hindu'!

Arrey you are the Hindutvaadi here, along with many others. Why don;'t you do the honors of defining Hindu then? I just asked a simple question

I have already done it in the pages earlier. You may have missed it. But then again, that is only one opinion among many about what 'Hindu' is that you keep on hearing!

So what you need to do is to read up on the definition of 'Hindu' from the official Hindutivavadis! Once you are clear about how they understand 'Hindu' and you acknowledge it as their understanding and you put forth whether you agree to it or not, then we can proceed to discuss their notions of state, and the pros and cons.

There is nothing difficult in answering the list you provided, but I know with my interactions here, that that is a useless exercise, that is until we arrive on the same page about the basic definitions.

I have provided two links earlier. Please do read "Essentials of Hindutva"! I have provided the link in an earlier post!

There is nothing difficult in answering the list you provided,

You are the one propagating Hindutvaadi. So the onus to define it in the framework where i placed the genuine concerns of most people in this country, lies with you. Not with them or me reading treatises on Hindutva. They are not interested. What they are and i am are simply the points that i have asked in the C6. People i know write reams without coming to the core concerns.

harbans ji,

what I am questioning is your ability to grasp the answers to your C6. Nothing wrong with the questions. I want to be sure you can understand the answers in their correct context. Up till now from all your jibes at Hindutva, I notice you don't know a thing about it, and like most sickularists are not interested in understanding it either. It needs to stay there so that every once in a while you can spit at it.

You are the one who has shown animosity towards it, which is fine! You can be against some ideology! Many here are dead against Islamic ideology! But if we are against it, we make additional efforts to understand it. One tries to understand one's enemies or rivals or competitors.

But the sickularists have never done an honest piece of Purva Paksha on Hindutva, which requires understanding the other on the others' own terms and then explaining it in one's own categories. No this has not been the exercise at all. It is always slander and mud-slinging by putting up straw-man arguments.

The onus is not at all on me to explain to you Hindutva! The onus is on you to show that you understand Hindutva if you wish to enjoy the right to criticize it, spit at it, piss at it or whatever unchallenged! The onus is on you to show that you have the intellectual depth to understand right from wrong about Hindutva, for only with that intellectual depth comes the right to rubbish something as you have been doing w.r.t. to Hindutva.

If your request for information on Hindutva had come before you had started pissing on it all over the pages, I would have been more than glad to help you understand it and to answer any questions you have, for that would have been an honest query. But you just want to enjoy some 'moral grand standing' by pissing on Hindutva without a real high horse, not even on a donkey. You have shown yourself as prejudiced and biased w.r.t. Hindutva despite having no real knowledge about it!

But the sickularists have never done an honest piece of Purva Paksha on Hindutva

Nice, anyone who does not buy your Gowalkar or Savarkar theories can be called any names. Tell me what Purva Paksha can be done if these questions the C6 are not answered clearly. The only Purva Paksha for Hindutva then that people see is angry, loud, frothing, frustrated, name calling folk many who praise Hitler, whip couples, smash KFC's and assorted goonish behavior on and off the net. Purva Paksha by others is fine, but what about introspection. Thought about that anytime?

harbans wrote:And all i am met with is arrogance, aggression, anger, frustration. Great qualities to nurture a democratic, respectful set up.

Why does it take so much heartburn, arrogance, dominative behaviour, name calling, aggression to answer simply?

The only Purva Paksha for Hindutva then that people see is angry, loud, frothing, frustrated, name calling folk many who praise Hitler, whip couples, smash KFC's and assorted goonish behavior on and off the net.

This seems to be the usual run of the mill minority victimization card - oh the Hindu majority is treating me so badly! One wonders if one keeps these victim words always handy in the back-pocket to take out at the drop of a hat!

harbans wrote:

But the sickularists have never done an honest piece of Purva Paksha on Hindutva

Nice, anyone who does not buy your Gowalkar or Savarkar theories can be called any names.

Nobody is telling you to buy any Gowalkar or Savarkar theories! Just tell me what those theories are you are so hell-bent on not buying!

harbans wrote:1. Unsure of what Governance to achieve.

What does this question mean?

If your request for information on Hindutva had come before you had started pissing on it all over the pages, I would have been more than glad to help you understand it

Actually if you remember i have been on the import of values, principles, preambles for weeks if not months. There have been many times i requested for information on what does this nation and it's real interests stand for? I have been attempting to put that in perspective for months. All i get is these don;t matter. Yet when Yama asked Yudhistra what does a Brahmin make, Yudhistra answers 'Conduct alone'. That info is read and brushed promptly aside. So you want something dear on the national level. It is your imperative to define what values and principals you intend your idea of nationhood to stand by, what will be it's charter, how will it treat those who do not agree to it's point of view etc. No one elses. Your page long wishlists not withstanding. For someone who did a complete U turn on Hinduism, on the ability of Dharma to unite, who just a day or so ago said no one cares a rats ass for preambles, it's a bit rich to say this kind of info on request was answerable. You will only succeed turning people off from your agenda with such attitudes. My questions and arguments if you would have noticed were in good faith, and possibly have helped you develop a better perspective. Anyways good day and good luck with your project.

As a Hindutvavadi I will try to answer:

1. Unsure of what Governance to achieve.

A Governance based on the very same principles enshrined in your own suggested Preamble, Harbans ji, or that of Rajesh ji or RamaY ji. Dharma, Satya, Purusharthas, individual self-expression and self-realization, respect for environmental health, and many others. Have these not been Hindu ideas for thousands of years before they belonged to any other civilization? Does applying a "Hindu" label automatically negate these Hindu principles, and if so how?

2. Unsure how much hold will dogmatic Sampradaya's achieve whence in power in the setup.

A constitution can endeavour to protect the state against dogmatic groups (Sampradayas or otherwise) getting hold of power, only to a certain extent. Beyond that it depends on how well the constitution is implemented in the sphere of political reality. Today we have a dogmatic Dynasty group which has acquired a near monopoly on power in the current dispensation... this is not anything remotely envisioned by the writers of the 1950 constitution, yet it happened.

At least if a Hindutva constitution enshrines those principles listed by yourself, Rajesh ji and Rama Y ji above... such as the primacy of Satya and individual self-expression... the state will have a better protection against dogmatic power-grabbers in theory, than what the current constitution has afforded in practice.

3. Unsure whether democratic norms will be upheld.

Hindu Dharma gives unchallenged primacy to the individual and his or her rights. This principle would be enshrined in the Preamble to any Hindutva constitution. If a Western-based "secular" notion of "democratic republic" can guarantee the extent of democratic norms we enjoy today, then a constitution based explicitly on Hindu Dharma would only reinforce such a guarantee.

4. Unsure how economically sound their policies will be.

Those who are unsure of this, exhibit a case of protracted mental colonialism by the white man. "Oxford" educated economists MMS and Chidambaram have made an unholy mess of the economy and wasted all the opportunities of an unprecedented boom. Meanwhile "Hindutva" CMs including Raman Singh, SS Chauhan, VR Scindia have instituted very sound developmental policies in their states; and the uber-Hindutva Narendra Modi has combined development with an astonishing degree of trade liberalization for prosperity at all levels. The records of "secular" vs. "Hindutva" economic policies speak for themselves. The Hindu has always had a sound sense of "artha" as it applies to economics; and it applies better to Indian economics, apparently, than whatever they teach in Oxford.

5. Unsure how much modern freedoms we take for granted will be allowed under their dispensation.

Again, see the answer to (3). A Hindutva constitution relegates utmost importance to freedom of individual self expression, to the recognition of individual merit, and to providing opportunities for the maximum realization of individual potential.

Now the category "modern freedom" means one thing to the limousine liberal crowd, and a different thing to the de-facto bonded labourer in rural India. Hindutva would provide deliverance for the bonded labourer through its first principles. Moreover, the only limousine liberals who need to fear a Hindutvavadi regime are those who engage in real and provable Adharma... such as "date rape" or "cyber bullying"... under the guise of enjoying "modern freedoms."

Under the present constitution, it is the case that limousine liberals can justify all sorts of behaviour under the pretext of enjoying "modern freedoms," while the bonded labourer commits suicide in desperation.

It has been unfortunate that some allegedly "Hindutva" groups (invariably, fringe opportunists acting on the behest of INC's dirty tricks department) have sometimes attracted negative publicity by attacking the limousine liberals at nightclubs, discos, valentine's day events etc. But one should not confuse this shallow spectacle with the deeper reality; and I do not think the Indian voter, at large, is stupid enough to confuse these things. Appropriate media management has turned "The Butcher of Gujarat" into a front-runner for the 2014 PM-ship, even in the view of many limousine-liberals. It can further correct the deliberate misinformation that has been propagated for years regarding the true meaning of Hindu values. Satyameva jayate!

6. Unsure how major minorities will react to any declaration of a Hindu State.

This again presumes that "minorities" are monolithic. They are not. Certainly all minority groups have their John Dayals and Akbar Owaisis who have a vested interest in the politics of identity, who stand to increase their personal power at the direct cost of national interest. Such actors will carry on as destructive forces no matter what the dispensation in charge of the country might be. Yet, not every Muslim is an Owaisi; certainly not the Muslims of Muslim-majority Salaya township who voted overwhelmingly for Narendra Modi this year.

There is always a chance that the Owaisis and Dayals may agitate a certain proportion of their respective minority groups to act against the national interest. That may happen under a Hindutvavaadi dispensation, and it definitely happens under the present non-Hindutvavaadi dispensation.

Yet, does the existence of a Hindu State really make violent disruption by minorities more likely than the present milieu of a "secular" state? It seems today that Islamist riots are taking place in Kerala, Andhra, TN, Maharashtra, Assam, Bengal, UP, all kinds of non-Hindutvavaadi states, frequently and regularly: relatively few riots have taken place, over the same period of time, in states run by a Hindutvavaadi government. That goes for terrorism and bomb-blasts as well. Barring J&K which had a dynamic of its own, how many terrorist incidents took place under the NDA regime, vs. the UPA regime? How many deaths have such incidents caused, and how frequently have they occurred in states run by Hindutvavaadi vs. non-Hindutvavaadi governments? The facts speak for themselves.

If we continue with the myth that "major minorities" will react to the declaration of a Hindu State by damaging the national interest, we are in fact committing two errors. (1) We give credence to the Dynasty dogmatists' false narrative that a "minority" is to be defined by its fringe of worst-behaved, most opportunistic, least Dharmic members. (2) We ignore the fact that the mutual respect with which societies of "minority" religious groups have always been treated in India, does not arise from any imported notion of "secularism" but from the principles of Hindu Dharma itself.

harbans ji,

this is what you have been saying for months

Hindutva then that people see is angry, loud, frothing, frustrated, name calling folk many who praise Hitler, whip couples, smash KFC's and assorted goonish behavior

about Hindutva all along! Sorry, but such childish sickular abuse is not the basis of dialogue! After use of such words, one just can't take the other seriously!

harbans ji,

I think as a civilizational ideology, "Hindutva" cannot be held to a particular fixity. Again, it comes back to your earlier insistence on defining Values in terms of Actions. I hope you now agree that that was an error on your part.

But certainly we can say that the preferred, balanced position would be as per the table I posted above, where its "politics" is geared to ensuring maximum prosperity, "religious traditions" are a medium of civilizational soft power projection, its "power" is vested in science, and its understanding of knowledge itself is firmly grounded in personal gnosis. Etc.

But that is the optimal position given good circumstances. In case of challenges, "Hindutva" should be allowed to reserve the right to take a different political position such as populism, isolationalism (w.r.t. other nations and even sub-cultures within India), nationalism (defining "Hindutva" purely in identification with a collective Indian racial memory as the starting point of any analysis), and even despotism (a strongman leader in emergency conditions), pure constitutional formalism as an idea, etc.

Rudradev ji,

I thank you for your patient and very eloquent response to those questions. I wasn't able to grasp the opportunity they provided for clarifying Hindutva's PoV, perhaps due to exasperation.

I only wish, I could point to a "Hindu" site for the details for the below, but I have not found any. But, here goes an attempt.

harbans wrote:1. Unsure of what Governance to achieve.

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

To explain the above, it will take an entire constitution and many court judgments to come to a full understanding. However the above is my take.

2. Unsure how much hold will dogmatic Sampradaya's achieve whence in power in the setup.

Institutionalized checks and balances should correct any imbalances. Clear separation of powers, lacking in today's structures along with "stringent" qualifications and some qualified mechanisms for how one is voted to positions can help correct today's issues along with any concerns from Samapradayic dominances. Varna Dharma can help here.

3. Unsure whether democratic norms will be upheld.

Why are we so concerned about democracy? Is it even an Indian issue? Our issue is the "correct" use of democracy to suit the goals of Bhartiya society. Some of the wilder assumptions of the ill informed needs to be corrected.

As Carl ji, mentioned, it is a non-issue. Today's times require a democratic setup and judged to be as most ideal. If tomorrow some other structure is better at securing the above governance model, so be it. This fear of democratic norms is a non-sequitor without any basis. Our civilization should have no fear that Bhartiya society shall not have a "humane" and "just" society as its goal. Every time there has been ossification there has been natural resistance movements too. But, an exposition of such a Dharmic constitution should leave us in no doubt that not only is the structure democratic, but has additional checks and balances to ensure that peoples rights cannot be trampled with - again a non-issue. But, if spelling it out helps so be it. Ensuring the right type of people enter government and positions of power is more important - these critical checks are lacking (varnas can help here) and hence there is massive abuse in the current system. This needs to be corrected.

4. Unsure how economically sound their policies will be.

Economic well being holds prime importance for a Dharmic state. But, the prevalent western models of socialism and capitalism are not sufficient to establish a Dharmic ideal. Nor is an economic ideal the sole ideal in a society or the only one for individuals. No state can guarantee equality in economic resources and neither is it natural to have such equity, as each of us is endowed with separate and varying skills. However, the welfare of its citizens is the onus of the state but not its obligation to provide for. This obligation rests with individuals, their families and communities. The state ought to make policies that promote the enterprising free will and encourage individuals to fulfill their dharmic duties and objectives based on their Varna and Ashrama. Economic and material resources can also be an impediment, when it unduly influences people involved in state policy. There should be better separation between wealth and those in power.

5. Unsure how much modern freedoms we take for granted will be allowed under their dispensation.

An individual's right to expression free of encumbrance shall be the responsibility of the state. Due process of law shall be followed for deliberate actions of expression by individuals solely designed to cause grave disturbance to the public order.

6. Unsure how major minorities will react to any declaration of a Hindu State.

Such a declaration can happen only and only if Hindus start living as Hindus first with knowledge, clarity and conviction of what this state stands for as an idea, its principles, values and objectives. Once Hindus become aware, the declaration of a Hindu state can be convincingly carried through any objections of most minorities, some shall acquiesce and some who for vested and adharmic interests shall never accept would have to be suppressed.

harbans wrote:

Hindutva is for all political parties inside India. It is for a national vision and for inclusive of all Indian citizens.
It is for national unity and nationalism for all citizens. There is no religion.
This political ideology is not for any single party or NDA or BJP

It removes the politics of fragmentation and politics of regionalism

Is not the present constitution meant exactly for that:

HindutvaThe Present Constituion is for all political parties inside India. It is for a national vision and for inclusive of all Indian citizens.
It is for national unity and nationalism for all citizens. There is no religion.
This political ideology is not for any single party or NDA or BJP

It removes the politics of fragmentation and politics of regionalism

That is why i asked a specific question on the C6. Why does it take so much heartburn, arrogance, dominative behaviour, name calling, aggression to answer simply? The latter is not necessarily addressed to you Acharya Ji.

No harbansji, the present constitution is not meant exactly for that. When Acharya ji mentioned that one of the Hindutva ideal is that "It removes the politics of fragmentation and politics of regionalism" he implied that, that is not the case presently. Present Indian conditions are a function of the present Constitution.

The present Constitution has some Dharmic elements in it. However these are yoked under a rant that the Nehruvians have hoodwinked us with. To the extent of the Dharmic elements it is ours, made by our Pitras for our benefit. To the extent of the silly rant that it today carries the yoke has to be heaved off.


-------------------


Re. your C6.

The arguments can last forever.

The Pramaan is what gets the other side to accord maanyata. As you rightly mentioned Hindutva carries a lot of different kinds of people together. One was ABV who was in his own way successful. Another is Narender Modi, there are others like Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Raman Singh, Manohar Parrikar. Chances are there would be others joining this list. Some fail to come up to the standards, and they get the chance to do their prayaschit. The people who stay on, are on a daily basis proving with their deeds that what is being talked about is also being done. Apparently both Gujarat and Goa has seen minorities come out in support of these guys. Akalis have held on to their alliance with Hindutva vaadi party at a clear discounting of the old order.

From here on perhaps we may not need to go further, perhaps we may have to. Times will keep changing. If we have to then from within the Hindutva fold you will see new people push the agenda. The fullness of Sanatan Dharm has permeated into Hindutva vaadis also and for good.

The Challenge of Saint Valentine

Something that harbans ji said, started me thinking

The only Purva Paksha for Hindutva then that people see is angry, loud, frothing, frustrated, name calling folk many who praise Hitler, whip couples, smash KFC's and assorted goonish behavior on and off the net.

Published on Feb 13, 2013
Mangalore: Bajrang Dal to oppose Valentine’s Day celebration: Daiji World

Mangalore, Feb 13: Bajrang Dal has announced that it will oppose activities connected with Valentine’s Day, which has been dedicated to lovers. Valentine’s Day is annually held on February 14.

In a statement, Bajrang Dal said that in the name of Valentine’s Day and love, obscene and immoral activities are undertaken. These in turn, are playing havoc with the cultural values cherished by the country since times immemorial, it said.

The organization has urged the district administration not to permit holding of DJ, pubs, or dances connected with Valentine’s Day. It also has urged the administration to initiate action against people who are found to be behaving indecently in public places including parks.

It also said that the district administration will be solely responsible for unsavoury incidents if any, which may occur on account of the administration’s failure to initiate action on the above lines.

The burden has always been greater on the Hindu. That is the way the INC has set up the theater of politics in India. So even as we take others to task for doing adharma, the Hindus too would need to adopt some changes in our conduct which allows the Nehruvian-Secularists (aka the Islamo-Christianist Platform) and their other friends (Cultural Marxists, Yuppies, Macaulayists, etc) to give the Hindutvavadis a bad name by twisting or suppressing the true intent of Hindutvavadis for some action and using a superficial interpretation of the acts and exaggerating them to tarnish and demonize Hindutvavadis, e.g. in this case for "whipping couples".

Be as it is, the propaganda of the Nehruvian-Secularists (aka the Islamo-Christianist Platform) is quite effective especially as they and their allies "own" the mainstream media in India, and the Hindutvavadis, in this case Bajrang Dal, need to rise above this trap, in which they willingly walk in and allow the Nehruvian-Secularists to get propaganda mileage out of it.

Conundrum

Every time one stops somebody from expressing their love for the other, one is automatically the villain. In fact that is the major theme if not the only theme of Indian films. There is no escape from this dynamic regardless of how many explanations one gives. In fact Romantic Love forms the central theme in the Dharmic traditions, by far more strongly than in Islam or Christianity.

Solution

The reason Valentine's Day has picked up popularity is simply because young (and old) people want some day where they can focus on romantic love they share with someone or wish to share with someone.

Kāma, is in fact such an important aspect of life that it is held as one of the Puruṣārthas at the same level as Dharma, Artha and Mokṣa.

Any civilization which does not want another to encroach upon its territory, which is the main consideration and driver behind Bajrang Dal's resistance to Valentine's Day, must own the narrative over Kāma fully.

There are many areas where other civilizations may have developed an advantage over the Bharatiya Sabhyata but Love is not a field where Bharat needs to bow down to others. Bharatiya Civilization is the focal point on earth where the carnal sex of Barbarian transforms into maithuna of the Arya. And this is a crown we should never abdicate.

So instead of "beating couples" what we can do finish off Valentine's Day in India by offering a civilizational response.

The Real Festival of Romantic Love

Yes, the Hindus should instead of stopping Valentine's Day, simply hold a rival 2-day Indian festival on Feb 11 & 12 - the Kama-Rati Mahotsava.

Let the God of Love and Goddess of Love help us out here!

So instead of fighting Valentine's Day, the Bajrang Dal could instead help rejuvenate this ancient festival. They could decorate their neighborhoods, they can offer couples flowers on the streets on this day, they can organize Kama-Leela plays in the community - which can be about various love stories known in India.

Valentine's Day has of course its icons today - the chocolate box, roses, hearts, dining out, cocktails, some bash.

So what can be some of the icons for Kāma-Rati Mahotsav?

- On Feb 11, it is the Kāma day. All guys wear parrot green fashion clothes - perhaps just a parrot-green Angavastram or something more elaborate. The parrot is Kāmadeva's vaahan. The ladies should preferably wear fashion with black as the base color. Women can make creative designs on their faces, similar to mehndi designs but more temporary. Some Tota-Maina narrative. On this day it is the men who give their ladies the feeling that they are goddesses. Nothing wrong even with chocolate boxes - but the chocolate boxes can have very imaginative packaging and designs. Roses too can par for the course, but one can introduce a different flower variety as well. Also on this day, all families where love flourishes can put out parrot-green flags from their windows and balconies. The streets too should be draped parrot green. No maithuna on this day! But the couples can go out and enjoy their evenings as they please - dining, cinema, dance clubs, theaters, etc.

- On Feb 12, it is the Rati day. On these 2 days, the grandparents take over the children, and every married couple should get a day for the full maithuna. Every woman and girl gets a mehndi treatment for their bodies - at least the feet and hands. And in the evening one lets Tantric love trance take over. BTW these 2 days are half-work days. Also each market should fund at least a two meter high statue of Kāmadeva & Rati in some sensual pose for the marketplace as soon as the Republic Day Celebrations are over. One would also need someone on guard-duty, something perhaps what Bajrang-Dal can take over.

- On Feb 13, people can go late to work.

- On Feb 14, what was on Feb 14, forgotten!

- A month later is Holi!

Now why am I putting something so idiotic on this thread. Well that is the Bharatiya Proposition. India has to be not the "Religion of Love" but the "Civilization of Love". If something like this succeeds in India, rest assured it would make people forget Valentine's Day not just in India, but the world over!

Also it would make many people in other communities long to be less green - more like parrot green!

Sexual freedom is often a sign of confidence of a people and not just a sign of decadence. So it is important for Hindus to be able to channelize this desire for sexual freedom in a way which strengthens people's allegiance to the Hindu Samaj rather than destroys it.

Disclaimer: I went into the details because I wanted to enable others to visualize better what I mean.

Yes and let's not forget the Tota - the symbol of Kāma-Rati Mahotsav!

RajeshA wrote:every Sampradaya can define for itself how they characterize "Supreme" and how they characterize "direct access".

Does the wording sufficiently reflect the distinctive and non-digestible aspects of Dharma. Also, those aspects that undermine any kind of top-down hierarchical political control. "Aham Brahmasmi" is one such distinctive, powerful concept.

As you said in another context -

Dharma is [not to be defined] arbitrarily by some Yuppie, Macaulayite, AIT-Nazi, Nehruvian-Secularist, or Cultural Marxist.

RajeshA wrote: Published on Feb 13, 2013
Mangalore: Bajrang Dal to oppose Valentine’s Day celebration: Daiji World
Mangalore, Feb 13: Bajrang Dal has announced that it will oppose activities connected with Valentine’s Day, which has been dedicated to lovers. Valentine’s Day is annually held on February 14.

Many of these chaps (esp Ram Sene) are actually funded by congies ...

Kāma, is in fact such an important aspect of life that it is held as one of the Puruṣārthas at the same level as Dharma, Artha and Mokṣa.

They form a hierarchy ... at the lowest level of evolution one cares only for Kama and not for Moksha ... as you evolve your horizon expands.

Sexual freedom is often a sign of confidence of a people and not just a sign of decadence.

It is an aspect of life that has to be managed prudently for lasting happiness. One does not want unwanted pregnancies, rampant abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, broken homes, single parent families, drug abuse, violence, high prison populations etc.

Pranav wrote:

RajeshA wrote:every Sampradaya can define for itself how they characterize "Supreme" and how they characterize "direct access".

Does the wording sufficiently reflect the distinctive and non-digestible aspects of Dharma. Also, those aspects that undermine any kind of top-down hierarchical control. "Aham Brahmasmi" is one such distinctive, powerful concept.

As you said in another context -

Dharma is [not to be defined] arbitrarily by some Yuppie, Macaulayite, AIT-Nazi, Nehruvian-Secularist, or Cultural Marxist.

Pranav ji,

we come back to the issue which has caused some confusion. The difference between 'Dharmic' (with capital D) and 'dharmic' (with small d).

'Dharmic' (with capital D) is an identity based on the definition

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

The definition is based on what I found was a core difference between the Bharatiya philosophical-spiritual traditions and Abrahamic traditions, based on my own little Purva-Paksha.

It does not take direct recourse to the corpus of Dharma as collated by the various Sampradayas and Mats, but contends that none of it disagrees with this position.

'dharmic' (with small d) is one's conduct based on Dharma as one finds in the corpus of Dharma collated by the various Sampradayas and Mats.

In order to understand and interpret Dharma one has to refer to the corpus of Dharma collated by the various Sampradays and Mats. That is why not every Macaulayite, Yuppie, Nehruvian-Secularist, Cultural Marxist or AIT-Nazi can go about saying what they want about Dharma making unsubstiantiable claims.

In order to understand and interpret 'Dharmic' one just needs to look up the definition and see if one believes in it and thus can identify oneself with it. If one is part of an institution which believes in the definition, then the institution is Dharmic and so too one is a Dharmic. Dharma is another matter.

If one believes that one has the intrinsic capacity to realize and experience "Aham Brahmasmi" someday, then one is Dharmic, i.e. without requiring the intervention by some self-proclaimed intermediary, who claims that without him, one would not be able to reach this experience of "Aham Brahmasmi", then one is a Dharmic.

Sexual freedom is often a sign of confidence of a people and not just a sign of decadence.

What nonsense. We have an established civilization that has gotten it right. Our vows to abstain from sex as a Brahmacharya, until marriage is a key institutional learning that has served our society well. You can ask for some adjustments for a changing society where many do not get married till much later in life but even this should be debated to see if it is in the interests of our society. But the idea of "sexual freedom" shall be resisted by Hindus. It is a challenge to an institutionalized system we have and not about values. Sex is not a personal freedom only for it impinges on society because it is procreative. The idea that teenagers can engage in sex needs to be strongly suppressed.

At a personal level, I tell my kids that they are adults only at age 24 -- yes, they already know the law. But, it has had some positive effect for my daughter wrote an essay on why the legal age limit should be changed to 21 from 18.

We have enough avenues for young males and females to socialize with each other. What do you think our public celebrations are for? Our festivals are for? Even visit to temples. It is one thing to socialize another to encourage "sexual freedom".

The idea of marriage to fulfill purusharthas together as equal partners needs to be restored and not to simply double your paycheck or have a legally sanctioned sex partner and caretaker. I personally think, it is ideal to marry within the same varna - although this decision is best left to the individual and their families.

ShauryaT wrote:

Sexual freedom is often a sign of confidence of a people and not just a sign of decadence.

What nonsense. We have an established civilization that has gotten it right. Our vows to abstain from sex as a Brahmacharya, until marriage is a key institutional learning that has served our society well. You can ask for some adjustments for a changing society where many do not get married till much later in life but even this should be debated to see if it is in the interests of our society. But the idea of "sexual freedom" shall be resisted by Hindus. It is a challenge to an institutionalized system we have and not about values. Sex is not a personal freedom only for it impinges on society because it is procreative. The idea that teenagers can engage in sex needs to be strongly suppressed.

At a personal level, I tell my kids that they are adults only at age 24 -- yes, they already know the law. But, it has had some positive effect for my daughter wrote an essay on why the legal age limit should be changed to 21 from 18.

The idea of marriage to fulfill purusharthas together as equal partners needs to be restored and not to simply double your paycheck or have a legally sanctioned sex partner and caretaker.

Actually with "Sexual Freedom" I meant more like "Freedom among Sexes to interact with each other", which is often what is meant in context of "Valentine's Day", which includes expressing love for each other, not talking about physical love, including among couples who are not married, but may plan to! I wasn't talking about them having sexual intercourse, but I can understand why the term is misleading. However I spoke of maithuna only for married couples.

Marriage is the institution of stability in Bharat, and I wasn't implying one should promote sex outside it!

So after clarifying this misunderstanding, the point of the post was for the civilizational institutions to regain ownership over the turbulent years of puberty and youth, to give freedom but also to set the parameters.

However if the Hindu Samaj takes the conservative view, does not allow young girls and boys to interact with each other in a tolerant environment, then I am afraid all the youth would run to possibilities available within a Westernized society of sexual promiscuity.

Much of the narrative on young love has been dominated by Bollywood with an expanding undergrowth of sexual exploitation, kinky sex, etc. The western ways are going to also become prevalent. So there is no stopping it. If Hindu Samaj does not provide a different narrative which also is exciting for the young but instead tries to stop the youth, one would see them turning their backs from Hindu Samaj completely.

I am not saying teenagers should be allowed to have sex. On the contrary, but their Brahmchari life should be supplemented with a lot more freedom to interact - go out together, go clubbing, drink in measure, etc..

ShauryaT wrote:We have enough avenues for young males and females to socialize with each other. What do you think our public celebrations are for? Our festivals are for? Even visit to temples. It is one thing to socialize another to encourage "sexual freedom".

Those are all welcome! But there the socializing is always a byline. The concept of Kāma as a central part of the Hindu Samaj needs to be emphasized.

Having a Kāma-Rati Mahotsav would help Hindu Samaj regain control over the narrative. It would show society as tolerant, as accommodating, as trusting of the youth, and for this freedom, the youth may in turn be willing to return this trust, be willing to talk with their parents about it and to abstain from sex and perversity.

ShauryaT wrote:I personally think, it is ideal to marry within the same varna - although this decision is best left to the individual and their families.

Well I don't know how you use the word "varna" but if you mean caste, then I can only say that is dinosaur thinking!

Sexual freedom includes the freedom to abstain from it as part of Brahmacharya Vrata.

The need of the hour is making our children aware of this freedom. The freedom to learn, be self-aware, of their Hindu identity and so on. Sexual freedom means following one's heart. Not Paraphilia.

RamaY wrote:Sexual freedom includes the freedom to abstain from it as part of Brahmacharya Vrata.

The need of the hour is making our children aware of this freedom. The freedom to learn, be self-aware, of their Hindu identity and so on. Sexual freedom means following one's heart. Not Paraphilia.

Very true! This thinking should be inculcated at the right time in life! But parents should be leading this dialogue actively as teachers and not as dictators. Unpleasant authoritarianism can however lead either to psychological problems or rebellion not just towards the parents but also towards their civilizational background.

The other day I was watching a Telugu movie - Rajanna. It is about civil rebellion against British, Nizam and the later day feudal system.

In that the patriot calls himself the beloved child of Bharatamata. The Britisher tells him that they have been raping Bharatamata for past 200 years and whatever Bharatiyas they are, they are ba4tard children.

Symbolically it is the thought process that got ba4tardized. Those elements have to be clinically removed, without any remorse or shame.

RajeshA wrote: Well I don't know how you use the word "varna" but if you mean caste, then I can only say that is dinosaur thinking!

Exactly the way Sri Krishna uses it in the BG. The word caste introduced European understanding, interpolation of class and the prevalent ossified state of Indian society by way of Jatis. I consider Jatis and Caste irrelevant for the purpose of Varna. Varna is determined by a persons gunas and Karmas.

ShauryaT ji,

even if you understand Varna according to Gunas and Karmas, I still think it is irrelevant. Can a soldier then not be married to a teacher?

RajeshA wrote: I am not saying teenagers should be allowed to have sex. On the contrary, but their Brahmchari life should be supplemented with a lot more freedom to interact - go out together, go clubbing, drink in measure, etc..

This is largely a function of how secure families feel in a society. Internal security is a pre-condition. Which parent in New Delhi would feel comfortable with such freedoms for the young? Ditto was the case under Mughal rule. Even in Pakistan, there is proven research that women have more freedoms in tightly knit Jatis that can provide protection to their women folk. However there is a Laskshman Rekha. Attempts to cross it shall meet resistance. Suppressing natural attractions shall face rebellion. Good sense and judgment is what one relies on to attain balance.