Bharat Rakshak

Jhujar ji,

thanks. Social Mobility within Islam or even Christianity is really a mirage. The freedom given is the freedom to act as cannon-fodder or as batteries accompanied with superficial tokens of equality and respect!

In Hindu Samaj, the difference was that these superficial tokens of equality and respect were not forthcoming. This makes Abrahamic traditions just more clever but not necessarily better.

Social Mobility has to be a sincere undertaking.

I think we all Dharmics of India need to get togther to asess as well reinterpret the Dharma as per current requirement and come up with common guidelines for all. Just like Gold need Copper for strength, need to add few time bound base metal qualities to deal with Kalyugi Adhambars , Lafandars and Dangars gone asunder in India.

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion

Continuing the earlier effort at definition

Religion is a brotherhood claiming to be divinely sanctioned, making exclusivist claims of universalism, with authority vested in those acting as guardians of theology and dogma around the divine sanction, pursuing a sociopolitical agenda.

Bhaktipanth is a collective pursuit of spirituality, philosophy, worship and traditional customs, often under the guidance of a founding traditional lineage.

Misunderstanding on Nature of Religion

Hinduism is simply not a religion, and we should try not to claim so. When we claim this, we bulldoze many differences we have viz-a-viz Abrahamic religion. We should not try to fit Hinduism in a small square box that religion represents.

We Bharatiyas don't have Religion, we have Sanskriti!

Within Bharatiya Sanskriti we have

1. Dharma
2. Dharmoarthic Vyavastha
3. Bhaktipanths
4. Culture
5. Sciences
6. Itihaas

What people do is to put a label "Hinduism" on top of all of this, call it religion and ban any of its presence in public and political life citing Secularism!

Our effort should be to reclaim our Sanskriti by pulling it from under the billboard of religion and make it available again in public and political life.

Furthermore it is important to give Dharma its own legitimacy and right to exist as Meta-Ethics separate from the various worship forms prevalent in Bhaktipanths. Only then can we demand that all religions have to live up to Dharmic ideals if it has to be allowed in India.

Rajesh Ji, welcome back. That is precisely the reason why i was rooting for establishment of a Dharmic State almost since i have joined the forum and not one established on lines of Hindu conservatism. A Dharmic state will enhance conservative Hindu sampradaya's while at the same time provide the necessary pluralist and liberal ethos. It will assist the formation of a Dharmic federation with Tibet, Bhutan, Thailand, Nepal, Cambodia and we can expand the federation. This will align us with Dharmic interests and allow our Sampradayic scholars to engage and influence others in the region. It will give us incentive to sort the Tibetan problem and urge China politically, diplomatically to vacate Dharmic soil.

Uselessness of Secularism

Secularism had its origins in Europe especially in the aftermath of the many religious wars, but also as the monarchs and parliaments wanted to resist the dominating influence of the Church.

A monarch, a regime, a state is more than capable of imposing its authority on the people creating a certain sense of national identity for them as well as organizing them for purposes of security, law and order, community work and taxes. The regime's authority or in modern state that of the Constitution has to be supreme.

However religious brotherhoods assert their own sociopolitical authority over the people and as such these are direct competitors with the regimes for power.

In order to curtail the power of the Church or clergy, Secularism was invented, which divided the realm of the temporal and the realm of the spiritual.

Does Bharat have any native tradition of such religious brotherhoods like say Christianity or Islam? No Bharat does not have any such tradition.

Why would Bharat not have a problem with various Gurukuls, Paramparas, Sampradayas, Deras, Acharya Sangathans trying to intervene in politics and thus creating a similar problem as say in various countries where religion and politics always mix, e.g. in Muslim countries or previously in Europe?

The reason is because according to Dharmic order it is the responsibility of everybody to see to it that Dharma is upheld and so it is perfectly acceptable for everybody to contribute to evaluate the system's adherence to Dharma, however the responsibility of the executive is recognized as solely residing with the State.

All spiritual authorities can at the maximum give their opinions when they feel Dharma is being violated and pronounce their preference for some party or politician which they feel would better look after the needs of Dharma, however all their opinions have to be based on Dharma and Dharma alone!

So when Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev intervenes in favor of BJP, he is rightly within his rights to intervene and express his preference for Narendra Modi! That's because the Supremacy of Dharma has been constantly under attack under the Secular dispensation.

Panthnirpekshata in Bharat has nothing to do with Secularism. All it means is that the state would not be showing favoritism towards any darshana or Bhaktipanth but would strive to create an environment in which all can thrive and come to the need of one and all. It is not the responsibility of the state to facilitate the growth of a particular spiritual point of view, to facilitate a particular Sampradaya.

It is similar to how Narendra Modi has expressed his views on government and industry: "the government has got no business to be in business". However it is the state's responsibility to facilitate the growth and fairness in industry and commerce by providing the proper physical, legal and administrative infrastructure. Same is the case with spirituality. It is perfectly acceptable for the State to encourage spirituality and philosophy among the people and facilitate the people to perform their worship appropriately.

Bharat does not need Secularism. Bharat needs Dharma and Bharatiyata.

So how should we deal with religious brotherhoods without the Umbrella of Secularism? To be continued.

Rethinking Freedom of Religion

Article 25 of the Indian Constition states

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

1. Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
2. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
   
   1. regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
   2. providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

The above regarding "religion" should be changed to

1. Freedom to pursue spiritual and philosophical enrichment and to worship in a form of one's choosing
2. Freedom to organize into religious brotherhoods, provided they
   1. abide by Dharma
   2. are conducive to Bhartiyata
   3. have Main Ideological Authority resident in country
   4. pursue either Pull Model or Push Model which desists from using material inducements, fear or coercion
   5. are intrinsically open to entry and exit of members

Without having defined "Religion" Article 25 makes no sense. According to my earlier definition, the freedom of religion would be unwarranted

Religion is a brotherhood claiming to be divinely sanctioned, making exclusivist claims of universalism, with authority vested in those acting as guardians of theology and dogma around the divine sanction, pursuing a sociopolitical agenda.

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, welcome back. That is precisely the reason why i was rooting for establishment of a Dharmic State almost since i have joined the forum and not one established on lines of Hindu conservatism. A Dharmic state will enhance conservative Hindu sampradaya's while at the same time provide the necessary pluralist and liberal ethos. It will assist the formation of a Dharmic federation with Tibet, Bhutan, Thailand, Nepal, Cambodia and we can expand the federation. This will align us with Dharmic interests and allow our Sampradayic scholars to engage and influence others in the region. It will give us incentive to sort the Tibetan problem and urge China politically, diplomatically to vacate Dharmic soil.

Agree with most of what you suggest.

I would however urge that we understand "Hindutva" in its correct meaning and start thinking with clarity on the nature of religion itself.

An interesting article/ Blog on India before Islam:

India before the coming of Islam

Maybe OT here, but education on cultural ethos will go a long way, in fact essential part of lifestyle.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1525147

I have doubts about games played in the education sector. Pseudo seculars and even pakis pretend to be Indians outside India with faddist lifestyle while in India control Indians to learn samskaaram. This could be an intellectually dishonest fraud while pretending to be real Indians outside India.

Indians should own everything Indian and not let faddist pretenders steal it.

How to understand Islam in Bharatiya terms?

There is a need to differentiate between a "Religion" and a "Bhaktipanth". So that would help Bharatiyas in understanding the structure of Islam, as being something completely different than what Hindus practice.

Bharatiyas can also refer to Qu'ran as the Muhammad-Smriti. However among many Hindus there is a tendency to do superficial fusion without understanding the basics of our own philosophies, e.g. calling Muhammad an avatar or equating concepts of Allah and Eeshwar. I can't say I have any deep knowledge of them either. So I would request others to chip in.

In Pramana, according to our various darshanas, we have Anumāṇa (inference) and Arthāpatti (postulation)I that we can use to evaluate Islam's contention that Qu'ran represents the word of Almighty God, Allah.

Hindus should publicly and vocally refuse to consider Qu'ran as a 'Revelation'

The sociopolitical code that Islam imposes on its members and non-members sources its authority from divine revelation. If Dharma has to be the scale by which we judge any and every institution, then Islam's sociopolitical dogma cannot be allowed to escape Dharmic scrutiny pleading its exceptionalism based on divine revelation.

So there is a very practical reason in the Indian context for rejecting its claim of divine revelation. But if Hindus have to take a position of vocal and formal rejection, than it cannot simply be based on arbitrariness, because then it just the word of Islamics against Hindus. It becomes a subjective attitude on the part of the Hindus. No, the rejection has to be systematic and should be given an objective reasoning.

How does one prove that a scripture that is claimed as the Word of God is indeed not one? Basically if the Book makes a claim about Reality which has been tested as untrue, then

a) Either God can be claimed to be not omniscient
b) Or the Book was not the work of God

So is there any claim in the Qu'ran which one can understand as being common thinking among the men in the Middle-East 1400 years ago, but which does not pass the test of current knowledge, a claim which can be objectively falsified?

Indeed there is.

The Illumination by the Sun

If a common man was to look up in the sky he would notice the Sun and the Moon moving through the sky giving rise to Day and Night. One would also notice the waning and waxing of the Moon. If there was no one to tell him that Earth is spherical and Day and Night happen due to the rotation of the quasi-spherical Earth on its axis, with part of Earth moving from facing the Sun during the Day to facing away during the Night, the common man would probably think it is the Sun and the Moon moving in orbits around the Earth giving rise to Day and Night. It would be the observation of a common man.

This indeed is exactly what is claimed in the Qu'ran 36:37-40 as per Pickthal. In fact the translations by all others would give one something similar.

A token unto them is night. We strip it of the day, and lo! they are in darkness. (37) And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise. (38) And for the moon We have appointed mansions till she return like an old shrivelled palm-leaf. (39) It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

The key here is the verse 36:40.

Question is: what is meant by the Sun's orbit in the Qu'ran and how is that relevant to day and night?

The frame of reference in the particular Qu'ran verse 36:40 is observer on Earth and the phenomenon is Night and Day.

Context is everything. We need to keep the context up front.

The verse gives clarification that for an observer on Earth, he need not fear that he would suddenly see the sun overtake the moon in the sky, as it moves in its orbit. The day belongs to the Sun and the night belongs to the Moon. The verse further says that the night would also not "outstrip" the day, that is the Moon would not overtake the Sun or that the observer would suddenly see the Day become Night.

The Context remains "Day and Night" which makes sense only for an observer on Earth at some geoposition.

Some Islamic scholars speak of the verse referring to the rotation of the Milky Way here. At that level the Moon (and even Earth) is irrelevant and speaking of it would be senseless. So there is no way Islamic scholars can deny what is written here, especially as the relevant portion is in one single verse together, verse 40. Moreover verses 37-39 reinforce additional context keeping it to Night and Day.

Additionally coming back to verse Qu'ran 36:40, the part about "nor doth night outstrip the day" means the verse is unfamiliar with Solar Eclipses.

Unless the Ulema can give a better rationale behind this, Qu'ran 36:40 itself is sufficient to prove that Qu'ran is the work of an unscientific human and not of an Omniscient Allah.

Some Islamic scholars contend that since Qu'ran speaks of Sun and Moon being in motion and science shows that everything is in motion and nothing is static, it validates the claims of the Qu'ran. The question then becomes
1) where is it said in Qu'ran that everything is in motion?
2) for an assertion like "everything is in motion" it is important to also state that Earth is in motion. Where is it said in Qu'ran that Earth is in motion, or in orbit?

Furthermore there are suggestions in Islamic texts that the belief was in a Flat Earth model.

Though the above hit me some time back during a discussion, I found there's commentary on it on wikiislam.

What is the purpose of going into this discussion?

The purpose is to treat Islam in India as a human created sociopolitical system and not with the usual tolerance which states everybody has the right to his beliefs and that it is impolite to challenge their truth claims!

It is not a criticism of Islam, but it should be possible for Hindus to have a scientific opinion about the claims that Islam makes and adopt a formal stance. If Islamics can openly and vocally reject the Hindus' claim of addressing the Supreme through Murtis, then it should not be considered objectionable if Hindus too openly and vocally reject the Islamic's claim that Muhammad-Smriti is the Word of God.

Islam has been up for criticism in multiple ways. Some choose to malign the character of Muhammad, others focus on the historical atrocities committed by Islamics in the name of Islam.

When one does so one runs the risk of either being called Islamophobe which signals to the Muslims to shut off communication and also adopt a hostile attitude or others play the victim, which reinforces Islamic's beliefs in the superiority of their methods.

My personal suggestion would be to take only this single issue as Hindutva's stance towards Islam. Multiplicity of accusations, slurs, criticisms, all blunt the message. 1000 pinpricks wouldn't be as effective as a single spear directed at the right place.

Furthermore a softening of the Islamic stance on Revelation is important so that one can bring it under the accountability of Dharma - a Jan Lok Pal for religions. So it has practical use!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24425377

Lakshmi and Indira formally began performing rituals at the Kudroli Shree Gokarnanatheshwara Temple on Sunday.

Hundreds watched the ceremony and musicians played as the widows entered the temple in a grand procession.

The move is considered revolutionary in a society where widows are seen as inauspicious and normally shunned.

"It is a historic moment. We will get more widows to become priests," said Janardhana Poojary, former federal "It gives me joy to see them being greeted by devotees," said Anil, a student who felt social transformation was necessary to make the country modern.


The temple was set up by a revered Hindu seer Narayan Guru, a 19th Century social reformer from the neighbouring state of Kerala. minister and the man behind the reform.

Books one doesn't need

A Time of Transition: Rajiv Gandhi to the 21 Century
Author: Mani Shankar Aiyar

If one wants to learn more about the arguments of the secularists, here is one book: Chapter: BJP and the Hindu State

How to understand Islam in Bharatiya terms?

If Islam has concept of Shirk which sets up Hindus as their ideological opponents, then Dharmics too can have a concept of Pramana which sets up Islam as our ideological opponent!

So if Islam calls the Hindus - Kufr, the Unbelievers, Hindus too can call the Muslims - Napramani, the Disproven!

Swami Rama did deflate the Balloon of Shahda with usual Indic logic and Parmana. God looses its Sovereign and Supreme Status once Man Mohammad attaches himself at the tail end and do the Jeff Dunham act.

How to understand Islam in Bharatiya terms?

Jhujar wrote:Swami Rama did deflate the Balloon of Shahda with usual Indic logic and Parmana. God looses its Sovereign and Supreme Status once Man Mohammad attaches himself at the tail end and do the Jeff Dunham act.

My knowledge about Swami Rama's work is limited. I've found some description of him on Janamejayan's blog

In fact this is the kind of analysis of Islam I oppose.

There is substantial evidence that Abrahamic religions have substantial evidence of having Indic origins, with some aspects subdued, some forgotten, some renamed, some transformed, and some rejected due to local tribal memes in the Middle-East. It is also credible that Alif, Lam and Mim may indeed refer to Om, smuggled in into Mohammad-Smriti by some Indic stenographer in the service of Arabs.

However Swamy Rama simply accepts Qu'ran as Word of God and proceeds to show connections of Qu'ran to Indic thought! He does not for a moment question Qu'ran's claimed origins.

In fact he does a disservice to the principle of Pramana and ends up being a secular Guru!

My proposition is totally different! One should vocally call them out as Napramanis!

There are simplests of the solution beside Shastrath methods, Shastars being one of them. Local problem require global remedy.

My proposition is totally different! One should vocally call them out as Napramanis!

Absolutely! The Excluvist doctrines have clearly without any kind of contradiction plainly stated their disdain for the non-believer .They have plainly said the non believers in their orthodoxy will go and burn in hell for eternity. I am being stupid to show respect to that doctrine. I may respect individual members of excluvist doctrines for their personal humanism, but never for their respect for their doctrine or for their doctrine. This is a mistake which many including NM made in the 2001 post 911 debate. I have objections to the doctrine itself and not to the individual. The Taliban or AQ or Terrorist. Kasab that bombs, maims and kills is not the killer..the killer is the Doctrine. And that is what Lord Krishna tries to tell Arjuna all the time in BG. The 'non violent' / 'Ahimsa' as means and end crowd don't get it. Krishna tells plainly you'll suffer if you behave in that manner against Adharma. Nail the doctrine. Yet there are major moves to prevent doctrine from being nailed by bringing in Anti blasphemy legislation surreptitiously. must resist that with all ones might!

Purva-Paksha analysis of Islam using Tarkashastra of Saankhya-Yoga

Some excerpts..

My attempt at Purva-Paksha of Islam from Point of view of Saankhya-Yoga epistemology.

I have numbered the "Purva-Paksha Sutras" and "Teeka (commentary)" follows. For those who are not aware of Indian Tarka-Shaastra OR dialectics, please follow this wiki link.

1. Any meme which wishes to survive beyond era of its inception has to have an infallible core.

2. Muslims are caught between "drive to live/evolve/excel" and "drive to be righteous (according to book)".

In Dharmik system, these two drives are not at loggerheads with each other. In fact, in Dharmik systems, we have separate "shastras" to deal with both these drives. (Artha and Dharma respectively. I am not even bothering to use the word Moksha and Adhyatma for Islam). The inherent "separateness" of these two Purusharthas (They are linked and move in parallel, not completely severed like in Secularism) makes it difficult for a dharmik to comprehend the nature and magnitude of churning which goes on in Muslim mind. Unlike Dharma, Deen and Daulat cannot be separated in Islam (as in all abrahmic faiths).

3. In Islam, their "infallible" (Qur'an and hadith) is almost a universal set. Shruti, which is Indic infallible core, is not.

Furthermore, Shruti is a work of thousands of seers, criticized and peer-reviewed by thousands of other seers, all this process being extended over thousands of years of continuous composition, has enough material which can very effortlessly sustain and hold together vastly contradictory ideas and memes. There is plenty of "digestion time" spent in the process. Something which did not happen and is impossible to happen in one man's life-time (no matter how talented he is). Even if we see Islam as continuity of Judaic tradition extending over millennium and half prior to birth of Muhammad, it still does not pass the crucial criteria of "rigorous peer review" by multiple composers. This peer-review is missing in Judaic tradition.

4. In Saankhya-Yoga, there are at the least three acceptable "Pramaanas" - Pratyaksha (direct experience/observation), Anumaana (logical inference/interpretation from observed data) and Shabda (word in literature).

While examining Shruti, a Dhaarmik is expected to give importance to Pratyaksha Pramaana, but here "pratyaksha", means direct experience. Then comes Anumaana and then one has to test what Shruti (Shabda) has to say about a question.

There are no tools OR permissions to "examine" Deen, per se. But if one wishes to do so, one is supposed to give primary importance to Shabda (words written in good book). Second is Anumaana (various Firqas and sects and their interpretation of the infallible core) and last is Pratyaksha (the qalandars, sufis, who are detested by all good muslims who believe in supremacy of "Shabda-Praamanya" (word in Qur'an)).

So, when this conflict between drive to live and drive to be righteous arises, a Muslim who has understood the "essence" of dharma simply deletes (in his mind) those parts of "Deen" which comes in way of his "drive to live/evolve/excel". This is what we call as "Swadharma" in Sanskrit - the drive which made us utter "Tamaso Maa Jyotir gamaya".

For most muslims, Deen being infallible is beyond question - they follow orders/interpretations of Mullah in matters of religion. Those who do question these interpretations, are caught in dilemma - Whether to give primary importance to Pratyaksha pramaana and have courage to delete those ideas in Deen which do not conform with one's "Anubhava" OR to give primary importance to "Shabda praamanya" as Mullah and Deen recommends.

5. Dharmik individuals give importance to Pratyaksha Pramana and then Anumaana while testing the efficacy of Shabda.

Rest who cannot muster courage to test Deen with their experience and rely on Shabda (for which they have to depend upon a mullah who understands Arabic) have to undergo one further test. The qualitative difference in "shabda" (the infallible core) as discussed in commentary of sutra 3, is to be applied here. When testing efficacy of Shabda alone, Dharmikness of individual depends upon dharmikness of Shabda under consideration. Shruti is inherently "Dharmik" in character due to its limited scope and robustness in accommodating multiplicity of opinions in that narrow scope of human experience. Deen, on the other hand, is monopolistic with universal scope covering entire spectrum of human experience and hence Aasurik.

6. How to prioritize Anumaana pramaana (various interpertations) is the next test.

Wahabis are those Muslims who eliminate this second Pramana as well (to highest extent) and rely only and solely on "Shabda Pramaana". No interpretations, only to take literal meaning, and one gets what the shabda really means and wishes to say.

From Deen's perspective, those giving primary importance to Pratyaksha Pramanas are Kafirs 1.0. Later, once these are removed, those relying on Anumaana Pramaana (which is subjective and determined by demographic factors in given "desha") are kafirs 2.0. This is a the crunch situation when expansion-based sociopolity of Deen cannot be continued. What remains thereafter, is utopia of true believers.

Thus the phenomenon of Wahabism taking center-stage is in fact progression and not regression when we view Deen from Saankhya point of view. Wahabism a logical conclusion to Deen.

Phalashruti - Vast majority of Muslims in Indian subcontinent are like lotus leaves. For millennia, they have been surrounded by Dharma and Dhaarmiks. Yet, this sense of Dharma has not percolated in them, they have remained "dry" in spite of being in water.

Atri garu, awesome piece as always well written, I still have to read your two earlier essays. I have one minor quibble though in your lotus analogy:
I do understand your intention and drift of your analogy, but I think it gives a scope for misunderstanding because, Lotus as you are well aware blooms only is swamps and dirt ponds, that equates Dharmics to dirty water surrounding immaculate lotus leaves...which distorts your analogy completely. Just my thoughts.

Atri garu,

someday I too would like to take a swing at Purva-Paksha of Islam according to Tarkashastra when I think I have the necessary skill set.

Thanks for sharing!

I believe it is the Anumaana in case of Mohammad-Smriti which shows there to be no revelation from some Omniscient in play here, i.e. when analyzing Qu'ran's explanation for Night and Day (Qu'ran 36:40).

harbans wrote:

My proposition is totally different! One should vocally call them out as Napramanis!

Absolutely! The Excluvist doctrines have clearly without any kind of contradiction plainly stated their disdain for the non-believer .They have plainly said the non believers in their orthodoxy will go and burn in hell for eternity. I am being stupid to show respect to that doctrine. I may respect individual members of excluvist doctrines for their personal humanism, but never for their respect for their doctrine or for their doctrine.

harbans ji,

I know Islam is exclusivist, but I have always tried to avoid the term - Exclusivism. I've always felt the word reeks of an effort of the weak to seek respect from the strong. It says please also recognize the validity of my worship of some other God in some other form.

By calling Islam or Christianity as Exclusivist, I don't believe they would consider it as derogatory. On the contrary they would proudly accept our description of them!

Due to exclusivism, when they call us unbelievers, Kufr, it doesn't mean we are unbelievers in their form of worship of God, but rather unbeliever in God itself and thus all which we worship loses its validity to be claimed as being God.

There are aspects of Islam and to some extent Christianity which causes unease to native cultures e.g. in India

1. Non-recognition of Supremacy of Dharma and Non-adherence to Dharma
2. Religious Brotherhood in form of Transnational Qaum posing direct challenge to Nation as an alternative to it
3. Sociopolitical direction through ideological authorities lying outside Bharat through means of political influence, financing and hierarchical, ideological and criminal networks
4. Aggressive proselytization using means such as material inducements, fear, coercion and physical threat
5. Inacceptability of exit of members from the religious brotherhood, at least in Islam today
6. Political agenda of complete domination of the native
7. Resistance to historical, social, doctrinal and institutional scrutiny
8. Very low red lines in use of violence against ideological outsiders or non-members
9. Destruction of native knowledge and culture and overwriting of these through own customs
10. Exclusivism in target and form of worship
11. No emphasis on Spirituality, Philosophy and Scientific Inquiry, full focus on Doctrinal Purity and Theology

Basically Exclusivism is something that comes much lower in my list of complaints against these religious brotherhoods.

RajeshA wrote:I know Islam is exclusivist, but I have always tried to avoid the term - Exclusivism. I've always felt the word reeks of an effort of the weak to seek respect from the strong. It says please also recognize the validity of my worship of some other God in some other form.

By calling Islam or Christianity as Exclusivist, I don't believe they would consider it as derogatory. On the contrary they would proudly accept our description of them!

Very true.

Exclusivism is present within Indic definitions of Bhakti also. Its not just exclusivism, but rather a stunted exclusivism that's a problem with Christists and Islamists.

In India, the exclusivist "sacred" meme is alloyed with a native "classical" tradition, i.e., the daasa-kuta is joined with the vyasa-kuta. Thus it acts as sone pe suhaga. But in the Christist and Islamist history, their "sacred" idolization did not come with a native "classical" tradition. The "classical" part was cannibalized from other sources in a sort of patchwork of Greek, Persian, some Hebrew and Hindu memes. Because it was non-native and had no organic relation, the "sacred" and "classical" were often in conflict in their case, in a sort of complicated dating game. Either the sacred was trying to use the classical as a beast of burden, or the classical was trying to cuckold the sacred with its own agenda. No monogamous, equitable, male-female union of the sacred and classical in their case.

Mindless Secularism

Published on Oct 13, 2013
By Milind Ghatwai
Don't put curbs on Dussehra: BJP: Indian Express

THE BJP Saturday accused the Election Commission of India of denying politicians their freedom of religion by preventing them from attending religious events like Dussehra and Navratri.

The BJP's protest followed the poll panel's decision to regard participation of politicians in religious functions as violation of the model code of conduct.

The poll panel has also directed collectors not to allow public worship of weapons and path sanchalans (route marches) on the occasion of Dussehra. Usually organised by the RSS on the occasion of Dussehra, several route marches had been planned across the state.

BJP campaign management committee chief and Rajya Sabha MP Anil Dave led a delegation to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and submitted a memorandum seeking review of the order. "Navratri, Dussehra and Diwali are celebrated in October and November and politicians traditionally attend the festivities... (the order) should not put curbs on religion and conduct,'' he said.

This is what happens when we desist from giving precise definitions for religion, freedom of religion, Hinduism, Hindu, Sanskriti, Itihaas, etc. It is a product of lazy intellectualism on the part of Hindutvavadis.

Questions to be asked are

1. Should Election Code of Conduct which puts restrictions on mixing of politics with religion, or politicians pandering to religious sentiments be imposed on politicians associating themselves with Bhakti activities in contrast to Religious Brotherhood activities which would be the case wrt Islam and Christianity. Using the platform of "religious brotherhood", the appeal is to identity of the members asking them to vote on basis of identity and community interests. Using the platform of "Bhakti" the appeal, should a politician wish to make such an appeal, is to people's sense of Dharma, the meta-ethics, according to which the state ought to be governed. There is only a thin connect between Bhakti and Raj Dharma, and some Bhakts may accept a politicians assertion of Dharma or they may not.
2. Yes Sri Rama is considered an Avatar of Sri Vishnu, which is a matter of faith which manifests in Bhakti, but that is not the sum total of Rama's significance. Sri Rama is a historical character according to our tradition, and his victory over Ravana is of a similar nature as say Indian victory against the British represented by our Independence Day. Sri Rama is thus also an icon of nationalism and patriotism. Is anything wrong in Bhakti of Nationalism in form of Sri Rama?

Our main problem is that our State and perhaps our Constitution too in this regard is mapped to British view of Bharatiya Sabhyata and Bharatiya Sanskriti which has been wrongly boxed into 'Hinduism' as a religion. Our Constitution needs to better map to Bharatiya ontological categories.

RajeshA ji,

Welcome back from your self-imposed Vanvaas ! Your absence made itself felt in the significant drop in intellectual luster and discussion on the forum...

I know Islam is exclusivist, but I have always tried to avoid the term - Exclusivism. I've always felt the word reeks of an effort of the weak to seek respect from the strong. It says please also recognize the validity of my worship of some other God in some other form.

By calling Islam or Christianity as Exclusivist, I don't believe they would consider it as derogatory. On the contrary they would proudly accept our description of them

On the bolded part though, my perspective is that whether Islam or Chrisianity would consider the term derogatory or not - is irrelevent to us. What would be of relevance is to make these religions understand that we, as in Indics, consider the term and the behavior derogatory !

Just to take a rather imperfect analogy - I am sure there are (or were in the past) cannibal tribes who did not consider their own eating habits as anything out of the ordinary. Its only when they make contact with the civilized world would they come to know that their own habits would be considered highly deviant - and they make an effort to change.

Net, net - what Christianity or Islam think of their own exclusivism is not as important as letting them know what we think of it, and making them aware that this form of exclusivism cannot be regarded as Dharmic in the Indian system of meta-ethics.

Arjun wrote:Net, net - what Christianity or Islam think of their own exclusivism is not as important as letting them know what we think of it, and making them aware that this form of exclusivism cannot be regarded as Dharmic in the Indian system of meta-ethics.

Arjun ji,

Yes I too do consider exclusivism as wrong. It also rebels against Dharmic memes. However historically the term does not possess philosophical or doctrinal abhorrence for Dharmics. Perhaps there are texts, I am not aware of.

The term Kufr however belongs to the primary ontology of Islam where it is considered denigrating and huge swathes of Islamic literature is devoted to how the Kufr should be humiliated, scorned, discriminated against and even killed.

I would like the Hindus to refer to Islamics not with a complaint: exclusivism, but with a rejection - a rejection which agitates them down to the bone, just the way the Hindus have to suffer the mark of Kufr in history.

Kufr is used as a term to delegitimize Bharatiya Sanskriti in their system. Additionally it conveys that our worship and faith as per our traditions are worthless. Exclusivism does nothing to delegitimize the Islamics in our system. It remains a complaint awaiting redressing which would never come.

So the question is
a) how do we delegitimize Islam from the perspective of our Philosophical System?
b) what would hurt them practically just as much as Kufr continues to hurt non-Muslims?

My suggestion was to call them - Napramani, the Disproven!

At the moment a similar term is in circulation - Feku! Of course the term is ineffective simply because there is too much evidence of Gujarat's growth story. But what if there wasn't any such story? What if it was all a hoax?

Another suggestion would be Feku Deen or Fekudeen!

RajeshA wrote:Yes I too do consider exclusivism as wrong. It also rebels against Dharmic memes. However historically the term does not possess philosophical or doctrinal abhorrence for Dharmics. Perhaps there are texts, I am not aware of.

One of the drawbacks of being the earliest spiritual philosophy in the world was that it was developed in an environment innocent of the memes that would be arising later ! Probably the reason for the lack of doctrinal reference or abhorrence of exclusivist Abrahamic memes...but the references in Hinduism to multiple paths, the focus on individual as opposed to group quest for spiritualism - all point to a strong emphasis on the positive that implies an abhorrence of its negative.

The fault, if any, lies with the Dharmic theologians in the time period of 1000 - 1400 AD who should ideally have been in a position to know enough of these new, virulent memes and developed a Purva Paksha on why some of their practices are abhorrent from the standpoint of Dharma.

Rajesh ji,


the word you are looking for is "Paakhandi".. It has the necessary appeal.

Atri wrote:Rajesh ji,

the word you are looking for is "Paakhandi".. It has the necessary appeal.

Yes of course - Paakhandi would be good. As you know, all words have certain nuances, cultural contexts, emphasis.

I wanted a "nose up in the air" a snobbish word, to underline that their case has been viewed neutrally, objectively and rejected, the high authority of Dharmics declaring the ideology as failing the test of truth and logic - without Pramana, as Napramani, as the Disproven.

So I would say

• At Ideological Level: Napramani
• At Street Level: Paakhandi
• At Social Media Level: Fekudeen

So the question is
a) how do we delegitimize Islam from the perspective of our Philosophical System?
b) what would hurt them practically just as much as Kufr continues to hurt non-Muslims?

Firstly it may not be a perfect definition, but in an inclusive democracy it makes sense to call out an 'Excluvist' Doctrine. Reasons:

1. That an Inclusive democracy will never be inclusive if the believers of the Excluvist Doctrine emerge a majority.
2. That implies the need to prevent Excluvist doctrine practioners reaching a majority level.
3. To do 2, need awareness spread that indeed there is a threat from Excluvist doctrines that follow old codes outside the scope of present law to deal with apostasy and blasphemy.
4. Protection for those that want to leave Excluvist doctrines.
5. Protection for those Dharmics prosecuted in Excluvist majority nations.
6. Above point will only be possible if we Declare ourselves as some sort of Dharmic nation with interests to protect Dharma.

Time for Shastra Puja




If the above scene looks ridiculous to you, then you know you still have to work on yourself until the above seems perfectly normal and in fact desired!

venug wrote:Atri garu, awesome piece as always well written, I still have to read your two earlier essays. I have one minor quibble though in your lotus analogy:
I do understand your intention and drift of your analogy, but I think it gives a scope for misunderstanding because, Lotus as you are well aware blooms only is swamps and dirt ponds, that equates Dharmics to dirty water surrounding immaculate lotus leaves...which distorts your analogy completely. Just my thoughts.

true... have made the necessary changes in blog.. cannot edit this post now..

harbans ji,

As I said I am in principle NOT against the use of Exclusivism, however I think the vocabulary needs to expand to cater to various undesirable aspects of Islamic and even Christian ideological and sociopolitical systems in India.

The problem is see with "Exclusivism" is that it is category overly oriented towards faith of the people, as if faith is the be all and end all of dharmoaarthik existence of Rashtra. As an example let's take the ideal atheist communist paradise of Soviet Union. Would any Soviet be complaining about Islam being exclusivist? No, because faith plays no role for the atheists so they don't feel threatened or humiliated by the exclusivism in some religion. Of course we are not some atheist country so the presence of some exclusivist religion would indeed affect us. I am highlighting this aspect simply to emphasize that exclusivism hurts us because we are bhaktipriya people, and this hurt shows that exclusivism is a complaint and an appeal from our side directed at the Abrahamics. And I just think that such complaints reflect a bit of 'Dossier mentality' rather than an aggressive 'Geronimo mentality'.

I personally find "expansionary coercive homogenizing brotherhood" as a more apt descriptor to reflect the problem with Islam and Christianity for Indian democracy as it is independent of the tenets of faith.

I can't imagine that Islamics would change anything in their principle of lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, nor would there be any changes to the principle of shirk. So Exclusivism is such a defining principle of Islam that one can say it is a tautology. So the complaint would go unheard. Nor can the state prohibit exclusivism aspect of any religion, as one does have the freedom of thought. The state cannot interfere in that simply because exclusivism in itself does not represent mortal danger to others. Other aspects of Islam and Christianity may pose a more serious challenge to state and outsiders.

Also a charge of exclusivism against Islam or Christianity works in their favor, because this charge helps them to avert scrutiny over more threatening aspects of these brotherhoods.

As I said I am not against use of "exclusivism". I just think we need to express the dangers differently.

Rajesh JI, i understand your POV and need to expand or replace that terminology. We will evolve to it am sure. Yet i use it wrt to our Inclusive secular democracy and not from the framework of Dharma. An incluvist democracy cannot withstand the demographically swamped by those that swear an 'excluvist' doctrine. It's going to end in cultural, social, religious and physical genocide. That line will win a lot of on the fence sitters to realizing we are facing danger. The more of our populations understand the danger to Inclusive democracy from demographic swamping of excluvist doctrine followers the better our chances to contain and reverse excluvist doctrine propagation.

RajeshA wrote:

Atri wrote:Rajesh ji,
the word you are looking for is "Paakhandi".. It has the necessary appeal.
Yes of course - Paakhandi would be good. As you know, all words have certain nuances, cultural contexts, emphasis..

Seek Sahayta "hare" for the context to " Muhamadan Mithya Mat". Kitne Shabad Chahiye?
niHsatya,asatya,AnRta,
bhrAmaka,jihma

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scri ... rection=AU

Apologies if this is OT:

The "pehle shauchalaya phir devalaya" buzzword is also related to the eradication of the dehumanizing practice of manual scavengers and untouchability.

Of Toilets, Temples and Hindu Nationalism

That in a state like Gujarat which has been for long conservative there are now only less than 5000 persons associated with manual scavenging is actually a welcome sign. After all, after decades of progressive leftist rule in West Bengal the 2011 census data reveals that there are 1,30,000 manual scavengers and in that Islamic paradise Kashmir, despite its small size, there are 1,78,000 manual scavengers.

Gujarat, with a population of 55 million, has had a poor track record with 20 per cent rural sanitation coverage (NFHS-3) four years ago. However, with consistent efforts made by the Government and the community, the situation is now starting to turn around. Out of 18,000 villages, 1,300 villages have already been declared open defecation free.

Associating spirituality with the sanitation has a long history in the Indic tradition. Upanishadic seers declared that every organic function is as divine as every other function. The highest cognitive function is as divine and in no way superior to the so-called lowly function of excretion. Subala Upanishad declares

Vak is adhyatma, that which is acted upon by vak is adhibhuta, and Agni is Adhidaivata. The nadis bind them. He who moves in vak, that which is acted upon by vak, Agni, the nadis, prana, vijnana, that akasa of the heart, and within all else- that is Atma. It is that which should be worshipped. It is without old age, death, fear, sorrow, or end…. The anus is adhyatma, the excreta is adhibhuta, and Mrtyu is adhidaivata. The nadis bind them. He who moves the anus, the excreta, Mrtyu, the nadis, prana, vijnana, ananda, the akas of the heart, and within all else – that is Atma. It is that which should be worshiped. It is without old age, death, fear, sorrow or end. (Khanda V)

It is in this context that we should also see the empowerment programme by Modi for Dalits. Section of Dalits, traditionally forced to perform manual scavenging, are now being trained to become temple priests. Interesting enough, the anti-Hindu leftists have as usual raised their voice against this scheme. The anti-Modi hate peddlers love to paint this as a conspiracy of upper caste Hindutva with their convoluted theoretical arguments. But the fact remains that the association of divinity with the so-called defiled professions, is a time tested method to remove the stigma and democratize the so-called defiled jobs. The one organization in India that has done stellar work for the sanitation workers and attempted to break the caste barriers in sanitation services has actually used religion the very same way as Modi has used, but long before Modi, to empower the Dalits.

Being Different - Fundamentally Different

harbans wrote:Rajesh JI, i understand your POV and need to expand or replace that terminology. We will evolve to it am sure. Yet i use it wrt to our Inclusive secular democracy and not from the framework of Dharma. An incluvist democracy cannot withstand the demographically swamped by those that swear an 'excluvist' doctrine. It's going to end in cultural, social, religious and physical genocide. That line will win a lot of on the fence sitters to realizing we are facing danger. The more of our populations understand the danger to Inclusive democracy from demographic swamping of excluvist doctrine followers the better our chances to contain and reverse excluvist doctrine propagation.

harbans ji,

in the spirit of evolving terminology, one aim is to instill into Indics that difference between Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic religions is not just that one is red apples and the other green apples, but that the difference is more fundamental.

As I suggested in the definition Bhaktipanths in Dharmic traditions have as their focus - spirituality, philosophy, symbology and worship, with of course a collective and organizing component to meet this purpose.

Abrahamic religions on the other hand are essentially sociopolitical brotherhoods which use a truth claim of divine sanction as an organizing enabler for regimentation. These brotherhoods show expansionary, coercive, homogenizing and segregatory tendencies.

I guess what I am trying to suggest here with this discussion is that we need to assert a terminology which depicts Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic religions as apples and oranges and not merely as apples with different colors. Until we do so we cannot fix the Secularist Curse on Bharat.

To this end I suggested four differences between Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic religions [1] [2] [3] [4]

You point to the need for Dharmics to understand the danger emanating from Abrahamic traditions. For that we should understand that a brotherhood is basically a very large gang organized using a sociopolitical codex and driven by aggressive memes.

Jhujar wrote:Kitne Shabad Chahiye?
niHsatya,asatya,AnRta,
bhrAmaka,jihma

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scri ... rection=AU

कूट would be an appropriate adjective. But basically the need is to have a single word which can be hammered again and again!

Arjun wrote:The fault, if any, lies with the Dharmic theologians in the time period of 1000 - 1400 AD who should ideally have been in a position to know enough of these new, virulent memes and developed a Purva Paksha on why some of their practices are abhorrent from the standpoint of Dharma.

Surasena ji has written a few posts on this issue:

Open Debate and there was another one on Purva Paksha of Islam by Brahmins. Can't find the post though!

National Heroes - Modern and Ancient

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

SwamyG wrote:For me, a truly secular government should not be in the business of building temples or churches. There should be really a separation of the State and Religion. Government should be irreligious, and offer protection, justice and punishment to anyone who ferments trouble and creates conditions for religious violence. All conversions should be out in the open, with freedom and liberty to convert others, of course with no foreign money.

I hope the government does spend more time on toilets, sanitation and health. Anyway, in India the temples are controlled by the government only as a source of revenue. So temples ought to be out of the clutches of politicians.

Your posts are funny though.

When
- the Congress leaders take visiting foreign dignitaries to the various Samadhis of Nehru, Indira, Rajiv or Mahatma Gandhi, they bow their heads in front of these Samadhis, offer flowers, etc. or
- build museums for these leaders e.g. the Teen Murti Bhavan, or
- have public holiday on the Gandhi Jayanti Oct 2 each year,

would you call all this secular or irreligious?

If it is so, then why is giving similar respect to our ancient national heroes like Sri Rama and Sri Krishna not "secular"? True some consider them Avatars, but that doesn't take away their significance for the national cause! Sri Rama waged a war with and defeated a Asura, who threatened peace in the Subcontinent. Sri Krishna gave us the Bhagavad Gita, a treatise on Dharma, our System of Meta-Ethics, something not subservient to Bhakti, something not dissimilar to a Constitution.

So why is having Mandirs in their name at the place of their Birth not a national cause? Why can't the Hindus pay their respect to their ancient national leaders who have been mentioned in our Itihaas in a manner which we have learned through our Sanskriti?

Just Asking!