Bharat Rakshak

Jiska Danda Uskka Jhanda
Convert Bechara Ji Hazoor
Salam Bajjaao Banda.

Tanishq breaks social norms, celebrates remarriage in new ad

Here's the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P76E6b7SQs8

RajeshA wrote: First the Dharmics really have to see whether Islam and Christianity are logically consistent and philosophically complete enough to be considered a darśana. Here is one reason why Islam e.g. cannot be considered as logically consistent.

By the same logic, wouldnt a lot of aastika/Vaidika darshanas also not fall apart - which ones within Vaidika/ Shaivist or Non-Vaidika Indian darshanas (i.e. of Indian origin) would you consider complete and coherent? Also, Applicable in current times?

PS: Not to negate your point of view, I am just a post grad student to Theology (more accurately comparitive religious studies) currently and just been through Indian Philosophy so curious to understand this.

sinha wrote:PS: Not to negate your point of view, I am just a post grad student to Theology (more accurately comparitive religious studies) currently and just been through Indian Philosophy so curious to understand this.

If you are all that, than I am certainly at a big disadvantage here!

sinha wrote:

RajeshA wrote: First the Dharmics really have to see whether Islam and Christianity are logically consistent and philosophically complete enough to be considered a darśana. Here is one reason why Islam e.g. cannot be considered as logically consistent.

By the same logic, wouldnt a lot of aastika/Vaidika darshanas also not fall apart - which ones within Vaidika/ Shaivist or Non-Vaidika Indian darshanas (i.e. of Indian origin) would you consider complete and coherent? Also, Applicable in current times?

My suggested criteria was one focusing on structure rather than content.

Philosophical completeness rather than being a state of being or achievement for a darśana is more of the darśana's ability to cope with new queries and to give satisfactory answers which are logically consistent. It refers to its extensibility property to deal with questions, issues, situations, scenarios, known and unknown unknowns as well as new scientific insights which does not break its core set of beliefs or axioms.

Often faith systems simply resort to a "take it or leave it", "its a question of faith". Then there are others which make an offer difficult to refuse - "take it or die".

The idea in religions is to use the wonders of life, of nature and of universe as well as the pains of life and brutality of nature to assert the existence of a Maker or a Caretaker. All that is an ignorance based or a need based solution, which is fine but to be called a proper darśana, it needs to provide models independent of our psychological shortcomings.

sinha wrote:

RajeshA wrote: First the Dharmics really have to see whether Islam and Christianity are logically consistent and philosophically complete enough to be considered a darśana. Here is one reason why Islam e.g. cannot be considered as logically consistent.

By the same logic, wouldnt a lot of aastika/Vaidika darshanas also not fall apart - which ones within Vaidika/ Shaivist or Non-Vaidika Indian darshanas (i.e. of Indian origin) would you consider complete and coherent? Also, Applicable in current times?

PS: Not to negate your point of view, I am just a post grad student to Theology (more accurately comparitive religious studies) currently and just been through Indian Philosophy so curious to understand this.

No logical system can be completely "self-consistent" - Godel type incompleteness results. There will always be unprovable axiomatic elements. Darshana's as approximations of a logical system, will therefore also yield unprovable axioms. For example, why fix on the number and modes of proof? Why one stream will claim only X,Y,Z sensory inputs are valid, and another system will claim X,Y,Z,U,V,W are valid!

Self-consistency is a bad route to go.

The real elephant in the room is actually very simple and for some reason people do choose to fence in the dark all around it instead of dealing with it directly.

Whether it is the claims of so-called "secularism" being perfectly neutral/level-playing-fielders/ ityadi, or religions going this way or that, what should be recognized by all is that society does not, cannot run without a latent value system.

It is this value system that decides a million small or big decisions that people take in a society, and which even the formal judicial and legislative processes use to navigate between the small number of written/codified laws and their brief statements.

When people shout about secularism being all about playing-level, being neutral, etc, they do not stop and think as to how any so-called third party authority like the state is going to decide between two conflicting claims from two religions over a single issue, to play neutral! It cannot avoid choosing between the two and retain one, or allow each conflicting view to be implemented by respective religions.

As long as the objects of the dispute can somehow be separated out and assigned separately - the state can still manage somehow to show itself neutral - as in say marital laws that apply and therefore remain confined to communities. But the problem will start up whenever the marriage/relationship forms between couples from across those two communities - that is when the state will have to choose sides again.

The dispute and problem over religions in India is actually a dispute over values.

It is patently dishonest to avoid the values debate, and refuse to recognize that society needs to accept a common set of values on the most important issues that concern collective or multi-person interactions.

When so-called secularists lampoon a figure of multi-faceted significance to say Hindus because it supposedly obstructs some financial or economic venture, but dare not even hint so for another community's significant figures [we can more or less be certain that if certain "memorials" of certain communities obstruct a gazzillions of prosperity delivery venture, there will be not even a murmur of suggesting that such memoriums be removed! just imagine Ajmer sharif being one such future and hypothetical case!] - we therefore should be able to see, that in the secular value system - not all religions are of the same value.

In India, the historical hedging strategies by sections of hindus in collaborating and adapting to imperialist foreign-identity-retaining and proudly-proclaiming-foreign-source-identity as the higher one - religions, has created a value-system among the literate Hindu elite [who are also the loudest and therefore appear to be representative of the majority feelings] by which anything connected to the Hindu is something to be ashamed of, or not highlighted, or to be lampooned or discarded and publicly -distanced-from - whenever such connections appear to contradict or conflict with corresponding connections to the Islamic or the Christian.

This whole debate stems from a shame in associating with the Hindu as an identity, and much more significantly, a readiness to opt for the non-Hindu value as a superior one. Sometimes all this is done under the cover of pretending atheism, agnosticism, "scientism" [ an example would be the hilarious logic of the left liberals - Marxism is truth because it is a science] - or where science is used as a religion, rationality, modernism, secularism, tolerance. But consciously or subconsciously, it is admiration for the "other", shame in one's birth-culture and associated values.

What RajeshA ji is proposing - in a nutshell - I see, as a manifestation of the need for a convergence of values for all Indians on the most crucial issues. These are issues about priority of science education and scientific process in thinking [not mere shouting about current science understandings as substitute dogmas], the ability and propensity to question religious claims, freedom of thought, quest and speech without any of the shenanigans of any theocracy claiming absolute protection from any critical analysis, rights of all living things and our treatment of other living beings including animals, rights-duties-freedoms of women both in the unavoidable special-treatment sexual and marital/reproductive domain as well as beyond-gender human aspects, attitude and identification with foreign aggressive imperialist structures - be they religious or politic-military or a combination of all three - etc.

In this I see no reason to be shy of striving to evolve, refine, retrieve, reform, adapt-to-current-period, Hindu memes and values as a base to advance on the entire society wide scale. We can and should be able to ask non-Hindus to consider reforming on that base, and we can have any number of engagements and debates to arrive at a consensus. But what we give-in to has to be based on redlines that are based also on our roots of which we should not be shamed of or give-up on simply because some among us thought it financially/politically/socially beneficial to appear to submit and look-up to foreign imperialist demands.

The discussion on Rama-sethu and Rama seems to be not addressing the reality of how the human manifestation of divine is seen in Indic traditions. In Bharatya views - for all substreams - divine and non-divine is a false division [even in the dvaita traditions]. The exceptional human "avatar" is a manifestation of the universal consciousness to a much higher degree than it is manifested in all other living beings or objects of the world. In that sense, objects/places associated with that manifestation is not just a memorium - but a two way connection between greater consciousness of the universal - and the more specific/limited consciousness of the individual existence.

As Atri said once - darshan is a two way seeing. So the places are temples not only to remember but also to have a window to the greater by which each connect or come close.

The same thing could be criticized for other belief systems - if the whole world is say the house of the X, why does X need a smaller house within the house as his place of worship?!!! But of course the people criticizing the Ayodhya reconstruction attempts will dare not say anything on similar lines for others. Coercion works spectacularly. Pretensions of modernism and secularism can do the rest of the cover up for cowardice.

sinha ji,

"Logic is the worst enemy of Truth, as self-righteousness is the worst enemy of virtue; for the one cannot see its own errors nor the other its own imperfections." - Sri Aurobindo

Its not that the Dharmic systems are "logically" complete and consistent; rather, logico-philosophically they tend to move in a virtuous spiral. Often mathematical paradoxes also have logico-philosophical solutions only that are self-evident. Whereas the religions that do not have that Sanatani culture of Knowledge as their context are logically self-referential and philosophically draw one into a vicious spiral. I say this based on the relative importances given to Knowledge and Devotion in the two cultures.

brihaspati wrote:No logical system can be completely "self-consistent" - Godel type incompleteness results.

That is not quite correct in that Godel's theorem is a little bit more nuanced. To state informally in English with current semantics of English, it is as follows:

Assumption. System S is the system described Principia Mathematica of Russel and Whitehead.

Godel's theorem informally is that "Consistency of System S cannot be proved within System S" which is a negative result in that Hilbert thought that a finitistic proof can be given for consistency of "a theory that is precursor to System S" (I don't have the name of this system so let us call it system R) from which Russel and Whitehead carefully laid out the axioms of System S. In fact he showed this is applicable to not only System S but for any system based on Number System (i.e. any system that depends on the Peano Arithmetic, or equivalently any system whose axioms can be derived from all of the axioms of Peano axioms), so let us call this general system System G.

(Informally again) Godel extended that theorem (which is retrospectively called the first theorem, I suppose - not sure the time period between the proofs of these two theorems) the second incompleteness theorem which states that even if one extends System G to System E by adding the consistency of System G, then recursively the first theorem applies to the System E.

What does all of the mean? Simply that the statement "No logical system can be completely self-consistent" cannot be proved nor its negation which is "there exists a logical system that is self-consistent" within that logical system as long as the logical system is as strong as Number System.

There are systems which are complete in that their consistency can be proved but their axioms can be derived from only a proper subset of the axioms of Peano Arithmetic. But they are not strong enough to reason about all of Mathematics.

DISCLAIMER: Since the above is informal and completely from memory, there could be some small mistakes in terminology. I would be grateful for any correction(s).

Mahatma, Apartheid and a Hindutvaite

Mention South Africa and the one Indian connection that comes prominently to our minds is Mahatma Gandhi. sa6Every Indian takes a great and justified pride in what Gandhi accomplished in South Africa and what he initiated in South Africa. To this day, we Indians proudly declare that Nelson Mandela’s victorious war against the apartheid regime in South Africa has its roots in Mahatma Gandhi. That is the accepted history as handed down by the establishment.

However in the layered annals of history, we find another sequence of events and toils from the heart fueled as they were by the kind of Indian nationalism associated with and advocated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his colleagues. It was a man from Savarkar camp who was instrumental in creating the atmosphere that eventually led to international sanctions against South Africa and greatly facilitated the ending of apartheid.

With such a magnanimous gesture sa5of a noble protest from the Congress, the future of Indians in South Africa seemed sealed and was headed towards a sure economic doom. However there was an ex-Congress man who was then in the Viceroy’s executive committee member- a doctor by profession and a fierce Indian nationalist by disposition. He was Dr. Narayan Bhaskar Kharve. As a Congress leader he was the premier of the Central Provinces and had gone far radical in implementing the empowering schemes for the downtrodden castes.
...

Worth reading to get an idea of Savarkarite Hindutva's radical Dalit upliftment, and the Congress' opposition to it, etc.

matrimc wrote:

brihaspati wrote:No logical system can be completely "self-consistent" - Godel type incompleteness results.

That is not quite correct in that Godel's theorem is a little bit more nuanced.
What does all of the mean? Simply that the statement "No logical system can be completely self-consistent" cannot be proved nor its negation which is "there exists a logical system that is self-consistent" within that logical system as long as the logical system is as strong as Number System.
[...]
There are systems which are complete in that their consistency can be proved but their axioms can be derived from only a proper subset of the axioms of Peano Arithmetic. But they are not strong enough to reason about all of Mathematics.

DISCLAIMER: Since the above is informal and completely from memory, there could be some small mistakes in terminology. I would be grateful for any correction(s).

My two sentences point to two different problems. If the Indic darshans are seen as logical systems which are almost formal - they are still not "self-consistent" if they cannot decide on undecidable propositions. On the other hand, even if they are made formally "self-consistent" on certain issues by making them axiomatic - unprovable assumptions then have to be accepted.

So this entire debate on self-consistency, completeness and coherence etc and grading philosophies on them - are not relevant fro the current discussion. If of course completeness and coherence is defined formally by the relevant posters in the context of religions - we can deal with that. Most religions can trump criticisms about lack of self-consistency and coherence by simply resorting to demands of faith, coercion and legitimization of contextual and opportunistic application of values.

I have had debates with theologians on such issues as say Moses's convenient culling of women and children [as part of the expansion campaign] of the very population, parts of which had once hosted him and his followers after emigration from Egypt. What happened to the relevant "commandment" which supposedly had been revealed already? The contextual and opportunistic scrapping of that particular "commandment" was explained away as an instruction/inspiration/override from the supposed source higher authority revelator himself. Now is not that impeccably self-consistent given the axiom of a supreme revelator who can choose to amend and adapt his own earlier conclusions fro the "benefit" of his chosen?

Thats why I said, this is a bad road to take.

brihaspati wrote:My two sentences point to two different problems. If the Indic darshans are seen as logical systems which are almost formal - they are still not "self-consistent" if they cannot decide on undecidable propositions. On the other hand, even if they are made formally "self-consistent" on certain issues by making them axiomatic - unprovable assumptions then have to be accepted.

The issue of coherence is basically to differentiate between logic and thinking vs faith and submission based schools of thought. Self-consistency criteria is to explore the body of claims of various schools/theologies and examine if they have conflicting claims, and whether those conflicting claims have been resolved through some means during the founding of the school/theology itself or whether the conflicting claims have flown under the radar and are still open issues especially as now the dogma has ossified and been declared final.

More specifically I raised this criteria to emphasize a very specific open pair of conflicting claims in Islam.

Claim 1: On the one hand Islam posits that Allah is All-Knowing (Al-`Alīm) and Truth (Al-Haqq).
Claim 2: On the other hand Qu'ran, which is allegedly the word of Allah passed through an intermediary Jabriel to a Human intermediary Muhammad, asserts in Qu'ran 36:40 that Day and Night happen due to orbiting of Sun and Moon around the "Earth", which we know is not the case as Day and Night happen due to the rotation of Earth on its axis (and sure Moon too is visible but neither as a cause or as a fixed feature of Night). This assertion as such turns out to be false.

So how can claim 1 and claim 2 be true simultaneously? How can the Omniscient Allah have given a false reason for Day & Night?

Either Allah was lying and thus cannot be Truth or Allah was not knowing the reality and thus cannot be All-Knowing. This conflicts with Claim 1.

This is the example for Self-Consistency that I take up to make the case. And this inconsistency cannot be solved today or ever, if one adheres to the Islamic dogma.

As far as discussing Ethics of an Ideological System or Morality is concerned, there it all degenerates into accusations and opinions, and hence the debate cannot take place dispassionately. That is a debate for a different level.

Brihaspati and RajeshG garus

Noted the responses. I have some thoughts regarding the doubts raised by Sinha ji, but suffice it to say the following:

On one hand, hindu darshanas are as close to mathematical logic as any philosophy (theist or otherwise) can get with the assumption that there exist certain statements that can neither be proved nor disproved. Once one accepts that as a theorem (which probably the ancients, i.e. sanatanis, intuitively figured out - most probably not at once but over millenniums), then those could go onto the real work of trying to prove or disprove statements arising out of physical observations or abstractions. What Godel's theorems state is that there exist statements which can neither be proved or disproved but doesn't say anything about a statement.

On the other hand, religions which have arisen out of a need for survival in an hostile environment which is equated to a malicious god, their insecurity that they do not know everything coupled with the ego that they can know everything predisposes them to look for some validation of their superiority. That probably resulted in forcing a self-consistency (which could not be shown by any logical means) through the trick of deus ex machina. Admitting such an external agency is tantamount to circular reasoning (unless it is a theorem from a meta theory) and completely illogical.

matrimc / RajeshA ji,
I posted this in GDF: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1534397

Speaks on a work by Madhusudana Saraswati called Prasthana-Bheda. It talks about how to approach the Vedic knowledge, what to read and in what sequence, and what to avoid reading/following. Why would one ignore a shastra? "Because it interrupts or impedes a purushartha."

Among other things, the lecture talks about the meaning of "Bhaarata". Being a Bhaarata (or Bharatiya) is to undertake tapas for the love of knowledge, according to him. That's only slightly different from the Dvaita point of view, which would be to undertake tapas for the knowledge of love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2XKY3IoM78

The bolded part is important. In all the various, diverse texts and sources that comprise Hinduism, how does one navigate? By what logic does one navigate them?

In the Abrahamic religions like Islam, it goes something like this: Refer to your awliya (wali and his predecessors), but if their justifications contradict the statements of the sahaba (companions of the Prophet), then reject it and go with that of the companions, and if the words of a companion contradict that of the prophet and Qur'an, then bypass that and go with the Qur'an and sunna. In other words, its "logic" is purely deductive and has no anchor point in the real world in Present Time.

But as the above lecture indicates, Madhusudana Saraswati's compilation is not merely an individual's opinion, but rather it is a commentary on a tradition. In that traditional opinion, a particular source is to be bypassed if it impedes the Purushaarthas. The purushaarthas are dharma, artha, kama, moksha, and are rooted in the real world in Present Time. It is based in the individual's current condition, and even then it is not merely prescriptive for different conditions, but actively involves the personal judgment and decisions of the individual. It is a descriptive tradition rather than prescriptive. The prescriptive texts of various sects are ensconced within this tradition. Secondly, the etymological derivation of Bharata itself extols Light - of cognition and knowledge and love. It is not biased towards either towards an obsession with "salvation" or an obsession with "elevation" to some esoteric knowledge. It is focused on a neediness for cognition and learning only. In sum, Dharma = logical Buddhi + unselfish Heart.

Darśanas vs Religions

matrimc wrote:On one hand, hindu darshanas are as close to mathematical logic as any philosophy (theist or otherwise) can get with the assumption that there exist certain statements that can neither be proved nor disproved. Once one accepts that as a theorem (which probably the ancients, i.e. sanatanis, intuitively figured out - most probably not at once but over millenniums), then those could go onto the real work of trying to prove or disprove statements arising out of physical observations or abstractions. What Godel's theorems state is that there exist statements which can neither be proved or disproved but doesn't say anything about a statement.

On the other hand, religions which have arisen out of a need for survival in an hostile environment which is equated to a malicious god, their insecurity that they do not know everything coupled with the ego that they can know everything predisposes them to look for some validation of their superiority. That probably resulted in forcing a self-consistency (which could not be shown by any logical means) through the trick of deus ex machina. Admitting such an external agency is tantamount to circular reasoning (unless it is a theorem from a meta theory) and completely illogical.

matrimc ji,

very good points

- darśanas being systems based on reasoning which uses quasi mathematical logic and a few core non-disprovable axioms about reality & self.

- religions being systems based on reasoning which uses deus ex machina and authority of alleged history-centric revelations.

So religions would always be vulnerable around the historiography and proof of these revelations! That is their weakest point. Religions may be critiqued on immorality of its founders, cultural destructive agenda, flawed logic of its tenets, sociopolitical morass, etc. but these are not their weakest points and often the critique is itself used for communal cohesion on pretext of ideological attack and hatred.

Through the Barrel of the Gun

Agnimitra wrote:In the Abrahamic religions like Islam, it goes something like this: Refer to your awliya (wali and his predecessors), but if their justifications contradict the statements of the sahaba (companions of the Prophet), then reject it and go with that of the companions, and if the words of a companion contradict that of the prophet and Qur'an, then bypass that and go with the Qur'an and sunna. In other words, its "logic" is purely deductive and has no anchor point in the real world in Present Time.

Perhaps one can call it transitive authority.

However as the authority of religious dogma was established through power, power still retains its own validity as a means for imposing authority, any authority, including if it goes against the religious authority.

So a Wali can maintain his authority even if he breaks with Qu'ranic authority, of course only on the condition that he can bring to bear more power than all others who wish to bolster their own standing by seeking power through the established Qu'ranic system of power mediation.

Leader of the Democratic World

Crowds throng to NaMo’s speeches: Images media will never show you

We should start calling Indian Prime Minister as the leader of the democratic world! We should make the number of votes a PM candidate gets in a defacto presidential election due to his personal popularity as the measure of world leadership.

BJP PM candidate Narendra Modi has consistently said we should utilize our democratic dividend. This is one way!

We should make our next PM tower over the likes of Obama, Merkel, Hollande and Cameron.

So "Leader of the Democratic World" should be a title that would rub Bhot Jolokia in the butts of all other world leaders, especially those in Washington and Beijing and we Indians should use it constantly.

CPM leader Rezzak Mollah issues dress code for women, says girls should avoid wearing western clothing

Kolkata: Veteran leader and CPM MLA Rezzak Mollah has yet again courted controversy by crafting a dress code for Indian women. Speaking on the sidelines of a Muslim conference on women in Kolkata, Mollah said that women should avoid wearing western clothing like jeans and tops.

Mollah said on Wednesday that women should avoid western clothing which is not in sync with moral standards of Indian society. Mollah was at a women's conference organised by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind to protest against ‘misinterpretation of women independence and their rights, which is leading to a lot of violence against women’.

Mollah also criticised the Left and congratulated the ruling Trinamool Congress over introducing women empowerment schemes.

Agnimitra wrote:CPM leader Rezzak Mollah issues dress code for women, says girls should avoid wearing western clothing

Hardly Bharatiya Vision!

I think the Bharatiya vision for the woman has really been a fusion of Sati Savitri, Urvashi, Gargi and Durga!

RajeshA wrote:Hardly Bharatiya Vision!

Yes. It has to be seen that certain ideologies have tried to re-define what it means to be Bharatiya - and have been doing it for centuries.

Territoriality of Bharat

Cross-posting a post by Atri from "Future Strategic Scenario for Indian Subcontinent GDF ed" Thread

A question for devaguru, Ramana, RajeshA, Rudradev, johneeG and all other gurus on this forum... Apologies if I have not named anyone. Like Avadhuta, I have so many gurus here..

People like Arun Shourie, jaswant singh etc are beginning to speak along the lines that India, civilizationally, lacks the sense of territory - this is, in politically correct words, saying that HIndus do not mind the loss of territory. "Intellectuals" have been speaking of this all along, but this flurry of opinions from the ones proclaiming to belong to "center-right" and "hindu-nationalist" party is interesting phenomenon. Shourie looks at this Hindu-trait in negative light.

Devaguru and myself (influenced largely by the theses of Devaguru) have written about this mercantile mentality which indians have been displaying, especially since past 1200 years. This mercantile mentality is at the crux of everything that is wrong with hindus in current times. Now I find myself in a conundrum and moral dilemma which is why I request to all the gurus here to help me, just as Totaka asked for Adi Shankara's help. Bhava Shankara deshika me sharanam..

the conundrum is thus - I will present the conundrum in typical Sutra and Teeka format, just so that readers here get used to reading the shaastrartha format of debating.

Sutra 1. Hindus (at least those who have been in power) for most of the times have not been territorial

Teeka: historically in past 1200 years (perhaps even before that since the times of Nandas), the centrist power of India, to use the terminology of devaguru, has abandoned the peripheries. The nanda behavior is exactly like this.

There is potential pothole here - The Alexander Invasion itself is greatly over-rated. Alexander was much less than a minor flu - perhaps a sneeze here or there, for India which people simply shrugged off. So I do not entirely blame nandas to have neglected it as inconsequential raid, to mobilize their gigantic war-machine to tackle Alexander.

But lets assume that this was the case and Dhanananda sat through, waiting Alexander to cross Sutlaj and come anywhere near GV. Then, this becomes the first example in history. This has repeated itself time and again and Panipat has been the epitome of this mentality. So, recurrence of this phenomenon buttresses Sutra 1.

All the classical Hindu modes of digvijaya did not include annexation of territory - Even the Ashwamedha and raajsuya conquests. Nor did any Indian empire seek to destroy the Rajas - All Indian empires, rather Hindu empires, have been a federation where the defeated king would pay certain tribute to victor and accept supremacy. Not much territorial change happened. One can say the Hindu concept of "Raashtra" differs from westphalian concept of territorial nation-state, in this fundamental aspect.

Sutra 2 - Hindu revival and expansion has been more ethereal and ideological level, than territorial level.

Teeka - Take the example of Marathas who are the most evident forces representing Hindu revival. The whole evolution of their modus operandi, territory was never given undue importance. The revenue was given utmost importance and given the governance model they were into, which evolved from looting Mughal territories to make revenue, it is construed by many today as extortion (although it is legally mandated by Hindu Dharma-shastras to extract 25% of income as tax). The shaastras claim that in exchange of 15% tax (25% in wartime), the dharma of king is protect mutually supportive varnashrama-purushartha model of society and territory where it is rooted. In case of fight between two dharmik kings, the conflict did not result in annexation of kingdom of loser. Even the non-classical hindu revivalists like Marathas, they did not bother if their capital was burnt down by enemy, if strategy demanded abandoning and fleeing and surviving.

The only time when Marathas genuinely acted in territorial fashion was Panipat 3.0. they genuinely went there to protect "India" (of course all their economic and political interests were aligned accordingly) and everyone knows how it ended. Post Panipat, Marathas returned to their predatory style and did not seek territorial expansion. They did consolidate the territories they managed to get hold of, though. anyways. This "Hindu" lack of territorial sense is seen in the largest Hindu-revivalistic force of past 500 years. (for time being I am not discussing Vijaynagar here, to support the thesis I am trying to build).

The Hindu concept of "Raashtra" in a way transcends territorial claims - while an ideal worth striving for - it poses a conundrum in current system based on territorial and identity based westphalian "nation-states". Anything not following this westphalian model is considered anarchy.

Now here comes the crux of the argument

The conundrum Sutra - While whining about lack of hindu-territorial character, critics fail to see the fledgling territorial character displayed by hindus in Ramjanmabhumi movement.

Teeka - When I say critics in 3rd sutra, it includes me; which puts me in deep moral dilemma. I have been speaking about Savarkar and his "vector" which has been influencing the path of Bhagwat and Modi etc. I have been advocating that the drive of Hindus should be ethereal motivators like the evangelical OR DharmaVijayee zeal of Vaidik people when they proclaimed "Krinvanto Vishwam Aaryam", instead of a material real-estate like RJB, KJB and KV. While I agree that these four places (Bhojshala of Dhar included) should be brought back to Hindu control without any conditions, I have been asking for this reconquest as a side-effect of the all-round Dharmavijaya of Hindus. But here I am in fact agreeing with people like Shourie OR jaswant OR even with the "no-blade-of-grass-on-bald-head Nehru", that territory is inconsequential.. or am I? I do not know..

Marathas let Pune burn and defeated nizam, mughals, British at the time and place of their choosing without any remorse. Any king or sultan of delhi who allowed Punjab to go to dogs and who decided to meet the invader near Delhi after he had came 1000 kilometers inside India was showing this same tendency. British people, OTOH, due to the westphalian character, were highly territorial. Patel ingrained this particular territorial character of Britishers, which frolicking Chacha in spite of his harping that he was englishman, did not.

Those people (including Hindutvavadi or sympathizers like your's truly, for eg) who sometimes castigate the VHP type "traditionalists" for fixating on the real-estate of RJB, instead of going for overall hindu renaissance by means of Dharma-Vijaya (followed by Shastra-Vijaya over asuras, of course) are also endorsing the point in Sutra 1. Because what Hindus displayed in 1990s was nothing but a non-compromising territorial claim on piece of land - which if properly groomed can unify India and make dharma as the OS of the unified India.

how to escape from this dharma-sankata? It is a two-way dharma-sankata: for even the people like Arun Shourie, jaswant singh who are vocalizing this Hindu non-territorial civilizational characteristic, are fanning and encouraging the very zeal and meme which mobilized people for liberation of RJB, a mobilization which they shy away from.

Territoriality of Bharat

Atri garu,

I'll try to jot down the principles of territorial claims by Bharatiyas and see where we get to.

1. Teerthsthan: These are places in the universe claimed by Dharma and become part of the Dharmic Katha. These places are deemed as being empowered by entities and events from Dharmic Katha and which are capable of enducing Dharmic spirit among all those who partake in the Sanskriti of these Teerthsthans. Ensuring Dharmic control over these places so that the Ritualism and Spiritualism can take place unimpeded over these places is basically the duty of every Dharmic. These punctual places as such are not concerned with the politics around them, however the politics, state control, etc. cannot be allowed to undermine the sanctity of these places. Any sustained and deliberate violation or policy by state actors or non-state actors which state actors cannot control implies that the state dispensation would be ordained either Adharmic or weak Dharmic and thus illegible to continue rule. Then Dharmic forces would have to intervene and reestablish Dharmic environment for the Teerthsthan.
2. Rule by Raj Dharma: This was the primary means of legitimacy. Only a ruler who used to abide by Raj Dharma could claim to also have the right to sit on the throne. The area of control of the king could be small or large, independent of that he had to act by this principle. The reason the king is called an "avatar" of Vishnu is because just as Vishnu stands for Dharma in cosmos, the king looks after rule of Dharma in his kingdom. Both represent the same principle.
   Should he opt for Adharma, he loses respect in front of his people and his peers, and becomes a target for replacement.
3. Respect for Native Tradition and Regal Lines: As Suryavansh and Chandravansh, both originating from Manu have proliferated througout Bharat, there was always a certain respect and deference for other leaders elsewhere. Disrespect for others is considered equivalent to disrespect against the ancient regal lines and thus perhaps disrespect for self. Even as Bharat extended outwards more elites were included into the ruling elites and these relationships strengthened through marriage. As kings divided their lands among their progeny there was automatic fragmentation and hereditary rule was recognized in Bharat as a legitimate model.
4. Meaning of Power in Dharma: The Rajasik quality is well accepted and in fact the quality is so associated with rule and ruler that it is even called Rajasik Guna. Glory is good. It is fully acceptable to have the world singing your praise. Why the false modesty for a Raja? In order to achieve Glory it is not considered necessary to destroy and kill all other Rajas. It suffices to have them recognize your superiority and pay you tribute. Tribute ensures several aims: glory and riches. Why need riches? Of course for the material benefit of the people as well as sponsoring Sanskriti and Dharma! Tribute also ensures many other concessions - in matters of appointment, marriages, policy, military support, understanding of Dharma, etc.
5. Expansionism: There is cultural expansionism and there is political expansionism. "Krinvanto Vishwam Aaryam" is the banner of Bharatiyas. Whereever people have become Āryā, the above principles apply. Where prople are still in ignorance, Bharatiyas would continue to teach the world and extend the boundaries of c, which is Bharat's civilizational boundaries. There is no need for a Bharatiya to personally rule over other people, who have their own native traditions and regal lines. Though there is also no bar to use political means to civilize people. This restraint is valid only if the problem is diagnosed as one of ignorance and not systematic Adharma. Systematic Adharma however poses a danger to the world of Dharma and hence Dharmics are duty-bound to crush such systems and let Dharma flow into these societies.
6. Protection of Dharmic Lands: Dharmics are duty bound to come to the protection of Dharmic dispensations elsewhere in other lands if these are under threat not just from competing Dharmic claims but from Adharmic forces. All the lands which belong to Āryāvarta are under the protection of Dharma and thus under the protection of all those who speak for Dharma in the world, who are pledged by Raj Dharma.

I'll try to go into how these principles apply to modern times.

Territoriality of Bharat

The age in which the previously mentioned principles were established were an era in which Bharatiya Sabhyata was indomitable, ruler over all the world could see. Āryāvarta was an ever expanding region - extending from sands of Arabian Peninsula to the shores of Philippines and Japan, with major outposts in Greece and even the Americas. When our soft power was unchallenged, there wasn't a need to organize ourselves as some huge empire. It was unclear where the boundaries of Bharatvarsh ended and those of Outer Āryāvarta started. Is Tibet part of Bharat or Outer Āryāvarta? Earlier there was no need to answer this question.

So where does Bharat end? Can Bharat be formulated according to the concept of Westphalian state?

Bharat is the geographical, demographic and cultural CPU (central processing unit) for processing the "Krinvanto Vishwam Aaryam" directive.

Republic of India is the current computer which carries this Bharat CPU, but which over the years has been operating by remote control from outside partly to undermine the CPU itself.

We lost our domination because

• we became complacent and thought of our power, both hard and soft, as invincible,
• we became complacent about the fight against Adharma, and
• we became complacent about our directive of expanding Āryāvarta.

We are incapable of regaining our domination because

• we have forgotten both our hard and soft power
• we have embraced Adharma as having equistatus as Dharma in the form of Secularism. Raj Dharma is forgotten under the pall of Macaulayization, Dhimmification, Communism and Formal Constitutionalism.
• we have embraced the concept of Neutrality, Nonalignment and Nonintervention and ditched Outer Āryāvarta. Instead we have allowed foreign powers and ideologies a free run within India itself.

So the open civilization and politically fragmented Bharat model was a Dharmic response to overwhelming soft power. The culturally aggressive and politically united Bharat model is necessary to respond to overwhelming Adharmic world environment which is aggressively eating away at Bharatiya native traditions and independence of our elites, undermining Bharatiya Sabhyata, undermining Bharatiya Sanskriti and undermining Dharmic Rule over Bharat and rest of Āryāvarta.

Territoriality of Bharat is determined by the need for consolidation of Dharmic power. It need not be understood as the modern recreation of a previous empire based on claims established by any such previous empire. That forms the basis of claims of other powers, not that of Bharat.

Purpose of Bharat is to cleanse itself of Adharma and to proceed to expand Āryāvarta, even by including parts of Outer Āryāvarta if it needs political umbrella of Republic of India to sustain itself and Dharmic rule over itself.

Territoriality of Bharat

Bharat Consciousness has many layers, politico-military control over geographic boundaries being just one of the layers. In that way, Bharat and Āryāvarta have a virtual existence in parallel to an on-the-ground existence. Bharat is Interior Āryāvarta. Bharat Ma exists regardless of where our borders run.

However what our borders tell us are two things:
1. It is a measure of our strength. The more outward they run, the more strength we can claim.
2. It is a measure of Dharma's protection umbrella, that Bharatiyas within these borders should expect full protection and security - to life, property and dignity.
3. It is a measure of our agenda for immediate cleansing - turning all within the borders into Bharatiyas and Dharmics.

Now this is far from the truth in India's secularist avatar. So what do India's current borders mean today?

Today the Indian state provides protection to Bharatiyas and Dharmics which is only marginally higher than that available to those who live beyond our borders. The Pseudo-Secularist Imperative has to a large extent tied up the hands of the state to look after the interests of the Bharatiyas within India itself.

So why have India?

Precisely because the level of protection to the Bharatiyas and Dharmics is slightly higher than for those outside, and this relative difference can make all the difference between extinction and survival, between survival and revival.

Hindus in Pakistan, in Bangladesh and Tibetans now under Chinese control have no such protection and thus the retreat of Āryāvarta is much more rapid in these areas. Regions which were once considered interior Āryāvarta, i.e. Bharat proper today lie outside out borders.

The more serious development is the retreat of Bharat not geographically but from people's consciousness. It is as if one has forgotten one's Mother. And the present Nehruvian dispensation in India has contributed to it in no small measure.

Without Bharatiyata, without Āryāvartavta, without Dharma, without Hindutvavad, Indians have nothing else to hold on to other than Secularism which acts like a parasite putting us into a sweet trance and sucking away more of our strength all the time!

Our borders would again mean something to us only after we do away with Secularism and embrace Bharatiyata again. Until then India is just another pot on low fire where we get cooked in the Secularism Soup more slowly, rather than being stamped out brutally as has been happening in our neighborhood.

Bharat = "India Unshackled"

Published on Nov 16 2013
By Shekhar Gupta
National Interest: Or else, Modi: Indian Express

"We have institutions to deal with Modi if he threatens our democracy and its values of liberal secularism... we have the judiciary, Parliament, Election Commission, and also us, the free media. You can trust India's institutions to deal with any such challenges now,"

The more the anti-Modi forces work towards polarisation, the more they bring back the majority's minority complex. It helps their adversary rather than harming him. At the same time, if at all he were to be voted to power next year, India and its institutions would change Modi (and even his BJP) rather than him being able to change India. That's why fear can't be the key to the voters' mind in 2014. It will be a positive, considered choice from the options on offer.

This guy really has no idea what is going to hit him!

The issue is do we know what holds India back and what has been strangulating our Sabhyata over the centuries and decades. Once one knows where the arteries are artificially being blocked and you remove these blockages, the natural strength of this civilization would come forth again!

Bharat is very different from "Idea of India" as thrown around by Psecs. Modi does not need to "change India" but only to "unshackle India".

Now PSecs think that their complete control over institutions like Constitution, Election Commission, Alliance Politics, Judiciary, Police Forces, Mainstream Media, NGOs, International Relations, Mafia, Deracinated Elite, etc. would ensure that Bharat would always remain chained and imprisoned in the dungeon, while Republic of India represented by these institutions can forever fool people that it speaks in name of Bharat. This is an idea which is running out of steam.

PSecs would not be able to control the narrative using their current tools.

India in the cross wires of Atlanticists

There have been many gurus here who have delved in depth on how outside powers have kept the Indian Ruling Elite under its control and made it to dance to its whims.

I wouldn't churn it all over again here.

However what does need to be put under close scrutiny is the "Indians against Corruption" (IAC) and "Aam Aadmi Party" movements.

The movement follows to a large extent the script of Gene Sharp and his prescription for Color Revolutions and Arab Spriings, which is basically to package "Freedom and Democracy" as the good, and to use Marxist tactics of revolution to take over power. Of course in India, which already has "Freedom and Democracy" the packaging would have to be done using some other ideal like Anti-Corruption. Even the movement for provision of security to women in India may have been hijacked, as it too provides the right conditions for such revolutions This is the trademark of the Atlanticism.

There have been enough indicators that "Aam Aadmi Party" too has been funded by Ford Corporation, Avaaz.org, etc.

Now why would Anglo-American powers and their Islamist allies deem it fit to use this model in India, when they already have a very pliant political elite in India willing to do their bidding. Well in Egypt too Hosni Mubarak was an American stooge and still he was overthrown.

There are basically two reasons. One is to always keep the pliant elite on their toes and under threat for in due time even a pliant elite forms their own networks and threatens to become a self-perpetuating establishment. It's important for the elite to have to renegotiate power with the foreign power-brokers.

Second reason is to always determine who the main opposition to the perceived establishment is going to be, to occupy the opposition space so that foreign powers can retain control over any political transitions in the land. This way even hope of change in the people is channelized to a new flavor of political control under a slightly new political elite.

The IAC/AAP program was to provide an alternative to the present political elite. The main opposition party was perceived to be by the people not any better than the ruling party, and considering the level of "sahaj and sabhya" interaction between the leaderships of the ruling alliance and the main opposition alliance, there was also not much for people to differentiate and with the media playing its part in balancing ruling alliance's high level of corruption with a higher media focus on the main opposition's much lower level of corruption, basically the whole political elite of India looked like made of similar DNA.

In this vacuum of credible opposition it was deemed easy for a new revolutionary movement to be set up using old Gandhians like Anna Hazare and some upright ex-officers enjoying high level of credibility and respect, people like Kiran Bedi and General V.K. Singh etc. Eventually the objective was to hijack the movement in a direction more useful for the Atlanticists, into a political party which could form the nucleus of a wider movement to introduce a new compromised political elite into the current mix making Indian polity even more conducive to the interests of the Atlanticists.

The ruling party was told that the outfit would be cutting into the votes of the opposition, and so the new Atlanticist outfit was allowed to function, and media space was bought to prominently project the new leadership of "Aam Aadmi Party". Slowly the ruling party is finding out that the new outfit is eating more into its own vote-bank and not sufficiently in the opposition party's vote-bank.

The script actually went completely wrong for Atlanticists the moment the main opposition party chose a new PM candidate, who was outside the scope of influence of these Atlanticists.

So much for recent history of the Atlanticist intervention into Indian politics using Color Revolution and Arab Spring tactics.

So what is noteworthy?

1) Atlanticists would always use idealistic educated but deracinated college students & leftist & "civil rights" leaders and NGOs for the purpose. This educated youth is brimming with notions of "Freedom", "Democracy", "Accountability", "Uprightness", etc. so a good facade which embodies these qualities and pushed by the media as such would suffice to convince this youth that they've found the right leader. The leadership of such a group would be built up by the media on behalf of the Atlanticist "project management". So our middle class educated youth is highly vulnerable to such machinations.

2) The hallmark of such a movement is almost the total deracinated followership where the ideological categories used to describe the injustice of the present situation and vision for the future are purely Western constructs. Inspiration in this case is never looked for in native traditions but rather in Western ideological constructs which the youth are brainwashed to look up to as a benchmark.

3) In India the Atlanticists have met their match - a culture which has more than enough depth to provide solutions packaged in its own time-tested categories. In fact, Bharat can offer the world an alternative narrative, a challenger to what the Atlanticists provide, and this itself can shake Atlanticist projects - an alternate narrative for global and local solutions. Two important contributions from Bharatiya perspective to the Bharatiya Proposition to the world are Suraaj and Vikas. Many more would come. In the end, Bharat has the capacity to not only save itself but also "Rang de Basanti" the world itself, just to use the Indian Spring metaphor.

RajeshA wrote:
3) In India the Atlanticists have met their match - a culture which has more than enough depth to provide solutions packaged in its own time-tested categories. In fact, Bharat can offer the world an alternative narrative, a challenger to what the Atlanticists provide, and this itself can shake Atlanticist projects - an alternate narrative for global and local solutions. Two important contributions from Bharatiya perspective to the Bharatiya Proposition to the world are Suraaj and Vikas. Many more would come. In the end, Bharat has the capacity to not only save itself but also "Rang de Basanti" the world itself, just to use the Indian Spring metaphor.

Atlanticists created their global system based on the Indian system during the colonial trading system of 200 years
They have tried to create a global system fully under their control

Acharya wrote:Atlanticists created their global system based on the Indian system during the colonial trading system of 200 years
They have tried to create a global system fully under their control

This we can reverse. As the economies of USA and Britain go down, other Europeans are willing to look for alternate models and looking up to other leaders. Germany is economically taking over Europe. Also Germany is trying to put some distance between them and USA, if one goes by the media focus on NSA snooping. India needs to align with Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil to push back the Atlanticists.

The good thing is that with other countries in South America, Africa, India can offer the developing world a new and different alternative which goes beyond Color Revolutions, Arab Springs, Missionary NGOs, Aid Dumping, Jihadist Blackmail and Big Oil.

RajeshA wrote: This we can reverse. As the economies of USA and Britain go down, other Europeans are willing to look for alternate models and looking up to other leaders. India needs to align with Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil to push back the Atlanticists.

The good thing is that with other countries in South America, Africa, India can offer the developing world a new and different alternative which goes beyond Color Revolutions, Arab Springs, Missionary NGOs, Aid Dumping, Jihadist Blackmail and Big Oil.

This is exactly what I was talking about. BRIC is the first step to reverse the 200 year of British system

BRIC is a western construct. There is nothing similar between Brazil, Russia, India, China. Except perhaps they are the captive market west wants. The next rung of markets are where they are engineering colour revolutions as they are suitably small to do so directly. BRIC are too darn large to engineer a colour revolution.

More useful is the SCO or perhaps NAM in a different guise.

A entity is helpful anyway it can, including being free from western-centric ideas. Any positive action can be useful in any such group in my humble opinion. For example BRIC can also form humanitarian org with its own style and tech etc.

Published on Nov 22 2013
By Suhas Palshikar
Moving the middle: Indian Express

In contrast, there is the hope that India's democratic resilience will take care of Modi's excesses. After all, the BJP was tamed by the compulsions of electoral politics (and coalition strategy) in the mid-1990s. So it is quite probable that even if the BJP manages to come back to power via the coalition route, either Modi will not become the leader of the new dispensation or if he does, he will be shackled by the compulsions of realpolitik. Does that mean that the danger will be averted?

To answer this question, we need to define what danger we are talking about. Are we worried only — or mainly — about the person called Modi? Or are we talking about the sensibilities that Modi represents? It is the latter that should concern us.

Modi may try to become an Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He may not actually attain power at Delhi, but what we are witnessing currently is nothing but an extension of a larger project that was inaugurated in the late-1980s. That project is about shifting or redefining the middle ground of India's democratic politics. If that happens then, Modi or no Modi, a fundamental shift might be accomplished.

Bharat's middle ground was always unapologetic Hindutva and Dharma! When Vijayanagara, Maratha and Sikh Empires rose in India in the middle of the Islamic onslaught, to fight for the right to existence of the natives and native culture, was that "reimagining the idea of nationhood"?

It's Gandhi who compromised with that unabashed Hindutva and made friends with Islam and Caliphate Movement, but the purpose was to get rid of the British.

But it is Nehruvianism introduced after independence that was shifting the soul of India from one of pride in the native culture to one of submissive Dhimmitude in the name of secularism under which Islam and Christianity were again encouraged to expand their footprint in India. Islam and Christianity are not simply faiths, but are markers of identity which follows non-Bharatiya agendas & leadership and behave like parallel nationhoods within the state of India.

India is simply returning to its roots. History did not begin with the independence struggle under Congress.

Curbing Religious Proselytization (Cont.)

When we talk about having the Anti-Conversion Law and we try to justify this law, we often run up against our own convictions that one should have freedom of thought and freedom of belief.

The usual justification that we give is that various religions are free to "proselytize" as long as they don't use Manipulation in addition to Message in this endeavor.

Furthermore one should demand that the Message used for proselytization does not include Distortion of the teachings and history of other streams of thought and faith.

These are generally the two arguments one makes in favor of curbs of freedom to proselytize religion.

However there is a more relevant reason for having a Anti-Conversion Law, and that is because conversion is anti-national.

For some reason all the propaganda about human rights and right of freedom of religion has drugged us into a stupor where we cease to look at religion as such more closely and to analyze its structure. We are made to believe that freedom of religion is same thing as freedom of faith.

No. Freedom of religion is NOT the same thing as freedom of faith

Religion goes a lot further than just faith. A religion establishes a new nation.

• It lays claims to its own laws.
• It lays claims to its own history.
• It lays claims to its own culture.
• It lays claims to its own territory.
• It lays claims to its own capital.
• It lays claims to its own establishment.
• It lays claims to its own "people".
• It lays claims to its own primary language.
• It provides its own oath of loyalty.
• It provides its own propaganda machinery to belittle all other perceived competitor nations and nation models.
• It is very political and follows political interests.
• Often it has its own armies, often non-state actors.
• It has its own economy and budget - revenue and outlays

The movement towards Secularism is basically the transfer of these claims by the Church over to the Monarch and this transfer happened only in Europe. Secularism is a pact between Church and State for sharing power and responsibilities. It may be true that "Enlightenment" further diminished the hold of the Church over the people, but it could hold on to power through its entrenchment in property, financial assets and a seat at the table of power in the European system. More importantly the Church never agreed to let go of its claims and zeal outside Europe.

As far as Islam is concerned, the above template of religion fits even better.

So what does a ban on conversion means? It does not mean one is being stopped from following some faith, some spirituality, some philosophy.

Ban on Conversions means that Indians would not be lured into brotherhoods, be offered "citizenship" of a different nation under the guise of religion/faith.

Islam and Christianity (outside Europe) both strongly show memes of nations, asserting their own "national" (religious) identity. This national/religious identity goes against the national identity of Indians, against Bharatiyata.

In fact, Partition is the most visible outcome of this national character of religion, in this case Islam. How can after receiving such a lesson into the reality of Islam, we still continue to look at religion just as some issue of harmless personal faith.

Hence Bharatiyas are justified in demanding an "Anti-Conversion Law"!

We can continue to make excuses of use of Manipulation, Willful Distortion of other Faiths as reasons for banning conversions, but it is time to take the beast by its horns. The reason for ban on conversions is because conversions promotes segregation and secession, conversions create fissures in the national identity, and has nothing to do with free thinking, faith, spirituality or life philosophy.

Well argued, RajeshA ji ! Must say this is a rather interesting take.

I support the Anti-Conversion Law as currently drafted in certain states - but my justification has been based on establishing a level playing field and certain minimum regulation on the process of conversion, rather than on the stance you have taken.

You are essentially arguing against conversion to any 'religion' that displays overt political ambitions in addition to the purely spiritual. In spirit, I can't think of anything to fault this logic - and your attempt at defining a 'political' religion, which the Abrahamic ones clearly satisfy, is an excellent start.

RajeshA ji, one question to you is, how does one define manipulation and distortion?

If you ask any Abhramic faith, they insist that their version is the right version that was passed down by the God himself(hence word of God), you just cannot argue, if you do, you know what happens. They will say that Dharmic faiths are the ones manipulating by praying to stones in dark places when God forbid that, hence they are spreading the "good news". Who is to say what is true and what is distorted? who is going to define the terms?

May be we first have to identify and define indigenous dharmic traditions, practices, culture, art forms as something we take for granted as the laws of distant past. These cannot be disturbed in anyway (more like preserving rare species), this also includes people practicing any of the dharmic systems. Any teaching other than these which might endanger the survival of the native dharmic traditions should be defined as manipulative and destructive.

venug wrote:RajeshA ji, one question to you is, how does one define manipulation and distortion?

If you ask any Abhramic faith, they insist that their version is the right version that was passed down by the God himself(hence word of God),

RajeshA ji said that the issue was distorting or misrepresenting the teachings or practices of other religious faiths. That is often the problem with the propaganda of missionary religions.

Agnimitra ji, thanks, okay that covers everything which RajeshA ji already covered then. Sorry missed that.

Furthermore one should demand that the Message used for proselytization does not include Distortion of the teachings and history of other streams of thought and faith.

The problem with Secularism is exactly that it leads to the kind of solutions what Rajesh Ji wrote. A freezing of Sampradaya's. A freezing and possessive attitude to faith. When people start defining and compartmentalizing their faith under Official state policy, it will lead to a divided society. That is what a Dharmic tenet based state seeks to avoid. A Sikh guru writing a version of Ramayana, a Jain enjoying Diwali, a Vishnu bhakt visiting a monastery in Ladhak will never be natural again. IMO that is what will stem Islam/ Xtianity to some extent but that's about it. They will still out grow, out breed. Within a secular setup inevitably the predatory relgion is going to win, whetehr we ban Burkhas and overt religious symbols notwithstanding. JMT

Sampradaya will evolve on it's own. when attention is paid and protected from weeds and grazing animals, a crop grows when attended to well. It gets stunted when not allowed to grow, it is then that it remains stagnant and dies. This freezing of Smapradaya is what has already happened. When is the last time a Bharatiya has written a path breaking work in any field with new insights say in Samskritam? This is the very reason we have to dig into past when one wants to refer any magnum opus. We have allowed too much grazing to take place that now Sampradaya is name sake and is shrinking fast. It is true that no such state protection was needed in the past, but those were the times when no invasive and destructive theologies existed whose aim was to complete annihilation by hook or by crook. Protection need not mean restrictive, need not also mean elitist or isolationist. It has to be symbiotic but no compromise need to be made when it comes to it's upkeep. It is simply a way to prolong digestion of Samskriti till it can fight it's own fight.

How bad can it get from the present situation we already are in? from Rajeev Malhotra's google hang out, he says we already lost 80% of our land. So the situation is already dire.

Curbing Religious Proselytization (Cont.)

venug wrote:RajeshA ji, one question to you is, how does one define manipulation and distortion?

venug ji,

I think there are multiple vectors which can be used to make a case for an "Anti-Conversion & monitored Proselytizing Law"

Proselytizing of Religion, I think consists of two parts: Message and Manipulation. Then the offer itself needs to be looked at closely.

1. Manipulation: Coercion, physical threats, material inducements (money, status, scholarships, travel opportunities, property, jobs, etc), divide & rule, fear of others, ...
2. Distortion: Misrepresenting the message, customs and history of other faiths
3. Dharma Adherence: Dharma is Bharatiya system of Meta-Ethics. Every ideological and organizational system in Bharat has to show adherence/compliance. Every system has to be analyzed accordingly. For example, "control of people" through their faith rebels against the notion of Dharma, something which Abrahamic religions often show.
4. National Fission: This is what I explained earlier - promoting segregation and secession.

Here is a list of memes in Abrahamic religions which bother Bharatiyas.