Bharat Rakshak

Lok Sangrah was the term used by Lord Krishna in the Bhagvad – Gita to express his inspiration to the world. Loksangraha refers to the ways in which a human being plays role in the upliftment of society and the welfare.

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ those are goals or desired outcomes. As far as I know, the "how" is mentioned only briefly in the Gita, as lok sangrah.

Lok Sangrah was the term used by Lord Krishna in the Bhagvad – Gita to express his inspiration to the world. Loksangraha refers to the ways in which a human being plays role in the upliftment of society and the welfare.

Thursday November 16 2006 09:31 IST
S Gurumurthy
"What is it that keeps the country down", asked the speaker. A young man in the audience replied unhesitatingly: "Undoubtedly the institution of caste that kept the majority low castes and the society backward" and added "it continues".

The speaker replied, "May be". But, pausing for a moment, he added, "May not be". Shocked, the young man angrily asked him to explain his "may-not-be" theory.

The speaker calmly mentioned just one fact that clinched the debate. He said, "Before the British rule in India, over two-thirds - yes, two-thirds - of the Indian kings belonged to what is today known as the Other Backward Castes (OBCs).

"It is the British," he said, "who robbed the OBCs - the ruling class running all socio-economic institutions - of their power, wealth and status." So it was not the upper caste which usurped the OBCs of their due position in the society?

The speaker’s assertion that it was not so was founded on his study - unbelievably painstaking study for years and decades in the archives in India, England and Germany. He could not be maligned as a ‘saffron’ ideologue and what he said could not be dismissed thus. He was Dharampal, a Gandhian in ceaseless search of truth like his preceptor Gandhi himself was, but a Gandhian with a difference. He ran no ashram on state aid to do ‘Gandhigiri’.

Admitting that "he and those like him do not know much about our own society", the young man who questioned Dharampal - Banwari is his name - became his student. By meticulous research of the British sources over decades, Dharampal demolished the myth that India was backward educationally or economically when the British entered. Citing the Christian missionary William Adam’s report on indigenous education in Bengal and Bihar in 1835 and 1838, Dharampal established that at that time there were 100,000 schools in Bengal, one school for about 500 boys; that the indigenous medical system that included inoculation against small-pox.

He also proved by reference to other materials that Adam’s record was ‘no legend’. He relied on Sir Thomas Munroe’s report to the Governor at about the same time to prove similar statistics about schools in Madras. He also found that the education system in the Punjab during the Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule was equally extensive. He estimated that the literary rate in India before the British was higher than that in England.

Citing British public records he established, on the contrary, that ‘British had no tradition of education or scholarship or philosophy from 16th to early 18th century, despite Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Newton, etc’. Till then education and scholarship in the UK was limited to select elite. He cited Alexander Walker’s Note on Indian education to assert that it was the monitorial system of education borrowed from India that helped Britain to improve, in later years, school attendance which was just 40, 000, yes just that, in 1792. He then compared the educated people’s levels in India and England around 1800. The population of Madras Presidency then was 125 lakhs and that of England in 1811 was 95 lakhs. Dharampal found that during 1822-25 the number of those in ordinary schools in Madras Presidency was around 1.5 lakhs and this was after great decay under a century of British intervention.

As against this, the number attending schools in England was half - yes just half - of Madras Presidency’s, namely a mere 75,000. And here to with more than half of it attending only Sunday schools for 2-3 hours! Dharampal also established that in Britain ‘elementary system of education at people’s level remained unknown commodity’ till about 1800! Again he exploded the popularly held belief that most of those attending schools must have belonged to the upper castes particularly Brahmins and, again with reference to the British records, proved that the truth was the other way round.

During 1822-25 the share of the Brahmin students in the indigenous schools in Tamil-speaking areas accounted for 13 per cent in South Arcot to some 23 per cent in Madras while the backward castes accounted for 70 per cent in Salem and Tirunelveli and 84 per cent in South Arcot.

The situation was almost similar in Malayalam, Oriya and Kannada-speaking areas, with the backward castes dominating the schools in absolute numbers. Only in the Telugu-speaking areas the share of the Brahmins was higher and varied from 24 to 46 per cent. Dharampal’s work proved Mahatma Gandhi’s statement at Chatham House in London on October 20, 1931 that "India today is more illiterate than it was fifty or hundred years ago" completely right.

Not many know of Dharampal or of his work because they have still not heard of the Indian past he had discovered. After, long after, Dharampal had established that pre-British India was not backward a Harvard University Research in the year 2005 (India’s Deindustrialisation in the 18th and 19th Centuries by David Clingingsmith and Jeffrey G Williamson) among others affirmed that "while India produced about 25 percent of world industrial output in 1750, this figure had fallen to only 2 percent by 1900." The Harvard University Economic Research also established that the Industrial employment in India also declined from about 30 to 8.5 per cent between 1809-13 and 1900, thus turning the Indian society backward.

PS: This great warrior who established the truth - the truth that was least known - that India was not backward when the British came, but became backward only after they came, is no more. He passed away two weeks ago on October 26, 2006, at Sevagram at Warda.

Vriksh wrote:I have met Dharampal as a boy in 1993. Good to know that his ideas have started coming out in the mainstream.

Dharampal along with other like minded people had started a foundation called Patriotic People Oriented Science and Technology (PPST) based out of Chennai. PPST then organized 3 massive Congresses on Traditional Sciences and Technology in the 1990s which included Ancient Iron/Steel making (Wootz steel) which I had the pleasure of observing at close range while the artisans coaxed the Iron out the ore in a 3 ft high furnace

More information below.

http://www.vidyaashram.org/ppst.html

A Hindu article on PPST.
http://www.thehindu.com/2000/06/12/stories/08120001.htm

A lot of research on Ancient Indian Sciences are covered in the Bulletins which are a rich source of information on many many traditions of India.
http://ppstbulletins.blogspot.in/2011/1 ... h-nov.html

JE Menon wrote:^^Thanks for that.

What was the title of Dharampal's study? No indication in the article.

JE Menon wrote:^^Got it... Here you go. Not sure if it's all there, but quite a bit seems to be.

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgu ... ultree.pdf

RamaY wrote:^ All 5 volumes are in that PDF. They are mentioned as chapters. It is available on Archive.org as well.

chetak wrote:

RamaY wrote:^ All 5 volumes are in that PDF. They are mentioned as chapters. It is available on Archive.org as well.

Thanks saar, saved me a email hop to get them. One of my contacts had them in pdf.

1. Hindu (Ishwarvadi Ārya, recast as "Religion" vs Bharatiya Resistance to foreign ideological and physical onslaught; redefined by the West)
2. religion (faith vs authoritarian control and subversion using faith; defined by the West)
3. Ārya (A PIE speaking White people/race which invaded India vs a Civilization of "Noble" people; appropriated by the West)
4. Bharatiya (Indian citizen vs Native cultural identifiier for Indian Subcontinental; appropriated by Secular Indian State)

shiv wrote:

Atri wrote: they very identity of "Hindu" came into existence as opposition to abrahmic monotheistic marauders. Before that there was no such identity - there was shaiva, vaishnava bauddha, jaina etc. and there were jaati based identities.

Atri, klnmurthy said this

My political thought inspired by your political question is: it is spoken of in a pejorative sense because Indians don't own and control the discourse, and the owners have chosen to make it pejorative.

There is a big difference between what he says and what you have said.

klnmurthy says that the terms ("Hindu" and "nationalism") are not owned by Indians and the owners are doing what they want

You are saying that the term Hindu was coined specifically as a reaction to invaders.

In klnmurthy's viewpoint "hindu nationalist" is pejorative because others choose to describe in in whatever way they like

But according to you, Hindu nationalism is anti-Muslim/Christian and this corresponds, for example, to Wendy Doniger's viewpoint

The implication from both meanings is that you cannot be a Hindu and a nationalist without admitting to be anti-minority. For example we dissect statements from Muslims and ask if they say "I am an Indian" first or whether they say "I am a Muslim first" A similar choice is being offered to the Hindu. If he says that he is Hindu first, then he is anti-minority. He has to say "i am Indian" first unless he does not object to the anti-minority tag.

In other words, for Indians, nationalism has to come in different flavours for different people. But the choice of being Hindu and nationalist is removed for all Hindus unless they admit to being anti-minority.

Article 25(2)(b) in The Constitution Of India 1949
(b) 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

shiv wrote:I am a Hindu nationalist. Am I being accused of wanting to kill Muslims and eliminate all religious minorities in India? Why?

Neela wrote:I am just reminded of all the articles we see on newspapers, magazines .
You will invariably find "the right wing Hindu nationalist party, the BJP" mentioned and along with it "militant wing, the RSS" .

People associate right wing / nationalist with what they are accustomed to and project the same here.

Anujan wrote:Before people complain about polio from Pakistan, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of polio. Other countries complain about 1-2 polio cases. Pakistan has 200 polio cases. With almost one case reported per day. Polio has no religion or nationality and any one could get polio. It is wrong to blame a single country for polio. It is the failure of the entire world that polio is still lurking in Pakistan. Just condemning polio won't work: root cause of Pakistani polio, like poverty, illiteracy and unsolved issues like Kashmir should be addressed and solved. More people to people contact, relaxing travel restrictions and aid are the best ways to combat polio.

India and Pakistan have fought 4 wars over Kashmir and over 1 billion people live on less than $2 per day in the subcontinent. Our Lahore correspondent contributed to this report.

Anujan wrote:

Cosmo_R wrote: Anujan, you have an evil mind and a sharp tongue and vice versa. My cup of envy runneth over.

There is a method to the madness. People in Pakistan are remarkably consistent in their messaging. You can see that suddenly everyone: Think tanks, politicians, diplomats, media, RAPEs etc use the same language to describe something. Like "Solve Cashmere to Solve Afghanistan". Suddenly everyone says the same thing, using the same words. Another example is "Trust deficit between Pakistan and USA", "Pakistan has lost $100 billion due to terrorism", "Pakistan itself victim of terrorism", "Moral, political, diplomatic support for legitimate aspiration for self determination", "US is driving Pakistan to China's camp", "South Asia is a nuclear flashpoint", "Both India and Pakistan should stop teaching hate in their schools" (as a response to madrassa proliferation in Pakistan), "India has suffered one Mumbai, Pakistan has suffered many Mumbai like incidents" and so on. Sometimes it catches on, sometimes it doesnt.

In places like US, there is something called a "talking points memo" that is sent out to all the supporters: essentially a succinct and same set of words to keep on repeating so people can remember it quickly and easily and you sway them based on repeating the words over and over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point

So one side argues that the number of guns that people have is proportional to the number of gun deaths, the other said will counter it with "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". See, if you repeat the same thing, you dont have to argue the original point. An intellectually smart (but socially stupid) person will try to counter the original argument with "Have you controlled for factors like conflict, law enforcement and so on...". An effective person on the other hand will keep on repeating "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". If you think about it, that is pretty stupid argument to make actually. Going by that argument, bazookas should be legal. Bazookas dont kill people, people kill people. Nukes should not be banned by NPT, nukes dont kill people, people kill people. It doesnt matter that the statement is stupid. It only matters that it is easy to remember and repeat and suddenly everyone believes it because it is easy to remember and repeat.

If you ask the SDREs on why arms supply to Pakistan should be cut off, each SDRE will make a long logical argument, using different words, different ideas, different set of logical arguments. While they'll all be well argued, it is all very tiring to follow each of them, remember the argument and be convinced by them. If you ask a typical Pakistani abdul on why Pakistan is training and sending terrorists everywhere, he/she will reply with a straight face "Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism". In some ways, we are victims of our own intelligence. We tend to pack arguments with nuance. A typical pakistani with IQ in the low 90's will parrot the same set of words. If you observe closely, "Pakistan itself victim of terrorism" has permeated even the discourse in the west. Even Motorma fair, sane people like Lisa Curtis, Panetta, Kerry and so on manage to squeeze it in. "Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism...."

If you think about it, "Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism" is merely a rephrasing of "Before the world blames suicide bombers, they should realize suicide bombers themselves victim of their suicide bombing". Essentially Pakistan is the country equivalent of a suicide bomber. So, the best way to counter this is repeat those talking points ourselves but modified in absurd ways, so every time someone hears those words, they only remember how absurd those words are. I never tire of doing that.

1. Before the world accuses Pakistan of spreading polio, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of polio
2. Before US accuses ISI of funding pro-Kashmir group to influence American politics, they should remember Pakistan itself victim of ISI influencing politics
3. Before Bangladesh accuses Pakistan army of committing crimes, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of Pakistan army crimes when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan
4. Before India complains about Pakistan army shelling its towns, they should realize Pakistan itself victim of Pakistan army shelling their towns

So take a talking point, gleefully deconstruct it, point out how absurd it is, keep repeating it and drive the point home.

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 though non exclusivist pursuit of spirituality, philosophy, mythological reenactment, ritualized symbolism and devotion, in abidance with Dharma, often under the guidance of a founding traditional lineage.

1. What is the nature of existence? How was the perceptible universe created? Is there a transcendental consciousness overseeing creation? What is the purpose of creation? How will it all end?
2. What is the nature of man? What is the relationship between man and the transcendental consciousness if it exists? What are the limits of 'Free Will'? What is the purpose of Life? How can man be happy? Why does man suffer?
3. How should man think, behave, and act? How does man's actions influence his destiny? Where does man receive guidance to this effect? Is that guidance mandatory?
4. How should mankind structure their society? What laws should govern society? What laws should society impose on each individual?
5. Who oversees society's governance? Who oversees man's behavior?

1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.
2. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) sanctioned by the Creator God.
3. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter.
4. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God.
5. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.
6. Group Identity deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.

Karan M wrote:We need this common umbrella to persist as it can help us in the future as well, and many of us do have common interests.

At the same time, we should also actively rebut the conventional view of Hinduism as just yet another religion and point out how it is so much more.

Keep the advantages of political identity.

IMHO, this is where the RSS etc score. They realized, with their ethnic experience of the Maratha empire, that spiritual commonality alone is not enough. To protect the way of life, a political identity also has to be created & sustained. Otherwise, under the garb of diversity - you have nothing in common with each other - each group under Sanathan Dharma will be gradually attacked & subverted, with the other group being told, you can't speak for these guys or protest, you were never one group.

1. Our freedom to follow our own Moksha Margas
2. Our freedom to live by Dharma
3. Our comprehensive history and geography where Dharma was nurtured known as Bharatiya Sabhyata
4. Our responsibility to preserve mankind's oldest records, Vedas, Itihaas and Puranas
5. Our comprehensive culture and inheritance which includes sciences, spirituality, philosophy, technology, handicrafts, architecture, temples, festivals, rituals, etc.
6. Our land, our Desh and Rāshtra, which has nurtured untold generations of our ancestors and allowed our civilization to bloom, where Dharma reigned supreme, and which shall not fall to Adharmic ideologies and powers.

johneeG wrote:I am saying something more basic: I don't need to accept the definitions of religion given by brits or west. If the definition given by brits is different from the definitions given by Bhaarath, then its the brits who are wrong, not Bhaarath.

1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.
2. Allegiance (Nicene Creed, Shahada) as demanded by Creator God.
3. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) revealed by Creator God.
4. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter. Competition around who better represents Will of Creator God.
5. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God. Competition around who better embodies the Legacy of the Emissary.
6. Lineage Centrism to underline the claims of representational authority of God's Emissaries.
7. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.
8. Group Identity, a brotherhood, deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.
9. Conversion (Evangelism, Dawah) is used to expand the sphere of power: God's Kingdom, Dar al-Islam.
10. Entitlement for the believers/allegiants to all of Creator God's creation (Nature, Pagan's possessions, Land, Women, Power, Proselytization Rights, Victory, Heaven) as part of the bargain, as price for submission to Him.
11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.
12. Feudalism is the primary or sole philosophical principle. In religion God is modeled on a Feudal Lord projected onto the transcendental plane.

The Governor General’s Files: A travesty of history
DC | S.K. Sinha | November 19, 2014, 07.11 am IST

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Indira Gandhi are national icons. Both made unparalleled contributions to India in different spheres.

The former unified a nation of continental dimension in a year, saving it from being splintered into over 550 separate political entities.

Except in the case of Hyderabad, this was done peacefully. In Hyderabad, the Indian Army had to carry out police action. The Hyderabad Army surrendered within five days and casualties were minimum.

Integrating such a large nation so peacefully in a year is unmatched in the history of mankind. The Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck’s much lauded unification of Germany starting with the war against Denmark in 1824, followed by war against Austria and then France in 1871, took much longer to complete and was on a much smaller geographical canvas involving far fewer people.

Indira Gandhi’s contribution as a war leader has a unique place in the history of our country. India won a great military victory after over two millennia. Ninety-two thousand Pakistani soldiers surrendered.

A new nation of a hundred million was born. This was achieved against the teeth of opposition of the Nixon-Kissinger duo and also China’s higher-than-the-mountains and deeper-than-the-oceans friendship with Pakistan.

The threat from the US Seventh Fleet, including its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise, coming to the Indian Ocean, proved to be of no avail for Pakistan.

It was being shadowed by Soviet submarines. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was a big deterrent.

The Himalayan passes, blocked with snow in winter, prevented any intervention by China. Atal Behari Vajpayee hailed Indira Gandhi as Ma Durga in Parliament.

This after two millennia, when India had last won a great military victory when Chandragupta Maurya defeated Alexander’s great general and his successor in the East, Seleucus, and annexed Afghanistan. During the medieval period invaders from West Asia, and later European maritime powers, repeatedly defeated our forces.

Normally a leader’s birth anniversary, and not death anniversary, is observed. Mahatma Gandhi as the Father of the Nation is an exception.

The Nehru-Gandhi family (Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi) are also treated alike. In the case of others, only birth anniversaries are observed.

October 31 is the birth anniversary of Sardar Patel and the death anniversary of Indira Gandhi. The Congress government observed October 31 as National Ekta Divas because Indira Gandhi sacrificed her life for the unity of the nation.

This is debatable. Her tragic assassination was a great loss for the nation but it occurred due to her ill-conceived policy of dealing with the Akali problem, and not for national unity as such. It was a travesty of history that Sardar Patel used to be reduced to a footnote on this occasion.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi very rightly turned the focus this time on Sardar Patel but did not omit to mention the martyrdom of Indira Gandhi on that day.

Her birth anniversary on November 19 should be observed as Rashtriya Shakti Divas in memory of her great contribution to India’s great victory in the Bangladesh War.

Yet on her birth or death anniversary functions, it will be inappropriate to criticise her. On Jawaharlal Nehru’s birth anniversary, the Bharatiya Janata Party paid rich tributes to Nehru but the Congress’ first family on that occasion made scathing remarks about of Mr Modi without naming him. This was most unbecoming.

One cannot ignore the grave blemishes of Indira Gandhi. She was outwitted by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto during the 1972 Shimla talks, giving away the two trump cards we held at that time 92,000 prisoners of war and the highly cultivable land in Shakargarh bulge.

We should have got Pakistan to convert the Line of Control to an international border. Her imposition of the Black Emergency and throttling of democracy was unforgivable.

Some of the excesses during that period exceeded those by the British during their rule. She destroyed the bureaucracy and the police and even tried to politicise the judiciary and the Army.

Corruption in public life spread like wildfire with her attitude of permissiveness in saying that corruption was an international phenomenon. By blatantly perpetuating family rule, she made feudalism rampant in our democracy.

Apart from his great contribution as the unifier of the nation, Sardar Patel also made other remarkable contributions. Like the Mahatma’s successful non-violent mass movement against indigo planters in Champaran, he organised a successful non-violent mass movement in Bordoloi, Assam.

The Mahatma gave him the title of Sardar. The Congress Party wanted to abolish All-India Services in pursuit of the concept of autonomy of states, and replace them with Central Services and State Services.

There was much prejudice against the ICS and the IP who had acted against the freedom movement; some had even committed excesses.

Nehru had said the ICS was neither Indian, nor civil, nor a service. The Sardar ensured that All-India Services were retained. ICS and IP officers continued to get their old emoluments and privileges.

Their successor services, the IAS and IPS, were recruited on reduced emoluments but there was no change in their functioning pattern. This enabled us to pull through the chaotic period in the wake of Partition, when a vacuum was created as British officers, holding most of the senior positions in the administration, suddenly quit. He told the civil servants that they must unhesitatingly give independent advice to their ministers even when they knew that it was contrary to the minister’s views. But once the latter took a decision, they must implement that loyally.

He was totally incorruptible. When he died he had a bank balance of Rs 237 and no immovable property. Neither his son nor his daughter took any advantage of his official position.

The daughter, who devoted her life to looking after him, received no recognition or help and died in poverty in Ahmedabad. All the provincial Congress committees except three chose the Sardar to be Prime Minister, two chose Dr Rajendra Prasad and one Jawaharlal Nehru.

Yet the Mahatma chose Nehru to be the first Prime Minister and the Sardar bowed to that decision without a murmur, working most loyally as deputy Prime Minister.

The ailing Sardar’s remarkable letter to Jawaharlal Nehru three weeks before he passed away showed his strategic vision. He warned Nehru of the threat arising from China’s occupation of Tibet in 1950 and advised necessary defensive preparations.

Alas, Nehru ignored his advice. Thus India suffered the great national humiliation of 1962. Mr Modi has very rightly focused on Sardar Patel’s great contribution on his birthday and is promoting national awareness about him.

The new government hurriedly produced a documentary on the basis of an earlier film. This was shown on DD National without much publicity.

It does not do full justice to the Sardar. Like Attenborough’s Gandhi, the government should have a commercial film prepared on Vallabhbhai Patel; that would wash away all the efforts of the Congress in the past to underplay the memory and unique contribution of this great icon of India.

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir

• To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

saravana wrote:Hence i wondered elsewhere if Hinduism has a sense of brotherhood or kinship.

saravana wrote:Would it be fair to say I *follow* Dharma. I *belong* to Hinduism?