Preferably read the first part of the article before reading further.
In the first part of this article we saw doubtful motivations of some critics of Hinduism claiming to be scholars, and how they can use any less studied attempt to defend Hinduism in their benefit and importance of avoiding inappropriate language or behavior while defending Hinduism. And we saw how to properly understand and utilise positive strengths of our Hindu religion most evolved of all religions, the maximum positivity towards any goodness to counter illegitimate criticism of Hinduism.
Tell Truschke & Et al. finding and seeking unity with God through every good material and non material aspects and values is part of respectin rich Hindu ideals, traditions and culture. On one hand we pray to galleries of idols of deities to seek inspiration about positive values from our ideals; tell Truschke & Et al. Hindu polytheism and henotheism respects pluralism. So same time tell Truschke & Et al., any true Hindu would and ought to mind any breaks on pluralism i.e. polytheism and henotheism from other’s side because that would be against our principle of maximum positivity and goodness, and this is the very point which will help you get back those critical Hindu and non Hindu brothers and sisters back in true Hindu fold. Tell Truschke & Et al. if good faith is good value then concepts of kufr kafir and fallen angels that create hatred against polytheist are breaks on value of maximum positivity and it’s every Hindu’s duty to contest such breaks on values of maximum positivity.
Tell Truschke & Et al. your pointing out, without proper context violence in some Hindu scripture or literature without taking into account range of filters Hinduism applies before sanctioning of any violence tantamounts to serious attempts of misrepresentation of Hindu philosophy, culture and way of life. For a Hindu ultimate goal is uniting his soul back to the God, here I am talking of ‘Moksha’, and it can not be attained without achieving Sattva Guna Sattva is the quality of goodness, positivity, truth, serenity, balance, peacefulness, and virtuousness that is drawn towards Dharma and Jnana (knowledge); concurring over own: kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), Mada (arrogance), moha delusion), and ‘matsarya (jealousy), this condition is a very big filter against use of wrongful or indiscriminate violence, after concurring over one’s own Arishadvarga or Shadripu only one can for righteous causes think of violence if necessary but even before policy of Danda and Bheda policy of Saam a peaceful approach to sort out issues need to be tried first more than adequate then also things don’t work out pay to seek righteous conduct if necessary, if still some one’s conduct is not righteous then punishing or final war can come but even before that Hinduism does not give power to individuals but an Individual is ever under obligations of his Guru, parents, family, for whom he is working and benefitting from and the king or the government in power.
Not only that in almost every person, living and non living thing he is expected to see virtues, values of positivity, goodness and God. Even before starting any conflict he is expected to send an emissary to avoid war and work out things peacefully, if still things don’t work out then and if non righteous opponent is of stature and if he is elder than a Hindu is expected to bow down before such elders before engaging in a conflict, and again repeating, In Hinduism one can not indulge in conflict for selfish goals and only as part of righteous duty. Even many parts of the world have experienced bloody revolutions even in modern times, but hardly any in recorded history of India that in itself speaks volumes about our peace seeking nature. Still individuals falter here and there but that does not constitute Hinduism rather it is for other philosophies religions and regions need to adopt above filters.
Compare the sequence of Saam, Daam, Dand, Bheda along with all above filters which effectively put the heart first Vs with a sequence in some other religion where in usage of Hand comes first if not possible then tongue if not then heart (do I need to cite the Hadith? Here is an article link that would explain more) decide for yourself Which philosophy is better evolved and more rightous? Still, Hindus and Hindutva keep coming under criticism for intolerance? This reminds me of the mythological story of an early middle eastern hero ‘A’, who breaks idols owned and believed in by others around him as deities, the community around him punishes him harshly. Now it’s true that community around him should have managed controlled their anger about uncalled for aggression and could have avoided an harsh punishment, now interestingly followers of hero ‘A’ cite this mythological story to claim victimhood but none speaks against uncalled for aggression against conscience of others whether idols represent any God or not the idols which are not owned by you how do you get any right to break them? No one, no western scholar is ever seen questioning and protesting to religious seminaries against hate generating mythological stories of questionable victimhood used to create hate forever against idolaters. No one questions, same way other stories of demons devils fallen angels and so on used to create preach hate from religious evangelicals and no one bat an eyelid ever, no not those scholars who wish to preach tolerance to Hindus ? Why? What kind of positivity and scholarship is that Truschke & Et al. ignores and condones? Maybe Truschke & Et al. have signed the same number of letters condemning mistreatment of Pachmama idols of South American earth goddess culture and we don’t know, ask them to send those copies so we can appreciate their positivity then.
The same is the case about believer and nonbeliever (read Kafir) binary of hate preached by middle eastern religion of great peace. Lately what is known is Indonessians seem to do some initiative in discarding that binary and move on, but what about at other places? Maybe Truschke & Et al. have signed the same number of letters condemning this binary and we don’t know please ask them to share those letters proving your kind humanism. After raising such questions Truschke & Et al. will happily come telling that they haven’t studied other religions to criticize them, what an excuse to hide double standards! For Truschke & Et al. it seems if second class treatment given to unbelievers by the great middle eastern religion of egalitarianism then okay, but to questions raised over that treatment by any Hindutva leader would become intolerance? It’s true that there can not be a proper justification for hate against any community for it’s conscience, while with relative openness one can criticize Hinduism, and as earlier said Hinduism is ever evolving too, if needed, where is that openness in others in general and the great middleeastern peaceful one in particular? The lack of sincere philosophical level introspection and evolution in itself creates problems for their own community members and to those of other communities around them by their bookish intolerance, and that’s how it translates into community Vs community, is it not that effectively Truschke & Et al. wrongly blaming true victims that is Hindus Hindutva and their Hinduism?
If Aurangzeb’s faith based tax was okay then what is wrong today? ask President Joe Biden, to stop their own Islamophobia and pay Jizya ransome on behalf of Truschke & Et al. all their American and European brothers and sisters to modern Khalifas of Turkey, Iran, Saudi, Pakistan and Malaysia. What kind of scholarship Truschke & Et al. are that they claim unquestioned expertise in centuries old Sanskrit and Persian language in just five years training and no one ever saw them engaging even in a single live dialogue in those languages. They consider themselves very smart to translate Sanskrit words like ‘Prakrita’ meaning ‘common person’ directly in the word ‘Pig’. Their scholarship does not need to cite any inline citations on Aurangzeb while claiming to have rights to change prevailing narratives and wants to have claims over scholarship! The travelers account does not carry significant weightage in spite of them being sources independent of feudal influences of Kingship but weightage of accounts under feudal influences of Kingship is more! that is how great historians of our times, Truschke & Et al. want to help pro Mughal narratives in India as if Aurangzeb was great secular by having more Hindu rajas ever on his side than that of his brother Dara Shukoh and Chatrapati Shivaji were lesser mortals so less secular!
Despite what happened to Sarmad Kashani, Dawoodi Bohra spiritual leader Syedna Qutub Khan Qutbuddin, Guru Tegh Bahadur to musicians losing jobs from the royal court due to increased religiosity, Aurangzeb has to be rechristened as secular just because he and his predecessors used to pay some supposedly Hindu saints and temples on promise that they will pray for his lordship and his family to continue to have emperor ship for ever in India! For Truschke & Et al. Rama was misogynist even while historic documentation for epic time can not become available but the great mastership of Aurangzeb and the Mughals was not misogynist in spite of availability of documentation since Truschke & Et al. scholarship did not study that! Still any one comes out with some sound proof and argument then absolves Aurangzeb with argument claiming, he was a man of his time! Then whether Rama and Modi and even Trump or Putin And Erdogan and Taliban for that matter are not men of their own times? For Truschke & Et al. Mughal breaking of temples and plundering of heritage were just political actions!
So what is harm in any political action by others for just being political? Does Truschke & Et al. have any answer for this question? In spite of criticizing all the limitations of Aurangzeb vis a vis his contemporary Shivaji, Guru Tegh Bahadur and Dara Shukoh, Hindus do have openness to acknowledge even fewest good qualities of Aurangzeb like he used design and sell caps, if Truschke & Et al. want to build temples glorifying Aurangzeb, Hindus are least likely to object because we do have few temples in the name of Ravana also in India, build but only on the condition that you do not destroy other’s temples as ideal Mughal Gurus of Truschke & Et al. did in their time. But even building temples glorifying Aurangzeb will not help him pass tests of maximum positivity and goodness and treatment of equality to his majority of Hindu subjects for sure.
Yes, in spite their blood was shed, Hindus and Hinduism very well know that most South Asian subcontinent Muslims are people of their own blood and would be keen to live peacefully respecting their conscience but Hindus own conscience also needs to be duly respected just not in words but in deeds too.
- Recommending a good article by Indu Vishwanathan on the same topic.
Satymev Jayate! Vande Mataram!!