Home Blog Page 161

A fact-check on vile allegations against Savarkar: Are they true?

Soumili Das
-
0
A fact-check on vile allegations against Savarkar: Are they true?

In this article, I’m going to examine certain portions of Savarkar’s book, ‘Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History’, which allegedly have contents endorsing rape of Muslim women as a political tool. How true are these claims? Did Savarkar really say something erroneous? It can be understood only after examining the text.

Now, if I begin with a crisp summary of the seventh chapter (which is a part of the ‘Fifth Glorious Epoch’ in his book), then Savarkar outlines the Mohammedan atrocities unleashed on the Hindus and their temples, the reaction of the Kings, proselytising the non-believers and also, he had talked about the vices of the Hindu society at that time — like, the proselytised people weren’t welcomed back to the Hindu fold and were treated as aliens by their own brethren, being too much rigid on one’s caste, etc. If one reads the chapter, one can surely visualise Savarkar’s wrath on the invaders and the distaste he had for casteism, which was started by the then society as a social construction against the invasions, but later proved to be disastrous for the Hindus.

Before proceeding with his “allegedly” molestation-endorsing comments in the eighth chapter (it’s not the seventh chapter, as the question says), I would like to put this paragraph from the first sub-chapter of the eighth chapter :

429-430. Every Hindu seems to have been made to suck, along with his mother’s milk, this Nectar-like advice that religious tolerance is a virtue. But nobody ever explains to him the essence of that precept. If that alien religion is also tolerant of our own religion, our tolerance towards it can be a virtue. But the Muslim and the Christian religions, which boldly proclaim it to be their religious duty to destroy most cruelly the Hindu religion and to eradicate from the face of this earth the kafirs and the heathens, can never be described as tolerant of other religions. In respect of these intolerant foreign religions the very extremely enraged intolerance, which seeks to retaliate their abtrocities with super-atrocious reprisals, itself becomes a virtue!

SOURCE : SIX GLORIOUS EPOCHS OF INDIAN HISTORY, FIFTH GLORIOUS EPOCH, CHAPTER 8, FIRST SUB-CHAPTER

From here, we can see that he does not justify any sort of unfair violence against the invaders. He’s more assertive of a retaliatory violence for the sake of protection of the Hindus. This might look outrageous if read without the context, but if it’s read by understanding the context well and visualising Savarkar’s psyche behind this, it doesn’t seem outrageous. It is a defensive statement in favour of self-defence of the Hindus.

Now, starting off with the points. Here’s what Savarkar says before he begins his note on the massacre of the Hindu women :

439. One side-issue of the Muslim religious apgression, which caused a continuous drain on the numerical superiority of the Hindus was the diabolic Muslim faith that it was a religious duty of every Muslim to kidnap and force into their own religion, non-Muslim women. This incited their sensuality and lust for carnage and, while it enormously increased their number, it affected the Hindu population in an inverse proprotion. To hesitate to acknowledge this hard fact under the guise of politeness is simply a puerile self-deception. This abduction of thousands and millions of Hindu women by the Muslims is not such a trifling thing as to be dispensed with by calling it religious fanaticism or simply by conniving at it. Even if it were a madness, there was a method in it! And the method in this Muslim madness was so horrible that, with the mistaken Hindu neglect of this so-called religious fanaticism, the Hindu nation came to have a perpetual bleeding sore. For, as a matter of fact the religious fanaticism of the Muslims was not madness at all; it was an effective method of increasing the Muslim population with special regard to the unavoidable laws of nature.

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, second sub-chapter.

Focus on the phrase “Hindu neglect”. Does he, for once, say that the Hindus should have answered the same way? No. He basically points finger towards the fact that the unfortunate women’s massacres were not prevented by the Hindus and also, the Hindus did not retaliate against this. They deviated towards “politeness” quite often, as per Savarkar. He wanted to mean that the retaliation should be against anybody who would wrong against those women. That’s it. No rocket science included.

What he says in the next sub-chapter of the eighth chapter of the Fifth Glorious Epoch, is very important with respect to what we’re discussing here. He says that the invader women were equally responsible for the plunder of Hindu women, when they were invaded.

448. Hindu women were considered kafirs and born slaves. So these Muslim women were taught to think it their duty to help in all possible ways, their molestation and forcible conversion to Islam. No Muslim woman whether a Begum or a beggar, ever protested against the atrocities committed by their male compatriots; on the contrary they encouraged them to do so and honored them for it. A Muslim woman did everything in her power to harass such captured or kidnapped Hindu women. Not only in the troubled times of war but even in the intervening periods of peace and even when they themselves lived in the Hindu kingdoms, they enticed and carried away young Hindu girls locked them up in their own houses, or conveyed them to the Muslim centers in Masjids and Mosques. The Muslim women all over India considered it their holy duty to do so.

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, third sub-chapter.

He says that the plight of the Hindu women was such that even the women of the invaders didn’t tend to them. They instead aided their men in this task. Now, the next sub-chapter comes. What does it talk about? It talks about, what Savarkar had called, “Hindu Chivalry”, which had prevented the invader women from being exploited by the Hindus. No, nowhere he has written that the women should have been treated the same way as they had treated the Hindu women. Read what is actually said :

449. The Muslim women never feared retribution or punishment at the hands of any Hindu for their heinous crime. They had a perverted idea of woman-chivalry. If in a battle the Muslims won, they were rewarded for such crafty and deceitful conversions of Hindu women; but even if the Hindus carried the field and a Hindu power was established in that particular place (and such incidents in those times were not very rare) the Muslim-men alone, if at all, suffered the consequential indignities but the Muslim women—never! Only Muslim men, and not women, were taken prisoner. Muslim women were sure that even in the thick of battles and in the confusion wrought just after them neither the victor Hindu Chiefs, nor any of their common soldiers, nor would even any civilian ever touch their hair. For ‘albeit enemies and atrocious, they were women’! Hence, even when they were taken prisoner in battles the Muslim women,— royal ladies as also the commonest slaves,—were invariably sent back safe and sound to their respective families ! Such incidents were common enough in those times. And this act was glorified by the Hindus as their chivalry towards the enemy women and the generosity of their religion! For a sample, read the following incidents.

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, fourth sub-chapter.

Certain points that should be noted :

  • Savarkar says that only men were taken as prisoners and not the women, even though they had a good share of faults for the massacre of Hindu women.
  • Every man was tried as per the law the Hindu Kings used to follow, but the women — no matter what their fault was— were set free without any trial. That’s exactly what Savarkar tried to say. This will become more clear as we proceed further.
  • There’s no endorsement of molestation or whatsoever in the entire paragraph.

Next, this is what he had said further :

450. Even now we proudly refer to the noble acts of Chhatrapati Shivaji and Chimaji Appa, when they honourably sent back the daughter-in-law of the Muslim Governor of Kalyan29 and the wife of the Portuguese governor of Bassein30 respectively. But is it not strange that, when they did so, neither Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa should ever remember, the atrocities and the rapes and the molestation, perpetrated by Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori, Alla-ud-din Khilji and others,on thousands of Hindu ladies and girls like the princesses of Dahir, Kamaldevi,31 the wife of Karnaraj of Karnawati and her extremely beautiful daughter, Devaldevi32. Did not the plaintive screams and pitiful lamentations of the millions of molested Hindu women, which reverberated throughout the length and breadth of the country, reach the ears of Shivaji Maharaj and Chimaji Appa?

451. The souls of those millions of aggrieved women might have perhaps said, “Do not forget, O, your Majesty, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and O! Your Excellency, Chimaji Appa, the unutterable atrocities and oppression and outrage committed on us by the Sultans and Muslim noblemen and thousands of others, big and small. Let those Sultans and their peers take a fright that in the event of a Hindu victory our molestation and detestable lot shall beavenged on the Muslim women. Once they are haunted with this dreadful apprehension, that the Muslim women, too, stand in the same predicament in case the Hindus win, the future Muslim conquerors will never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women.”

451-A. But because of the then prevalent perverted religious ideas about chivalry to women, which ultimately proved highly detrimental to the Hindu community, neither Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa could do such wrongs to the Muslim women.

452. It was the suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry to women which saved the Muslim women (simply because they were women) from the heavy punishments of committing indescribable sins and crimes against the Hindu women. Their womanhood became their shield quite sufficient to protect them.

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, fourth sub-chapter.

Again, note these points :

  • Savarkar doesn’t object the peaceful returning of invader women in a way that they promoted committing the same atrocities on them.
  • He wants to reflect here that even though the rulers knew that the Hindu women were treated harshly, they didn’t imprison the invader women, just like they did with the men. I reiterate this, yet again, that Savarkar is speaking here in the context of those women who were at fault of showing no mercy to the Hindu women when they were being mercilessly molested.
  • The Hindu leaders of that era thought that they could attain peace by not taking the women perpetrators in the prison. This is what Savarkar terms as “Hindu chivalry”. And this, my friend, Savarkar viewed to be suicidal for the Hindu community. He speaks about punishing the females in the same way as men, and doesn’t endorse any sort of molestation or maltreatment.
  • Read the last line carefully : “Their womanhood became their shield quite sufficient to protect them.”. This line is perhaps one of the clearest pointers of the fact that Savarkar moaned about the setting free of the invader women who had wronged the Hindu women, by the rulers who believed in a particular idea of “chivalry” — which made them think that being tender on the women folks would be beneficial to them. At the same time, they forgot the cries of the Hindu women. This is exactly what Savarkar has said over here.

Next, we now move on to the fifth sub-chapter. The fifth sub-chapter is itself titled “But If”. So, if you are concluding that Savarkar had endorsed something criminal, then you are making a joke out of yourselves. Savarkar only speculates a possibility, and nothing else.

455. Suppose, if from the earliest Muslim invasion of India, the Hindus also, whenever they were victors on the battlefields, had decided to pay the Muslim fair sex in the same coin or punished them in some other ways, i.e., by conversion even with force, and then absorbed them in their fold, then ? Then with this horrible apprehension at their heart they would have desisted from their evil designs against any Hindu lady. If they had taken such a fright in the first two or three centuries, millions and millions of luckless Hindu ladies would have been saved all their indignities, loss of their own religion, rapes, ravages and other unimaginable persecutions. Our woman-world would not have suffered such a tremendous numerical loss, which means their future progeny would not have been lost permanently to Hinduism and the Muslim population could not have thrived so audaciously. Without any increase in their womenfolk the Muslim population would have dwindled into a negligible minority.

456. (The sociological explanation for this contention has already been offered in paragraphs 439 to 446).

457. But haunted with the fantastic idea of chivalry to enemy-women and a blind eye to time, place or person, the Hindus of that period, never tried to chastise the Muslim women-folk for their wrongs to Hindu women, even when the former were many a time completely at their mercy.

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, fifth sub-chapter.

In the seventh sub-chapter, Savarkar makes an interesting note on the entire issue. Here’s what he says :

460. A serpent, whether male or female, if it comes to bite must be killed. The enemy women who enforced conversion and heaped all sorts of humiliation on our mothers and sisters, had by that very devilish act, lost their womanhood, and their right to chivalrous treatment, and deserved nothing but only the most stringent punishment for their atrocious crimes. Hence, when Tratika, the she-Demon marched on Ramchandra with other demons, he killed her immediately, without a moment’s thought34. When Shoorpanakha, another she-demon, rushed to eat away Seeta like cucumber, Laxman deprived her of nose and ears and sent her back—not honourably with generous gifts of ornaments to show off his chivalay to women35! When Narakasur carried away thousands of Aryan women to his Asur kingdom (Assyria of to-day), Shree Krishna marched upon the demon and killed him in the war. But he did not stop with military and political defeat he inflicted on Narakasur! He rescued all the thousands of imprisoned Aryan females, undergoing all sorts of humiliation there, and brought them back to his own kingdom; and thus took a social revenge! Shree Krishna’s army did not forsake their kinswomen, simply because they were forcibly polluted and violated—a dastardly thought which he never entertained for a minute. On the contrary Shree Krishna as the Bhoopati, the Lord of the whole Earth, brought all those sixteen thousand or more women to his kingdom, rehabilitated them honourably and took upon himself the responsibility of feeding and protecting them. This very act of Krishna, as the Bhoopati, has been fantastically construed by the writers of the Puranas as to describe him the husband of those thousands of women. He was later thought to have married all of them36.

461. In the post-Puranik period, whenever our valiant and victorious princes vanquished the enemies, like the Yavan, Shaka, or Hun commandants, kings or emperors on the battlefield, they invariably married the enemy princesses. This seems to have been the tradition prevalent right from Chandragupta Maurya to the Gupta Emperors! Shalivahan kings too married Saka princesses37. Not only our victorious kings but all Hindus, right from the Samants (feudatory princes) to common citizens married unhesitatingly Yavan, Saka or Hun women. The nation was valiant enough to absorb not only the progeny of those enemy-women but the whole enemy communities in their own and leave no trace of their origin behind!

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, seventh sub-chapter.
  • Savarkar says that the trial should be the same for all — irrespective of gender.
  • He gives the example of Rama killing Tatika for desecrating the sacrifices of the sages and Lakshmana chopping the nose and ears of Shurpanakha for attacking his sister-in-law. He clearly wants to connote that the deities of the Hindus made no distinction between Shurpanakha and Ravana (I am using this as an example) and both of them were punished by the deities as per the crimes they had respectively committed. Does he say that the women were to be exploited? Nope.
  • Next, he describes how, instead of exploiting the women, Krishna tactically brought all the kidnapped women under him, so as to prevent them from being socially maltreated. He says that his army didn’t compromise their womenfolk unlike the Hindu rulers.
  • Next, he moves on to say that even the Hun or Shaka women were married by the men of the Hindu society. He doesn’t mention sexual exploitation for once. The period that he was criticising was torn due to social rigidity. As a result, the demography of the Hindus began to be doomed. He, I repeat, talks about marriages here.

This will become clear in the next sub-chapter. In the eighth sub-chapter, Savarkar criticises the extreme rigidity of the then Hindu society, due to the prevalent casteism. At the end, he appreciates the Hindus for being loyal to the philosophy of their religion. This is again a clear indication of the fact that he never endorsed exploitation, but only expressed his reservations against making peace with the invaders through the setting free of their womenfolk :

465. Should we not therefore be grateful to those Hindus for the unbearable pangs and unimaginable grief they suffered ? They were misled into accepting those traditions of various bans as their religious duties, but their loyalty to their religion was unmistaken, unshaken ! What was considered to be an antidote, turned out to be poison itself! But the object in administering it was to give an antidote, to save the life of the nation! How can we, then forbear writing a word or two of sincere gratitude for the harrowing mental and physical agonies they suffered with the honest intention of saving their religion?

Source : Six Glorious Epochs Of Indian History, Fifth Glorious Epoch, Chapter 8, eighth sub-chapter.

In the ninth and the last sub-chapter, Savarkar talks about not the Hindu women in particular, but the entire Hindu population. He says that the Hindus didn’t provoke any retaliation and stuck to the one-sided religious tolerance. That proved to be a disaster to themselves.

Aravindan Neelakandan in his Swarajya article has also reminded that Savarkar had used a lot of ifs and buts in his writing. That makes most of his lines speculations rather than endorsements :

So for Savarkar, the conversion of captured Muslim women and their distribution to Hindus was only a ‘what-if’ scenario of a bygone era. His insistence was more on the absorption and rehabilitation of abducted and abused women back into Hindu society against the then prevalent patriarchal social stagnation. While the despicable inhuman violence against women, either Hindu or Muslim, during the riots in India had happened long before Savarkar had written and published his book, the systematic abduction, sexual slavery, auctioning and conversion of women has always been a part of the pan-Islamist movement against Hindus in India and has also been used against the Yazidis in Iraq.

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/did-savarkar-justify-rape-as-a-political-weapon

Eminent historian and a biographer of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Dr. Vikram Sampath, has stated in his volume 2 in this light :

The above controversial illustration is often held against Savarkar as him having
advocated the rape and molestation of Muslim women in contemporary India.
The context in which this has been stated, albeit uncomfortable in the way it has
been presented, makes it clear that this was not a prescription for current action but a hypothesis on what could possibly have been a better fate for the Hindu
women if their menfolk had instilled similar fright in their opponents about the
fate of their womenfolk in the event of a defeat.

Savarkar : A Contested Legacy (1924-1966), Dr. Vikram Sampath.

At the end, it’s safe to say that Savarkar didn’t speak those words without a context. His words would sound outrageous if viewed out of the context, but in reality, a certain quantity of rage against the historic injustices was inculcated in whatever he had said.

Legacy of deceit: A menacing hegemony of ‘two-faced idealists’ in Indian intelligentsia and academia

Shubham Saxena
-
0
Legacy of deceit: A menacing hegemony of ‘two-faced idealists’ in Indian intelligentsia and academia

As a curious and concerned citizen and particularly a student of social sciences, I have come across various scholarships, dominant narratives, ideological struggles, historiographies and intellectual discourse on significant issues that are concerned with our past, our identity, territorial integrity and national security. And today, I would like to share a serious concern that has been bothering me for months now. It is not that this has never been discussed before, but since the concern has not yet been addressed, I consider it my high-priority duty to keep shedding light on it.

The conspiracy had started immediately after India gained independence. Accordingly, the effects of what has been conspired for decades is clearly visible with passing time. In simple words, the intelligentsia and environment concerned with the pursuit of research and education in India is hijacked by a particular group of people, popularly known as ‘left-liberal-secular intellectuals’. And, generations who have matriculated to this environment for learning, career aspirations-growth opportunities and most importantly in a search of a platform to voice their opinion in public discourse are held hostage. Just as in the hostage situation where the fulfillment of hijacker’s demands is a precondition for the release of hostages, likewise an absolute conformity with the reasons and theories of these intellectuals here, as a universal yardsticks for the ideal governance of modern societies is a prerequisite for the recognition of our understanding,  reasoning and opinions 

‘Two-faced idealists’ would be a more appropriate name for these hijackers as it correctly describes their attributes. ‘Idealists’ as they assertively advocate a romantic utopian version of reality, completely devoid of any practical considerations and ‘two-faced’ as their idealism is a sub-product of consciously designed propaganda which is a direct product of their convenience and willful ignorance.

Let’s understand the story with some instances of contemporary relevance. The recent eye-opening examples are the brutal killings of non-Muslims in the Valley and exodus of more than one-thousand fear-stricken Hindus to Jammu in the last few days. In a ghastly targeted attack, Islamic terrorists separated Hindu-Sikh teachers from Muslims, dragged the former out of the school and shot them dead. The sole intention of these Islamists is to instil a sense of fear among the non-Muslim population residing in the Valley. This is not the first instance. 

The horrific memories of brutal occupations by despotic Islamic rulers and repression of Hinduism and Hindus at the hands of an alien religion for over the past 1,000 years, 1905-Bengal killings, 1921-Moplah genocide, 1946-Call for Direct Action, 1947-horrors of Partition, 1990 gut-wrenching murders, rapes and exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1993-Mumbai blast, 2002-Godhra train burning and every day pick-out killings in Valley continues to haunt and threaten our safe and peaceful existence in our motherland. However, in this hostage situation, the hostages are not allowed to condemn the real culprits simply because pointing out the actual root cause behind this systematic chaos threatens the discriminatory bonds of secularism. Therefore a so-called minority is above any sort of questioning and criticism.

Hijackers are politically staked by an identified class who is known for its secular and democratic politics which apologetically includes the 1975 National Emergency, frequent imposition of State Emergencies, media censorship, ruthless subversion of Judiciary, impairing the rule of law, 1990 Kashmiri Hindus killings and exodus, glaring appeasement policies and much more. Besides, these hijackers and their political masters are worthy of admiration for their praiseworthy efforts in advocating woman-child-LGBTQ community-animal rights, progressive laws, modern-secular education, religious forbearance, scientific temper and spirit of reform which categorically excludes India second-largest religious community from its ambit.

Here, the hijackers solely decide what is right and what is wrong, what should be discussed and what should be ignored, what to say and what to hide and who is to be blamed and who is to be exempted. 

Whether it is the fact that Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin or the permanent silence of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi over consistent manslaughter of Hindus by Muslims to preserve the so-called unity as unambiguously observed by Dr B.R. Ambedkar or bursting of the myth that ‘Indian Muslims choose India over Pakistan during partition’ by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, hijackers invariably concealed the true account of the history from generations to legitimise their political existence and to justify their ideology, that is ‘two-faced idealism’.

In their hijacked rights-oriented set-up, the conditional exercise of the Right to freedom of speech and expression is only permissible because anything in contrast to their version of the truth would be regarded as majoritarian, hate speech, Islamophobic and whatnot. Consequently, hostages are expected to view the world from the lens of hijackers to win the badges of fair-mindedness and impartiality.

Thus, it is high time to realise the need to come round and strengthen our conscience. To unlearn the lies and learn the truth. The truth that is indispensable for a safe and dignified existence. The need for an hour is not just to restrict ourselves to personal learning but to educate others about the glories and wounds of our past, realities and necessities of our present and the vulnerabilities of our future. As historian Vikram Sampath brilliantly noted that “the darkest aspect of our past, particularly the medieval India with Islamic invasions, which is called as the bloodiest chapter of human history by American historian and philosopher Will Durant, never finds a mention in our books in the way it should. We labour under this false assumption that talking about the truth will upset contemporary social issues but there I say the edifice of national unity or social cohesion cannot stand on the shaky and false foundation of whitewashed history.”

Hence, the time has come to wake up, debunk and repudiate the deceitful portrayal of truth and liberate the Indian academia and intelligentsia from the stranglehold of these ‘two-faced idealists’ hegemony, otherwise, as someone rightly observed, our ignorance and silence will ensure the recurrence of history.

Open Letter to the Prime Minister

ashumaan94
-
0
Open Letter to the Prime Minister

My Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing this open letter to you so that you can get acquainted with what the well-wishers of the country are going through in the last couple of years. I’m writing this letter as the son of a policeman, who has faced anxiety of his father’s safety on February 25, 2020, or on January 26, 2021.

You faced hostility from both your allies and opposition since the day you took public office. You handled the situation in the aftermath of the Bhuj earthquake and the deadly riots in 2002 in only your second year as the Chief Minister. After 2002, you were hounded by national investigative agency and grilled for hours at a time. Still, you handled that well and came out on top. You were named the Prime Minister candidate of BJP in September 2013; the country rallied behind you and gave you a majority that no party had got in almost 30 years. Since you took over as Prime Minister and started rebuilding the country you faced hostility from foreign media and national media. Coordinated attacks were being perpetrated from Indian academics settled in the West with the help of pliant Indian media which included e-portals. It started with the farce of Intolerance, cow vigilantism, church attacks etc. Still, we trusted you to do the right thing and in 2019 gave you an even higher mandate. 

The 2019 win brought further disturbances and inaction from the government. The attacks from the west continued of India’s democratic backsliding whereas the West itself is rapidly moving towards totalitarianism. After 2019, the first attack was on vilifying Jai Shree Ram, you stayed silent on that. We knew it was another attempt on pressuring the government. The government brought in CAA and the politico-activist cabal occupied a part of Delhi and turned it into an autonomous zone and caused great inconvenience to common man. We still stayed silent as we knew any attempt at forcefully evicting them would further embolden their position. But Shaheen Bagh was a successful experiment, and its full effect was seen after the parliament passed the farm bills. The Politico-activist cabal, this time in the garb of farmers surrounded Delhi from all sides and have been there for almost a year. Just like Shaheen Bagh, these occupied zones have turned into lawless autonomous areas. 

The so-called farmers attacked Delhi on 26th January. As you were attending the Republic Day parade, there was an open season going on on Delhi Police and CAPF Jawans. Even women police officers were not spared. I personally know of one-woman Sub-Inspector (Delhi Police) who was repeatedly thrashed in her ribs and now has permanent pain in her back. The so-called farmers stormed the Red Fort and desecrated the national flag, but you still stayed silent. Not a word was said for the bravery and restraint shown by Delhi Police and CAPF by any leader of the ruling party. Imagine how the humiliation would’ve affected the morale of Police and CAPF. The police went on an arresting spree after January 26th,but the damage had been done by then.

Now coming to the matter of Hindutva. The restrictions on Hindus celebrating their customs, rituals, and festivals in the last couple of weeks makes us feel like we are in 17th century and Aurangzeb is ruling Delhi. We cannot light crackers, we must take permission for celebrating Dussehra, the administration will decide the height of effigies. For God’s sake what has the height of an effigy to do with covid. Given that these restrictions were announced by the Delhi government but what did BJP do to help us. In one word nothing. Even Haryana, a BJP ruled state banned crackers in 14 districts. The reason given is pollution but the question here is are crackers the only or major cause of pollution.  

Now coming to political violence. A while back Sadhus were lynched in Pahalghar? What did you do? Nothing. RSS karyakartas were being brutally murdered in Kerala. What did you do? Nothing. BJP workers were being brutally killed in West Bengal before state elections. What did you do? Nothing. After TMC won, BJP workers were targeted, their women raped, their houses pillaged, even that didn’t make you utter a word for them. What will it take for you to act? Is every good karyakartas a dead karyakartas. UP elections are coming and if any other party, then BJP comes into power, BJP karyakartas will face a fate much worse than Bengal. 

Now coming to BJP responses. The spokespersons of the party have only one reply, whether its riots in Delhi, 26thJanuary violence, or violence against the Karyakartas and that reply is “Where are the left-liberals, where are the x, y, z activists?”  We did not elect those left liberals or those activists, we elected you to do the right thing.

Given that there are compulsions and international considerations you have to take into account, I’ll repeat the same quote of Acharya Chanakya, you used at the UN general Assembly: Kalati Kramat kaal and Phalam Pibatti. We elected you as a strong leader to steer the country but seems like the personal attacks have finally got to you. Sir this is not the time to care about your legacy, history will remember you as a stalwart who took the country in the right direction. You need to back your karyakartas, you need to defend them, you need to defend the Hindu way of life which is being attacked from all sides. In short, you need to follow the Raj Dharam. You are a Bhakt of Mahadev, I’ll end this letter with the life mantra that shiv puran gives: धर्म, अर्थ, काम तथा मोक्ष. You need to follow up with your Dharam. Jai Hind.     

केरल की कम्युनिस्ट सरकार ने कन्नूर के मट्टनूर महादेव मंदिर का जबरिया अधिग्रहण किया

favoritehindu
-
0
केरल की कम्युनिस्ट सरकार ने कन्नूर के मट्टनूर महादेव मंदिर का जबरिया अधिग्रहण किया

13 अक्टूबर को सुबह करीब 10 बजे मालाबार देवस्वॉम बोर्ड ने पुलिस की मदद से मट्टनूर महादेव मंदिर को बल प्रयोग करके अपने कब्जे में लिया। इस जबरिया कब्जे का वहाँ उपस्थित भक्तों ने कड़ा विरोध किया।

मंदिर की समिति ने बताया है कि देवस्वॉम बोर्ड का यह कदम अनुचित है क्योंकि यह मामला अभी भी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में पेंडिंग है।

मालाबार देवस्वॉम बोर्ड के अधिकारियों पर भक्तों ने यह भी आरोप लगाया है कि उन्होंने यह कदम बिना किसी पूर्व सूचना दिए उठाया है।

सोशल मीडिया इन्फ्लुएंसर अंशुल सक्सेना ने इस मामले को प्रमुखता से फेसबुक और ट्वीटर पर उठाया है।

विवादित बात यही है कि केवल हिन्दुओं के मंदिर ही आखिर सरकार के कब्जे में क्यों जाते है? क्यों किसी दूसरे रिलीजियस स्थल पर सरकार की नज़रें नहीं जाती?

Murder, rape, & lynching: The descent of farm ranchers into terrorism

Kishan Kumar
-
0
Murder, rape, & lynching: The descent of farm ranchers into terrorism

On the off chance that boorishness and ruthlessness had a human face in this day and age, it’d be the supposed ranchers crouching at the lines of India’s public capital city, Delhi. Since 26th of November, 2020, that is last year, a few agents who benefited off from horticultural produce, through government push for efficiency and value confirmation, are dissenting (I’d say rioting) against the recently shaped agricultural act in the Parliament which has opened the agribusiness to a ton of individuals, and has expectations to make benefits for little and medium land holding ranchers who had an exceptionally limited market before the appearance of the said laws for agribusiness from the Parliament.

Everything said and done, these disturbing ranchers, who make a little measure of the greater part of Indian farmers and the farmer community, have been doing everything what a Taliban related association would do that is illegal of that land, toppling law and order, upsetting the transportation of vehicles, travelers, public and administration, spoiling a public legacy, an image and the national flag, and a lot more offensive wrongdoings than these insignificant things. Newspapers are plentiful with references about these crimes that numerous fanatic groups of the Sikh society and the Punjabi community at large, who are being upheld, sustained and financed by some external associates, has captured the previously polarizing ranchers’ protests.

On fifteenth October, a body of a youngster- with the left wrist cut off and a pool of blood on the ground – was found attached to an upset police blockade at the ranchers’ dissent site on the Singhu border.

“At around 5 am today, a body was discovered hanging with hands, legs cleaved (off) at where ranchers’ dissent is in progress (in Kundli, Sonipat). No information on who is the culprit (and) FIR held up against an obscure individual. Viral video involves test… reports will wait,” Deputy Superintendent of Police Hansraj was cited by news organization ANI.

Beginning reports say Nihangs – a fanatic warrior Sikh group- are being faulted for the ruthless and nauseating homicide, which occurred in Kundli in Haryana’s Sonipat area. A video has arisen showing a gathering of Nihangs remaining over the man – after his wrist has been mercilessly cut off and he lies draining on the ground, his eyes spacey in shock and agony.

The Nihang oppressors, some of whom are conveying lances and stand encompassing his body, can be heard requesting the man let them know his name and local town. None of the men in the video take any action to help the man or take care of the awfully twisted situation.

Another video shows the man’s body hung topsy turvy with a rope – his left hand shrouded in blood – and a pool of blood on the floor. Reports say the Nihangs beat the youngster – who presently can’t seem to be distinguished – to death for supposedly defiling the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikhs’ sacred book.

Consider yourself arriving behind schedule from your office, or you heading off to some place late around evening time, the ranchers’ dissent site being en route to your objective, and unexpectedly you end up being lynched by a gathering of these men, for no damage or reason, and that is actually what coming to pass close to each rancher’s dissent site. These fights aren’t driven by people, however maniacs and killers. After the Nihangs apparently beat him the tar out of, draped the body on the police blockade and afterward slit off the wrist. Sonipat Police cut down the body from the blockade and took it to the Civil Hospital.

Last year there was another episode including Nihangs-  a Punjab cop had his hand cleaved off with a sword in Patiala after he requested that they show them ‘development passes’ during the Covid lockdown.

Ranchers’ fights in Haryana have stood out as truly newsworthy since the unsettling started, with savage conflicts among dissident rioters and police regularly. Scenes of settled powers on the two sides – isolated by blockades, uncovered streets and different materials used to obstruct progress have been generally partaken in papers and via web-based media.

Last Sunday, eight individuals were killed in a brutal violence during a dissent against the agriculture laws in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri. Four of the dead were ranchers who were supposedly wrecked by vehicles. Also, other four individuals were onlookers and workers who were lynched for no issue of theirs, by the ranchers.

The group of the driver, who was killed in the Lakhimpur Kheri brutality episode impelled by the fighting ranchers, has requested the capture of those ‘supposed ranchers’ who purportedly “lynched” him to death after a vehicle ran more than four protesting ranchers last week.

Hari Om, an occupant of Parshera town situated under the Fardhan Police Station region in Uttar Pradesh, had been driving the vehicle of Union Minister of State Ajay Mishra Teni for almost seven years. Since the time Teni was a MLA, Hari Om had been his driver. Hari Om couldn’t seek after his schooling because of a monetary emergency, and chasing making money, he chose to turn into a driver, reports ‘India Today’.

Hari Om’s mom Nisha Mishra, 50, said that he was the just procuring part in the family and everybody was reliant upon him. Hari Om likewise dealt with his own sickly dad, Radheshyam Mishra. He had four kin.

“There is a credit for the marriage of two little girls and my significant other is critically ill and can’t move from the seat,” Hari Om’s mom said, adding that in spite of the fact that they got remuneration from the public authority, they request equity for their child. The family asked the police to make a move against the offenders who killed Hari Om.

Afterwards, his mother further said that the state of Hari Om’s body was wretched, and fierce. She affirmed that the individual who was seen driving the jeep in the video was not her child. She requested the capture of those ‘alleged farmers’ and encouraged the police to make a speedy move.

Hari Om’s more youthful sibling, Shriram Mishra, said that his family isn’t happy with the activity taken to date. “My sibling was severely lynched and killed by those individuals. We have seen the video and we request the capture of those individuals who took the law in their grasp,” he said, adding that he required a bid for employment from the public authority to run his family now. Madhuri, 32, the senior sister of Hari Om, said that she had never envisioned that such a circumstance could be there at any point.

Sumit Jaiswal, BJP’s councilor from Lakhimpur, said he was an observer to the occurrence. He asserted that the farmers pulled out the driver of the car and his companion from the vehicle and mercilessly lynched them to death.

Sumit Jaiswal likewise asserted that their vehicle was pelted with stones by the rioters, because of which it let completely go. “When there is stone pelting on the vehicle, and your life is at serious risk, who will actually want to drive appropriately?” Jaiswal inquired.

Another episode including rancher farmers is about a voyaged protester from West Bengal to join the ranchers’ protest at Tikri border, who was later purportedly sexually assaulted & raped en route to Delhi. She died on April 30 in the wake of contracting Covid-19.

The 26-year-old woman was conceded to Shivam Hospital four days before her death because of Covid-related intricacies. The lady’s dad has held up a grumbling with police in Bahadurgarh and a FIR had been enlisted against those four men then, at that point. The FIR has named Anoop and Anil Malik who run the ‘Kisan Social Army’. The perished lady had gone with the charged men from Bengal to Delhi, where she joined the ranchers at the Tikri verge on April 11.

After this grievous wrongdoing, another badgering occurred, including the ranch farmers, a female volunteer who came to make mindfulness about Covid-19 and inoculation benefits among the ranchers at Tikri line has asserted eve-prodding and inappropriate behavior against volunteers of an association run by a specialist from USA. This association was running a shoddy clinic at the dissent site for unsettling ranchers known as Pind California situated at Sector – 9, Bahadurgarh Bypass. The lady was a volunteer for this association. She asserted that she had educated coordinators about the equivalent however they didn’t make any move against volunteers. The matter became exposed after she posted claims about lewd behavior & harassment on her Instagram account by these youthful farm pioneers.

Another occurrence including ranchers, once more, where they torched an individual to death, was accounted for generally in the media, a 42-year-elderly person from Jhajjar in Haryana surrendered to consume wounds that evening close to the homestead farmers site at the Tikri border with Delhi, with his family members asserting that four men related with the tumult had set him ablaze. The perished had been distinguished as Mukesh, a transport driver, from Kasar town. Police said they have captured one of the men named in the protest recorded by Mukesh’s sibling, Madan Lal.

Toni Kumar, the sarpanch of the casualty’s town, said: “I saw that Mukesh had been totally singed. We called an emergency vehicle and went with him to the Civil Hospital. In the rescue vehicle, he let us know that he had been drinking with four different men who let him know they were there for the rancher farmers’ protests. He said he was staying there when they sprinkled either lamp fuel or diesel on him and set him ablaze utilizing a matchstick prior to escaping the spot. Bystanders splashed the blazes and alarmed Madan.”

The sarpanch said: “Apparently, Mukesh had not met these individuals previously. We don’t have the foggiest idea why they did this. He said they let him know they were ranchers, yet we don’t figure ranchers will do something like this, these are against social components. He was the just procuring individual from his family, how might his better half and kid oversee? The public authority should give them remuneration.”

This load of violations were commited by either ranchers or their partners, who are crouching at Delhi’s border areas, carrying the public economy to a hault, perpetrating such deplorable wrongdoings, that too on a rehashed premise, which let us know an inauspicious truth of our political society, alongside Sikh and Islamic radical groups who are destroying each equitable construction, each law and order and each establishment which guarantees a future to Indians, union government doing nothing about these occurrences tells us that we’re as yet unequipped for maintaining rules of law.

किसान नहीं अराजकतावादियों का आन्दोलन, किसान के भेस में बैठे आतंकवादियों ने ली एक की जान

Jitendra Meena
-
0
किसान नहीं अराजकतावादियों का आन्दोलन, किसान के भेस में बैठे आतंकवादियों ने ली एक की जान

किसान खेती करते है भेड़िये जंगली जानवरों का शिकार करते है किसान और भेड़िये की बात को देखना है की किसान कौन और भेड़िये कौन? तो वर्तमान मे भारत मे चल रहे इस किसान आन्दोलन के नाम पर जो भेड़िये किसान के भेस मे छुपे है उनका चेहरा साफ हो गया है

सिंघु बॉर्डर पर किसानों के मंच के पास शुक्रवार को एक व्यक्ति की बेरहमी से हत्या कर दी गई, बेरहमी से हत्या के बाद एक हाथ काटकर शव बैरिकेड से लटका दिया गया है, कई वीडियो वायरल भी हो रहे है मारते वक्त के लेकिन अभी तक पुलिस एक अपराधी को ही पकड पाई है जबकी वीडियो मे सबका चेहरा साफ साफ था, आपकाें बता दें कि यह घटना गुरुवार रात हुई है, मारने के बाद शव को 100 मीटर की दूरी तक घसीटा गया।

वीडियो मे साफ साफ दिखाई दे रहा है की उसका एक हाथ काटकर शव को बैरिकेड से लटका दिया गया। गर्दन पर धारदार हथियार से वार किया गया, हाथ भी धारदार हथियार से काटा गया लेकिन फिर भी पुलिस ने अज्ञात लोगो के खिलाफ शिकायत दर्ज की।

सिंघु बॉर्डर पर हुई दलित युवक की बर्बर हत्या के मामले में पुलिस ने एक आरोपी सरवजीत को गिरफ्तार किया है निहंग सरवजीत ने हत्या की जिम्मेदारी ली है।

सिंघु बॉर्डर पर दायर याचिका की जल्द सुनवाई की मांग

वकील शशांक शेखर झा ने कहा कि मैंने स्वाती गोयल शर्मा और संजीव नेवर की तरफ से सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल की है. उनकी याचिका सुप्रीम कोर्ट में मार्च, 2021 से लंबित है. कई कोशिशों के बाद अब भी मामले की सुनवाई नहीं हुई है सिंघु बॉर्डर पर दलित युवक की हत्या के बाद मामले की जल्द सुनवाई की मांग की है।

भारत मे जितनी आजादी है शायद इतनी किसी और देश मे होगी। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायाधीश भी ऐसी घटनाओं को अनदेखा कर रहे है, मार्च 2021 से सिन्घु बौर्डर को खाली करवाने की याचिका लम्बित पडी है। लेकिन न्यायाधीश को फुरसत ही नही ऐसे मामलों की सुनवाई करने के लिये?

किसान के भेस मे बैठे इन आतंकवादियों पर सरकार को सख्त रवैये की आवश्कता है।

किसान खेती करते है और हर एक किसान को भारतीय होने पर गर्व है लेकिन जो किसान के भेस मे बैठे आतंकवादी है वो अरेआम भारत की शान तिरंगे को शान से फाड रहे है इन पर देशद्रोह का मुकदमा होना चाहिये था लेकिन ऐसा नही हुआ? ट्विटर पर नीतिन पाटिल नाम के उपयोगकर्ता ने वीडियो को शेयर किया है वीडियो देखे।

इन आन्दोलनों की जिम्मेदारी राकेश टिकैत ने ली थी। इस हत्या का जिम्मेदार राकेश टिकैत को ठहराना गलत नही होगा, क्योकि जब से किसानो के नाम पर आन्दोलन शुरु किया है जब से हिंसा की खबरें ही आ रही है उच्च न्यायालय गहरी नींद मे सो रहा है।

India’s contributions and the world’s coincidence with innocence and conceit

kalki
-
0
India’s contributions and the world’s coincidence with innocence and conceit

India, despite being a nation full of architectural marvels, scientific discoveries/inventions and exuberant philosophers, is ignored by the world’s masses, which also includes India’s populace, but what’s behind the stereotypical articulation of India, is what makes us exasperated and flabbergasted. Since the beginning of the modern, Cold War Era, India had been known as the ‘most spiritual country’ on this planet, but, the sentence is followed by sneering and stereotypical description of the nation’s people, like the quotidian and uncivilized description of Indian people as ‘tribal people’ or stone-age ‘animals’, but little did these politically exploited ignorami know that India is filled with marvels of architecture, literature and science, let alone the acknowledgment of post golden-age India’s scholars, like Jagadish Chandra Bose, and not to forget Narinder Singh Kapany, who, despite being an Indian-American, was and Indian by origin.

The Contributions:

India is no stranger to contributions, but definitely a stranger to simpletons who blatantly state India has done nothing good for the world, when talking about India’s contributions.

India, is known very commonly for the invention of Zero (0), and plastic and cataract surgery, from Aryabhatta and Sushruta respectively, but it should be known for many things, like the Janapadas, which were realms, republics, also delineated separately as ‘Ganapadas’ for republics and kingdoms during the Vedic period of India, another invention was of the passport, which was articulated in the Arthashastra, and the financial spectrum, where India had conceptualized the ‘cheque’ which was employed in the Maurya Empire.

And in the field of communication, India had made its contributions by the invention of the crescograph, crystal detector and other Inventions, of which the crescograph and the crystal detector were invented by Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose.

India is home to multifarious temples, though some have been vandalized, India has many temples which have such technological leaps, that often, these temples are known as ‘hotbeds’ for people who have interest in architectural mysteries, there are more examples of Indian architectural marvels, and one archetype is the Iron Pillar of Delhi, one resilient example of Indian metallurgy, it is known for its high resistance against corrosion.

Another point to note, despite the fact that India’s contributions are much in number, they are equal to “nothing” for the average “western” person on the Internet who claims that the Indian society is “uncivilized” on his/her keyboard in an exasperated manner, this shows the world’s first instance or example of ‘Coincidence of Innocence and Conceit’.

Though I have not articulated each and every contribution of India, these can help to prove some people’s preconceptions wrong.

The Nation, that we all know as India, or by some people as ‘Bharat’, is actually, from the view of Indophobic people, a land of ‘unsophisticated’ people, who somehow eventually become the ‘lords and guardian angels’ on learning websites, whenever you want learn something, especially around the fields of academics and software engineering, once again, a stereotype, but a welcome one, because, they actually realize the true help that we extend out to them as not only a gesture of humanity, but as our profession, instead of calling Indians as “curry creatures” or something unsophisticated, the tables do turn a lot, those who call us ‘unsophisticated’, are, from the inside, unsophisticated, though dissembled by a ‘sophisticated’, ‘civilized’ and ‘posh’ persona, now, I am calling this as a mere ‘persona’, because, the original idea of Indophobia is to have not only an anti-Indian sentiment, but to spread it for obvious reasons, by obvious people and others who are confused with criticism and straight up propaganda.

Verdict:

India contributed a lot, with the people coming from various communities, irrespective of any sect. After all, they are all the “Children of India’s Omnipresent Soul”. But what makes India exuberantly exceptional is the fact that all its discoveries or inventions remain hidden from the masses, and with more to be revealed. India’s true beauty, with relation with its discoveries and inventions, lies within its secrecy, which is quite remarkable, at the same time, camouflaged by the image of a third-world country which is on its way to become developed, is itself, sufficient to prove two things, the innocence or the carelessness of the world, specifically those who call themselves “scholars”, and points out the social structure of India, those who say that India has done nothing aside from the Number System and Zero despite knowing themselves that India has done more than that, usually praising the countries which once ruled this land, unlawfully. But what makes India truly beautiful is its situation of ‘hidden in plain sight’, and the people who, support the verbal degradation of India’s true image from the back door.

Readers May Note That All Excerpts And Bits Of Information Are From Verified Sources None Of These Are Stated Blatantly By Me, Unlike The Average Indophobe, Who Aimlessly Criticizes India For Being Truly Beautiful, Unlike Their ‘Civilized’ Mindset…

Are American Universities sponsoring a new type of racism?

Dr. Dilip Amin
-
0
Are American Universities sponsoring a new type of racism?

Concerns about Stereotype, Exclusivity and Love Jihad

One of the many accusations levelled by Dismantling Global Hindutva (DGH) was, “Brahmins are violent proponents of casteism.” This kind of generalisation by DGH is dangerous!

Imagine how worried a Hindu American mother in the US would be at the time of admitting her daughter to kindergarten; just because their last name is Sharma, Mukherjee or Iyer. Because as per DGH, her 4-years-old daughter is a violent proponent of casteism! Isn’t this blatant racism? Why was this allowed and tolerated by 45+ American universities that sponsored DGH?

I wrote to many universities to understand their position on my 5 questions as posed in this video. 

The 5 Questions to the sponsoring universities:

  1. Are you justifying the slaughtering of innocent Brahmins by Alexander?
  2. Do you agree that Brahmins are violent advocates of casteism?
  3. Will college applications from Iyers, Kampellas, Trivedis, Sharmas and Mukherjees undergo extra scrutiny? 
  4. Are you making sure that bullying, prejudice and Hinduphobia do not aggravate on your campuses?
  5. Today, are you proud that you sponsored the DGH conference?

In response to my questions, Dr. Audrey Truschke of Rutgers University emailed me her new article in Scroll titled ”What the myth of ‘Love Jihad’ tells us about the Hindu Right”.

Truschke’s article has two main points:

1) Her concerns about Brahmins’ exclusivity.

2) Her belief that Love Jihad is a myth.

Brahmin Exclusivity

A major part of Truschke’s article is about the story of Suha Bhatta, a 14th century Brahmin, who converted to Islam and adopted the name Malik Saifuddin. Saifuddin went on to brutally persecute Brahmins. She wrote, “Suha Bhatta is said to have tortured many Kashmiri Brahmins, drove others to suicide, and prompted some to flee the region.”

The tyrant’s reign was filled with homicides, conversions, tyranny and forceful jizya on innocent Hindus. The punishments to vulnerable Hindus were violent, cruel, brutal and horrible (read more). This was only the 2nd of 7 exoduses of Hindus, on their way to extinction in the Kashmir Valley.

Apparently, Truschke believes that torture and ethnic cleansing of minorities and indigenous people by Muslims is justified. I wonder if Truschke also justifies the last and the final exodus in 1990 of 350,000 Hindus from their ancestral homeland in their own country? (read more on HAF).

Truschke’s article reeks of bias when she tries to find fault with the innocent victims, including children and women, but conveniently overlooks the acts of the perpetrators that were unacceptably brutal and cruel. Shouldn’t the Hindu parents be concerned with such professors who are biased against Hindus and their belief system?

DGH defends the slaughtering of Brahmins by Alexander in 325 BC (Dr. Gajandran Ayyathurai). DGH speakers supported any kind of violence against Brahmins because, apparently according to them, all Brahmins believe in casteism. Justifying violence so broadly against an entire community is unbelievable in this day and age—especially in an “academic” setting. 

I have serious concerns with such generalisation since I personally know many Brahmins who are not casteist and are trying to address such issues. This kind of blatant stereotyping is not healthy for the issue at hand, unless DGH’s objective was to defame Hinduism. (Video)

There are numerous examples of exclusivity by different groups around the world; be it the Nazis, the Christian crusaders or the Sunni Muslims. 

Nazis did not like Jews because they declined to accept Jesus as the Messiah and considered themselves as God’s “Chosen People.” The Christian crusaders drove out the native Americans from their land and killed millions of them. The Sunnis consider themselves as true Muslims while Shia, Ahmadi (the faith is banned in Pakistan today), Ismaili and other minorities are discriminated against.

DGH promotes the claim that all Brahmins (about 5% of Hindus or Indians) are casteist! By the same logic, it is insane to blame all whites, including their children, for centuries of slavery and current discrimination against African-Americans.

What do Truschke and DGH have to say about the whites, Sunni-Muslims and Christians’ supremacist ideologies? The fingers are pointed only at Brahmins for exclusivism, why not at all exclusivists equally?

Is Love Jihad a Myth?

A major flaw in Truschke’s article is that she is trying to prove that “Love Jihad” is a myth using an irrelevant story from the 14th century which is not related to “love”. That makes her whole argument very weak. 

I placed two comments of academic interest on her article that were in-line with the website’s guidelines, but Scroll.in rejected both the comments. (one, two) That incident and a follow up encouragement from a Muslim lady friend from India prompted me to write this article to OpIndia.

I side with Truschke’s wish that “old prejudices and the desires of elites to maintain power” must go and people should be tasteful to “modern sensibilities.” Let’s bring this contemporary subject matter discussion into the current context to be more relevant. 

What is “true love” and what is “Love Jihad”? Let’s answer this question with reference to a dating couple, a Hindu and a Muslim, in an American or Indian college.

True love is where there is equality and the Hindu-Muslim couple would.

1) Respect each other’s faith.

2) Celebrate holidays and practices of both faiths.

3) Treat both faiths equality, especially in raising children.

In such a scenario, there is no room for religious conversion of the prospective spouse as a prerequisite for marriage. In summary, Interfaith marriages should be, as detailed in my book, Share and Respect with Equality.

Truschke should endorse the above idea of “pluralism” or “secularism” as a general promotable idea for today’s youths in interfaith relationship. We are talking about general practices and not rare, exceptional cases.

When one partner insists on religious conversion of the other partner for marriage, after years of being in a romantic love relationship, it is an ugly form of love proselytism. This is exactly called Love Jihad. (read Aditi, SD, Akansha to Nusrat, Tamanna, Nirmala, and probably 400+ more cases at InterfaithShaadi.org)

It is admirable that most Muslims wish to follow Koranic teachings. However, to pick and choose from the Koran is a concern here. For example, Koran 24:30 teaches Muslims not to fall into a romantic love relationship before marriage (no zina; view Zakir Naik for details). I wish all “true” Muslim youths follow this teaching from Koran. However, when a Muslim youth who is in an interfaith love relationship approaches the imam, things start changing. The imam would insist that for Islamic marriage (Nikah), the Hindu party MUST convert to Islam. This is to satisfy Koran 2:221. Thus, ignoring 24:30 but choosing to satisfy verse 2:221 is Love Jihad. 

  • Koran 2:221: You shall not wed pagan women unless they embrace the faith. A believing slave-girl is better than an idolatress, though she may please you.
  • Koran 60:11: Do not maintain your marriage with unbelieving women (no zina or khalwat).
  • Koran 24:30: Say to believing men to turn their eyes away from temptation and to restrain their carnal desires. 

I have guided 1200 youths in interfaith relationships at Interfaithshaadi.org and have written two books on it. I have found that the majority (90%+?) Muslims insist that the Hindu in the relationship converts to Islam for the sake of Nikah. I hope some Imams will clarify to us that this is not true anymore and that the Hindu does not have to convert to Islam in order to marry a Muslim. 

I want to ask Truschke, if this “practice” of asking for religious conversion for marriage is in line with “modern sensibilities”? Muslim girls are strongly discouraged to date or marry a non-Muslim (including a Christian or Jew; People of the Book); is that not, in Truschke’s words, “controlling female sexuality”? (read Ayesha, Shamim and more) There have been many documented cases of Muslim families practising “honour killings” of their daughters, who were in interfaith relationships. Muslim boys do not face such constraints.

Isn’t it high time to drop the idea that Hindus are kafir, heathen or sinners and instead accept that Hindus are also “People of the Book” or “believers”? Why is there a need for the Hindu to convert for the Nikah? Isn’t it high time to give up “old prejudices and the desires of elites to maintain power” (in this case, to expand Islam)? 

Isn’t it high time to promote pluralism in an interfaith marriage? Is this not the time to teach the interfaith couples to learn to raise children in both faiths? Isn’t it high time that all of us give up any supremacist exclusivist ideologies? 

Summary

On the topic of Love Jihad, discussions should be based on today’s practical situations. It makes no sense to use a 700-year-old incident to say that Love Jihad does not exist today. If the concern about exclusivism, fingers should be pointed at all exclusivists.

Sadly, people from both sides spew hatred at each other using their own biased media. Such polarization is not healthy for society. American universities’ unsupervised endorsement of the monologue at DGH has hurt the sentiments of common Hindus. A biased stand on part of the universities is grossly irresponsible. I hope that the universities will realise this and reconsider their stand.

Feedbacks: The author is available to discuss and answer any counter-views or concerns shared at https://youtu.be/MmvI5PGfJm0 and below.

Dharma and religion are not same

deekshatyagi
-
0
Dharma and religion are not same

There is a very fundamental difference between religion and ‘Dharma’. (Like ‘god’ with capital ‘G’ is not same as ‘Ishwara’, similarly ‘Jai Shri Ram’ cannot be equated with ‘La Ilaha Illiala’ because the latter very precisely means that there is no god but Allah, showing the inherent exclusivist nature of Abrahamic religions, meanwhile the first one means ‘Prabhu Ram ki Vijay ho’). Our failure to be mindful of these difference has resulted in the creation of many problems that we as humans have faced in this century and continue to face today.

In modern day language, dharma is equated, quite unfairly with religion. Organized religion demands adherence of the followers to the Book and the Prophet. Anything outside the boundaries of a faith is considered irreligious, if not downright sinful. It is believed that salvation lies only through the body of the Prophet or His words. History of mankind is often a gory testament of destruction wrought by the zealots in pursuit of faith. It is a testament of dividing people and converting them, of persecution, intolerance and subjugation, or of burning at the stakes: of the contest between the ecclesiastical and the temporal, the doctrine of two swords and of intrigues. Religion has been one of the most potent divisive forces in all history.

Dharma, however is different. It is different because it unites. There can never be divisions in dharma. Every interpretation is valid and welcome. No authority is too great to be questioned, too sacred to be touched. Unlimited interpretative freedom through free will is the quintessence of Dharma, for Dharma is as limitless as truth itself. No one can ever be its sole mouthpiece.

The Western cultural traditions, on the other hand, are built around religions. The emergence of the nation-state in the 16th and 17th centuries was the product of religious conflicts of the secular State with the Church. Much of what we call modern political vocabulary emerged and acquired meaning during those turbulent periods. Much of this vocabulary was directed at defining spheres – of the individual, of the State, of the Church as well as their inter-se relationship. The concepts of identity, ethnicity and autonomy are the products of this separation between the Church and the State. The emergence of science as a discipline made the issue of identity vis-a-vis religion more acute.

Due to the dominance of much of the world by the Western countries, modernity and modernism came to be associated with these divisive concepts that originated in the West. The Western education system forced us to think in Western ways. But more than that Western influence resulted in our resenting our own moorings which were described by the West as backward. We got into the habit of using words and concepts without giving thought to their relevance for the Indian ethos. We attempted to fit ourselves into the strait-jacket of Western ideas and concepts. This resulted in conflicts, chaos and divisions in Indian society.

Our principal error, which we continue to make to this day was in not making the distinction between dharma and organized religion. How can that which is cosmic, and thus, limitless ever be compartmentalized and limited in boundaries? How can something which evolved through interpretation by free-will of millions of people ever be handed down in the form of a limited doctrine ideology or value system? dharma shunned all attempts at strait-jacketing. Western culture, on the other hand, was a universe of many strait-jackets.

What’s in the term ‘Religion’? The English word “religion” is derived from the Middle English “religioun” which came from the Old French “religion.” It may have been originally derived from the Latin word “religo” which means “good faith,” “ritual,” and other similar meanings. Or it may have come from the Latin “religãre” which means “to tie fast.”

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary says that religion is one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods. The New Collins Dictionary gives the meaning of religion as any formal or institutionalized expression of the belief in a supernatural power(s) considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.

Even though the word “religion” has its roots in the ancient Latin, its meaning and comprehension has changed entirely in recent centuries. Thus, today this word is based on a Christian concept and rooted in a Christian background of affiliation which came into use in the nineteenth century. Contrary to this definition, many spiritual traditions especially the Hindu and most Eastern traditions do not share the same concept of religion and its affiliation. It suffers from a general malady – that of using Western terms, categories and worldviews to understand an Eastern tradition. Adopting the Western worldviews and nomenclature to interpret the Hindu tradition has distorted the reality, to the extent that the true meaning and concepts of Sanatana Dharma (categorically termed ‘Hinduism’ in the narrow sense ‘religion’) is not understood correctly or often regarded as complicated — not because its teaching and concepts are complex, but due to the incorrect means of understanding.

There is a need to appreciate that there is a difference in which religion is looked at in the Hindu and Christian viewpoint. For a Hindu, religion is not a mere ritual, but a philosophy of life. We know that Hinduism does not have a book, a prophet, or a centralized hierarchy. The correct description of Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma. While sanatan has an English equivalent, meaning “timeless”, translating dharma as religion is not proper. Dharma encompasses religion. Confusion prevails when dharma is equated with religion.

When we begin to understand what dharma is and that it has been a very different concept than religion, it follows then that the concept of a “Hindu” religious identity, if understood in the image of Abrahamic religions is not really an original dharmic concept. Neither is “Hinduism” a religion in the same sense that Christianity is a religion. So how did the term “Hindu” become a religious designation? It was in the encounter with the adherents of two major proselytizing Abrahamic religions — first Islam and then Christianity that the idea of “Hinduism” successively took shape in the form of an Abrahamic religion.

Hindus had never known they were “Hindus,” yet they had to be happy with this new designation; They had never called their view of the world a “religion” (a word with no equivalent in Sanskrit), but it had to become one, promptly labeled “Hinduism.” Nor was one label sufficient.

Hindus always recognized and respected the infinite multiplicity of approaches to satyam, the Truth (what is commonly, but incorrectly, called “tolerance”), but under the Western spotlight those approaches became so many “sects” almost rivaling each other (perhaps like Catholics and Protestants !). Hinduism was thus cut up into convenient bits — Vedism, Brahmanism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism, etc. — of which Indians themselves had been largely unaware, or at any rate not in this rigid, cut-and-dried fashion. As for Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, which had been regarded in India as simply new paths, they were arbitrarily stuck with a label of “separate religions.” Similarly, thousands of fluid communities were duly cataloged and crystallized by the British rulers as so many permanent and rigid castes.

The concept of God is central to the definition of religion. Many Western thinkers have treated God as the most central religious concept. So much so, that they have gone to the extent of defining “religion” in terms of “God”. For example, according to James Martineau,

“Religion is the belief in an ever living God, that is, in a Divine Mind and Will ruling the Universe and holding moral relations with mankind.”

The Wheel of Dharma is translation of the Sanskrit word, “DHARMACHAKRA”. Wheel of Life Law. Similar to the wheel of a cart that keeps revolving, it symbolizes the Buddha’s teaching as it continues to be spread widely and endlessly.

Martineau’s definition of religion appears plausible in the context of prophetic religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All these religions are, broadly speaking, monotheistic — they believe in the existence of one exclusive God. However, if we take into account the religions of Indian origin, namely, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, we find that the definition is too narrow, as it results in the exclusion of Jainism and Buddhism from the list of religions. Even Hinduism does not fit in neatly into the monotheistic model of religion.

In fact, among religions of Indian origin, Sikhism comes nearest to the monotheistic model. In case of Hinduism, on the other hand, the situation is much more complex. In Hinduism anthropomorphism (nature-worship), polytheism, monotheism, monism and even atheism appear to be existing side by side. In any case, Hinduism is not a strictly monotheistic religion. Finally, Buddhism and Jainism are religions without God as its central theme. Confucianism and Taoism in China, again not religions in the Western understanding of the word.

The idea of being ‘religious’ is ultimately a Western idea. In the Hindu tradition, there were atheistic and materialistic schools of thought, like Charvaka, all of which get lumped under ‘Hinduism’. Obviously, if we take the Abrahmic idea of religion, atheistic religion is absurd — you can’t really be a ‘Christian atheist’ or a ‘Muslim atheist’ — not so long ago you would be hung for heresy. Hinduism is a colonial term for the rich banquet of the dharmic traditions that cannot be combined under the framework of religion. What encompasses Hindu Dharma is a much broader concept than narrow restrictive dogmas that define religions.

The so-called religions of India are not religions but ways of cultivating dharma! They are to recognize dharma, the underlying Universal Truths, and to build our life and culture around them. Jaina, Buddha, Sikh etc. are paramparas (spiritual lineages), based on the teachings of one or a several enlightened people. All these teachings spring from the Sanatana Dharma. Saiva, Shakta, Vaishnava etc. are different lineages belonging to the Hindu thought. There are many different rituals, customs and practices in each of these lineages. Some are purely cosmetic, some are superstitions and yet most of them are ‘made easy’ methods for people to live in harmony with dharma. The path of a genuine seeker of Truth is tough one. Everybody cannot travel on this path. Very few people become physicist or biologist who are searching for Truth in their own fields. The rest just use the Truth or knowledge discovered by the formers.

Similarly, the Hindu Dharma is developed based on the Truth discovered by rishis for centuries and is collected in many texts such as the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita or the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. For ordinary people, different paths are prescribed in the texts as well as by enlightened people like Buddha or Shankaracharya and many others.

How is the concept of “Religion” is perceived today? The following definitions explains some of the fundamental attributes that are associated with the term ‘Religion’ and explains how it is differs from dharma:

1.Adherence to one ‘book’, ‘saviour’, and ‘means of worship‘

There is a preconceived idea that is imposed or expected when a religion is defined based on the characteristics of Abrahamic religions. It is based on four main connotation such as, it should have:

-a single founder (Prophet or Savior),
-a single Holy Book and
-a unified method of worship
-a centralized hierarchy

This over simplistic and crude definition undermines the reality when it comes to defining a profound, diverse and sophisticated tradition such as Hinduism. The Hindu tradition neither has a single founder, a single holy book, an unified method of worship or a centralized hierarchy therefore it defies to meet the same criterion as it is with the Abrahamic religions. It is unfortunate that many times, attempts are made to fit the Hindu Dharma into this model, without considering the fact that the Hindu reality is fundamentally in contrast to these characteristics

2.Conclusive, Exclusionary and Separative.

The word religion as used in the standard form carries three connotations as reflected in the Abrahamic religions:

That a religion is conclusive, that is to say it is the one and only true religion; that a religion is exclusionary, that is to say, those who don’t follow it are excluded from salvation and that a religion is separative, that is to say, in order to belong to it one must not belong to another.

These three notions of religion are not a universal idea and by and large do not express the reality of what are called Eastern religions. For instance, the conclusive and separative notion of religion implies that one can only be a member of one religion or another. In both Eastern and many indigenous societies, this does not hold true. In each of these three ways the notion of dharma, which is the original Indian concept, is very different from the notion of religion.

These three notions of religion – conclusive, exclusionary and separative, give Abrahamic religions a hard-edged identity. In Abrahamic religions there has been a strong emphasis on the separation of “believer” and “non-believer” and a religious imperative to move as many people from the latter category to the former. Truth has been conclusively and unquestionably revealed and captured in a book, and those that follow it are the only ones that are on the right path. Quite literally, this means that you are “with us or against us” – that the believers are right and represent the good who are “with God”; and all the others are misguided and are part of the darkness and deprived of any direct access to what is the ultimate good.

The worldview of the dharmic traditions is that while scriptures can be very helpful, Truth cannot be found by scripture alone but by a path of experiential realization and Self-discovery – and in that sense religion is not conclusive. It is also not separative and exclusive in the sense of dividing the world into believers and non-believers. The dharmic worldview is that there are many tribes throughout the world, and many teachers and teachings. Each tribe has good and bad people in a continuum; people that have a greater degree of access to truth and “goodness” are worthy of respect; and others less so. Since there is a continuum of “goodness” among individuals of each tribe, the need for converting other tribes to a particular conception of God as a religious imperative is not really there. A teacher can share his or her understanding of the truth; and means and ways for others to access this; but there is no underlying belief that only one such way exists. These ideas find clear expression as far back as the Rig Veda, with its famous quotation:

Ekam sad; vipra bahudha vadanti
while Truth is One, the wise describe it in different ways
— I.164.46 of the Rig Veda

So dharma itself does not create a religious identity. One’s worldly self-identity in the dharmic model derives from one’s local community, profession or ancestry, jati or kul, but that identity is not a religious identity, fundamentally opposed to the existence of the identity of the “other” as a manifestation of falsehood.

3. Science as Opposed to Religion

Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward’s definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion — fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.

From a dharmic view, in principle there is no conflict between science and religion. In fact, the two fields are complementary. This is because of the understanding that the domain of each realm is well-defined.

In Hinduism there are two categories of knowledge, para vidya (the spiritual knowledge) and apara vidya (material knowledge). Scientific knowledge is the realm of apara vidya. Spiritual knowledge — knowledge of God and life — belongs to para vidya. Hinduism points out that scientific knowledge can lead to spiritual knowledge.

4.Solely based on Belief and Faith

Religion is generally associated with a belief in something unseen, miraculous or irrational. For many, religion is something removed from day to day life, and it is outside of our known world and also something supernatural. The God is sitting outside of the creation and watching us all the time with the balance of judgement! The fruits of the religious practice are often promised to be gained after death and sometimes based on some kind of fear for the unknown and unseen, and associated with the helplessness of human being. Occasionally believers are exploited by the religious heads or those forces, which use religion for social or political gains.

Belief is the basis of many religious traditions, especially the non-eastern ones. The dictionary meaning of the word “belief” is ‘a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing’ and not necessarily there exists a proof. As a matter of fact religion in the western world is neatly and simply defined as a “belief system” and the belief is called “truth”. There is a “belief” in one God, one prophet and one book of revelation. This is true especially in Christianity and Islam. The right “belief” is said to bring about salvation and the wrong “belief” is supposed to bring about damnation. Such religions are trying to convert the entire world to their “belief”. By doing so they hope to bring about salvation for the entire humanity!

These kinds of belief systems can state their beliefs in clear and uncomplicated terms and they often sound more like slogans or stereotypes. These are often appealing to an emotional need for certainty and security.

Life is not so simple and eight or ten formulas are too inadequate to solve life’s problems! Why should belief be asserted? Why should any truth have to be imposed as it is done by religions of the world? Does not the truth of things speak for itself if we are open to it? We know that if we protect the earth it will remain as our place for living – we don’t have to ‘believe’ it.

Do we have to ‘believe’ that Ahimsha or non-violence is a great virtue? Do we have to ‘believe’ that vegetarianism is good for our health, environment and economy or we know these for fact by experience?

We also frequently use another word: Faith. In the dictionary faith has several meanings: ‘allegiance to duty or person’, ‘belief and trust in the loyalty of God’, ‘belief in the traditional doctrines of religion’, ‘firm belief in something in which there is no proof’ and ‘complete confidence’. If faith means an openness of the heart to truth, which looks beyond belief and the aspiration to the truth then it is appropriate. The word faith in many cases is also associated with blind faith. If by faith we mean “complete confidence” then it is fine to use. Faith and truth are not the same.The

5.Dogmas of “Do’s and Don’ts”

Most religions around us contain three aspects. Within all religions can be found moral principles, which reflect universal ethic and truth. Religion tells us not to be selfish, do good, not to harm others, not to steal, lie or cheat; common human values that all societies require to some degree in order to continue to exist at all.

Dogmatism is the second aspect of religion under which certain actions as said to be wrong which may not reflect any ethical or moral values, but only the bias of a particular belief, particularly the belief of the founder or few followers of the founder. For example, if a religion tells us that it is a sin not to perform certain rituals, or only the book of a particular religion has the so-called revelation of God is not a statement of truth but purely a belief, which cannot but lead us to ignorance. The dogma may even tell us that if we did not follow the scriptures or a prophet, one has to go to a place called hell after death and has to suffer eternal punishment. Based on the ethics, beliefs, experiences and the dogma, each such “institutionalized system” or religion introduces of rituals and practices. It may be simply praying in a church, performing “namaj” or doing meditation. Sometimes the rituals may have good value and sometimes meaningless.

Religions are said to mix the nectar of ethics with the poison of exclusive beliefs. They add hundreds of do’s and don’ts, and bar logical or rational questioning. These dogmas create disharmony through both the “believers” and the “non-believers”. The believers avoid logic and the non-believers stamp the believers as outdated or unscientific or even fanatics. Do we really need such religions? Should we discard religion altogether and follow secular and universal ethics only?

If we have to ask ourselves the question: What is Dharma? We cannot confine the answer to the limits of a definition because the concept of dharma is too big for any definition. So, What is Dharma, in a nutshell? First and foremost it means living in harmony with nature and natural laws. It means to live by moral and ethical principles of the society without surrendering the freedom to question them. The term ‘Yuga Dharma’ signifies that Dharma itself is continually evolving and not rigid or inflexible. The continuous evolution of Dharma has been through debate, and the triumph of logic, consensus and harmony. Most importantly, Dharma is not linked to any religion or set of beliefs. The Sanathana Dharma, called Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other Eastern ways of life emphasized the right laws of living and did not insist on fierce loyalties to any particular dogma. They are not religions in the English dictionary sense of the term. Sanatan here does not mean ancient. It means ever renewing Dharma, ever fresh with time. Samaya Bhedein Dharma Bhedah. Dharma changes with time.

The term “Dharmic Tradition” can be applied to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh or any of the ancient Indian faiths that is base its foundation on the principle of Dharma.

Dharma is an ordering principle which is independent of one’s faith or methods of worship or what is understood by the term ‘religion’, thus providing for total freedom in the path chosen or ethical norms employed, in an eternal journey from being to becoming.Dharma is a very ancient word. Dharma is non-divisive, non-exclusive, and non-conclusive. Dharma is a quest for understanding cosmic order of the universe and consciousness order at a personal level.

‘Dharma’, in fact, transcended the narrow boundaries of religion. It offered limitless freedom of choice of methods as well as goals. It is inherently secular which can even include those who question ‘Dharma’ itself. It encourages free inquiry and never seeks to confine people into categories and denominations. It is this inherent tolerance and catholicity that enabled people, in the ancient times, to pursue faiths independent of their rulers and vice-versa. The rights and duties of the rulers and the citizens, though never codified were always respected. Each institution of the society, each individual, almost intuitively knew where to draw the line, where to define the limit. Tolerance is, therefore, integral to ‘Dharma’, plurality is inherent in it. This tolerance and plurality do not find space in the concept of religion.

Dharma unites. Religion and its obverse secular are divisive. Religion is a restrictive canvas related to modes of worship of a divinity called by a variety of names. Religion and its obverse secular is restrictive in relating to parts of society and parts of social conduct.

Dharma is all-encompassing and resolves conflicts. Religion and secular foment conflicts. Kerry Brown stated:

“… the culture that we know now as Hindouisme and that the Indian ones call Sanatana Dharma — the Law Eternal — precedes this name by thousands of years. This is more than a religion, more than the theological direction in which the west understands religion. One can believe in all divinities or in no divinity and remain Hindu. This is a manner to living.”1

Dharma is a Timeless Principle
The Hindu Dharma itself is called Sanatana Dharma. Buddhism is called Buddha Dharma or the Dharma of the Buddha. Jainism is called Jain Dharma. Sikhism is called Sikh Dharma. All dharmic traditions recognize certain fundamental laws or dharma. These include the law of karma, the process of rebirth, and the need to gain release from the ego that keeps us bound to it. They also recognize certain methods of yoga, mantra and meditation to reach this end, which can be called dharmic practices.

The Dharmic Traditions of India share the core values of dharma. These involve ethical principles like ahimsa, truthfulness, compassion and renunciation. They require a respect for all life as sacred and a recognition of a single consciousness as pervading the entire universe.

The dharmic traditions of India emphasize dharma first and on that basis allow for a diversity of religious beliefs and philosophies to develop. Dharma, therefore, is not an exclusive belief principle, but an inclusive attitude based upon honoring the unity and interdependence of all existence. For example, Buddhists, Jains and Hindus may disagree philosophically on the description of ultimate reality, not only with each other but among themselves, but that does not require abandoning dharma. In fact for them, the supreme Dharma is beyond words and beliefs anyway. Philosophical views and religious beliefs are only tools to develop dharma and if they take us away from dharma, they should be either modified or discarded.

Hence, it is truly universal, sanatana dharma, the ordering principle eternal. Since it is an ordering principle, the word is applied across many facets of life, for example to rajadharma as an ordering principle for governance, svadharma as an ordering principle of one’s spiritual quest or life in society or asramadharma denoting responsibilities associated with one’s station in life’s progress from childhood, through studentship, marital life and to old age. Dharma is elaborated with the use of terms such as satyam, rita, rinam, vrata to defining ethical responsibility performed in relation to social and natural phenomena. Dharma can be the defining paradigm for a world as a family, vasudhaiva kutumbakam. Aano bhadraah kratavo yantu vis’vatah. Let noble thoughts flow to us from all sides. These thoughts from Vedic times are as relevant today as they have been over millennia of pilgrims’ progress and exemplified by the progress and abiding continuum of Hindu civilization, Jaina ariya dhamma and Bauddha dhamma. In such an ordering, dharma-dhamma becomes a veritable celebration of freedom, freedom in moving from being to becoming.

Now, the question is does such thing as “Hinduism” exist? Since this is not a ‘belief’ or ‘ideas’ of a particular person or a group, ‘ism’ does not fit with it. This name was given by those who did not understand the system and in back of their mind they thought that theirs is the only truth and others are all ‘false belief’ or ’satanic path’!

Hinduism is more than a religion, more than the theological direction in which the west understands religion. It is an unbroken spiritual tradition that is founded on the principles of Dharma which is often called Sanatan Dharma.

The ideal function of dharma is to provide a sound, fundamental world-view which correctly orientates the individual to the cosmos and thus can serve as the basis for an intelligent guide to living.

The relation of Sanatana Dharma to the Hindu system is like science to technology. What does the word “Hindu” represents? According to the dictionary: ‘the inhabitants of India’ or ‘followers of Hinduism’ are Hindus. Simply, Hindu is name of a dharmic system and a culture. How about a “Hindu religion”? Does it exist? How many different “panths” and sects can be found which is based on Sanatana Dharma? And, are they like other religions of the world? Should we adhere to Hindu system as a belief-oriented system? Is it right to call it “Hindu faith”? The answer is simple: If such a belief is necessary for certain individuals it is OK. But a system cannot stand on belief or assumption. It must have a rock solid foundation of truth, facts and logic, and it must be able to accommodate the least evolved person as well as the most evolved one.

It differs from Western religion in certain key respects:

-Its origin cannot be traced to a single person who received a divine revelation and became the founder of the faith.
-It is not based upon a particular book.
-It cannot be defined in terms of a dogma or a body of beliefs that distinguishes its followers from the rest of humanity.
-It does not have an established institution with the power to induct or expel people from the faith.
-A central institution or authority such as a church or an association does not control it.
-It is not averse to examine and assimilate fundamentally diverse thoughts and beliefs into its system.
-It has been evolving continuously, through internal reforms and as a reaction to threats and challenges.
-Even though there is no central authority that enforces cohesion among its people and lays out plans for the future, its fundamental concepts and outlook have permeated all sections of the society.

Hindu Dharma recognizes that the greater portion of human religious aspirations has always been unknown, undefined and outside of any institutionalized belief. Allows absolute freedom to the rational mind of man. It never demands any undue restraint upon the freedom of human reason, the freedom of thought, feeling and will of man. It is only a means to an end, and all dharmic means that ultimately lead to the final goal are approved of.

Does not force anybody to accept particular dogmas or forms of worship. It allows everybody to reflect, investigate, enquire and cogitate. Gives reverence to individual spiritual experience over any formal religious doctrine.
As there is no separation of humanity as believers and non-believers, the need or question of organized conversion do not arise. This attitude finds further expression in the fact that the dharmic traditions tend to be non-proselytizing even when they become missionary.

Let us talk about Dharma – not religion. Let us understand Dharma and find out our own Dharma. One may or may not be religious, may or may not believe in God, but can be Dharmic! If we understand this system as an approach to a universal tradition, which shows how truth and spirituality can be integrated into the whole of life, then it can be of great value for formulating a global dharmic culture today.

Looking what religions have done to humanity throughout history, one may feel it might be better for us to stay away from religion. It appears that would save us from so many wars, crusades, hostilities and misunderstandings, such as world history is mired with. Open the newspaper today and see how often words like ‘religious fundamentalist’, ‘militants’, ‘terrorists’, ‘bigots’ etc. are used!

The believers have faith in it but almost every moment the do’s and don’ts haunt them and there are always discrepancies between many of the acts of these people and their beliefs. Non-believers want to stay away from ‘authorities’ and seek for ‘freedom’ of thinking and living. Many, especially the students try to avoid religion to enjoy a life without the restrictions put by religion. Some people say: “Religion is opium of people”. Others say, religion is illogical and unscientific.

The world, today, is like a melting pot, where principles, handed down by the West as universal, timeless constructs, have failed to provide to the people of the world a cohesive identity. All ideologies have been found to be deficient.

Today we need a new dharmic consciousness in the world, a recognition of the universal dharmas of being, consciousness and bliss that unite all creatures. All beings have the rights to exist without interference, to develop their own awareness, and find their own happiness. Much of the global crisis today has come about because we human beings have abandoned Dharma and sought to impose our beliefs and desires not only upon other human beings, but on all of life and nature, subordinating the entire planet to our selfish ends. Unless we return to Dharma, it is unlikely that we can flourish, or perhaps even survive as a species. Restoring and reviving Dharma, therefore, is probably the most important issue today.

References-

  1. (Kerry Brown, The Essential Teachings of the hindouisme; loc. cit. Rama Jois, dharmarajya or true government according to dharma)
  2. Need I belong to only one religion?, by Sankrant Sanu, Dharma and Religious identity, Feb 14, 2003
  3. Dharma, the Need of the Hour and of all Time, by Vamadeva Shastri, Global Dharma Conference: Philosophy, 2003.
  4. Dharma: Universal ordering principle from Vedic to modern times, S. Kalyanaraman, Ph.D., Sarasvati Research Centre, 27 March 2006

रक्षामंत्री ने की इन्दिरा गांधी की प्रशंसा, अमित शाह आतंकवाद पर बरसे

Vijendra Meena
-
0
रक्षामंत्री ने की इन्दिरा गांधी की प्रशंसा, अमित शाह आतंकवाद पर बरसे

आज रक्षा मन्त्री राजनाथ सिंह ने सशस्त्र बलों में महिलाओं की भूमिका पर शंघाई सहयोग संगठन (एससीओ) की संगोष्ठी को संबोधित किया। रक्षा मंत्री ने रानी लक्ष्मीबाई और पूर्व राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल का भी जिक्र किया और कहा कि राष्ट्रीय विकास में महिला शक्ति की भूमिका को लेकर भारत का अनुभव सकारात्मक रहा है।

सिंह ने कहा कि सशस्त्र बलों में महिलाओं की भूमिका पर बातचीत करना ठीक है, लेकिन सुरक्षा और राष्ट्र-निर्माण के सभी क्षेत्रों में उनके व्यापक योगदान को पहचाना जाना चाहिए।

उन्होंने कहा, ‘‘देश की रक्षा और लोगों के अधिकारों के लिए इतिहास में महिलाओं के हथियार उठाने के अनेक उदाहरण हैं। रानी लक्ष्मीबाई उनमें सबसे प्रमुख हैं।’’

रक्षा मंत्री ने कहा, ‘‘भारत की पूर्व प्रधानमंत्री इंदिरा गांधी ने न केवल वर्षों तक देश की कमान संभाली, बल्कि युद्ध के समय भी नेतृत्व किया। कुछ साल पहले प्रतिभा पाटिल भारत की राष्ट्रपति और भारतीय सशस्त्र बलों की सर्वोच्च कमांडर थीं।’’

इंदिरा गांधी के प्रधानमंत्री रहने के दौरान भारत ने पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ 1971 की जंग जीती थी और एक नया देश, बांग्लादेश बना था।

उन्होंने कहा कि अगले साल से महिलाएं राष्ट्रीय रक्षा अकादमी में प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त कर सकेंगी।

आज अमित शाह भी आतंकवाद पर जमकर बरसे

दक्षिण गोवा के धारबंदोरा गांव में राष्ट्रीय फोरेंसिक विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय की आधारशिला रखने के दौरान एक जनसभा को संबोधित करते हुए शाह ने आरोप लगाया कि यूपीए शासनकाल के दौरान सीमा पार से आतंकवादी घुसपैठ कर अशांति फैलाते थे और केंद्र की तरफ से कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की जाती थी लेकिन अब भारत उसी भाषा में जवाब देता है जो उन्हें (आतंकियों को) समझ में आती है।

आतंकवाद को लेकर पाकिस्तान पर निशाना साधते हुए गृह मंत्री अमित शाह ने बृहस्पतिवार को कहा कि पांच साल पहले भारत द्वारा की गई सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक की कार्रवाई ने विश्व में कड़ा सदेश दिया कि कोई भी देश की सीमा में हस्तक्षेप नहीं कर सकता।

1...160161162...889Page 161 of 889