Friday, May 27, 2016

Shiva - The source of Life Skills


KK Shanmukhan

Any married person, whether he belongs to the mortal human beings or saints, or Gandharvas, Gods or even the Lords,  undergoes the usual pathology of house-hold disputes, skirmishes and disquiets. Lord Shiva was no exception. One day, Narada, the non-stop mobile saint got audience with the Lord at Kailasa. Narayan…Narayan… Saluted the sage with humble reverence:“Lord and mother of the Universe…” he said aiming the couple, “I am the most blessed person among the whole creatures of the universe, for; I can have the rarest audience of you whenever I wish, if you are not otherwise engaged.”
“Narada,” addressed the Lord, “you are our real friend and are acclaimed for your impartiality.  Listen to me…” the Lord stopped for a deep sigh and continued: “Devi has posed a question to which I answered with my limited knowledge.  That doesn’t, however, satisfy her.  What shall I do?”
Narayan…Narayan… said Narada, “Your limited knowledge, Bhagavan?  However, am I eligible to know of your dispute, venerable Lord?”
“Of course, honourable saint,” answered Goddess Parvati, “My opinion was, ‘Anapathya’ or having no children, is the gravest sorrow for any couple.” Narayan…Narayan… appealed saint Narada to the Lord: “And what is your stance, Lord?” “In my opinion, saint Narada…” replied the Lord: “it is poverty that puts the human race in maximum hardships.  What is your expert opinion Narada?”
Narayan…Narayan… replied Narada, “My agreement with either of you will invite the other’s unpleasantness towards me.  This I can hardly afford to.  However, I can suggest, that both of you may adopt human life and experience the gravity of each problem and decide.Give me your leave.” Narada left Kailasa with a smile of victory.
Devi Parvati took her birth as a human lady in an aristocratic family of royal businessman. Lord Shiva took birth as a mendicant wanderer and visited all holy shrines, temples, towns and rivers.Devi Parvati grew up, got proper education and eventually got married.  She led a blissful married life.  She was blessed with four sons and three daughters.  
Parvati’s father-in-law was a pious soul and a very rich merchant of gold, gem and jewelry.   One day the catamaran in which he sailed with his salesmen and a good load of invaluable commodities sunk in the deep seas.  Hearing the news, his wife also died of heart break.  Parvati’s husband fell ill.  Other merchants who gave credit to her father-in-law filed suits and Parvati’s properties were attached.  Her husband died for want of proper medical treatment.
The support less lady, Parvati, with her seven children took to begging. 
A severe famine gripped the land.  No grain was available for two to three years. No house-hold could spare alms to beggars. 
Parvati’s last born, who was a tender girl and her pet who she loved most and more than her own life, breathed the last on the lap for want of food.  She carried the dead body and wandered with her other children.  She reached a small forest where she found a deserted old well. Keeping the children there, she went in search of food.  She was baffled.  Her children started dying one after the other.  Finally she became lonely.  She had not eaten a bit for several days.She was so helpless that she could not stand up, let alone burying the children.  
On the other side of the well  she observed a ripe fruit hidden among the dry branches of a small tree. The sight lit hope of rays in her. She could not find a twig around. Somehow she could summon energy and stood up.  She approached the bush.  Her hand could not reach the fruit.  She found an idea.  She dragged the corpse of her eldest son and stood over it.  Her hand did not reach the target.  She dragged the corpses of all her children and lain them one over the other and stood above them.  She struggled to reach the fruit.  She had almost touched it; when she heard a loud laugh followed by a sharp question:“O woman and mother, what are you doing there?  Where are you standing upon to quell your hunger temporarily?  Shame on you!” It was the mendicant, the wanderer.
( To be concluded )

Truth and Political correctness

Some years ago, on a visit to Germany, I met with a few friends from primary school times. Two of them I hadn’t seen for over 50 years, but we were quickly familiar again after we got used to our new (elderly) look. The conversation veered to the Turks in town, around 600 of the overall 6000 inhabitants. “Most of them are not integrating into our society and some buy up houses right in the centre of the town”, a former classmate said.
I mentioned that I have become very wary of pious Muslims ever since I read the Quran. Those who believe in earnest what is written there will never see non-Muslims as equals. They are simply not allowed to. They will have to strive to gain majority wherever they live and then bully us others into submission, if we are lucky not to be killed.
There was silence for a while. Then one friend, a confident, feisty woman, said: “Maria, I think like you do. But I wouldn’t have dared to say what you just said.”
Her comment brought home the power of mass media. For decades ‘political correctness’ has been drummed into us all over the world and many have internalized what they are supposed to say and what not. And maybe we did not even notice that we have voluntarily surrendered the right to free speech which is considered one of the greatest plus points of modern democracies.
It is even worse and more complicated. The right to free speech is there, but the right to speak the truth is under threat. The right to free speech even allows expressing offense and falsehood provided it is aimed at the ‘politically correct’ groups of people. In such cases, free speech is often amplified because mainstream media will gladly broadcast it all over the world.
An example was the false accusation that ‘Hindu extremists’ were behind the gang rape of a nun. Hindus were not given a hearing. They were shouted down in TV studios by Christian representatives and left-liberals. A Bishop and Vatican Radio also went ahead blaming Hindus without any proof. When the Bangladeshi Muslim culprits were caught, the damage to the image of Hindus was done and it was not corrected. No case of hate speech was slapped on those Christian representatives. Not even an apology was made.
Who can be freely attacked and who not is one of the incomprehensible features of political correctness. In spite of the fact that Hindus were victims under Muslim and British rule for centuries with millions of them having been killed; in spite of the fact that Hindus never went on the offensive in the name of their gods, they and their tradition are today fair game for verbal attacks which could be termed as hate speech but is hardly ever persecuted as such. The same seems to apply for Jews. Anti-Semitism is again on the rise in the west and not only among the Muslim population there. It is prominent in universities and hidden in mainstream media.
In contrast, Muslims and Islam are generally exempted from verbal attacks in spite of the fact that mainly Muslim boys become terrorists and in spite of the fact that over the past 1400 years, Muslims were more often aggressors, not victims. The reason is that the motto “Islam is a religion of peace” is the politically correct view and cases of ‘hate speech’ are slapped quickly on those who say otherwise. However there is no further debate on why or whether Islam is indeed a religion of peace except for general claims that Islam exhorts its followers to be good human beings.
In a balanced debate it would become clear that Hindu Dharma (the open-minded, tolerant Hinduism does not deserve an ‘–ism’ as postfix) is a better option for a harmonious, peaceful living together of people of diverse natures, because Islam and Christianity require first all to convert and profess belief in their fixed, yet unproven doctrines before homogenous ‘peace’ can be established. Diversity of opinion is not allowed.
Yet this balanced, unbiased debate never happens. It is studiously avoided. Instead, those who stand up for Hindu Dharma are vilified as ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and those who stand up for Islam or Christianity are paraded all over the news channels as persons of the ‘correct’ insight. Do you hear in public discourse that “Hinduism is a religion of peace”? You may have never heard it. And if you say it privately, politically correct persons will immediately remind you of the ‘atrocious caste system’.
How have we reached such a state where we cannot have a meaningful debate on what is true any longer? Has truth been thrown out of the window? It almost seems like that. I realized only recently that the ‘correct’ line is now apparently that there is no truth as such. Rather, there are so many truths. Whatever somebody thinks is his truth.
A German friend said exactly this, when I mentioned that it is a sad state of affairs that nowadays it needs courage to speak the truth, especially when it comes to Islam. “There is no truth as such”, he replied. I was taken aback. If truth is not taken any longer as the guiding star, we can as well pack up and stop living.
I tried to make my friend see that though the absolute Truth (that what truly is) cannot be put into words, it nevertheless is present. On another, lower level, a lie is definitely not the truth, even if somebody believes in it. Steadfastly ignoring certain important facts to create a different perception of an issue is also dishonest and akin to a lie. “Satyam vada, Dharam chara” is an ancient Indian advice – speak the truth, do what is right.
Is it so difficult to find out whether the politically correct view is truthful or not?
Let’s take for example the concern to empower women. It’s a worthy concern. But what has happened in the name of feminism and gender equality clearly went overboard and has become harmful.
“Why should I move to the place where my husband gets a job? Why should he not stay where I have my friends?” was a major issue in the early years of feminism in the west. So the discord started right after marriage because one of the two had finally to give in and if it was the wife, she would grudge it, now being aware of ‘gender inequality’.
Further, in the name of gender equality, unequal laws were enacted which favoured women and put men not only at a disadvantage, but in danger to land in jail because their side of the story simply does not count. It is apparently assumed that women are always angels and men always beasts, which is clearly not true. As a consequence, men and women are not anymore complementing each other but opposing each other, and in western societies the family system went bust. Many people there feel lonely and lost, yet the creed of feminism is still adhered to by the politically correct.
Should there not be a genuine debate on this issue? Yet it is not happening. Why is any criticism of feminism shouted down by the so-called opinion-makers in the media? Do they want a defunct society for whatever reason?
When I had finished school in the late 1960s, feminism just started in Germany. If I wanted to be ‘modern’ now, I was suddenly supposed to make a career and as compensation, I didn’t need to know how to cook and could decide whether I wanted children, as it was “my body”.
I remember that some feminists then were even fighting for girls to be included in the 18-months long military training that was obligatory for boys at the age of 18. Many women, including me, did not agree with those feminists, but we had no voice, whereas their voice was heard loudly almost daily in the media. Brainwashing is usually associated with fascist, communist or religious ideologies, but it seems, media, too, are willing henchmen to support it and how effective they are!
Let’s take another example: religion is seen as sacrosanct and freedom of religion is guaranteed in the UN Charter. Yet a clear definition of religion is lacking. Should we not have a closer look at religions regarding what is true about them and what cannot possibly be true? This debate also is not happening. Instead it is politically correct to project Islam as a religion of peace and Christianity as a religion of love, and Hinduism as a loose collection of cults which have many flaws that need to be corrected, preferably by western experts of “South Asia”.
This is turning truth on its head. But why is it done? Do the powerful, influential, wealthy religions of peace and love (both of them gained the huge number of followers through violence and indoctrination) sense that they will be losing out when there is a genuine debate? Hindus would have the upper hand because their tradition is based on philosophy (= love for wisdom) and not on coercion into blind belief.
The insights of the rishis keep being vindicated by modern science and are open to direct, personal experience in this life, provided one purifies one’s inner perception. The followers of the dogmatic religions, however, have to wait till they are dead until they know whether it was true or false what the priests or mullahs told them.
The rishis enquired into truth. “Religion” in the sense of imposing a fixed doctrine was inconceivable for them. Debates on what is true were held in which women, too, participated. The question revolved around how to make life meaningful and fulfilled. The answer they found was: the purpose of life is to discover the truth about ourselves.
Let’s bring truth into our lives and stand by it. Let’s not be swayed by political correctness or other types of indoctrination. Ultimately truth alone is victorious – and maybe it sounds strange, but I am convinced that truth is alive. If it is honoured, it will foster you.
Satyameva Jayate!
By Maria Wirth

Decolonizing Indian Education

India is witnessing a disparity in education between the haves and the have-notes, between the 20 percent, who study in English medium private schools and the 80 percent, who study in vernacular government schools. Some educationists propose that this disparity should be bridged by introducing English in the government schools right from nursery to bring the education standards on par for all children.
I am amazed at this proposal. How can some Indians want more colonization instead of getting rid of the remnants? Why would the Indians want to hold on to that colonial language baggage that was burdened on them in 1835 on the suggestion of Thomas Macauley? Don’t they know that the intention was to make the ‘natives’ lose pride in their clearly superior culture and make them mental slaves of the British, without them actually realizing that they were made into slaves?
MacaulayWhy would a free India want to continue with English as the preferred language at the expense of Indian languages and at the expense of Sanskrit, which is the basis of those languages and is praised the world over? In which country do the upper classes not to speak in their mother tongue?
Well, amazing as it is, many of the Indian elite actually want an ‘English India’. It feels natural to them. They feel more at home in English than in their mother tongue because of their education in English medium. And so far, they were even allowed to feel superior to the masses, who don’t speak this ‘world language’. Without being spelt out, the fact is that those fluent in English with the right accent form the topmost class in Indian society. This fact does not prevent many of them from castigating “the Brahmins” as those who unfairly ‘oppress’ others.
However, at present a churning is taking place that is shaking this privileged position. There is a certain resurgence of an Indian identity, and tradition and language are major aspects of it. The Prime Minister taking his oath of office in Hindi and several MPs in Sanskrit, would have put the English speaking elite ill at ease. Maybe the attack on Smirti Irani as HRD minister was not so much because of her missing academic credential, but because of her fluency in Hindi. Those who are fluent only in English may fear that she does not share their conviction that English medium is a must for higher education.
The English speaking class naturally has an interest to continue with the status quo, where jobs at the top level require fluency in English, whether it is in the judiciary, the defense forces, in academia, science or administration. It is in their interest and in the interest of their children.
As they lack good arguments in favor of English medium education, they use different methods. One is ridiculing those who speak bad English. I saw comments which read “Before posting first learn proper English”. If you tell this to a German, he may just ask back “Why should I?” But if you tell this to a Frenchman, beware! Yet Indians keep quiet and may even take it to heart.
Another method is to obfuscate the language issue. India has a huge advantage, because her population speaks English, they claim. But two points are not made clear:
First point: only a small percentage of Indians actually speak English – only about 15 percent know English and only a few lakh (0.05 per cent) speak it fluently as primary language.
Second point: it is not easy to learn a foreign language, which one doesn’t hear spoken in one’s daily life, but only for a few hours in school. It is of course easy, if you hear it spoken from childhood at home.
I could directly observe this: In 2006, in the span of a few months, six babies were born in my surrounding – three of them to acquaintances who speak English at home and three to servants. All six of them are now in English medium schools. Meanwhile, the disparity is huge. The children of the former are at ease in English and ‘good’ in school, the others struggle, in spite of being sent for tuition, which is a burden for their parents. The disparity is not in their level of intelligence. All of them are bright and full of zest. In fact, the children of the servants seem to have grown up faster. They are highly observant, don’t throw tantrums, when they don’t get what they want and are better behaved towards elders.
Nobody says that children should not learn English. But why demand from teenagers’ fluency to write essays, understand thick textbooks, and the question papers in their exams? They need to learn the basics, like students in other countries do. Why burden them so young with tomes in an alien language? This happens in no developed country, only in a few former colonies, including India.
English medium in education has an advantage only for those few who want to study abroad, and is easy only for those who hear English at home. They are at present greatly privileged, but are a miniscule minority.
In the last decade, strangely, the craze for English medium schools has accelerated, and it may have been intentional. Government schools kept being in the news for poor results, and forthwith, even those, who did not know any English started sending their children to the mushrooming small private English medium schools. It became a business opportunity for some entrepreneurs and a prestige issue for parents, who hardly could afford the school fee.
Friends, who had established primary schools in over 20 villages in the Himalayan foothills, closed them down some years ago. In tune with the times, parents had pressured them to change them to English medium. My friends took a principled stand and did not comply. The children landed up in dubious English medium schools.
No authority counseled the parents that it was a big blunder, as their children will be neither good in English nor in their mother tongue. They are unlikely to break through the glass ceiling that separates them from the haves. In fact, they would be much better off if they went to a Gurukul like Baba Ramdev did, obtain knowledge that truly matters, develop body, mind, and spirit and discover the purpose of their lives.
Baba Ramdev made me realize how odd it is to continue with English in India. He himself had escaped English education and the slave mentality that often comes with it and certainly is not the worse for it. There are few people who are as knowledgeable, energetic and successful in transforming their vision into reality, as he is. He is connected to his roots via Sanskrit, and can see the damage that the British have inflicted on India. Many months ago, during his talks across the country, he kept thundering: “French study in French, Germans in German, Japanese in Japanese. Why do Indians study in English?”
baba ramdevI realized only then how shockingly disadvantaged Indian children are. I wondered what would have happened, if my parents had sent me to a (luckily non-existing) English medium school. It would surely have been a disaster, even though English is not as different from German as it is from Indian languages.
It happens occasionally that children from a non-English background get into prestigious higher education. The super 30 of Bihar who crack the IIT admission test are an example. But they could have honed their outstanding talent for math even better, if they had not first to overcome this huge language hurdle.
An NRI from US tested the intelligence of Indian and American children via sign based IQ tests. Village children in India outperformed their city counterparts in India and in the US. In one village over 30 per cent scored over 90th percentile! An extraordinary result! Yet once these children aim at higher education, they lose confidence, all because they are not good in English.
A government school teacher told me that some of her students were drop outs from English medium schools. They were now flowering in Hindi medium. “Here, they can be natural, have fun. Whereas in English medium they were always timid” she said. “Worst off”, she added, “are poor kids that are admitted to expensive schools under the RTE Act. They clearly wither away as they feel inferior.”
The push for more English medium schools in recent years and the proposal to introduce it even in the government schools is difficult to understand. Those planning the education policies would know that English medium for children from non-English background is too tough. The disparity can’t be removed in this way. It can be removed by giving them, books and question papers in their mother tongue even for higher studies.
The parents from poorer sections think that they do the best for their children, as they learn now the same as the children of ‘big people’. They don’t realize how it stifles their development. They also don’t realize how much useless stuff is written in those fancy textbooks.
Apart from making the children timid, being forced to speak English in school dilutes their Indian identity. Could this have actually been the objective – to make the children lose their identity at a time, when many realize that India stands tall among the nations? This assumption is hopefully out of place. Yet watching discussions on English channels, one gets the impression that many panelists would wish for a fast westernization of India. Those panelists, however clearly do not represent the masses.
Can India, almost seven decades after independence, finally make a gradual transition to teaching all, including higher education in the respective mother tongue and teach Sanskrit and English as obligatory languages and others optional? Europe with over 20 states and over 20 languages is in a similar position like India. There, each child is taught in his mother tongues right till university level. India could adopt this model. (An interesting slide show by Sankrant Sanu can be viewed under: )
India is more cohesive than the European Union. The underlying unity in her diversity is her common heritage. And this heritage is India’s strength. As much as the English speaking left liberals may deny it, Sanskrit, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Vedic philosophy unites India even today. It would be foolish to further dilute this glue by promoting an “English India”, while the west discovers the value of Sanskrit and Indian philosophy and teaches it in their schools and universities.
The article is being reproduced from author’s blog with her permission.
Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

समाज हित पत्रकारिता का परम धर्म

समाज हित पत्रकारिता का परम धर्म

नारद जयंति – 23 मई

पुराणों में वर्णित विभिन्न ऐतिहासिक कथाओं में श्रेष्ठ मुनि नारद की भूमिका नवीनतम सूचनाओं के कुशल संवाहक व प्रभावी उपदेष्टा के रूप में सहज ही उभरती है. वर्तमान में जब सम्पूर्ण मानव जाति एक ओर सूचना क्रान्ति का आनन्द लेती प्रतीत होती है तो दूसरी ओर यह भी कटु सत्य है कि मीडिया आधारित सामाजिक संवाद दुख, निराशा और विवादों का जनक व संवाहक भी स्पष्ट तौर से दिखता है. पत्रकारों व मीडिया कर्मियों के कार्यों, कर्तव्यों, दायित्वों व मर्यादाओं की चर्चाएं अनेक होती हैं, पर अक्सर परिणाम मूलक नहीं रहती. शहद तो सभी निकालना चाहते हैं, परन्तु मधुमक्खियों के छज्जे में हाथ डालने की हिम्मत तो किसी में नहीं होती. वर्षों के प्रयासों के बावजूद न तो मीडिया अपनी आचार-संहिता बना सका, न ही समाज या शासन इस कार्य को कर सका.
पत्रकारिता के शिक्षण व प्रशिक्षण संस्थान भी असमंजस में हैं कि भविष्य के पत्रकारों को आदर्श व्यवहारिकता सिखाई जाए या तुरन्त सफलता प्राप्त करने के लिए सिद्धान्त विहीन शिक्षण दिया जाए. मीडिया के आदर्श व्यक्तित्वों के बारे में बड़ी ऊहापोह की स्थिति है. माखनलाल जी, पराडकर जी, गणेश शंकर जी जैसे रोल मॉडल हों या राडिया कांड में लिप्त वर्तमान के विख्यात-कुख्यात ‘एक्टिविस्ट’ पत्रकार. आज की भारतीय पत्रकारिता मुख्यतः उस अमेरिकी संवाददाता का अनुसरण कर रही है, जिसकी रिर्पोर्टिंग से श्वेत-स्याह जातीय दंगे फैले और सौ के लगभग हत्याएं हुई. न्यायालय में उसका वक्तव्य था कि पत्रकार होने के नाते उसका कर्तव्य सत्य को ढूंढना और उसको रिपोर्ट करना है. परिणामों के विषय पर पूछने पर उसने कहा कि उसकी रिपोर्टिंग से समाज में क्या होता है, उससे उसका कोई लेना देना नहीं है.

इस असमंजस की स्थिति में मानव-हित का कोई दर्शन या सिद्धान्त ढूंढते हैं तो बरबस नारद का चरित्र सामने आ जाता है. नारद का कार्य भी आज के पत्रकारों की तरह समाचारों के संकलन और उनके सम्प्रेषण का ही था. हालांकि यह उनका व्यवसाय नहीं था, फिर भी जीवन भर उन्होंने यही कार्य किया. नारद की विभिन्न कथाओं से एक बड़ा तथ्य यह निकल कर आता है कि वे समाज के हर वर्ग में स्वीकार्य थे, इतना ही नहीं हर समूह में वे सम्माननीय भी थे. उस समय सत्ता के तीन केन्द्र थे. देवता, मानव और दानव. तीनों का अपना-अपना संसार था, साथ ही आपसी सम्बन्ध भी थे, कभी प्रेम सद्भाव के, तो कभी ईर्ष्या, घृणा के और कभी-कभी तो प्रत्यक्ष युद्ध के. हर परिस्थिति में नारद के लिए सभी सहज उपलब्ध थे. इन्द्र से लेकर ब्रह्मा, हिरण्याकश्यप से कंस तक के पास नारद कभी भी बिना अनुमति, बिना घोषणा के आ जा सकते थे. ऐसे ही सहज पहुंच उनकी सभी मानव नरेशों में थी.

कहीं भी जब नारद अचानक प्रकट हो जाते थे तो होस्ट की क्या अपेक्षा होती थी? हर कोई, देवता, मानव या दानव उनसे कोई व्यापारिक या कूटनीतिक वार्ता की उम्मीद नहीं करते थे. नारद तो समाचार ही लेकर आते थे. ऐसा संदर्भ नहीं आता जब नारद औपचारिकता निभाने या ‘कर्टसी विजिट’ के लिए कहीं गए हों. तो, पहली बात तो यह कि समाचारों का संवाहन ही नारद के जीवन का मुख्य कार्य था, इसलिए उन्हें आदि पत्रकार मानने में कोई संदेह नहीं है. आज के संदर्भ में इसे हम पत्रकारिता का उद्देश्य मान सकते हैं.
परन्तु नारद के द्वारा दिए गए समाचार की क्या विशेषता थी? सौ प्रतिशत विश्वसनीय. किसी ने, कभी भी नारद के समाचार पर प्रश्न चिन्ह नहीं लगाया. क्योंकि अनुभव के आधार पर सबके मन में नारद पर अटूट विश्वास बन गया था. प्रवृत्ति तो ऐसी होती है कि मन को प्रिय लगने वाली सूचना यदि असत्य भी हो तो भी मानने का मन करता है, परन्तु अप्रिय घटना की सूचना वास्तविक होने पर भी मन में शंकाएं उत्पन्न करती है. नारद का वैशिष्ट्य निरन्तर यह रहा कि किसी ने उनसे पलट कर यह भी नहीं पूछा कि ‘‘नारद, क्या तुम सत्य बोल रहे हो’’. सूचनाओं का पूर्ण रूप से तथ्यात्मक व पुष्ट होना पत्रकारिता का मर्म माना जा सकता है. ‘ब्रेकिंग न्यूज’ की बनावटी दौड़ में मनगढ़ंत, अपुष्ट, अधूरी व अर्धसत्य प्रसारित करना केवल भद्दी पत्रकारिता ही नहीं है, यह तो अपराध की श्रेणी में आना चाहिए. नैतिकता के नाते यह व्यक्ति और संस्था द्वारा किया पाप है.
समाचारों के संवाहक के रूप में नारद की सर्वाधिक विशेषता है उनका समाज हितकारी होना. नारद के किसी भी संवाद ने देश या समाज का अहित नहीं किया. कुछ संदर्भ ऐसे आते जरूर हैं, जिनमें लगता है कि नारद चुगली कर रहे हैं, कलह पैदा कर रहे हैं. परन्तु जब उस संवाद का दीर्घकालीन परिणाम देखते हैं तो अन्ततोगत्वा वह किसी न किसी तरह सकारात्मक परिवर्तन ही लाते हैं. इसलिए मुनि नारद को विश्व का सर्वाधिक कुशल लोकसंचारक मानते हुए पत्रकारिता का तीसरा महत्वपूर्ण सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित किया जा सकता है कि पत्रकारिता का धर्म समाज हित ही है.
संक्षेप में कहा जा सकता है कि –
  1. वर्तमान के जनमाध्यमों के संदर्भ में मुनि नारद को न केवल आदि पत्रकार मानना चाहिए, परन्तु उन्हें सर्वश्रेष्ठ लोकसंचारक के आदर्श के रूप में भी नई पीढ़ी के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत करना चाहिए.
  2. पत्रकारिता का एकमात्र उद्देश्य या कार्य सूचनाओं का सम्प्रेषण है, इसमें राजनीति, व्यापार, समर्थन या विरोध का समावेश अवांछनीय है.
  3. समाचारों के कारोबार में केवल तथ्य, पूर्ण तथ्य और पुष्ट तथ्य ही समाविष्ट होने चाहिए. अपनी बनावटी कार्यकुशलता को सिद्ध करने के लिए अधपके समाचार देना समाजद्रोह है. सत्यं वद ही पत्रकारिता का मर्म है.
  4. ऐसे समाचार या विचार जो समाज में नफरत, बैर भाव और निराशा फैला सकते हों, उनका सम्प्रेषण नहीं होना चाहिए. अतः समाज का हित और विकास ही पत्रकारिता का धर्म है.
प्रो. बृज किशोर कुठियाला
(लेखक माखनलाल चतुर्वेदी राष्ट्रीय पत्रकारिता एवं संचार विश्वविद्यालय, भोपाल के कुलपति हैं)

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Hindutva: the kinetic effect of Hindu Dharma

Hindutva: the kinetic effect of Hindu Dharma 

by S. Gurumurthy

Hindu Dharma is a relatively new name for what has been timelessly known as Sanatana Dharma. Hindu Dharma is geographically Indian, or Bharatiya, but it is universally valid because, unlike other schools of thought, it accepts all other and diverse thoughts without rejecting any. This all-inclusive school of thought was a nameless philosophy that did not need to distinguish itself from others, as there was no other thought system from which it needed to be distinguished. It was a thought that did not need an identity different from other thoughts as it accepted all other thoughts as valid. It is only when exclusive schools of thoughts emanated from the Abrahamic stable, which rejected the validity of all thoughts other than those of the concerned Abrahamic school, Sanatana Dharma needed to distinguish itself form the exclusive Abrahamic thoughts. It is not Hindu Dharma which rejected the Abrahamic thoughts, but it is the Abrahamic thoughts which rejected the Hindu Dharma. With the result that the Sanatana Dharma had to acquire and accept a name to distinguish itself; not because it was an exclusive thought but because it was an inclusive thought and all other thoughts exclusive. This is how the word Hindu evolved to distinguish the exclusive Abrahamic thoughts from Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma. The name was meant not so much to distinguish Hindu Dharma from others as it was to distinguish the newly emerged exclusive thoughts from the inclusive Hindu Dharma.

Secular India’s allergy to ancient India
In secular India, where anything associated with ancient India is viewed with suspicion as communal and unfriendly to secular way of life, the definitions of what constitutes Hindu, Dharma, Hindu Dharma and Hindutva are rendered contentious by the secular polity that is largely defined and directed by vote banks. Nevertheless, as politics penetrates every aspect of life including the impenetrable institution of family, any discussion on the socio-cultural life of a nation, particularly a nation like Bharatvarsh, which has an unbroken, though disturbed, tradition of thousands of years, is a complex and demanding one. More so because our nation has drifted away from public domain; it has been preserving its core life style stealthily for hundreds of years under alien rule, and has continued its stealthy living for five decades even under the independent indigenous rule. The task is even more difficult, because any discussion on understanding the core values of our ancient life represented by Hindu Dharma has to be carried out in a situation that is confounded by such drift and stealthy living. What was and is even now original to the Hindu people has become a hidden virtue; the Hindus have lost the confidence to openly live with it because of secular India’s explicit and institutionalised allergy to traditional India. Yet Hindu Dharma is the core of India’s tradition.

Proper understanding of India’s traditional values represented by the concept ‘Dharma’ requires a dispassionate discussion on the socio cultural life of this ancient nation, uninhibited by the politics of the day. Traditional India is largely the product of Hindu Dharma. The concept of secularism evolved in the mono-religious Christendom. As a result of the misapplication of this Christian concept to the multi-religious Hindu Dharma, which does not distinguish between different faiths and accepts all faiths, the Hindu Dharma was itself equated to the exclusive Abrahamic faiths. This has made an understanding of the meaning of Hindu Dharma even more difficult.

Secularism is a concept evolved within Christianity; it was never designed to handle a multi-religious situation. Only the Hindu tradition, and certainly not Christian secularism, has accepted and handled a situation where multiple religions are accorded validity. This fact has not been internalised in the understanding of secularism in free India. We have refused to understand that outside the history and geography of India there is no multi-religious social, cultural and political matrix which can be presented as a benchmark for this ancient nation. We have tried, incorrectly and inappropriately, to make the secularism of Christendom as benchmark for this ancient nation’s modern polity. Consequently, understanding of different elements of ancient India has been rendered difficult in modern conditions, conditions for which the rules have been laid by Christendom.

Dharma, Hindu, and Hindu Dharma
To understand Hindu Dharma one has to be clear about the meaning of the word Hindu and also the import of what Dharma means. Both words are difficult to define, but the word “Dharma” is even more difficult to comprehend, particularly in English. This is a word that the ordinary people of this country understand and apply in their day-to-day life, but it is difficult for even scholars to properly define for scholarly discussion. For, Dharma is based on experience, rather than explanation. For the intellectual, explanation is more important than experience; and, for the ordinary, experience is more important than explanation.

If the word ‘Hindu’ signifies the collective identity of the people of this ancient land, than their experience of the world and life enshrined in a continuously evolving belief system approximates to the idea of Hinduism. The Hindu experience, or Hinduism, is the longest known and living continuity in the world. And perhaps the most chequered one. The Hindu tryst with humans – why? – with all living creatures, and with nature and in fact the entire creation, has been a fascinating story of a civilisation that grappled with the complexities of humans and of the creation as whole on a practical plane.

This civilisation had the wisdom to let the accumulated human experience to handle current human problems, even as it firmly believed that the eternal values of creation would continue to guide the destiny of humans. The Hindu understanding of the world is conditioned by the Hindu experience of nature and the propensities of humans; and the immutable laws of nature as translated into continuously evolving rules of life in observable form were called ‘Dharma’.

This in brief is the story of the endogenous evolution of the Hindu society. But the discussion cannot be limited to the endogenous evolution alone. We also have to deal with the exogenous factors that impacted and are continuing to impact on the body, mind and intellect of the Hindu society.

Hindu Dharma – a non-combative socio-cultural view intertwined with politics and economics
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, one of the well-known thinkers of Independent India, repeatedly asserted, in his profound exposition of ‘Integral Humanism’, that human life is integral. No aspect of life is autonomous, or compartmental. This is true both at the micro and at the macro level. In fact, this integral nature is not limited only to the humans. It extends to the whole of the creation. Pandit Upadhyaya refers to the integration of the Vyashti, the individual, Samashti, the collective, and the Parameshti, the creator. There is integral relationship in the creative processes; and this applies particularly to the relationship between humans and nature. Given this integral relationship, and even limiting it to humans only, the politico-economic life of a nation cannot be divorced from its social and cultural life.

Socio-cultural behaviour of the people impacts and shapes the economic and political construct of a nation. Economic and political dimensions in turn have a vital bearing on the socio-cultural evolution of a society. The modern world moves on economic theories and econometrics. Every decision, concerning political, diplomatic or security aspects, is linked to economics. Yet even the die-hard west-centric economic and social thinkers feel that there is something like a ‘20% missing link’ in economics. What is that missing link? That is culture. Culture is the uniqueness in the personality of a society. It is inextricably mixed with economics. And economics interfaces politics. Therefore there is an inseparable linkage between society, culture, economics and politics. Not only are they interdependent, they exert enormous mutual influence. It is admitted that economics influences culture. But culture influences economics more than economics influences culture. Therefore any analysis of socio-cultural life will have to factor-in economic and political dimensions as well.

As a faith, Hinduism is inclusive, and inner-directed. It does not impose itself on its own adherents. So no question of its imposing itself on others arises. This principle of life has been observed and unfailingly put into practice by the inhabitants of this land since time immemorial. That was why they could receive invading Sakas and Hunas and assimilate them and integrate them into their society. That was why they could receive the Jews, Parsis, Shia Muslims and the early Christians – all of whom came as refugees, with their thoughts and beliefs orphaned in their own lands – and treat them as equal members of this ancient society. There was no modern constitution that guaranteed rights to minorities then; there were no secularists to protect them from the majority. It was the majority inhabitants, seeped in their Hindu Dharma, who protected them. The non-conflicting nature of Hindu Dharma is not just a matter of theory, but an observed practice that has been followed and adhered to for ages.

Hindutva – the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma
Hindu Dharma represents the potential energy of the Indian people. But without the manifestation of that potential energy in it active form, it was unable to gather together its adherents to face the challenges. Hindutva is the kinetic aspect of Hindu Dharma. Hindu Dharma or Hinduism was never organised. Nor was it organisable. Organisation and Hinduism were contradictory terms. A thought which accepted all other thoughts as valid, which found fault with none and demeaned and discredited none, can never be organised, because organisation is always motivated to build strength around a thought against another. If there is no ‘other’ thought and all thoughts are acceptable and valid then there is no need to organise. This was the strength of Hinduism or Hindu Dharma. It did not need an organisation, and it was incapable of being organised.

But when it was faced with the onslaught of the Abrahamic faiths which rejected other thoughts, considered their followers as kafirs and heathens, and denied them even the right to live, Hinduism slowly assumed a kinetic form. Hinduism had to acquire this form to secure its defence against the thoughts that used physical might against Hinduism. This is how Hinduism, which had internal kinetic dimensions that led to continuous evolution and to change with continuity, and which did not need any external kinetics, began to develop external kinetics as defence against the thoughts that sought to extinguish it.

That was how Chatrapathi Shivaji thought of and was motivated to establish a Hindavi Swarajya; this was an unprecedented departure from the traditions of the Hindu nation. Never in the history of Hindus was there a kingdom which had a religious connotation or implication. In fact, the Hindu concept of RajaDharma protected the desachara of even the conquered people; it made it obligatory on a conquering king to respect the beliefs and life-style of the conquered people. Thus the victory or defeat of kings did not mean any impact on or change in the life-style or beliefs of the people. But, since the Abrahamic faiths were powered by the state and the army, to defend itself Hindu Dharma also had to manifest an external kinetic form that allowed it to take defensive counter-actions. Over the years such counter action became the kinetic force of the Hindu society, and come to be known as Hindutva. Hindutva is the kinetic aspect of Hindu Dharma. For an unorganised thought like Hinduism, this kinetic aspect is necessary; without Hindutva, the kinetic force inherent in Hinduism, Hinduism was incapable of saving itself from the aggressive Abrahmic faiths. Those aggressive faiths would have long overrun Hindusim, if it were not protected by Hindutva.

The transition of Hinduism to its kinetic form Hindutva
An introductory background to the modern theoretical understanding of Hinduism or Hindutva is essential for any discussion on reinstating Hindutva in the socio-cultural life of Bharatvarsh. This takes us to a discussion on what constitutes Hindutva as it might be understood through the exposition of scholars and literature which the modern world and the modern Hindu are familiar with. As the modern Hindu and the world at large are the principal factors that need to be tackled – the ordinary Hindu is already in tune with the concept of Hindutva in his total lifestyle – this discussion is focussed on the more recent and modern understanding of Hindutva. It is focussed on Hindutva as it is defined outside the intellectual process of the Hindutva movements; but this definition is not very different from the understanding of Hindutva within the Hindu movements.

‘Hindutva’, ‘Hinduness’ and ‘Hinduism’ are not independent but interchangeable concepts. The statesman-philosopher, Dr S. Radhakrishnan, said in his lectures at the Oxford University that originally the word Hindu had geographical, not creedal, significance. It signified the geographic identity of Bharat, the identity of the people in a particular geographic area, that is, Bharatvarsh; the term did not signify any particular faith or method of worship. Hindu was the name of the people of Bharatvarsh, the national identity of Bharat. Even in the sense of a faith, Hinduism is unlike Semitic religions, particularly Islam and Christianity, which have a global agenda to Islamise or Christianise the world, which means converting the adherents of other faiths and beliefs and eliminating those faiths. The goal is not denied. It is only the means and the methods that are in dispute or debate. The Hindu view is in direct contrast to this Semitic mission.

The best definition for Hinduism is given not by any scholar on Hinduism, but the one contained in Encyclopaedia Britannica, a compilation that perceives the world from a Christian standpoint. On Hinduism, the Encyclopaedia says:
In principle Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – to whatever creed and worship practices suit them the best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers compliment each other for the well being of the world and the mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable. The core of the religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of the God or whether there is one God or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is then both a civilisation and a conglomerate of religions with neither a beginning, nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or organisation.
Quoting this from the encyclopaedia, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in 1977 that Hinduism is a non-conflicting religion. Later, when the political idiom of India began to be influenced by Hindu Dharma through the kinetics of Hindutva, the Supreme Court had to consider the meaning of Hindutva. After considering the meaning and content of Hinduism and Hindutva, the Court held in 1994 that Hindutva, the kinetic effect of Hinduism, too is a non-conflicting and secular idea. So conceptually and practically, Hindutva, which is the kinetic effect of Hindu Dharma, is a non-conflicting idea. And so it has been in history and in practice. The Hindavi Swaraj of Chatrapathi Shivaji is the first state that adhered to Hindu Dharma. Otherwise it was the general rule of Rajadharma which was the governing rule of this land. The addition of the world Hindu as a prefix to the rule of Shivaji was in response to the Islamic theological rule which had devastated the Hindu land everywhere.

Strength as weakness: Inability to handle a faith that denies validity to other faiths

That it is non-conflicting in precept and practice is the distinctness of Hindutva. It is its differentiating uniqueness, its strength, and also its weakness, particularly in its interface with Islam and Christianity. In the Christian view, Hindutva is a pagan idea. Paganism everywhere collapsed in the face of Christianity, because it did not know how to deal with a faith that denied the foundations of all faiths other than its own. Analysing why the Roman Empire and Roman Paganism collapsed under the onslaught of Christianity, Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
Christianity consistently practiced an intolerant attitude to Judaism and paganism as well as heresy in its own ranks. By practising its intolerance vis-à-vis the Roman Emperor cult, it thereby forced the Roman Empire on its part into intolerance. Rome, however, was not adapted to the treatment of a religion that negated its religious foundations, and this inadequacy later influenced the breakdown of paganism. [Vol. 4. page 492]
It is not just the fate of Roman paganism; all pagan religions collapsed the same way before the onslaught of Christianity. Pagan religions were unfamiliar with a religion like Christianity, which negated the foundations of all other religions. Till Christianity arose on the horizon, no religion negated the foundations of another religion. It is only Christianity which introduced the idea of a religion rejecting another religion and claiming to be the true religion. Even Judaism, even though it claimed to be the only religion, did not invalidate or negate other religions. It is this proselytising element of Christianity, which makes it essentially intolerant and violent.

Hinduism is similar to the pagan religions as it does not negate the foundations of other religions, and in fact accepts all other religions. Therefore, like the Roman pagan religions, Hinduism must also have been a candidate for collapse; but it did not collapse. Why Hinduism did not collapse has stunned the forces inimical to it. More than theological foundations, it is the socio-religious structure of Hinduism that protected it. Its defences were too complex for any armed or ideological aggression of the kind that felled the other pagan faiths. What these defences were, and continue to be, will be discussed at some length later in this article.

While Hindutva did not and will not collapse in the face of Christianity, it has been hurt and hurt grievously in many areas. It is being hurt and injured even now. The Hindu belief that all faiths are sacred human experiences is fundamentally incapable of handling a faith like Christianity, which completely denies validity and legitimacy to any faith other than itself. It is difficult even to make the Hindus imagine that there could be a faith that denied validity to another. This inability persists even today. This is one of the greatest challenges to Hinduism in Bharat.

The Islamic belief in exclusive validity is identical to that of Christianity. But the problems of Hindus in their interface with Islam are even greater. Islam came into Bharat mainly as an invading faith; it was imposed here through statecraft and military, both of which were driven by faith. The interface between Hindutva and Islam has been highly violent. Will Durant says that Islamic invasion of India is the bloodiest invasion in history. The Islamic impact on India led to huge transfer of populations and territories from the Hindus to Islam. First Afghanistan, then Pakistan and Bangladesh, ceased to be part of Bharat, after the people in those societies ceased to be part of the Hindu society.

Thus both Islamic and Christian theologies constitute the mightiest problem and pose the greatest challenge to the Hindus and to Hindutva, to the security and life and culture of the Hindus.

Even a greater problem is posed by the inability of the adherents of Hindutva to believe that a faith could deny and even claim, as a matter of faith, the right to eliminate other faiths. As a result, Hinduism is handicapped in facing the aggressive proselytising thrust of Christianity, which is founded on the premise that Christianity alone has the patented know-how for human salvation, and no other faith is valid. It is handicapped in understanding that the trigger for Islamic terrorism is the very belief that only Islam has the right to exist, and no other faith has such a right.

So the real problem of Hinduism lies in the theology of Islam and of Christianity. The problem is not the Muslims or Christians; not even the organised Church or the Mosque. The problem is their fundamental religious belief that negates other faiths the right to exist. This is where proselytising faiths differ fundamentally from those that do not proselytise. This is where even the Judaic faith, which is part of the Abrahamic family, differs from Christianity and Islam. The Jewish faith is a racial faith; it believes in domination, but not in elimination of other faiths by conversion.

The challenge: The notion among Hindus, even Hindu scholars and leaders, that all religions are of the same nature or have the same goals

The internalised experience of the Hindus over millennia that all religions are same has settled in the genetic code of the Hindus. This was blindly applied to the Semitic religions also when they arrived in India. This is evident from the intellectual and social responses to Judaism, early Islam and early Christianity when they reached the shores of India. This is also partially true of our response to the Parsi religion. But these faiths, when they arrived in India, were refugee faiths, having been driven out from their lands by their enemies or quarrelling cousins, like in the case of Shias who were driven out by their Sunni cousins.

The general truth about these faiths is that they never recognised or shared the Hindu idea of Dharma, which was the common denominator of the multitude of faiths within Hindutva. In fact this was and continues to be an area of unresolved theological conflict between these alien religions and Hindutva. This conflict was less pronounced in the cases of Judaism and Zorastrianism, which were racial religions not open to other races, and which therefore did not insist upon Hindus converting to these faiths. They became like separate castes in Bharat. But this conflict became pronounced and even violent in the case of Islam and Christianity, which entered Bharat as refugee faiths and turned into invading faiths after the Islamic hordes and colonialists entered Bharat.

The violence arose because of the spirit of conversion that was not only inherent in them, but also was ordained as a compulsive trait of a believing Christian or Muslim. Encyclopaedia Britannica records that Columbus set out to sail to India because he believed that Satan, in the form of Hinduism, had taken refuge in India, and further believed that unless this hindrance called Hinduism were to be removed through Christian missions, the impending return of Christ, which was on hand, would be indefinitely delayed. Thus the colonial powers had as much a religious motive as an economic-commercial motive fuelling their urge for expansion. The less said about Islamic invasion of India the better. It was motivated as much by religious fervour as by the desire to loot.

These two proselytising religions are violent by nature, because of the idea and institution of conversion that is inalienable from the core of their faith. The faith in these religions is incomplete unless the faithful simultaneously invalidates and de-legitimises other faiths; hence their hostility to the Kafir and the Heathen; and hence their core institutions of Jihad and Crusade designed to deal with the non-believer in their exclusive faiths.

All this continues to be beyond the comprehension of the Hindu mind. So, even the scholarly Hindus, and Hindu religious leaders, continue to believe that Christianity and Islam are just like our own religions, except that these faiths tend to emphasise their point of view very strongly. The misbehaviour inherent in these religions is attributed to the zealots among them. But the truth is that there is mischief in the very foundation of these religions. So long as religious conversions are inherent and compulsive to a faith, that faith shall be violent to other faiths. To hold the followers responsible for such violence and exonerate the fundamental religious doctrines which preach such violence is a miserable intellectual failure of the Hindus. The misreading of these two religions, of understanding them in the image of Hinduism, is the biggest intellectual and philosophic failure of Hinduism.

Removing this gross misconception from the minds of Hindu religious leaders, scholars, and others is the first and the greatest challenge facing the Hindu society and the Hindu religious leaders and scholars. The Hindu leaders and scholars must study the Islamic and Christian scriptures thoroughly. They must undertake a massive effort to make the Hindus understand the theology of both. They must engage Islam and Chritianity in an open debate so that modern audiences may listen and watch. They must openly question the Christian and Islamic belief that all other beliefs are illegitimate; question their classification of the humans into Faithful and Pagan or Kafir; torment them on what they mean by Jihad and ask them whether Hindus are Kafirs and Heathens.

This alone will throw them on the defensive. Their aggressive pursuit of their religious and political goals can be checkmated only if they are thrown on the defensive. The only thing that will shame them is the public exposure of the narrowness and violence inherent in their faith and theology.

Even many Muslims and Christians do not know how narrow and violent their faiths are. They merely want to differentiate themselves from the Hindus, and for the sake of that differentiation tolerate their own leaders’ intolerance to Hindus and Hinduism. If they come to know that their own faith is the culprit in fomenting violence against the Hindus and Hinduism, their response could be very different.

The Hindu religious and social leaders must also link up globally with the leaders of other non-proselytising faiths. They must strike alliances with Buddhists, with the remaining pagans in Europe, Africa and the Americas who are trying to revive their traditions, and also with the enlightened followers of Semitic religions all over the world, particularly among the Christians who do not agree with the mission of Christianising the world. We should also ally with enlightened sections of Islamic societies in Iraq, Iran and Egypt and with the tribal chiefs of Afghanistan.

The evolution of Hindutva in vote bank based secular polity

Hindu Dharma, which almost got eclipsed in the public domain and went underground in Independent India under the Nehruvian spell, began to assert itself again in the public domain in the late 1980s and early 1990s through the Ayodhya movement.

The secular polity of Independent India had gradually turned into a game of minority appeasement for votes; it had consequently become anti-Hindu. The Ayodhya movement evolved as a corrective to this distortion. The movement brought about massive political changes in the country; it put the pseudo-secular polity, parties and leaders on the defensive. The BJP, with its agenda of Hindutva, became the largest political party in less than a decade and captured power in 1998 as part of a coalition.

Today Hindutva is the mainline thought of the country. Pseudo-secular political parties and their leaders are in the process of giving up secularism to fight elections on the basis of good governance. Politics is in the process of being restored to political parties, which were only appeasing the minorities for votes just a decade ago. Expressing allergy to Hinduism and Hindus had become part of the political process and normal secular ideological expression. But today this style of politics is fetching negative returns.

Now one can disagree with Hindutva, but cannot disregard the Hindus or distance themselves from Hinduism any more. Imagine the government of Kerala extending the rights of minority institutions to the Hindu educational institutions! This would have been unimaginable without the tectonic shift that is taking place in the national polity. The secular political parties are seeking to make a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, implying that Hinduism is good, but not Hindutva. But some reflection would show that Hindutva is only the kinetic manifestation of the dormant potential of Hinduism; it is the defensive force of the only non-conflicting and non-combative religious faith.

Hindutva is no more a marginal idea today. It is now the mainline thought. It is Hindutva that has been setting the agenda for national debate for the past decade and more. The emergence of Hindutva as the mainline thought places special responsibilities on those leading the Hindutva movement. Unlike the minority-led movements which can agitate and go on agitating as perpetual dissenters, unconcerned about governance and the running of the country, the Hindutva movement has the responsibility to ensure that national governance is not affected, whichever party is in power. It is the alienation of the Hindus from the establishment which turned the majority Hindus into dissenters in the decades following Independence. As a result of such alienation the majority of this country never felt that it was in power as Hindus. In fact the very idea of majority rule was defined as opposed to the idea of secularism.

The polity of Independent India prior to the Ayodhya movement and rise of Hindutva had virtually no character. It was a polity that was driven by personalities rather than ideology. The cult of personalities as the centre of politics, without any ideology informing and driving the polity, has almost ended with the ascension of the BJP to power. Whether the ruling BJP asserts its Hindu character or not, whether it owns up to its basis in Hindutva or not, it is always seen as a Hindu force.

With Hindutva emerging as the central focus of the nation and pseudo-secularism getting marginalized, the earlier phase of the marginalisation of Hindutva and Hindus in politics is over. The Hindu movements now will have to reconsider their posture of perpetual dissent, and turn into mainline drives of the country. It is true that the Hindu agenda remains largely unfulfilled. But the Hindu movement has a difficult situation to handle. It cannot agitate and at the same it cannot give up its ideological thrust. Any agitation today is seen as a rift within the Hindu movement. So the Hindu movements need to handle the situation with extreme dexterity and skill.

The need to avoid creating or contributing to create the image of a reactionary intolerant and violent Hindutva, and of the Hindu organisations as the counterparts of Islamic terrorist outfits

Today, when communications have linked the whole world and anyone saying something or any event happening in a remote corner is soon broadcast all over the world, all debates have become global, and so has all opinion making. This is particularly so where the debates concern a nation like Bharat, which constitutes 1/6th of humanity, and which is perceived to be an emerging global player in the economic and strategic fields. It is even more so, when the debate concerns Hindutva in relation to Islam or Christianity, which are global faiths with powerful global lobbies supporting them.

The world suffers from utmost ignorance about Hinduism. The ordinary world sees it as another exclusive faith. Most people in the world do not believe that there can be a religion that grants the validity and legitimacy of other religions. The world is used only to religions that proclaim not only their exclusive validity, but also the falsity of all other religions. Such ignorance pervades those in the media and even many of the intellectuals. Their knowledge of religions is limited, and they treat all of them to be about the same. They tend to understand Hinduism and Hindutva only through their understanding of Islam or at best of Christianity.

The Christian West thinks that all religions other than Christianity are like Islam. They believe that Buddhism is like Islamic extremism, and they find evidence for this belief in the ‘Aum Shirinyo’ phenomenon of Japan. They think that the Hindutva movement in Bharat is the counterpart of Islamic fundamentalist movements in Pakistan or Indonesia or Malaysia. The difference between the Semitic faiths and the Hindu pantheon of faiths is largely unknown to the world, particularly the Western world. Even scholars are unaware of the difference between Hindutva and Islam for instance.

Today it is the media that is informing scholarship and not the other way round. The leaders of the Hindutva movement must understand that the Hinduism and Hindutva are being judged on the analogy of Islam and Christianity. For, to the West, religion means only Islam and Christianity. They understand and judge other religions only on their understanding of these two Semitic faiths.

The profane media-generated opinion, which happens to be mostly incorrect, is a problem for Hindutva and the Hindu organisations. The latter are in danger of being bracketed with Islamic extremist and terrorist organisations. Why go out of India? Even within India the pseudo-secular and left elements always juxtapose Hindu organisations with the Islamic extremist organisations; they always tend to compare and club together a Hindu organisation like Bajrang Dal with the Islamic SIMI. This is a ready trap into which the Hindu organisations and their leaders keep falling repeatedly. In the process Hindutva is being regarded as a cousin of Islamic extremism and Hindu organisations as the mirror-image of Islamic terrorist and extremist organisations.

The leaders of the Hindutva movement must understand that Hindutva is the only thought that lacks global support. Equally it is a thought that has as its adversaries two of the most powerful global thoughts, Islam and Christianity. It requires sound strategy and great skill and dexterity to navigate the Hindutva movement through this maze of global overseeing. The leaders of Hindu organisations need extensive training and deep thinking to undertake this highly demanding enterprise. They must choose words that cannot be faulted; employ the language that cannot be questioned. They must project an image of being the victims of Islamic terror and extremism rather than as their equal or equivalent counterparts. The Hindu organisations must understand that it is only the state that can fight terror with fire. The society can only generate fierce public opinion against terror to enable the government to fight terror freely and without being constrained by the human rights industry, and by the liberals and other intellectual anarchists.

This is an area to which the Hindutva movement and the leaders of the movement need to devote adequate time and attention. They must devise proper strategy. They must develop proper leadership and appropriate tools and language for articulation. For, on them depends the opinion that the world shall form of the Hindutva movements and the view it shall take of Hindutva.

Since global opinion is very crucial to fight Islamic terror, which is a globally linked and globally directed phenomenon, it is necessary for the Hindu organisations to start correcting the distorted opinion created in the past by the omissions and commissions of the Hindutva movement and its leadership. This needs to be attended to immediately on an emergency footing. If need be diverse chosen leaders of the movement will have to travel to important countries in the world, meet opinion-makers within and outside of the national establishments and ensure that the obvious difference between the Islamic and Hindu movements are clearly explained to them, that these differences are clearly etched in their understanding. Now is the time when the world will be receptive to such viewpoints; it was not so two years back. The situation offers a challenge as well as an opportunity.

Hindu Dharma is inherently a global thought: Hence the challenge of factoring Global influences

In the present context, with mass communication invading individuals, families, societies and nations, there is cross-country interface between different cultures, which also influences and impacts national cultures. Today there is an undeniable and unstoppable global influence over national cultures. All over the world there are debates taking place about the consequences of such cross-country influences, about the creeping westernisation of all cultures, about the homogenisation of all cultures into a single global construct. Even within the West there is growing resentment towards the Americanisation of the European culture. Particularly the French feel so. In fact there are debates that points towards emerging global conflicts over culture.

As early as 1994, long before Islamic terrorism struck at the US and the West as intensely as it began doing later, a leading strategic thinker in the US wrote about a possible clash among civilisations driven by Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu religions. This was written in the context of Islamic fundamentalism emerging as the greatest threat to the West. The author perceived a possible future scenario where the West might be raged against all the Rest. He advised the West to come to terms with the Rest in order to avoid large-scale violent clashes.

While this particular scholar spoke of clashes among civilisations defined by religion, another thinker felt that the clashes would indeed arise along civilisational lines, but what defined civilisations was not religion, but technology. According to him there would be clashes among pre-modern, modern and post-modern civilisations, which are deeply differentiated from each other by technology. Thus cultural divide, whether the culture is defined by religion or technology, is increasingly perceived as an important element, perhaps the most important element, in forging and breaking global relationships and alliances.

It is necessary – indeed it is a challenge – to factor global perceptions and development in any socio-cultural or socio-economic study of India. For, India driven by Hindu Dharma is susceptible to global influences more than any other country. This is for a host of reasons, some of which have been suggested by Dr Abdul Kalam, the current President of India. Paraphrasing Dr. Kalam, the reasons for the peculiar susceptibility of India to global influences are: First, India has been a land that was repeatedly invaded and totally colonised land for centuries, and so the colonial hangover distorts its mind. Second, by faith and conviction it has an inclusive and global mind, it believes in vasudhaiva kutumbakam, and so, philosophically, it can never be insular. Third, it has no sense of retaliation and so it cannot reject even those who have in the past harmed it. Fourth, it has greater flexibility in accepting outsiders and so it makes very little distinction between those who are its own and those who are outsiders. [A most striking example of this phenomenon is Sonia Gandhi’s acceptability to the Congress party.] Fifth, it has huge Indian diasporas; the number of Indians outside India is as large as 30 million, with every one of them relating to at least three persons in India as relatives and friends. Lastly, the Indian people account for 1/6th of global population and a country of that size and number cannot remain isolated from the rest of the world. For all these reasons, India is inevitably susceptible to global cultural influences.

India cannot be insulated; therefore, unless India influences the world, the world is bound to influence India. The only way India can neutralise global influence on India is to influence the world and bend it towards its way. This is a huge challenge. Today India’s actual capacity to influence the world is unproven and its potential capacity is suspect. While the world, which means the West, ceaselessly and comprehensively influences Hindu India, there is hardly a matching Indian influence on the world or the West. This is because the main vehicle of Western influences on India in the last century was not the West outside India, but the English-educated elite and the leftists within India. They do the work of the West in India. They influence India towards the Western views and ways. They make India believe that it has nothing worthwhile with which to influence the world and it has every reason to be influenced by the world. They continue to dominate the Indian debate even now. This great challenge too needs to be met.

The response to this challenge lies in establishing an acceptable language and style of communication to get across to the important, vulnerable and critical segment of Hindu society comprising of the English-educated elite. The Hindu leadership must understand that the English-educated population in Bharat is more than the total population of England. It is this segment which controls and handles the levers of power and influence in the society. Their influence over the Indian establishment, including the government, business, finance, media, politics, academics and public discourse in general, is totally disproportionate to their numbers. Their understanding of the real Bharat, its history and traditions, its values and culture, is minimal, and often wrong. Some among them even detest all ideas and things Indian. Following the Western view of gender relationships and under the influence of feminism – which has nearly destroyed the institution of the family in the West – some of them are even apologetic about being women in the normal sense of the term.

These influences are gaining force, and even legitimacy, in the Indian discourse. This has accentuated the tussle between the modern and the tradition in India at various levels; it has influenced everything from discourses in the public domain to quarrels and disputes within families. So the Hindutva movement, that spans a large canvas extending from the traditional mathas to the modern, westernised and even Christianised versions of Hindu organisations like the new spiritual orders, must specially target this English-educated and the partially and fully Westernised. This requires detailed planning and execution.

If the challenge of Westernisation and cultural invasion – which is becoming an issue all over the world, and shall probably be the principal reason for the emerging clash between Islam and the West – can be handled, and even defied and defeated by any society, it is only the Hindu society. Hindutva has the philosophical flexibility and diversity of traditions that allows it to make tradition a part of the present, a part of the immediate context of the individual, without making traditional practices remote or distant. This has been achieved by the Hindu society and the exponents of Hindutva by locating Hindu traditions and beliefs deeply within the filial, local and social contexts.

How to handle the English-educated segment of the Hindus needs to be discussed in detail. But suffice it to say at this stage that this issue is a challenge. It needs to be handled deftly. But, let there be no doubt that it can indeed by handled; Hindutva has the civilisational and cultural resources to handle this challenge.

The main reason for the diffused and confused Hindu identity among the English-educated: Even as we became free, we allowed our minds to remain colonised

One of the principal reasons why India is porous to foreign, to be precise, Western, influences is that after Independence India never even attempted to de-colonise itself. Instead of illegitimatising the colonial rule and invasions and reinstalling the unconquered India, the Indian leadership perpetuated a defeated and colonised India. Far from distancing themselves from the colonial rule, personalities and influences, the rulers of Independent India came to terms with and perpetuated colonial institutions and personalities. Independent India even adorned the last colonial ruler on the highest governmental position of the land.

The Nehuruvian approach rationalised the colonial influences as necessary for national development. When Indian leaders set about rebuilding India after we attained freedom, the Nehruvian approach prevailed over the Gandhian in re-shaping the society, polity and economy of India. The conflict between the Nehruvian and the Gandhian approaches was clearly articulated by the two proponents themselves already in 1928. Pandit Nehru was clear that western culture should dominate India and it could not be avoided. He even charged that Gandhi had virtually kept the nation obsessed with village and khadi. He asserted that Rama Rajya was no good even when Rama reigned. Nor did he want it back. The extent of hostility Nehru displayed had shocked Gandhiji. He found Nehru’s views diametrically opposed to his own views about the future India, where native ways and views of life would dominate and the modern Western ways would be adopted extremely selectively only in unavoidable situations. Finally, it was the Nehruvian views that prevailed, and the Gandhian way was relegated to the margins.

One consequence of this dominance of the Nehruvian approach was that our Independence turned out to be a mere transfer of power, not freedom from the British; Independence came to represent merely a change of the rulers with almost no change in the character of the rule or the attitudes of the rulers to the people of India and to the ideas and things Indian. The Anglo-Saxon values and norms continued to be the soul of the Indian state that came into being after Independence. There was little of indigenous ways in the polity of India following Independence. Whatever was native was made the subject matter of ridicule. Secular India virtually targeted the traditional and religious India. To make matters worse, we took to the socialist form of economy and so whatever tradition remained, that became a prey to the leftist and socialist onslaught.

Thus, the divide between the Indian establishment and the Indian people remained despite Independence, and even widened as independent rule took roots. Consequently the socio-cultural life of Bharat is to day stretched and divided between the two extremes of Anglo-Saxon life-style, institutions and norms on the one hand and the native lifestyle, institutions and norms on the other. This divide is partly explicit and partly hidden. While this struggle has been going on in India since Independence, with the Nehru family directing the debate against the native ways of life, the initiative has been partly wrested by two socio-political mass movements in the late 1980s and early 1990s, namely the Mandal movement and the Ayodhya movement.

What follows from this discussion is that Hindutva is the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma. This form is an evolution dictated by the absence of organised strength in Hindu Dharma. Its evolution was necessitated by the fact that Hindu Dharma had no conflict with other religions and therefore it was non-combative in character. Since Hindu Dharma was non-conflicting and non-combative in nature, it lacked the aggression needed to face the aggressive Semitic faiths that had a global mission to convert the whole world to their faiths. Since Hindu Dharma accepted the validity of all faiths, it could not deny that validity and legitimacy to the Semitic faiths also, despite the fact that they denied not just validity to Hindu dharma, but also theologically denied it the right to exist as a religion.

With these structural weaknesses arising out of its inclusiveness, the adherents of Hindu Dharma evolved over centuries a facet of Hindu Dharma that responded to the onslaught of others; that is how the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma, namely Hindutva, was born. The entire freedom movement was in substance powered by the implicit kinetics of Hindutva.

But free and Independent India, which was hijacked by those who believed in the secularism practised in Christendom, turned the secular Indian allergic to Hindu Dharma. This distortion confounded the mind and polity of India for over four decades.

The Ayodhya movement evolved as a corrective to this distortion and brought balance to the polity of India. Now the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma, Hindutva, is the mainline thought despite the fact that the political idiom of India remains secularist; but the secularism that was practised for the first four decades is not the secularism that is being practiced now. What was once understood as ‘dharmanirapekshata’ or neutrality of the state towards religious faith, which approximated to the Christendom’s view of secularism, is now recognised as ‘sarvapantha samabhava’ or equal protection to all religions, which is the very essence of Hindu Dharma. So the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma, that is Hindutva, has forced a reinterpretation of secularism to make it consistent with the Hindu Dharma.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

How to establish the Hindu Nation

How to establish the Hindu Nation that has Dharma as its foundation?

1.  What is a ‘Hindu Nation’ ?
When we utter the term ‘Hindu Nation’, most people take the meaning as ‘Nation belonging to Hindus’. For that matter, some even take it as a concept put across to the people by a political party to gain political mileage; however, there is not a semblance of politics in the concept of the Hindu Nation. In fact, it is a well-established culture and a system helpful in leading day-to-day life. It will very much be a social arrangement which aims at spiritual evolution of human beings, animals, birds, insects, ants, trees and creepers to the subtlest of creatures. Since God has resolved to set up this arrangement, it can be termed a ‘Divine Kingdom’ as well. A society that is ready for any sacrifice and committed to the progress of the Nation, a duty-bound defence system, a legal system that stands by Truth, a system of governance that is productive and most important, the rulers who are loyal to Dharma, who are patriots and who strive selflessly day and night for the welfare of the society – these are going to be the distinctive marks of the Hindu Nation; and therefore, it is going to be an ideal Nation in the world !
There is Sanskrut adage, ‘द्रष्टा दृश्यवशात् बध्यते ’ (The viewer is tied to the scene in front of him). Accordingly, because of the pollution caused by the present day system of governance that is secular, meaning ‘corrupt, selfish, caste-based and unpatriotic’, the supreme concept of ‘Hindu Nation’ has been eclipsed. The truth that ‘Ramrajya or Divine Kingdom is one where Hindu Nation has come into existence’ is being considered a myth. The ‘Hindavi Swarajya’, meaning, ‘Hindu Nation’ established by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj has been deliberately pushed into oblivion and extreme efforts are being made to paint it ‘green’ under the pretext of terming it ‘secular’. Intentional efforts are being made to spread the belief that ‘Hindu Nation means religious fanaticism’; however, all this is false propaganda. Taking a clue from the Hindu Nations of the past, a prosperous Hindu Nation that will have a strong spiritual and cultural heritage is going to be established. This period is not distant. In the next 15-20 years, the Hindu Nation that will give a glimpse of the Divine Kingdom will be established.
When there are no incidents that give a ray of hope of establishment of the Hindu Nation, speaking about the Hindu Nation will appear to many as an exaggeration; however, Saints who can look into the future have already sensed the bright tomorrow. Making efforts in that direction is our sadhana (Spiritual practice) or duty unto Dharma.

2.  The need for establishing the ‘Hindu Nation’
These days, it has become a fashion to eulogize (sing the praises of) a secular Government. One is forced to say that this praise they shower is due to the wrong notions about Dharma they have or their intellect getting tainted due to their anti-Dharma (unrighteous) behaviour. In modern terminology, what we term ‘Rashtrarachana (Organisational structure of the Nation)’ has been referred to as ‘Dharmasansthapana (Instating Dharma)’ in Sanskrut. Taking all aspects into consideration, Dharmasansthapana of this nature, meaning, establishing the Hindu Nation, is very much needed in the present circumstances.
2 A. From the perspective of difficulties faced by the Nation : Today, even after thousands of years, people remember ‘Ramrajya’; simply because it had Dharma as its foundation. As a result, the subjects then were cultured, happy and content. ‘During the reign of Shriram, grief, sorrow were unheard of’, this is how Maharshi Valmiki has described Ramrajya in the ‘Yuddhakand’ of Ramayan. We have a secular Government in Bharat today, and as a result, we find that sorrow, poverty and misdemeanours are on the rise everywhere. Instability arising out of terrorism, naxalism and crime, conversion of Hindus by other sects, destruction of temples and violence, step-motherly treatment to Hindus by the Government, impotency that Hindus have developed in the form of sarvadharma-samabhav (Equal regard for all religions) through overindulgence in Gandhian principles and the pollution caused by modern science – this is the true state of our Bharat. Since Hindus get no formal education on Dharma, they blindly follow western culture. The fact is, Hindus themselves are the cause of large scale harm to Hindu Dharma. The Divine language Sanskrut and the Sattva-predominant regional languages that have been derived from Sanskrut are on their death bed, and English is being heaped everywhere with undeserving praise. All this is a consequence of the ‘secular’ (meaning unrighteous) form of Bharat’s Government. It does not have the support of the Sattva-predominant Hindu Dharma. Hence, from the perspective of ending the problems faced by the Nation, establishing a form of governance that has Dharma as its foundation, has become the need of the hour.
2 B. Establishing the Hindu Nation is a necessity not just for the Hindus, but for entire mankind the world over : Establishing the Hindu Nation is a necessity not just for the Hindus, but for entire mankind the world over. No doubt, Bharatiya citizens are going to benefit from the Hindu Nation (meaning the ideal Nation). Additionally, the fact that it is going to make the spread of Dharma throughout the world easy, the population around the world will learn about Spirituality and spiritual practice. This will help them in their spiritual evolution. It will generate a Sattva-predominant atmosphere in the world and entire mankind will become happy.
2 C. From the perspective of world peace : Sanatan Hindu Dharma teaches how to imbibe the highest values. It is a Dharma with indigenous tolerance. Therefore, it is benevolent for the world. To be able to continue living on earth, it is tolerance and not violence that is essential. That is why, the existence of Hindu Dharma is essential. Only if Hindu Dharma lasts, all will survive. There will be peace everywhere in the world and this noble aim will be achieved.
3.  Who is the founder of the Hindu Nation ?
3 A. Nation-building is not the work of politicians : First and foremost, it should be firmly understood by us that it is impossible for the present day power hungry politicians to contribute to Nation-building; because Nation-building is a scientific process and only Truth can prevail there. While contemplating on this concept, the extent to which we accept defects such as falsehood and ignorance (knowingly or unknowingly), the structure will be weak and incomplete proportionately. Modern day politicians have a single agenda – to get and retain power. He who does not think of getting the power to rule the centre, can never be a politician in today’s context. There is a vast difference between Nation-building and such politics. Nation-building decides the place of the rule, purpose and limitations.
3 B. Only Hindus who abide by Dharma can establish the ‘Hindu Nation’
3 B 1. Importance of abiding by Dharma :  Nation-building requires expansive analytical intellect to understand the prevailing circumstances and to work for the welfare of the Nation with foresight. Abiding by Dharma, meaning, performing spiritual practice helps in developing an analytical intellect; hence, devout Hindus should commence abiding by Dharma.
3 B 2. Only Hindus who abide by Dharma are true revolutionaries : Attracted towards moral (Spiritual) ideals, if a Hindu leads a moral (Spiritual) life, meaning, abides by Dharma, he is a revolutionary in the true sense. Only if leaders and their followers, who are interested in bringing about a revolution, are morally (Spiritually) inspired, they will be able to bring about a revolution. In short, if the modern revolutionaries are inspired to lead a life based on Dharma, then and only then, a Dharma-based revolution for the establishment of the Hindu Nation will be successful.
4. Elements in the mission of establishing the Hindu Nation
4 A. Education on Dharma : If Hindus are given education on Dharma, they will abide by Dharma. Abiding by Dharma will give them spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences will enhance their faith in Dharma. This faith in Dharma will improve their pride in Dharma. The pride in Dharma will enhance unity among the Hindus. Unity among Hindus will generate security, and it is from here that the Hindu Nation will be created and nurtured. In nut shell, education on Dharma is the foundation for establishment of the Hindu Nation.
4 B. Awareness about Nation and Dharma : Harm is caused to Hindu Dharma and Nation through various mediums because Hindu society is not awakened and sensitive to such issues. So long as there is no awareness about the adverse conditions of the Nation and Dharma or the harm caused to them among Hindus, they will not be sensitive towards the needs of the Nation and Dharma. A society that is not sensitive towards the Nation and Dharma will not be able to contribute towards the establishment of the Hindu Nation. Therefore, we will have to undertake the mission of enlightening Hindu society very effectively.
4 C. Protection of the Nation and Dharma : An awakened Hindu society spontaneously protects the Nation and Dharma. Big-small Hindu organisations, which are loyal to Dharma, participate in the mission of protecting the Nation and Dharma at the physical level; whereas, intellectuals and Hindu Periodicals do the same at the thought level. This mission is not to be handled individually. If it is handled unitedly, it can become more effective. Various Hindu organisations can have different priorities. For example, cleaning of River Ganga, protecting cows etc. Unrighteous rulers are the fundamental reason for the harm that has been caused to the Nation and Dharma; hence, to protect the Nation and Dharma, entirely eliminating political parties that are traitors to the Nation and Dharma, should be our eventual aim. If this is achieved, there will not be any need to take care of all minute aspects, meaning, the difficulties associated with Hindu Dharma.
4 D. Helping the society : Some might ponder over why is it necessary to undertake various projects to help the society; while some might already be participating in such projects. The objectives are :
1. To bring about unity among the constituents of the society, winning its trust is important. Trust can be won only when we share their moments of happiness and sorrow, and help them.
2. Although we are supporters of Hindu Dharma, we continue to remain an integral part of the Hindu society. Therefore, it is our duty to do something constructive for this society; however, through whatever plans we implement for the society, we should ensure that through them, awareness about Dharma and protection of Hindus is affected.
With the view to help the society, we can take up activities such as first-aid training, cleaning of temple premises, cleaning of villages, checking patients etc. Such activities will increasingly be complementary to Hindutva. When the actual revolution essential for establishing the Hindu Nation will commence, this society will transform into Hindu-power and support with determination. The projects meant for helping the society have so much importance !
5.  Comprehensive Dharmakranti is the ultimate way for establishing the Hindu Nation
You might be acrid or moderate, intellectuals or performers, you might have or not have knowledge of law, a day will certainly arrive when all of us will have to support this revolution; because the power-hungry politicians in Democracy will never hand over the charge of the Nation to us on their own. We will have to achieve it by way of a revolution. We will have to start a nationwide revolution at the appropriate time.
‘Kranti (Revolution)’ means having the emotion and desire to change for a better state. Kranti does not mean only bomb blasts or violence. It is the process of psychological change taking place at the same time in the society. Revolution is a fundamental human right. Bomb blasts are an attempt to revolt by one or two individuals, and it is against the Constitution; but when millions of people around the Nation come together to change for better, it is termed a ‘National revolution’ (from the Nation’s perspective). We have to generate this kind of atmosphere of change all over the country.
5 A. Dharmakranti is not a mere revolution, it is an evolution (Utkranti)  : Revolution is like a gale storm that completely destroys everything, meaning, old values, old attitudes, old organisations and old establishments. Instead of creation there is more destruction. We do not expect this kind of revolution. It is quite evident from history and traditions of Bharat, that our sentiments are appropriate for evolution rather than for revolution, renaissance rather than living in accordance with it. Revolution and evolution, renaissance and life have a basic difference.  Evolution and renaissance depend on life. They do not destroy life or anything else, but let it survive.
We call the creation of Satyayug evolution (Utkranti), meaning, ‘Ramrajya’. Establishment of the ‘Hindu Nation based on Dharma (Ramrajya) will be our evolution.’
6.  Hindu Nation – Time-table of establishment

2012 to 2015 (4 Years)
Uniting Hindus for establishing the Hindu Nation
2016 to 2019 (4 Years)
Comprehensive Dharmakranti with the help of united Hindus
2020 to 2022  (3 Years)
Learning governance based on Dharma
2023 to 2025 (3 years)
Establishment of the real Hindu Nation

7.  A golden page in the establishment of the Hindu Nation
While working for the establishment of the Hindu Nation, leaders of Hindu organisations and their volunteers should pronounce aloud, ‘Hindu Nation is my birth right and I shall have it !’ We cannot afford to stop thinking that no one is with us to establish the Hindu Nation. We have to put in as much effort as is possible. For this, we have to remember 2 lines of a poem written by Rabindranath Thakur, which say, ‘If no one responds to your call, go ahead on your own’. That the Hindu Nation will be established is an undisputed fact as per the times, and organisations like Sanatan Sanstha are taking care of the fight at the spiritual level essential for achieving this goal. All said and done, this historical mission is going to be accomplished through the medium of Hindu organisations only. To make our medium stronger, all of us will have to work for it. Let the golden page in the annals of history of the establishment of the Hindu Nation based on Dharma be written through the medium of this convention; this is a prayer unto the Holy feet of  Shrikrushna !

Namaskar !

Sabhar from Hindu Janajagriti samiti, an org of Sanatan Santha