Goody Two Shoes - A mediacrooks report

Goody Two Shoes

(This is a MaxiPost)

India and Pakistan aren’t exactly at war but they aren’t “bitter friends” either. Still, if the Army Heads of the two countries ran into each other at some international event or an international meeting of military heads it is natural that they will be cordial and courteous to each other. And they may shake hands too. But what would you think of our Army Chief if he is frequently at parties and functions with his Paki counterpart, laughing, joking and having drinks? You would obviously wonder if the guy is serious about his commitment to the Indian Army and Jawans. It may not be the best judgement but people are often known by the company they keep.  A Shekhar Gupta or Bachi Karkaria in the company of Tarun Tejpal wouldn’t alarm us. They are natural mafia-friends. So why would our media go nuts if Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif run into each other at multilateral meets like SAARC or UN? Their obsession with a failed state and its PM can only be “motivated” by forces other than common sense. I believe Pak is a nuisance and hindrance to the progress of SAARC (or to the progress of anything). Let’s read a bit of what TheJaggi has to say:

“India needs to downgrade SAARC to a mere talk-shop, and focus instead on bilateral deals with the rest, excluding Pakistan. The only reason SAARC exists is to give the members an appearance of amity; the only reason it cannot be shut down completely is because it gives China an opening to create its own South Asian Forum by excluding India… Pakistan has been a virus in the circuits of SAARC for as long as one can remember. As this NDTV report today (26 November) suggests, in the current summit as many as three agreements - two for improving road and rail connections and a third for integrating the power grids so that SAARC countries can trade in electricity – will be junked as Pakistan has said nein. And Pakistan is placing roadblocks because it wants to force India to start talking and do a deal on Kashmir – which is impossible. Apart from resuming talks without purpose, there is no way to make a deal on Kashmir without further vivisection – which is not acceptable to India”.

Yet, Pak’s “useful idiots” in India like Barkha Dutt, Sudheen Kulkarni, S. Varadarajan & Co and even the high-decibel ranters on TimesNow have reduced every international meet to a Pakistan and Nawaz Sharif chorus. Their juvenile obsession with this Pak nonsense blacks out every other good thing that India may be achieving with other neighbours. There has to be a reason. Some of these “useful idiots” have to be ISI-funded or Fai-fighters:

Even in these comic bursts they aren’t really seeking anything other than to poke holes into the Modi-Sarkar and waiting around the corner for a major gaffe to happen. They were trashing BJP when it was in the Opposition and they are trashing it now when it is the ruling party. Nothing changes. NaMo doesn’t have too many friends in the media (or even in his own party or Opposition). A majority of them are sworn to bitch about him all their lives. They coin terms according to their convenience for veiled and subtle nonsense as this tweet and a response to it shows:

I have added “more” to the tweet above as the word appears to have been missed out. So “Soft separatism” is the new invention. It does not occur to Radiagirl that people can also be absorbed into the mainstream process with the condition of shunning all kinds of separatism. But for her and her media-mafia to thrive, some level of conflict has to exist. This is what Modi-Sarkar has to watch for in the media and I am sure his media cell or whatever is observing this but some of the signals coming from his govt are quite bizarre. There is, however, acknowledgement from some that the media’s out-dated games are not fooling people anymore:

Because the BJP is seen as a party of the Hindutva agenda the media and the Sickulars and their cronies will trash and blow up anything beyond proportions. That’s what they did with the Sadhvi Niranjan episode. After the recent terror-attack in Kashmir in which 11 Jawans were killed Commies like Sitaram Yechury and Rashid Alvi of Congress want Modi Sarkar to start talks with Pak. That is like they want to reward a rapist with a harem. Yechury, member of the #65traitors, says in Parliament “Forget black money, we must bring back PM to India”. As a sarcastic remark that is fine but what do these morons imagine? Let’s see, the BRICS meeting in Brazil was organised by Modi for a joyride? The UNGA was organised by him? The SAARC meeting was organised by him? The ASEAN meet was organised by him? But the anti-India forces will continue to attempt creating untruthful perceptions as they have done for over 60 years. But the BJP has been voted to power, with a clean majority, precisely to change these fake perceptions and do so boldly. They have been voted for change. Decisive change and not Incremental fallacies!

The time for BJP’s ministers and its members to compare their actions or statements on issues with the Congress is over. Congress is the lowest standard of politics and country-management besides being anti-Hindu, a terror-sympathiser and genetically corrupt. And changes need tough decisions. People would be more willing to swallow bitter pills in the first year of a new govt than in the last year. But it seems that everyone from Modi to the last motley minister in the new govt just wants to be “nice”. Or maybe they want to “appear” to be nice to everyone. Just like the Army Chiefs in the first para, it is okay to be cordial and courteous with politicians across the spectrum. After all politicians are a community and need not be enemies. But you cannot frequently sleep with those you should be prosecuting and claim you are bringing change. In particular, politicians cannot be bedmates of media crooks and vice versa. Any journalist who is in bed with politicians is clearly the public’s worst enemy. All the top media celebs have enriched themselves by sleeping with politicians and the establishment. The rouges naturally inspire such cartoons:

If there are BJP ministers or party members blabbering some nonsense every week then there are ministers who go one step further. Arun Jaitley is in some event or forum almost every week. He went on a TV Yatra with his Black Money crap. He then attends a show with P Chidambaram, the guy Jaitley should be prosecuting for various offences (with his son Karthi PC). PC is known as the “friend, father and philosopher” of black money. That’s the company Jaitley keeps. What is the message you’re sending to people? Not just that, he launches a book by a scumbag:

It is alright for a minister to launch a book by anyone – journalist, industrialist or artist. But why would you launch a book by Rajdeep Sardesai, one of the biggest crooks and scumbags in the media? A roll-call of Rajdeep’s significant accomplishments that landed him a Padma Shri by the Congress – Lies about Gujarat 2002, abusing Modi for a decade and abusing the general public along with his partner and being a boot-licker of Congress. Added spice includes – suppressing the Cash4Votes scam on instructions of the Congress, abusing Indians on foreign soil and roughing up a visitor to the PM’s public function in New York. You want to be seen with this scumbag and launch his book? What does it say about your commitment to those who supported you against scoundrels like Rajdeep? Still, a book launch is nothing to scream about but it seems to be a disease with the TV-hugging morons of BJP as this pic shows:

Nothing wrong in Nitin Gadkari sharing a public platform with Prithviraj Chavan but he too wants to be “nice” in launching the book by a scumbag. What is such ass-licking for? No one suggests vendetta or revenge but what are the signals this motley crew of ministers sending out? Every day one of the BJP ministers is on TV with some event or the other. How serious are you about your job? Devendra Phadnavis was hardly CM for a month and the first thing he did was go on a TV Yatra on all the major channels. And he was also busy with media events in his first month with the HT Summit crap with Barkha Dutt. What kind of CM is this? He came with the reputation of a good performer but the moment he is in power he is sending all the signals of a Pappu. “Winners get busy with business…. Losers rush to the media”.

Wait! Two ministers launching the same book wasn’t enough. The Johny-come-lately in the Central Cabinet couldn’t resist. Manohar Parrikar too was launching Rajdeep’s book at some LitterFest. Only a failed writer and a failing book would need so many launches over and over again (Rajdeep also had a Patnaik-launch in Odisha). What does it say of a so-called journalist when he wants politicians to launch his book? And what does it say of the politicians when they line up to launch the same book repeatedly? This is nothing but mutual ass-licking of the worst kind. Modi once taunted Sheila Dikshit as a “Ribbon-cutting-CM”. How exactly are his ministers any different? They’re not just busy with ribbon-cutting but these Johnies are cutting the same ribbon over and over again. Parrikar, in particular, cut a sorry figure and attended the silly event on a day that 11 Jawans were killed by terrorists in Kashmir:

It didn’t stop there. Parrikar later made a statement that the fight against terror will continue:

To be continued… ? I am sure Parrikar means well but how is that any different from the statements of the Congis? “Cowardly act, dastardly attack, attack on democracy, India will not bow to terrorists, strongly condemn”… Blah Blah! Statements are fine but people do want to see some action, they are tired of words. Nobody is suggesting go to war or bomb Pakistan. Surely, there must be other ways to retaliate. Stop trade with Pak; evict all Paki squatters from India. Where is the brains trust of BJP with any new idea to combat this menace? This menace has been so chronic that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have an “Anti-terror Ministry” to focus on it. There may be many things being done which may not be available to the public but people do wish to see some action. On TimesNow, the morons keep screaming with a hashtag #IndiaFightsBack. Really? How exactly is India fighting back? 11 Jawans and 9 civilians killed by 6 terrorists. That’s a fightback? A fightback is when a country hits back and pushes terror operators and grinds them to dust. Soldiers dying in “defence” cannot always be a fightback. This jingoism will not help Jawans who keep dying for no reason at the hands of terrorists or Left extremists within India. Modi too praised the dedication of our soldiers but people are asking questions about politicians:

People want change and people want to see a change in public discourse. The BJP spokies are diseased with FEAR. They believe that if they don’t go to silly TV debates their opponents will run away with the issue or score points over them. On the contrary, the more you are seen on TV the more the people’s revulsion for you. And if TV debates held any meaning BJP wouldn’t be in power at the Centre and in the many States they recently won. Choose the debates and appearances carefully. Not all issues need a debate on TV and the BJP ministers and spokies need not feed the nonsense of the media orgasms. This may be a mutual game for politicians and the media but ordinary people do recognise the foolishness:

It’s not just ordinary people on social media; even your humble neighbour-hood Auto-wallah doesn’t miss the point. He reminds himself every minute with a sticker “I hate news channels – Big Liars”:

In a media interaction Arun Shourie says ‘Modi may be an agent of change, but he has to reshape an entire ocean’. A little excerpt from his interaction reads as under:

“So the reform has to be much deeper. When people assume office, they forget how deeply the system has to be changed. They get surrounded by an impenetrable fog of self-satisfaction. And media makes the fog more dense. Their photographs are everywhere. The industrialist says you are ‘almighty’s gift to us’. I am told secretaries have started speaking this way. They think change has already come. Our job is to keep them awake”.

In his campaign Modi had stated repeatedly that the difference in the 2014elections was that people not only wanted to throw out a non-performing, corrupt govt but they want the corrupt punished. His govt and his ministers are hardly giving any signs of punishing the corrupt. Nobody is expecting any miracles but at the same time nobody expected the cavalier conduct of Modi’s ministers or their frivolous penchant for the media. Nobody expects Modi Sarkar to be indulging in vendetta but nobody wants the govt to be “nice” to the corrupt.

On a different note, the Opposition agitated in Parliament and Sadhvi Niranjan quickly apologised for her “Haramzada” comment. The Opposition got it too easily without having to agitate some more. The BJP wanted to play the “Nice guys”. Since they got the apology all too easily and tasted blood, the rag-tag Opposition continued to agitate for a censure motion and kept demanding her resignation. They continued the blockade of parliament over the issue. They get the apology and then gloat that the PM is on the “defensive” as does the media. There is no problem with the apology but if you concede too easily then they will want to score even more with their continuing agitation and demands. The stalemate ended with the RS Chairman’s appeal to all MPs to be civil in their language. Absurd drama!

Little Miss Margery Meanwell went through most of her life with one shoe till a rich man gave her a pair. So she went around town telling everyone she now had two shoes. She grew to be a good woman and married a rich widower. She earned the nickname “Goody two shoes”. The BJP had one shoe, the people gave them two. And now they are running all around telling everyone they have a pair. Nobody voted you to be “Goody two shoes”. 

 

 

 Published by RaviNar in Media crooks .

 

Gujarat: Breaking Rules - Part 2 - An old post

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Gujarat: Breaking Rules - Part 2

True story: Nutcase-1 draws a triangular route on the back of a cocktail napkin at a restaurant and says “Let’s start an airline”. Nutcase-2 responds: “You’re crazy, let’s do it”. That’s strategy for you. That’s how Rollin King and Herb Kelleher started Southwest Airlines. It was the start of the low-cost, no-frills, no-tickets, no seat allotments and no-food, no-appeasement airline. All they served in-flight was Peanuts.
 

It’s the most cheerful airline and the only one to make profits over a long period since starting early 1970s. A story about the airline is, naturally, called NUTS! Their aircrafts were painted as sharks, whales or the American eagle. They broke every established practice and rule of the airline industry. A mission can be shared by many people, Vision is usually of an “individual” nature; it’s rare that two people share the same vision. What does Southwest deliver; just low fares? That’s the tangible part. The intangible, non-visible part is the joy, the “experience”. That experience is what endears an organisation to customers or endears even a politician to citizens. People go back to the same restaurant not just for the food but for the ‘experience’, customers return to the same stores, airlines for the experience.

These people are reading newspapers. That’s not very hard to tell, is it? I can tell you what they’re reading. They’re reading all the poll analysis and predictions. You know, like the ones by Rajdeep Sardesai, Yogendra Yadav, Prannoy Roy or India Today and many other pundits. They are also analysing the GDP figures of all the states, poverty figures of all states. Why all this? Of course, they have to decide who to vote for! That’s what normal people do, don’t they? They sit around and analyse all the figures, manifestos, claims and other stuff put out by the govt and media before they decide who to vote for. No? Well, all that stuff is good for debates and policy making. Ordinary people know it in their gut. Whether the economy is good or bad, they know it in their gut. The same “experience” that draws them back to a restaurant or airline also draws them to a politician or makes them reject him. People feel good at visible development and experience it but they also vote based on the intangible, non-visible experience. The more connected a politician is the better the experience. Narendra Modi knows to connect.

Vision is usually an individual’s or at the most a few. It is therefore unique that a politician could get a good part of the population of his state involved in his vision and mission. This is what Narendra Modi has managed to accomplish. Even the best CMs deliver results but in this century none has managed to get people so involved in his adventure; that of making Gujarat a great state in many respects. How does he do it? Like I said in Part-1 there are two kinds of development; one that is very visible and one that is not. The visible one drives pride and participation, the non-visible one drives experience. Anyone visiting Gujarat is going to talk about the great roads, power supply, Sabarmati river-front and so on. An exception is bimbos who pass for editors of news channels who might also talk about food that has a “religious divide”.

Let’s talk about Sabarmati. People used to once call it Sabar-Matti (Mud) since there was never water in it except monsoon. Now there’s water all year round and that itself is a sight. But did Modi stop there? No... He wanted to paint it like whales and eagles like Southwest. He envisioned a massive river-front project that may now have hotels and other buildings and a great place for people. If not a sea-front, Ahmedabad can have a river-front. This much circulated image of the holy Yamuna and Sabarmati on the net says a lot about the vision of two CMs (Expense figures not vouched for). That’s visible. Sabarmati also provides water for Ahmedabad and other towns. What is not visible is that it has shut down many bore-wells in many towns. Earlier the underground bore hard-water was salty, contained arsenic and in many places had TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) of over 2500. The areas which got municipal water had TDS below 600 which is within permissible levels for drinking water. Yeah… you’re not going to hear about this. This water supply is visible to only those who use it. Even more, the improved quality of water is only experienced and not visible.

I talked about the English language usage being an issue in Part-1. It was poor in Gujarat and affected higher studies, technology and global transactions. Ever heard about action on it? I doubt it. SCOPE (Society for Creation of Opportunity through Proficiency in English) is a project created by Modi. It teaches functional English to students even in Gujarati medium schools, colleges and other institutions, even commercial organisations. The programme is partly paid for by the govt and partly by the participants for students. It is delivered by private partners. Even Rajasthan was considering implementing this. This is not visible, it is experienced. It is felt in the gut! The MSM may have never noticed it but it took the Supreme Court to applaud the PDS system in Gujarat. That’s not visible, that’s an experience. It’s felt in the gut.

There is no free power supply. Farmers too have to pay, at a lower rate. Instead of bleeding the state with free power Modi had sent Babus and teams to various farmer-groups to educate them on better use of power; to use power-saving devices and machines. While the media propaganda machinery will harp on farmer suicides you won’t hear of this. Farmer suicide, when compared to other states, is not that severe and all suicides aren’t farm-related. It’s true, even one suicide is one too many. But the other work is not visible. It’s experienced in the gut. There are many others, the list can go on and on. Vaanche Gujarat is a reading program. Vanbandhu Kalyan is a programme for forest dwellers. Vibrant Gujarat is seen and also experienced. Vibrant Gujarat is a path-breaking initiative that invited visitors and investors. It’s now emulated by many other states. Despite the size of the venture, the last Vibrant Gujarat 2011 wasn’t even covered by media. The haters in the media are like that guest of Mullah Nasruddin.

Mullah Nasruddin had a friend from Delhi visiting him in his small town. He gave him a guided tour of his town in the evening. Mullah showed him the biggest river in town and the guest said: “That’s a river? Any gutter in Delhi would be bigger than that”. A stunned Mullah then took him to the biggest temple where 90% of the people in the village prayed and the guest said: “You call that a temple? Silly! You should see Birla Mandir in Delhi then you’ll know what a temple is”. Dejected Mullah decided not to show him anymore and they went home and had an early dinner. But as they sat outside on the cots Mullah couldn’t help pointing at a big bright full-moon to his friend. The friend from Delhi sniggered: “You call that a moon? You should come to Delhi, you’ll see the largest moon of your life and it shines for everybody not just 90% of people”. Mullah smiled and said “Yes, maybe one day I’ll come to Delhi” and went to bed. So you see, for the Rajdeeps, Barkhas, Sagarikas, Arnabs, Ashotushes, Wagles, Kanwals, Aakar Patels and many others the moon in Delhi is far bigger than the moon in Gujarat. Their blinkered vision cannot and need not be altered. People feel it in their gut.

To the luxury airliners of Delhi this ‘Chaiwalla’ from Gujarat was unacceptable. That he is far more skilled and talented than other politicians is unacceptable. So Modi had to break another rule. He decided to fly low cost. He took to the internet like no politician in Indian history has ever done. He communicated his vision, thoughts, problems of the state, achievements and every issue with people. He took to creating websites, he took to Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, GooglePlus and 3D campaigns. Before they could even say ‘NaMo’, he had built a vast army of followers on the net in India and abroad who spread his messages far and wide. They combated the lies of the MSM and exposed those frequently. MSM could get away with spurious stories for a while in 2002-03 but not later. Every LIAR in the media, NGO and his political opposition today stands exposed. Nobody knew if Modi was Brahmin or ST or OBC. Both NDTV and CNN-IBN made sure everybody knew after the 2007 elections with their special stories on him. Nobody cared. The People of Gujarat showed they cared for a performer and not for which caste or community he belonged to. Modi has made the MSM redundant for his political pursuits.

The MSM, beaten at its game of 2002 riots, now has a new line: “Modi is a regional leader and unfit for PM”. They seek confirmation of this from every possible idiot. The Social Genius, before a trip to Gujarat, sends out a subtle message about having tea with the Chaiwalla. Some may have missed the viciousness behind the subtlety but it exposes the filthy mind behind it. We need to start realising and treasuring the fact that performers from ordinary backgrounds can aspire to high offices in this land. To Modi, Gujarat is ‘One people under one roof’. The road ahead for India has to be ‘one nation under one roof’. Anything else is a deception that is bound to fail and bring more misery to the poor and backward. Does Modi have weaknesses or flaws? Maybe! But those pale into insignificance when you consider the heads of GOI stumbling from one problem to another; from defending one scam to another.

Edward De Bono, a prominent writer on thinking skills, said it best. You can analyse the past but you have to ‘design’ the future. Right now, Modi is the only one dealing with the present and still designing the future. The road ahead for India needs more such daring leaders, not mindless appeasers. It is December 6 today. I can predict the media morons will use the occasion to run more stories on Babri and attempt to divide Muslims and Hindus on the eve of Gujarat elections. Some of his fans tend to call him “Mahatma Modi”. There is no need for such dubious titles. Let’s not have any more mahatmas who become beyond question by the ordinary man. India will have to break a lot of rules in the road ahead. Gujarat and Modi have only shown the way.

Published in media crroks by Mr. RaviNar

True Concept of Dharma - An illustration

True Concept of Dharma

 

It may sound ironical, but it is my observation that those who know English find it difficult to understand the true meaning of “Dharma”. The reason is, the English knowing public, is accustomed to equate “Dharma” with religion. A common man who does not know English is under no such obsession. He knows the meaning of “dharmashala”. It is not a religious school. He understands the meaning of “Dharmarth Hospital” .No religion is treated in such hospital. He comprehends the meaning of “Dharma Kanta “. It is not a balance that weighs different religions. He knows “Raj-dharma” which is not a religion of a king apart from the religion of his subjects. He understands that the “Putradharma” is not the religion of the son, as distinct from that of his parents. 

Go To the Roots

The above examples are sufficient to establish that “dharma” and “religion” cannot be equated. The natural question is. what is “Dharma”? To comprehend the full connotation of the concept of “Dharma”, we must go to its root. We should follow the adage that when you are in difficulty you should go to the fundamentals. The word “Dharma” is derived from the Sanskrit root “dhri” which means to hold together, to bind, to sustain. What does “dharma” hold together? It holds together the whole universe. Therefore our Shastras say that “dharanat dharma ityahuh” (it is called “dharma” because it holds together or sustains).

Now let us see what this universe consist of. There are four broad entities or existences. The one is the individual, the other is the society in which the individual exists and lives; the third is the whole of the non-human world, both animate and inanimate and the fourth is the soul or the spirit. Each of these is a part, nay constituent, of the higher entity, and each of higher entities pervades the lower, the smaller entity. An individual is a part of the society, at the same time, the society pervades the individual. The human society is part of the nature and the nature pervades both the individual and the human society. All the three, viz the individual, the society and the nature are parts of the soul and at the same time are pervaded by it. This relation is expressed by our Shastras as “Yat pinde tad brahmande”. These four existences are termed as Vyashti, Samashti, Srishti and Parameshti. And Dharma is a string that binds or holds together and sustains all these four entities. It is a bridge that joins these four. When you build a house for your own use, it is no “dharma”, but when you build a house for others to live in, a “dharma shala” comes up.

When you make arrangements for your own health, it is no “dharma” but when you arrange for the health of others, then a “dharmarth” hospital is created. This “dharma takes the form of one’s duty as in “Rajdharma” or “Putradharma” but at the same time it gives the guarantee for the rights of the subjects and the parents respectively. Prajadharma connotes the duties of the subjects, but at the same time, guarantees the rights of the king. Thus “Dharma” is a mutual moral arrangement. “Dharma” is always in relation to something. It is a relative concept. It exists and sustains in relation to something. When it becomes the absolute concept, it gets the name of “Moksha.

How to bind an individual with society? It can be done through coercion also. But it is beyond the domain of “Dharma”; it may fall within the sphere of the State. Dharma enjoins voluntary relationship. This relationship is created by a sense of mutual respect. It is priceless, voluntary and ennobling. “Dharmashala” joins an individual with the society without coercion or compulsion. It denotes an individual’s concern and respect for the good of the society. In this way an individual serves the society and the society in turn raises the moral stature of the individual. The human society is required to show the same respect for the Nature (Srishti) of which it is a part. The Hindu Thought has raised this sense of respect to the highest pitch by calling it “Mother” (Matri) .The nature is not a lifeless, emotionless outsider. It is a living and as respectable and loving as a mother. Therefore the nature is Srishtimata. The earth is Bhoomata, the river is “lokamata”, the Cow is “Gomata”, the river Ganga is “Gangamata”, even the Tulsiplant is “Tulsimaiyya”. It is the prerogative of the human mind only, to think about such sacred relationship. There are many reptiles that eat their own offspring’s. There are many animals that are ignorant of the relation of the mother and child. Cows do have some sort of affection for their calves. But a calf when it grows into a bull, loses all intimations of mother or sister. It is the characteristic of the human mind alone that transforms even an inanimate thing into a vibrant living intimacy. Then the earth is not merely a conglomeration of sand and stones, but it becomes motherland, “matrbhumi , it becomes mother earth. Vishnupatnee and the seer says, “Vishnupatni namas tubhyam padasparsham kshamaswa me” (Oh, consort of Vishnu, I bow to thee. Please excuse me for treading on you). Because we have such an intimate Dharmic view towards the Nature, we never thought of exploitation of Nature. Our Hindu Thought never regarded that the man is the only centre of the universe and that the whole of the universe is for his enjoyment. Our attitude has been explained by the Bhagawad Geeta “ ‘Devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah Parasparam bhavayantah shreyah paramavapsyatha (Ch 111, 11) (By this, foster ye the gods and let the gods foster you. Thus fostering each other you shall attain to the supreme good. ) This is the reason why there were no environmental problems in this land.

The Hindu thought, believes in the existence of the soul also. It is the primordial living principle. This principle as embodied in a human frame is the same that pervades the whole universe. The Shastras say, “Tat twam asi” (Thou art that). So aham ” (1 am that). In short, there is this intrinsic, intimate relationship. An individual is intimately connected with all the other three, viz society, nature and soul. His relationship with the soul or the spirit is the domain of religion. His relationship with all the three is the domain of Dharma. Therefore Dharma is a much, more broad a term than religion; and because it connects all these four with reverence and harmony, Dharma is called the ‘principle of universal harmony’.

By accepting this principle we do not become oblivious of the differences and the diversities in the universe. They are naturally there. But it is the Dharma that makes us conscious of inherent unity in the midst of diversity. Man has certain economic tendencies (Artha) .He has the sexual urges (Kama) .But these tendencies and urges, though natural, have to run within the limits of the Dharma. Just as a water of the river, when it flows within the limits of its banks is useful and benevolent, but when it transgresses these limits, as in the time of flood, it becomes destructive, so also the economic and the sexual urges of man have to run within the banks of the Dharma. Then alone they are benevolent; but once they transgress these limits, they lead to exploitation and permissiveness and become an ultimate curse to the very human existence.

Even the State should confirm to the Dharma principle. The Hindu Thought says that it should be “dharmarajya”. Dharmarajya is not a theocratic state. Hindus never envisaged a theocratic state. No Shankaracharya was allowed to become a king; and no king could become a “Shankaracharya”. It is elsewhere that we find an emperor of a country become a “Khalifa”; it is elsewhere that we find a Pope, a religious head meddling with the affairs of the state. To the Hindus, the state has always been secular, because it deals with the affairs of this world. The state is and has to be this worldly. The other worldly activities are outside the sphere of the state. It is religion’s domain. But the state must be attuned to the Dharma. Our Dharma is both this worldly and other worldly. Dharma is defined as “Yato abhyudaya nisshreyasa siddhih sa dharmah” .It means dharma is that which brings about this worldly prosperity as well as the final emancipation. All Hindu books on Dharmashastra deal with both these aspects of human life. More than half of the Manusmriti deals with secular topics, and yet it is called “manava dharma shastra” .The state will naturally have its primary law i.e., constitution. It all will have its physical laws that govern the activities of its people. But above all such laws, there is the Dharma. All laws, primary or secondary have to conform to the Dharma. Dharma is the ultimate reference point. The law of the Dharma is a moral law. All other laws must be in conformity with this ultimate moral law. Hence in a state of Hindu conception, the sovereignty rests, not with the “Parliament, nor with the people nor with the king. It rests with Dharma. Dharma alone is sovereign, and all others have to be attuned to it.

Dharma is the substratum of all of our social, economic and political institutions. Marriage is not a contract for the satisfaction of our carnal desires. It is a dharma, it is a “Sanskar, it is a duty and an obligation. Therefore there is a stress on preserving and sustaining a marriage. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan has rightly said, “that marriage is successful which transforms a chance mate into a life companion” .Therefore divorce is considered a weakness, a defeat. Our economic activities must be guided by Dharma. Only then there will be no exploitation. There is no conflict between the interests of an individual and society or between two classes of society. Therefore, Hindu Thought does not subscribe to class struggle. The worker and the employer must cooperate. That is the order of Dharma. To do good to others is Dharma. To cause pain to other is adharma.

In this broad sense, Hindu is a Dharma. The term “Hindu” has been acquired through History. Its qualitative epithet is “Sanatan” i.e. eternal. It was valid in the past, it is valid today and it will be valid in the future. That is the meaning of “Sanatana” .Just as there is an eternal aspect of Dharma, there is a practical and changing aspect also. It may change according to times. We wear some clothes in summer. They are changed in winter. This change is inevitable and we must accept it. To stick to the same methapher, we can say that wearing clothes is a Sanatana dharma. The quality and nature of clothes is Yugadharma i.e. dharma of the times. There is also an “apaddharma” i.e. dharma in exceptional circumstances. There is a pertinent story in the Upanishadas. Once there was a famine. People began to migrate from their place of residence. A Brahmin living in that village was also affected by famine, therefore he left his village and went to another village in search of food. But he was disappointed. While going out of that village, he saw an elephant guard, sitting under a tree, an elephant by his side, eating something from a cup of leaves. He was eating mustard seeds. The Brahmin asked him to give a few seeds. The elephant guard said, “Oh Brahmin, how can I give it to you. The seeds have been contaminated by my mouth” .The Brahmin said, “Whatever it is, I need them.” The elephant guard gave to the Brahmin the remnants of the mustard seeds. He had some water in an earthen jar. The guard put the jar to his mouth and drank it, after leaving a portion of it in the jar. When the Brahmin finished his eating, he requested the Brahmin to take the water in the jar. The Brahmin refused it, by saying that I don’t drink water contaminated by your mouth. The guard said, “Oh Brahmin, you could eat mustard seeds contaminated by my mouth, why are you refusing the water?” The Brahmin replied, “Had I not eaten the mustard seeds, I would have died of hunger. Now I have got some strength, I will go and find out water from a nearby stream.” Eating contaminated grain is an exception, an “apad dharma”. It cannot be a rule.

In short, Dharma is a principle of universal harmony. It creates harmony where there is natural dissension. The power of the State is effective only when it has the support of the Dharma. And in return, the Dharma gets its sustenance from the power of the state. As in the case of State, so in all spheres of human activity. Dharma is the cause of mutual benefits. We observe Dharma and thus Dharma is protected by us and in return Dharma protects us. Therefore, it is said that “Dharma rakshati rakshitah.”

by - Sri M.G.Vaidya A prolific writer, an author of several books, Shree M. G. Vaidya was a former national executive member of RSS. He is a former editor of ‘Tarun Bharat’ Nagpur.

How Shall We Recover our Lost Intellectual Freedom

How Shall We Recover our Lost Intellectual Freedom

Sri Aurobindo says " How shall we recover our lost intellectual freedom? By reversing, for the time being, the process by which we lost it, by liberating our minds in all subjects from the thralldom to authority. The Anglicized ask us to abandon authority, revolt against superstition to have free minds. What they mean is that we should renounce authority of the Vedas for Max Muller, the Monism of Sankara for the Monism of Haeckel, the dogmatisms of Pandits for the dogmatisms of European thinkers, scientists and scholars. Let us break our chains in order to be free, in the name of truth, not in the name of Europe.
Our first necessity, if India is to survive and do her appointed work in the world, is that the youth of India should learn to think, - to think on all subjects, to think independently, fruitfully, going to the heart of things, not stopped by their surface, free of prejudgments, shearing sophism and prejudice asunder as with a sharp sword, smiting down obscurantism of all kinds as with the mace of Bhima…”.

The Indian PM and The IsRael - "Hawa Dekho aur Hawa Ka rukh Dekho"

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

The PM & Israel

The “Babus” and politicians are odd couples. Both generally dislike each other but have to remain married. Divorce is not an option. Babus think politicians are morons, which is sometimes true. Can you imagine an “educated” Babu working for Lalu Prasad or Salman Khurshid or Uma Bharti and how tough it must be for them? Politicians dislike Babus because Babus are “educated” who like status quo and dislike changes. They see politicians as an avoidable nuisance when the country is actually being run by their league more inefficiently than the politicians can. The Babus have bestowed upon themselves a divine responsibility to run the country according to their wishes regardless of who the politician in charge is. See some of the ex-Babus on TV panels and you will see some are perfect idiots, like Manishankar Aiyar or KC Singh. You can imagine what nuisance they must have been while in office. Politicians and Babus are communities that are a cartoonist’s delight given the comic relief they provide the nation under any given circumstance. Babus last forever (for the duration of their career) while in the coalition-era it was hard to predict if the politician in govt will last till the weekend. Unfortunately for Babus there is now a govt with full majority without “coalition compulsions”.

In 1983 Yasser Arafat visited India for the NAM meet and called Indira Gandhi his “sister”. Very touching! NAM what? Well, NAM is another of those meaningless fossils created by Nehru and a few others called Non-Aligned Movement. Most of the current generation wouldn’t even have heard of it. Not a bad thing either. Goes without saying that all the NAM countries were anti-Israel, the only democracy in the ME, most of them sham democracies and even Banana-republics like Zimbabwe are members. Though India had recognised Israel a couple of years after its formation, full diplomatic relations weren’t established until 1991-92. India also happens to be the largest customer of Israeli weaponry. India has always voted against Israel in the conflict with Palestine region for obvious reasons. Nehru and the Congress (Like MK Gandhi before) sucked up to Muslims in India. The Congress policy on Israel was neither guided by a sense of justice nor any sense of fair-play. And according to our media morons and other sundry terror-sympathisers Israel was always the villain and still remains so for them. The only thing is, India wasn’t alone there were many other countries too.    

The reason for being anti-Israel, as explained, is to suck up to the rich oil-supplying Arabs and keep our Muslims happy. The BJP has traditionally been in favour of supporting Israel as do Hindus in general. At the BRICS meet in Brazil last year India was part of a resolution that condemned Israel. This was followed by another vote against Israel at the UN in July 2014. This stunned most supporters of BJP (and the Hindus) because Narendra Modi was seen as seen as a staunch friend of Israel and at the most India was expected to abstain from voting and not take sides. So, when Sujatha Singh, of the Babus, was recently sacked and replaced with the almost-retiring S. Jaishankar there was the usual media ruckus over a mundane event. Unusually, Singh went to town like a victim on NDTV and has been whining in the press about the “injustice” done to her. When someone runs to the corrupt, anti-national NDTV to play victim you can safely assume it was a good decision by the govt. Remember, Rajiv Gandhi had sacked a Foreign Secretary at a press conference in a most dishonourable manner.

A few days after Sujatha’s sacking Jayanthi Natarajan also went to media on how environment policies were meddled with by Rahul Gandhi and implied the “Jayanthi Tax” could well be “Gandhi Tax”. Common folks call it “bribe”. She was spilling more beans on the corrupt Congress and Gandhis. Naturally, life-time Congress-bootlicker Rajdeep Sardesai grabbed the opportunity to equate the episode of Sujatha Singh with that of Jayanthi Natarajan when there is hardly anything to compare:

As we know, Rajdeep and his C5M wife have lost their mental balance since they were sacked from CNN-IBN. His career was built on abusing Modi and earning his “Roji-roti” as Modi puts it. Modi has become PM; Rajdeep has become a street-thug. The media didn’t slander Sujatha Singh in anyway as she claims. The reports only suggest that she was a Babu (or Babuni) who wanted to continue Sonia’s policies, like being anti-Israel. TOI reports Modi was unhappy over the BRICS resolution and the anti-Israel vote in UN (And you thought politicians made these decisions?). It seems logical that Modi treats Israel as a “priority partner” as the report states and India couldn’t have a better friend in fighting terrorism. That alone should have made Israel a priority partner. Rajdeep is not alone. Almost the entire Sickular media behaved as if Sujatha Singh was a “victim” when there is really nothing wrong in a PM choosing Babus of his choice. The problem for the corrupt media and Opposition is that we now have a PM who has his own mind and not a “Limp Biskit” who previously occupied that office.

The entire episode of playing victim by Sujatha is laughable as are the “useful idiots” and iRudalis at NDTV and other media houses. Some PMs do have clear vision on policies. An almost similar episode was narrated in a satire nearly 3 decades ago. Sometimes satires are powerful enough to reflect reality. There was this PM who wanted to cancel a defence order with the US. There was a threat of Commies attacking a Commonwealth member called St. Georges Island and the PM wanted to abstain from voting against Israel. The skulduggery of the “Babus” against the PM is better shown in these videos than my words. Watch this opening video carefully (10 mins):

As it happens the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office follow their own path regardless of what the PM advises them. And Sir Humphrey does point out, though, that the UN is nothing but a platform for hate-speeches by some of the most dictatorial regimes. In comes the Foreign Office guy from the PMO but is he any different from his Babu-colleagues in the Foreign Office? Here you go (3.20 mins):

The PM does meet the Israeli Ambassador that evening, who was a colleague of his at the LSE. The Israeli Ambassador tells him he understands the compulsions of voting against his country and also offers advice on how to prevent the takeover of St. George’s Island. Hacker manages to score and has a special reward for Luke to whose report he wickedly credits his actions. Watch (3.29 mins):

All’s well that ends well! Imagine, instead of sacking Sujatha Singh if the GOI had transferred her to Israel as the Ambassador. She too would have a hard time explaining why India was always voting against Israel. The games that Babus play depending on their “loyalties” can be funny and can sometimes backfire. Indian foreign policy has for long been driven by the most illogical stands right from Nehru down. Our media morons whine about Gaza all the time as if it is only Israel that is killing innocent people. It is possible to have good relations with the Arabs and the Muslim world without India having to make Israel a villain in all cases. Much of the anti-Israeli propaganda is half-baked and the truth is often buried. Read this blog at the AmericanThinker to look at the other side of the story.

Whether Sujatha Singh’s grievances are genuine or not, we do not know. Whether media reports are true or not, we do not know because we know they are prone to concoct stories. However, India has a new Prime Minister. He will rely on Babus but has his vision clear. The sooner the Babus and Babunis realise it is not going to be “business as usual” it would be better for them. As for Congi pimps like Rajdeep and Barkha who whine, they can seek posting to an Arab nation if it suits their pursuits. 

Posted by Ravinar at 2/03/2015 06:58:00 AM

Souvenir released at Madison Square Garden for PM Modi’s visit

(This article appeared in the souvenir released at Madison Square Garden for Prime Minister Modi’s visit. Emphases added)

When Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi gave his first speech in parliament he spoke of the end of 1200 years of slavery. Indeed it felt that India had arisen to a new dawn, a “tryst with destiny” that it had not quite kept when it awoke to the midnight hour in 1947.  When an extraordinary man from a very ordinary background took oath as the Prime Minister of India at the culmination of the world’s largest election, not many Indians remained unmoved.

Not that his journey was easy. It had all the makings of a hero’s tale. The story of a young boy who sold tea, who lived in a one room house, who swam a crocodile infested lake, captured the imagination. The diligent karyakarta, the worker, who evaded arrest during the dark hours of the emergency by passing off as a Sikh, and the popular community organizer who became the Chief Minister of Gujarat as a first time Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). In all Indian epics there is a period of exile, of separation, of trial by fire. Rama had vanvasa, fourteen years of wilderness, Arjuna endured exile and before Modi could be Prime Minister he too underwent years of trial by fire.

Modi’s agni-pariksha came after the dark days of violence in Gujarat. There was hardly a politician in India more vilified in an internationally orchestrated campaign of calumny fanned by a partisan elite. Witnesses were coerced, false accounts paraded, quotes were made up all with the intent to get one man. Though the Gujarat administration under Modi put up one of the most robust responses against communal violence in modern India, the motivated campaign continuously built upon referencing its own falsehoods.  The law courts and ultimately, the people’s court, repeatedly sided with truth and justice. As his party’s campaign slogan famously said, the more mud you throw, the more the lotus will bloom. And bloom it did as Modi overcame the barriers of the English-class of India, which looked down upon someone who did not speak the Queen’s English, the campaign of hate, the barriers of poverty and caste and captured the people’s heart and imagination.

On Modi’s election campaign, his connect with the people of India was palpable. Here was a politician who was not lecturing the people but empathizing with their sorrows and difficulties. Not reading from a script but reading the audience. And unlike most of those who had ruled India since independence, he did not need to do photo ops outside a poor man’s hut, or “poverty tourism” as he labelled it, he had experienced deprivation first hand.

Of course, victory is the start, not the end of the challenges. India’s problems are vast, compounded by an archaic colonial state apparatus that was never intended for the benefit of India’s people. The Indian state remains a colonial state. It was designed for a singular purpose—extortion and control. The officer at the district level is called a ‘collector’, marking his primary function. The bureaucrats were trained to identify with the civilization of the rulers and look down on the natives. The elected representatives acted like feudal lords. We gained independence but we never became free. Since the system — executive, judiciary, police — was never designed for us, we found ways to get around, to circumvent it, to corrupt it. We never dismantled the colonial state to create a Government for the people. The dynastic rule at the top of the pyramid was embedded into the status quo, its courtiers and darbaris keeping the masses at bay with the dangers of Hindutva and the glories of English while sipping Chianti in Lutyen’s Delhi.

Here was a politician who was not lecturing the people but empathizing with their sorrows and difficulties.

With Modi at its helm, India has embarked on the journey of reconnecting with its civilizational roots. But as Swami Vivekanda famously said, you cannot teach the Gita to a hungry man. So Modi is rightly focused on economic growth as a priority.  It is best to understand India as a redeveloping nation. Just a few hundred years ago it was one of the richest countries and with forward looking policies and clear thinking there is little reason why it cannot get there again. This is an area where Indian Americans, can make significant contributions. India needs investments across the board, from capital to human talent and NRIs and PIOs can play an important part.

From the ramparts of the Red Fort Prime Minister Modi declared himself to be a servant of the people. A tireless worker, the effect of his personal work ethic is reverberating across his ministers and bureaucrats. Rather than sauntering in towards noon-time after a game of golf officials are expected to show up on time to office.  Rather than leaving at 5 pm, they are seen working till 9 or 10 pm. Clearly the Prime Minister’s seriousness about making the change is rubbing off.

While Modi was in the US, there are a few things he could take away from there. One is studying the effectiveness of local government in the US. While the people of India have voted for transformative government at the national level, most of their problems are local. People end up calling their MP for problems like water, sewage, sanitation and roads.  This is because government in India remains highly centralized as was intentionally setup by the British. Revenue and expenses are not managed locally. The local police is responsive in the US because it reports to the city mayor who is elected directly by the people. The accountability loop is small. There is no gargantuan state-level bureaucracy as in India where the police hierarchy reports all the way to the chief minister.  The same is true for public schooling. Many people in the US send their children to public schools since they function reasonably well, unlike in India, where anyone who can afford it, looks to send their children to private schools. The schools, too, are locally managed and locally funded, making them far more responsive and accountable to the people. In India, schools are part of the state-level structure and teachers look at rural areas as “hardship postings”. Democratizing and decentralizing government functions in India is essential.

With Modi at its helm, India has embarked on the journey of reconnecting with its civilizational roots.

The second issue is that of language. Many prosperous countries around the world teach engineering, medicine, law and business in their own languages. In India, English is required to practice in the Supreme Court and most High Courts and for all professional education. This has become a barrier for India’s progress. English is an asset but the country needs to also provide equal opportunities for Indian language learners.

The opportunity we have and the dream we see is not just of a change of government but a restoration of our civilizational trajectory. India was a center of learning. There are records of conferences happening in Kashmir where scholars from South East Asia and China participated. Indians sought after knowledge and evidence of that is still found in the Indians that populate the US as professors, doctors and scientists. And we are entrepreneurial as Indians running everything from hotels to Silicon Valley startups to fortune 500 corporations’ show. For too long, the Indian system itself has suppressed the genius of the Indian people.  In a world riven by religious strife, the ancient pluralism and the notion of sarve bhavantu sukhina, let all be happy, shows a path. Millions of Americans today practice yoga, but that is just the tip of the iceberg of Indian wisdom in how to lead a healthy, happy, balanced life in harmony with the planet. With the ascension of Modi as Prime Minister, people of Indian origin throughout the world sense the possibility of India resuming its path of knowledge and wealth creation and the guru of spiritual wisdom. The world will be better for it.

 

The author can be followed on Twitter @sankrant and blogs at http://sankrant.org.

Significance of Hindu Society

Hindu society is the only significant society in the world today which presents a continuity of cultural existence and functioning since times immemorial.Most other societies known to human history-East and West, North and South-have suffered a sudden interruption and undergone a traumatic transformation due to the invasion and victory of latter-day ideologies-Christianity, Islam, Communism. The pre-Christian, pre-Islamic and pre-Communist cultural creations of these societies are now to be met only in libraries and museums, thanks to the labours of antiquarian scholars.

 

Hindu culture can meet the same frightful fate if there were no Hindu society to sustain it. This is the point which is not always remembered even by those who take pride in Hindu culture.

There are many Hindus who cherish the great spiritual traditions of Hinduism and its scriptures like the Gita and the Upanishads in which that tradition is enshrined. But they do not cherish with an equal enthusiasm the Hindu society which has honoured and preserved these traditions and scriptures down the ages.

 

Again, there are many Hindus who proclaim with great confidence that Sanãtana Dharma that is Hinduism can never die. This is true in a sense. There will always be individuals in non-Hindu societies who will recover the mystique of Sanãtana Dharma through their efforts at self-discovery. But Sanãtana Dharma will surely suffer an eclipse and no more inform mankind at large with its message, if there is no Hindu society to sustain it.

 

Lastly, there are many Hindus who are legitimately proud of Hindu art, architecture, sculpture, music, painting, dance, drama, literature, linguistics, lexicography, and so on.  But they seldom take into account the fact that this great wealth of artistic, literary and scientific heritage, will die if Hindu society which created it is no more there to preserve, protect and perpetuate it.

 

But the death of Hindu society is no longer an eventuality which cannot be envisaged. This great society is now besieged by the same dark and deadly forces which have overwhelmed and obliterated many ancient societies. Suffering from a loss of its elan, it has become a house divided within itself. And its beneficiaries no more seem to be interested in its survival because they have fallen victims to hostile propaganda. They have developed towards it an attitude of utter indifference, if not downright contempt. Let no Hindu worth his salt remain complacent. Hindu society is in mortal danger as never before.It would be relevant to recall the history of Hindu society in order to put the record straight. For, there is very little in that record which invites indifference or contempt, and a good deal which deserves honour and homage.

 

A word about misunderstandings first. At one time the dominant school of Western historians and their Indian disciples, for whom Hindu history commenced with Alexander�s invasion, presented this history as a series of successful foreign invasions to which Hindu India invariably succumbed. They even invented an Aryan invasion of India in the second millennium BC to round up their cherished image of this country as some sort of a free for all into which any adventurer could descend and dwell at will.

  

There was a time, not very long ago, when Hindu culture was a revered culture throughout the civilized world. Its seers and sages, its mystics and monks, its scholars and scientists, its missionaries and merchants took its message to the farthest corners of world-East Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia; Sumeria, Assyria, Babylonia, Chaldea and Iran; Burma, China, Japan, Korea and Mongolia; Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand; Pacific Islands, West Indies, Mexico, Peru and Columbia; Asia Minor, Central Asia, Greece and Rome. The history of a hundred cultures and nations provides evidence of this hoary heritage in their religions and philosophies, languages and literatures, sciences and technologies, manners and mores.

 

True, the Hindus never constructed a strong, centralised state, like that of ancient Iran and Rome, which could tyrannise over its constituent units and invade the neighbouring countries. Yet their society was a strong, steadfast and stupendous creation based on a highly decentralised yet a cohesive social fabric made of organic units such as the clan (kula), caste (jãti), village (grãma), town (nigam), metropolis (nagar), country (janapada) and empire (sãmrãjya). Imperial systems rose and fell. But the infrastructure survived the test of time and remained vigorous and vibrant till very recent times.

Greek historians who accompanied and followed Alexander tell us that before this adventurer led his short-lived raid against the republics on the Punjab and Sindh, only two other foreign invaders had had the courage to cast covetous eyes on India. Queen Semiramis of Babylonia in the 8th Century and Cyrus the Great of Iran in the 6th Century BC attacked India with vast armies but were defeated at the borders and made to flee with very few survivors.

 

Plutarch leaves us in no doubt that Alexander himself had to beat a hasty retreat from the banks of the river Beas which, baffled by the brave resistance from a series of small republics, his armies refused to cross. And his successor in East Asia, Seleucus Nicator, was soon humbled and not only made to cede conquered Indian territory but also pay homage to the Indian emperor by a matrimonial alliance.

But the wheel of time turns. The Hindus lost some of their vigour and vitality and vigilance, and neglected the art of warfare which was acquiring new dimensions in neighbouring lands. The Scythians, the Kushanas and the Hunas who stormed in after the disintegration of the Mauryan and the Gupta empires did succeed in conquering and ruling over large parts of northern and western India. This spell of foreign rule, however, was rather short-lived. All these invaders were not only defeated by the rising tide of Hindu heroism but also absorbed and integrated into the vast complex of Hindu society and culture.

 

This triumphal course of Hindu history suffered a severe setback only with the advent of the Muslim invaders in the middle of the 7th Century AD. The Hindus were now faced with an adversary who was not only qualitatively superior in the art of warfare but also armed with an ideology which was altogether alien and uncompromisingly inimical to the basic premises of the Hindu weltanschaung. The war which the Hindus had to wage against this new adversary was ceaseless and long-drawn-out. The armies of the Arab Caliphate which had humbled the Persian and the Byzantine empires, which had conquered vast territories stretching from the Hindukush to the Atlantic Ocean, and which had converted to Islam vast populations en masse, could not advance beyond Sindh in spite of repeated invasions. The Ghaznavids, the Ghoris, the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs and the Mughals who followed fared much better and succeeded in establishing imperial dynasties which ruled over large parts of India for several centuries. But Hindu resistance did not cease for a day. The Rajputs, the Vijayanagar Empire, the Marathas, the Bundelas, the Jats and the Sikhs rose in fierce revolt, one after another, till the fabric of Muslim rule was destroyed and dispersed by the middle of the 18th Century. And the number of converts which Islam-considering its political power and intentions-could win during its long spell of seven centuries was rather small.

 

This victory of the Hindus over the Islamic hordes could not be consolidated due to the intervention of the British invader who wielded not only an unprecedented superiority in the art of warfare but also a much subtler weapon of diplomacy. The Hindus were enslaved once again. The British also brought with them, in the form of Christianity, an ideology which too was altogether alien and intensely inimical to the basic tenets of the Hindu way of life.

 

Fortunately for the Hindus, Christianity in the West including Britain was soon overwhelmed by the rising tide of humanism, rationalism and universalism inspired by the revival of the Greek heritage. Christianity, therefore, could not obtain an unbridled sway in the counsels of the British rulers as Islam was able to do in the courts of the Muslim kings. It was only under an earlier invader from the West, the Portuguese, that Christianity was able to harass the Hindus for some time and in some areas.

 

The struggle against the British invader was also not as long-drawn-out as against the Muslim marauders. The rise of liberal democracy in Britain was a great help to the Hindu freedom fighters. None-the-less, the battle had to be fought on many fronts, revolutionary and constitutional, violent the non-violent. It is a point of some pride for the Hindus that their struggle for freedom inspired similar struggles in many countries of Asia and Africa, and that the dawn of Indian independence in 1947 heralded an era of independence for many an enslaved nation.

 

A society which has survived invaders who devastated and ultimately destroyed so many ancient societies, should be rightly regarded as the wonder of world history. The foreign invasions of India have been brought into bolder relief by the very fact that Hindu society defeated and dispersed all of them in the final round. Only that society can boast of freedom from foreign invasions which has lost its identity, body and soul, into that of the conqueror. Such a society leaves no successors who retain a racial or cultural memory, and who can spread out in national homage a roll of honour for its heroes. With all its weaknesses, Hindu society has never been such an imbecile society.

 

In the normal course, the Hindus who had such a glorious history should have come into their own after 1947 and resumed their career of newer cultural creations. But the balance-sheet of this saga of struggle and sacrifice for freedom has not turned out to be favourable to the Hindus. They have lost to an alienated section of their own race some of the hallowed lands which were at one time the very cradle of Hindu culture and civilisation. And they are no longer the honoured citizens even in their own homeland. A permanent stigma seems to have stuck to the terms Hindu and Hinduism. These have now become terms of abuse in the mouth of that very elite which the Hindu millions have raised to the pinnacle of power and prestige with their blood, sweat and tears.

 

How did this happen?

I have come to the conclusion that the Muslim and British invasions of India, though defeated and dispersed, have yet managed to crystallise certain residues-psychological and intellectual-which a battered Hindu society is finding it very difficult to digest. These residues are now in active alliance with powerful international forces, and are being aided and abetted on a scale which an impoverished Hindu society cannot match. And, lastly, although at loggerheads amongst themselves, these residues have forged a united front which is holding Hindu society under siege. The danger is as much from within as from without.

What are these residues of foreign invasions which are holding Hindu society under siege?

The Muslim invasion of India crystallised one residue which we shall name as Islamism. The British invasion, on the other hand, gave us two residues which we have named Christianism and Macaulayism. We shall analyse their roles in India and their alliances with international forces, one by one, before we present a picture of the united front they have forged to fight the Hindus all along the line.

By Sh. Sitaran Goel 

Indian nationalism can only be Hindu?

I

by   Virendra Parekh

on 27 Jul 2013

The secularist lobby has predictably lost no time in pouncing upon Narendra Modi for describing himself as a Hindu Nationalist. Modi sought to explain (hedge?) the assertion by separating the two words before joining them. “I am nationalist. I’m patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I am born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So I’m a Hindu nationalist. So yes, you can say I’m a Hindu nationalist because I’m a born Hindu,” he told Reuters.

That has cut no ice with secularist hounds in media and politics for whom the word ‘Hindu’ is anathema. The orchestrated cacophony is part of the Congress strategy of keeping the spotlight on BJP and Modi and away from its own shameful record of corruption, misdeeds and economic mismanagement.

Yet, it would be a good idea to take up the standard secularist slogans and expose them to be the self-serving falsehoods that they are. Portrayal of Hindu nationalism as something dangerous and divisive is one such falsehood.

The charge was led by Salman Khurshid, India’s minister for external affairs. Khurshid is a Muslim and, therefore, by definition, secular. An Arabic name is probably the highest secular credential one can have in India. But Khurshid has strengthened his credentials with his own efforts. Way back in 2001, he appeared in court as counsel pleading for the Islamic terrorist outfit Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), since reincarnated as Indian Mujahideen.

With this impressive background Khurshid thought it fit to pontificate: “Religion can’t have nation. Religion has no identity. Nation has an identity. Nationalism falls in a different category than religion.” (Zee News, Friday, July 12, 2013).

This is the standard line of Indian secularists. MJ Akbar, usually far more balanced and patriotic than the likes of Khurshid, agrees with him on this: “religion is ineffective as a basis for nationhood. Pakistan is a good example. Indeed, if religion worked as glue, why on earth would there be 22 Arab nations?” (Sunday Times, 21/7/2013)

The short response would be that while this applies to Islam, it does not apply to Hinduism. Religion with its division of mankind into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ (believers vs. non-believers, Christians vs. Heathens, Momins vs. Kaffirs) and an agenda of world conquest is a Semitic enterprise. It is this agenda which brings it in perpetual conflict with its neighbours. 

Hinduism is not a religion in the Abrahamic sense. By its very nature, Hinduism is syncretic, accommodative and assimilative. “Hinduism is more a way of life than a form of thought. While it allows absolute liberty in the world of thought, it enjoins a very strict code of practice. The theist and the atheist, the sceptic and the agnostic, may all be Hindus if only they accepted the Hindu system of culture and life… Hinduism insists not on religious conformity but on an ethical and spiritual outlook in life... Hinduism insists on a moral life and draws into a fellowship all those who feel themselves bound by the claims that the moral law or Dharma makes upon them. Hinduism is not a sect but a fellowship of all who accept the law of right and earnestly seek for the truth.” (S Radhakrishnan, Hindu View of Life)

Dharma in all its manifestation in life and society is the basis of India’s nationhood. At social level, it expressed itself as a civilisation. India’s unity which encompasses and permeates all its bewildering diversity is rooted in its culture and civilisation. Founded on the sound principles of svabhava, svadharma and svarajya and nurtured by numerous regions and communities within a common framework of spiritual and moral values, it has proved more abiding and durable than mere political unity. Take it out, and India will be reduced to a geographical expression and Indian society, a loose conglomeration of disparate groups (linguistic, ethnic) sans any principle of unity.  

That civilisation in turn is centred on the spiritual tradition known as Sanatan Dharma. Just as the word ‘Religion’ is narrow to capture the essence of Dharma, the word ‘Nation’ with its exclusivist connotations is too inadequate to capture the meaning of Rashtra, a word which first occurs in the Veda. Asmin rashtre brahmano brahmvarchaso jaayataam… says the Veda (may in this country be born Brahmins with spiritual powers.) Prádur bhutó’ smi rashtre’smin kírtim riddhim dadátu me (I am born in this rashtra. May it give me fame and prosperity).

This intimate connection between Rashtra and Dharma has been an unbroken tradition through millennia. Hindu Rashtra is co-terminus with Dharma or its external manifestation: civilisation. Bharatavarsha is where Bharatiya civilisation prevails. For several centuries, the words Vidharmi and Videshi were synonymous in India.

The Mahabharata carries a complete picture of this cultural unity in its tîrtha-yãtrã-parva, which is part of the larger Vana-parva. The Ramayana, the Puranas and the Dharmashastras paint the same portrait of an ancient land, every spot of which is related to some sacred memory or the other. The Jainagama and the Tripitaka speak again and again of sixteen Mahajanapadas, which spanned the spread of Bharatavarsha in the life-time of Bhagvan Mahavira and the Buddha. Even a dry compendium on grammar, the Ashtadhyayi of Panini, provides a near complete count of all the Janapadas in ancient India.

As Sita Ram Goel noted, “it was this feeling of being at home everywhere in the country which took the Adi Shankaracharya from the southernmost tip to the farthest corners of Bharatavarsha in North and East and West and helped him found (or revive) the four foremost dhãmas at Badrinath, Dvaraka, Shrungeri and Puri. There is no count of sadhus and sannyasins and house-holders who have travelled ever since on the trail blazed by that great acharya. Six and a half centuries later, Guru Nanak Dev followed in the footsteps of the Pandavas and the Shankaracharya in search of spiritual company. Chaitanyadeva who lived in the 16th century and Swami Vivekananda who came towards the end of the 19th, roamed over the same route, feeling similarly at home everywhere”. (Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences).

Throughout its long and chequered history, India has always been regarded as the land of Hindus, both by Indians and others.

Three facts need to be noted here.

First, if you take out the Hindu element from Indian history, culture and society, the remainder will no longer be Indian. What will remain, say, of Indian literature if everything contributed by Hindus is taken out?

Second, history shows that every part or region of Bharatvarsha where Hinduism declined, Hindu civilisation was eclipsed and Hindus became a minority, that part or region eventually seceded from India. Witness Afghanistan and Pakistan including the modern Bangladesh.

Third, every secessionist movement in India in the last hundred years has been anti-Hindu in its origin and intent - be it the Akali agitation in the early part of the twentieth century, Dravidian movement of Ramaswamy Naicker, Muslim League’s violent pursuit of Pakistan, Khalistani movement led by Bhindranwale, tribal separatism in the northeast. Even today, separatist movements exist only where Hindus are in a minority. On the other hand, there is not a single organization, movement or leader which calls itself Hindu and yet is separatist. Hindus cannot secede from India because they constitute India, they are India. It is Hindus who have imparted Indianness to India.

All the three facts remain unaltered whether you define Hindu as a community, religion, civilisation or a way of life; these are anyway overlapping, concentric categories.

Hindus and Hindus alone can claim that there can be no India without them. No other community can make such a claim.

This view of India as the country of Hindus is now unmentionable. Almost as a corollary, the national resolve to fight fissiparous tendencies and separatist movements has weakened unbelievably.

To say that Hinduism must be at the core of Indian nationalism does not require or even imply negation or belittling of non-Hindus in national life. What it does imply, however, is that anything anti-Hindu cannot be national: mosques (or churches) standing at the site of demolished temples, conversions, separatism, to name a few. Moreover, what is Hindu may be national, but it does not ipso facto become wholesome or desirable. Over the centuries, Hindu society has developed serious weaknesses of character and these have to be fought relentlessly.

Nehruvian Secularism can never be the basis of the Indian nation. No soldier has courted martyrdom shouting ‘Secularism ki Jai’; thousands have by invoking their gods. That is why modern savants have been unequivocal and eloquent in defining Hinduism as the essence of Indianness.

“When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the Sanatan Dharma that shall be great.
When it is said that India shall expand and extend herself, it is the Sanatan Dharma that shall expand and extend itself over the world. It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India exists. I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish”. (Uttarpara Speech, Aurobindo Ghosh, Chandernagore, 1919)

Swami Vivekananda, whose 150th Birth Centenary is being observed by the nation including the Government of which Salman Khurshid is part, repeatedly declared India as a Hindu nation. In fact, the central premise of Swami Vivekananda’s entire life was that the essence of India lay in religion; that the religion of our people was the Hindu dharma; that this was the lever by which India was to be reawakened and that the truths the Hindu seers had uncovered were that pearl of inestimable value which it is India’s mission to give to the world.

What about non-Hindus living in India, secularists would ask? Indian society can live comfortably with any amount of diversity in modes of worship, dress code, food habits and social manners. The problem of Indian society is not diversity, but the presence of elements who refuse to be assimilated, who demand respect and tolerance as a matter of right but refuse to show respect and tolerance to others and who dream of and work for replacing this healthy social diversity with a uniformity of their choice. The secularists are clueless about the problem, let alone the solution.

Consider the irony. India’s secularism was meant to deny legitimacy to Islamic and other varieties of separatism. It has ended up denying legitimacy to its age-old civilization which has formed the basis of its nationhood since time immemorial. That is why today we feel powerless against fissiparous and subversive tendencies of all hues. Nothing shows up better the intellectual and political bankruptcy of a borrowed and distorted idea that has been elevated to the status of Government of India’s official religion.

Concluding, I cannot resist the temptation to remind Salman Khurshid of his book, “At Home in India; A Statement of Indian Muslims” (1986). In 1984, wrote Khurshid, when Sikhs were massacred in Delhi, “there was terrible satisfaction among the Muslims, who have not completely forgotten the Partition’s unpleasant aftermath. Hindus and Sikhs were alike paying for their sins. They were paying for the blood they had drawn in 1947”.

Cut to circa 2013: “Religion has no identity...”

Younger RSS Swaya Sevak - BharataVarsha