Marathas & Bundelkhand- I: Chhatrapati Shivaji and the Rise of Chhatrasal Bundela

Why do the Bundelas till date hold Chhatrapati Shivaji in high regard? The answer can in the 1660s, when Chhatrasal Bundela met Chhatrapati Shivaji.

 

चमक उठी सन सत्तावन में, वह तलवार पुरानी थी,
बुंदेले हरबोलों के मुँह हमने सुनी कहानी थी,
खूब लड़ी मर्दानी वह तो झाँसी वाली रानी थी।।

These words by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan have immortalised the tale of Rani Laxmibai. But the Rani of Jhansi was named Manikarnika Tambe prior to her marriage to Raghunath Hari Newalkar, the ruler of Jhansi. But how did Marathi surnames like Tambe and Newalkar end up being so important in faraway Bundelkhand? Why do the Bundelas till date hold Chhatrapati Shivaji, Bajirao and of course Rani Laxmibai in high regard?

The answer to this is to be found in a nearly two hundred year long history, beginning in the 1660s, when Chhatrasal Bundela met Chhatrapati Shivaji.

Chhatrasal Bundela, the son of Champat Rai, a Bundela chief, was born in 1649 AD. Champat Rai had already risen against the Mughal Empire in the 1640s and had fought a long war spanning over fifteen years. His son Chhatrasal was only twelve years old, when Aurangzeb attacked Champat Rai and the latter was killed in one of the ensuing battles at Sahre in Malwa. The incident left an indelible mark on Chhatrasal Bundela.

A few years later, in 1665, Chhatrasal Bundela and his brother Angad joined the armies of Mirza Raje Jai Singh and Diler Khan, who had been sent by Aurangzeb to attack Shivaji. The young Chhatrasal Bundela saw this as an opportunity to earn a name for himself and provide for himself.
He was present in the famous siege of Purandar, (May 1665) fighting among the troops of Mirza Raje Jai Singh. It was around this time that he began to realise that his support of Aurangzeb was morally incorrect, and that Chhatrapati Shivaji’s stance was the correct one. Whether he met Shivaji during this siege is not certain. Nevertheless, Mirza Raje Jai Singh praised his bravery and recommended his name to Aurangzeb, who happily granted Chhatrasal, a mansab of 250. Chhatrasal Bundela was then sent with Diler Khan to attack Deogarh. The young Bundela, his conscience pricking him to take up the sword against the Mughals rather than for them, escaped from the camp and made his way to the Deccan, where he met Shivaji.

The meeting is a monumental event in India’s history. It laid the foundations of Hindu rule in Bundelkhand – a pivotal and strategically very important province.

The content of what Maharaja Chhatrasal said to Shivaji is brought out beautifully by Lal Kavi (actual name Gorelal Purohit) in Chhatraprakash.
Chhatrasal Bundela said

पिता हमारे सुबा दोडे I तुर्कन पर अजमेय खांडे I 
तिन चम्पती के नंद हम, ससि नववाई काहि I 
हम भूले सियो वृथा, हितु जानी कै वाहि I 
एड एक शिवराज निबाही I करे अपने चित कि चाही I 
आठ पातशाही झुक झोरे, सुबनी बांधी डआंड ले छओरे I
ऐसे गुण सिवराज के I बसे चित में आई I 
मिलिवोई मन में धन्यो I मनसी मत जो बनाई I

Loosely translated it means: “My father (Champat Rai) ravaged the province and rose against the Turks (Mughals). But his three sons have not been able to live up to his ideals. Only Shivaji has been able to follow what is correct and do what his heart says. Eight rulers have been defeated by him. 

“I am much inspired by these deeds of Shivaji. Hence I want to meet Shivaji and obey whatever is asked of him.”

Chhatrasal Bundela intended to join the growing armies of Chhatrapati Shivaji, but Shivaji gave a beautiful reply, in which he tried to stir Chhatrasal’s patriotic feelings for the liberation of his own Bundelkhand from tyrannical Mughal rule. He wanted Chhatrasal Bundela to free and work for the prosperity of his rayat in Bundelkhand, rather than just be a sardar in the Maratha army in the Deccan.

Shivaji’s reply is also found in Lal Kavi’s Chhatraprakash –

सिवा किसा सुनि कैकही तुमि छत्री सिरताज I 
जीत अपनी भूम को, करो देश को राज I 
करो देश को राज छतोरे, हम तुमतै कबहुं नाही न्यारे I 
दैरी देस मुगलानको मारो, दबटी दिली के दल संहारौ I
तुरकन की परतीत न मानो I तुम केहार तुरकन गज जानो I 
तुरकन में ना विवेक विलोक्यो I मिलन गये उन्हे तुम रोकयो I

Translation: Chhatrasal, you are like the crown jewel of kshatriyas. You should fight and win back your lands and rule over them. I am not different than you. Fight and defeat the Mughals. Make their armies run away. Do not trust the Turkis (Mughals). You are a lion, and the Turks are elephants. They are untrustworthy, you go to meet them, they will put hurdles in front. 

Thus, inspired by Chhatrapati Shivaji, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela returned to his Bundelkhand. Then began the long struggle to liberate Bundelkhand from the despotic rule of the Mughals. It is said that Chhatrapati Shivaji also granted Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela, a sword.

Chhatrasal Bundela started by capturing a few weakly guarded Mughal outposts in eastern Bundelkhand, and as a result, his followers and soldiers grew in number. He then attacked the larger Mughal forts such as ones at Gwalior, Sironj, Chitrakut, Mahoba, Kalinjar, etc. Between the years 1668 and 1678, more than a dozen battles were fought by Chhatrasal Bundela against Mughal faujdars, such as Randaullah Khan, Hashim Khan, Fidai Khan, etc. Save one, he emerged victorious in each and every one of them.

A Mughal mansabdar named Jaswant Singh was then sent to subdue Chhatrasal Bundela, and he did succeed in defeating Bundela and make him submit to Aurangzeb’s suzerainty. But by 1686, Chhatrasal Bundela was once again attacking the Mughals in Bundelkhand.

By this time the Maratha – Mughal War was in full bloom, and the cream of the Mughal army, along with the emperor himself, was away in the Deccan. Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela made full use of this god given opportunity and ferociously attacked the Mughals.

Although in 1696, he once again accepted the superiority of Aurangzeb, a mere four years later he was once again on the battlefield – fighting against Mughal soldiers. The fort of Kalinjar was soon captured, as were large parts of Banda, Hamirpur, Jhansi, Jalaun, Kalpi etc. (1702, 1703). In fact at one point his influence stretched to the Narmada itself.

Nemaji Shinde, ancestor of the famous Shindes or Scindias of Gwalior, ravaged Mughal ruled Malwa with help from Chhatrasal Bundela! Thus, continuing the thread picked up forty years ago!
At the time of Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela governed a huge tract of land in Bundelkhand, comprising of various forts such as Sagar, Kalpi, Jhansi, Orccha, Sironj, Chitrakut etc. He also held the huge diamond mines at Panna, which brought him great wealth.

The influence of Prannathji Maharaj:

Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela met his guru Prannathji at Mau near Panna in 1683. A parallel can be seen between this and Chhatrapati Shivaji meeting Samarth Ramdas. Meeting between Vidyanaranya Swami and Harihar I (founder of Vijayanagar Empire) is another similar example. Maharaja Chhatrasal belonged to the Pranami Sampraday as a result of the influence of Swami Prannathji and his worldview, as also his views regarding religion.

In 1707 Aurangzeb died, bringing to an end, the long war in the Deccan. The Mughal Empire collapsed, unable to hold itself together. And Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela reigned over his kingdom, which he had so painstakingly gained from the Mughals.

It would be another twenty years before the Marathas found themselves once again in the thick of politics of Bundelkhand. And at the centre of the storm would be the Peshwa himself – Bajirao Ballal.

References:
1. Shivaji – The Great Maratha by H. S Sardesai
2. Chhatraprakash by Lal Kavi (Gorelal Purohit)
3. Masir e Alamgiri
4. Life and Times of Chhatrasal Bundela by B.D Gupta

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.

Aneesh Gokhale

Aneesh Gokhale is the published author of two books. His second book “Brahmaputra” is about Lachit Barphukan , the Assamese contemporary of Chhatrapati Shivaji. His articles on Maratha and Assamese history have appeared in various online and print media. He has also given public talks on a dozen occassions.

Indian National Congress – More Loyal Than The King!

Formation of Congress was a well thought of plan of the British invaders to make this class of Brown Sahibs propagate a favourable opinion of British rule and act as effective deterrents of unfavourable opinion or possible revolt.
 

Ask any Indian and he or she will most certainly confirm that the early history of the Indian National Congress is “The History of the Freedom Movement”. This belief is a result of the reinforced narrative that paints the Indian National Congress as the pivot of the Indian Independence struggle. The reality is different. Congress, from its founding, was interested in securing the permanence of British  rule  in  India.  For a few senior Congress leaders, Swaraj meant self-restraint while other  congress stalwarts believed that if  the British were to leave India, we would  call them back before  they reached  Aden?[1]. The post-independence myth-making around the Indian National Congress needs to be re-examined.

In 1835, Thomas Babington Macaulay talked about forming a class who would be interpreters between the British and the millions whom they governed ;a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.[2] The picture and the quote that has been doing the rounds on Social Media might not be correct in its entirety, but this statement which is from the recorded Minute on Indian Education (English Education Act, 1835) is for sure true!

Indian National Congress – Set-up by British Viceroy to Prevent Indian Revolt

The Idea of Congress was first propagated by Alan Octavian Hume as a social gathering of elite Indians exposed to the West on account of their English Education. In his speech on the origin and aims of the Congress, Hume clearly explained that

“by getting hold of the great lower middle class before the development of the reckless demagogues to which the next quarter of the century must give birth and carefully inoculating them with a mild and harmless form of the political fever, we are adopting the only certain precautionary method against the otherwise inevitable ravages of a violent and epidemic burst of disorder… Congress was designed to limit and control the forces which Western education and ideas had let loose before they would burst into a revolution”[3]

Hume did not want equal rights for Indians and supported a resolution barring Indians from bearing arms and argued that his memory of the Mutiny would never allow him to support such a resolution. [4]

Commenting on the formation of the Congress in its 4th session 1888, WC Banerjee, the co-founder of Congress, revealed that it was founded by the British viceroy Lord Dufferin who had shared this idea with A .O. Hume. Lord Dufferin had made it a condition to Hume that his name behind the formation of Congress ought not to be revealed.

It will probably be news to many that the Indian National Congress, as it was originally started and as it has since been carried on, is in reality the work of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava when that nobleman was the Governor-General of India.  Lord Dufferin had made it a condition with Mr. Hume that his name in connection with the scheme of the Congress should not be divulged so long as he remained in the country, and his condition was faithfully maintained and none but the men consulted by Mr. Hume knew anything about the matter..[5]

• In 1880, Lord Baring, the Secretary to the Viceroy of British India, had stated,“We shall not subvert the British Empire by allowing the Bengali Baboo to discuss his own schools and drains. Rather shall we afford him a safety-valve if we can turn his attention to such innocuous subjects”[6]
• In 1883, Viceroy Lord Ripon remarked that western educated Indians had to be shown a carrot and turned into collaborators by offering them outlets to satisfy their personal ambitions

“No longer was Indian educated class to be disregarded, dallied with, and depressed, because if they became convinced that such was the Government’s intention toward them and Parliament’s pledges, they would turn their faculties and talents against the Government and excite in the minds of the masses the same discontent which seethed in their own.” He thought that it was wiser to acknowledge the new class as a political reality in British-Indian society, to trust and encourage its leaders, and “by timely foresight, take steps to supply the legitimate outlets for those aspirations and to satisfy those ambitions consistent with the maintenance of British authority”[7]

• In 1886, Sir Henry Harrison expressed a similar sentiment in the following words

“Repress the educated natives, their ambitions and then aspirations and you tum them into a solid phalanx of opposition against the Government; gratify their ambitions, and you make them the allies of the Government.”[8]

‘Loyal to the Crown’ Indian National Congress Wanted Eternal British rule

In the first session of INC in 1885, in his presidential address,W. C. Bannerji described the Congress as the “National Assembly of India”, that would pro­mote Indian national unity by projecting common interests of Indians from a single platform. He argued that although the participants of the first Congress were not  elected in the same manner as the members of the House of Commons, they were nevertheless the selected representatives of the major provin­ces and towns of India, and could therefore claim to be the repre­sentatives of the people of India. He asserted that they were following a course which was modelled on the English constitution, which justified the representation of their views. He concluded by emphasising that Congressmen desired the permanence of British  rule in India, and that their ultimate aim was only to gain a share in the administration of its government.[9]

Congress Grateful to the Raj for Dispelling Darkness of Hindu Polity & Asiatic Despotism

In the second congress meeting in 1886, it credited the British with the formation of India. In his presidential address, Dadabhai Naoroji rhetorically asked if anyone could have imagined that a meeting of Indians from different parts of India could assemble to speak as one nation even in the most glorious days of Hindu rule. This, he went on to say, was possible under British rule and under British rule only. He attributed the very existence of the Congress to England’s providential
mission, declaring that “the people of England were sincere in the declara­tions that  India was  a sacred  charge  entrusted  to  their  care by Providence and that they were bound to administer it for the good of India, to the glory of their own name and the satisfaction of God.He stressed that Congressmen were “loyal to the backbone” to the British Government because they appreciated the benefits of English education which revealed to them that “kings are made for the people, not people for their kings”-a lesson which they have learnt “amidst the darkness of Asiatic despotism only by the light of English civilization.”[10]
The congress newspaper Bengalee declared in 1897-“United India is the soundest triumph of British rule, a crown of glory to the British Government.”[11]

Congress Propagated that the British rule Strengthened Prosperity

In 1887, a few Englishmen who were witness to the third session of Congress recorded that the  Congress pledge talked about served royalty to British rule until the sun, stars and moon exist. Remember Jab Tak Sooraj Chand Rahega! A cover letter to the report of the third Congress, dated May 1888 and signed by W. C. Bannerji, Dadabhai Naoroji and Badrudin Tyabji, as presidents of the three Congress sessions, explained that  the Indian people as a whole and their leaders in particular were loyally bound to the British Government and were convinced that the granting of their demands would increase the strength of the Government as it would add to the prosperity of the people. In the very same report, the Congress alluded to itself as “the soundest triumph of British administration and the crown of glory to the British nation.[12]”

In his presidential address to the fourth Session of Indian national congress in 1888, Surendra Nath Bannerji Prayed  “God grant that the future may deepen our loyalty, stimulate our patriotism and consolidate our imperial connection with England[13]”.

Speaking in Calcutta on 26 July 1888, he declared: “Deep and unswerving loyalty to the British Crown and constitutional agitation for our rights are the words which are graven on the heart of every Indian patriot[14].”

In England, he explained that by the “introduction of English education and Western principles of government, British rule had saved India from her traditional system of mis-government and from the religious domination of her priestly class[15]”

In his introduction to the fourth annual Report of the Congress, 1888 W.C. Bannerji wrote: the principle on which the Indian National Congress is based is that British Rule should be permanent and abiding in India.”

In 1908, when Viceroy Lord  Hardinge asked Congress president Gokhale “How would you like it, if I were to tell you that all the British officials and British troops were to leave India within a month?” Gokhale replied ,”Before you had all reached Aden, we would be telegraphing you to come back again.”(Hardinge lord, My indian years, london, 1948, P.116)

Congress for Rights of English Educated Indians;Not ‘Ignorant Peasants’

In its Report of the fourth l.N.C. Allahabad 1888, p. 29. Congress put forth a resolution emphasising that it sought “neither a parliamentary system, nor representative government, nor the application of democratic methods to Indian institutions.” Explaining the proposals of the Congress for the reform of the Legislative Councils at the twelfth annual meeting of the Indian Association in 1888, Bannerji asserted that the proposed Councillors could not be elected by “people unfit to exercise the franchise— the ignorant peasantry· of the country[16]”

Congress Called the Racist British as ‘Kshatriyas’

In 1888, senior Congress leader Surendra Nath Bannerji, in his capacity as president of Congress delegation to London, stated, “To England we may appeal with confidence. When Italy was struggling for liberty, England stretched the right hand of sympathy. When Greece was endeavouring to assert her right place among the nations, England was there, the foster mother of freedom responsive to the call. We are not Italians or Greeks. We are something better. We are British subjects[17].”
INC session convener Ananda Charlu, in 1891, told Congressmen they should arouse the national consciousness of the masses by imparting the conviction that they should cease to regard British rule as foreign, and “ask them to look upon our British rulers as taking the place once held by the Kshatrias and as being therefore part and parcel of the traditional administration” of India [18].
While addressing few English people on the programme of the Congress, S N Bannerji frankly explained that Congressmen could only be loyal because “We have everything to lose, ·nothing to gain by the severance of our connection with England. We owe whatever position or prestige we have acquired to our English education and culture. If you were to leave the country our English education and culture would be at a discount. We are not particularly anxious to ·commit political suicide.”
In an interview, Bannerji explained the character and goal of the Congress while emphasising that the Congress sought only a partial share in the administration of the government and said: ” The National Congress as a crude non-official Parliament would keep alive the feeling of loyalty. We want to be associated with our rulers not to supersede them . . . we want you English here, we cannot do without you; We have a great reverence for our own traditions leavened by English feelings. We want to combine our ancient good with your good. All we ask: for is sympathy, sympathy, sympathy.[19]”

Indian National Congress indulged in Minority Appeasement to Stay Relevant

History seems to indicate that appeasement of minority to further its own agenda is not alien to Congress. When Syed Sayyed Ahmed Khan asserted that the Congress aimed to advance the exclusive interests of the Hindus, promoting civil war and advised Muslims to hold themselves aloof from “this political uproar”-i.e. the Congress, it elected Badrudin Tyabji to the presidency of the third Congress in December 1887 at Madras. This was designed to demonstrate that the Congress was also representative of the Muslims. Tyabji stressed this point in his presidential address and declared that he was moved to preside over the session in order to encourage Muslims to co-operate with Hindus for their common benefit. In 1887, the INC also paid the fares of Muslim delegates  to attend its session and offered them other facilities. The much done to death Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb seems to be a legacy of the INC as well, for, Surendra Nath Bannerji, INC President from 1886 to 1900, would claim that throughout the period of Muslim rule in India, Hindus and Muslims had lived as brothers who worked jointly for the advancement of the interests of their common country.

Indian National Congress –  A One Man Dictatorship!

The following rules governed the proceedings of the Congress:

1. On any point of order the decision of the President was final and thereupon no further discussions were allowed.
2. None but the delegates could address the Congress or vote in any manner.
3. Every delegate had to address the assembly from the speakers’ platform and his address could be cut short by the President.
4. The Subjects Committee formulated all the resolutions and selected the proposers, seconders, and supporters of each resolution.[20]

In 1902, Kayastha Samachar wrote of congress autocracy -“It ill becomes those who protest so loudly against the despotism of the Indian Government, to set up over their followers a despotism no less unbearable and to resort to unconstitutional methods.” In November 1902, Senior Congress leader Pherozeshah Mehta overturned the nomination of democratically elected member Kalicharan Bannerji to nominate Surendranath Bannerji to the presidency of the Congress. Reacting to it, Lal Mohan Ghosh declared in his presidential address to the INC session 1903  that since the  whole aim of the Congress was to liberalize the autocratic Government of India, it was essential for the leaders of the Congress to themselves refrain from autocratic rule of the Congress.
Another nationalist freedom fighter, Lala Lajpat Rai ridiculed the Congress as an annual festival of English-educated Indians who assembled in order to amuse themselves and to increase their fame by “uttering plausibly worded platitudes in the shape of speeches.” He mocked the dress of the well-to-do delegates and condemned the lavish decorations and furnishings of the Congress pavilions as an unjustified extravagance. He argued that this gave cause to Englishmen in India and in England to point to the prosperity of Indians under British rule and to negate the deliberations of the Congress on the poverty of India.

Congress’ Contempt for Freedom Fighters

In the INC session of 1898 , chairman Subbarao Pantulu observed : “Today the elite of India’s leaders, prosperous in their profession, respected by their fellow-countrymen, meet year after year to strengthen the foundation of the same rule which in 1857 ignorant and misguided people tried to overthrow.. so long as the Congress would last, the events of 1857 would not occur again[23]”. In 1897, the Congress newspaper Bengalee referred to the editor of the Marathi paper Pratoda , who had advocated for Indian home rule, as a “lunatic[24]”. Senior Congress leader, Sir Surendra Nath Bannerji, in his autobiography  alluded to Queen Victoria, the “Empress of India“ in terms of “Our Sovereign“ and “Our Mother”[25]. Furthermore, he referred to British invasion and conquest of India as “dispensation of divine providence”[26]
Formation of Congress was a well thought of plan of the British invaders to make this class of Brown Sahibs propagate a favourable opinion of British rule and act as effective deterrents of unfavourable opinion or possible revolt. While paying lip service to their Indian heritage, the Indian National Congress remained avowed admirers of Western hegemony and English culture. It’s aim was not India’s swarajya but continued subjugation..
 References
1) Hardinge lord, My Indian years, London, 1948, P.116
2)McLeod, John. Post Colonialism P.101
3)A O Hume, Document 15 pp.141-43
4)The Indian National Congress, p. 169 and Bipin Chandra Pal, Swadeshi and ‘Swaraj, Calcutta, 1956.
5)B.N Pandey, The Nationalist Movement, 1885-1947 pp.1
6) Baring to Mallet, 25 September 1882, enclosed in Baring to Ripon, 25 September 1882, RP
7)Briton Martin Jr., Lord Dufferin and Indian  National Congress p.71. Cambridge university Press 1967
8)Quarterly Review, 1886, pp. 112-113.
9)Report of the first I.N.C. Bombay 1885, pp. 7·8.
10)Report of the second I.N.C. Calcutta 1886, p. 53
11)Bengalee, 30 October 1897.
12)Report of the third I.N.C. Madras 1887, p. 86
13)Report of the fourth l.N.C. Allahabad 1888, p. 82.
14)Speeches, Vol. ID, p. 65, July 1888.
15)Speeches, Vol. III, p. 124, April 1890.
16)Speeches, Vol. Ill, p. 62, “The Present Political Situation”, 26 July 1888.
17)Report of the third I.N.C. Madras 1887, p. 86.
18)Report of the seventh l.N.C. Nagpur 1891
19)Bengalee, 3 November 1894.
20)Report of the tenth l.N.C. Madras 1894.
21)B.N Pandey, The Nationalist Movement, 1885-1947 pp.23
22)Ibid PP.24
23)Report of the fourteenth l.N.C. Madras 1898, p. 11
24)Bengalee, 4 September 1897
25)SB Chapter I, p. 21.
26)John. P.Jones. India’s Problem PP. 51

The article is adapted from author’s blog and republished with permission.

Dimple Kaul and True Indology

बल या प्रज्ञा

बल या प्रज्ञा

महाभारत की इस कथा का सूत्र हरिवंश में पाया जाता है । इस लेख में तीन पात्र हैं, हालांकि उन तीन पात्रों में से दो व्यक्ति हैं और एक शहर है ।

महाभारत की इस कथा का सूत्र हरिवंश में पाया जाता है । इस लेख में तीन पात्र हैं, हालांकि उन तीन पात्रों में से दो व्यक्ति हैं और एक शहर है ।

यह तो सब भली भांति जानते हैं कि श्री कृष्ण की ही राय पर मथुरा को छोड़ने का निर्णय लिया गया था। मथुरा से दूर, समुद्र तट पर द्वारवती नामक स्थान पर एक नए शहर का निर्माण किया गया । मथुरा छोड़ने का कारण था जरासंध के उस शहर पर निरंतर आक्रमण । वृष्णियों ने यह भी स्वीकारा की वो जरासंध को सौ साल में भी पराजित नहीं कर सकते थे । ऐसी स्तिथि में मथुरा नगरी छोड़ने के अतिरिक्त कोई और विकल्प था ही नहीं।

मुचकुन्द की आँखों की ज्वाला से कालयवन का जलना [श्रेय: http://bhaktiart.net/]

जरासंध का अंत हुआ, और श्री कृष्ण की उसमे अहम् भूमिका थी, हालांकि वध भीमसेन के हाथों हुआ था। जरासंध वध की कथा महाभारत में  सभा पर्व के जरासंध वध उप-पर्व में पायी जाती है । इस लेख में मै जरासंध से अधिक कालयवन पर ध्यान देना चाहता हूँ । जरासंध की भांति कालयवन भी ऐसा व्यक्ति था जिसे वृष्णि और अंधक पराजित नहीं कर सकते थे । क्यों? कालयवन की क्या कहानी थी?

कालयवन की कथा भी एक ऐसी कथा है जिसमें सारे मानव भाव पाए जाते हैं । गार्ग्य एक ऋषि थे जो वृष्णि और अंधकों दोनों के गुरु थे । पर मथुरा में उन्हीं के बहनोई ने उनका तिरस्कार किया, यह कहकर की गार्ग्य मर्द ही नहीं थे। गार्ग्य अपमान नहीं सह सके और उन्होंने मथुरा नगरी त्याग दी । पर अब गार्ग्य, जिन्होंने न विवाह किया था, न संतान जन्मी थी, उसी गार्ग्य मुनिवर को अब संतान चाहिए थी । यह था अपमान का परिणाम! गार्ग्य ने शिव की आराधना की, और रूद्र से वरदान प्राप्त किया की उन्हें न सिर्फ़ एक पुत्र की प्राप्ति होगी पर एक ऐसा पुत्र जो वृष्णि और अंधकों को पराजित करने में समर्थ होगा। अब यह एक पहेली ही है कि गार्ग्य ने संतान के साथ क्या वृष्णि और अंधकों को पराजित करने वाली संतान का भी वरदान माँगा था, क्योंकि हरिवंश पुराण ने इस विषय पर रौशनी नहीं डाली है । पर जो भी हो, शिव से यह वरदान तो मिल गया था गार्ग्य को ।

यवनो के राजा को इस बात का पता चला । यवन राजा को भी पुत्र की अभिलाषा थी । राजा ने गार्ग्य को अपनी राजधानी बुलवा लिया । यवन राजा के महल में युवतियों में गोपाली नामक अप्सरा भी थी, जो मानव रूप में अन्य युवतियों के साथ थी । गोपाली  ने ही गार्ग्य के पुत्र को जन्म दिया । इस पुत्र को यवन राजा ने अपने पुत्र की तरह पाला पोसा और राजा के देहांत पर यही पुत्र यवनों का नया राजा बना । नए राजा का नाम था कालयवन ।

कालयवन ने मथुरा की ओर कूच कर दी । श्री कृष्ण युद्ध के उत्सुक नहीं थे, यह तो तय था । परंतु, वे एक बार कालयवन से मनोवैज्ञानिक युद्ध अवष्य करना चाहते थे, संभवतः कालयवन का लोहा देखने के लिए । इसिलिए उन्होंने कालयवन को एक मटका भिजवाया जिसमें एक काला नाग था । तात्पर्य स्पष्ट था – कृष्ण ने अपने आप की तुलना एक काले नाग से की। प्रत्योत्तर अब कालयवन को देना था, और उसी भाषा में जिस में प्रश्न किया गया था । कालयवन ने मटके में चींटियाँ भर दीं । चींटियों ने नाग को इधर उधर काट लिया – नाग नष्ट हो गया । कृष्ण को अपना उत्तर मिल गया था । कालयवन एक समक्ष प्रतिद्वंदी था जिसे रूद्र के वरदान का कवच भी था। इसे युद्ध में पराजित करना असंभव था।

कालयवन का अंत श्री कृष्ण के कारण ही हुआ पर, वो कैसे? मथुरा वासियों को द्वारावती पहुँचाने के बाद कृष्ण मथुरा दुबारा लौटे । कालयवन मधुसूदन के पीछे पीछे आने लगा । कृष्ण कालयवन को मुचकुंद की गुफ़ा में ले गए । मुचकुन्द एक राजा था जिसने असुरों के विरुद्ध देवों की सहायता की थी| युद्ध के पश्चात आभारी देवों ने मुचकुन्द को यह करदान दिया कि जिसने भी उसे नींद से जगाया वह मुचकुंद की आँखों की ज्वाला से भस्म हो जाएगा । कालयवन का अंत कैसे हुआ इसका तो खटका आपको हो ही गया होगा । कालयवन ने गुफ़ा में प्रवेष किया, सोते हुए मुचकुन्द के शरीर को कृष्ण समझ बैठा, और उसे लात मारी । मुचकुन्द उठे, कालयवन को देखा, और अपनी आँखों की क्रोध की अग्नि कालयवन को भस्म कर दिया ।

ऐसा नहीं है कि श्री कृष्ण ने अपने प्रतिद्वंदियों से कभी युद्ध नहीं किय। कंस, नरकासुर, शाल्व सब उदहारण हैं राजाओं के जिनसे श्री कृष्ण ने युद्ध किया और युद्ध में उन सब का वध भी किया । जरासंध और कालयवन ऐसे शत्रु थे जो वृष्णि या अंधकों के हाथों प्रत्यक्ष युद्ध में पराजित नहीं हो सकते थे । कृष्ण स्वयं की परिसीमा से भली- भाँति परिचित थे । जरासंध और कालयवन की घटनाएं हमें दर्शाती हैं की कृष्ण का जीवन हमें भगवान के रूप से अधिक मानव रूप में देखना चाहिए । धरती पर मानव रूप में, मानवों की सीमाओं के घेरे में रहकर ही श्री कृष्ण ने दर्शाया कि कहाँ बल का प्रयोग किया जाना चाहिए और कहाँ बुद्धि का । बल-बुद्धि का संतुलित मिश्रण ही विजय सुनिश्चित करता है । जो साधन और सीमायें श्री कृष्ण की थीं , वही हमारी भी हैं । संभवतः यह श्री कृष्ण का सबसे महत्वपूर्ण सन्देश और सीख है हम सब के लिए ।


Sabhar from India Facts.

Written by Sh Abhinav Agarwal

Why compassion to animals is not a cultural universal

This article gives a comparative survey of Indian and western attitudes towards non-human life in general and towards animals in specific.

Given that more than 10 billion animals get slaughtered every year, it should make us wonder what kind of an outlook, what worldview enables so much cruelty. Towards that end, I will herein be attempting a comparative survey of Indian and western attitudes towards non-human life in general and towards animals in specific. More importantly, we would be looking at deep differences in ideas that shape these attitudes. I will stick to broad currents within each world view and avoid minor exceptions within each, so we do not miss the forest for the trees. Once we identify the deeply embedded differences in ideas, we would be able to better appreciate and comprehend the ground realities that we see.

As an outline, I wish to introduce the various world views that we would survey. We would begin with the Abrahamic religions and proceed to the outlook of most modern day secularists as these occupy maximum mind space in the world today. We will then look at Dharma as an alternative and in contrast to these. Once we have covered sufficient ground on the ideas of each, we will then briefly visit the cocoon of the Indian secularists and also touch upon issues with present day animal rights activism.

Abrahamic worldview

We are invariably confronted with the question of religion in shaping attitudes towards non-human life and hence we shall begin here. With regard to animals and nature, we can place the Abrahamic religions in the same basket i.e. they force the world into a binary – only humans have souls while the rest of life do not.

Genesis 1-26:28 says – “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Islam, being a derivative of Christianity, was not much different in that the all merciful God added the constraint of halal, which is arguably a crueler means of slaughter. In a nutshell, these religions view all life apart from humans as purely mechanical automata. It is also intriguing to note that in the few dialogues that Christian missionaries had with Hindu pundits in the early 18th to the early 19th century, the Christians’ poor treatment of animals was a recurring theme of criticism advanced by the pundits [1] I reproduce here a recording of a Christian missionary Rogerius (1651) about his frustration with the pundits: [2]

“You cannot make them admit that Man outstrips the beasts and that he is a nobler creature than the animals because he has a superior soul. If you try to remonstrate with them on this, they would say, animals also have a similar kind of soul. If you try to demonstrate this by the workings of the rational soul, which is evident in Man and not in the beasts: you may expect an answer… that the reason why animals do not exhibit the kind of rationality and understanding that human beings can show, why they cannot speak as man does, is because they are not given a body capable of exhibiting the qualities of their soul …”

Bridge to the Secular

Though, it is straightforward to understand the implications of such religious beliefs in the treatment of animals, which correlates with the ground realities that we see today, one wonders as to why the secular world hasn’t changed much in their outlook towards them. This becomes clear once we understand the secularized version of the belief that animals do not have soul – “animals do not have consciousness”. Before we dive deeper into this belief, let us pause and note that this secularized attitude towards animals is not an inch different from Christian theology, i.e. that non-human life are purely mechanical automata (although framed in a more sophisticated and scientific terminology).
Allen and Trestman rightly note: “…there is a lot at stake morally in the question of whether animals are conscious beings or “mindless automata”. Many billions of animals are slaughtered every year for food, for use in research, and for other human purposes. Moreover, before their deaths, many — perhaps most — of these animals are subject to the conditions of life that — if they are in fact experienced by the animals in anything like the way a human would experience them — amount to cruelty. Arguments that non-human animals are not conscious, therefore, effectively double as apologetics for our treatment of animals. When the question of animal consciousness is under consideration, our guilt or innocence as a civilization for an enormous body of cruelty may hang in the balance.”[3]

Consciousness here refers to phenomenal consciousness, i.e. the subjective, qualitative, experiential experience, otherwise, referred to as “qualia”. As an example of phenomenal consciousness, consider the experience of sound as compared to a coax cable carrying an audio signal or the qualitative experience of vision as compared to a camera. Though the ear and eye relay information much the same way the cable or the lens in a camera relay information, the former is followed by a qualitative experience. It is this qualitative experience that is theoretically denied for animals. Hence, an argument can be made that animals cannot experience pain as a subjective mental state or some psychologists and neuroscientists claim that they are not bothered by the pain.

The secularized version, i.e. the idea that animals are devoid of consciousness begins largely with Rene Descartes and his philosophy of Cartesian Dualism by which he held that material processes are insufficient to explain rational thinking and language. This is also why he drew the line between animals and humans as the former do not have rational thought or language and he held that a purely mechanical explanation could account for their behavior [4] Hence, he claimed that a purely mechanical understanding of animal existence absolved people of any guilt in killing animals and also of performing vivisections for experimentation [5] This view doesn’t hold weight in the light of modern science as language and rationality can be explained largely through a mechanical view. The same is not true for phenomenal consciousness.

Secular worldview

Most modern secularists being materialists, i.e. who hold a completely material account for the human being and brain (and also the world), see consciousness as an evolved characteristic of the human mind through natural selection (evolution). Most scientific studies into animal consciousness proceed through a behaviorist approach, i.e. they study the behavior of animals to infer consciousness. On this account, it is important to note the problem with such an approach. Allen and Trestman (2015) note that consciousness cannot be inferred based on behavioral studies, if (and only if) phenomenal consciousness has no measurable effects on human behavior (epiphenomenalism). It will be shown shortly why this conclusion (that phenomenal consciousness can have no measurable effects on behavior) is inevitable in a materialist world view. They continue further, “If phenomenal consciousness is completely epiphenomenal, as some philosophers believe, then a search for the functions of consciousness is doomed to futility.” [6] [From a Dharma point of view, that consciousness would have no measurable effects on behavior follows from the notion that the atma is akarta i.e. the atma (as pure consciousness and witness) is not the doer – see Bhagavad Gita 13.32. This is not to say that consciousness is epiphenomenal from a Dharma point of view. However, elaboration on this is beyond the scope of the present topic. This was highlighted just to show that, even as per the Gita, a behavioral approach to judge the presence/absence of consciousness is flawed]
Epiphenomenalism (as stated earlier) means that mental states are produced by physical states of the brain and cannot themselves influence the physical states in the brain. Huxley (1874) gives an excellent analogy where he compares mental events (and hence phenomenal consciousness) to a steam whistle that contributes nothing to the work of a locomotive. [7] With a material monist world view, this conclusion would be unavoidable for if every consciousness state has an equivalent neural correlate then the question arises as to which (mental or neural i.e. consciousness or physical) has influence over the other. All stimulus having its origin in matter must then eventually work its way to a resulting neural state (through physical forces) thereby establishing the priority of the neural state (material) over the mental (consciousness). This invariably leads to the conclusion that the mental state has no effect whatsoever on the physical and thus no effect on behavior. If one pursues this line of thought, then even human beings can be explained away as purely mechanical automata and deserve no rights themselves.

Setting aside this dead end for a behaviorist approach, there are other problems we can note in the studies. Very often the impulse is to study animal behavior in the light of human behavior. The invariable fall out of this is that the conclusion is already assumed in the inquiry, i.e. that animals are acknowledged to have consciousness based on the degree with which they match human behavior.
There is also extensive neuroscience research to compare human nervous system against several animal species. As per Griffin & Speck, the search for neural correlates of consciousness has not revealed “any structure or process necessary for consciousness that is found only in human brains.”  This view is widely although not universally shared by neuroscientists. [8]

This inevitably brings us to the mind-body problem that is explained in the book, “The Architecture of knowledge”, by Dr. Subhash Kak. He notes that the materialist doctrine implies either a denial of consciousness or that mental events are epiphenomena. [9] That mental events are epiphenomena has already been established to be a road block in inferring consciousness from behavior as shown earlier.
To conclude, there is no evading the fact that in a reductionist and materialist approach, it is inevitable that consciousness as mere epiphenomena reduces human beings to mechanical automata much the same as animals were viewed up until now (i.e. even human rights has no basis and secularists being materialists themselves aren’t taking their world view to a logical conclusion in their so called fight for ‘human rights’). Therefore, we are not only guilty of great crimes against non-human life, but we would also have no basis for law or “human rights”, since humans would be reduced to mere mechanical automata.

This treatment of animals is yet another instance of a recurring pattern seen in the history of the West. The “other” of the day is subjected to extremely reductionist views and violently subjugated. Once the damage is done (viz. colonialism, imperialism, genocides, etc.) and there is no turning back, then there is an acknowledgement of past errors and liberal apologists will elevate the suppressed often to boost their own “savior” complex. We can see this happening even with respect to the present case where voices in some branches of the academia are acknowledging the presence of consciousness in animals, but this will take a long time to become a mainstream view before which many more billions of animals will have been slaughtered.

Dharmic worldview

In direct contrast to the world views discussed so far, Indian traditions view consciousness as a) all-pervading and b) present as the essential self of all jivas (both human and non-human life). The Chandogya Upanishad declares that the self, pervades all existence like salt in water. The very first verse of Isha Upanishad states that all existence is inhabited by Ishvara. The Manu Smriti (1.49) explicitly declares that even plants have consciousness. It is thus evident why Indians revere nature and why ahimsa assumes a high stature in Indian culture. This does not mean that injury or violence is avoided wholesale and is totally absent, as that would be impossible, but rather that there is a conscious awareness of the harm being caused and a worldview, which advocates minimizing such injuries to the extent possible in one’s own life. Harm is seen as an inevitable necessity for life as the Bhaghavata Purana states, “The life of life is life [9]”, i.e. plants and animals, which as food gives life to humans, are life as well.

There is vibrant debate among various Indian traditions as to what extent of harm is valid and we have the Jains taking the most extreme position of pacifism. Thiruvalluvar dedicates a whole set of 10 couplets (ch26) towards non-harming of animals in his Thirukkural. There is also gradation in allowable harm for different stages of life and based on one’s svadharma. A Sannyasi, for example, avoids any form of injury, including cooking of food, whereas a Kshatriya must take up arms for the sake of Dharma. Ahimsa is also recognized as a Samanya Dharma i.e. universal principle irrespective of class, gender or station in life. [11] Bheeshma, the Kshatriya par excellence, explains the glory of ahimsa in the Anushasana parva of Mahabharata thus, “Non-injury is the highest duty, non-injury is the highest self-restraint, non-injury is the highest gift, and it is the highest austerity.” [12] Viva Kermani in her article “Hindu roots of modern ecology” shows in detail how various plants and trees are protected and revered in the traditions of India and also how animals have been integrated in Indian culture in the form of vahanas of different deities. It demonstrates as to how the indigenous tradition of India is a vibrant nature tradition with nature protection forming the very seed ideas right from the Vedas. Since, the seed idea of ahimsa is deeply embedded in Indian culture, it has sprouted and flowered in various forms amongst different communities and traditions. The idea here is not to analyze micro level/specific instances and judge them, but rather to defend the intrinsic value of ahimsa and let it work itself out among the various communities and cultures across the world. I see that it is the vision of the Rishis to introduce the concept of ahimsa as a guiding principle without strict quantification so that each individual or tradition may strive towards the ideal to the best of their ability or svadharma. What we have in the present worldview of modernity is a total denial of this ideal or at best applying it only to humans. The result is the most horrific forms of factory farming guided solely by a cold maximization of profit.

The cocoon of Indian secularists

The secularists of India reduce all this complexity to “religious superstition” notwithstanding the fact that the rate of slaughter has grown tenfold in the past thirty years, clearly a feat of “progress” and “modernity”. [13] The hollowness of their thinking must be evident from the ideas surveyed so far. They even give news space to the likes of Kancha Iliah, who claims that our (Indians’) brains are not growing as we gave up eating beef. [14] The Christianized Indian elite perpetuate the same Christian idea on India that practices are derived from scriptures.[15] Hence, Indian practices of ahimsa are watered down as they may not always be found in the “holy books”. Practices like avoiding meat on particular days of the week are treated as “superstition” by the more secularized Indians and are slowly being discarded. Hardly any modern Indian is aware of their daily dharma towards feeding animals. The secular intellectual elite display a total lack of original thinking, when it comes to animal welfare. Hence, we see a frantic quest for conservation of species, once they enter the “endangered list”, while displaying a total disregard for traditions that protect them. Case in point is the recent ban on Jallikattu, where the animal welfare board of India claimed that they are more interested in animal “welfare” rather than conserving species (ironically in response to the charge that the ban results in native breeds being sent to slaughter houses) [16] Please read this article for a detailed analysis of the Jallikattu ban and hypocrisy of the courts.
Secularism has had a detrimental impact on the environment as shown here. The secular intellectuals never fail to break the pattern of playing the “individual rights” card when it comes to animal slaughter while being more than happy to ban Indian traditions that involve animals even when they don’t involve killing or even injury.

Modern animal rights activism

The fact that animal rights activists frame their campaign as a “rights” campaign shows us that the eventual aim is to bring the issue into the purview of law and the state. As this article shows, India is a Dharma society rather than a law driven society. The inevitable fallout of such a stance is that what will be deemed as right/wrong will become purely a function of numbers and political clout rather than truth. So, we see that tens of billions of animals are slaughtered per year without the slightest reaction by our “conscience keepers”, while a festival like Jallikattu, where no animal is killed will be branded as animal abuse and banned. The native custodians of the traditions hardly have a say in the matter and are poorly represented. The same secular intellectuals that claim that such traditions are barbaric are the ones who gleefully advertise their beef eating sprees and beef fests (One wonders how beef eating became fashionable in India). The same applies to the ban of temple elephants in Kerala. Of course, these motivated stunts are more political in nature than a genuine case of animal rights activism as shown here. The problem lies in the fact that many well-meaning Indians buy into this farce.
The secularized discourse by activists, who are so sure that “religion must never be dragged into animal rights”, just facilitate the digestion of Indian ideas into Western universalism as shown by Rajiv Malhotra. [17] Most activists rejoice the ban of the aforementioned traditions and very often are the ones leading the legal case towards the ban. By their commitment to never touch “certain” religion in their criticism, they ensure that large scale violence towards animals will remain unchallenged.

Conclusion

With a comparative study of various worldviews as shown above, it is safe to conclude that it is only from the Indian traditions and worldviews that any genuine case for animal welfare can be made and hence it remains the sole hope for millions of innocent and peaceful creatures across the globe. I hope this article has put to rest the shallow thinking of the likes – “survival of the fittest” – that has enthralled many modern Indians. The horrendous treatment they are subjected to, needs no mention here. Modern factory farming is the biggest shame on human civilization.
Indians must hence pose a serious intellectual challenge to such reductionist ideas about animals and enable the spread of the notion of ahimsa, which must be our minimum commitment to Dharma. It is very clear from the analysis so far that the very notion of ahimsa is in question not merely, in practice, but in the academia and the sphere of ideas. The gravity of this cannot be over stated.

Sabhar from India Facts.

Hindus - The Trap and the Way Out

It was my intention to include in this series a few essays on Hindu Sociology and Hindu History as I see them after many years of study and reflection. But these themes would have to wait for some time. I will return to them later and discuss them with reference to Hindu Spirituality as I have presented it so far.

 

I have received many letters from the readers of this series as I did when I wrote some earlier ones. Most of the readers have appreciated what I have said. A few friends have reacted against my repudiation of Monotheism. It has not been possible for me to reply to these readers individually in spite of a strong desire to do so. But I have felt immensely encouraged. The appreciation as well criticism confirms that there is a large number of my countrymen who are conscious of their spiritual and cultural heritage, and who are moved by more than mundane matters.

 

Before I conclude, I should like to summarise what I have said so far in the context of Hindu Spirituality.

1. Hindu society has been sustained by its spiritual center throughout the ages, particularly in the face of Islamic and Christian barbarism. Countless Hindu heroes and heroines have defied death rather than renounce their ancestral religion. Hindu society will be revived and revitalised only by recovering its spiritual centre which is Sanãtana Dharma.

2. Hindu society has been thrown on the defensive by blood-soaked bigotries, clay-footed creeds, and a mercenary modernist culture because Hindu society is suffering from self-forgetfulness. A re-awakened Hindu society will not evaluate its own heritage in terms of ideas and ideals projected by imperialist ideologies. On the contrary, Hindu society will process these ideologies in terms of its own vision and world-view. That will restore the self-confidence of Hindu society as also Hindu pride in the ancient Hindu heritage.

3. The self-forgetfulness of Hindu society is symbolized by a wide-spread misinterpretation of the Vedic verse ekam sad viprãh bahudhã vadanti to mean that the Vedas also advocate Monotheism. This misinterpretation is motivated by a psychology of surrender as signified by the Hindu slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhãva vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam. A psychology of imitation is also at work. It has led some Sikh theologians to cast into monotheistic moulds the Vaishnava spirituality of the Ãdigrantha.

4. Monotheistic creeds like Christianity and Islam view Sanãtana Dharma as chaos and anarchy because Sanãtana Dharma does not (1) swear by a historical prophet or saviour, (2) grant a monopoly of truth to a book (al-kitãb), (3) prop up a True One God against False Many Gods, and (4) seek the intercession of a prophet or saviour for escape from an eternal hell and get admitted into an eternal heaven. But that is not the fault of Sanãtana Dharma. That indicates only the limitations from which the monotheistic mind suffers. A monotheist feels lost in the spiritual freedom of Sanãtana Dharma like a Soviet citizen who fails to understand the functioning of a democratic society.

5. Evaluated by Sanãtana Dharma, Christianity and Islam turn out to be constructs of the outer human mind, drawing upon dark drives of the unregenerate unconscious. Sanãtana Dharma stands for self-exploration, self-purification, and self-transcendence, while Islam and Christianity stand for self-stupefaction, self-righteousness, and self-aggrandizement.

6. The central message of Sanãtana Dharma is that (1) the spiritual aspiration for absolute Truth, Goodness, Beauty and Power is inherent in every human being, everywhere, and at all times, (2) the spiritual striving cannot come to rest till a seeker overcomes all limitations of human and universal nature, and emerges as master of himself as well as of the universe, and (3) the way to world-discovery and God-discovery is through self-discovery. At the same time, Sanãtana Dharma proclaims that there are as many ways of spiritual seeking as there are seekers, and that spiritual seeking does not express itself in any single and set doctrine or dogma. This is the basis of true universalism enshrined in Sanãtana Dharma, as opposed to the counterfeit universalism of Christianity and Islam which prescribes one fixed, fossilized, and uniform system of belief and behaviour for everyone.

7. Sanãtana Dharma is ingrained in the Hindu psyche which sees the same divinity in everything and everywhere, and which invests our entire environment with innumerable Gods and Goddesses. The mullah and the missionary denounce this Hindu psyche as poisoned by Pantheism and Polytheism. But that is the language of Monotheism which is incapable of understanding any type of spirituality whatsoever. Monotheism is disguised materialism which makes God extra-cosmic and denies divinity to God�s creation. The God of Monotheism is soon replaced by the only son or the last prophet who, in turn, is replaced by a monolithic Church or Ummah out to conquer the world by force and fraud.

8. Hindu spiritual consciousness is expressed in terms of a plurality of Gods. These Gods are many a time symbolized by concrete images such as Sûrya, Agni, Marut, etc. This is because Sanãtana Dharma allows many variations on the same spiritual theme, and does not put Matter in an irreconcilable opposition to Spirit. The forms and features of Hindu icons have a source higher than the normal reaches of the human mind. Idol-worship is the only way by which the sense-bound human mind reaches something of the higher spiritual knowledge.

9. History is a witness that the spiritual consciousness of mankind everywhere had expressed itself in a plurality of Gods and in widespread idol-worship, before Christianity and Islam destroyed many ancient religions by fire and sword and imposed monotheistic materialism on large sections of mankind. Hindu spirituality which still retains its ancient intuition and genius, has to help many societies in Asia, Africa, America, Europe and Oceania to reject these impositions and revive their old Gods. That is the only path towards their spiritual and cultural emancipation from the imperialist and inhuman yoke of Christianity and Islam.

10. Monotheism of Christianity and Islam is not only an impediment on the path of spiritual progress, it also divides mankind into warring camps by giving currency to a number of hate-filled words such as infidel, kãfir, heretic, idolater, polytheist, etc. What is worse, Monotheism promotes the most degenerate type of idolatry by manufacturing myths and miracles about its all-too-human apostles and prophets, saints and sufis, and by seeing the supernatural in dirt and dross such as the hair, the saliva, the shoe, the shirt, and the shroud. It expects the idols of the infidels to perform the same supernatural miracles, and breaks them when the miracles are not forthcoming. Monotheism thus turns out to be the most abominable superstition.

11. Hindu sages and seers could tap the sources of universal spirituality because they did not start with an a priori assumption of an Almighty God as the creator and controller of the cosmos. Their starting point was the human person. That is why Hindu spiritual literature abounds in psychological and psychic terms. Hindu sages and seers explored human consciousness till they discovered the highest dimension of humanhood. It is seldom that Hindu spirituality speaks in the language of Theism. God as the creator and controller of the cosmos is unknown to the Vedas, to the Upanishads, to Jainism, to Buddhism, and to the six systems of Hindu philosophy. Hindu spirituality never renounces its base in humanism; it only raises humanism to its highest meaning and significance.

12. Christian mystics and Muslim sufis continued to travel on the same path of universal spirituality because the new creeds sat lightly on them, and discovered the true fount of freedom from bondage. But Christianity and Islam used the power of theocratic states to suppress this natural and spontaneous mysticism and sufism. In due course, the mystics and sufis were made to serve the imperial establishments of the Church and the Ummah, and they became degenerate accomplices of predatory imperialism. Hindu spirituality has to rescue Christian mysticism from the clutches of Christian theology, and salvage sufism from servitude to prophetic Islam. That is the only basis on which Hindu society can come to terms with Christian and Muslim communities in India.

13. The true character of Christian theology and prophetic Islam is revealed when one studies the genesis of Christianity and Islam in the Gospels and biographies of the Prophet. Such a study leaves no doubt that Christianity and Islam are not religions but political ideologies pregnant with imperialist ambitions. Their appetite has been whetted by their conquest of a large part of the world by the power of the sword. Hindu society is making a serious mistake in treating Christianity and Islam as religions, and by extending to them the same samabhãva as has always prevailed among the various sects of Sanãtana Dharma.

14. Hindu society has never had an established church, nor ever known a theocratic state. This society has always been a secular society. This society, therefore, does not need lectures on Secularism such as are delivered to it daily by the Nehruvian ruling class. An honest Secularism would have addressed itself to Christianity and Islam which are the strongholds of exclusiveness and the advocates of a theocratic state. This has not happened because the Nehruvian brand of Secularism arose out of surrender to Islamic separatism. Having failed to overcome Islamic separatism, a section of the national movement, particularly the Leftists under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, blamed their own frustration on what they called Hindu communalism. As a consequence, Nehruvian Secularism is no more than the embodiment of an anti-Hindu animus. The secularists serve as the sappers and miners of Islamic and Christian imperialism. They are also encouraging the imperialism of an Islamicized Akali clique which has been allowed to control gurudwara revenues and thereby dominate Sikh society which is only a section of the larger Hindu society.

15. Hindu society should see through this perverted Secularism, and reject it not only as a counterfeit coin but also as high treason to the Indian nation. That is the only way to defeat the gangster game which goes on all around Hindu society, and which threatens to reduce it to a minority in its own ancestral homeland. The secularist who accuses Hindu society of communalism is no more than a thug who wants to hoodwink this society into believing that its nationalism is communalism. He has to be unmasked and isolated.

HINDU SOCIETY STANDS TRAPPED BY ITS OWN SLOGAN

What is the situation at present?

The Hindu elite continues to shout its slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhãva vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam. It is rare to meet a member of the Hindu elite who does not shout from the housetops that Christianity and Islam are as good religions as his own Sanãtana Dharma. There is no dearth of dim-witted but sanctimonious scholars who line up quotations from the Bible and the Quran alongside quotations from Hindu shastras in order to prove the �essential unity of all religions�. Matters have come to such a pass that a Hindu who does not subscribe to this slogan suffers ostracism from the elite circles of Hindu society. Hindu politicians are the worst culprits. They are mortally afraid of being branded as �Hindu communalists�. And they have neither the knowledge nor the courage to change the universe of public discourse. The secularists have only to invent a new slogan, the Hindu politicians are the first to fall in line. The only purpose they serve is to keep Hindu society always on the defensive.

Neither the missionary nor the mullah subscribes to the slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhãva. Each one of them is convinced and proclaims publicly that his own creed is the only true one, and that to equate it with Sanãtana Dharma is the height of blasphemy. Each of them claims that Hindu society cannot stop him from converting as many Hindus as he can, by all means including force and fraud, without repudiating its own slogan and thus knocking the very bottom out of Secularism. Every Hindu objection to conversions, they say, exposes the Hindus as hypocrites who do not mean what they say. But if you ask the Hindu leaders to renounce this mischievous slogan, they denounce you as one who is trying to upturn an established Hindu tradition. They do not know that this slogan was coined by Mahatma Gandhi, and that it stood totally defeated in his own life-time. The future of Hinduism and Hindu society is dark if this is not debunked, and Islam and Christianity are allowed to march as they are doing at present.

What is the treatment prescribed for Hindus in case Christianity or Islam acquires state power in India? The prescription provided by the missionary as well as the mullah is again unequivocal.

The mullah says: �Allah has mandated the lands of the infidels to his last prophet who, in turn, has bequeathed them to the Ummah. India continues to be a Dar-ul-harb. It is our Allah-ordained duty to convert it into a Dar-ul-Islãm. Our scriptures prescribe a total destruction of kufr (infidelism) and shirk (idolatry). Allah is very jealous of his own position as the only one worthy of worship. He cannot stand the sight of these Hindu idols imitating his majesty and trying to share his divinity. These idols have to be destroyed and trodden under the feet of the mu�mins in order to propitiate Allah. The temples which house these idols have to be demolished and converted into places worthy of our own way of worship. We will, of course, invite all idolaters in India to embrace Islam, willingly and voluntarily. But if they do not come round of their own accord, we are afraid we shall have to use force in furtherance of the only true faith. Allah had sent his last prophet to save all mankind from perdition. The divine duty has devolved on the Ummah after the departure of the Prophet. We cannot turn traitors to his mission.�

If a Hindu protests at this revelation of the �divine duty�, he invites an angry howl from the Ummah. And the whole of it thunders: �So you do not want us to be true to our religion as revealed by Allah to his last prophet, as enshrined in our sacred scripture, the Quran, and as enjoined by our sacred tradition, the Sunnah? What sort of a Hindu are you? Have you not read the books written by your own scholars and sages such as Dr. Bhagwan Das, Pandit Sunderlal, Rahul Sankrityayan, and Vinoba Bhave about the sublimity of Islam? Have you not heard the lectures on sarva-dharma-samabhãva delivered by your own leaders, day in and day out, and over all these so many years? It seems that you are not secular. It looks as if you are a Hindu chauvinist out to deny to us the fundamental right of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the country. We appeal to you to shed your narrow Hindu communalism, and be true to your Hindu Dharma. We assure you that we shall not fail to be true to our Islam. This is the only basis on which our two communities can coexist peacefully till, in due course, the true faith triumphs.�

The Christian missionary also talks in the same vein, though his language is less crude than that of the mullah, and his manners are more sophisticated. His methods of salesmanship are more mature. Also, the mullah is aggressive because he knows that a whole Islamic world supports his onslaught against Hindu society and culture, and because he finds that the Indian ruling class gets really frightened by his threats to mobilize frenzied Muslim mobs for committing gangster acts. He has demonstrated any number of times that his threats are not empty. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, knows that he does not enjoy such solid support in the West, and cannot mobilize Christian mobs on the requite scale.

Hindu society is thus trapped by a slogan which it has itself coined and made current countrywide. It is the same sort of trap in which a democratic society finds itself the moment it grants that the Communist fifth-column or a fascist phalanx is a legitimate political party entitled to enjoy freedom to function and expand.
 

THE WAY OUT
What is the way out?

Hindu society has to realize that Christianity and Islam are not religions but political ideologies inspired by imperialist ambitions. These ideologies came to India as accomplices of Islamic and Western armies. Those armies have been defeated and driven away. The ideologies which came with those armies should now find no place in India. They, too, have to be defeated and dispersed. Hindu society has to recover the ground that was lost to these ideologies during periods of Islamic and Christian expansion and domination. Those sections of Hindu society which were forced or lured into the folds of these ideologies, have to be brought back into their ancestral fold. This is the minimum task which Hindu society has to set before itself. The maximum task is to carry the campaign against these ideologies into their own homelands, and to free large sections of mankind from the abominable superstitions which breed intolerance and aggression.

The cultural climate in the modern West is favourable for the spread of Sanãtana Dharma. The West has repudiated Christianity and returned to rationalism, humanism and universalism, all of which are values cherished and promoted by the Hindu view of life. But the West does not realize that the massive finances which the Christian missions collect over there in the name of doing social service in �a poor, starved, diseased and illiterate India� is used by the missions for the nefarious work of subverting the only sane society which has survived the depredations of genocidal creeds. Hindu society, particularly the Hindus settled or working in the West, have to provide this information to the West so that the menace of Christian missions is challenged in their own homelands.

It is true that Christian missions are involved in the foreign policy manoeuvers and intelligence networks of the various Western nations. The systematic building up of a Christian missionary like Mother Teresa by the U.S. State Department provides an obvious pointer. But Western foreign policy establishments are using Christian missions because Hindu society has made them respectable in India. The day that respectability is destroyed and Christianity and its missions are exposed for what they are, the Western nations will have no use for them.

Islam is a harder nut to crack. The Islamic countries everywhere are closed societies presided over by theocratic states which do not permit any scrutiny of Islam or the propagation of a rational and humanist view of life. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in many Muslim lands has let loose a reign of terror against all those enlightened sections which have tried to free their people from the stranglehold of a fanatic falsehood. The Western democracies, particularly the United States of America, are encouraging this fanaticism in the fond hope that it will stand as a bulwark against Soviet imperialism.^* A dark night envelops the Islamic countries at present due to a combination of historical circumstances, and there seems to be little hope that the Muslim masses will be able to emancipate themselves in the near future.

But it is also a fact that the rise of fundamentalism in a closed creed is a sign of panic, and sounds its death-knell. Christian fundamentalism which surfaced in Europe in the form of Protestantism proved to be the death-gasp of Christianity. For, fundamentalism brings to the fore, in one fell sweep, all the crudities of a closed creed - crudities which normally remain hidden under borrowed cultural trappings.

There is a large number of Muslim students, scholars, scientists technicians, and other sections of Muslim intelligentsia who find no place in their closed societies, and who have fled to other countries including India. Here is a fertile field in which Hindu society can sow some seeds which will bear fruit in due course. These refugees from Islamic terrorism have to be convinced that it is not the politics of their motherlands that has become perverse, it is the culture cultivated by Islam which has poisoned their societies.

But before Hindu society can perform these minimum and maximum tasks, it has to revive its own spiritual centre and re awaken to its own ancient heritage. The rest will follow.

 By Sh. Sita Ram Goyal
 

Demonetization-The Major Reset In India

Demonetization-The Major Reset In India

Creation of black money will be quite difficult all over again in India as compared to 1978 when India did the demonetization of higher currency.

Through notification on November 8th, 2016, all currency notes of the denomination of INR 500 (approx USD7) and INR 1,000 (approx USD15) have been demonetized by Central Government of India. Those currency notes ceased to be considered as legal tender after midnight on the day of the announcement. The move has been aimed to curb black money (illegal money) and fake currency notes in circulation in country’s monetary system rampant across India. This decision is one of the boldest and strongest steps in Indian’s post-independence history towards eradicating illegal money.

Will India move to non-cash society? Many are thinking this as only currency demonetization but it is not. If India needs to move to a cashless society, efforts are to be made to make people understand its benefits. Demonetization needs to be followed by political reforms so that the money based political donations to the parties, funding of elections are controlled. Business reformists have to step up usage of electronic and banking channels for all transactions. Other follow through measures like educational reforms, healthcare role out, a creation of transparent, accountable and responsive governance focused on sustainable development are implemented.

This bold decision has not come sudden. In fact, several measures were taken already by the Government to move the economy forward such as connecting large population with the banking system through opening of “Zero Balance Account”, making compulsory payment of subsidy of cooking gas through bank account, opening up many Industry sectors for 100% FDI including e-Commerce etc. One may expect many more policy changes in the days ahead. So cleaning up black money was a necessity. The impact will be greater in areas which use black money such as, Real Estate, Gold and Diamond, etc. Prices of real estate may fall considerably, Sales of Gold may see a downward trend. Otherwise, not much should happen, and life should be back to normal within a few weeks.

Many of those leaders, government officers, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, media, and other professionals, who have to now publicly support the decision and call it as brave, are worrying about their big unaccounted cash. It is those people who are making noise through citing problems and sufferings of people and blaming the government. Whereas common people are welcoming the decision expressing readiness to bear initial difficulties. Luckily people from the earlier government are not saying, Oh! This was planned by us, but Modi is now following our decision.
The new bank accounts that have been opened for and by the common public can be a very strong basis for bringing the cash-based economic activities to about 20% from the current level of 80%. The black money, anti-terror steps and parallel economy will be reduced for the time being, but these must be stopped permanently by all other means. Black money may come back by finding loopholes, but it will take some time.

The real problem in India is a lack of political will. The attitude is “Let it run as is”. If you try to fix one thing (however good your intention may be), then other unrelated things will fall apart. Since the decision of demonetization of currency notes was announced several rumours started spreading viz “Salt is not available”, “Petrol Pumps are not accepting old currency”, “Food Shops, Malls are being looted”. They create panic among people. No doubt shortage of currency is causing difficulties. The storage capacity of ATM is another problem why people are waiting for long hours and finding money got finished. Considering our large population and high cash based economy, our ATMs should have been designed with higher storage capacity for large circulation needs. Availability of lower denomination currency should have been anticipated and arrangement at the point of exchange. The routine economic activity at smaller levels would not have suffered so much.

 Since the preparations for demonetization were going on for the last several months, it would have been better if the government had envisaged the problems of the common men and released a large quantity of smaller denominations well before announcing this scheme. Large scale problems pose even higher risks. Reduced traffic on the roads and a very low number of the shoppers in the markets is proof that it is causing serious losses and problems to so many people.

In spite all these problems being faced by the common citizen, the long-term outcome is going to be positive and better. Let us not create panic by precipitating smaller issues. Creation of black money will be quite difficult all over again in India as compared to 1978 when India did the demonetization of higher currency which were much lesser in circulation and were not in possession of common people.

Mousumi Roy

Mousumi Roy is a columnist and based in Muscat.