Advani and his blabber on Hindu Ethos

Now the former president of the BJP, Mr. Lal Krishna Advani (LKA) has jumped into the fray for sermonizing on Hindu Ethos. Of all the people in the world, LKA could find only Mr. Fareed Zakaria (FZ) as the expert, and thus LKA has, in his sermon, quoted FZ: "Zakaria argues that it is this non-doctrinaire character that gives Hinduism its absorptive and assimilative power. I hold that it is this Hindu ethos that accounts for the success of both democracy as well as secularism in India,".

The emphasis is on tolerance, secularism and democracy. The same old bull-sh*t, like the one propagandized about "Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti". If LKA has lost the ability to pursue on his own the understanding of the scriptures of Hinduism, why can he not learn from numerous Sadhus and Sants who will be more than willing to explain the Dharma-Shastras to him.

But No! LKA is too big a hypocrite to be so humble. So he will lead mobs to demolish structures, and then lament that it was a sad event in Indian History. Where was LKA's Hindu Ethos of tolerance, secularism and democracy on that fateful day? Or was he being tolerant towards those who wanted to demolish the structure thus agreeing to lead their movement, secular towards those who wanted the structure to remain intact thus lamenting it to be a sad event, and democratic towards election and thus use this incident in making electoral gains?


If LKA is so tolerant, why did he endorse expulsion of Mr. Jaswant Singh (JS), even though LKA himself had orchestrated opinions similar to those of JS on Pakistani soil?

If LKA is so secular, why does he not speak the truth about Islam?

If LKA respects democracy so much, why is he bent upon hoisting his stooges like Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj etc., on the BJP despite opposition from grass-roots level?

The answers are simple. LKA and many leaders of the BJP, e.g. Atal Bihari Vajpeyee (ABV), are neither tolerant, nor secular, nor democratic. They could not tolerate a Govidacharya, a Kalyan Singh, or a Uma Bharti. Claiming to represent "Hindu Ethos", they have never spoken the truth about Islam, the single most dangerous thing against tolerance, secularism, and democracy. And they are so democratic that they indulge in holding the "high-command", just like the Congress which they are so wont to criticize.

Again, lest my readers feel confused about my point of view, I present my opinion in the following. In my opinion, Truth Based Civilization (And the related discoveries and "doctrines" of Sanatana Dharma) is the most important thing. If we hold, Satyameva Jayate (सत्यमेवजयते) as a part of our national icon then we must owe allegiance to truth. And not to tolerance, secularism or democracy per se. We have to have the freedom, necessary diligence, and unlimited perseverance to pursue Truth. And then have courage to live by what we discover and/or learn.

The Dumb Fuckery of parrot like repetition of someone's scribblings amounting to attempted indoctrination, although using phrases like "non-doctrinaire character of ethos", can at best beguile unsuspecting masses. In the eyes of the discerning, this is cheap gimmicks, treacherous leadership, and unadulterated stupidity.

So, Baba Ramdev (BR) wants to float a political party, and BJP wants Baba Ramdev to shun his plans lest Hindu votes be divided! See the news item here.

Baba Ramdev wants to arouse the self-respect of Bharat, and Gadkari of the BJP assumes that BR will be representing Hindus. Hence his fear that BR will eat into BJP's Hindu vote bank.

In this way, the confusion regarding India, Bharat and Hindus starts all over again! BR is replacing India with Bharat. One more emotional technique to trap unsuspecting, gullible, and frankly speaking downright stupid Hindu citizens.

BR claims that he wants to promote Yoga for all Indians, and is busy establishing his secular credentials (presumably) by teaching Yoga to Darul Uloom Deoband. BR also recommends 50 percent quota for women.

So when I say that Indian blood has been so deeply poisoned by this Mohandas and Jawahar that secularism (read sacrificing interests of the adherents of Sanatana Dharma), and affirmative-action (read sacrificing interests of healthy upper-caste males who are adherents of Sanatana Dharma) form their logical core; I am not exaggerating a bit! Indian politicians, past, present and aspiring ones, betray the poison unabashedly.

Gadkari wrongly assumes that BJP represents the interests of the Hindus. Never mind the confusion regarding the term Hindu. We take it to mean Hindu-WOL. And he wrongly fears that BR will divide Hindu votes. BJP and the party that would be floated by BR, are both secular Mohandasian, Jawaharian parties pretending to be protectors of Hindus.

And lest it should give my readers the impression that others like the Congress are any better, I must mention that Congress, the Left and the rest do not even feel the need to pretend. They are blatantly anti-Hindu, anti-upper-caste-healthy-hindu-male.

Nevertheless, I recommend that let there be many parties who pretend to be Hindu-protectors, which can later be forced by the will of the Hindu people to be more and more pro-Hindu; and who compete with each other to be more and more pro-Hindu. This should exactly be similar to the situation now where all political parties (certainly including the BJP and future party of BR) are competing against each other to be more and more secular.

So BR is welcome to launch his political party, but Hindus beware, his party will be as secular as they come!

The need of the hour is to detoxify the effects of the poison of Mohandas and Jawahar. BR is extremely prone to fall prey to Mohandas instincts; as A B Vajpeyee fell prey to Jawaharian instincts!

A possible deconvolution for the convoluted logic of RSS: What Mohan Bhagwat could have said ....

In a recent blog entry the chief of RSS, Mr. Mohan Bhagwat (MB) was criticised for saying: He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.

A long and winding debate ensued. It was desirable to retain the informal notions related to the words Hindu and Indian, and yet certain specificity was needed for precision, unambiguousness and substantiveness.

Mr. Thammayya, in one of his comments, had asked: Hey, I have another suggestion. What do you think, MB should have told? Interesting to know this.

I have recently outlined an abstract version of Hindu-WOL (Hindu Way of Life), terming it, for various reasons, Sanatana Dharma. In light of this article, here is my take on what MB could have said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the essential underpinnings of an open and free mind regarding religious truths is: There can be points of view regarding the Truth and the ways of attaining the Truth which are seemingly quite different from the ones I uphold but are equally valid.

Hindus pursue and practice such openness and freedom.

A belief in exclusive monopoly regarding religious truths and/or insistence on one's concrete details regarding the same, is inconsistent with this notion of freedom.

India, in our view, is a home-nation for Hindus. Those who are not Hindus are not legitimately Indian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks:

0. The term Hindu is not defined comprehensively here. And yet, whatever is essential for the political debate is captured in terms of the concepts of openness and freedom.

For example:

a. The term Hindu is free from geographical, racial, linguistic, regional connotations and overtones.

b. So there can be Hindus residing as citizens of other nations.

1. Similarly, India, although not defined comprehensively, is hinted in the last sentence, to be the current geopolitical entity, whose citizens we are. This suffices for the political debate.

For example:

a. The term India is free from racial, linguistic, and regional connotations and overtones.

b. Those, who are currently residing in India as citizens but do not honor this openness and freedom are termed illegitimate citizens.

This allows us to use the terms "Hindu" and "India" with specificity necessary for the relevant aspects of political debate, while retaining the same informal notions regarding these words, which most of us may entertain.

Nonetheless, this is still a tentative version, and is open to be improved upon. Readers' suggestions are welcome.

Interestingly, a Dutch Politician, Geert Wilders has said many things which RSS could have, and should have articulated long long ago. Some of these are, I have provided links obtained from the same wikipedia page: "not tolerate the intolerant", "Ban Koran like Mein Kampf", and "There might be moderate muslims, but there is no moderate Islam".

However, as I have repeatedly alleged, owing to intellectual lethargy among those who are supposed to provide India with political leadership, these things have not happened here in India.

Hinduism, Sanatana Dharma, ... Truth Based Civilization.

This entry is still under preparation, however, readers are encouraged to participate in its preparation. Please write short, specific, and precise comments. It will make discussion more useful and convenient. If you have lots of things to say then please state them in different comments after breaking them into smaller parts. Thank You.

Please give your feed-back if this has been useful to you and your friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a recent blog entry there has been a debate on what Hinduism is. In another entry the author KMS has proposed his answers to the question :"Who is a Hindu?"

Here we propose what we believe to be a very general and yet specific definition of Hinduism. We will also point out, that often various confusions arise out of inappropriate mix of concepts. And therefore we will make a case for our preferred term for the subject matter of the present description.

To begin with, we call this perspective a belief-system or world-view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belief-System, World-view:

0. Truth, whatever that may be, is amenable to being investigated using one or many from a myriad of tools, for example, reason, experience, perception, emotion, etc.; and Truth can stand any inquiry.

1. In the past, various investigations have been conducted into Truth, and many of the findings have been recorded or handed down through generations.

2. One is free to investigate ab initio, and one is also free to investigate, starting from some or all of previous findings and continuing them further. Also one is free to make use of previous findings if and when these are available.

It is evident that there are two broad methodologies:

2.a One begins with a willingness to try out some of the previous findings (This is called the Faith aspect), and attempts to verify them to gain conviction for oneself (This is the Confidence aspect).

2.b One sets out with a clean slate and attempts to discover things for oneself (This is the inquiry aspect).

3. Properly conducted investigations -- whether by an individual or in a collaborative way, whether conducted in the past, present or future, independent of the tools used for investigation -- lead to fundamentally and essentially identical results and eventually final understanding; albeit the expressions of the understanding may vary and differ depending upon time, location, language, context, understanding capacity of the listener and also the speaker.

4. Science too is a part of the outcome of such an investigation. Usually science focuses on demonstrable (Personal, Objective) truths, whereas the larger truth encompasses the verifiable (Impersonal, Subjective) truths as well.

5. The underlying principles, that provide sustenance to a Civilization based on such an understanding of Truth, are called Sanatana Dharma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can now propose that those who accept, even if tentatively, such a broad understanding of Sanatana Dharma, and live by it, can be stated to be leading a Hindu-Way-of-Life.


Remarks:

0. Sanatana Dharma is not confined to geo-political India and so on. It may be practiced anywhere and by any people, speaking whatsoever language.

1. The validity or applicability of this Sanatana Dharma is universal and does not depend upon whether someone knows it or not. It was pointed out that some scholar once remarked that everyone was subject to the Eternal Law and it was not a matter of choice!

2. The discoverers of these truths have been called seers, sages or Rishis. Those who pondered over the discoveries were called Munis and so on.

3. There are no fixed text-books for Sanatana Dharma. However, there are many usable text-books. Some of them are even considered canonical.

4. Incidentally, Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti, एकं सत विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति। does not mean that "All religions contain the same Truth". Sat is technically synonymous with immutable, and the purport of this dictum is to state that This unique immutable can be referred to by many different names.

5. As we tend to agree that even if human civilization forgot all of science and began from scratch, they will rediscover largely the same science again; similarly Sanatana Dharma will also be rediscovered.

6. The word Hindu, historically was used for a geographical region, and the word India came from Hind(u), hence there usually is a confusion between the ancient Way-of-life and current geographical situation.

7. On a more technical footing, the word Dharma is an equally usable term, however since it can be confused with Dhamma of the Buddhists, we prefer the term Sanatana Dharma. However, we are open to new suggestions.

8. It can be conjectured that if there ever has to be a Universal framework for various belief-systems, Sanatana Dharma would be a logical and legitimate choice.

9. Like there are occasional frauds in Science, there can be frauds in religious life as well.


Socio-Cultural and Political Consequences:

0. There may be a way seemingly different from what a person oneself might prefer, which would lead to an understanding of the same Truth, is inherent in Sanatana Dharma. Certain observable aspects like variety, and tolerance, are eminent and exemplary outcomes of this inherent quality.

1. Sanatana Dharma thrived without the need for the notion of a Single-Nation-State to be felt. We welcome more and more peoples and nations to adopt Sanatana Dharma and they have no need to become a part of India! This is again is the same as the fact that India (or any other nation-state) does not become a colony of Europe or USA merely by adopting Science and Technology for its development.

2. Similarly language too was never a barrier. Various kingdoms could exists, and even fight wars without in any way destroying this underlying unity. This is like the axis-countries fighting against the allied-forces during Worl War II, both having the same world-view regarding Science.

3. This does not mean that we encourage fissiparous or secessionist tendencies of the likes of Maoists. We surely disagree with those who claim that Hinduism is the cause of such separatist movements. If at all, the intellectual ideologies behind these movements are the real cause for such political strife. And nothing else, other than, a perspective emerging out of Sanatana Dharma can salvage India from such a turmoil.


Certain Inconvenient Facts:

0. In view of the first point in the previous section, it is a simple corollary that Islamic claims regarding some person being the final messenger are all inconsistent with Sanatana Dharma.

Therefore a muslim, inasmuch as he/she is a follower of Islam, can not be a leading a Hindu-WOL. Period.

1. Similarly a christian, inasmuch as he/she believes his holy-book, the Bible, to be the only and exclusive source of Truth, can not be leading a Hindu-WOL. Period.

2. Even some of those who claim to be Hindus, like the followers of ISCKON, inasmuch as they insist, that their point of view is the only correct view, are not leading a Hindu-WOL.

3. Merely stating that they accept all as True, does not make one a Hindu-WOL. Accepting all as true is like a scientist who accepts all superstitions as true.

4. It is important to be broadminded with regards to Truth, but it is also important to reject the False.

5. Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs largely honor a similar understanding, however they CLAIM to begin with the recorded discoveries of only their preferred masters, viz., The Buddha, The Teerthankaras, and The Gurus.

We emphasize the word Claim, because the doctrines of Karma, and rebirth which had already been there with the ancient "Hindus" for long period, were co-opted by all these three; and yet each of these insist that they are all Original and New, and pretend as if they began from Scratch!

Therefore, often the followers of Sanatana Dharma consider these to be co-travellers, but these groups in their own view consider themselves to be different, for various reasons including Philosophical reasons, and not excluding social, political, financial reasons.

...... still in progress ...

Gujarat Riots: Zakia's charges and investigations into Modi's actions

Modi may or may not have had his role in the riots, but some of the important charges against him are source of great entertainment. According to the allegation "Modi along with other ministers in his government, conspired to 'allow the massacre of Muslims'" and "that the chief minister and his colleagues instructed policemen and bureaucrats not to respond to pleas for help from Muslims being attacked during the riots."

In our country, do you have to ever instruct policemen and bureaucrats not to respond? If Mr. Modi spends his time in ensuring things that happen automatically, viz., "policemen and bureaucrats do not respond to pleas of anyone", then that is a sheer waste of tax payer's money on Modi's salary. And for this, Mr. Modi can at best be charged with wasting tax-payer's money, nothing more!

I have picked the details from the news given in MSN. On the last page in the news, the following charges are mentioned:

1. Why were bodies of Godhra train victims paraded on the streets of Ahmedabad?

2. Why was the bandh called by the Sangh Parivar on Feb 27, 2002, not stopped?

3. Why are there no records of the meetings held by Modi Feb 27, 2002, onwards?

4. Why were no minutes of the meetings held by the chief minister and other senior officers for review of the situation from feb 27, 2002, onwards prepared and circulated to the concerned officials?

5. Why were bodies of the Godhra train fire victims paraded through the streets of Ahmedabad city and that too when over 50 percent of the dead belonged to places outside Ahmedabad city and a few bodies were not even identified at that juncture?

Now 1 and 5 say pretty much the same thing, except that 5 informs us that over 50 percent of the dead belonged to places outside Ahmedabad.

I provide some tentative answers to these charges. I am sure the lawyers would do a much more professional job of this.

1. Godhra carnage was a savage act wherein a coach, containing human beings including women and children, was set on fire. If burning helpless humans is not an act of terror then one wonders what an act of terror is. I am sure that a very large number of people, all law-abiding peace-loving citizens, wanted to pay their homage to the innocent victims of this act of brutal savagery. It would be foolish to imagine that the peoples of India who are sensitive enough to pay homage to even a tyrannical DF like Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu, would be heartlessly cruel and not want to pay homage to martyr victims of terrorism. If this paying of homage was facilitated, then the facilitator must be felicitated and not charged with conspiracy.

Those who allege that this was intentionally done, by Mr. Modi, to drive up passions, are, in my opinion, ascribing too much intelligence to our dim-witted friend, I mean Mr. Modi.

2. In a democratic country like India, bandhs are called almost everyday, often for no reasons at all. After a dilapidated structure at Ayodhya fell on December 6, 2002, the number of bandhs called by various democratic groups and secular organizations far exceeded 1000. It might be surmised that Ms. Teesta Setalvad and Ms Zakia too must have joined some of those peaceful bandhs. There is no reason why another organization, viz., the RSS should be forbidden from calling a bandh as a mark of respect to helpless victims of savagery by terrorists.

The short answer is that groups are free to call for bandhs. Unless you want India to become like China where students were massacred by the government troops for merely gathering peacefully at Tiananmen Square in Peking.

3. Firstly, I am not sure if emergency meetings are required to be recorded. It seems highly unlikely. Unless we are cursed with a Home Minister like Mr. Shivraj Patil who was telecasting his meetings live for the benefit of the most afflicted, viz., the terrorists from Pakistan.

Even if they are supposed to be recorded, there are hundreds of ways in which the records quickly become untraceable in India. I wonder if Ms Teesta Setalvad and Ms Zakia can trace their land records in the registrar's office. No points for guessing what the duo would want to be done in case they can not trace the records.

4. This gets me. If no minutes were prepared and circulated, then I fail to understand, how exactly was our dear chief minister allegedly conspiring?

Looks like someone was calling over phones to people and inciting them? But my dear folks, don't you know that one could mimic another person's voice? If you have not heard of Mr. Nagarwala, it would be quite informative to read about his case. A person, allegedly Mr. Nagarwala, allegedly mimicked the voice of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and withdrew Rs. 60 lac in cash!

5. In light of the facts mentioned in point 1, it is purely human to expect that those who wanted to pay their homage to victims were not as parochial as our large-hearted accusers want them to be. Who would expect that law-abiding, peace-loving citizens of this country would want to deprive homily to someone merely because the deceased person happened to be from another city?

To see a conspiracy where none exists can be termed simple-mindedness. But not to see a conspiracy, when there indeed is one, is criminal-mindedness. It is worthwhile to recall that after the long-awaited though sudden demise of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984, when the goons of the Secular Peace-loving Mohandasian-Jawaharian Congress Party, allegedly killed in cold blood, thousands of helpless Sikhs, including women and children, one of our ex-Prime ministers, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, beloved of our current super-prime-minister Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, made a historical remark. And his remark was, "But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little."

It will be much more humane on part of Ms Teesta Setalwad and Ms Zakia to investigate the conspiracy of 1984, than to conspire against a dim-witted politician.

If the anti-Hindu Brigade consists of people of the ilk of Ms. Setalvad and Ms. Zakia, then I still have some hope for the intellectually dead folks on the Hindu Brigade.

My heart feels sorry for Ms. Zakia who lost her husband, and her son who lost his father. I think, they must firmly resolve to fight against the evil designs of Jihadis.

On another level, I also understand the difficulties faced by the Jihadis. They are torn between their religious obligation to kill infidels, no holds barred, women and children not spared; and the law, which forbids them from killing.