Sookta Sumana

TERMITES DO NOT SAY GRACE BEFORE THEIR MEAL: THEY JUST INCULTURATE THEIR MEAL

2012-01-25T15:05:00.000-08:00

DANGERS OF CHRISTIAN-HINDU INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/opening-door-to-inculturation-dr-vijaya.html

'Opening the Door to Inculturation'

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva01 25 2012

A recent article by Dr. Gautam Sen in the Organiser draws attention to the fact that while Christian nations are busy making war on various parts of the world, in India they have found a convenient device to keep the Hindus occupied and distracted and this is the device of the "Hindu Christian Dialogue." The present writer believes that whatever words one may use : 'dialogue' 'debate' 'discussion' etc. they all smell alike in the present context of engagement with the Church. The beautiful rose smells as sweet by any other name ! Here, the stink of Hindu Christian dialogue smells the same, by whatever name you call it !

Whether intended as such or not, author Rajiv Malhotra's new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue opens the door to Inculturation since he began with the discussion/dialogue with Francis Xavier Clooney of Harvard at the University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth). Ostensibly the event was about Shri Malhotra's new book "Being Different." Its content and tone are quite different from his earlier book "Breaking India (2011)" along with co-author Aravindan Neelakandan. That book details the dangers that India faces : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church. Many readers of that book were alerted to these dangers. Other writers such as Radha Rajan and her colleagues, had already written about these dangers, and done yeoman service to the Hindu cause. Breaking India followed in that series of writings. The present writer was impressed by its professionalism and dedication to the Hindu cause and wrote one of the first favourable reviews of the book in Haindava Keralam which has a wide readership in South India, especially Kerala. The response to this review and other subsequent events focussed on Breaking India was a welcome one since the mainstream media had ignored the book. The present writer wrote to such people as Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN and received polite responses but they did not take up either my review or a comparable one from some other source.

However, the beginnings of a new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue, already presaged in the methodology of the new book Being Different (the incomplete and truncated "Purva Paksha") is fraught with the very danger that Breaking India warned readers about, namely Inculturation. This is the process by which the Catholic Church, since the time of Robert de Nobili in the 17th century, tried to insinuate and infiltrate itself into the local culture by adopting its manners and lifestyle (names, and methods as well of rituals of worship in the 20th Century) while all the time preaching the Christian gospel . Some of this worked but most of it did not, and this was owing to the valiant alertness of the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas and pundits and gurus, and by the 19th century the militant writings of Dayanda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekananda and some less well known writers. This has been well documented and written about by Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goyal, the latter in his book "History of Hindu Christian Encounters (1996)." Also the historian R.C.Majumdar's historical works attest to this. Contrary to popular beliefs amongst Hindus themselves, these fighters, namely the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, DID NOT ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD. And the leaders such as Vivekananda gave voice to these heroic people. Thanks to all of them Hindu India continues to remain Hindu.

Today, one sees a repeat of the same situation where the Catholic Church is targeting the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, with new weapons, this time the fateful inter-religious dialogue, especially Hindu-Christian Dialogue, by co-opting Hindu authors and writers. But there are few leaders left to express this danger now and to fight against it. Those that do so are ignored by the liberal media and demonised by some Hindus themselves. Many Hindus take refuge in esoteric discussions about whether the words 'dialogue','debate' and 'discussion' can be interchanged. Rajiv Malhotra himself has recently made some fine distinctions between different types of dialogue and so on. The grim fact remains that he is in 'dialogue' with a contemporaty representative of the school of Inculuration, namely Francis Xavier Clooney, Jesuit priest and scholar and professor of Divinity at Harvard University(USA).

By whatever name one calls it, it is a malodorous thing !

The present writer has written about the reasons why Shri Malhotra cannot function as a modern day Vivekananda and why Fr. Clooney has craftily conferred that mantle on him, for his own nefarious purposes(See 'How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' in Bharata Bharati, Jan.18,2012 and in kalyan97blogspot). Malhotra can at best speak about his own book to audiences both Hindu or otherwise, but cannot generalize his faulty interpretation of the ancient Hindu science of Purva Paksha as the way to go for contemporary Hindus . Nor should he distract Hindus by engaging in what has turned out to be a meaningless exercise with Clooney. Instead, he is well advised to return and read Swami Vivekananda's writings on the encounter with the West.

Vivekanda's writings should be the template for any encounter with the West. It is a trenchant critique of the West, especially Christianity. It is not an accomodation of the same, no matter how much Shri Malhotra believes he is being canny and savvy in his dealings with Clooney. Nothing has really changed. The historical situation of the past is being replicated at present.

Fortunately for Hindu India, the aam admi and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths continue as they always have done since time immemorial. These must be protected, rather than attacked, by one more weapon that the Church has devised, the Hindu Christian Dialogue.

There are basically only two paths that the contemporary Hindu can follow in this situation :

1. Reject outright the fraudulent Dialogue.
2. Expose and defeat those who engage in it.

(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).

DO NOTHING, HAVE A DIALOG, AND TAKE IT LYING DOWN ? WHO IS SMARTER HERE?

2012-01-23T16:58:00.000-08:00

Church calling shots in politics

Hindus under siege and fate of the Republic

By

Dr Gautam Sen

Members of downtrodden and defeated communities are condemned to end up fighting with each other while the victors are occupied deciding their fate. Vanquished communities are unable to take the initiative on their own behalf, which is the dismal fate of Hindus today. In fact their in-fighting highlights attempts by individuals within the retreating Hindu community to reach accommodation with the victors. Interfaith dialogue and associated clandestine engagement with the church and its surrogates represent treasonous adaptation, intended to obscure the reality of warfare and subjugation. But this egregious conduct is completely predictable in the aftermath of defeat and evidence of such behaviour universal.

In 1816, Nepal was defeated by a British army and the Nepalese ended up as mercenaries, mainly used against fellow Hindus in India. The hapless Sikhs were also reduced to the role of British mercenaries after suffering defeat at the hands of imperial forces, having descended into utter chaos after the death of the astute Maharaja Ranjit Singh. In recent decades, both these communities were unceremoniously discarded since they had apparently outlived their usefulness to Britain. But even now these victims of exploitation as mercenaries pine for a return of the humiliation of servitude and harbour keen hatreds against the communities they were misused by imperialist Britain to discipline.

The political and economic agenda of the conquered society is dictated by victors in the aftermath of defeat. The direct and indirect dimensions of control over the vanquished include holding sway over the prevalent intellectual climate and the country’s institutions. The nature of the interaction between the defeated and the conquerors is under their careful purview as well. Focus on questions that expose the crimes of the conqueror become illegitimate and innocuous issues like the similarity of their social and religious customs dominate public discourse and curtailing reflection on hard truths. Contemporary inculturation, sponsored with supreme deviousness by church conspirators, represents precisely such a disingenuous phenomenon. Indeed this form of insidious infiltration behind enemy lines is intended to disembowel the foe while caressing its navel in bed.

Almost without exception, collaborators are identified among the defeated to help superintend their own community on behalf of the victors. In the process, a spurious impression is created that the conquered enjoy honour, even autonomy. But these illusory privileges are rationed for the select few, who serve the interests of conquerors. The distinction is between the few house niggers, the collaborators, and field niggers, who toil pitilessly. This is the origin of the house nigger syndrome of India’s Rajas, the Zamindars, tasked to collect and deliver revenues and Indian administrators who served the Raj. In contemporary Europe and the US today, one always observes Indians eager to betray their own for paltry personal gratification.

This is why the on-going advocacy of engaging with Christian churches is quite unreal. In full flight before the Christian evangelist enemy that has entered deep inside their homeland and is waging outright warfare, some Hindus are nevertheless determinedly preoccupied with lethal distractions like inter-faith dialogue. And they are apparently also exercised about how to engage in civilised debate among themselves while their proverbial grandmother is being auctioned!

Christian nations, whom their national churches serve unfailingly as instruments of conquest and subjugation, have pretty much ended Hinduism in the critical Northeast of India, expunged by force of arms. And a war has been waged without pause since Independence, with well-armed Christian terrorists now threatening to expand into adjacent regions. Hindu worship is virtually impossible in these regions, which only nominally belong to the Indian Union. Christianised communities of the Northeast unambiguously proclaim their dislike of India because of its Hindu ethos.

The evangelical churches failed to install their preferred candidate as Prime Minister earlier, but executed India’s first veritable coup d’etat by neutering India’s Prime Minister and its Cabinet government through surrogates. India’s executive authority is now in the thrall of the mendacious National Advisory Council (NAC), with its scandalous composition of practised Hindu-baiters, able to dictate to the Prime Minister on any matter it chooses. The Communal Violence Bill is the product of diabolical machinations of evangelists to de-legitimise opposition to their conversion activities by denouncing it as Hindu aggression. The rationale being insinuated that its enactment will influence Hindu-Muslim antagonism is a deliberate ploy to divert attention from the essential purpose of allowing the church acquire carte blanche.

Evangelists in India today are intensifying their age-old war against polytheists to accelerate their primordial political goal of world domination. This is the reason why even repugnant Islamic Jihadis like of the former ISI chief, General Hameed Gul and Laskhar-e-Taiba leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed are preferable adversaries. They unapologetically declare to the whole world their intention to kill and enslave Hindus en masse, the connotation of their ambition to restore Muslim rule across the entire sub-continent.

In parts of southern India, churches are mushrooming on a startling scale before our very eyes and the dominant political parties of Tamil Nadu are in essence instruments of Christian domination, incited to annihilate all that is sacred to Hindus. And Hindus, ignorant and self-seeking as ever, do not know that, historically, the Church regarded the establishment of bishoprics, in the shape of a physical church, as the political and military boundary of territory under the control of the ruler sponsoring them. Assiduous attempts are being made by the church to repeat the success of Christianising Nagaland and Mizoram and turning tribal communities across India against the Indian Union. New church buildings are designed to overawe local inhabitants by crude display of a political footprint and economic allurement in order to attract converts.

In Nepal, the church was able to use the contrivance of a Christian Maoist leadership to overthrow a decadent monarchy and greedy court elite easily, by exploiting widespread socio-economic unrest in the country. Of course India allowed itself to be manoeuvred into playing the role of midwife because India’s rulers are at best oblivious to all things Hindu and unwilling to recognise that a non-Hindu India will be a foreign country. This is the embittered legacy left by Jawaharlal Nehru and his patron, Mahatma Gandhi, who managed to wound Hinduism more than any invading iconoclast.

Contemporary India is ruled by a Catholic dynasty, which is facilitating the final assault against Hinduism. They are the rulers of choice of Western imperialists, led by the US, who perceive a consummate opportunity to change the religious demography of India permanently in favour of Christianity. And these American churches are nothing but neo fascist plunderers. An alarmingly large number of Christians, disproportionate in relation to their overall numbers in India, have been implanted by the dynasty, alongside fresh converts, careful to obscure their newly-established Christian identity and political loyalties, to destroy all vestiges of Hindu India.

Of course India’s secular elites, who have joined the genocidal campaign against Hinduism, are streetwalkers and possess no Hindu identity whatsoever and are merely available for deployment as shock troops of the ruling dynasty. This is the most shocking fifth column anywhere in the world, with endless permutations of assumed fidelities, from illiterate communist sympathies to supposed liberal sentiments, but all united as foes of Hinduism on behalf of Western imperialism and its chosen Catholic family.

The irony is that pre-eminent Christian nations are currently embarked on renewed imperial crusades in the Middle East and have already laid waste Iraq and Libya. During the earlier repudiation of Algeria’s national elections, Western intelligence agencies, led by the French secret service, pacified the country by instigating the killing of anything up to 500,000 civilians and cynically blamed it on militant Islam. In the case of India, the church is one of the crucial vehicles being used to destabilise it because the country is too complex to seize politically in one fell swoop, compared to a country like Egypt, or invade militarily.

What is occurring is an escalating seizure of key institutions in India although control of elite schools and institutions of higher learning was facilitated by a deracine Nehru, allergic to any manifestation of Hinduism. The English language media and its owners have already been subverted because they belong to a handful of business families, with whom foreign intelligence agencies established ties without difficulty. Individual journalists are routinely purchased and mostly emanate from Anglicised educational establishments that socialise them to espouse disdain for their national culture and the faith of their ancestors.

Yet supposedly intelligent Hindu religious leaders and activists are hell-bent on inter-faith dialogue while total war is being waged to erase Hinduism and cognate religions. Do Hindus not understand that proselytising is completely irreconcilable with inter-faith dialogue? Unabated no Hindus will be left to conduct dialogue with unless the duplicitous church is generously offering to end religious conversion when only a few Hindus remain to display as curiosities? It is equally perplexing that the Catholic Church in particular is considered a worthy partner for dialogue despite its deep animus against Hindu and violation of all decencies when any self-serving opportunity can be found. The disgraceful use of state subsidies for pilgrimages to Jerusalem is but one example.

This is the same church that today stands exposed as the biggest paedophile organisation in world history, also responsible for criminal mistreatment of children of unwed mothers, even while its criminal clergy was busy assaulting tens of thousands of children sexually. The monstrous treatment of babies forcibly removed by the church authorities from mothers and their subsequent fate shocks even the most hard-hearted. Catholic orphanages were truly a taste of the hell with which priests terrorised their congregations. They were finally deserted even by their unquestioning defenders, with the traditionally devout Irish people turning against them to support their government’s decision to break diplomatic ties with the Vatican. And some Hindus still look for crumbs from this Vatican table of gross iniquity, by seeking dialogue with them, which would be akin to Jews honouring unreconstructed Nazis.

Rahul Gandhi is the candidate of the Vatican and other sectarian church denominations to become Prime Minister of India. They look to him as their protector while the final assault against the Hindu citadel advances. In a parallel development, the Chinese, lacking any traditional source of cultural and spiritual sustenance of their own, are succumbing at remarkable pace to Christian evangelical allurements by converting, much like South Korea earlier.

Hindus are the sole remaining repository of an alternative world-view, which eschews the default urge for political and military domination that European peoples and their churches, embodying exactly such an impulse, seek to destroy. Only those who would sup with evil incarnate can wish to engage in dialogue with the Vatican or other evangelical church fraternities, all vultures readying to feast on the Hindu carcass.

(The writer is president, World Association of Hindu Academics)

http://organiser.org//Encyc/2012/1/22/Church-calling-shots-in-politics.aspx NB=&lang=4&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=

IS RAJIV TAKING HINDUS TO AN AMBUSH OF TIGERS BY WESTERN HUNTERS?

2012-01-22T16:37:00.000-08:00

Inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation to ambush of tigers to wildebeest

by

Dr. Kalyanaraman

The issue is dialogue. I don't see why anyone should be upset when someone says 'inviting Clooney for dialogue is a mistake' if the issue is simply a dialogue but the current situation is far more complex than that.

Indian tradition has always allowed room for expression of differing views. Someone says he/she is a non-hindutva Hindu. Fine. He or she is entitled to such a view. I may not agree with such differentiation between hindutva and non-hindutva hindus.

There have always been differing views on the meaninglessness of dialogue with people of any faith which indulges in violence, deception and fraud claiming their right to conversion through such devious means. As Swami Dayananda said: conversion is violence. "Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it." http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm

Right to practice one's own religion in a secular democracy and the right to worship any God/Goddess as one pleases to conceptualize Him/Her, with attaining the social maturity to peacefully coexist in a multicultural and multi-ethnic democracy, with full understanding of what is meant by "separation of Church and the State" does not include the right to convert others and violate their right to maintain the integrity of their own society and traditions. The corrupt practice of invading other cultures to harvest souls for any aggressive proselytizing religion under the name of "freedom of religion" should be declared unconstitutional and an antiquated practice in a secular democracy.

Why invite someone for a dialogue, someone who would not concede that conversion is violence?

I don't see that the dialogues have promoted any change of heart among Christian evangelists nor resulted in changing their views on conversion, let alone giving up that process. Russian Orthodox Church for example like some Orthodox Syrian Churches, does not promote conversions. Will Vatican ever follow suit?

Clooney should not be allowed to use a dialogue for discharging his Dominus Jesus responsibilities as SJ.

Anyone is entitled to his right to try a Hindu-Christian dialogue but he/she should also introspect and see if he or she is supporting the cause of dharma by getting Hindus converted to Christianity to come back to Hindu dharma and stop future conversion. I think the focus should be on promoting an understanding of dharma among the youth who are likely to be led astray by the bells and whistles of modernity, ignoring the debt all of us owe to our pitr-s who have given us our identity.

The key issue to be decided upon by everyone for himself or herself is this. Is a dialogue helping or hindering the cause of dharma? Depending on the answer, one can feel free to express his or her views. There are no easy answers for promoting a clear understanding of a tradition which has just taken 11 volumes to produce a new Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, edited by Kapil Kapoor, Rupa & Co (2012).

In summary, inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation of an ambush of tigers to the annual Serengeti-Masai-Mara wildebeest migration since dialogue is used as one additional forum for promoting 'inculturation' agenda of Dominus Jesus, an initiative of Ratzinger, an initiative in which Clooney is an active functionary. Stereotyping Hindus into hindutva and non-hindutva categories is clearly a divisive wedge.

Different folks, different strokes.

Kalyanaraman

CO-EXISTENCE OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE SAME PERSON CAN MISLEAD FOLLOWERS: HINDUS DO NOT NEED SUCH CHEERLEADERS!!

2012-01-22T09:12:00.000-08:00

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/rajiv-malhotra-from-critique-of-west-to.html

21.1.12

'Rajiv Malhotra : From Critique of the West to Hindu Christian Dialogue'

by

- Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

January 21, 2012

Since the publication of the book Breaking India (2011) author and writer Rajiv Malhotra has turned to interfaith dialogue, presaged in his book Being Different (2011) and now in various articles (Huffington Post) and blogs in State of Formation (the latter an outfit designed especially for interfaith dialogue). Breaking India, written with co author Aravindan Neelakandan, provides an account of the dangers facing India : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church etc. This last mentioned aspect is dealt with in some detail, especially in Tamil Nadu since Shri Neelakandan is well informed in that area. The reader must be reminded that Inculturation is the process by which the Catholic Church has sought, since the time of Robert di Nobili in the seventeenth century to the present times, with Jesuit scholar Francis Xavier Clooney as a means to insinuate itself into Hindu culture and eventually convert it. Hindu Christian Dialogue is the latest avatar of the project of Inculturation.

Since the publication of Breaking India Shri Malhotra has turned actively to Hindu Christian Dialogue, in tandem with Fr.Francis Xavier Clooney. The present writer has criticised this move in many articles and the most recent one is on the dialogue/discussion with Clooney held at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth ('How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue', in Bharata Bharati and Kalyan97 blogspot). Other discerning voices are also beginning to criticise the author's venture into this arena. Since the time of Sita Ram Goyal there has been a strong and trenchant critique of Hindu Christian Dialogue (See his book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, A.D. 304 to 1996 ).

Neverthless Shri Malhotra has not heeded these voices and proceeds to engage in that dubious enterprise called Hindu Christian Dialogue.

Malhotra's book Being Different is the work of an autodidact and as is usual in such situations the author tends to believe that his own work is a world shaking event. The autodidact begins to entertain an exaggerated notion of his importance in the scheme of things. Much of the content of the book which purports to explain the differences of Hinduism from other faiths is known not only to traditional acharyas and gurus (of whom Malhotra is openly contemptuous) but even to the average educated Hindu. The aam admi Hindu, ofcourse, practises his 'differences' on a daily basis and does not need a book written by a diasporic Hindu to assist him. The present writer has on previous occasions pointed out the crucial faulty methodology of the book (for instance the truncated version of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha). As an account of Malhotra's own 'churnings' the book is obviously important to himself and it can also make a reading as an adventure of ideas. But to take it seriously as an alternative to the millenia old knowledge and practice of Hindu acharyas, is misleading and does not benefit the Hindu Samaj. To then go further and use its contents as the basis of Shri Malhotra's new found career in Hindu Christian Dialogue makes the whole project even more dubious. It can also become the beginnings of an attack on the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths of Hinduism, which plays directly into the hands of the Catholic Church.

That Shri Malhotra takes his new career of purveyor of Hindu Christian Dialogue seriously can be deduced from his 4 part blog in the State of Formation. Of the 4 parts two of them deal with specifics such as the etymological origin of the word Dharma, from the Sanskrit root dhri (to uphold) and the difference between the eschatological view of history in the monotheistic faiths, as opposed to the timeless view of Hindu Dharma and so on and so forth. All this is known to the average Hindu and are not new insights. It is Blogs 1 and 4 which are directly related to the political aspect of Hindu Christian Dialogue. The fact that Shri Malhotra has said that he is not interested in the 'political' angle (see his remarks at the Dartmouth video) does not automatically make it ' a-political .' He is, objectively speaking, right in the thick of a political enterprise.

In these two blogs the author tells us that in the age of globalisation and a multipolar world it is important to have interfaith dialogue. He admits that he has been dialoguing with leaders of different faiths (he does not indicate who they are) but makes specific references to the jesuit scholar and priest Francis Xavier Clooney, professor of Divinity at Harvard University (USA) who read through the manuscript of his book Being Different and offered suggestions.

Further, that Dr. Clooney has been the important interlocutor in Malhotra's venture of Hindu Christian Dialogue. This would explain to the reader why and how Shri Malhotra consistently speaks about the differences of religions and asks that the differences should be respected. He speaks about Purva Paksha as a 'gazing' at the adversary, but omits the process of the REFUTATION of the adversary, which is the purpose of Purva Paksha. Shri Shankara's Digvijay tour of India refuted and thus defeated the adversaries of Hinduism. Shri Malhotra, on the other hand, engages and pleads for respect from the Christian West.

It is understandable why Dr. Clooney would endorse that position since he is not looking for refutation or defeat. He is looking for further patronage. What is surprising is that Malhotra has been negligent both on grounds of his technical neglect of the process of Purva Paksha and the 'political' implications of his neglect of the same.

The reader is directed to the comprehensive, thorough investigation provided by Sita Ram Goyal in his book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (1996). There, one has examples of the then modern Hindus of the past who actively refuted the missionaries of the day such as Raja Ram Mohun Roy. In our times Arun Shourie has been the prominent face of anti missionary activity.

Shri Malhotra may have his own reasons for entering into Hindu Christian Dialogue, but to present himself as a CHEERLEADER of the same, and that too ostensibly in the name of the Hindu Samaj, is a sign of hubris.

(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF TRADITIONAL DAILY HINDU VEDIC PRAYERS

2012-01-21T22:39:00.001-08:00

BAL-VIKAS PRAYERS
TRANSLATIONS
BY
SHYAMALA VINEKAR

The following are the traditional contemplations adapted for the Bal Vikas Children's Sunday Schools and Youth Groups
in Hindu temples. Most adults (parents) are familiar with the Sanskrit versions. Only the English Translation
is rendered for those who want to contemplate on these in English.

YOUR FACE REPRESENTING THE IMAGE OF "OMKARA" HAS THE CURVACEOUS TRUNK,
YOUR EXISTENCE IS CONCEPTUALIZED AS INFINITELY EXPANSIVE, REPRESENTED BY YOUR LARGE BODY
YOUR SPLENDOR IS IMMENSELY RADIANT LIKE THAT OF TEN MILLION SUNS SHINING IN THIS UNIVERSE
YOU ARE THE REMOVER OF OBSTACLES AT THE BEGINNING OF ALL ENDEVOURS
WE PRAY TO YOU MY DEVA TO REMOVE OBSTACLES IN ALL MY VENTURES AT ALL TIMES

OM PERVADES IN ALL THREE LOKAS, ON THIS EARTH, IN ALL THE UNIVERSES THAT EVER EXISTED, AND IN THE CELESTIAL SPHERE
THAT ILLUMINATING BRAHMAN WE ELECT (TO WORSHIP) BECAUSE IT ENLIGHTENS THE GREAT INTELLECT OF THE DEVAS
AND PRAY THAT IT GUIDE OUR INTELLECTS TOO.

THE GUIDANCE COMES FROM GURU WHO IS IN TUNE WITH THE BRAHMAN
SO GURU ALSO REPRESENTS ALL DEVAS LIKE VISHNU, & MAHESHWARA,
GURU THEREFORE IS ACTUALLY PERSONIFIED PARABRAHMAN
TO SUCH GURU WE BOW WITH HIGHEST REVERENCE

YOU ARE MOTHER, YOUR ARE FATHER, YOU ARE BROTHER, YOU ARE THE FRIEND
YOU ARE THE GIVER OF KNOWLEDGE, YOU ARE WEALTH
YOU ARE EVERYTHING MY DEVA

THIS IS COMPLETE (ABSOLUTE), THAT IS ALSO COMPLETE (ABSOLUTE)
FROM THE COMPLETE (INFINITE BRAHMAN) EVOLVES COMPLETE
WHEN COMPLETE (INFINITE) IS REMOVED FROM COMPLETE THE REMAINDER IS ALSO COMPLETE
(THIS IS THE WAY THE INFINITE BRAHMAN, ITS EVOLUTION AND DISSOLUTION IS CONCEPTUALIZED)

USING THE METAPHOR OF YAGNYA, WHAT IS OFFERED TO BRAHMAN AS OBLATION IS ALSO BRAHMAN,
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SUCH OBLATION OR OFFERING TO BRAHMAN IS BY BRAHMAN. WAHT IS TRANSFORMED IS ALSO BRAHMAN. THE TRANSFORMING AGENCY (AGNI) IS BRAHMAN. THAT ACTION WHICH IS PERFORMED IN THE STATE OF ATUNEMENT WITH BRAHMAN BECOMES VERILY THE ACTION OF THE BRAHMAN LEADING TO BRAHMAN ITSELF. ONE WHO SEES THIS UNIVERSE IN THIS LIGHT ATTAINS BRAHMAN. THAT IS THE STATE OF SAMADHI AND ALL ACTIONS PERFORMED IN THIS STATE BECOME THE ACTIONS OF BRAHMAN.

I EXIST AS VAISHWA-NARA, THE PRANIC TEMPLATE FOR UNIVERSAL HUMAN (LIFE CYCLE), IN ALL LIVING BEINGS
IT IS I, AS THIS VAISHWA-NARA, MANIFESTING AS THE COMPONENTS OF
PRANA (PRANA, APANA, ETC.), WHO DIGESTS FOUR KINDS OF FOOD

PS For comprehending the concept of Deva, Agni, Prana, Loka, etc. see multiple articles on this blog
especially "Instant Ramayana," "Instant Mahabharata," "Demystifying Shri Hanumana (3 Parts),"
"Dhee: Essence of Hinduness" or "Dhee: Freedom of Thinking" (2 Parts)

Parents may simplify these translations for children to suit their age, developmental level, and their
ability to comprehend abstract concepts.

RAJIV MALHOTRA VOLUNTARILY WALKED INTO A LION'S DEN, REASON: A DELUSION OF GRANDEUR OF BECOMING MODERN SHANKARACHARYA TO DEFEAT MANDAN MISHRA?

2012-01-17T19:19:00.000-08:00

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-not-to-engage-in-hindu-christian.html

17.1.12

'How Not to Engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

'How Not to Engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue'

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Jan. 17, 2012

At a Discussion at the University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth) Rajiv Malhotra, the author of the book Breaking India (2011) addressing a small gathering, presented a spectacle of retreat and submission before a known 'adversary' Jesuit theologian and scholar Dr. Francis Xavier Clooney. Malhotra's co author Aravindan Neelakandan was not present and it is not known what his views are on his co author's start of a new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue. It was not so long ago that Breaking India had poignantly informed readers of the dangers facing India : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church and so on. And now we see the one of the authors of that book engaging with the self same Inculturation forces, under the rubric of Interfaith Dialogue, in this instance, Hindu Christian Dialogue. The present writer has explained in previous articles the reasons for this capitulation by Shri Malhotra. The reader is reminded that Inculturation is the process by which the Church ingratiates and insinuates itself into the local culture (in this case Hindu culture) not to integrate with it but to subvert it in various ways, so that the end result would be Conversion. The Vatican has openly endorsed this method and one avenue of Inculturation is the drawing in of Hindu intellectuals into the process of Interfaith Dialogue, specifically Hindu Christian Dialogue. Violence and conquest are no longer the chosen methods. Other avenues are there and Interfaith Dialogue is one of them, along with creeping Conversion.

At present Hindus should sit up and take notice of the fact that Shri Malhotra has further intentions of spreading his 'message.'
During his recent visit to India for talks on his new book Being Different, Malhotra met three different groups. The first meeting was with academics in Delhi amongst whom was a professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, not known for its Hindu orientation) who informed Malhotra that he Malhotra is interested in 'knowledge systems'. Shri Malhotra repeated this line at Dartmouth. In the video of the Discussion there he tells us that he is interested in knowledge systems, that he is not interested in the 'politics' of interfaith dialogue. This coming from the author of Breaking India is indeed precious !

The second meeting was with business people, a new group who Malhotra claims, does not know much about their own identity as Hindus and needed to be educated on the topic. And the third group was composed of some Hindu acharyas who Malhotra felt did not know much about Western thought and who needed to be educated in order to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue. It is this last group that should concern the Hindu Samaj most. It is one thing for diasporic Hindus to keep themselves occupied with interfaith dialogue, quite another thing to help in the subversion of the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths by the Church. These have been the mainstay of our civilisation and we tinker with them at our own peril. The present writer has explained why this is so, in a previous article ' If a thing ain't broke don't fix it !' (in Bharata Bharati, kalyanblogspot & Haindava Keralam). The central argument of that article is that the traditional acharyas are well versed in their own tradition and that should continue. Spreading the virus of interfaith dialogue amongst them is doing a disservice to them and to the Hindu Samaj.

Here, we want to briefly examine the shape of things to come by looking at the process by which the well trained Jesuit scholar Dr. Franics Xavier Clooney was able to exploit Rajiv Malhotra's vulnerabilities, both the latter's new found agenda of interfaith dialogue (and now quite openly Hindu Christian Dialogue) and his position as an autodidact. The 'churning' that Malhotra did in understanding the differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths (specifically Christianity) is important to himself undoubtedly. He is taken in by his own involvement with this process and as with most autodidacts (self taught) though not all, he imagines this to be a world shaking event. This subjective illusion can be the basis of a fine adventure of ideas, even perhaps an autobiographical account of his personal evolution. But as a 'scholarly' attempt to tackle a well trained adversary it was bound to end in a debacle.

Who is Francis Xavier Clooney ? He is a Jesuit priest and scholar who is a Professor at the School of Divinity at Harvard University (USA). He has a long standing interest in Hindu Christian Dialogue. He was introduced at Dartmouth as :

1. Professor of Divinity and Comparative Theology
2. He is on numerous editorial boards
3. He is the Director of the Centre for the Study of World Religions
4. He is the first President of the International Society for Hindu Christian Dialogue
5. He was the Co ordinator of Inter Religious Dialogue for the Society of Jesus
6. He is the editor of New Comparative Theology.

His academic credentials are impeccable. So is his dedication to the Vatican's program of Inculturation (See the article by George Thundiparambil 'Old Poisoned Wine in new Tetra Packs' in Vigilonline and as well the writings of Radha Rajan in Vigilonline and Sandhya Jain and Tamizhchelvan in Viajayavani). The present writer has pointed out on several occasions that Dr. Clooney is a soft spoken, well spoken, well trained scholar who does not appear before audiences with the words Inculturation and Conversion blazoned on his forehead. His modus operandi is intellectual discussion and the occasion at Dartmouth provided him with a ready venue. Both he he and Malhotra expect to continue these interfaith, Hindu Christian dialogues. This was clearly stated. These 'dialogues' will not benefit the Hindu Samaj. They will only offer opportunities for Fr. Clooney to open the door further into Inculturation while providing Malhotra with the ILLUSION that he is benefitting Hinduism by explaining the differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths to a Western audience, even though he claims that he is addressing himself to Hindus.

After a 34 minute talk (approximately) by Malhotra on the themes of his book Being Different, Dr. Clooney took the podium and his talk lasted approximately 46 minutes. It has a 3 pronged approach and its subtlety and sophistication are all too evident, besides which Malhotra sounded amatuerish and unprepared.

In the first part Clooney paid the obligatory tributes to the author and amongst these there is one that stands out. He remarked that it is not the first time that Hindus have embarked on a critique of Christianity (and the West). He mentioned that Swami Dayananda Sarasvati in the 19th century and Swami Vivekananda in the 1900s did just that, but now Malhotra has provided a MORE SOPHISTICATED (and updated) critique. Fr. Clooney thus conferred the mantle of a new Vivekananda on Shri Malhotra's shoulders, which the latter did not decline to accept. This was evident in Malhotra's remarks after the Clooney talk.

The second part of Clooney's talk was devoted to a summary of the themes of the book which Malhotra had already presented to the audience, the over arching theme being that Hinduism was a different kind of Universalism ( different from the West) and that differences should be respected and can be the basis of dialogue.

It is in the third part that Dr. Clooney excelled in the subtle and sophisticated dialectic that Jesuit scholars are known for. In this segment he both acknowledged the merits of some of Malhotra's arguments and at the same time he pointed out their inadequacy as an account of the West and Christianity. At the end of the session Malhotra acknowledged that had taken close notes and these points would be the subject of further interfaith dialogues ! While Shri Malhotra dutifully brought out his copy book, Dr. Clooney's frequent gestures of rubbing his hands together, said it all. The present writer has already pointed out elsewhere that Shri Malhotra's method Purva Paksha was fatally flawed. He truncated the ancient Hindu method of argument (Tarka Shastra) by omitting an important section of it : Refutation of the opponent's arguments. He merely 'gazed' at the opponent but did not refute him. And the Hindu Christian 'dialogue' is set up just for that.

The ancient method consists of (1) statement of the opponent's arguments, (2) REFUTATION of the opponent's argumenst, (3)Statement of one's own arguments.

Dr. Clooney, even as he praised his host,managed to show that Shri Malhotra did not really understand the West, especially Christianity. At least half a dozen examples were cited and it would be useful here to point out two or three of them. One of them was Malhotra's incomplete understanding of the god of Christianity and his historicity. Another example was the 'complexity' of the synthetic unity of Christian thought, unlike Malhotra's implied description of it as being inferior to Hindu integral unity.

The third example is telling. Clooney pointed out that in using the periodisation of history as starting with Rome, followed by the birth of Christianity, followed by Renaissance & Reformation and then followed by Modern Science, the Enlightenment, and then Colonialism etc. Malhtora was using the West's own model of itself. Hence, here again Malhotra was deficient in truly describing the West and especially Christianity.

Fr. Clooney even managed to throw in a quick remark that questioned the specificity (according to him) of the Hindu interpretation of the Rishi tradition. The Rishi tradition according to him is much more open than Hindus would allow. Shri Malhotra held up Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi as his sources, but he did not and could not defend the vast smriti tradition or even the Upanishads as he did not seem to be very familiar with these. A traditional acharya would immediately have been able to respond to this. A traditional acharya does not need to have gone through the fraudulent exercise of interfaith dialogue to explain the Vedas and the Smritis ! He certainly would not have allowed himself to be entrapped in the periodisation of history, borrowed from the West !

Apart from all this being Clooney's misrepresentation of the Vedas, it is also a sign of the current attempt by the Church to refine its Inculturation by appropriating the Vedas ! The Hindus do not understand the Vedas but Christians such as Fr. Clooney can. This is the subtext of his observations.

All in all, the video shows a dismal lack of preparedness by Shri Malhotra on how to handle the Jesuit scholar. This is, ofcourse, where his lack of formal training shows up. What should alarm the Hindu Samaj is that the book Being Different is being considered (so the author informs us) for students at the Department of Psychology at the University of Delhi. One hopes that intrepid students and faculty can tackle the situation. Hindus do not need lectures on what atman or punarjanmam mean, nor do they need to seek for a place at the table of Western Universalism( which is Shri Malhotra's stated aim). Dr. Clooney has already done the rounds of institutions in Chennai, among college students in particular. Should he appear at classrooms in Delhi one can only hope that the door of interfaith dialogue is firmly shut. The book Being Different cannot be allowed to become the thin end of the wedge for Inculturation (although that may not be the author's aim).

The chipping away at the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas. gurus and maths has been the ancient dream of the Catholic Church. Hindus should resolutely show up these designs and above all reject Hindu Christian Dialogue. That exercise is intended to be a distraction. The real target of the Church are the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, because the Church has understood that these are the backbone of our civilisation .

(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadin university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).

VITANDAVAADA ON RAJIV MALHOTRA vs Rev. CLOONEY, DEBATE OR DIALOGUE, VAADA, VIVAADA OR SAMVAADA? FOLLOW UP ON "IS RAJIV DANCING WITH THE DEVIL?"

2012-01-11T15:57:00.000-08:00

Debate on inter-Faith dialog in the context of Rajiv Malhotra’s book, “Being Different” and his discussion with Rev. Clooney and others.

by

R. Venkatanarayanan

Rajiv’s book, “Being Different” no doubt broken a vast new ground. The terrain traversed by it is primarily the philosophical and metaphysical. An overwhelming number of those who have read it in full or in part are appreciative of the author’s research, original thinking and structured presentation. A few activists and scholars have, however, found little to appreciate. But it is Rajiv’s efforts to engage ‘outsiders’, particularly those who profess Christianity, in discussing in the public domain some of the issues raised in the book, that seems to have attracted some strident adverse reaction. This Note deals only with the latter aspect.

One or two well meaning Hindu intellectuals have questioned the very necessity and even desirability of any such discussion or inter-Faith dialog. Some have critiqued specifically the Rajiv-Rev. Clooney discussion on the book, ‘Being Different’.
The argument of the former, summarized, runs somewhat as follows: (i) Hindu intellectuals and religious leaders should focus on educating, enthusing and mobilizing Hindus and should not waste their time on inter-Faith dialogs; (ii) Inter-Faith dialogs are not desirable because the other parties—in the present context, Christian theologians and missionaries—are wily characters with the sole agenda of ingratiating themselves with a few Hindu religious leaders or scholars and using the links forged thus, to subvert the Hindu religious leadership and society, destroy Hindu Dharma and convert Hindus at large still more vigorously.

I do not see why bringing more awareness to Hindus at large about missionary machinations or the kernel features of strength of Hindu Dharma and debating the authentic essentials of Hindu Dharma with non-Hindus on a scholarly platform should be mutually exclusive. Both are important in defending Hindu Dharma and in invigorating the Hindu society. Refusing to recognize forces that are inimical to Hindu Dharma and Society is sheer foolishness. Ignoring to engage them is dangerous. Of course such engagement would have to be in different modes in different circumstances. For instance when a local Church-led mafia tries to construct a new church on a public land it must be opposed vigorously on the ground with local Hindu activists at the grass roots and by invoking law. This is engagement. On the other hand, it is also engagement to debate with a Christian theologian on his misconceptions or false interpretations about Hindu Dharma or on issues which do not appeal to Hindu rationality. Leaving missionaries to speak and write whatever they wish to without confronting them in a cordial and sufficiently informed debate is not going to strengthen Hindu Dharma or Society. The ‘desirability’ argument mentioned above is also highly flawed and baseless. The wilier your opponent is the more is the need for you to keep engaged with him to discover the chinks in his armor and the details of his strategy. It is absurd for a good Hindu to bury his head in the sand on the ground that the adversary is too sly or insidious. Is it not a historical fact that Hindu subjugation took place repeatedly in the past because the invading forces discovered the former’s weaknesses and exploited them? If your adversary has a hidden agenda the way to tackle it is not to run away from him but to discover that agenda and counter it. How can this be done without engagement and debate? In the intellectual domain what are the other options available to the Hindu?
Coming to the Rajiv-Clooney debate, Clooney has been described as a ‘Trojan horse’; one or two critics have also felt that Clooney has had the better of Rajiv in the debate. I watched the audio-video of the debate more than once and am among the numerous persons who felt that Rajiv did a very good job. I did not find any Trojan horse in Clooney. The Jesuit is no doubt wily and may have some agenda of his own in agreeing to the debate. So what? Someone had mentioned that the ‘body language’ of Rajiv indicated that he was trying to cozy up to Clooney. I consider it as plainly absurd conclusion. Anyone who knows Rajiv well enough will agree that he is not an innocent and ill-informed Hindu who can be co-opted or subverted, whether he or she agrees or not with all that Rajiv says or writes and whether he or she is happy or not with how Rajiv reacts to even cordial suggestion or criticism. Of course there could be varying opinions on how well the debate went and how Rajiv could have done better etc. Such legitimate criticism or reservation should not be condemned.
I heard an argument that inter-Faith dialog is a Vatican strategy to entice some Hindu religious leaders and efforts by Missionaries in this regard have a political agenda. I entirely agree. But I think it is unwise to refuse to enter into any debate with them on this ground. What is, however, necessary is calculated steps to thwart individual Hindu religious leaders or scholars getting enticed or misled into making unacceptable joint statements or singing the meaningless song of “all religions are the same” etc. Rajiv has forcefully brought up this point in his book and in his interaction with commentators on the book. In doing so he may have used words which may not be entirely appropriate, particularly in respect of highly respected Hindu religious leaders but this is a separate issue.

An academician seriously concerned about rejuvenating Hindu Dharma and Society has said that Rajiv has not used Purva Paksha in the right sense of the term. The argument here is that Purva Paksha-based debate must result in the “defeat” of the opponent and not in some sort of compromise. There is some confusion here. Purva Paksha is only a technique in serious debate. Debate is of different types according to our ancient seers, namely, vada, vivada, vitanda and jalpa. It is these types of debate that have different objectives and Purva Paksha is applicable to all of them.
Our ancient Seers and revered religious leaders may have worked in different ways to defend and strengthen our Dharma. But it is wisdom to recognize that times have changed considerably. In countering our Dharmic adversaries what worked in the past may not work equally effectively in the present. Our adversaries are constantly changing their techniques. Should Hindus not adapt to the changing times and to the changing modes of the adversaries? Terms such as conquest, defeat etc belong more in the lexicon of Christianity and Islam; our objective in inter-Faith debates must be to persuade the non-Hindu adversary and Hindu fence-sitter who may be open to be persuaded, and kindle interest and raise awareness of the ignorant Hindu.

In evaluating the Rajiv-Clooney debate let us not get pushed into blind alleys—what was the hidden motive of Clooney in mentioning the names of the great Vivekananda or Edward Said and such others; whether or not Rajiv is the first to adopt the Purva Paksha technique in inter-Faith debate; whether Clooney was puffing up Rajiv to co-opt him in a subtle manner as his (Clooney’s) future warrior against innocent Hindu intellectuals and so on. At best these are peripherals. Let us not fail to recognize that this is perhaps the first time a wily Jesuit has allowed himself to be seriously engaged in the public domain on truly philosophical and metaphysical strengths of Hindu Dharma. Ignoring the peripherals, let us therefore evaluate the need, mode and impact of an open debate. Once we accept that such debates have an important role in what we Dharmis wish to do for our Dharma we could utilize Rajiv’s effort as a learning experience and improve upon it. It is wisdom to see the value in the core and not the weakness in the peripherals.

Ultimately and in a profound Hindu sense Dharma rests on the shoulders of the Dharmi though without Dharma there will be no Dharmi. It is for the Dharmi to defend, protect, rejuvenate and strengthen Dharma in the exercise of this symbiotic relationship. In this regard, learning the core aspects of our Dharma, raising the awareness on these aspects among the indifferent or the ignorant in the Hindu society, producing scholarly works seeing things through the Hindu prism, engaging adversaries on appropriate planes and toiling at the grass roots among the under-privileged and poor Hindu families, are all important and necessary—equally. Making a wily Christian missionary move a few steps forward in admitting implicitly or explicitly error in his interpretation or claims is as important as firing up the enthusiasm of the already-converted. It is for Dharmis to choose the arena suitable to their capability and inclination in their effort to support and strengthen Dharma. It is not wise to decry one or the other arena or the Dharmi who chooses one or the other arena for his contribution. To do so is to be as unwise as to declare that for a human being the pair of hands is more important than the pair of legs or that eyes are not as necessary as the ears and so on.

Finally a word or two for those Dharmis who find the revered Hindu religious leaders at present and lay leadership deficient and unequal to meet the challenges facing Hindus—Please be careful in what and how you say things in this regard in the public domain; for those who criticize the critics—please avoid harshness. Let us be charitable and considerate internally to each other. Let us not internally hurt ourselves in our enthusiasm; we have a lot to do to prevent damage from external sources.

January 11, 2012 R.Venkatanarayanan

BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA 101: BENEFITS & ADVERSE EFFECTS

2012-01-07T22:03:00.000-08:00

BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA, 101

This is an outline of the
Power Point Slide Presentation
by

Shree S. Vinekar, M.D

(Pictorial and Graphic illustrations omitted)

LET YOUR INTUITION FLOW for ATTAINING
PEACE, NATURAL STATE OF WELLNESS, HEALTH, & LONGEVITY

BASIC CONCEPTS of yoga are MOSTLY PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGIC WITH NEURO-BIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS

THIS PRESENTATION
WILL AVOID MYSTIC AND SPIRITUAL LINGO

YOGA
AN ANCIENT SCIENCE PROBABLY BASED ON INTUITIVE
COMPREHENSION OF PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGY &
NEURO-BIOLOGY

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTIQUITY
ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF YOGIC POSTURES
SARASWATI-SINDHU (INDUS) CIVILIZATION (5000 BCE TO 3000 BCE)

There is also
LITERARY EVIDENCE
MENTION OF YOGA IN VEDAS AND UPANISHADS (5000 BCE TO 1500 BCE)
& BHAGVAD-GITA (CIRCA 3067 BCE) AND MANY OTHER TEXTS
MANY MILLENNIA BEFORE THE BIRTH OF GAUTAMA THE BUDDHA AND JESUS CHRIST.

(ALL ABOVE ARE CONSIDERED SPIRITUAL BY MANY BUT VEDA REALLY MEANS KNOWLEDGE)

THAT SHOULD NOT CONFUSE YOU

(Generic Term "Darshana")
DARSHANA: MEANING A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW
YOGA-DARSHANA
SANKHYA-DARSHANA (Literally Sankhya means Enumerable)
CATEGORICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE

(ALL SIX DARSHANAS) BUT ESPECIALLY
BOTH SANKHYA AND YOGA INFORM AND GUIDE
BOTH "VIEW OF LIFE" & "WAY OF LIFE"
NOT "RELIGION" IN THE WESTERN SENSE OF THE WORD
BUT they guide and lay the foundation to help comprehend "DHARMA" and live in congruence with "DHARMA"

DHARMA literally means
HOLDING PRINCIPLES
ORDER AND HARMONY
QUALITY

FOLLOWING DHARMA ENHANCES PERSONAL, FAMILY, SOCIAL, AND GLOBAL QUALITY OF LIFE

HIGHEST GOAL OF LIFE is DHARMA

OTHER THREE GOALS

ARTHA: LEARNING, WORKING, ATTAINING RESOURCES FOR SURVIVAL AND PROGRESS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD
KAAMA : DESIRES FOR PLEASURES OF LIFE, LOVE, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
MOKSHA : FREEDOM FROM ALL LEARNED PARADIGMS (SUSTAINED SUPERIOR COGNITION OR JNANA LEADS TO SUCH STATE)

YOGA IS A SUPRA-RELIGIOUS PSYCHO-TECHNOLOGY (MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH RELIGION)

PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES (ERRONEOUSLY CALLED EXERCISES)

BRAND NAME YOGAS

CONVENTIONAL CLASSIC FOUR: KARMA, BHAKTI, JNANA, AND RAJA YOGA (PATANJALA YOGA) (So named by Swami Vivekananda)

PATANJALA (by PATANJALI 400 BCE TO 400 CE)

HATHA YOGA formulated and compiled from older knowledge by
SWATMARAM SURI (1400-1500 CE)

HATHA IN AMERICAN TERMS "FAST-TRACK"
HATHA YOGA EXPOUNDED BY
GORAKH NATH (GORAKSHA SANHITA) GHERANDA (GHERANDA SANHITA) SWATMARAMA (HATHA YOGA PRADEEPIKA)
(after 1500 CE)
NAATH PANTHI MADHAVADAS MAHARAJ YOGI
GURU OF SWAMI KUVALAYAANANDA
(1882-1966) one of the pioneers of early 20th Century who undertook scientific investigation of Yoga.

HATHA YOGA INVESTS IN HEALTH
(IF YOU HAVE HEALTH & LONGEVITY YOU HAVE ALL OTHER GOALS TO ATTAIN, NAMELY DHARMA, KAAMA, ARTHA, also means WEALTH)
(MOKSHA IS BEYOND BASIC SCIENCE)
FROM PUBLIC HEALTH POINT OF VIEW IT IS LEAST EXPENSIVE AND MOST EFFECTIVE FOR PREVENTIVE HEALTH
EVEN IN THE MOST AFFLUENT COUNTRY "SAVINGS AT FRONT END" IS MORE DESIRABLE THAN SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
FOR SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENTS; YOGA IS PRACTICED BY 20 MILLION AMERICANS DAILY AND IT HAS RECENTLY BECOME A
5 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY IN THE US

AAROGYA VARDHANA
(ATTAINING HIGHER & HIGHER LEVELS OF HEALTH OR BETTER AND BETTER HEALTH)
AAROGYA meaning
literally
DISEASE-LESS-NESS {WHAT IS HEALTH (?): PREVENTION OF DISEASE, AND BUILDING IMMUNITY FOR DISEASE PRODUCING AGENTS
AS WELL REDUCING RISK FACTORS. }

SHAREERAM ADYAM KHALU DHARMA SAADHANAM
meaning
BODY-MIND ARE TRULY (VERILY)
THE VERY FIRST MEANS FOR ATTAINING DHARMA

SAMAADHI CAN ALSO BE DEFINED AS BALANCING OF
DHARMA ARTHA KAAMA MOKSHA
ALL LIFE ACTIVITIES AND GOALS HAVE TO BE CONGRUENT, CONSISTENT & COMPATIBLE WITH
DHARMA

WORKING DEFINITION OF YOGA IN
HATHA YOGA
YOGAH SAMAADHIH
(sam + aa + dhaa = to put together as one whole)

BODY AND MIND BALANCED TO WORK AS INTERGRATED WHOLE

THROUGH FOLLOWING EIGHT STEPS

CLASSIFIED AS BAHIRANGA (EXTERNAL) & ANTARANGA (INTERNAL)

BAHIRANGA:

CULTIVATION OF PROPER PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDE

YAMA: CULTIVATED INNER ATTITUDE TOWARDS SELF, SOCIETY & OTHER LIVING BEINGS

NIYAMA: HABITS FOR PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH IN PERSONAL LIFE AND FOR PERSONAL GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT

YAMAS: AHINSA, SATYAM, ASTEYAM, BRAHMACHARYAM, (ASANGRAHAH) APARIGRAHA

NIYAMAS: SHOUCHA, SANTOSHA, TAPAS, SWADHYAYA, ISHWARAPRANIDHANAM

YAMA, NIYAMA, ASANA, PRANAYAMA, "PRATYAAHARA"

DISCUSSES PRATI-AAHAARA AS THE FIRST MOST WIDELY RESEARCHED
YOGIC RELAXATION TECHNIQUE, NAMELY, "SHAVAASANA"

RECONDITIONING OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
(SUBSTRATE) THROUGH FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES
ASANAS MUDRAS & BANDHAS
PRANAYAMA

STHIRA-SUKHAM-AASANAM PRAYATNA-SHAITHILYAM ANANTA-SAMAAPATTIBHYAM
TATO-DVANDVAANABHIGHAATAH (FREEDOM FROM ANGAMEJAYATWAM)

STABILITY, EASE, EFFORTLESSNESS OR LEAST EFFORT AND ABSORPTION IN INFINITE
LEADS TO RESOLUTION OF INNER TENSIONS AND CONFLICTS ALLEVIATING
THE UNAPPRECIABLE TREMULOUSNESS IN THE BODY

PATTERN OF THE POSTURE
MORE IMPORTANT
THAN EXACTING THE POSTURE (NOT KNOWING THIS AND NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE
OF PRAYATNASHAITHILYAM CAUSES INJURIES TO PRACTITIONERS AND SOME TEACHERS OF YOGA)
(SUCH INJURIES ARE PRIMARILY MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURIES)

MUDRAS & BANDHAS
DIRECT EFFECT ON AUTONOMIC REFLEXES (NOT AS INNOCENT AS THEY LOOK)
THESE ARE "EXERCISES FOR INTERNAL ORGANS"
CAN BE DANGEROUS IF PRACTICED BY NOVICES, UNHEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY
IF NOT UNDER MEDICAL GUIDANCE

A Very Rare Phenomenon (ILLUSTRATION)
FiG. 1. Electrocardiograph showing voluntary control of heart activity by the exercises.

PRANAYAMA NOT JUST DEEP BREATHING IT IS SPECIAL TYPE OF BREATHING
ANULOMA-VILOMA, UJJAYEE
KAPAALABHATI, BHASTRIKA & AGNISAARA, ETC. NEED TO BE PROPERLY TAUGHT

MOST IMPORTANT AND
MOST DANGEROUS PRANAYAMA BUT
MOST EFFECTIVE ARE THE FOLLOWING PRACTICED WITH DIFFERENT PERMUTATION AND COMBINATIONS
WITH DIFFERENT RATIOS OF TIME INTERVALS AND RHYTHMS :
KUMBHAKA
RECHAKA
POORAKA (NOT CONSIDERED HARMFUL IN THAT IT IS INHALATION SUPPLYING OXYGEN)

KRIYAAS : CONTROL OVER SMOOTH MUSCLES
JALA NETI, SOOTRA NETI, VAMANA DHOUTI, DANDA DHOUTI, VASTRA DHOUTI, KUNJARA KRIYA
(GAJA-KARANI KRIYA) (VATASAARA, VARISAARA, VAJROLI, ETC.)

(ANTARANGA OF YOGA)

DHYAANA, DHAARANAA, SAMAADHI
DIRECT CONTROL OF
HIGHER CEREBRAL FUNCTIONS (CONSCIOUSNESS)

(details of SANYAMA TECHNIQUES NOT INCLUDED HERE)

NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ILLUSTRATED AS CORRELATED
WITH A UNIQUE ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC RECORDING OF AN
ACCOMPLLISHED YOGI (Fig. 2 Illustration)

PRACTICE YOGA WITH UNDERSTANDING

THE BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA 101

IS RAJIV DANCING WITH THE DEVIL ASKS RAJIVA

2012-01-07T11:43:00.000-08:00

Bharatkalyan97

226,552
3.1.12

Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva

Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva

"The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways." - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

In an article in Huffington Post, author and writer Rajiv Malhotra repeats his interpretation of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha as looking at various religions,especially Christianity and Western thought with respect, while maintaining differences ("Difference With Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu-Christian Dialogue"). While religious leaders have traditionally maintained the posture that all religions are similar, Mr. Malhotra argues for the differences, while maintaining respect for each other's world view. As one continues to read the article the reader realises that Malhotra is not actually saying anything new. In fact, his concluding statement is that there is a Divine One and its various manifestations are "lila." This well written, charming essay is worth a first read, if only so that Hindus can understand where the author is going with his claims of a new kind of Hindu-Christian dialogue.

In previous articles the present writer has pointed out that Malhotra's use of the ancient Hindu method of argument, Purva Paksha, is a truncated one, which stops short of "defeating" the adversary's positions, and in fact aims at appeasing the adversary. Adi Shankara's Digvijay tours of India (where he used Purva Paksha) were aimed at defeating the enemy in argument, not in appeasing him/her. Malhotra's use of the word "dialogue" (a Platonic one) is also misleading. Socrates, in the Platonic Dialogues, aims at peeling off the layers of ignorance of his adversary's arguments and arriving at what he believes to be the truth (See "Rajiv Malhotra & Francis Clooney: The siren song of interfaith dialogue") . While Mr. Malhotra is entitled to his own interpretations, they become misleading for Hindus, when they are projected as the way to approach a clear and present danger, the predatory proselytising agenda of the Catholic Church.

Interfaith dialogue became the fashion in North American universities some years ago and some unsuspecting Hindus were caught in this net. Now, the new phrase is "Hindu-Christian Dialogue". In the Huffington Post article Mr. Malhotra readily admits that he has been corresponding with Jesuit priest and scholar Francis Xavier Clooney, who is also a Professor of Divinity at Harvard University (USA) and that since 2010 this Jesuit scholar has been reading and commenting on Malhotra's new book Being Different. This seemingly cosy relationship was replicated in the recent talk at Harvard university and which the present writer has critiqued in an article "Rajiv Malhotra & Francis Clooney: Just friends or best friends?". Malhotra being an autodidact needed to consult with Clooney, in addition to his committment to interfaith dialogue. The far more experienced and well-trained Clooney had no difficulty in flattering Malhotra into thinking that he was a superior and updated version of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekananda! This alone should have sent out alarm signals to Malhotra but that did not appear to be the case. A Hindu who cannot see the Greek who comes bearing gifts, is showing the height of naivete in thinking that a 'dialogue' with this person is beneficial for Hindus.

The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways. They have been the backbone of our civilisation. We tinker with them at our own peril. Protecting them and preserving them is the task for contemporary Hindus. This can and should be accompanied by a determined effort to "defeat" the enemy, rather than accommodate him/her. Some writers have argued that Hindus are being exposed on a daily basis to Western ideas and so why not be prepared for this onslaught by further exposure? In the opinion of the present writer this is a mistaken strategy, because it invites a new kind of Macaulayism. Macaulay effected his strategy of enslaving Hindus to Western thought by fiat. Malhotra and Clooney have adopted a different strategy, that of Hindu Christian Dialogue, in which the Hindu is programmed into thinking that he or she is obligated to engage with the adversary, in the interests of some "higher" cause.

There has been some speculation as to why the author ofBreaking India has moved into a new phase. Whatever his motives, base or noble, what is required is a firm rejection of his new agenda by Hindus.

» Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History.

http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/rajiv-malhotras-endorsement-of-hindu-christian-dialogue-vijaya-rajiva/
Posted by S. Kalyanaraman at 5:04 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook

Reactions:
0 comments:
Post a Comment

Links to this post
Create a Link

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
LABELS

indian ocean community (21)
Indus Script (35)
Meluhha (14)
Soma (4)
ABOUT ME

S. Kalyanaraman
View my complete profile
FOLLOWERS

BLOG ARCHIVE

ACADEMIC FREEDOM DUPLICITY AT HARVARD: SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS?

2011-12-25T05:23:00.000-08:00

SWAMY AND HIS HARVARD ENEMIES I: THE REAL STORY
An anti-Hindu clique has made a mockery of academic freedom using an unwieldy administrative mechanism to cancel Subramanian Swamy’s courses. The result has been a fierce backlash.
Part I
Dr. Navaratna Rajaram
Background: Insular Indologists and generous donor

Georges Clemenceau (1841 – 1929), prime minister of France during World War I once said: “War is too important a matter to be left to the generals.” This wisdom can now be applied to those calling themselves by names like Indologist, India Studies Expert, South Asia Expert (the latest fashion) and so forth. Thanks to their ham-handed expulsion of the economist and visiting professor Dr Subramanian Swamy, Harvard now has a major public relations problem on its hands.
To understand the nature of Harvard’s public relations problem, it helps to recognize that Harvard has a dual personality: it is a university that is also a business. Harvard University is part of the Harvard Corporation which answers to its board. (Actually it has two boards, of fellows and of overseers—don’t ask me why.) It is the richest university in the world with assets (called endowment) valued at $32 billion (over one lakh sixty thousand crore rupees in today’s values). Its assets are managed by the Harvard Management Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard.
In 2007, its assets stood at $36 billion. During the global economic downturn Harvard endowment lost 22 percent of its value or eight billion dollars. It has recovered somewhat in the past two years and is now valued at $32 billion, better but still well short of what it was five years ago. To grow, Harvard needs money from two sources— income from its assets and contributions from its ‘customers’. The latter may now take a hit thanks to the controversy and the backlash following the cancellation of Subramanian Swamy’s courses.
Like any successful business Harvard treats customer loyalty as its most valuable asset; it takes extraordinary care to cultivate and nurture good relations. Its customers are its alumni. They donate generously and also send their children to Harvard. Increasingly, Harvard is drawing its students—and donations—from the wealthy Indian-American community and in recent years from businesses and professionals in India. In the past year alone, individuals from major Indian business houses like Tata, Infosys and Mahindras (to name just a couple) have given tens of millions of dollars to Harvard.

Hubris results in backlash

The last thing that Harvard needs at this juncture is as it is just recovering from the fallout of the financial crisis is a public relations disaster of this nature. A question that needs to be answered is— how could Harvard, whose public relations skills are second to none, allow itself to be blindsided by an avalanche of this magnitude? The only answer I can think of is hubris—it took the goodwill and loyalty of an important segment of its ‘customers’— the Indian alumni and students—for granted and failed to respond adequately to their complaints over the shrill anti-Hindu and anti-Indian rhetoric and propaganda of some of its faculty. The worst offenders were Indologist Michael Witzel and a few of his associates.
The dismissal of Subramanian Swamy was the last straw. He is regarded as a hero by a large number of Indians because of his uncompromising stand against terrorism and his crusade against corruption. Judged by Witzel’s record over the past several years, going back to his unseemly involvement in the California school curriculum controversy— and the anti-Hindu rants of his hate group IER (Indo-Eurasian Research), it was a disaster waiting to happen. I had brought his unsavory activities to the attention of Harvard administration more than once, but they had always advised me that however disagreeable it may be, Witzel’s (and other’s) views were protected by academic freedom. (This was before Dr Faust took over as president.)
All this was public knowledge, and I was not the only one to object. Now for Harvard to dismiss Subramanian Swamy at the instigation of people like Witzel and his departmental colleague Diana Eck looks like hypocrisy of the first order. It is not only Indians that are outraged by this decision: academics and free thinkers who have nothing to do with India or Hinduism have expressed their outrage. This is made worse by the fact that other institutions like Yale have also buckled under Islamist pressure. Last summer (2011), Yale expelled Dr Charles Small (of the Yale Initiative for the Inter-disciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism), because he held a conference in which Islamic anti-Semitism and Islamic terrorism were discussed. The following excerpt from a blog by a non-Indian (Pamela Geller) gives an idea.
“In response to the triple bombing in Mumbai on July 13, 2011 that left 26 people dead, Former Indian Law Minister Dr. Subramanian Swamy published an op-ed in a mainstream Indian daily called 'How To Wipe Out Islamic Terror'. Dr. Swamy is not much loved by the current Indian government as it was through his anti-corruption campaigning efforts that the previous Telecoms Minister ended up in jail on corruption charges, and he is actively pursuing other high ranking members of the government on similar charges.
“The article was unquestionably provocative, but what it provoked was debate -- a good thing for any democracy, especially on a difficult topic. However, it seems, it was too much free speech for Harvard University. For years Dr. Swamy, a Harvard Ph.D. and former Commerce and Industry Minister of India, has taught summer courses in economics at Harvard. This year, in an unprecedented move, his courses were taken away based on the article.”
The author of the article went on to point out that the Harvard Crimson justified the move by saying, in part, "there is the further concern that his publications may incite religious violence." Religious violence where? On the Harvard campus? There were no incidents of ‘religious violence’ in India following the publication of Dr. Swamy’s article. The Harvard Crimson seems to have a low opinion of the intelligence and maturity of its readers, of Harvard students and faculty in particular.
Unwieldy administration, disgruntled faculty
It is understandable that Harvard President Drew Faust should have caught of much of the flak in this avoidable backlash. Actually, she seems to have been a victim of circumstances beyond her control: a combination of circumstances allowed a disgruntled faculty in its shrinking Sanskrit and India Studies program to take advantage of an unwieldy administrative mechanism. I will look at the former in some detail later, but a brief observation on the latter as seen by a U.S. academic (and administrator) with several decades of experience may be in order. (A phone call to the President’s office at Harvard elicited the response that she, the President had nothing to do with the cancellation.) Here is how the cancellation of Swamy’s courses seems to have come about.
The procedure at Harvard requires that the whole faculty of the college in question vote on the courses and instructors for each term, in this case the college of arts and sciences on the summer courses to be offered in 2012. Swamy’s economics courses were voted down at the instigation of Diana Eck, a religious studies professor who heads something called the ‘pluralism project’. As we shall see later Eck invoked reasons which made faculty competence irrelevant and steamrolled over the wishes of the economics department chair.
This strikes one as an unwieldy and inefficient procedure. Things were quite different in colleges where I taught. Once the department in question gets its budget approved by the college, the department chair, assisted by a departmental committee decides on the courses and assigns instructors. After all they have the competence. One cannot have the absurd situation—as happened at Harvard—of a theologian exercising veto power over science and mathematics courses! (One of the courses cancelled was ‘Quantitative Methods in Economics’.) The last time anything like it happened was in Italy 500 years ago when Galileo was forbidden by the Church to teach astronomy.
Actually there is more to this bizarre episode than meets the eye. Diana Eck was sending a political message to President Drew Faust no less! Eck gave the game away when she haughtily told the faculty why Swamy’s courses should be cancelled. Here is a revealing report (The Harvard Crimson):
"In her remarks, Eck emphasized the ‘destructive’ nature of the positions Swamy advocated in India, and characterized the proposals as going well beyond free speech to the advocacy of abrogating human rights, curtailing civil rights, and intruding on freedom of religion. She wondered why the courses had not been ‘quietly dropped’, rather than submitted for approval in 2012. Swamy’s positions crossed the line to ‘incitement’ and to ‘demonizing’ Indian minorities, and were therefore sharply at odds with Harvard’s pluralism,” Eck said.
But here was the real message: “Given President Faust’s planned trip to Mumbai and New Delhi in January, it would be important for people in that country to know where the faculty stood on the views Swamy advocated."
(Dr Swamy’s response: “… the vote at Harvard was nothing serious. …non-economists at Harvard don’t like my views on how to protect India.” Citing Eck and a colleague who also wanted his courses dropped, Swamy tweeted: “I have been held accountable at Harvard for what I write in India. This means India studies’ [Michael] Witzel and Eck are accountable in India. Healthy?”)
To get back to Eck’s reasoning, she wants President Faust to tell ALL Indians—1.2 billion of them— most of whom have never heard of Harvard let alone Professor Eck, that they should toe the line drawn for them by this religious scholar— a Christian who claims to speak for all of Harvard in the name of ‘pluralism’. Hinduism is and has always been a pluralistic "religion," which Christianity and Islam with their exclusive beliefs are not, but this Christian theologian would stand this on its head as only a theologian can.

L’affaire Swamy: policing academic freedom

So this committed Christian fanatic masquerading as a ‘pluralist’ wants to turn the Harvard President’s goodwill visit to India into a crusade against Hinduism! It is not hard to imagine what President Faust can expect if she were to carry Diana Eck’s message to India! As it is, she can expect a torrid time defending the sacking of Dr Swamy against Harvard’s own professed policy of safeguarding academic freedom.
This brings us back to Eck’s (and her colleagues’) contempt for academic freedom when it rubs against their Orwellian brand of pluralism. It may not be out of place here to mention that a large number of Christian theologians led by Diana Eck signed a long letter of apology addressed to Muslim divines for past Christian violence against Muslims including the Crusades. No such apology has been forthcoming for violence against Hindus and other pagans during the Goa Inquisition in India (instigated by ‘Saint’ Xavier).
It is hardly necessary to point out that academic freedom cannot come with strings attached. In the memorable words of Abraham Lincoln, 150 years ago, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." This applies to academic freedom no less than to personal freedom. But Diana Eck was able to persuade her faculty colleagues that her higher principle of pluralism cancelled out Swamy’s academic freedom along with the freedom of the economics department to choose whom it may to teach its courses.
When it comes to curtailing academic freedom, the problem is where to draw the line? Can a theologian like Diana Eck be allowed to act as thought police cum moral police to rule on the freedom of others? What if one were to apply a similar standard to Eck and her ilk? It is no secret (see Wikipedia) that she (and her likeminded colleague Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago Divinity School) follows a lifestyle that many in India and even in the U.S. consider perverse. Can this be brought up in approving Eck's fitness to teach her courses? It can be argued, and has been argued that such people should be kept away from impressionable young minds who might be corrupted by their teaching and example. There would be howls of protests if Eck were treated in the same manner as Swamy for her personal conduct in her private life and for her negative public image in the eyes of majority in the U.S.
Actually what Subramanian Swamy wrote and said had been said before by others before him including Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar. (In addition, Swamy himself has close relatives who are non-Hindus including a Parsi-Zoroastrian wife and a Muslim son-in-law. He doesn’t need any lessons in pluralism.) All that is beside the point, what is at stake is academic freedom being derailed by moral policing. Even at Harvard, other faculty members have engaged in hateful activity (which Swamy has not) that has been defended in the name of academic freedom. Diana Eck’s colleague Michael Witzel is a prime example.
It is unnecessary to go into the details of the now discredited campaign by Michael Witzel and his associates trying to stop the removal of references to the Aryans and their invasion from California school text-books. What is remarkable is that a senior tenured professor at Harvard of German origin should have concern himself with how Hinduism is taught to children in California. Witzel is a linguist, but he presumed to tell California schools how Hinduism should be taught to children. It turned out that Hinduism was a convenient cover; his real concern was saving his pet Aryan myth from being erased from books. (This is not to deny his dislike of Hindus, especially those who question him, more of which below.) In the same way, Eck and her colleagues too are concerned about academic survival— of themselves as well as their discipline.

Preserving a defunct belief system

The reaction of the likes of Eck and Witzel can be understood only when we recognize that though Nazism and European colonialism, the twin pillars that supported Indology up to World War II are now defunct, some of their beliefs are part and parcel of what these academics represent. In particular they hold on to the notion of Indians, especially Hindus, as an inferior subject race who should submit to their stereotyping and behave accordingly. The fact that they don’t makes them react viscerally when challenged as seen in what Eck did to Swamy and Witzel’s reaction to Hindus rejecting his Aryan theories. Having seen Eck’s reaction, it is worth taking a brief look at Witzel.
In addition to his support for the Aryan theories and the California campaign, Witzel is known for his association with the notorious Indo-Eurasian Research (IER), which has been accused of a hate campaign against the Hindus. An article that appeared on December 25, 2005 in the New Delhi daily The Pioneer (for which Rudyard Kipling used to write) began: “Boorish comments denigrating India, Hindus and Hinduism by a self-proclaimed ‘Indologist’ who is on the faculty of Harvard University has unleashed a fierce debate over the increasing political activism of ’scholars’ who teach at this prestigious American university.
“Prof Michael Witzel, Wales professor of Sanskrit at Harvard, is in the centre of the storm because he tried to prevent the removal of references to India, Hinduism and Sikhism in the curriculum followed by schools in California which parents of Indian origin found to be inadequate, inaccurate or just outright insensitive.” The author of The Pioneer article (Kanchan Gupta) went on to observe: “Witzel declared Hindu-Americans to be "lost" or "abandoned", parroting anti-Semite slurs against Jewish people. Coincidence or symptom? Witzel's fantasies are ominously reminiscent of WWII German genocide. He says that 'Since they won't be returning to India, [Hindu immigrants to the USA] have begun building crematoria as well. …”
This extraordinary behavior on the part of Witzel, Eck and their colleagues can be understood only when we recognize their venial fear that the academic discipline which they represent may be on the verge of extinction. This is what we may look at next.

SWAMY AND HIS HARVARD ENEMIES II: SAVING FROM EXTINCTION
Indology is an anachronism with colonial and racist roots that has outlived its purpose. India Studies should outgrow Indology if it hopes to be relevant and not join Indology in the dustbin of history.
Navaratna Rajaram
Part II
A dying discipline
To understand the visceral reaction of Diana Eck and her colleagues within and outside Harvard, it helps to recognize that the discipline they are part of is on its way into the dustbin of history. This is thanks to science and progress. The fact that Eck, a religious scholar who knows little or no Sanskrit should be the chair of the Sanskrit Department (or was until recently when the department became part of South Asia Studies) is testimony to the state of Sanskrit at Harvard. There are village schools and undergraduate colleges in India with better Sanskrit scholars—and students—than those on the faculty of Sanskrit Department at Harvard today.
Diana Eck wears several hats: in addition to religious studies she is listed as Professor of Law and Psychiatry in Society and also heads her pet pluralism project. In other words, she is many things except a "Sanskrit scholar." The fact that someone like her should be the Sanskrit chair speaks eloquently on the state of her discipline and the department she headed. This cannot go on forever and they know it. So these people have to find some gimmick just for academic survival. For Eck it is her ‘pluralism’ project; for her colleague Michael Witzel, it is the Aryan myth and fighting ‘Hindutva forces’.
These academics are surviving on the decaying remains of the subject called Indology that came into existence during the British colonial era. It was created by ‘scholars’ sponsored by the British East India Company and Christian missionaries. Its goal was to help the British administer its expanding possessions by making British rule acceptable to Indians. At the core of this was the Aryan myth, a racial-cum-cultural myth that sought to attribute all Indian achievements to a mythical race of invaders known as Aryans.
This is the famous or infamous Aryan Invasion Theory (or AIT). It had two incarnations—British colonial-missionary and the German nationalist that led to Nazism. The German version and the horrors of Nazism are well known but for some reason the way the British put the myth to political use has remained largely unnoticed. As a recent BBC report admitted (October 6, 2005):
“It [Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier.”
Although both versions have been fully discredited, its proponents have found a refuge in U.S. academia behind some fig leaf like Eck’s ‘pluralism’. This too is now under threat. This is what is behind her unusually blunt message to President Faust quoted earlier: “Given President Faust’s planned trip to Mumbai and New Delhi in January, it would be important for people in that country to know where the faculty stood on the views Swamy advocated." Eck’s real concern is not survival of pluralism in India which owes nothing to Eck or her message to President Faust but Hinduism’s innate tolerance; her concern is the survival of her own pluralism project which may also come under the axe.
It is a similar story with Indology as a whole. Ever since he moved to Harvard from Germany, Witzel has seen the fortunes of his department and his field, gradually sink into irrelevance. Problems at Harvard are part of a wider problem in Western academia in his field. Indology departments and programs are shutting down across Europe. One of the oldest and most prestigious, at Cambridge University in England, has recently shut down. This was followed by the closure of the equally prestigious Berlin Institute of Indology founded way back in 1821.
Positions like the one Witzel holds (Wales Professor of Sanskrit, previously known as the Prince of Wales Professor) were created during the colonial era to serve as interpreters of India and Indian tradition to the ruling powers. They have lost their relevance and are disappearing from academia. No one today goes to these ‘experts’ to learn anything about India and Indians when they can get it from a next door neighbor, an office colleague or a relative by marriage. So these people need to show something to justify their existence. This was the real story behind Witzel’s California school campaign— not teaching Hinduism to California children.
Institutionalized anti-Hinduism
Indology as practiced by colonial scholars and their successors like Eck and Witzel should really be called Hindu Studies. Their targets are the Hindus, their religion, traditions and history. While they treat Islam and Muslims with utmost deference, partly out of fear of violent reaction, they don’t hesitate to heap criticism and abuse on Hindus and their beliefs. It is safe because Hindus usually don’t get violent.
A central though usually unstated premise of these Indologists is that the Hindus are an inferior race and they should accept this characterisation without question, and also anything said about them by these scholars who constitute a superior race in every way. They have even constructed a ‘history’ of Hindus as a people who owe everything to a race of invaders called Aryans (or Indo-Europeans). Some religious scholars, notably Wendy Doniger of Chicago can see nothing but sex in Hindu texts. (It seems she can see nothing but sex in anything. She denounced the famous Bhagavadgita, probably because it gives no scope for her sexual fantasies. What is it about ‘religious scholars’ that makes them sex obsessed?)
If any Hindu scholars that object to this stereotyping pointing to recent discoveries in natural history, genetics and archaeology that have discredited all these claims of these Indologists, are immediately denounced by them as chauvinists and fanatics incapable of logic or reason. Western scholars like Koenraad Elst and David Frawley are also not spared for criticizing their theories as unsound.
This bizarre conduct of Indologists (calling themselves also Indo-Europeanists) intrigued the Swedish scholar Stefan Arvidsson who went on to ask: “Today it is disputed whether or not the downfall of the Third Reich brought about a sobering among scholars working with 'Aryan' religions.” One may rephrase the question: “Did the end of the Nazi regime put an end to race based theories in academia?” We may answer it by saying it is surviving in mutated forms on the fringes of Western academia in the hands of people like Eck and Witzel though they vehemently reject they are racists. (Who admits it?)
In this academic and political conundrum it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the Aryan myth is a modern European creation that has little to do with ancient India. The word Arya appears for the first time in the Rig Veda, India’s oldest text. Its meaning is obscure but seems to refer to members of a settled agricultural community. Also, it was nowhere as important in India as it came to be in Europe. In the whole the Rig Veda, in all of its ten books, the word Arya appears only about forty times. In contrast, Hitler’s Mein Kampf uses the term Arya and Aryan many times more. Hitler did not invent it. The idea of Aryans as a superior race was already in the air— in Europe, not India.
Before World War II reduced Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich to ashes, anti-Semitism was very much part of the discourse about Aryans and Indo-Europeans. But following the war this was no longer academically respectable. The American Civil Rights Movement that followed placed Afro-Americans (or Negros as they were then called) also beyond the pale of these theories. Race is now a dirty word so some subterfuges have to be found to advance the same ideas, especially of one’s own superiority over a lesser race like the heathen Hindus, if no longer the Hebrews. This is the dirty little secret of Indology that India Studies seems to have inherited.
The final word on their discipline was pronounced by Stefan Arvidsson quoted earlier. He observed: “There is something in the nature of research about Indo-Europeans [or Aryans] that makes it especially prone to ideological abuse— perhaps something related to the fact that for the past two centuries, the majority of scholars who have done research on the Indo-Europeans have considered themselves descendants of this mythical race.” Implicit yet unstated— a superior race.
This is what is driving the likes of Eck and Witzel. To make matters worse, after a long period of colonization, Indians today, Hindus in particular, are on the ascendant, excelling in many fields and prospering economically while Indologists and their discipline are heading into oblivion. Worse, Indians are no longer looking up to these scholars much less supporting them. They are donating generously but to programs in science, technology and other professions where Indians and persons of Indian origin are visibly successful. Even at Harvard, there are few students of Indian origin in their Sanskrit department, whatever it may now call itself.
Given the situation, the growing importance of India and Indians in the U.S. and the world and their own precipitous decline, it is natural that Witzel, Eck and their colleagues should have made common cause with other anti-Hindu groups and individuals. So it should not be surprising that these and pro-Pakistani groups and Jihad apologists, as ‘birds of a feather’ should be drawn to each other by the common platform of anti-Hinduism and also as a matter of expediency.
It is worth noting here that while the Jews and the Hindus have been willing to stand up to intimidation by Islamists (or Islamofascists to use President George Bush’s memorable if infelicitous phrase) the Christian leadership has all but surrendered to it. This is evident from the letter of apology for Christian violence against Muslims through history signed by Diana Eck and a host of her Christian theologian colleagues. But others have gone further and sought to use anti-Hinduism as a potential source of funding from Islamic sources.
One of the first acts of Michael Witzel following his California campaign was to advertise his services in Pakistan’s leading newspaper Dawn as a ‘South Asia Expert’ on education. His pitch was he could serve as a consultant to publishers and others to maintain academic integrity on works on South Asia. He didn’t mention he was a Professor of Sanskrit, which might have turned off potential Pakistani clients, but a South Asia Expert. (He knew that Pakistanis have no great love for Sanskrit.) At first the Indian Marxist historian Romila Thapar was also part of his enterprise, but prudently withdrew.
A combination of anti-Hinduism and financial compulsions has brought together this motley group of academics, writers and propagandists on platforms spewing anti-India (and anti-Hindu) propaganda. Some like the novelist Arundhati Roy are publicity seekers while others like the India baiter Angana Chatterji are academic lightweights trying to make hay while the sun shines by pandering to anti-India outfits like Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI).
It has now come to light that Chatterji, who taught anthropology at something called the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) was being funded by the ISI agent Gulam Nabi Fai. Fai has pleaded guilty to being an unauthorized lobbyist for the ISI and Pakistan. He had funded several anti-India propagandists including Chatterji. The FBI brought this to the attention of the CIIS authorities who dismissed her. The curious thing is that the Harvard history professor has participated in programs organized by Chatterji even at Harvard.
Sugata Bose is the odd man out. Unlike Angana who is at best a fringe figure in academia, Bose is a respected scholar of modern history; he has no need to have any truck with a character like Chatterji. He takes pride in the fact that he is the grand-nephew of the Indian freedom fighter Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, but he is anything but pro-India. One possibility is that he was acting under the influence of his Pakistani wife Ayesha Jalal, also a distinguished scholar. As a prominent member of the South Asia group at Harvard he is seen as part of the anti-Hindu clique. His was one of the influential voices to lend support to Diana Eck’s demand for the expulsion of Subramanian Swamy.
India Studies: real pluralism, not clash of civilizations
As India and persons of Indian origin gain in importance in the world, the study of India should necessarily keep pace with it. But this cannot be based on anachronistic notions based on defunct ideologies of the colonial era or scientifically discredited race theories in whatever disguise. The distinguishing feature of the Indian civilization throughout history has been and remains pluralism in the real sense. This should be at the center of any study of India today. This brings us close to one of the popular academic theories of our time.
One of the more influential political theories of our time is Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis. It holds that future conflicts will be along civilizational fault lines of which he identifies several, most notably what he calls Islam and its ‘bloody frontiers’. It would be an interesting study to see if this thesis can be extended to academia also— like what we are currently witnessing at places like Yale and Harvard. There is no denying that the influence of Islam, largely because of its accumulated wealth (from oil) is quite pervasive in academia. The tension created by its presence in academia and academic freedom may be seen as a manifestation of the clash of civilizations extending its reach into academia.
At the same time, academia (and society in general) has to live today in a secular world whose distinguishing feature is pluralism— pluralism in the real sense and not the Orwellian travesty held up by the likes of Diana Eck. Pluralism has to serve as an effective counter to civilizational clash, but that will require both imagination and openness to new ways of looking at history and civilization.
Here is where India Studies can make a contribution if constructively studied. While pluralism is relatively recent in the West, beginning with French Revolution and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, it is of untold antiquity in India. Unlike the exclusivist Christianity and Islam with their one God (and the only true One) Hinduism left the choice of which god to worship—or none at all—to the individual. The separation of priestly power from secular power is also an ancient tradition. (The Buddha who was born a prince gave up his right to rule before being recognized as a religious leader. And there are other such examples beginning with Vishwamitra.)
Hindu India welcomed and allowed Judaism to survive unmolested for thousands of years. Even when Islam came with its exclusivist binary vision of believer and kaffir, the Indian genius somehow found a way to preserve its pluralism. If India today is a thriving pluralistic society it is because pluralism is an integral part of the Hindu tradition and experience, and not because of the advocacy of phony pluralists like Diana Eck or their gimmicks. (It is curious that Eck and other theologians in their letter of apology to Muslims should not have mentioned pluralism. Her pluralism message is only for the consumption of inherently pluralist Hindus, not for those who really need it. Those who want to destroy pluralism get apologies!)
Here is an important lesson. The problem faced by the West (U.S. and Europe) today is that Islam is seen to be threatening long standing traditions founded on pluralism and individual freedom. The same problems were faced by India a thousand years ago. The West like India values pluralism. Islam abhors it. At the same time, Islam with its billion people and enormous economic power cannot be wished away. So some balance must be achieved. This is the challenge of our time.
This suggests that academic study of India, or India Studies have a lot to learn from Hindu India and should make pluralism of the Hindu civilization and its capacity to survive for centuries in the face of repeated attacks one of its central concerns. In contrast, China under Mao lost its pluralistic character in a single generation, and went on to erase it from Tibet also. This is of more than academic importance. In today’s world businessmen, diplomats and others have to deal with India and Indians in the real world. These cannot be left to the mercy of ‘India experts’ trapped in the past, of whom Shakespeare wrote: “What private griefs these men have, alas I know not.” We need new thinking.
Conclusion: Free India Studies from India Experts
The 200 year-old discipline called Indology as it now exists represents the soft underbelly of academia. Its creation was an accident of history, perpetuated by a combination of scientific ignorance and the self-interest of an academic priesthood. As far back as 1939, Sir Julian Huxley, one of the great natural scientists of the twentieth century wrote:
“In England and America the phrase ‘Aryan race’ has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature…. In Germany, the idea of the ‘Aryan race’ received no more scientific support than in England. Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity. It therefore steadily spread, fostered by special conditions.” (Emphasis added.) Needless to say, these ‘special conditions’ were the rise of Nazism in Germany and British imperial interests in India.
But this product of ‘special conditions’ continues to survive on the fringes of academia— thanks to a priesthood striving to maintain a precarious existence. It has no value beyond being a nuisance to better understanding between India and the West. What we need today are not ‘experts’ trapped in the past but a new generation of thinkers aware of present needs and sensitive to the beliefs and practices of others in a pluralistic world. This will not come from the likes of Diana Eck and her colleagues. As Max Planck once observed:
“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.”
Planck was one of the founders of modern physics and his observation was about the reaction to the quantum revolution that he (and Einstein) had launched. But his observation applies equally to other fields like what we have discussed in this essay. It means that a new generation has to make a fresh start and let history take care of these anachronisms.
_______________________________
Dr Navaratna Rajaram is a scientist and historian who has written extensively on the subjects of this article.

HUNTINGTON'S CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION?

2011-12-17T22:53:00.000-08:00

CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATIONS & REMAKING OF THE WORLD ORDER : by Huntington
REVISITED
BY
Dr. Seshachalam Dutta

Samuel Huntington’s popular book The Clash of Civilizations has been re-released recently with the introduction by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former security advisor to Jimmy Carter. He together with Huntington engineered the strategy to defeat Soviets in Afghanistan, in the process promoting most insidious and fanatical Taliban which is being fought by America at the expense of enormous money and blood of young people. The worst scenario of influence of Soviets would not have resulted in such a disaster. It would have resulted, for better or worse, in a secular or a communist state.

Huntington’s book is a classic document of extreme racism and xenophobia, although well presented for academia with extensive authority, and more importantly to the conservative political groups...

His main thesis is that, with the decline of Soviet Union and defeat of communism, future conflicts would be based on cultural differences and not on nationalism or economic and political self interests. He paints the picture of decline of the West (with his own definition of the "West"), China overtaking the world and we all being forced to speak Chinese Mandarin rather than English. China is likely to become so powerful that America with the help their reluctant allies and Russia will invade that country. Meanwhile India would attack Pakistan to destroy its nuclear installations. The “HINDU” India will face military challenge from Indonesia and Myanmar with the help of Australia. The Europeans will be reluctant to join the Americans and Muslim countries will align with China.

Even if such geopolitical scenario is purely fanciful conjecture of the author, there are several incongruities in the logic of the narrative. The cultures of Muslim Countries including those of Pakistan and others have nothing in common with Chinese. Therefore such alliance would not be cultural. By calling India "HINDU" India, he ignores the fact that India is the home of the second largest Muslim population in the world next to Indonesia. For this scenario in which America invades China, he advances the strategy of including Russia in western alliance since they are no longer communists. Europeans it seems except the Russians would be reluctant to get involved in the “cultural wars”. When all is devastated, Africa, to use his exact words, “disgorges hordes of socially mobilized people to prey on the remains”. This is an expression of naked racism which he could only afford by caricaturing the Africans in Africa who have no political constituency like African-Americans.

This is the book that is being glorified by Brzezinski as the “seminal work that will revolutionize our understanding of international affairs.” Little wonder that young Americans are being sent to killing fields as canon fodder for over a decade on the advice of these political theorists who formulated a semi-self-fulfilling prophesy.

He goes on to say that the burden of maintaining the Western integrity falls on the United States as the Europe weakens economically and becomes demoralized by steady immigration of Muslims with high birth rate in contrast with European low birth rate. In journalistic jargon, the expression "the West" is variously used to refer to European and other countries with population of European origins. But, Huntington has very narrow definition of the West and western identity... It is defined as a group of democratic countries of Western alliance particularly Britain, Germany, France (despite latter being Catholic), and the United States. True West is not only democratic but should be protestant according to him. Thus Greece is not the part of the West. In order to consolidate identity one should not only appreciate “who he is, but who he is not and more importantly who he is against!” Thus the identity of the West is achieved by espousing anti-communism. With the collapse of communism, they now need a new enemy like Muslims. The Europeans show this antagonism to Muslim Turkey by not allowing its entry into NATO and the indifference of them to the Croatian Muslims which is well documented during Bosnian war. Bill Clinton is criticized for recognizing this cultural distinction. The West by itself stands separate from the rest of the world by its identity defined as liberal democracies devoted to protestant ethics and modernism. By this definition Serbians, Greeks, Spanish and South Americans are not considered western. How about Jewish people? They have not only a religious identity but they also have distinct ethnicity. He failed to mention that Hindus also have distinct ethnicity which would not change by proselytizing them. A Hindu may be atheist or he /she may worship Jesus or he may be a Muslim Sufi like Abdullah of Nagapatnam and he still will be a Hindu in his cultural identity as well as ethnicity.

Western Universalism:

Western Universalism is advocacy of western values including democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights in an attempt to universalize them throughout the world. While some of them who preach such Universalism may be benign, other movements like "religious freedom" disguise propagation of fundamental Christianity through proselytizing people of other religions and cultures, alienating them from their native cultures and also teaching them to berate their native cultures although many may not have even comprehended its values. There is resistance in the world against alienating people from their native cultures and weakening integrity of the races. Colonial Britain tried this in China which prompted Boxer revolution in response to the massacre of Chinese by British. There are present day Western "intellectuals" like Patrick Buchanan who think the West has its ultimate purpose of ‘civilizing and Christianizing’ the world. The notion of "white man's burden" is rooted in such grandiosity.

It is argued by Huntington that Western movement for Universalism will only lead to confrontation with non-western cultures. They may modernize other cultures, but not Westernize them fully until they become Protestants. Eating Big Mac and listening to Western music is not Westernization. These cultures may be modernized, but not Westernized until they turn Protestant. There is no basis for this argument. Eating Big Mac in preference to ethnic food and listening to Hip-Hop leads to westernization. In a scientific study at University of Michigan, Mehta (1988) found that Asian students who listen to Western Music and do not prefer ethnic food are likely to marry outside their ethnic groups. Food and music are elements of culture. Is that not the reason African Americans (Blacks), when in confrontation with the Jewish in New York a few years ago, pejoratively called them ‘bagel eating Hymees’? Huntington argues even if westernized, the non-westerners when they return to their countries are indigenized and return to their original mold, like Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Here the author is mistaken. Jinnah was modern to the end. He was only fighting a sectarian fight, not religious and cultural. He was fighting, mistakenly, what he considered best for the "power" of his people. The author makes similar simplistic statements that BJP youth in India are a Scruffies-saffron clad yuppies. They are modernized but not westernized. It is also indicated that the West was happy and was relieved that BJP, the Nationalist party in India, was defeated, never mind that the communist supported coalition came into power. Is the West afraid of Hindu Nationalism more than Indian Communism? While there is extensive bibliography, the book is replete with errors; for instance, it is mentioned that English is not the second language of communication even in the extreme South India. Also, that Indians speak English with different accent has no bearing on westernization; after all Georgians and the French speak English differently than New Yorkers.

The main issue with Huntington's work is his conflating of Christianity with modernity. It goes against the history of church and development of modernism in Europe. Modern advances in sciences and scientific and even industrial development as well as every modern intellectual thought came by resisting the influence of Christianity. Science and Church stand opposite to one another in modernization. This is exemplified by a quotation by him of the papal letter of Cardinal Gibbons of U.S.A (1899) regarding false doctrine of Americans, “Americanism is a path of corruption leading to the worst form of modernism, individualism, materialism and liberalism.” By Authors own account Catholics were discriminated in America in Employment and immigration well into 20th century. Until a few decades ago they were not allowed by law to hold State employment in North Carolina. In 1899 a Catholic Church was burnt down in Massachusetts. So much for the American creed and liberalism! Church is still fighting Evolution theory and characterizes anthropology as artifactual. Every development in modern science came by overcoming the resistance from Christianity. It is therefore absurd to give credit for Western modernism to Christianity and view Christianity as synonymous with modernism.

Quoting Arthur Schlesinger, the author makes a fantastic claim that "ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom are European ideas, not Asian…." We can dismiss this as patently false. Further he claims that the Western Culture embodies "most liberal, most rational, most modern and most civilized world culture.” This is self-serving Jingoism, since one can say in the same breath that world suffered untold misery because of this culture, its practice of colonialism, slavery, ethnic brutality and destruction of the world by two world wars which cannot be dismissed from our recent memory. Also, Nazism, Fascism, and Communist Totalitarianism are undoubtedly the legacy of Western culture.

The suggestion that India would attack Pakistan at an opportune time when America is engaged in the war with China is either a wishful thinking or simplistic assumption. A destroyed nuclear plant can be rebuilt. That both India and Pakistan are nuclear states would preempt such an action as the nuclear weapons actually act as deterrent. When all the religious fervor dies down , very much like Canada and the U.S.A, Pakistan would be a peaceful neighbor to India with its second largest Muslim world population that is larger than the Muslim population of Pakistan, and therefore, waging a war with India is nothing but a demagogic proposition.

Lastly, Huntington exhorts that America should lead the West in keeping at a distance from culture wars and maintain their supremacy; but agonizes that America is trending towards becoming a ‘cleft’ society with enormous Latino immigration that will provide a large latino population that is non-westernized, therefore, unassimilable into American culture. They (the Latinos) would not support the Western Europe in case of confrontation with non-West. America is becoming slowly bilingual as the Latinos keep their identity. He doesn’t discuss much about African Americans (blacks and black Muslims) in America in this context. For this we have go to the followers of his political persuasion and learn where his line of thinking can lead us.

In an article in USA today, Dorothy Rabinowitz (June9,2010) accuses President Obama for being an “Alien in the White House.” He removed the bust of Winston Churchill and gave it away to the visiting former Prime Minister of Britain Tony Blair! Churchill was the hero of the West, but not of majority of the Nations that suffered under colonialism. After all, he once admired the Fascist dictator Mussolini, and called Gandhi a half naked Fakir and Indian National leaders straw men who should not be heeded and insisted that Britain should hold on to Colonial India. Ironicaly Britain could not keep even tiny Israel after the second world war under its thumb. Every Indian has to debrief their children when they come home hearing the admiration of Churchill in the American schools. For Dorothy, Obama is a stranger but not to the rest of non-western Americans so far, as a amatter of fact, the rest of the world. American press may celebrate royal wedding and divorces, but Americans in some time future would not shed their blood to defend the so called West as envisioned by Huntington, because if one of the results of profound demographic changes in America and cultural distancing from Protestant British standing for the "West."

When he talks about cultural assimilation, the author shows poor appreciation of the complex process of assimilation of immigrants and their children into American culture. It is not a matter of eating Big Mac and abandoning enchiladas. The immigrant suffers first the identity crisis having lost his family and friends in a distant land, and undergoes a period of mourning. Then he reconciles to the fact of his new home, new country and life. His new identity comes from the fact that the new land is his destiny, even if he may be discriminated by the locals. The realization that this is the country of his children and grand children makes him bind to the soil and makes him patriotic American. First Italians, next Irish and the Catholic immigrants and now the Hispanic are going through this same process. Which language they speak and whether they are bilingual or multi-lingual has nothing to do with their love of their adopted land and the home of their future children and grand children. They are essentially assimilated or integrageted more appropriately, whether their men wear sombreros or women wear saris or head scarfs. It is extreme racism to discriminate against them because they do not conform to protestant Christianity and so called protestant ethic.

Psychoanalyst H.C. Sabelli succinctly stated the feelings of modern immigrants to America when he wrote “Only those who hate their own self, family and culture can abandon them to become American; it must be I who become American. My latin spirit must survive”.(Quoted from Immigrants By Salman Akthar). The idea of America as a melting pot, God's crucible, as popularized in the then famous play by Israel Zangwell in1909 is no longer valid as the notion was re-examined. Nathan Glazer reexamined it in another play in 1960s . Patric Moynihan, an Irish American, endorsed it. Huntington refers to the incident of Jewish Professor Alan Darshowitz’s son's marriage to a Catholic girl. Dershowitz's agony resulted in a publication of a book on this subject. The theme is integration , Yes: assimilation, No.

Finally, there is universalism not of the kind advocated by the proselytizers. West touts their form of universalism as the basis of human rights protection through non state organizations, for instance India is accused of abridging or restricting the religious freedom because the evangelist are not allowed to demean Hinduism and convert Hindus to Christianity. There could be as well Islamic universalism if the world accepts Islam as the standard of modern civilization. It is possible to conceive Universalism based on Scientific Humanism and accepting the best of all cultures on a rational basis. This is what Mahatma Gandhi meant when he called himself a Hindu, a Muslim and also a Christian, not that there is such a cult that integrates a composite of all three. What made Man Human is the primordial innate instincts of kindness, tolerance, mutual love and sense of fairness inherent in all human beings, prior to the birth of any of the religions. Religions perhaps only emphasized best of what existed in Man.

This is exactly what was expressed in the words of Rudyard Kipling when he wrote:
“Oh, East is East and West is West and never the twain shall never meet
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at Gods great Judgment Seat;”
The he went on to say: “But there is neither East or West, Border nor Breed, nor birth, when two strong men stand face to face from the ends of the Earth”

More elegantly Hindu Scriptures say:
Ayam Nijah, Iti Paraavrutti Gananaa Laghuchetasanaam
Udaarcharitaanaam tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
Small and petty minded regard “these are my people and others don’t count”; yet "for noble minded the world is a family."

This is not to say there are no differences among cultures and traditions but there is underlying humanity that binds us all. Unless this is recognized, there won’t be real peace in the world .

Editor's Note:

Please read: "Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony" on this blog, as well as on www.swaveda.com in the article section.

UNPARALLELED INDIA IS TRULY IMPOVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS DOWNTRODDEN

2011-09-05T11:43:00.000-07:00

Report : Equality and Inclusion (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)

by

Dr. Rakesh Bahadur

A SCHOLARLY REVIEW

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

09/04/2011 13:35:30
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=14641

The 97 page report ‘Equality and Inclusion :Progress and Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Independent India (August 15, 2011)’ is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the enormous strides made by independent India on behalf of the schedules castes (SCs) and the scheduled tribes (STs) of India.

The author Dr. Rakesh Bahadur and his dedicated team have produced a document that is detailed and authentic. The references drawn from governmental, scholarly and NGO sources indicate that the team has been involved in the conceptualization of the question and the painstaking task of data collection and analyses. The document abounds with tables, charts and graphs that are relevant to tracking the work done by independent India.

They have not hesitated to include criticisms that argue that the lot of the SCs /STs has not substantially improved in the last 67 years of independence. Bahadur and his team refute these claims by hard core stats and analyses, rather than emotional rhetoric. This is the strength of the report. It can be relied upon to provide valid data and sober analysis.

The report shows improvements in real time as opposed to preconceived notions and prejudices surrounding the question. To quote from Subhash Kak (cited in the report):

“No aspect of Indian society is as poorly understood as its social organization. The caste system, as described in Indian textbooks, is a creation of (the western scholars- Editorial note) anthropologists and sociologists of the nineteenth century who were then studying the bewildering complexity of Indian society. The informants of these social scientists used the theories of the archaic Dharma Sastras to fit the communities in a four-varna model. Although such classification was wrong, it has been used by generations of Indologists and filtering into popular books it has, by endless repetition, received a certain validity and authority. In an example of reality being fashioned in the image of a simulacrum, many Indians have started believing in the enduring truth of the classification (Subash Kak, 1994)”

The sober methodology of this report is, therefore, crucial in dispelling some of the myths propagated by those fishing in troubled waters and who continue to impale India on the topic of SCs/STs. Their political agenda needs to be defeated and the Bahadur report does just that. The Report offers an analysis of long term trends based on the parameters of literacy rate, poverty, human development index, crime rate, human rights violations, job reservations in legislative bodies and executive bodies. The real to life improvements of the condition of the SCs/STs can be seen in real time, rather than in the context of abstractions.

The various relevant chapters of the Report (which has 11 chapters in all) describe the reservation policies of the government of India for SCs/STs and the impact these affirmative action policies (whether in education and employment) have on the progress and development of these communities. The Report also examines the reservation of jobs in the private sector “which is simply unparalleled anywhere in the world” (p.10). This applies also to job security in the public sector, which is also unparalleled anywhere in the world.

Chapter 10 discusses the reports by foreign governments and international agencies and how wrong conclusions are arrived at because of ignoring ground realities. The US State Department, United Nations Development Program and Human Rights Watch come under close and critical scrutiny.

The overall result of the Report shows not only changes in real time in the status of the SCs/STs but also the often ignored fact that human rights violations occur primarily owing to general lawlessness. These violations should objectively speaking come under the rubric of law and order problems.

Three informative appendices emphasize the substantial work undertaken by this Report.They are (1) ‘Origin and Definitions of the Terms SC/ST, (2) Constitutional and Legal Protections for Development of SC/ST and (3)Affirmative Action in the U.S.: A Case Study. This pertains to affirmative action for African Americans (mainly initiated in the 1960's) .

In this third appendix the Report analyzes the following parameters : population, education, income, unemployment, and homeownership rate. Interestingly the study concludes thus:

“Affrimative action in the United States is similar to India’s policies for the upliftment of SCs/STs. The main difference is that there are no constitutionally required quotas for admission to educational institutions, jobs, promotions, reserved seats in the US Congress and the Senate etc. Table 31 shows that even after the introduction of affirmative action, there exists a significant difference between White and African Americans. The long term trends between White and African Americans show that the gap is not narrowing between the two races. This trend is exactly opposite to the trend between the general population and SC/ST in India. It may be noted that in the very beginning of the Indian Republic (1949), specific quotas for various disadvantaged categories were fixed. Even after half a century of affirmative action, the African American population is lagging behind the white population in all the socio-economic parameters." (p.97)

Owing to the detailed nature of the Report’s illustrations via tables, charts and graphs, and the general statistical nature of the work (noted by Shri R.Venkatnarayan in his Preface to the Report) the reader is advised to go through the entire document to get a feel and understanding of this work which is indeed a labor of love.

Those readers who are also interested in the historical question of varna, jati and caste there are brief sections on the same. However, as the author notes, the Report is not focused on those questions which have been dealt with by other authors elsewhere (e.g., see www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com). This Report itself emphasizes the dynamic nature of social systems which change in real time and with well implemented affirmative actions that assist in that change.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university)

THE IMPERIALISTIC GAME OF "MY (OUR) IMAGINARY FRIEND (GOD?) IS BETTER THAN YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND AND WILL PREVAIL"

2011-08-15T22:49:00.000-07:00

Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 4

Diversity is not multiculturalism

by

Radha Rajan

The riots with racial overtones engulfing London and other parts of UK in the first week of August 2011 seem to have been timed fortuitously to quickly vindicate Anders Breivik’s act of terror in Norway on 22 July, allegedly against multiculturalism.

The writer had drawn a parallel to events in India where Sonia Gandhi’s UPA has literally created a brand new phenomenon called Hindu terror. Some very striking points of similarity between Anders Breivik and Hindus who have been arrested for acts of terror –

· While all of them allegedly belong to some known organization or political party (Abhinav Bharat, Progress Party), they acted as individuals with little or no backing from the organizations to which they belonged

· All of them, according to available reports were trained and funded by shadowy figures who have not been identified so far

· All of them were chosen for their commitment to a defined political ideology related to multiculturalism

· All of them supposedly used ammonium nitrate and fuel oil to manufacture IEDs

· All of them were amateur terrorists, first time offenders, almost certain to be arrested

If Christian terrorism sent the signal that Europe and America had reached the end of their multiculturalism tether and wanted it to end, inventing the phenomenon of Hindu terror sent the signal that resistance by Hindu nationalists to multiculturalism would not be countenanced. The Generic Church, it was clear wanted multiculturalism like jihad to end in Europe and America but wanted it alive and active in India.

(Editor's Note: All social evils racism, slavery, genocides, trail of tears, banishment to reserations, intolerance of extreme nature in the West needs to be forgotten as the thing of the past and attention needs to be focused on India for all social evils that do not even have the fraction of the magnitude of the violence and disrespect for human life evinced in the West thoughout the last several centuries and especially in the 20th century continuing into the 21st century,- obviously a double standard. )

And that is why the plot to launch new-wave Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism must have been hatched around the same time by the same forces for exactly opposite reasons.

Multiculturalism is a misnomer for warring monotheisms. When Prime Minister David Cameron said state multiculturalism had failed in the UK and Hillary Clinton, while on a state visit to India last month said she was going to Chennai to get a sense of the city’s culture, two of the world’s most influential political leaders used the word culture in entirely different ways.

When David Cameron spoke about state multiculturalism what he actually meant was government policy to invite people of different races, different religions and different countries to make the United Kingdom their home so that Pizza and Paratha, Bharatanatyam and Flamenco could live together happily ever after. It is not surprising that multiculturalism failed in the UK and is failing everywhere in the world.

Elsewhere the writer had observed that the Hindu nation is formed on the basis of what unites us, what we have in common while Abrahamic religionists fragment their countries into smaller countries and states on the basis of how they differ from each other.

If all three Abrahamic religions owe allegiance to the same god and hold the same prophets in reverence, why are Christians and Muslims at each others’ throats in several parts of the world; why are Muslims and Jews at each others’ throats in the middle-east; why did Christians persecute the Jews over centuries?

Fundamental and irreconcilable differences among them which make them warring monotheisms are –

· Judaism holds the cults of Jesus and Mohammed to be heretic faiths

· The Jews do not believe that Jesus is either the son of god or even the promised messiah and are still waiting for God fulfil his promise to the Jews

· While Muslims revere Jesus as one of the messengers of God, they do not believe that Jesus is the son of god while Christians do not believe God spoke to Mohammed through Angel Gabriel

· Even as the Jews are still waiting for God to send them the promised Messiah the Muslims have pronounced Mohammed to be the last Prophet

All three Abrahamic siblings share the common belief that the last and final war before the end of time/end of world will be fought among themselves to decide who among them is god’s chosen people. For this final confrontation to take place, the world must be rid of all other (false) gods and all other (illegitimate) religions so that only their one true god remains to rule the world and only they, the three Abrahamic siblings remain to fight the last war.

This is not culture; this is the Abrahamic worldview or the world as the Abrahamic religionists view it. According to this worldview –

· The world is divided broadly as Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic

· The non-Abrahamic world, the territory and people, must be transformed to become Abrahamic

· This entailed either converting the people to one of the Abrahamic religions or forcibly taking over the territory and bringing it under the rule of an Abrahamic king

· The noun Messiah is transliteration of the Hebrew noun ‘Mashiach’ which derives from the verb ‘mashach’ which means to anoint. Mashiach or Messiah literally means the anointed one. In the Abrahamic worldview, only three categories of people are anointed – prophets, priests and kings. The prophet was considered as representing god to the people; the priest represented the people in all their interactions with god and the king protected the people, ruled over them and defended the territory (the kingdom or nation) which belonged to the god of Abraham. The person so anointed, prophet, priest or king, then became divinely enabled so that he and he alone was chosen by god and authorized by god to serve god and fulfil god’s purpose

· The purpose of the god of Abraham was to first subjugate and enslave the people who did not owe allegiance to the god of Abraham (Abrahamic kings and god’s soldiers did that), then take away the territory of these non-believers (their kingdom and nation) and bring both people and territory under the control of the god of Abraham after destroying the (false) gods and their places of worship

· This was god’s task and purpose which he entrusted to prophets, priests and kings

The Abrahamic worldview where the world is divided into two adversarial, conflicting segments, therefore placed the adherents of Abrahamic religions in a constant state of war – against non-Abrahamic nations, peoples and gods and among themselves as countdown and empowerment for the final showdown which will decide who among them is the chosen people of the god of Abraham.

This explains why –

· The Jews have always tried to control money and resources which makes up for their numerical inferiority because one is born a Jew and is never converted to the Judaic faith

· The prophets – Israelite, Ishmaelite both have such violent histories

· Islam and Christianity must expand into every continent of the world using violence, and leaving behind a trail of abuse and total destruction, even as both of them persecute the numerically inferior Jews across continents and deny the Jews any settled place to live

· Almost every pre-Islam and pre-Christian faith in all the continents, entire nations, tribes and kingdoms have been destroyed for ever with no living trace of these once prosperous, thriving and vibrant religions and civilizations; they are all, people and continents both, either entirely Muslim or Christian or neatly carved up between both

· Why the Pope can speak from both corners of the mouth at the same time; one corner of the mouth says freedom of religion be damned, multiculturalism be damned, secularism be damned, he does not want ‘Asiatic, Muslim Turkey inside Christian Europe; while the other corner of the mouth says at the same time that he will plant the cross in Asia; Muslim Turkey will not be allowed to move into Christian Europe but the white Church must be permitted by secular India to enter and expand across the territory of Hindu India, Confucian China and Buddhist Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Myanmar

Contrast the Abrahamic worldview with Hindu worldview –

· Dharma is supreme, even our gods are subject and subordinate to dharma

· Dharma can be embodied not only in gods but also in humans and non-humans

· A Hindu acquires his worldview not from understanding time, space and the cosmos first (western science and philosophy) and then place the individual within this understanding but by knowing the nature of the individual first and proceeding from that to understand the nature of the rest of the world – time, space, and cosmos

· The journey within the self and from the self to the world is a Hindu’s religion, his spirituality

· God (devas) is the name Hindus give to the extraordinary power, intelligence which permeates all creation

· Because this power, this intelligence (god) is already present, already permeates the world, Hindus do not have to be in a constant state of war with the world to bring any nation or kingdom under the control of our devas

· There are as many gods as there are humans and as many layers of understanding the truth that every god, every method to know the truth, so long as it is subjected to and governed by dharma, is legitimate and deserving of respect

· Wars were waged by kings to establish dharma and the victorious king had to be a dharma vijayi and not a lobha (plunder) or asura vijayi (rape, plunder, murder, mayhem and destruction)

· Within the Hindu nation, Hindus who worshipped Shiva or Vishnu, Kali or Aiyanar, mountain or river, stick or stone or his parents, even if he chose not to worship anyone or anything (that itself indicated simply one level of understanding and he would be born again and again until the fruits of his karma enabled him to know the nature of the self; after that words like belief or non-belief become redundant) could all live together without killing in the name of their god because everything was god and godly when the worshipper was ruled by dharma

· When people lived by dharma and were ruled by dharma, there were no multi-cultures as the Abrahamic world understands the word; there was only one worldview and all creative expressions proceeding from this worldview was culture.

Monotheisms cause multiculturalism and multiculturalism breeds conflict and wages war. Wherever Abrahamic religions exist and their adherents the very nature of their god and their responsibility to fulfil their god’s purpose inevitably places them in constant state of war against the rest of the world.

Within the Hindu nation, Islam and Christianity both are at war against the Hindus. Hindus have to be forced to give up their dharma and their worship either by terror, fear, bribes or blandishments (religious conversion) followed by eventual control of territory (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jammu and Kashmir, North-East, south Tamil Nadu, the eastern and western coastal regions) until Hindu India is fragmented into Christian states like East Timor or South Korea, or Muslim states like Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan.

The rise of Hindu nationalism once again after 1909, in the second half of the 1990s decade rests on the understanding –

· All gods are not the same

· All religions do not have the same objective and so do not lead to the same goal

· Hindus have never conquered territory, enslaved other nations and cultures in the name of their gods and will therefore resist efforts by Abrahamic religions within the nation and outside to make Hindu India another Abrahamic fiefdom

· This means Hindu nationalists will not allow religious conversion and will not surrender Hindu territory to Islam or Christianity

· Will not allow Muslims and Christians in India to claim Hindu territory because their god and their religion has placed this religious mandate upon them

That is why Hindus are reacting violently to increasing Muslim and Christian provocations. When Hindus use force against the constantly warring adherents of Islam and Christianity, they are only protecting their dharma and defending their native land, their janmabhumi.

If India and the rest of Asia have to be transformed for the last war or Armageddon, India’s Hindus must always be kept in a state of weakness, they must never be allowed to capture state power.

It is to attain this objective, to break the backbone of Hindu nationalism again as they did in 1909, that Hindus defending their nation have been labelled terrorists. If the state in India had derived from Hindus then the state would ban religious conversion, the Hindu state would resist forcefully any territorial claim by Muslims and Christians.

But the post 1947 state in India does not derive from the Hindu nation; it derives from Gandhi’s understanding of nation and Nehru’s un-Hindu and anti-Hindu ideology for governance.

Gandhi’s unnatural and unreal understanding of the Hindu nation was typical of general Hindu foolishness that all gods are the same and all religions have the same goal. Gandhi failed to acknowledge even in 1947 when the Hindu nation was vivisected that Islam and Christianity both are mandated by their god and prophets to conquer Hindu territory.

It is this stubborn foolishness which made Gandhi think that Hindus and Muslims, Hindus and Christians in India are brothers because they have the same ancestors. Gandhi should have read the Bible and the Koran with political sense to grasp the political objectives of both books of revelation. Both books declare, a brother is he who worships the same god; if your blood brother worships another god, he is an infidel; convert him or kill him.

Gandhi had no such political sense and Nehru was an irreligious man; and that is why the Hindu nation, governed by the Gandhi-Nehru INC, is destined to be enslaved by Gandhian sense of the nation –

If Hindus believe India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in a fool’s paradise. Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, and Christians who have made India their home are fellow countrymen; they will have to live in unity if only for their own intests. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms, nor has this ever been the case in India. (Hind Swaraj, Chapter X, The Condition of India (cont.): The Hindus and the Mahomedans, pp 52-53)

Savarkar on the other hand suffered from no such delusions –

As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. Our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities… The solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Moslems. When time is ripe you can solve them but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. (Savarkar’s Presidential address to the 19th session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) in 1937)

To make sure the Gandhian sense of nation prevails in India and to make sure that Hindu nationalism never raises its head to threaten the movement towards the two stage Apocalypse-Armageddon end of world, the US is making moves, going by this news report, to interfere actively in India’s internal affairs:

The legislative process in the United States Congress on the bill tabled by Congressman Frank Wolf and co-sponsored by Representative Anna Eshoo from California promises to be a fateful happening for the 'defining partnership' between US and India. It is titled as 'To provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia'. A hearing has been already held by the House of Representatives although the Indian media hasn't yet apparently caught on what is unfolding on the Hill. The bill has bipartisan support, especially from Christian Conservatives, and there is strong likelihood of it becoming law. India is specifically mentioned as one of the countries where the US will closely monitor the plight of the minorities. The bill demands the creation of the post of a special envoy in the State Department specifically to monitor countries like India. Pakistan has been included in the scope of the bill along with India, but China is not- although Beijing has been openly defying the Vatican's right to control the appointment of Church functionaries in China. As the text of the bill envisages, the proposed US special envoy is expected to:

a) "promote the right of religious freedom of religious minorities" and recommend "appropriate responses" by Washington to instances of violation of the rights;

b) "monitor and combat acts of religious intolerance and incitement targeted against religious minorities";

c) "work to ensure the unique needs of religious minority communities... including the economic and security needs of these communities";

d) work with Indian NGOs and take up with the GOI any Indian laws that are "inherently discriminatory" to minorities; and,

e) raise the issues on the multilateral fora, including the UN and the OSCE.

1 million dollars will be allocated annually to facilitate the work of the special envoy in undertaking activities such as conducting investigations. The bill says: "The Special Envoy should be a person of recognised distinction in the fields of human rights and religious freedom who shall have the rank of ambassador and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President." It seems the Barack Obama administration may already be having a nominee in mind.

From all appearances, the law would be geared in the Indian context to bring under the scanner the working of the Sangh Parivar organisations which have often been implicated in violence against minorities. Most certainly, the latest moves by public organisations in the US to monitor the activities of the Sangh Privar outfits in America now assume even greater significance.(http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/07/30/us-may-bring-sangh-parivar-under-scanner/)

The proposed Communal Violence Bill, the arrest of Pujya Swami Aseemanand and Sadhvi Pragya and the proposed Bill to monitor rights of minorities in America are all of the same piece.

This explains why Hindu PIOs felt compelled to explain Dr. Subramanian Swamy to protestors at Harvard University in the following Abrahamic multiculturist idiom -

I cannot understand how anyone can call Dr.Subramanian Swamy a BIGOT. Dr.Swamy’s brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi. One of his two daughters is married to an Indian Muslim with whom he has closest relations, and therefore how can he possibly be a bigot against the Indian Muslims or Christians.

Multiculturalism is for the birds; the Hindu twit (Concluded)

13th August, 2011.

ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN COMPETING TO OWN THE WORLD !!!

2011-08-14T00:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1583&Itemid=1

Multiculturalism is for the birds - I

Moving towards Armageddon

by

Radha Rajan

Anders Behring Breivik’s bomb besides killing 76 people in Norway, besides exploding several popular, motivated myths about terrorism and the war on terror, also exposed the hollowness of so-called liberal Christian political theories dominating international political discourse.

The concept of ‘universal human rights’ was crafted in the wake of public pronouncement by the Generic Church at the end of colonialism, slavery, and World War I and II; the Generic Church conceived the idea with great far-sightedness and had it legitimized internationally by its pan national constituent, the United Nations, with no real challenge from any member country to the purpose of the law or its content.

“Human Rights,” the Church’s offspring, is expected to be the pervasive universal virtue for all times, of all actions of all governments of the world, in domestic and international affairs. In reality, it is the Generic Church’s bloodless weapon in the “war-by-other-means.”

Even as ‘Human Rights’ became (even if only in theory) the centripetal force drawing towards it all other dominant so-called ‘liberal’ Christian political theories like democracy, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, freedom of religion, and protection of individual rights, the centrifugal force which determined the actual conduct of Abrahamic countries, propelling it in the exact opposite direction to human rights was the hard-headed political objective lying at the core of all three Abrahamic religions. (Editor’s note: Two concurrently operating contradicting thrusts, one overt and one covert, generated by the same force)

The tragedy of Iraq and Afghanistan, the continuing tragedy of Libya, the very creation and continued existence of Pakistan, and the persistent bleeding of India attest to the fact. Read this together with the economic melt-down in America and Europe and we know that all three Abrahamic religions are determined to do each other in and drag the rest of the non-Abrahamic world towards their Armageddon. (Editor’s note: see “Terrorism: An Indian Perspective” http://www.swaveda.com/articles.php?action=show&id=111 “Dhee: The Essence of Hinduness” http://www.swaveds.com/articles.php?action=show&id=125 )

Islam and the Generic Church continue to pursue world conquest and domination through control of territory and people as their ultimate goal; while Judaism continues to pursue (very successfully) its goal of dominating world affairs by directly or indirectly controlling all world capital.

It bears mention that the money flow with the power to move and direct world affairs originates in the drug trade and western financial corporate world including the most powerful banks, and quite possibly controlled indirectly by the same forces. Which would explain the suddenness with which large banks collapse and then recover with Abrahamic miracle; economic crises, market melt-downs and banks collapse unfailingly whenever the Generic Church has made a major move, unacceptable to Israeli interests, to resolve the Israel-Palestine crisis.

With all three Abrahamic religions pursuing a historically mandated predatory global agenda, the Generic Church is beginning to talk of post nation-state amorphous entities which will facilitate yet again, the free movement of Abrahamic religions into non-Abrahamic territories; only this time the Generic Church would ideally like the conquest to be bloodless, legitimized by its pan-national structures and ‘liberal’ Christian political idiom.

Freedom of Religion, which the Generic Church claims is a fundamental human right and deriving from that the two bloodless territory-conquering rights – religious conversion and rights of religious minorities, open markets, free (one-way) flow of capital, self-determination, borderless states and humanitarian intervention are the new calling cards specifically designed within this political idiom for what the Abrahamic religions think will be the second and decisive Abrahamic conquest of the world culminating in Abrahamic Apocalypse.

The third and final war will be fought bloodily among themselves in what will be an All-Abrahamic Armageddon with one victor emerging while the other two may be exterminated or subjugated in slavery. The world, as Hindus continue to sleep unconcerned, is moving inch by determined inch only in this direction. Norway was an unwitting give-away of the Generic Church’s movement towards this two-stage Apocalypse-Armageddon.

The motivated and thundering propaganda that Islam was the fertile womb for terror and the Generic Church was the Universal Soldier fighting the War against Terror came to a totally unforeseen and abrupt end on July 22 in Norway. Norway proved conclusively what Hindu nationalists have always been maintaining - that ‘liberal Christian’ is as much an oxymoron as ‘liberal Muslim’ and that multiculturalism, popularly known as pluralism in India, is only for the birds; for the Hindu twit. (Editor’s note: Here the word Christian and Muslim need to be understood as the organized Christian religions and organized Islamist religions)

Norway revealed to the world the ugly face of Christian terrorism, which Hindus and non-Christian tribal peoples have known and suffered in Orissa’s Maoist-infested districts, in Nagaland, Manipur and other states of India’s North-East. India’s Hindus will pick blindfold Generic Church/Christian Terrorism as accurately as they will pick Jihadi terrorism in any police parade of Crimes against Humanity.

Considering that contrary to initial hysterical outbursts from western media and politicians in the first 24 hours about Islamic terror in idyllic Norway, neither the perpetrator of the outrage nor its victims were Muslim; the Christian world should look deep within itself, its religion and the methods it has used historically over centuries to expand and conquer the world, if it wants answers to explain Anders Behring and Timothy McVeigh. The self-righteous Christian world must confront the ugly truth that the fundamentals of their religion too, like its younger sibling Islam makes monsters of ordinary people.

The forces which handpicked Behring to do what he did find themselves in exactly the same unenviable position that P Chidambaram and his goons in the Maharashtra ATS, NIA and CBI found themselves in today after they invented Hindu terror. And, the driving force in all their twisted minds curiously is the fear of Hindu nationalism.

One idea that has taken a beating since 9/11 and Norway event of July 22nd is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, as it is known and experienced today, the defining political virtue holding sway since the last quarter of the twentieth century was a bogus virtue born of necessity – the necessity, called the Great Depression. Britain’s fond hope that the sun would never set on the British Empire ended when Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar blew the bugle for India’s total political independence from colonial rule.

Details about why after the end of World War II the Generic Church could not make a villain of Nazism without ending colonialism and without simultaneously ending slavery and all its morphed manifestations in America, is not the subject of this column but suffice it to say - if the end of colonialism put paid to the rape and plunder of the natural resources of two continents, Asia and Africa, by the Jewish people and White Christians, ending colonialism and slavery denied them two important sources of slave labor for their slave-labor-intensive economy.

The Generic Church had to think on its feet to quickly regain what it had lost; in 1944, even as World War II was coming to a close, it created the Bretton Woods Bandits to attain the objective. The Bandits first delivered the idea that all world trade would now be pegged to the American Dollar; in one fell stroke all national currencies were devalued and their worth was judged in comparison to the Dollar with the balance tilted artificially in the Bandits’ favor.

The Bretton Woods Bandits created the IMF and the World Bank and the Generic Church kept both pirate banks firmly in its control. Not surprising, considering that the BWB comprised in the main all arms-manufacturing countries whose economic might in 1944, besides the plunder from the colonized countries of Asia, America, and Africa rested only or mainly on the war industry. The war industry was about the only indigenous industry of the Generic Church in those times, not to say the most profitable. While America kept the reins of the World Bank in its hands, the IMF reins were controlled by Europe. (Editor’s note: International firearms and small weapons trade in the black market is equally significant industry and created the monsters in Afghanistan and other areas of the world mostly far away from America and Europe.)

There was just so much that the Bretton Woods Bandits could do to control world trade and commerce through control of international monetary structures and capital flows without commensurate access to manpower, natural resources, and markets for their manufactured goods. The Generic Church also realized that extraordinary intelligence and genius besides hard work and industry was the basis of India’s pre-colonial fabled wealth. (Editor's note: This was an economy that did not exploit other countries and other cultures with no war industry deployed on large scale for empire building. This economy was not based on monopolies, patents, control of market share by a few profiteers.)

The time was right for new methods to access the riches of other countries and new slave labor to be moved into their own continents to power their war-torn economy; the Generic Church prodded the BWB to invent immigration even as it began to lay the foundation for the formidable structure of globalization. Immigration to BWB countries, both temporary and permanent, came in three waves, pre-globalization, during globalization and at the height of the Information Technology pandemic. Multiculturalism became, to that end, a necessary official political virtue. (To be continued)

MULTICULTURALISM, OUT OF NOBILITY OR NECESSITY?

2011-08-13T23:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1584&Itemid=1

Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 2

by

Radha Rajan

Monotheism breeds multiculturalism

Immigration to BWB countries came in two forms – slave labor which performed hard, physical manual work as skilled laborers in their factories, and as ‘unskilled labor’ comprising a major segment of their service industry; all for the privilege of being allowed to view from a distance the American Holy Grail Dream.

In the second stage, well-camouflaged slave labor was promoted and elevated to the status of domestic help when bogus Christian egalitarianism allowed them to live inside the home of the master and eat off the kitchen table. This labour came into these countries as doctors, engineers, scientists, educationists, yoga gurus and IT experts.

Multiculturalism in America and Europe was a necessary virtue when it was multi-flavoured Christianity - newly-liberated, end-of-segregation African American, Cuban, Irish, Italian and Latin-American; multiculturalism as immigration from countries which they had colonised and impoverished was suffered as token Christian reparation for war crimes and the crimes of colonization; multiculturalism was also a show-and-tell virtue when it was docile, self-effacing, hardworking Hindus and Sikhs who knew their place, were immensely grateful for being allowed to graze on green pastures, and who, despite more wealth in the bank than their masters, did not threaten hostile take-over of the house, bless their Hindu souls!!

Multiculturalism began to lose its sheen and virtuous veneer when it came to Muslims – Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani Muslims, African Muslims and growing numbers of a new wave of Africans fleeing poverty, hunger and Aids. The increasing visibility of migrants from Asia – from India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, China, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and from Africa was altering the racial demography of the white landscape and multiculturalism was beginning to pinch.

It began to pinch painfully when the new wave of Muslim immigrants, unlike the Hindus refused not only to remain confined to the kitchen and service quarters but insisted on running amok in the garden and the living room. Some of them even declared their intent to subjugate and take over America and Europe by altering the religious demography of the American and European landscape and eventually to do unto Europe and America what they had already done to India in 1947 and what Europe and America had done to Indonesia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Sudan.

All this was unsettling to the White Christian-ness of public spaces in Europe and America compounded by the imminent danger from multiculturalism to the pre-eminent position of the White Christian, ruling supra-elite.

America and Europe were forced to revisit multiculturalism as a political virtue when Islam’s symbols and way of life began to pervade the two continents. Samuel Huntington had to undertake a massive exercise to probe the content of being ‘American’ while Britain and France, Australia and Canada began to analyse and describe their national culture and ethos. All of them concluded ridiculously that the ability to speak English or French, and not permitting Muslim women to wear the veil constituted the essence of white culture.

Democracy was thrown in as a component of self-description only to juxtapose it against what the Generic Church considered was non-democratic, non-liberal Muslim social and political culture. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994, State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron)

The first important step in Europe towards self-description came in 2002 from Pope John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now incumbent Pope; in America, around the same time the process of self-description was marked by Samuel Huntington’s Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (Simon & Schuster, 2004) and a renewed national debate over whether the Pledge of Allegiance (not to be confused with the Oath of Allegiance) was mandatory for all students in American schools.

America’s multiculturalism was heaving and churning, threatening to dislodge the cowboy.

When the fall of the Berlin Wall was engineered by the Generic Church to coincide with neo-colonialism’s globalization, neo-Imperialism smacked its lips as new frontiers beckoned it and new vistas for expansion opened up. Greed for new territories to occupy and control was tempered by the sobering realization that a significant part of Eastern Europe was Muslim and even if one did not factor globalization-immigration into Europe, parts of the continent were as distinctly Muslim as other parts were Christian.

As the European Union was emerging from its chrysalis, the Pope had to speak up, as others had, to emphasize Europe’s Christian-ness before Multiculturalism was made Europe’s defining virtue.

Q: There is a debate over the inclusion of the word 'God' and references to Europe's Christian past in the preambles of the future [European] Constitution. Do you think there can be a united Europe that has turned its back on its Christian past?

A: I am convinced that Europe must not just be something economic [or] political; rather, it is in need of spiritual foundations.

It is a historical fact that Europe is Christian, and that it has grown on the foundation of the Christian faith, which continues to be the foundation of the values for this continent, which in turn has influenced other continents.

It is imperative to have a foundation of values and, if we ask ourselves what that foundation is, we realize that, beyond the confessions, there are no others outside the great values of the Christian faith. And this is why it is imperative that in the future Constitution of Europe mention is made of the Christian foundations of Europe. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from an interview given on 1 December 2002 to a group of journalists at the Catholic University of St. Anthony, Murcia, Spain)

Europe is a cultural and not a geographical continent. It is united by its culture which gives it a common identity. The roots which formed ... this continent are those of Christianity. (Josef Ratzinger prior to his election as Pope Benedict XIV, in an Interview in Le Figaro, August 2004, putting the case for the exclusion of Turkey on religious grounds)

Turkey [is] an Asiatic nation, its capital is not in Europe, 95% of its population is outside Europe. Turkey has a different culture, a different approach, a different way of life. Letting it in would be the end of the European Union. (Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, French President 1974-1981, President of Commission for drafting the EU Constitution set up in 2002. Widely taken to mean he doesn't want Turkey to join because it is a majority Muslim country)

Europe's founders, like Adenauer, De Gaspari and Schuman, put their Christian [Catholic] faith at the centre of their political lives. How can we underestimate, for example, the fact that in 1951, before beginning the delicate negotiations which would lead to the adoption of the Treaty of Paris, they wished to meet in a Benedictine monastery on the Rhine for meditation and prayer? (Pope John Paul II, 7 November 2003, Audience with members of European Christian Democrat Foundation, appealing to have Christianity mentioned in the EU Constitution)

We will be joined to a Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith, and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be the major factor in everyday political and economic life. (Shirley Williams, British Labor Minister and later co-founder of Social Democrats)

Besides turning the Genesis on its head by attributing human Founders for Europe and besides giving short shrift to geography, the following ideas emerge unambiguously from these statements –

· The then Pope, the incumbent Pope and important political leaders in Europe declare firmly that Europe is Christian

· The bare-faced lie that Europe grew on the foundations of Christianity

· That Europe is not a geographic but a cultural entity and Europe’s Founders put their Christian faith at the centre of their political lives

· The Generic Church will not acknowledge, much less legitimise any pre-Christian past or roots for Europe

· The incumbent Pope and a former President of France (the spectre of Algeria was haunting France) do not want Muslim Turkey within the Christian European Union which would effectively make Turkey a European country

This is not the only instance when the Church has rejected multiculturalism on its turf. The Church closed ranks and rejected the Muslim demand to build a mosque adjacent to the Basilica of Annunciation in Nazareth. The Basilica of Annunciation is built on the site where the Church claims Angel Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus.

Muslims claim that the site is important to them too historically because it is the final resting place of Shahib-al-Din, nephew of Saladin who commanded the Jihadi army which defeated the Crusaders in 1187. The Israeli government at first permitted the Muslims to build the mosque and the marble cornerstone was unveiled with much fanfare on November 23, 1999.

The Christian world reacted with anger over the Muslim demand and over the Israeli government’s decision to allow the mosque to come up next to the Basilica. This notwithstanding the fact that Nazareth is important to both Christians and Muslims; that the site in question is historically important to both communities; most significantly, notwithstanding the fact that Muslims today constitute two-thirds of Nazareth’s population.

Considering the lectures on pluralism, freedom of religion and rights of minorities which the U.S and the Vatican have given to India’s Hindus, this makes interesting reading –

A special Israeli government committee is debating whether Nazareth officials should allow Muslims to continue building a mosque alongside the famous Basilica of the Annunciation.

Israeli officials created the committee in response to a new wave of international appeals. Israel decided in 1998 to allow the mosque's construction, despite protests from Nazareth's Christians. The Vatican, the White House, and an international coalition of Catholic and Protestant Christian church groups have opposed construction.

Critics have said that the new mosque could physically overwhelm the adjacent church site and threaten the delicate status quo between Nazareth's Muslim Arab majority and Christian Arab minority.

The mosque might contain multiple spires that would tower over the black-coned dome of the basilica, says Dave Parsons, a spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, one of the groups protesting the construction.

"It will demean the basilica and force Christians to run a gantlet from the main street to the church," Parsons said. "We want the city authorities to restore the public plaza and establish a buffer zone against any future encroachment attempts.” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/march11/27.33.html)

America fares no better than Europe at self-description and dealing with multiculturalism. Samuel Huntington, like President Kennedy before him described the United States of America as a Nation of Immigrants. For “an anguished, frantic, over-burdened academic producing scholarly works”, the description was a travesty of truth which condemned Native Americans and African Americans to non-existence by leaving them outside the pale of this popular description.

Native Americans were native or indigenous to the continent and Bering Strait theory notwithstanding cannot be termed immigrants; and the forcible transportation of Africans to the American continent can hardly be termed immigration. If we discount from Huntington’s description the blatant falsehood of calling European Christian genociders, invaders, freebooters, settlers-by-force, slave holders and slave traders as immigrants, what remains of the American populace – Germans, Irish, Scandinavians, Latin Americans and Asians - fits the description. America is a nation of immigrants.

America could not be described in terms of race, ethnicity or religion. Except for Native Americans who belonged to the soil, the rest of the populace was not bound to the nation by primordial, umbilical ties. Huntington and the White House had to confront the truth that there were powerful “sub-national, dual-national and transnational” identities which were always simmering at the top of the people’s consciousness.

That people feel a permanent sense of belonging to each other only when they share a common sense of belonging to the soil is a truth that is always fudged, swept under the carpet and rejected outright; but the truth keeps coming back as is the way of truth.

Faced by the sobering truth that there was nothing that could hold the artificial entity called United States of America together, the ruling elite was compelled to invent the onion called American Creed. When Huntington peeled the onion he was forced, like the Pope to conclude that America was white Christian!

The ‘American Creed’ as initially formulated by Thomas Jefferson and elaborated by many others, is widely viewed as the crucial defining element of American identity. The Creed, however, was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers of America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Key elements of that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, the responsibility of rulers, and the rights of individuals; and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a “city on a hill.” Historically, millions of immigrants were attracted to America because of this culture and the economic opportunities it helped to make possible. (Samuel Huntington, Who are We, pp xv-xvi)

Huntington admits –

· American Creed is the essence of American nationalism

· Nationalism is culture

· Culture derives from religion

· American Nationalism is a mixture of Anglo-Protestant cultural and political values like individualism and the religious commitment of the individual

· This cultural nationalism, if it finds no favour with non-Christians as it doesn’t, is made attractive with ‘economic opportunities’ seasoning

· America, like any other Christian country or society is only a sum total of individuals

White Christian America, after inventing the binding glue called American Creed realized that the glue did not always work and its populace kept looking back wistfully for the nation they had left behind for the American Dream. The American state needed something more than the voluntary code of the American Creed to survive; it crafted the Oath of Allegiance, which immigrants had to take when they opted for American citizenship; and the Pledge of Allegiance which adults and school children took every morning around the American flag.

The Oath of Allegiance is intended to make a new-convert-to-the-faith of the immigrant – reject all previous fidelity to previous gods, reject totally your previous gods and worship none but this one true god.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

So help me God! Which God?

The Pledge of Allegiance, which is an oath of loyalty to the American flag and the American Republic, composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally accepted by the American Congress in 1942, reads as follows –

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The American state is one state under god and indivisible! Considering the numbers of dictators America has supported, the violence it has triggered and sustained around the world, the separatist and secessionist movements and groups it has funded and encouraged, the nations it has torn apart and divided, the Oath and Pledge of Allegiance is a telling commentary on the Abrahamic monotheisms.

The words of the Oath of Allegiance and the Pledge of Allegiance are perfect examples of monotheist intolerance which is the very antithesis of multiculturalism or pluralism. They also testify as nothing else can, that monotheist religions, ideologies and countries want for themselves what they deny to others.

Monotheist religions and political ideologies have brought the following conflicting dichotomies into political discourse –

Nation – State

Nationality – Citizenship

Nationalism – Patriotism

Multiculturalism/Pluralism – Diversity

These conflicting, warring dichotomies arose from the political objectives which lie at the core of all three Abrahamic religions; the Abrahamic religious objective to destroy all other ways of life, all other worldviews, all other religions and faiths, all other gods, all other objects of loyalty and reverence.

It is the Abrahamic politico-religious culture which has made possible what Hindu dharma rejects strongly –

· That the state does not derive from the nation

· That a person’s nationality can be different from one’s citizenship

· That nationalism and patriotism can be two entirely different things and

· That multiculturalism is the complete opposite of diversity.

(To be continued)

UGLY UNCONSCIOUS OF "CIVILIZED WOLRD" UNFOLDING !!

2011-08-13T22:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1585&Itemid=1

Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 3

by

Radha Rajan

Having successfully sold the "lemon" that the war against terror was fought by white Christians against Islam, as Jews stood in the shadows, the Christian world had to scramble to find explanations for what could no longer be hidden – that the carnage in Norway on 22nd July was "Christian terrorism."

The immediate, and as it turned out incorrect conclusion was that this was the handiwork of Islamic terrorists. When it turned out that the terrorist was a white Christian, the second immediate and again incorrect conclusion was that Breivik did it to protest the immigration policy of his government and his killing spree was a reaction to multiculturalism.

As it turned out, the victims were not Muslims or from any other immigrant community. All those killed in Oslo and in Utoya were Norwegians; in fact the persons Breivik shot in cold blood were teenage boys and girls at a youth camp organized by Norway’s Labour Party. This act of pre-planned, calculated terror was perpetrated by a white Christian against his own countrymen practicing the same religion.

So why did Anders Behring Breivik do what he did?

The truth, no matter how galling, is that the Christian world with all the resources it commands, including the FBI, Scotland Yard and Mossad to investigate, track down and bring terrorists to account, especially when their own have been killed, has not been able to tell us conclusively why Breivik killed 76 people on one day although speculations abound about Breivik being a neo-Nazi who was inspired by Hindutva. Although why when Christianity itself had already successfully manufactured Hitler, the Ku Klux Clan, and Mussolini, Breivik should look for distant inspiration, is conveniently left unanswered.

It has been confirmed that Breivik bought six metric tonnes of fertiliser of which five tonnes have been found on Breivik’s farm; one tonne of fertiliser is missing and unaccounted for till date. We may assume this is nitrogen-based fertiliser and Breivik intended to manufacture Ammonium Nitrate using the fertiliser which when compounded with fuel oil makes for an effective Improvised Explosive Device or IED.

The truth which stares us in the face is that one tonne of missing dung and all the planning and preparation (reports speculate that at least two years went into the planning) killed only seven people in Oslo. The rest were killed by old-fashioned guns and bullets. So, was Breivik learning as he was working, and was he the lone executor of the plan while the forces which created him and funded him remain in the shadows are questions begging an answer

Breivik’s magnum opus "Knights Templar 2083" in which he allegedly pours out his white Christian heart, besides anger against immigration and multiculturalism, is also supposed to contain references to Hindu nationalist organizations; and it is in these references that the writer senses the stench of deep-rooted evil.

The Generic Church has used its propaganda machinery to dismiss stubborn efforts by intelligent persons to make sense of momentous (catastrophic) events impacting global economy or politics as being ‘conspiracy theories’; but those theories which stubbornly float around and refuse to go away may be closer to the truth which the Generic Church would like to bury.

The following points need to be kept firmly in mind –

· Nazism, Ku Klux Clan and Fascism all grew in the fertile soil of Christianity and reflect the nature and purpose of the Church

· The methods that Nazism, fascism and the Ku Klux Klan adopted in executing their ideology have been the exact same methods the Church adopted in achieving its expansionist missionary politico-religious objectives

· Christian terrorism is therefore as inherent to the expansionist Church as Islamic terrorism is to expansionist Islam

· The actions of adherents of the Abrahamic religions faithfully reflect their understanding of their god and reflect too the content and character of their religion deriving from this understanding

· Abrahamic religionists, irrespective of the name by which they call their god, Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh, is the god of Abraham, Issac, Moses, Jacob, Jesus and Paul

· Abrahamic religionists, Jews, Christians and Muslims are therefore siblings with the same religious genes, same religious purpose moving towards the same end of time/end of history objective and will partner each other if need be against Hindu India

Breivik’s actions do not follow logically from his written rant; Breivik placed his IED in a truck outside the federal building in Oslo which houses the office of the Prime Minister. Generous immigration policy and support for state multiculturalism were ideological policy issues for the Labor Party. But the Labor Party had been defeated in the elections and the incumbent government was not Labor Party government.

Then why did Breivik target the federal building and why kill children and young people of the Labor Party attending a youth conference? The entire episode smacks of irrationality and pure evil. It is almost as if Breivik had been undergoing some kind of intense brain-washing, training programme intended to make a killing machine out of him.

References to Hindu nationalist organizations makes the writer suspect that there is more, a lot more to Breivik and to the forces behind him than meets the eye. Just as the world will never know who killed the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in February 1986, and therefore, will never know why he was killed, the world will never know the truth of who created the Christian monster called Anders Breivik and why.

It is quite possible that the reasons may well be the same or connected.

There is an eerie and chilling parallel to events in India beginning October 2008. A young Hindu sanyasin, Sadhvi Pragya is arrested on 10 October, 2008 for her alleged role in the Malegaon blasts of September 29, 2008. Considering the fact that P. Chidambaram’s goons in Maharashtra ATS, CBI and NIA are yet to capture anyone for the Mumbai blasts on 13 July 2011, it is breathtaking that the fumbling Maharashtra ATS hounds investigating the most probably Islamic terrorist's blasts, scented Sadhvi Pragya, tracked her down and arrested her – all within 10 days!

Like a well-crafted plot unravelling itself to pre-programmed time, the Sadhvi’s arrest is followed by those of Col. Purohit a serving army officer with Military Intelligence on November 18, followed by the arrests of Pujya Swami Aseemanand and Dayanand Pandey, a previously unheard of Sankaracharya of Sharada Peeth in Jammu.

All four were projected by Sonia Gandhi’s UPA II as being the face of "Hindu Terror." Just as we will never know the truth behind Norway’s day of horror on July 22, 2011, we will never know the truth behind this new intriguing phenomenon which Sonia Gandhi’s minions in the Congress have labelled "Saffron Terror and Hindu Terror." (Editor's comment: based on only a few instances with no established proof or guilt as against the golbal Islamists' terrorism which has been blatant and rampant!!!)

These points need to be borne in mind –

· Four persons were arrested but only two - Sadhvi Pragya and Pujya Swami Aseemanand are paraded periodically before the nation

· The routinely anti-Hindu 24 hour English news channels have not dared to ask what happened to Col. Purohit, the alleged mastermind who stole 60 kgs of RDX from the army depot in J&K and the so-called Shankaracharya of Sharada Peeth

· Col. Purohit, according to the Maharashtra ATS is alleged to have confessed/admitted that after taking just what was required to blow up the Samjhauta Express, he dumped the remaining 60kgs of RDX into the Jhelum river

· The army has strongly denied that Col. Purohit was authorised to access RDX from the army depot and also that no RDX in its control was missing

· According to news reports Sadhvi Pragya certainly and Col. Purohit (open to question) were both subjected to narco-analysis and brain mapping tests (Editor's comment both are widely accepted as unreiable investigative tools in sniffing out the truth, therefore, sodium amytal and pentothal are no longer officially accepted as the "truth serum" by the judiciary, "brain mapping" or quantitative EEG is even of less value in this respect. Both these are then to be viewed as PR measures for the law enforcing agencies to win some kind of browny points and mislead the public.)

· Performing these tests even once, which intrude into the deepest recesses of a person’s sub-conscious mind, particularly when their reliability is doubtful constitutes a gross violation of human rights but Sadhvi Pragya was subjected to repeated narco-analysis and brain mapping exercises

· Possibly something that Col. Purohit may have said during the first and only narco-analysis done on him frightened the daylights off the Maharashtra ATS and the Home Ministry and all of a sudden, nothing more is heard of this man and Dayanand Pandey.

· Soon thereafter Pujya Swami Aseemanand of the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram who like the late Swami Laxmananda Saraswati also of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, who was leading the war against religious conversion and Christian missionaries, is arrested and the Maharashtra ATS pegs most terror attacks between 2007-2008 retrospectively on Sadhvi Pragya and Swami Aseemanand.

· Both of them continue to languish in prison without trial, despite the fact that there is not an iota of proof or corroborative evidence presented so far against them

Mocking at conspiracy theories be damned but it cannot be denied that Sonia Gandhi and her merry minions would have continued treading this path except that 26/11 blew on their faces in 2008, within days of arresting Col. Purohit and the "find-the-Hindu-terrorist" expedition was brought to an abrupt end. It cannot be gainsaid that after 26/11 no more Hindu terrorists have been tracked down or arrested and acts of terror pinned retrospectively on them.

When questioned about coining the phrase ‘saffron terror’ and ‘Hindu terror’ India’s new Home Minister in UPA II smirked, “The purpose has been served” and this raised the writer’s antennae and hackles. There was more to Sonia Gandhi’s Hindu terror it became obvious, than P Chidambaram and his goons were prepared to reveal. (Editor's note: Safron terror and hindu terror are then obviously terms that suit the political objectives of Sonia, Chidambaram and UPA II !!!)

The writer has consistently maintained that Hindu nationalism poses the biggest challenge to Abrahamic religions in theory and practice and also poses a serious threat to their movement towards the two-stage Apocalypse-Armageddon.

From around 2000 India watchers must have been seriously alarmed at certain trends emerging from within Hindu society which signalled that Hindu nationalists, best embodied by Hindu religious leaders and the RSS parivar, were resisting the spreading cancer of religious conversion undertaken by Christian missionaries as part of Pope John Paul II’s stated objective of planting the cross in Asia in the third millennium.

The Gujarat riots of 2002 following the burning alive of Hindu pilgrims by jihadis at Godhra station must also have alarmed India watchers. India’s Hindus were fiercely resisting the moves of the Generic Church and Global Islam to Christianize and Islamize Hindu India.

The BJP-led NDA lost a winning election in 2004 and the Generic Church has not looked back since. The rise of Sonia Gandhi provided the best opportunity yet to weaken Hindu organizations and render Hindu society defenceless against the Abrahamic agenda. Beside several other things which the Generic Church undertook through Sonia Gandhi, the writer is convinced that the plot to trap or place Hindu religious leaders and functionaries of Hindu organizations in the wrong box was one of them.

Neither Islam nor the Generic Church can succeed in their mission in India without help from renegade Hindus and without a degree of complicity by highly placed officials in government and administration. Until proved otherwise it is the writer’s theory that entities within the UPA government identified and employed renegade Hindus to penetrate Hindu organizations, identify and select elements which could be trapped in a web of counter-terrorism measures. This included teaching them to make low intensity crude bombs, putting together IEDs with Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil and choose appropriate targets. (Editor's notes: The terrorists identified and labelled as Hindu terrorists do not seem to have a history of a long career as Hindu nationalists and could very well be imposters planted by the adversaries!!)

It is possible that the plot to entrap Hindus into the web of Hindu Terror was the brainchild of global forces outside the country but was implemented by anti-Hindu renegades within the intelligence community, government and counter-terrorism agencies. The plot to embroil Hindu religious leaders belonging to the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and RSS functionaries was crafted and implemented with great success as seen.

The plot was crafted and implemented before November 2008 and there has been a near total change of guard in all these agencies – new Home Minister, new National Security Adviser and a new chief of the Maharashtra ATS. The nation will never know the truth about the forces which crafted and executed the plot.

The most important outcome of this successful plot (successful because until now Hindus have not acted to neutralise the consequences) has been to equate unfairly Hinduism and Hindus with Islam, Christianity and their adherents with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

When the Generic Church’s propaganda machinery floated the news that Anders Breivik was inspired by Hindutva and Hindu organizations, in one stroke it not only equated Christian terrorism with so-called "Hindu terrorism" in international discourse on terrorism but within the country it forced Hindus to go on the defensive to reject the association thereby abdicating their intellectual responsibility to go on the warpath and make the distinction between the political objective of Abrahamic monotheisms and the political objectives of Hindu nationalism. (Editor's notes: One would expect that if Hindu intellectuals were savvy enough to see this far-fetched connection leading to false accusation that Breivik was motivated by Hindu nationalists in planning and executing his bizarre violence there would have been a very loud outrage against people making such connections showing the absurdness of such a conspiracy theory !!)

Hindus proved yet again that the spirit of the kshatriya remains defeated.

The intellectual kshatriya would have seen that Anders Breivik was a bomb which exploded prematurely just as the plot to entrap Hindus in the web of Hindu terror also ended prematurely with 26/11. There is a connection here somewhere; only we have to wait for time to unravel the larger plot to destabilise parts of the world with killing machines wielding guns and IEDs. (To be continued)

NADAAN MEERA NANDA'S HASTY IRRESPONSIBLE COMMENTS

2011-08-08T00:48:00.000-07:00

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

EXPOSING MEERA NANDA'S FOLLIES IN "SPIRITUAL BEDFELLOWS"

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

The Editor

Open Magazine

Dear Editor,

Re: 'Spiritual Bedfellows' (The Norway Massacre and the Indian Connection' by Meera Nanda, Aug.6,2011 www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/spiritual-bedfellows

I assume Ms Nanda is an academic/writer/journalist. A year or two ago I came across an article by her in The Hindu and replied to it. She seemed to be advocating the old philosophy of science world view of the Vienna Circle of the 1920s, and whose surviving thinker Sir Karl Popper(recently passed away) had changed his early views somewhat. At any rate, science itself has changed dramatically in all fields, especially in the hard core sciences, which were the models when Morris Schlick and the Vienna Circle first formulated their views.

I gather Ms. Nanda is also a Marxist, in which case she does not seem to be au courrant with Marx's article 'British Rule in India'(June 10,1853) Here, that world historical thinker whose critique of capitalism and his entire corpus of writings on the subject (including the 6 volumes of Das Kapital) have not been seriously answered to date(in my opinion) embarks on something that he is truly not competent to judge, namely Hinduism. In that article although he castigates Britain for exploiting India he goes on to say that Britain with all its iniquities was a progressive force in India where Man who should be the Master of Nature, falls on his knees before Hanuman the monkey and Sabala the cow !

This is Marx's humanism which he acquired from the Greek sophist Protagoras (an older contemporary of Plato) who said : Man is the measure of all things. Needless to say,it is a limited humanism.Also, Marx's knowledge of India was somewhat limited.

Ms. Nanda seems to be caught in this same strait jacket, with a lack of appreciation of the Vedic world and its celebration of Nature, the terrestrial, atmospheric and cosmic forces of Nature.Nature or God, said the Dutch philosopher Spinoza. Not understanding this Vedic world view Ms.Nanda launches out into an attack on the Hindu Right (as she calls it) and some of those authors associated with this philosophy. It is not my intention to defend these authors since they are all thinkers in their own right and capable of defending their positions, if they even choose to respond to her article, which seems to be written for the gallery, so to speak, or to camp followers.

However, she is a Hindu, I assume, or is an ex Hindu. Her espousal of Marxism as far as some of her articles go, appears to be rather superficial( a type of positivism) and judging from her article, her knowledge of her own native tradition is even less so. The Vedic tradition admits the equality of all religions in the sense that many paths lead to the discovery of spirituality and the place of humans in the universe. This is obviously a pluralistic tradition. However, the followers of monotheistic faiths(there is only one God) do not reciprocate this pluralism, and Indian history is replete with conquests and violence from these monotheistic faiths (Islam and Christianity). To that extent not all religions are equal. Ms Nanda needs to brush up on her Indian history.

In the absence of her knowledge of the above her comparison of Anders Breivik and the Hindu Right (as she calls it) ends up being hasty, frivolous and written for ideological reasons rather than for enlightening reasons.

I am a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. My training has been in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History.

Sincerely,

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Canada

HISTRIONICS OF IRRATIONAL FATWA ADDICTS AT HARVARD DENOUNCING DR. SWAMY NEEDS TO BE SQUASHED

2011-08-05T14:12:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

In Letter to Harvard, Civil Liberties Group Cautions Against Swamy Investigation | News | The Harvard Crimson

Courtesy: The Harvard Crimson

July 29, 2011
In Letter to Harvard, Civil Liberties Group Cautions Against Swamy Investigation

By Leanna B. Ehrlich, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
In the wake of a controversial article written by Subramanian Swamy, the group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sent a letter to University President Drew G. Faust on Wednesday urging her not to allow Harvard to take action against the Harvard Summer School instructor.

Swamy, a political leader in India who earned his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1965, penned an op-ed published July 16 in the Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis that advocated for the removal of hundreds of mosques and the denial of voting rights to non-Hindus with the goal of stemming terrorist attacks in the country.

Following the publication of the article, several Harvard affiliates circulated a petition calling on the University to end its ties with Swamy, and in a statement, the dean of the Summer School said that the school “will give this matter our serious attention.”

But FIRE, a civil liberties group with a focus on academia, cautioned in its letter to Faust that the group is “concerned about the threat to freedom of expression” that may come about from that attention.

“The threat of a disciplinary investigation of Swamy stands in sharp and unflattering contrast to this admirable and appropriate understanding of the importance of freedom of expression in the academic community,” Adam H. Kissel '94, vice president of programs at FIRE, wrote in the letter.

Harvard has not explicitly said that it is investigating Swamy or that it has considered such an investigation. Messages to spokespeople for the University were not immediately returned.

Swamy teaches Economics S-110: “Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business” and Economics S-1316: “Economic Development in India and East Asia” at the Summer School.

In his letter, Kissel said that an investigation of Swamy’s article would go against Harvard’s commitment to free speech, as outlined in the “Free Speech Guidelines” adopted by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1990.

“If members of the Harvard community are given to understand that Harvard might begin an investigation—with possible disciplinary consequences—of the views they express, they likely will self-censor,” he wrote. “This is precisely the result that a university dedicated to intellectual freedom must seek to avoid.”

“Harvard must honor its own promises,” he said in a phone interview. “Students have every right to protest for or against ideas in article, as does Harvard, but Harvard may not investigate or punish the expression.”

While in some instances a professor’s publicized opinions might warrant disciplinary action, in these “extreme cases,” the professor’s opinion would have to prevent him from successfully teaching the subject, he said.

“In this case, it’s an economics professor with political opinions, and his subject has nothing to do with politics,” he said. “The University cannot simply investigate someone for publishing an opinion piece.”

—Staff writer Leanna B. Ehrlich can be reached at lehrlich@college.harvard.edu.

IN DEFENSE OF DR. SWAMY'S ACADEMIC FREEDOM AT HARVARD AND HIS RIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

2011-08-05T13:48:00.000-07:00

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Right to Speak Defense

Against Islamic Terrorism in India

by

Dr. Seshachalam Dutta

Dr. Subramanian Swamy was one of the youngest recipients of doctorate in economics at Harvard University who later became a professor of Economics. He turned to politics in India and did yeoman service to his native country during the notorious “emergency” imposed upon India by Indira Gandhi. He later served as the Minister of Law at the Central Government of India. His article in an Indian newspaper, “Daily News and Analysis” (DNA), caused an uncalled for storm at Harvard.

To use the characterization of Hindu Nationalists, some Muslim fanatics and Hindu degenerate renegades who have lost their self-respect have called for his ouster from Harvard. His distracters characterized his essay as bigotry. Leaving all the invective aside,Swamy is not a bigot. Right to speak and write was defended as early as in 1643 by John Milton in his famous Areopagitica wherein he said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter and argue freely according to my conscience, above all liberties.” He was summarizing the fight for this freedom for which so many in the West sacrificed their lives beginning with Socrates which became the hallmark of democratic freedom in the civilized western world. Any Harvard student who did not know this doesn’t deserve to be at Harvard.

What did Swamy say that caused such an outrage? What he said is not much different from the position of George Will and Patrick Buchanan, who expressed strong position on the creeping multiculturalism in the U.S. George Will, a few years ago addressing Duke University convocation, pleaded that multiculturalism is acceptable only so far but no further. New immigrants have to accept the core values of the Founding Fathers of this country. Buchanan has the similar position that the core American values have to be accepted and multiculturalism is a threat to the National identity of America.

Swamy’s position is very similar in the face of aggressive worldwide Islamization and accompanying intolerance. The reaction of French people to the exhibiting of Muslim attire in public schools as distinct from others as not to integrate with the community has been a volatile issue. Demand that Sharia be accepted as a separate law Governing Muslim community in England and the activities of Muslim Immigrants in Germany have raised the question of how much multiculturalism can be accepted by the communities when such immigrants refuse to integrate into the National life. The issue is reverberating in Australia and even in China and Russia.

After a long lull, Muslim terrorism has reached India recently with full force and Swamy was addressing this issue. It should be remembered that India was already divided on the basis of religion as Muslim Country and Hindu country. Muslims argued that they could not live with Hindus and they created Pakistan, a Muslim country. Hindus could choose to be a Hindu Nation (though nobody would know what it means, as there are several interpretations as to what Hindu means-a foreign designation), but the leaders at that time opted for a secular pluralistic country. If the leadership was different like that of Swamy’s persuasion, it could have been a sort of Hindu Nation just as much as Muslim Pakistan. India is secular by choice and not by any compulsion. By its very nature even a “Hindu Nation” would have been secular at any rate as Hindus are as diverse as monotheists, polytheists, and even atheists and some even worshipping the tombs of Muslim holy men like that of Sai Baba! All world bodies have accepted Nations with exclusive cultural and religious identities; Israel is a case in point.

I would like to represent Swamy’s position without necessarily endorsing his view. Muslims living in India cannot and should not demand Sharia and they cannot and should not practice polygamy, nor should they be allowed to increase their population by abandoning birth control which is advocated by the Government of India which can be legally forced on Hindus only and thus upsetting the demographics. Muslims are now already getting away with insisting on living in India with no regard to Uniform Civil code, enjoying the right only for themselves to have four wives, no restrictions such as birth control, no restrictions on obeying the city ordinances in limiting the noise level emanating from their Mosques, and in fact practicing Sharia law which in conflict with Indian penal code and Civil law. Any part of India which has majority of Muslim population cannot and should not have special privileges as in Kashmir, no more than African Americans and Hispanics in America can demand separate political redistricting and special privileges based on their ethnic count. Muslims and Hindus can live in harmony once they accept that they are from the same genetic stock and same primary cultural ancestry as Hindus and not Arabic, Persian or Mongolian! The greatest Muslim intellectual of 20th century who advocated creation of Pakistan, Md. Iqbal was of third generation Kashmiri Brahmin descent. If the Indian Muslims accept that they belongs to the same land and have the same ancestry regardless of their faith, they would not resort to terrorism against their own brothers. No self-respecting Mexican would claim that he is of Spanish decent. Spanish conquerors ravaged their country, killed their men, outraged their women and converted them forcefully to Christianity. Indian Muslim should feel the same way. How else a Pakistani missile is named after Ghory who was the worst invader of India? This is the line argument of Swamy. He may not witness progress of India in this direction in his life time; but let it go on record that he was the one who was bold enough to say it.

Indians who are given to semi-monarchical idolatry, ruled by sycophants have very little appreciation for a free expression of such bold ideas in their country. India is largest democracy in the world, but a fragile one weakened by loyalties to dynasties at the Center and States. Loyalty to dynasties, as noted by Octavio Paz, Nobel Laureate and former ambassador to India referring to Indian politics, is anti-democratic. Democracy should guarantee opportunity to leadership regardless of class or birth. Reaction in India for Swamy’s article, therefore, is patently expected, but I commend Harvard to stand by their faculty member.

CORRUPTION IN INDIA: CRISIS OR CHAOS OF NATIONAL CONSCIENCE?

2011-08-05T01:47:00.000-07:00

June 7, 2011
CORRUPTION
CRISIS OF NATIONAL CONCIENCE

by

DR. SESHACHALAM DUTTA

Edited and modified by Shree Vinekar on August 4, 2011

It is a recognized fact that for corruption India ranks 87th nation in the World. The issue of corruption attained monumental proportion in India and the resultant agitation reached the dimensions comparable to the current upheaval in the Middle East, as in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. The Government of India responded with extraordinary suppression and black mail of protestors not unlike Mubarak and Bashar Assad. Guru RamDev’s house was searched for spearheading the awareness campaign, and was dug into to find evidence of hidden treasures. Anna Hazare, who has caused such a popular uprising unheard of before from any “Congress Man” and a disciple of Gandhi, has a character that does not permit black mail or name calling. He a wears a traditional “Gandhi cap” whereas the other younger congress leaders now-a-days disdain the cap, not willing to cover their hairless pates, and regard him as a relic of bygone ideological past, but remain deferential to him as a Gandhian. Congress party claims allegiance to Gandhiism in namesake only, and therefore, instead of deprecating him directly and discrediting him, has begun attacking the reputation of his Associates. These associates were investigated for evidence of ill-gotten wealth and verbally attacked and harassed as a ploy to discredit Hazare.

The real issue is not whether Hazare or Guru Ram Dev and their followers or any of the agitator associates are corrupt: or if Ram Dev is a great Guru or not, but whether the Cabinet Ministers, legislators and people in the position of authority are corrupt. The fact is such diversion tactics are misleading the Indian citizenry. The astute citizens cannot be deflected by attacking the messengers of bad news. The issue stands as is clearly and succinctly stated in the judgment of Indian Supreme Court: “Corruption results from the collusion of lawmakers, law keepers and law breakers.” The question is how to bring these colluders under control. Since the lawmakers and law enforcers are cahoots with the law breakers the elimination of corruption finally falls into the lap of citizens at large. The entire Nation for the first time, since independence of India –one may say -after centuries of tolerance is now demanding reform. This is the crisis of conscience of a Nation that woke up after centuries of deep slumber. Whatever the outcome, there is no going back for this Nation other than to perish- a grim and apocalyptic prospect for a great civilization.

Corruption engulfed every man in the street in India and in every walk of life, every Indian knows that much. From the ticket salesman at the railway station to lowly peon in the revenue office solicits bribes; for the most part these people are dismissed as an annoying and petty nuisance, but not so when it comes to college admissions, Government employment (a major employer in a socialist country) which is all demeaning for the victims and the perpetrators alike who participate in corruption. Now, corruption has crept into multimillion dollar Governmental contracts and even among the judiciary, pervading every walk of life, in dimensions hitherto unheard of. Even those who accepted corruption as a way of life and participated in the past are appalled and have become at once conscience-stricken. Not surprisingly the politicians in the Government and their loyal supporters including partisan elite are standing to defend the status quo, in addition to the trio of ‘corrupt law makers, corrupt law keepers and the law breakers.’ Hazare is simple minded if he believes that the present Government would accept a truly effective Lok Pal bill to investigate corruption in the Government, in all three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial!!. Truly implementing such a bill and making it into a law that is not just a window dressing is like asking the Cabinet Ministers to commit suicide. Case in point is not just the multimillion dollar2G scam, but the glaring episode of Hassan Ali Khan’s multi-billion dollar scam, (8.4 Billion foreign deposits from arms smuggling). Prima facie case was established four years ago to book Hassan Ali Khan and no legal action was taken. Never mind that Khan’s passport was seized, but hallo, in corrupt society it was not at all surprising that a new one was issued when everyone turned their back! He still boldly lives in India. Supreme Court wisely concluded that this would not be possible without high level political and Governmental collusion but did not cite the perpetrators for contempt of court!!!! What a great insight into the workings of a corrupt society the Supreme Court of India has!! Let us see now how the Indian elite defend the Government manipulation of the citizenry to go against the Lok-Pal bill proposed by responsible citizens.

Kapil Sibal’s vociferous outrage: Kapil Sibal (Minister of Culture formerly minister of Telecom before the scandal broke out) protested in injured innocence with indignity how the Civil Society (responsible citizens) would dare accuse the Cabinet Ministers of lying and cheating. “Yes, Sibalji, that is precisely the point. You are corrupt and your predecessor Governments and successive Governments of your party are accused of corruption, lying and cheating. To highlight the point, if you have forgotten or pretend to have forgotten, here are the details to clearly point out to you that your outrage is not that of an innocent man accused of a crime to be understood and written off as a normal human reaction. It is not only disingenuous, irresponsible, and totally absurd but is ill-advised for a person of your stature.
The 2G scandal of your Government involved bribes in astronomical numbers and your Government’s ministers have been disgraced and jailed. You and your party High command is accused of stashing the corrupt loot in foreign Banks and the P.M has told the Supreme Court that you made treaties not to divulge the names of the recipients of the illegal deposits!

In 2006 Shibu Soren, a ministerial colleague of yours was convicted as a murderer. Nearly one fourth of the members of parliament of India have criminal records.

In 2005 another colleague of yours, Laloo Prasad Yadav was convicted for an arms deal with South Africa in a $40 million bribery scandal.

In 2003 Environmental Minister Dilip Singh (BJP) resigned on bribery charges, instead of subjecting himself to investigation and conviction. .This needs to be stated just to highlight the point that the issue is not limited to your party alone. We are not concerned with which party is less corrupt or better. The longer a party is in power and is unchallenged in corrupt environment the more damage it will inflict on the society. The UPA and Indian National Congress Party foot the bill for this natural law of economics of corruption.

In 2003 anti-corruption Bureau spent 4.3 billion US dollars in Indian Rupees and charged 2,642 employees of corruption and your Government turned a deaf ear and applied a blind eye to the investigation for eleven years.

In 2000 one of the Prime Minister (P.M.) of India representing your party, who was regarded as the best one after Nehru, P.V. Narasimha Rao of Congress, was convicted and sentenced for three years on the charges of corruption. Yet you argue P.M should not be subject to Lok Pal bill!

In 1977 the year P.M. Gujral promised a clean Government in future (admitting by implication that the government was unclean before) your colleague Laloo Prasad Yadav was convicted and sentenced in a $1.9 Billion fodder scam; and he went to jail.

In 1996 Telecom minister Sukhram was accused of $8.5 million bribery scam.

In I996 the son of P.M, Sanjiva Rao was accused in hawala Scam. Ten congress leaders were involved in hawala scam during the same year. The list goes on and on as far back as 1947 including massive Bofor scandal implicating Rajiv Gandhi, the husband of the present straw leader Sonia and sugar imports scandal of congress ministers, and Harshad Mehta scandal of Bombay financial market demonstrating on the TV how he had packed one crore rupees in a small brief case to bribe the then Prime Minister.

Do I need to go on? This list is long enough to shut up Kapil’s garrulous grin at the suggestion that the cabinet ministers, M.P’s and even the P.M should be brought under a law to investigate corruption. Yet there are supporters for Kapil both in the cabinet and outside for reasons that are anyone’s guess. When the corrupt politicians, law makers, and law enforcers join together to form a cartel, what can be expected to come out of the mouth of those engaged in corruption for years?

INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION:

Corruption of mind and conscience is more heinous and cannot be measured in dollars and rupees. Chidambaram like Sibal is a graduate of U.S Universities, so also Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the opinion maker for Congress, both of whom oppose the present popular uprising against corruption. They coined the cheap slogan for the Congress. From a member of Indian Think Tank, Mehta turned into a journalist. It is no wonder these politicians in India all had modern liberal education from Western Democratic Countries like U.S and UK; so also Assad of Syria. Assad of Syria and Mubarak of Egypt have the knowledge of the liberties enjoyed by free societies in the west. What makes them think and act in complete disregard for the rights of the people? It is not lack of knowledge but only arrogant disregard and contempt for their own people. Otherwise, how else can one explain that Nehru had to be compelled by the Supreme Court to honor the rights of citizen to travel abroad? It took, in 1962, four months to get a passport for this author to go to McGill in Canada, losing almost the whole semester. It takes only one week to get a passport in the U. S.! Regardless of their training and knowledge regarding how free people should be treated, these politicians exercised cruel repression upon their people.

Chidambaram, a Harvard graduate sent special police units to arrest Ram Dev in the dead of the night and woke up the unarmed peacefully sleeping women, children and the elderly camping in demonstration tent and assaulted them although they had not disturbed the peace or broken any law. . Chidambaram accused RSS to defend his evil act just like Mubarak called the uprising Al-Qaida inspired. P.M too justified Chidambaram’s action as inevitable with no explanation of how he reached such a conclusion. The parallel with the Middle East is complete. The P.M should explain if it is alright to beat and maim women and children just because they are related to volunteers that were allegedly affiliated with RSS.

Writing in "Hindu," Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues, referring to the agitation, that demanding the financial disclosures violated the fundamental rights of privacy of the politicians. Can a robber resist a search by law enforcers to find the stolen goods by pleading he has right to his privacy? Does he maintain that rule for IRS? The sanctity of privacy will be subordinated by the courts of law when it comes to searching for the stolen property. Accepting bribe is just like stealing and the wealth accumulated must be considered as stolen property that is illegally acquired. Further he argues that the civil society’s action is a black mail by a few; the solution should be sought by the elected representatives only, he says. He conveniently ignores that the problem is the corrupt government which has to be specifically controlled as regards it corrupt practices. He further claims the agitation is about a single issue while there are many to be addressed. Sadly each person has a single vote. He forgets a single issue can determine the outcome of an election. What about the right of the people to express their will and their right to demonstrate? He sounds like Mubarak. This issue is the life and death issue of Nation as we will show a little later. These arguments were picked up, not only by Chidambaram, but also by the chief mouth piece of the Congress party Digvijay Singh. He condemned “satyagraha” as black mail. No one accused Satyagraha and fasting by Mahatma Gandhi for cause or his protests as blackmail. It is legitimate popular and peaceful expression of one’s conviction and is respected all over the world; and the World leaders like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela emulated Gandhi in this respect. Margaret Thatcher allowed fasting of IRA activists and allowed them to die in jail; Indian Government is free to follow her example if it chooses to do so by not heeding Ram Dev or Hazare when they go on a fast! But, to call this form of protest a black mail is “un-Gandhian” as well as “Un-Indian” and at worst hypocritical for someone who claims to be a Gandhi followers like Digvijay and Chidambaram, if not for westernized Bhanu Pratap.

There are others in the past who condoned corruption; for one no other than Indira Gandhi, whose Government during the emergency and later involving her sons Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi and her Italian daughter-in-law, was complacent claiming that corruption was universal, meaning present in all countries and therefore to be accepted as a norm in India. Whether her father was corrupt or not never came to discussion, since he was a National hero. Only comments on his foreign accounts were published in American and Canadian press in 1960s. Ram Manohar Lohia a popular Socialist leader made comment upon Nehru’s death that “Jawaharlal Nehru gave nine crores to his daughter and only his ashes to India.” Not a single dime for a charity came from Nehru’s estate! When Nehru was a Congress Secretary, he did not have enough money and wanted to draw a salary from the Party, or he even was in the process of selling his furniture. Rising from such artificial economic depravity publicized by him there was no accountability to the public as to how and when did he accumulate nine crores of Reupees which is more or less equivalent of 100 crores in today’s value.

Justice Agarwal in condoning the judicial corruption said, “We come from the same corrupt society and do not descend from the Heaven! What about lawyers, politicians and the society.” Though he was right in his acknowledgement, he was rationalizing his condoning the conduct of corruption as a socio-cultural norm. This is a classic example of corrupted conscience as is demonstrated by Indira Gandhi and Justice Agarwal.

Culture of corruption in India has a long and continuing history. As against Indira Gandhi’s complacency, Mahatma Gandhi said in 1939, long before independence of India, “I would go to the length of giving congress a decent burial rather than put up with corruption that is so rampant,” referring to the corruption in Congress Ministry of 1937. It took Hazare, a Gandhian to talk about it again after 70 years and he is being attacked on all sides by supposedly true Gandhian congressmen. Indira Gandhi was right that corruption exists in all countries. But a venal corruption of the kind in India will destroy the country as noted by the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in his preamble to the United Nations report on corruption.”

Corruption is an insidious plague that has wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and rule of law, leads to violation of human rights, distorts the markets, erodes the quality of life, and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish”. He further went on to add, “Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.” India may rapidly develop economically, but the riches go to so corrupt few, exacerbating the poverty and increasing the income gap in the population. Anna Hazare, Guru Ram Dev and all other right minded people have to be admired for their bold effort, although Hazare has his own shortcomings in thinking for example that Nobel prize winners should be included in Lok Pal committees, forgetting that winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t confirm their ethical superiority or nobility in public affairs. Also, he seems to rely on Sonia Gandhi’s goodwill for his mission. Sonia as a head of the Congress with whom Hazare tries to consult is also accused of corruption who is suspected of participating with her husband and now with her son billions of dollars in black money in the Swiss bank(s), since her own National political culture was brewed in corruption. Giullo Andreotti, seven times Italian Prime Minister was accused of corruptions for a long time and repeatedly he got away with the help of the Supreme Court judge he himself appointed, Corrodo Carnivale, both of whom were eventually convicted. Italian political culture is notorious for corruption and the country is the main source of International lawlessness through Mafioso. It was ruled by at one time by a popular, but most brutal dictator Mussolini for over twenty years, not exactly where one would look for inspiration. That being the historical truth, naive Hazare is turning to a wrong person to seek approval for his anti-corruption movement.

Another line of familiar refrain is that a spiritual leader like Ram Dev has no business in politics or taking to public causes. It may be true that he should not be in electoral politics trying to come to power, although that is also debatable, as every citizen in a free country has a right for representative leadership, Pratap Bhanu Mehta attacks Ram Dev on his views on sexual orientation which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is only a cheap shot diversion. On the other hand, it is the duty of every citizen to speak up and participate in a National movement of far reaching importance. Not only Ram Dev, but Shankacharyas, Mullahs, and Christian clergy all ethical public minded people should join the agitation to prevent the country from going to Hell in a hand basket. We should support Baba Ram Dev for bringing his followers to the agitation.

There is this strange thinking in India that spiritual leaders should not express views on politics, which shows ignorance of how democracy is practiced in the modern World. Martin Luther King, a Gandhian was primarily the leader in Southern Baptist Church through which he fought racial discrimination. He always addressed his following from the church pulpit. Gandhiji himself was also a spiritual leader so also many who fought for independence without seeking political power. Another remarkable example is that of Archbishop Makarios, a Christian leader of Cyprus who fought British, was exiled by British and finally won the independence for Cyprus. Without Imam Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran would be still languishing under Monarchy with a puppet as a head for Western interests. Chidambaram scares every one that RSS might be leading the agitation on corruption. If they didn’t yet, they should, actually do so and there would be nothing wrong to fight the evil of corruption. RSS volunteers have the same rights as any other citizens to protest against the evil of corruption and why should Chidambaram object to that? Indian leaders never learned the lesson that their unfortunate country was sold by bribery to the British. In the battle of Plassey, Robert Clive bribed Mir Jaffar, the military general of Suraj-ud-Doulah, Nawab of Bengal. He was paid a bribe to stand still and not resist the British. The battle ended in less than two hours with an easy victory for the British with loss of life on both sides of less than 300 men. Bengal which included current Bihar was won by East India Company for a bribe. The view prevails in the world, even internationally, that anything in India can be bought for a right price. 2 G scam will be a pittance when the West and Japan buy the rights to build nuclear plants in India. Japan already paid heavy prize for admittedly defective construction of several nuclear plants by the company trying to contract with India. French and U.S firms already declared they would not be responsible for any nuclear related disasters when they contract with India. A nuclear disaster in India through such corrupt contracts will be of so large scale that hundreds of thousands will lose their lives and several hundred thousand will be maimed replicating the Chernobyl disaster several fold. Given the level and prevalence of corruption in India it is not at all unlikely. That is the logical extreme of corruption in India which will destroy India ultimately. So accusing Baba Ramdev of adulterating the Ayurvedic medications he distributes with cyanide is the height of roguery of the corrupt Indian politicians when all chemists know that traces of cyanide are normally found in many herbs and spices and are harmless. If corrupt politicians use non sequiturs like this they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent public for a while to hide their sins. This is the crisis of conscience in India today. The national conscience can be considered to be aroused sufficiently only if it is effective in substantially changing the behavior of the society and especially its political leaders and government officers.

UNITED INDIAN OCEAN STATES ECONOMY

2011-07-16T11:08:00.000-07:00

A Road Map for Rashtram

July 11, 2011 01:25:38

Dr.Vijaya Rajiva

This review is from: Rastram: Hindu history in United Indian Ocean States (Paperback)
This review is also on www.Amazon.com

The book Rashtram (2011) by Dr.S.Kalyanraman , Director of the Sarasvati Research Centre, is a path breaking erudite work continuing the general trend in swadeshi thinking started by Indic scholars in the last three decades or so. One could describe it as a work in swadeshi political philosophy/thought because its overarching theme is the concept of Rashtram, one which is hard to translate from the Sanskrit.It is usually translated into English as state or nation. It is higher than state (which is mainly the institutions of governance) and higher than nation (which is a conglomerate of peoples) and yet it animated the entire body politic of Hindu India since ancient times, since that oldest of our Hindu works, the Rig Veda . Here the Goddess Sarasvati or Vak or Vaghambrini says : "I am the Rashtri and I move people towards their welfare (abhyudayam)". Welfare is understood both as material prosperity and spiritual/religious enlightenment.This philosophy or world view animated all of Hindu history and the countries of what is called Greater India. Dr. Kalyanraman would now extend it to what he calls the Indian Ocean Community (IOC) a group of 59 nations around the rim of the Indian Ocean.

The book is an encyclopedic tome,filled with Sanskrit words and cognate terms. The terrain is vast and the motorist is cautioned to proceed patiently and slowly so that one does not miss the wood for the trees. The illustrations are breathtaking in their diversity and beauty, and the overall vista is one of a vast continent of historical and philosophical thinking hidden in the arguments from a variety of sources on the nature of Rashtra and its historical evolution.

The reader, is therefore, advised to meditate on the arguments of the first chapter, the Concept of Rashtram. It coalesces with the concept of Dharman (in the neuter, standing for that which exists and evolves of its very nature), which another Indic scholar Dr. Shrinivas Tilak, writing in the swadeshi mode explains in detail in his work Reawakening to a secular Hindu Nation(2008). Since Dharma is a Rig Vedic concept and Rashtram acts in accordance with Dharma, it follows that Rashtram is not either nation or state in the ordinary sense of these two words. Dr. Kalyanraman provides a comprehensive list of the word `nation' as understood in the West. His own explanation of Dharma is continuous with that of Dr.Tilak's and emphasizes both the transcendant and immanent modes of Dharma, that which simply is, subsisting by itself and which works on its own cosmic trajectory and in the terrestrial world. The reader will recall that the Rig Vedic rishis worshipped the three worlds of terrestrial, atmospheric and cosmic forces. Dharman is what binds all three together in itself.

The remainder of the chapter is an evocation of Goddess Sarasvati's presence in and through a large number of words (Vak) which the reader with some time (or even otherwise) may wish to meditate on. They are drawn from various sources both directly Indic and from countries largely influenced by Indic culture. The second aspect of Rashtra, as mentioned above, is Dharma and both chapter one and chapter two define Dharma.
In Chapter Two the focus is on the movement of Hindu Rashtram to the various regions of the Far East:

" The Indians nowhere engaged in military conquest and annexation in the name of a state or mother country. And the Indian states that were set up in Farther India during the first centuries of the Christian Era had only ties of tradition with the dynasties reigning in India proper ; there was no political dependence. . . . . " p. 480

The illustrations and the commentary by the author on this expansion of Rashtram towards the far East is in and of itself an exciting voyage. Meanwhile within India there developed an elaborate and finely honed economic system (which might be described in contemporary terms as Economic Nationalism) which made India an economic hub of the ancient world. Hence too, the development of the Rashtra Kuta, democratic assemblies of Rashtram.The Kuta being the economic spoke in the wheel and after which we have the name for the Rashtrakuta empire. This and as well the development of varna and jati and the growth of srenis and sreni dharma, the economic cell of Indian's prosperity (similar but not identical with the European guild of medieval times). Chapter Three develops these themes.

Chapters Four and Five focus on the clash of civilizations in India owing to the invasions and the Occupations (British and Islamic, starting from 700 CE- 1707 CE for the Islamic and 1600-1947 CE for the British) . Both the loss of lives and the destruction of temples during the Islamic occupation are documented. For the British period, the colonial loot and the decimation of Hindu culture and the entire educational system are dealt with, as also a comparison of colonial and neo colonial looting.
Then come the concluding chapters on the Indian Ocean Community comprised of the 59 nation states of today. Here, the author uses the word Super Rashtram, since the founding member of these states is India and the founding philosophy is that of Rashtram. Dr.Kalyanraman believes that parallel to the evolution of the European Union there should take place an Indian Ocean Community :

"Rashtram as a supranational foundation to remove vestiges of colonial loot, to make such a loot unthinkable and materially impossible and reinforce democracy of all nations along the IOC rim as janapada(peoples' republics) for peoples' welfare (abhyudayam) governed by the inexorable Hindu sanatana traditional ethic dharma-dhamma" p.480

The three chapters Nations of Indian Ocean Community, United States of Indian Ocean Community, and Consitutuing Indian Ocean Community (PP 401 -486) are devoted to the history, background and the economic resources of this enterprise. This topic alone deserves separate treatment and it is a tribute to the author that he has managed to convey the essentials in a readable and interesting way.

The book itself is 551 pages long and the nature of the topic, the illustrations and the erudition of the author's commentary (which he modestly calls " a student's notes") is sufficient guarantee that the reader will find the book worth many readings.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=14234&SKIN=B

Background

Rastram, supranation, is about a golden page in the history of human civilizations. It is an opportunity to realize almost 2 millennia of dharma-dhamma values enshrined in the hearts of over 2 billion people along the nations of the Indian Ocean Rim.

This is a compilation of insights, analyses and excerpts from works of by many savants and scholars about Hindu history.

R'''ram is pronounced as in Latin rostrum (rô stru m) with a long -a in the first syllable, R'. The Rgvedic word connotes a federation of peoples' republics - a supranational covenant as the true foundation of an organized Indian Ocean Community (IOC) -- a counterpoise to European Community. This IOC should remain open to all nations of Indian Ocean Rim. The states located along the rim of the Indian Ocean from South Africa to Tasmania constitute the Indian Ocean Community which has the attributes of R'''ram. The Hindu historical traditions and the amended UN Law of the Sea help use the potential to create a 6 trillion dollar GDP and act provide for enhanced welfare of over 2 billion people. Along the 63,000 mile long rim of the Indian Ocean work can start on Trans-Asian Highway and Trans-Asian Railway Projects and build upon the civilizational heritage.
The 1994 modified Law of the Sea extends territorial waters into 200 nautical miles from the baseline as economic zones.
This historical account is an attempt to delineate the wealth of nations, along the Indian Ocean Rim. Together, these nations neighboring the Ocean, can chart out a path for establishing R'''ram in dharma-dhamma continuum.
This account provides the portraits from Hindu history on the travails of a nation caught in the throes of civilizational clashes with jihadist onslaughts during mediaeval periods of barbarism and loots of 17th to 20th century periods of a British Colonial empire and the 21st century in a swarajyam Hindusthan by post-colonial marauders, suffocating the potential for forming a R'''ram. This account is clearly NOT intended to be a chronologically organized Hindu history for two millennia until 2000 CE. Portraits are presented of political economy on the banks of Hindu civilization in modern epoch for the last two millennia. It is a record since the turn of the Common Era, informed by earlier five millennia of history of Sanatana Dharma in Bharata R'''ram. (aham R'''r' samgaman' vas'n'm ... V'g'mbh''' sukta in Rigveda; trans. `I am the R'''ra moving people together for abhyudayam...) Hindu history is presented as a quest for the establishment of such a R'''ram.

This book is a tribute to George Coedes who concluded, after a study of fourteen centuries of history of Southeast Asia: " the importance of studying the Indianized countries of Southeast Asia- which, let us repeat, were never political dependencies of India, but rather cultural colonies - lies above all in the observation of the impact of Indian civilization on the primitive civilizations... We can measure the power of penetration of this culture by the importance of that which remains of it in these countries even though all of them except Siam passed sooner or later under European domination and a great part of the area was converted to... Read more ›

IS THE WORLD FLAT FOR MONEY LAUNDERING M F HUSAIN AND INNOCENT SALMAN RUSHDIE?

2011-06-21T22:42:00.000-07:00

In Focus
Husain and the assault against Hindu India

by

Dr Gautam Sen

Courtesy:www.organiser.org With permisssion from Dr. Gautam Sen

IT is amusing to observe so many ardent nationalists, who once made modest professional careers by proclaiming sympathy for Hindu interests, lining up to celebrate the departed Maqbool Fida Husain’s highly provocative depiction of venerated Hindu goddesses. None of them are evidently qualified to judge artistic merit, but are trotting out the tired repudiation of critics with the implied solemn query ‘when did you last beat your wife’, as a defense of Husain’s license to do as he pleased.

They do not hesitate to excoriate what one described as Internet Hindus, as if the appellation had explanatory power beyond the mundane fact that practising Hindus, irrespective of qualification, are rarely allowed a voice in India’s purchased print media and television channels. One journalist with elevated connections to Hindutva nationalism insinuated on NDTV that the Hindutva brigade ‘hounding’ Husain was akin to Nazism of the 1930s (only seeking legal opinion in the courts as it happens and occasionally disrupting exhibitions). He is apparently in need of education on what transpired in mid-1930s Germany.

The implication that artistic freedom is an absolute right and has ever been anywhere merely exposes the illogic of these venerable gentlemen.

Artistic freedoms are, in principle, bounded by written and unwritten convention and social consensus. It is not acceptable in most societies to depict the rape of a child or grossly provocative images of sexual congress or indeed celebrate grotesque violence. The boundaries may differ in time and space, but they exist and artists themselves conform, though some may childishly proclaim they should be allowed complete freedom to flout them. As it happens, they don’t or only very rarely and face legal or social sanctions if they do, even if they allegedly sup with the gods to justify demanding exemption from all restraint. Artistic freedom is not an absolute except in the minds of overwrought journalists unable to see the wood for the trees. When artistic freedom is defended in a specific case what is actually being argued is that a particular portrayal or expression is within prevailing conventions of societal restraint. Imperious claims otherwise regarding artistic license, etc. betray disingenuousness.

The terrain limiting artistic license imposed by convention and social consensus has been somewhat fluid in independent India. Offending Islam and Christianity was considered in poor taste since they were minority faiths and the adherents of the former were also able to enforce their notions of probity by recourse to murder and mayhem, if necessary. Hence, the banning of Salman Rushdie’s admittedly mediocre books and the incarceration and subsequent expulsion from India of the incredibly courageous Taslima Nasrin. But Hindus have always been fair game. The most vicious and tasteless mockery of all things Hindu have occurred with official complicity. In the past two decades, the most egregious examples of calumny (Ramakrishna sexually abusing Vivekananda, etc. etc.) have emanated from belligerently Christian, America and its hallowed Ivy League academic portals, supported by treasonous Leftist, Indians fattened on their payrolls, whether it is the US Congress library or universities. Much of this project to demonise and de-legitimise India and its civilizational claims originated in an Anglo-American Cold War attempt to offer succour to a Pakistan that proved so very difficult to sell. Now it also has the wholesale imprimatur of India’s ruling family, open season in other words on a scale unknown since the iconoclastic Ghaznavid and Aurangzeb cataclysms.

The argument is that either Husain painting the venerated divinities of the Hindu pantheon in the most offensive manner possible is legitimate or that is not what he had intended to convey. Of course there is, in addition, an unspoken undertone that Husain towers over all artistic achievement in the history of India and mere unwashed Hindus have no right to complain in any case. Indeed Indian journalists have taken to comparing him to Picasso, highlighting their impoverished education and of course an oriental penchant for hyperbole that invariably causes mirth around the world. I suspend aesthetic judgement for the moment on all Husain’s paintings of various Hindu goddesses, but two of them seem poignantly unambiguous in intent. The one of a naked Sita sitting on Ravan’s lap depicts the aftermath of rape. Would such a portrayal for public viewing of even an actual occurrence be reasonable if the victim were a close relative, leave aside a revered deity unless the purpose is to mock?

The one of a naked Brahmin alongside a clothed Muslim potentate highlights utter powerlessness (which is the usual situational meaning of nakedness in this context) with the Brahmin deprived of all humanity because he is unclothed. The Nazis routinely stripped completely naked Jewish victims (of both sexes and all ages) captured at random in streets before piling them into the backs of lorries en route to death camps. It was done to eliminate all possibility of protest, resistance or escape because in one stroke the person had already been dehumanised, murdered socially, in effect and could only contemplate suicide (the victims included women in their seventies alongside their grandchildren)

Historically, Renaissance painters have depicted the divine in the nude, but the context is important. In the case of Husain there is absence of a fully ‘fleshed’ humanised torso in his paintings and he merely sketches outlines. It may indicate lack of skill to depict the complexity of a fully formed human body, which could embody multiple meanings. Or Husain is deliberately displaying deities in humiliating sexual poses in outline because he is afraid of going beyond venal suggestion. Bear in mind insinuation of bestial copulation was not a motif in the anti-clerical rebellion of Renaissance painters showing Greek gods in nude poses. It is also relevant that some account need be taken of profound Hindu sensibilities, which, in his case, as a sectarian Muslim, is clearly one of complete disregard and utter contempt for the Hindu universe. But the devout Hindu need not be unduly dispirited by Husain’s shameful insults to his revered deities since the Lord Krishna proclaims in the fourth discourse of the Bhagavadgita: “Nor do actions pollute Me, nor is the fruit of action desired by me.”

In the final analysis, Husain should be allowed the last word on his own intentions before aspersions are hastily cast on his Islamic credentials and religiously sanctioned hostility to pagan worship. Nehurvian secularists in Rajat Sharma’s ‘Aap ki Adalat’(on 4.9. 2004) audience clapped when Husain explained that he’d painted Hitler in the nude because Hitler was a “shaitan” (evil exposed? nakedly evil?). But they didn’t insist he answer when someone asked whether the goddesses he painted naked were therefore evil too? This is the same Husain who promptly withdrew a film because Ulema had claimed a song in it was blasphemous. He also revealed to the audience that actually it was an alim attempting to extort money and paintings from him. But his Nehruvian-secular admirers in the audience who defended his aesthetic right to paint Hindu goddesses naked did not leap to his defence by attacking the alim who’d dared to blackmail him? Because the alim is a Mussulman gentleman?”

In conclusion, it might be noted that Husain paintings sold for paltry sums until he achieved notoriety in the wake of the fortuitous controversy over his depictions of nude Hindu goddesses engaged in bestiality. Recent buyers paying high prices for his paintings, the mundane reason for the sudden elevation of his artistic reputation and imbecilic comparisons to Picasso, are invariably Indian businessmen. Someone needs to explain how the likes of the businessman who recently built a billion dollar monstrosity in Mumbai to live in are bestowed with capacity for judging works of art. Their familiar nouveau riche interest in decorating their homes with expensive objects, preferably from abroad, is the universal pining of the arriviste, i.e. keeping up with the Joneses, er, Mehtas. Much more interestingly, the training manual of a major international bank has a section on compliance that alerts employees to black money, originating in over-invoiced sales abroad, being used by Indian businessmen to purchase works of art from fellow citizens at foreign auction houses. The proceeds of the arbitrarily inflated price paid for the object purchased is then donated tax-free by the grateful artist to an Indian domiciled charity of the businessman’s choice. In exchange the artist earns a handsome fee and an enhanced reputation that leads to an overall rise in prices paid for future creations of the hitherto obscure genius. This is why it would be pertinent to know how many major international collectors have paid good money for a Husain creation.

DOES LATE M F HUSAIN MERIT "BHARATRATNA," "JEWEL OF INDIA" TITLE?

2011-06-14T23:36:00.000-07:00

M. F. Husain : Setting the Record Straight

11/06/2011 14:21:43

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

Courtesy: http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PAGEID=14026&SKIN=B

When a person dies at an advanced old age, there is a human tendency to feel sympathy even with a criminal. Take the case of Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet whose pictures of an old man walking hesitantly provoked some sympathy. In the case of an artist, and one widely acclaimed as M. F. Husain (who died at age 95) there is not only the above sentiment, but also a tendency to eulogise the man out of all proportion. Yes, he has been hailed as the Indian Picasso (the present writer believes that he is an imitation Picasso).He has been hailed as the greatest Indian painter, not quite accurate, since there have been many great Indian painters in the past and today. Quite amusingly one of the criteria offered for his greatness is that he has put India on the artistic map by being one of the most feted artists at Christie’s ! It is a sober reminder of how values have been distorted. Some of the world’s greatest painters were never auctioned during their lifetime at Christie’s or elsewhere. Yes, Husain was probably the wealthiest Indian artist.

Setting the record straight in the current atmosphere of hyperbolic eulogizing is essential. One can sum up what is problematic about Husain’s art as follows:

1.His excessive preoccupation with bestiality in art.
2.His willfuly offensive paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses.
3.His blatantly offensive paintings against the country he claims to have loved, India.

Before looking at these three problems we have to briefly take note of some of the sycophantic expressions of loyalty and allegiance to Husain’s world view. Coming from artist Anjoli Ela Menon they could be excused as that of a camp follower who was also a protégé of Husain. But coming from the charming actress Shaban Azmi and some others of India’s glitterati, it is quite another matter, it is an expression of bad faith. We shall return to this in a moment.

1.Preoccupation with bestiality in art : some of his paintings show women copulating with animals, such as elephants and tigers. Why Husain was preoccupied with this theme can only be explained by his own conscience, if even that. A psychiatrist could offer a better explanation possibly. Did Husain identify with these animals and get a high on that ? Or was he secretly a misogynist, despite the professed admiration for beautiful women such as Madhuri Diksit who acted in one of his films. He wanted the women to be attacked by animals ?

2.Offfensive paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses. Goddess Durga is shown copulating with a tiger. Goddess Parvati is shown copulating with a bull.
Goddess Sarasvati is shown stark naked. Goddess Lakshmi is shown stark naked sitting on an elephant’s head.
Ravana is shown sitting naked with a naked Sita on his thigh.

Naked Hanuman looks leeringly at Sita. In these many paintings all of which have not been listed here, the motive is clearly an offence against Hindu sentiment. Shabna Azmi claimed in her remarks on a Times Now show that this theme was okay because nudity was there in ancient Indian sculpture and one should also consider the erotic art of Khajuraho . Ms. Azmi presumably has not seen Khajuraho, since the erotic sculpture there pertains to ordinary mortals, not gods and goddesses . Her smooth talk can be forgiven since she is not Hindu. It does not matter a cent to her whether the gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheon are insulted so blatanly and openly as in Husain’s paintings.

But what about the rest of the motley crew of liberal glitterati on the Times Now show, all taken up by the glamour, glitter, fame, name and yes, the big time money of the artist?
There was the redoubtable Shobha De cooing over the foods that Husain loved etc.

And ofcourse, even the intrepid Arnaub Goswami, host of the show, made dark references to Hindu intolerance towards the Husain paintings. And then, ofcourse, if nothing else works, the old canard about freedom of expression is brought out at suitable moments, forgetting that even that great champion of individual freedoms John Stuart Mill had clearly stated in his work On Liberty, that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. A man’s freedom to move his hand around ends when it meets the other man’s jaw !

And here the religious sentiments of millions of devout Hindus had been brazenly offended. And this was acclaimed by the glitterati and the liberals as high art !

3.Offensive paintings against the country he claims to have loved, India : The main
one is the infamous Bharata Mata painting which shows a nude woman (Bharatmata) spread out across a map of India with the name of Indian states on various parts of her body. The reader must be reminded that the painting was part of an exhibition organized by Nafisa Ali under the caption ‘Art for Mission Kashmir.’

Here again, one must perforce ask why Husain is wedded to the idea of portraying Bharat Mata (Mother India) in the nude. Any political statements he wished to make could just as easily have been conveyed with a robed Mother India. Was this an unconscious reply to the much hailed Vande Mataram of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyaya ? Did his much vaunted attachment to India exclude India’s national song ? Perhaps like the fanatical mullahs he too did not like the idea of a Mother India ? His resentment found expression in this manner ? The misogyny comes out quite unexpectedly, this time transposed to Bharata Mata, who is regularly shown in Hindu depictions as fully clothed standing beside a tiger or a lion

The present writer had previously suggested that Husain should have painted a victorious Durga (Bharat Mata) seated on a tiger or bull and slaying the asura of Terrorism. That was not to be. Instead shortly before his death he exhibited the painting The Rape of India, which shows a young scantily clad (this time) woman being attacked by ferocious animals. Clearly, an unwillingness on Husain’s part to project a victorious India.Instead, possibly some wishful thinking ! Here again his much vaunted attachment to India seems something of a myth circulated by his admirers.

Then there is the painting where he shows 4 male figures : Mao Tse Tung fully clothed, Mahatma Gandhi in his loin cloth, Churchill fully dressed and Hitler in the nude. When asked why, he is reported to have replied that he hated Hitler and wanted to humiliate him by showing him naked. Clearly then , nakedness in the painter’s mind is associated with hatred. Earlier, when asked about the nude goddesses he had made the lame excuse that nudity is a sign of purity. Which will it be : nudity as purity or nudity as an expression of his hatred ?

Summing Up

Husain left India because of the Hindu protest ( some of it violent) at his paintings and because of the lawsuits filed against him. He took Quatari citizenship , having given up his Indian citizenship. All accounts are that he enjoyed his stay there. He lived in comfort and luxury and enjoyed driving his red Ferrari around. His hosts laid out the red carpet treatment. A chagrined Indian following tried to make out that he longed for India. He was about to embark on his mammoth depictions of Arab civilization ( a wise decision, since this was his natural constituency so to speak). He basked in the glow of international fame especially in capitals such as London where his exhibitions were lauded. Above all, he made immense quantities of money.

It is reported that he was going to start work on the Ramayana. One shudders to think what he might have done with that ! Perhaps the gods wisely took him away before Ayodhya could be desecrated once again.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).

CORRUPTASUR & VIDESHVITTASUR ARE CHRISTIST SONIA'S BHARAT GILANKRITASURS

2011-06-11T00:46:00.000-07:00

June 4, Ramlila Maidan: Sonia Gandhi’s Night of Shame

by

Radha Rajan

11 June 2011

Courtesy: http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1549&Itemid=1

What happened in the night of June 4 at Ramlila Maidan resembled a scene straight out of Macbeth. No Hindu king or ruler, not even Kamsa and Ravana, has gone so far as to use force of arms against defenseless, sleeping women and children. This is a familiar demoniac Abrahamic characteristic which the non-Christian and non-Muslim world has seen and experienced both in historical and contemporary times.

The UPA government, like Shakespeare’s infamous agents of evil and disorder, used the cover of darkness to arrest Baba Ramdev, physically molest women and children, brutally manhandle the men, and destroy the pandal and its fixtures in an orgy of violence and lawlessness. It is not difficult to guess who played Lady Macbeth.

It may perhaps come as a shock to Sonia Gandhi and her minions in the party and government, but IB sources had already informed a small group of people that Baba Ramdev would almost certainly be arrested; what was unexpected, however, was the insane midnight police assault on sleeping men, women and children. This was surely a plot scripted by a deranged mind; or was it? Judging by the end result – Sonia Gandhi, Digvijay Singh and P. Chidambaram are the most detested persons in the country today – the writer is veering towards the conclusion that there was sure-footed method in the midnight madness. Evil raged on Ramlila Maidan that night.

If Digvijay Singh’s opening statement to the media soon after Sonia Gandhi pushed the button on his back were to be carried to its logical conclusion, then from the fact that Baba Ramdev was arrested in the thick of the night, proves that the Congress is not simply afraid but terrified of what Sonia Gandhi thinks Baba Ramdev represents and symbolizes. The midnight assault on Ramlila Maidan has stripped naked Sonia Gandhi’s ill-concealed and demoniac ambition to rule a country not her own at any cost; it also revealed that someone close to her in government was determined that she will not be allowed to succeed, and in the process exposed to the discerning eye the deep divide between the Prime Minister and his imported boss lady.

While it is imperative for the nation’s collective conscience to be merciless towards Sonia Gandhi and her repeated Italian Mafioso methods to deal with a citizenry not impressed by and even affronted by the colour of her skin, it is just as important to question the rationale which catapulted an ill-equipped Baba Ramdev to political center-stage, and the motives driving the individuals who used the yoga Guru for the purpose.

The issue of ‘black’ money or money taken out of the country to be stashed in banks and garbage bins in safe and secretive tax-haven countries of the world is, of course, a matter of paramount national concern. This is but a manifestation of decades-long endemic greed and systemic corruption in the country’s polity and judiciary; it is ultimately, the country’s purchasable polity and judiciary which allowed the rot to set in and then spread.

The BJP, to its credit, did speak first about this lost national financial asset, and even made it the sole electoral issue during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. One of the first to write about the estimated volume of illegal money in tax-havens abroad and in Swiss Banks was a professor of finance from IIM Bangalore, Prof. R Vaidyanathan. The Bangalore professor was assiduously cultivated by a Chennai-based chartered accountant who is also a celebrated, if somewhat selective, investigative journalist, and is considered close to Advani. The BJP was compelled to embrace the issue of bringing back illegal money stashed abroad during the 2009 general elections because the party refused to take up any other nationalist cause, and the ideologue used this gaping hole in the BJP’s campaign to prevail upon Advani to make it an election issue.

Advani having distanced the BJP from Hindutva and all other ideology, jumped at the idea because this was in consonance with his own agenda for the BJP – to transform it into a de-Hinduised, governance-over-ideology political party. The writer’s blunt warning to Narendra Modi that the BJP’s election campaign with only the issue of black money abroad as talking point was not setting the nation on fire fell on deaf ears.

While this was undoubtedly a political issue calling for political action, in 2009 it was not an electoral issue because the voting populace had neither been informed nor educated about it then as they are now clued-up. The writer was therefore not surprised when the idea failed to capture the imagination of the ordinary voting populace and BJP suffered thumping defeat in the elections.

The Prime Minister probably as salve to the bruised BJP psyche in 2009, promised to take up the issue seriously within the first 100 days after coming to power. Considering the names of those who had stashed the money abroad, amid suspicions that the Congress leadership may well be topping the list, there was no way he would have been allowed by the Pompadour to pursue the matter even half-heartedly; and the issue which was both real and big died a natural death for want of a delivery mechanism – in this case, state power which alone could have made it possible.

Baba Ramdev’s entirely unexpected foray into the realm of domestic politics through this issue should be seen in this context, and can be attributed to the Chennai ideologue and his penchant to launch innumerable movements and forums as extensions of his own sense of grandiloquent self-importance. Seeing great potential for self-perpetuation in the idea of bringing back money kept abroad, and when the BJP’s campaign failed to get off the ground, this gentleman needed another vehicle, ideally a large vehicle to propel the idea to national center-stage, and who better than the articulate, activist Baba Ramdev with his vast following at home and abroad.

Baba Ramdev was also one of the Founders-Patron of Global Foundation for Civilizational Harmony, a forum created inter alia for Track II international politics of religion. While Swami Dayananda Saraswati and Sri Sri Ravishankar were articulate in English and could be used effectively in inter-faith dialogue in America, Vatican, Europe and UN, Baba Ramdev’s utility and USP were different. Baba Ramdev did not speak Queen’s English, but his spontaneity, his robust and rustic simplicity, his willingness to inform and educate his bhaktas on important national and Hindu issues, besides yoga, and his unmatched ability to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people ready to do their Guru’s bidding without question, made him the natural choice to launch a nation-wide movement. The question begs itself – when individuals seek to use Hindu sanyasis to launch nation-wide movements, should it not have been a Hindu movement around a Hindu issue?

Baba Ramdev was persuaded to spearhead the movement against money taken out of the country, and for as long as the movement was led by Baba Ramdev, it gathered phenomenal momentum as the yoga Guru travelled across the country rousing people’s opinion against corruption and demanding the government take immediate steps to bring back the money.

In Hindu-majority India, when people step out of their homes to participate in a public cause, the ‘people’ are Hindus; and Hindus respond spontaneously and with a sense of their responsibility to the nation when the movement is led from the front by Hindu religious leaders or by leaders who exert moral authority and whose call Hindus obey unquestioningly. This is the Hindu way, and when individuals like Gandhi and the ideologue use ordinary people to power their movements, the Hindu nation has the right to demand that the end objective of the movement serves the cause of Hindu rashtra.

Gandhi used his multi-religious, pluralist prayer meetings where the majority was Hindu to lead the country towards vivisection in 1947; this movement where individuals used Baba Ramdev ended in unmitigated disaster not only for Baba Ramdev himself, but for all those who were deceived into believing that something momentous was happening finally to serve the Hindu cause. The issue of black money abroad, which has now become a part of the national movement against corruption, is in very real danger of losing steam because the duo which used Baba Ramdev to breathe new life into the dead issue had obviously not planned even the mammoth gathering at Ramlila Maidan to the last detail, much less thought beyond the Delhi satyagraha. Such was their touching faith in Sonia Gandhi that they did not think anything could go wrong.

Had there been wider consultations, had the duo consulted thinkers, retired intelligence officers, retired army personnel, and not just adoring sycophants and loyalists, the campaign would not have come to the tragic, abrupt and ignominious end that Sonia Gandhi and her spittle-licking government inflicted upon it.

The issue of black money abroad, while important, is nevertheless not something for which people will lay down their lives, and no matter how earth-shaking the response to Baba Ramdev’s call, it had less to do with the issue and more to do with personal bhakti for their Guru; most important though, the campaign was certain to lose steam because once Baba Ramdev was removed from the venue and his bhaktas dispersed, the government was sure to allow it to die a natural death, all the while making polite and soothing noises about corruption.

The Vigil book on NGOs was a well-researched expose of foreign-funded NGOs and political activists. Subsequent to publishing the book, the website www.vigilonline.com opened a webpage for news updates on these and other NGOs, and the notorious band of activists who are unambiguously anti-Hindu in speech, writing and action, and who can be seen preening before media cameras in Sonia Gandhi’s NAC, including in team Anna Hazare and the Lokpal Bill.

The webpage NGO Watch carries detailed analysis of foreign money coming into the country from governments, churches and funding agencies in America and Europe to fund subversive NGOs and anti-Hindu political activists. Prof. Vaidyanathan and Sanjeev Nayyar (of Mumbai) have analysed the dangerous inflow of money into the country from available government data – from the website of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and FCRA.

If the chartered accountant-cum-investigative journalist and his partner in Delhi were planning to use Baba Ramdev to mount a national campaign, surely it should have been presented to the ordinary people as an issue which poses a great threat to Hindus, Hindu religion and the Hindu Nation. This could have been done only by-

- Making the connection between illegal money hidden abroad and foreign money coming into the country

- Making removal of Sonia Gandhi from the political arena as the explicit end objective of the campaign

- Bringing down the anti-Hindu UPA government

This duo wanted to wage what was in actual fact a war against Sonia Gandhi by hiding behind Baba Ramdev. Let there be no doubt that while the issue may be about bringing back money taken out of the country, Sonia Gandhi rightly perceived herself to be the end objective; and the chowki which she usurped from under poor Sitaram Kesri in 1998 and which had seemed invincible, was beginning to rock.

Our enemies have always had a vastly superior understanding of the war against Hindu India than Hindus have had about war or about Hinduism’s enemies.

The small group working from behind Baba Ramdev ought to have known that arraigned on the other side was not Sonia Gandhi the individual, but the Generic Church. The formidable Generic Church (American and European governments, American and European churches, the Vatican and World Council of Churches) stands behind Sonia Gandhi, equipped with all instruments of state, including weapons of war, and creatures of their making - pan-national and international structures and organizations (United Nations; International Court of Justice, The Hague; The International Criminal Court; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Red Cross; American think-tanks) making Sonia Gandhi almost invincible.

But the group behind Baba Ramdev, in choosing not to seek organizational or any other back up support, thought they could get Baba Ramdev to mobilize people to Delhi in tens of thousands by hiding from public view and directing the movement insultingly from the shadows and over the cellular phone.

Sonia Gandhi’s handlers can front her in the war to conquer India without soiling their coattails and without entering the battlefield because Sonia Gandhi has the entire spittle-licking Congress as slave labour to do her bidding; and since 2004, every VVIP sitting in every single high democratic institution Rashtrapati Bhavan downwards, is personally beholden to Sonia Gandhi for his or her current high profile and privileged status. These individuals as price for their undeserved elevation have allowed Sonia Gandhi to tie strings to their fingers and toes, while they themselves are not allowed even an involuntary twitch of muscle or nerve.

Baba Ramdev, in contrast, had no one. Such is the total isolation of Baba Ramdev today that he was carrying on the ill-considered fast alone in his ashram in Haridwar [and had to be removed to hospital on Friday]. But Haridwar is not Delhi and Baba Ramdev is not a politician; he is a Hindu sanyasi. The government is no longer under pressure to placate or punish Baba Ramdev for daring to challenge Sonia Gandhi’s tentacles in Delhi; the government only has to ignore him. Simply put, the government no longer cares if Baba Ramdev fasts or feasts.

This battle was won by Sonia Gandhi only because the individuals who masterminded the movement assumed leadership roles which they did not deserve, and for which they had no competence. Round 1 to Sonia Gandhi, but the war is still far from over.

Every intelligent and politically conscious Hindu must question those individuals who dragged Baba Ramdev to do politics, for publicly and humiliatingly letting down Baba Ramdev, and all those Hindus who had gathered faithfully at Ramlila Maidan on 3rd and 4th June, and all those Hindus who thought (wrongly) that this was some great Hindu awakening.

The writer sat up and took note when all of a sudden Baba Ramdev began to speak publicly, not about corruption in general terms, but specifically about foreign money stashed abroad, and came to the immediate and correct conclusion that the good professor from Bangalore had probably been taken to meet Baba Ramdev to brief the yogi about the need to mount a national campaign against illegal money in Swiss Banks and tax-havens.

This was unquestionably a brilliant move – to get Baba Ramdev to re-launch the campaign which failed in 2009 because the BJP saw it only as an election campaign talking point and not as a war tactic. But, like all other ideas which this duo dreamed up in years past, this too crash-landed because, one, the duo lacks staying ability and two, they have always failed to practice the first rule taught to students of chess who plan to play the game competitively - crawl into the mind of your opponent, work out all possible moves he can make, and work out the next twenty steps for each of these moves. In short, know thy enemy.

A war is not fought and won by flitting from cause to cause every week – cleaning Ganga one week, plight of farmers the second, bringing home illegal money the third and sinking Dayanidhi Maran in the fourth. The war to protect the Hindu Nation from Sonia Gandhi’s Christian colonial rule cannot be fought, much less won, without a battle plan, and certainly not by standing script in hand in the wings of the dais. War is not theatre. But was this group really waging war against Sonia Gandhi and for the Hindu Nation? It would seem not, considering that they are nowhere to be seen or heard since the 4th of June.

The writer has been troubled by the question – did the issue of black money in Swiss Banks and tax havens merit the kind of gathering at Ramlila Maidan, and did this issue merit a fast unto death? Sonia Gandhi’s decision to take forcible charge of the Congress Party and her subsequent rise in national politics, the corresponding weakening of the BJP, compounded by BJP’s floundering sense of self-identity, has had a catastrophic effect on Hindus and Hindu religion. Add to this was her determination to plant loyalists in every constitutional and administrative position in the country; witness -

- The rise of Christian Chief Ministers

- The rise of Christian aspirants for 7, Race Course Road

- The growing visibility of Christians in all important positions within the Congress party

- The craven and cowardly submission of all English print and electronic media to the Pompadour’s will

- The relentless mission of all denominations of the Church to end Hindu religion in its own bhumi

- UPA Government-driven empowerment of Abrahamic minorities in all spheres of public life

- The unending infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into the country

Every one of these issues is linked directly either to the rise of Sonia Gandhi in India’s polity, or to foreign money coming into the country. In short, the rise of Sonia Gandhi in India’s polity can be traced to the Generic Church’s politico-religious agenda for Asia. China, South Korea, Japan and India are the prime targets in the Generic Church’s quest for world domination. South Korea is already Christian-majority, Japan has been irreversibly Christianised in its collective mind; China and India alone remain the last bastions against the Abrahamic onslaught.

These issues, including the sudden and steep increase in the volume of foreign money being pumped here ostensibly for social charity, which must be laid squarely at Sonia Gandhi’s door, demanded the kind of national awareness and response that Baba Ramdev created in the country.

On the midnight of June 4, when the Delhi Police crashed into the Ramlila Maidan, nearly 50,000 of Baba Ramdev’s bhaktas had gathered at the venue and another 30-40,000 people were expected on Sunday, 5th June. By any account these are mind-numbing numbers and the anti-Hindu UPA government was put on notice. That the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi are no longer on the same side of the Hindu / anti-Hindu divide within the UPA government was until now just suspected in some quarters; it came to the fore as Baba Ramdev and his bhaktas began moving towards Delhi.

On the first day, the Prime Minister sent four Cabinet Ministers, including Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, to receive Baba Ramdev at the airport. This was civilisationally the correct thing to do and the country heaved a sigh of relief. The Prime Minister is a Sikh and after he is done with being Prime Minister, he has to go back to being a disciplined soldier of the Sikh faith and answer to the Akal Takht. The Prime Minister is certain to have remembered the chastening experience of the incumbent Governor of Tamil Nadu and former Chief Minister of Punjab, Shri S.S. Barnala, who was made to sit in the Golden Temple for ten days and as an act of penitence, clean the shoes of bhaktas entering the precincts.

The writer is deeply grateful to the SGPC for asking a highly respected Sikh lawyer in the Supreme Court to withdraw from the case against Pujya Kanchi Mathathipathi. This lawyer was engaged by the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa; and bhaktas of the Kanchi matham owe an eternal debt of gratitude to this lawyer who abided by the diktat of Sikhism’s highest religious body and refused to proceed with the case. This single act by the Sikh lawyer of refusing to be a part of this asuric act in total obedience to his religious leaders dramatically altered the then prevalent mood in the Madras High Court and in the Supreme Court, and public opinion changed decisively against the Tamil Nadu government.

This country is driven by the tapasya of our dharmic gurus and sanyasis; Dr. Manmohan Singh knew this and therefore sent four ministers to meet with Baba Ramdev; Sonia Gandhi and her spittle-lickers knew it too; that is why an emergency meeting was convened the next day at the Prime Minister’s residence and this time Sonia Gandhi presided with P. Chidambaram and A.K. Anthony in tow.

After this meeting at Number 7, Race Course Road, everything changed. Four ministers became two ministers, and on the second day no ministers at all, only government representatives. The Generic Church stepped in with full might. What was at stake was Hindu India with all its magnificent natural resources; at stake was the vast potential harvest of Hindu souls for Christ, and oil and diamonds, gold and other minerals, the vastly promising perennial rivers and abundant sunshine – all up for grabs.

The Generic Church could not have a Hindu sanyasi threatening Sonia Gandhi and in the process unravelling their plot to eventually control and rule India. And so the resistance had to be broken and broken both insultingly and brutally. This was not Jallianwala Bagh; this was 1909 – the year the British government ruthlessly removed three towering Hindu nationalists, Aurobindo, Tilak and Savarkar, from the polity to facilitate Gandhi taking over the Congress after his rather hasty departure from South Africa. It speaks volumes for the knowledge that Hindus have of their own history that while people compared what happened on June 4 to the Emergency and Jallianwala Bagh, no one saw it as a replay of 1909.

The year 1909 saw the full might of state breaking the backbone of Hindu nationalism; Sonia Gandhi was made to do the same by her handlers. They knew 1909 only too well and therefore knew exactly how to deal with it. It is frightening to know that even intelligent and political Hindus still do not know 1909; those who knew did not prepare themselves or the Hindu community to meet a similar eventuality and once again, ordinary Hindus were let down by their leaders.

The country will never know what transpired between Kapil Sibal and Baba Ramdev; will never know why the activist-ideologue duo did not accompany Baba Ramdev to the Claridges Hotel, and why they were not present in Ramlila Maidan when Sonia Gandhi sent the Delhi Police to arrest Baba Ramdev. There is still no answer why they have not surfaced till now even as this is being written; surely they owe Hindus an explanation about why they dragged a sanyasi to Delhi with his bhaktas and left them all high and dry to fend for themselves after Sonia Gandhi and her thugs were done with them.

This was in sharp contrast to the manner in which Anna Hazare addressed press conferences or when he undertook the fast-unto-death at Jantar Mantar. He was always flanked on both sides by Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan. The entire team was always seen together and there was a transparent distribution of responsibility among them. The circle expanded to include Swami Agnivesh, Mallika Sarabhai, Medha Patkar and Sandeep Pandey – all Sonia Gandhi’s men and women.

Baba Ramdev did not fail; the people who used him failed the Guru and all of us. But while there is reason for despondency and gloom, there are several lessons to be learnt and also several reasons to hope.

The RSS, preoccupied with its annual shibirs which are conducted across the country, obviously was never part of Baba Ramdev’s Delhi Satyagraha. Those familiar with the RSS’ shiksha varga know that all RSS karyalayas throughout the country empty themselves during the months of April, May and June and all swayamsevaks and pracharaks are deputed to the various camps for different tasks and duties.

The same would have been true of Delhi. When tragedy struck Ramlila Maidan on the night of June 4, there would have been no swayamsevak or pracharak in Delhi that night. The BJP had already planned its National Executive meeting in Lucknow on that day. Which brings us back to the question raised earlier – why was there no careful planning of the Delhi satyagraha considering that both the RSS and BJP would not be present in Delhi that night?

As pointed out earlier, our enemies have a far better understanding of Hindus than we have of them. Sonia Gandhi’s handlers would have known that the RSS and BJP top brass would not be in Delhi that night and that is why Sonia Gandhi sent the Delhi Police to Ramlila Maidan even as the Prime Minister’s emissaries were still negotiating with Baba Ramdev. The Prime Minister may not be in a position to tell the nation just yet if Kapil Sibal and Subodh Kant Sahay were reporting to him or to Sonia Gandhi and her minions.

The Prime Minister may also not be in a position to tell us why, if he was engaging Baba Ramdev by day, Sonia Gandhi had to arrest him at night. The Prime Minister is also not in a position to tell us why, if on the one hand he conducts himself with correctness and accords Hindu sanyasis the high respect due to them, Rahul Gandhi’s spittle-licking Digvijay Singh is allowed to run amok enraging Hindus and offending Hindu sensibilities.

This brutal mission of arresting Baba Ramdev and forcibly throwing him out of Delhi and evicting hapless men, women and children, could not have been undertaken during daytime without a violent backlash from the people; that is why in true Gestapo style, in a style befitting Italian Mafioso and Stalinist Russia, 50,000 Hindus gathered at Ramlila Maidan could be brutalised and dispersed only in the dead of the night.

The fact that Hindus will step out of their homes at the call of their religious leaders or to the call of a Hindu cause, is the biggest reason to hope that this war is not over yet. The RSS, the BJP, and our religious leaders must sit down and first acknowledge collectively that Sonia Gandhi and the Generic Church pose the biggest threat to this nation, and the quantum of foreign money which the Generic Church is pouring into the country and Sonia Gandhi’s politics of minority-ism have to be fought with the full might of Hindu power.

The Hindu Nation is losing its people and its territory to the Church and Islam. All three forces have to come together to combat the Generic Church. This cannot be done by our religious leaders without the RSS’ organizing capacity; this cannot be done by the RSS alone without the BJP’s political delivery mechanism and the sanctity and mobilising capacity of our religious leaders, and this cannot be done by the BJP alone without the moral authority of the RSS and the spiritual and religious authority of our sanyasis, Gurus and Acharyas.

We cannot allow individuals to launch nation-wide movements without preparation and without nationalism. It is not enough for the RSS to merely extend ‘support’ to our religious leaders when they step forward to take up a national cause. This is akin to outside support extended by irresponsible political parties and politicians to a government. The RSS must openly take the lead and forge a proactive and invincible partnership with the BJP and our religious leaders if Hindu India is to be saved from going the way of South Korea now, and East Timor and The Philippines before that. The synergy of Hindu religious leaders, RSS and BJP must –

- Demand stopping all foreign money from coming into India. Hindu religious leaders and Hindu organizations receiving foreign money must be prepared to do without it, because money coming to Christian and Muslim groups is the single most destructive power threatening Hindu religion

- Bring down the UPA government at the earliest

- Remove Sonia Gandhi permanently from the political arena, and if possible mount a campaign that any member of this family poses the same threat

Sonia Gandhi is the most detested person in the country today. Our religious leaders, the RSS, and the BJP, must ensure she does not rise again. The time to remove her forcibly from the political arena, like she removed Pujya Kanchi Periava and Baba Ramdev, is now. It’s payback time for the Congress and its imported usurper. Dr. Manmohan Singh may yet be called to account by the Akal Takht. He should now do what he can to make the Akal Takht look more kindly upon him.

If Ramlila Maidan showed us our weaknesses, it also showed us what is possible, and that should bring the Hindu nation together to combat the Generic Church.

Related articles
http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=903&Itemid=120
NGO Watch
http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1548&Itemid=1
Foreign funds to NGOs: Need for greater scrutiny
http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1409&Itemid=71
Hindu India does not need Christian Charity
http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1274&Itemid=71
That Wondrous Creature called Global Foundation for Civilizational Harmony

The author is Editor, www.vigilonline.com

LORD MEGHNAD, OBLIVIOUS OF ANCIENT CONCEPT OF HINDU RASHTRA, TOEING BRITISH HISTORIANS' LINE

2011-05-30T10:51:00.000-07:00

The Absent Hero in Lord Meghnad Desai’s Narrative

05/29/2011 02:11:22

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

Courtesy: http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=13913

Two recent books one by a historian of modern India and another by an intellectual/economist focus on the history of modern India. Ramachandra Guha’s "India After Gandhi"(2008) is mainly about the the freedom struggle and its aftermath and Lord Meghnad Desai’s "Rediscovering India" (2009) starts with the 15th century and highlights the British rule of India and the subsequent independence struggle and the sixty years after. Guha’s is a straightforward historical chronicle, while Lord Meghnad’s is a quasi theoretical excursion into the subject. He writes well and is quite frank in his disclosures about what his arguments are going to be. Both books share one thing in common. Both ignore the silent ever present hero of the vast movements and episodes they discuss: Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism.

(Editor's Note: Astute politician Mahatma Gandhi even more than implicitly recognized this and used the basics of "Sanatana Dharma" in formulating and marketing his "Ahinsa" and "Satyagraha" strategy. So, this omission by both of these prominent histoicans becomes conspicuous by lack of its mention.)

This absence is especially relevant to Lord Meghnad’s narrative since he rejects the role of Sanatana Dharma as the central unifying factor in Indian history and claims that India was never a nation till the British Occupation, and that it became a nation state only after independence. He presents his evidence, first through his account of what went on in British political life and governmental policies and by a deliberate narrowing down of the situation within India, seen primarily through British eyes. Secondly, and this is more crucial than any other factor, he places India only within the context of international trade since earliest times,as early as the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization (circa 3,000 BCE), and ignores local developments that provided the unifying factor in the country, which in turn made possible the international interaction. He continues this narrative of internationalism all through the Christian era, and begins a chapter called the "Vasco Da Gama moment" in 1498 (the arrival of the Portuguese in India), when India became further drawn into the ambit of international trade, conquest, etc, and which continues to the present day through globalization. This was India’s fate then and according to Lord Meghnad, is India’s fate now. Domestic history, upheld by Sanatana Dharma as the moving force is completely ignored.

Two overarching points made by Lord Meghnad, therefore, merit attention in this volume of more than 400 pages :

1. That India was never a nation
2. That unrestricted opening up to globalization is India’s manifest destiny

That India was never a nation is a canard spread by the British themselves to point out with pride to their role in creating the "Indian nation," and thereby justifying their Occupation. Lord Meghnad repeats this faithfully and unquestioningly. But the real facts are as follows: since the time of the Vedas (dated even at a conservative estimate at 2000 BCE, possibly earlier) the Hindu nation began its inception expressed in the following lines from the Rig Veda uttered by the Goddess Sarasvati:

“aham rashtrii sanghamanii . . . . . ( I am the rashtra moving people together for abhyudayam, RV 10.125). The word ‘abhyudayam’ means ‘welfare’and 'prosperity'. The word ‘rashtram’ in Sanskrit means ‘nation.’

Some Indic scholars such as Dr. S. Kalyanraman (Director of the Sarasvati Centre)would argue that the Vedic tradition can be detected in the artifacts, cultural traditions and linguistic symbols of the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization (formerly called Indus Valley civilization). It should be pointed out that Lord Meghnad is blissfully unaware of the work of Indic scholars on the "Aryan Invasion" theory, which they reject, and he is as well unaware of the discovery of the ancient river Sarasvati, mentioned in the Rig Veda several times, and which disappeared post the Vedic period (see the present writer’s article on this site ‘Sarasvati Regained’). He does not even mention that the Aryan invasion theory is a controversial one or that even the former advocates of the theory such as Romila Thapar now speak of migrations.

Since a larger number of Harappan artifacts are to be found on the now dried up ancient river Sarasvati banks it is perfectly valid to call the "Indus Valley" civilization the "Sarasvati Sindhu" civilisation. Dr. Kalyanraman’s recent book "Indus Cipher" (2010) is a vast encyclopedic study of the artifacts and language symbols of this civilization and its continuity into later Hindu times, including our times.

Dr. Shrinivas Tilak’s study of the all ecompassing foundations of Hindu Dharmic values throughout India’s history is another recent contribution to the theme of a continuous Hindu Nation (Reawakening to a secular Hindu Nation, 2008). Hence, one can have a secular constitution such as the Indian Constitution without any contradictions, since the ethical values of that constitution are already contained in Hindu Dharma. In his short excellent foreword Dr.Shreekumar Vinekar emphasizes the founding role of the Vedas in the formation of Dharma. As understood in India, the word ‘secular’ stands for tolerance and diversity.

(Editor's Note: The ethic of "Dharma-sahinshnuta," "Sarva-dharma sama bhaava," forming the foundation of "Secular Hindu Nation" which guided the Hindu political philosophy of all Hindu rulers thoughout Indian antiquity including that of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaaj and of the subsequent so-called "Maratha" empire founded by Shivaji that ruled over most of India for nearly one hundred years before the British acquired control over India by defeating the Peshvas or so-called Maratha Hindu empire." This fact is rarely emphsized by most historians.)

Geographically and territorially a Hindu Nation bound by Dharma existed since time immemorial and consisted of the entire subcontinent from east to west and south to north and even extending into Afghanistan and slightly beyond. The diverse peoples of this subcontinent were predominantly Hindu (with even the tribals practising the Vedic worship of the terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial forces), and they had centres of worship called temples and places of pilgrimage. This is why an anti- Hindu personality such as Swami Agnivesh wants to strike at Hinduism by asking the seemingly bland (but actually loaded) question as to why Indians should undertake the age-old traditional Amarnath pilgrimage in Kashmir, a tradition practiced for centuries or millennia before the fact of partition and the creation of the Kashmir problems by modern Indian politicians, (this neatly coincides with the terrorist elements threatening Hindus with dire consequences for coming to Amarnath). Neverthless, Hindus will continue to go to Amarnath despite all obstacles and will continue to defend their holy sites and continue to celebrate their festivals and holy days. This applies to the Ramajanmasthan in Ayodhya also.

And the Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and all the sacred books of the Hindus will contiue to be read by Hindus as they have been since time immemorial. Hindu festivals will continue to be celebrated. Hindu worship will continue. Hence, the Hindu Nation has been and will continue to be a Nation much to the chagrin of the anti-Hindu elements of the country. These are the ground realities. E. Ahmed, former minister of railways, can call for the stopping of the custom of lighting Hindu lamps at public festivals, but it is not going to happen. Arundhati Roy can jump up and down and call for non-Hindu names for Indian defence units but that is not going to happen (a strong suggestion to Ms. Roy: perhaps she can change her Hindu name to a ‘secular’ one !).

Now, State formations existed in India long before the two Occupations (the Islamic and the British) and these formations were both monarchies and republics at different periods of Indian history. Had Lord Meghnad even done a cursory reading of Indian history this would have been useful. These state formations were defeated by invaders and occupiers but the Hindu Nation continued throughout it all. Today, the state formation is a government and people bound by a secular Indian Constitution. Neverthless, the Hindu Nation continues on. Hence, Lord Meghnad’s invocation of the experiences of European nation states is beside the point, not relevant to India.

His second focus on internationalism in the economic sphere is equally questionable. While the liberalization which started in the 90's brought some welcome changes, its unrestrained excesses today are being challenged both by nationalist parties and the Left and by ordinary NGOs. In his overall study Lord Meghnad completely ignores the historic role of agriculture in India’s famed cosmopolitan prosperity of yore and how this was destroyed by colonial British agricultural policy. He ignores, as does ultra liberalization, the importance of agriculture for the Indian economy, both on humanistic grounds and economic viability. One has only to read Romesh Dutt’s 2 volume Economic History of India (1902) to get a detailed account of the famines caused by Britain’s agricultural policy in India. It is unfortunate that Lord Meghnad chose not to consult this source.

Shri S. Gurumurthy, Convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, has written one of the best critiques of liberalization in his lengthy article ‘A Debate on GATT’ (Vigilonline,1994-01-15). Since then he has continued to write and lecture on the anti-national aspects of breakneck liberalization. Senior journalist Sandhya Jain also has written articles on the subject, which Lord Meghnad might have consulted. Her most recent article is a short but telling critique of land acquisition policy of the UPA government:

“ . . . . . the farming community nationwide is facing the growing menace of State driven expropriation of land for crony capitalists. This trend, which we may designate as the corporatisation of private property, parallels the other disturbing tendency towards the privatization of public resources; both may be said to comprise the Indian face of Globalisation.” (‘Expropriating the Indian Farmer’ 24 May 2011, Vijayvani.com).

Since Lord Meghnad has his own passionate conservative/liberal view of India, the present writer sincerely hopes that he will update himself on current realities and as well inform himself of the trajectory of the Hindu nation. He cannot be accused of not being loyal to the country of his origin. What is being suggested/requested, is that he seriously take time off to study the above. He left India as a very young person and is now a knighted British citizen. He might also want to put on his reading list the recent book Breaking India (2011) by authors Rajiv Malhotra and co-author Aravindan Neelakandan, which describes with authentic and extensive documentation the medley of forces which have tried to break India in the past and continue to do so in their nefarious designs today.

(The author is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Politcal Science, Political Economy and History).

"INDIA IN CRISIS" by GAUTAM SEN: A BIRD'S EYE VIEW

2011-05-20T23:02:00.000-07:00

C O M M E N T A R Y

India in crisis

by

Dr. Gautam Sen
http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=2144

A weak PM, an infirm Center, crumbling democratic institutions and a corrupt political class are worsening the dangers to the nation from foreign threats, writes Gautam Sen.

London, 18 May 2011: Indian economic growth is masking grave problems bedevilling the country, placing it in some significant jeopardy. The political class as a whole is unable to comprehend the scale of the potential threats to India's well-being because it is almost exclusively focused on the struggle for political power and the extraordinary rewards that political success now bring. Having prospered unconscionably, independent India has deflected its ability to reflexively apprehend dangers the nation may be facing. This is not a problem of good or bad individuals alone, but sclerotic institutional arrangements, although having the corrupt and incompetent at the helm worsens matters immeasurably.

Economic growth is clearly desirable, but it intensifies inequality because some sectors and regions unavoidably advance faster. Unless such inequalities are alleviated private resentments manifest in political disaffection. The Indian political system does respond to popular resentment and protest, but in a haphazard and inefficient way. It is apt to throw money, sometimes very large sums, reactively to buy short-term political respite rather than address underlying reasons for socio-political tensions as a matter of course. These cleavages can end up taking a more dangerous shape in separatism and the desire to overthrow the established political order. Politicians with short-term horizons and a preoccupation to acquire wealth quickly in a relentlessly competitive political system that offers no guarantee of longevity are ill-suited to deal with such complex issues.

Worse, internal societal fissures create opportunities for hostile countries in competition with India to engage in mischief. A variety of outsiders are now actively working to acquire leverage over the Indian polity and often succeeding. In the case of Pakistan little novel need be said, except to reiterate that its multifarious acts of sabotage are increasingly facilitated by intermediaries in Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, which exercise influence within India by deploying their enormous financial clout. And, quite clearly, there is little that is not for sale in India at a price. Chinese subversion is extensive and they have some Indian political dispensations at their beck and call. The US is also hyperactive in an advancing India that is now well worth controlling. And their myriad local assets, including state-sponsored NGOs, sometimes masquerading as religious orders, are being used to encroach upon Indian decision-making autonomy.

In recent decades India has suffered profound political and constitutional upheavals. Political fragmentation prevents a single national party dominating decision-making at the centre. It results in negative outcomes that can be deemed worse than the disadvantages of an overweening single political party wielding power. Such asymmetric primacy would afford the space to respond to crises without constantly being prisoner to short-term imperatives and recalcitrant allies. Nowadays, the latter seem to regard their sojourn in Delhi as an opportunity for enrichment and consolidation in their own regional backyard. Unfortunately, the rise of the BJP merely institutionalised the political division of mainstream votes at the centre without adding anything noteworthy to Indian politics. India's deepening constitutional crisis is a product of internal Congress politics that has delivered a grievous blow to the vital office of the prime minister. Historically, the Indian PM's office was usually able to act purposefully when the body politic encountered serious stress. But the alarming disempowerment of the contemporary PM's office and loss of dignity have emboldened egregious misconduct that should have been restrained by its authority.

It is also necessary to comprehend fully the hostile measures being instigated against India by a dramatically resurgent China. The only reason China might be hesitating to launch a direct military assault to inflict long-term setback on India is the cost it may entail. But a weak India, considered likely to succumb in short order, will constitute an invitation to Chinese belligerence. In the event of such a catastrophe India's regional enemies may hope to benefit by pressing their own claims simultaneously. An Indian retreat in the face of Chinese assault will surely prompt immediate Pakistani military action against it. And the Indo-Nepal and Indo-Bangladesh border may witness unprecedented historic challenges since both neighbours have begun advancing claims to huge territorial swathes of India. China has endorsed them and is suggesting that India should be broken up into a number of small polities, much as the departing British had earnestly wished before August 1947.

Finally, the most depressing spectacle to behold is a thoroughly decent man's reputation irreparably tarnished as he presides nominally over shameful levels of malfeasance. He surely ought to have resigned since he can have nothing to gain from association with the on-going descent into ethical bankruptcy, but that is another matter. More to the point are the dangers of runaway corruption that, by its very nature, cannot be instinctively self-limiting by some concern for the public interest. Such a self-serving phenomenon of corruption, animating much of the ruling order and driven by the self-propelled logic of individual greed, may be hard to curb even if India's economic prosperity falters and buoyant tax revenues diminish. In that case a fiscal crisis, of the kind that has historically accompanied national collapse, could combine with even more intense rivalry for shrinking opportunities to plunder in a demoralised and disaffected nation. This was the prelude to the French revolution and its bloodletting, in which France's foolish nobility and clergy perished en masse under the guillotine.

Dr Gautam Sen taught international political economy at the London School of Economics & Political Science for two decades.

A RESPONSE TO GITA RAMASWAMY'S REVIEW OF BREAKING INDIA

2011-05-19T17:20:00.000-07:00
A response by Dr Shrinivas Tilak*:

to

Review of Breaking India by Gita Ramaswamy

Review of Breaking India by Gita Ramaswamy: a response by Dr Shrinivas Tilak*

When I first heard of “Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan (hereafter M&N) I said to myself “Oh my God, India is finally coming apart at seams by any number of hostile forces interior to India itself: caste divisions or religious, regional, and linguistic differences. Then reason prevailed: I remembered Mark Twain’s witty (and yet remarkably insightful) one-liner: Reports of India’s forthcoming demise are exaggerated and premature. Knowing Mr Malhotra as I do, I also realized that such a fine patriot and a seminal thinker must have in mind another possible meaning of the title: a design to break up India by external forces hostile to India’s very existence and aided by some disenchanted group/s indigenous to India. Indeed, that is what M&N have done in this very thoughtful yet unsettling book with endnotes and glossary running to more than eighty ages and a bibliography to sixty pages. Breaking India is not about political rabble rousing; it records the agony of a deeply wounded civilization of India that may die a slow death. It records with dispassion the ongoing Christian missionary objectives and campaigns in India and how they ruthlessly devalued and eventually decimated other ancient cultures and peoples. It seeks to spark an honest debate on the extent to which human rights and other “empowerment” projects are cover-ups for these activities.

Ilaiah and his ilk

While visiting Kolkata recently, I showed a copy of Breaking India to a young, IT professional, who eagerly leafed through it for a few minutes. While returning it to me he said with obvious unease “very alarmist!”Indeed, the book will rudely alarm (and hopefully awaken) those Indians who smugly retire to bed in the belief that India and the sanatana dharma (that sustains and holds it together) will be here for ever. But more importantly, it throws a gauntlet to those disgruntled and hateful Indians like Dr. Kancha Ilaiah, a professor and a former head of the department of political science at Osmania University, Hyderabad) (he is also the author of Why I am Not a Hindu: A Critique of Sudra Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy published in 1996) who retire to bed every night dreaming that the next morning will bring an India without Hinduism.

Review of Breaking India by Gita Ramaswamy (OutlookIndia, May 16-23, 2011; hereafter GR) is representative of the writings by Indians like Ilaiah and his ilk. A strong anti-Hindu and a left wing bias obtain in the Indian print and visual media particularly in the English language media. Most young Indians who enter university journalism departments or the media are already thoroughly ‘secularized’ and ‘westernized.’ The fact that most of them happen to be graduates of the English medium high schools operated by the Christian missions reinforces their anti-tradition and anti-Hindu stance. They are not trained to think and write about cultural, political, religious or social issues from an insider’s (i.e. an emic) perspective. The humanities and social science departments of the universities they typically attend (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi [JNU] for instance) are regrettably politicized where the search for truth is subordinated to left wing ideology. Commonly, graduates of these departments see Indian culture and society through an ideological prism of Marxism-Leninism and secularism that reinforces perceptions of Hinduism and hindutva not on the basis of ‘objective’ observation and fact but on an ideological ground and emotion.

Lookout for OutlookIndia

A prevailing belief, endemic among the secularized Indian elites, that India’s ills are the result of its Hindu legacy pervades Ramaswamy’s shabby and shallow piece. Obviously, she is a product of an academia that is convinced that Hindus, Hinduism, advocates of hindutva, and the RSS are all responsible for the sorry state that India finds itself in. It is not surprising that Ramaswamy’s tirade has appeared in OutlookIndia, a newsweekly published from Delhi that is more interested in subverting hindutva; not reporting objectively on it. Vinod Mehta, editor of OutlookIndia, once openly admitted, “I am giving away no secrets when I reveal that for some years Mr [Narendra] Modi [the Chief Minister of the Western state of Gujarat and the leader of the state BJP] has been Villain Number No. 1 for our journal.” This admission comes even after his acknowledgment that “Modern day journalism requires publications to present a balanced and holistic portrait of a public figure they unreservedly abhor” (OutlookIndia, Feb 5, 2007).

François Gautier, a French journalist now based in India, has noted that although most of India's intellectual elite is Hindu, the great majority of them are Hindu haters who are ashamed to identify themselves as Hindu. Their reports always come out sprinkled with the same clichés to slam Hinduism and hindutva: the Saffron Brigade, the Hindu fundamentalists, fanatics, fascists, or communalists (Gautier 2002). Courier International, a prestigious French magazine, which is read by diplomats and politicians, published a special issue on ‘Hindu fundamentalism’ with a cover photo of the RSS members doing their drill holding a wooden staff. The ignorant Westerner who read it must have had the impression that India indeed is in the grip of fascist, nazi-like Hindu groups where civil liberties are curtailed. When the editor-in-chief of that magazine was contacted, he pointed out that all the pieces had been translated from articles written in the Indian Press by Indian journalists. “If I did not know India,” wrote Gautier in one of his writings, “I would tend also to believe what I read about India in the Western press: a nation torn by caste discrimination, and Hindu extremism. But after living more than thirty years in this country, my experience is totally different: Hindus are probably the most tolerant people in the world” (Gautier 2002).

GR’s shoddy review of Breaking India betrays how the English media in India have more regard for the principles enunciated by Thomas Babbington Macaulay and Karl Marx than the culture of India while demonizing everything that is traditional and Hindu in India. India is the only major country, which while historically continuous with its past in terms of culture and languages, cultivates a Macaulayan mentality that rejects its past in order to appear modern and progressive. Reading Ramaswamy’s review, one might get the impression that India indeed is being invaded by “Yankee Hindutvavadins” or that the Christian, Dalit, and Muslim minorities of India are being cruelly persecuted.

Divide and demonize

Ramaswamy cleverly isolates Rajiv Malhotra from his co-author Aravindan Neelakandan (a Tamil like herself) and targets Malhotra for her vicious attacks. She does not really provide any specific cases or instances where Breaking India does injustice to the Tamils, Tamilnadu or the Dalits in Tamil Nadu; nor does she explain what her understanding of hindutva is. Her piece is sanctimonious and infused with a holier-than-thou attitude that talks down to Mr. Malhotra and engages in name-calling. It is amusing to read that Mr. Malhotra is a Hindutvavadin! She does specify if Mr. Neelakandan, too, is a Hindutvavadin. As far as I know, Mr. Malhotra makes it quite clear, at every possible occasion available to him, his distance from hindutva as it is commonly understood. Having said that, it must also be recognized that he is deeply committed to securing a fair deal and play for Hindus everywhere: in India or abroad. There is no evidence in Breaking India or in Malhotra’s other writings to suggest that he is ill-disposed towards non-Hindus though he would refuse to abandon or throw Hindus to the wolves simply to please non-Hindus or to embellish his credentials as a secularist. There is no question of him ignoring, ridiculing, or distrusting non-Hindus, but there is also no intention on his part of giving them the power of a veto over the destiny of India or over Hindus in India or abroad either. To him all action is “grist to the mill of the Indian nation.” In that faith, he is ready to meet in the political field with his adversaries just as they will choose: a friendly clasp of the brother/sister or the resolute grip of the wrestler.

Dalit dalliance with the [Yankee] doodle

In her review, GR asserts: As long as the Indian state and society oppress Muslims, Northeasterners, Kashmiris and Dalits, it is natural for [Dalits] to garner what support they can. She therefore is not averse to the Dalits seeking help even from the Yankees she hates so much and after denouncing Malhotra for [allegedly] seeking help from them! As far as I can see, Breaking India is critical of the Dalit leadership for trying to lead the Dalits away from the mainstream Indian society by claiming special rights and privileges for them. M&N argue that appeasing the Dalits (or the Christians for that matter) as minorities by conferring upon them special rights and privileges in order to promote social peace or harmony is really paving the way for India’s disintegration.

It seems that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (who heads the Art of Living Foundation in India with branches all over the world) would support M&N on this point. In an article published in The Times of India (November 5, 2005; Pune edition), he criticized the actions of Dalit leaders like Kancha Ilaiah who took the issue of discrimination against the Dalits and deprivation of their human rights in India to the United States Congress. In the name of Dalit upliftment, Shankar believed, they were pursuing an ideological agenda and damaging the image of the country. “If they were really interested in the betterment of the Dalits, they should work in the villages in India instead of going to the US Congress,” argued Shankar.

Kancha Ilaiah, Gita Ramaswamy and company would do well to learn a thing or two from the [accursed] Yankees: national pride. There are three million homeless beggars in America, a little over one percent of the population. Yet, the American media generally does not publicize this fact abroad and, on the whole, American blacks have not asked the United Nations or any another country to interfere in the internal matters of the United States on their behalf (Shankar 2005).

What hindutva is and is not

Hindutva does not imply a Hindu hegemony in the public life of India. When Dr Radhakrishnan described Hinduism as a way of life, he was only partly right. Actually, it is hindutva that is a way of life for the people of India and Hinduism is only one of the modes of worship for the majority of Indians. Literally, the term hindutva denotes ‘hinduness’ i.e. a cultural, economic, political, and social way of life (mind you this does not include ‘religious’) in India that is informed and colored by the master signifier of the majority population of India--hinduness. In a landmark decision the Supreme Court of India concluded that simply referring to hindutva in a speech does not automatically constitute an appeal to [Hindu] religion. Nor, in the Court’s view, does such a reference necessarily “depict an attitude hostile to all persons practising any other religion other than Hinduism.” The Court rejected the argument that the use of hindutva per se necessarily constitutes a violation of sections 123(3) 2r (3A0 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There is nothing inherent in the term hindutva that betrays any overt or covert hostility, enmity or intolerance to any other community (see Tilak 2008 for more details).

Hindutva also does not connote the imposition of a Hindu state in India. It was Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966), one of the prominent leaders of the freedom struggle and a revolutionary, who developed the term hindutva as a cultural concept in a small tract called Hindutva: Who is a Hindu first published in 1923. In his presidential address given to the Hindu Mahasabha session at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar made quite clear that hindutva did nor connote a Hindu state where only those who belonged to the Hindu religion will be in power and those Indians who are adherents of non-Hindu religions will have no rights. He further stated emphatically: “Let the Indian state be purely Indian. Let it not recognize any invidious distinction whatsoever as regards franchise, public services, offices, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognizance be taken whatsoever of man’s being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian state be treated according to their individual worth irrespective of their religious or racial percentage in general population” (Savarkar 1964: 290).

Savarkar thus considered Hinduism and other religions to be encompassed within hindutva as a composite Indian culture. The religion of Hindus was not directly implicated in the formulation of the ideology of Hhindutva. M.S. Golwalkar (second leader of the RSS; 1906-1973) similarly located hindutva within the framework of the nationalist discourse and his understanding of hindutva provided ample space and opportunities to sub-identities, sub-cultures, languages, personal laws, cults, and philosophies to exist and flourish in a secular milieu. But he also mounted a slashing attack on the modern Hindus’ deeply ingrained habit of seeking the sources of their ills within Hinduism, but their cures outside of it: more particularly in secularism and ‘communalism’ (see Tilak 2001).

Indian secularists, subalternists, and media personnel routinely slam advocates of hindutva for seeking to impose a monolithic culture upon all Indians. Golwalkar was commonly asked: “India typically exhibits a wide diversity of sects, castes, languages, customs, and races. How can you call its society one? How can you call it one lifestyle?” Golwalkar’s reply was, “This question arises only if you look at the heritage of India and the Hindu lifestyle superficially. Take an example of a tree: it has different parts: from root, stem, branches, leaves, flowers, to fruits. There is lot of divergence among them in terms of color, shape, size, fabric, form etc. They all look very different from one another. But this difference (which is quite welcome) is only external. They all are manifestations arising out of one root: dharma. They arise from that one life source; one sap runs through them all” (see Golwalkar 9: 115).

The pashmina variety of expensive shawl, for instance, is not produced by stitching different pieces together. It has to be carefully woven from one fabric with much care. India’s integration is only possible if it is attained organically and when Indians do not betray a feeling of separate identity. India’s history records that not all minority communities saw themselves as distinct or apart from the majority Hindu community. In 1943 the then Secretary of State, L.S. Amery, invited some prominent representatives of the Zoroastrian community and suggested that they should ask for separate representation in various legislatures. The suggestion was emphatically spurned in a representation sent to Mr Amery signed by nearly two thousand leading Zoroastrians and which affirmed that ‘our interests are safe in the hands of sister communities.’ Recalling this episode, Sir R.K. Sidhwa, a prominent Zoroastrian member of the Constituent Assembly, said that if minorities were encouraged to think in terms of permanent minority safeguards, “there will be a perpetual instinct in the mind of the minority community representatives that the safeguards are to remain for ever and it will be difficult for these small communities to come nearer to major communities.” Sir Sidhwa added, “The ultimate phase of political life of all Indians should be one nation, not communities” (Golwalkar 9: 173).

In other words, the term ‘Hindu’ for him connoted a master signifier of India’s national and cultural (not a religious) identity and Sir Sidhwa was quite happy with it. Golwalkar gave another example in support of his thesis: In the 1960s Indonesia passed a bill requiring all citizens to belong to one of the religions recognized by the government. This measure was taken to neutralize the communist declaration of their creed that they did not believe in religion. When the bill forced the communists to opt for one of three recognized religions of Indonesia: Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism they generally declared themselves as Hindu (Golwalkar’s speech at VHP convention, Hardwar; 5: 83). In the ultimate analysis, the communists felt more at ease with a Hindu identity since it was least likely to interfere in their political activity.

Cut the funk

As far as I am concerned, an important message of Breaking India is: Cut the funk and say what you mean and mean what you say. Let me explain by first narrating an actual incident that occurred in Pune some time ago: A gentleman goes to a book store owned and operated by a Muslim. As he is browsing, the owner asks him "Are you a Muslim?" "Ye….s," replies the gentleman sheepishly, "and a Christian, and a Buddhist and a J..." "Stop" interjects the exasperated owner. "I know who you really are. You are a Hindu!" "Yes," came the confession finally. Professor K. Dad Prithipaul (born of Hindu parents in Fiji), a retired professor of Hinduism from University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, has called this Hindu denial (or hiding) of self identity 'funk' (from Flemish fonck = terror, panic, fear). The educated Hindu of today (says Prithipaul) has to overcome an inner resistance when the occasion requires him to say: “I am a Hindu” as a noun or “I am Hindu” as an adjective. He is afraid to say it or to own it. The funk which inhabits his consciousness is evident when he hastens to qualify his Hinduness with a ‘but’ when he sets forth the damper: “I am a Hindu, but I am an Indian first.” In the West it would be difficult to hear someone saying: “I am Christian (or a Christian), but I am a Canadian, or a Frenchman, or an American first” (see Prithipaul 2005).

“There are some people against whom you build up malice without knowing them” wrote Khushwant Singh (editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India), the doyen of modern Indian ‘secular’ journalism, with exceptional candor, “and Guru Golwalkar had long been on the top of my hate list.” Singh was indeed honest and courageous enough to openly admit and make public his bias. Yet, he did not hesitate to seek an interview with Golwalkar and come away from it with many of his misconceptions dispelled (see Illustrated Weekly of India, November 17, 1972). Will Vinod Mehta and Gita Ramaswamy extend a similar grace to Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan?

References

Gautier, Fançois. 2002. Marxism and Saffron Wave. www.rediff.com accessed on Dec 22, 2006.
Golwalkar, M.S. 2005. Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan [12 vols in Hindi]. New Delhi: Suruchi Prakashan.
Malhotra, Rajiv and Aravind Neelakandan. 2011. Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines. New Delhi: Amaryllis.
Mehta, Vinod. 2007. Delhi diary. Outlook, February 5, 2007.
Prithipaul, K. Dad. 2005. Hindu Dharma and Indian Funk. Dharma The Categorial Imperative, edited by Arvind Sharma, Ashok Vohra, Mrinal Miri. Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
Savarkar, V.D. 1964. Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya [Writings of Swantrya Veer V.D. Savarkar] Vol.VI. Poona: Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha.
Singh, Khushwant. 1972. Interview with M. S. Golwalkar. Illustrated
Weekly of India, November 17, 1972.
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. 2005. Stick to your ground. Pune: The Times of India, November 5, 2005.
Tilak, Shrinivas. 2001. Hindutva—the Indian Secularists’ Metaphor for Illness and Perversion. Hinduism and Secularism After Ayodhya edited by Arvind Sharma, 123-134, London: Pallgrave Publishers.
Tilak, Shrinivas. 2008. Reawakening to a secular Hindu nation: M. S. Golwalkar’s vision of a dharmasapeksha Hindurashtra (Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publications .

*Shrinivas Tilak (PhD history of religions, McGill University, Montreal, Canada) is an independent researcher based in Montreal. His publications include Religion and aging in the Indian tradition (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), Understanding karma in light of Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology and hermeneutics (Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publications, 2007), and Reawakening to a secular Hindu nation: M. S. Golwalkar’s vision of a dharmasapeksha Hindurashtra (Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publications, 2008).

NDBCP-INDIA, NATIONAL DATA BANK OF CORRUPT PERSONS OF INDIA

2011-05-14T20:09:00.000-07:00
NATIONAL DATA BANK OF CORRUPT PERSONS IN INDIA
(NDBCP-INDIA)

Friends:

There is a crisis of awareness about the ubiquitous corruption in India. Everyone of us who considers that this practice of corruption needs to be eradicated must act now. We are all public servants for India. This is your web-site.

In the service of creating a new corruption free society all of us have an obligation to share our authentic knowledge of the existence of this practice with the society at large so the corrupt individuals will refrain from engaging in such practice. To that end, please send the NAME, TITLE, AGENCY, CITY AND STATE of the corrupt person to nokidding101@yahoo.com by e-mail and indicate the amount of bribe you know he/she has accepted. It will be posted on the “N.D.B.C.P-INDIA” with the understanding that your anonymity will be honored. This is done on honor system in that it is presumed you are honest and you have first hand knowledge of the person accepting the bribe. To begin with, to stop this list from becoming too large to manage, this web-site will publish only those names that are reported to have accepted Rs. 100,000 or more at any one time or in aggregate.

We are anticipatig this site to be flooded with names very soon. These names will be arranged in alphabetical order.

GO FOR IT!! Send the names to nokidding101@yahoo.com . ACTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTESTS.

P.S.: This is public service and not a defamation campaign. It is expected that the person/s reporting will be responsible for verifying the facts before reporting. This blog www.publicservantforindia.wordpress.com will not assume any liability for erroneous information. This data bank is for information to caution the public and not to incriminate, punish, defame or scandalize the individuals listed herein. This blog respects the public’s right to information. The listed individual will be given the information about the person reporting his/her name only with the express consent of the reporter. The editor, nokidding101, will reserve all the rights for placing on or removing the names from this data bank and will not accept responsibiltiy to verify the authenticity of the reported unacceptable practice. No harm or economic damage to persons listed herein is anticipated merely as a result of such listing. Most of these will be Government Employees or politicians whose positions and incomes will not suffer except possibly from reduction of income from bribes. The mere listing of the name on this blog will not imply legally established guilt.

ON DENIGRATION OF HINDU SPIRITUAL LEADERS

2011-05-10T23:06:00.000-07:00
The Disconnect: Smear Campaign Against Sai Baba

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

In a previous article ‘Smear Campaign Against Sai Baba’ (Haindava Keralam 05/05/2011) the present writer had pointed out that Christian evangelism has influenced some Hindus to denigrate their religion and religious figures, amongst whom Satya Sai Baba had long been the target. He is one of the great religious figures of contemporary India and also a social reformer who has upheld the best traditions of Hinduism and has advocated peace and prosperity for all sections of Indian society. He has made no distinction between castes, creeds, religions or nationalities. By and large these Hindu critics (and non Hindus) were composed of young people, shady characters, politicians looking for vote banks, opportunists and careerists hoping to benefit from monetary and other incentives, Christian converts playing into the hands of the evangelicals etc. The path breaking book Breaking India (2011) by authors Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan examines the role of evangelism in India and its origins in the West.

In this article we shall look at another phenomenon, the disconnect between people who consider themselves Hindu patriots, and are seemingly interested in the country’s welfare, but who target Hindu religious figures such as Sai Baba. These people are from well educated backgrounds and economically self sufficient, often running their own large businesses etc. One recent example is the businessman Atanyu Dey who shortly after Satya Sai Baba’s funeral (April 24, 2011) wrote what, in the present writer’s opinion, is a ‘scurrilous’ piece against the religious leader in an article titled ‘Satya Sai Baba: The Confederacy of Criminals’ (April 28, 2011 on his blog site).

The article accuses Sai Baba of virtually every crime under the sun. It is written in poor taste and the reader is encouraged to read the blog to get an idea of its content. The contents of the article are not worth repeating here.

On that blog site among many other topics Dey speaks about a topic which is dear to his heart: economic development. An article prominent on this site is ‘Think Big about India’s Urbanization' (It is a collection of blogs).The central theme of this piece is the need for the urbanization of the 600,000 odd villages of India. To make a fine point Dey points out that the operative word is not the ‘village’, but the flesh and blood inhabitants of the village. They are living in poor conditions and must be lifted out of their misery.

He has two lines of approach: the historical importance of cities in ancient India and the advantages of urbanization for the villagers themselves, who can now share in the prosperity of the current urban population. Here he distinguishes between mere economic growth and development, the first being straightforward material prosperity and the latter being related to quality of life and civilized standards of living. He is not advocating moving villagers to the already crowded cities. He is suggesting creating citylike complexes in the open spaces of the villages. No mention is made of agriculture in his scheme.

Historically, in his references to the Harappan civilization and their glorious cities, he ignores the presence of agricultural life without which no ancient civilization or for that matter modern ones can flourish. It is simply a matter of bread and butter issues. One need not labor that point. And Vedic India and subsequent centuries of high urban economies had flourishing agricultural life. The subsequent poverty of the Indian village was the result of the two Occupations (Islamic and British). The latter has been written about endlessly, but in the early years of the twentieth century, in 1902 we have the first sustained serious account of the economic history of India under British rule by Romesh Dutt, who was a civil servant in the British civil service and who travelled the countryside during and after some of the great famines that occurred directly owing to Britain’s misguided agricultural policies.

Mahatma Gandhi tells us in his Hind Swaraj (1908-1909) that he wept when he first read those volumes. The Occupiers left, but little has changed in post Independence India. The poverty of the villages and their neglect can be seen in the poor implementation of one budget after another. Even as we speak we have the plight of the farmers in various states, their suicides, their protests as in Mayavati’s Uttar Pradesh where the building of the expressway has led to the driving of the agricultural population from the land.

The mega corruption of the UPA government has led to the sucking of taxpayer money to a small creamy layer that enjoys the benefits of urban living. Hence, Atanyu Dey’s scenario of a happy urbanization of village spaces is a sleight of hand. It cannot be argued for in any serious way. What is needed is not his ill thought out schemes, but better planning and its strict implementation and the slowing down of a reckless liberalization of the economy, and the resistance to some of the negative aspects of globalization along
with the sensible exercise of monetary and fiscal policies, etc. These are the beginnings of wisdom.

And it is here, that Hindu civilizational wisdom and culture can come to the rescue of the village. From Mahatma Gandhi to Baba Ramdev, there is a fund of practical measures and wisdom to sustain good quality agricultural life in India, while sustaining economic growth in all sectors. Satya Sai Baba belongs in that tradition. Hence the attacks against him from both the evangelical forces and the neo liberalism of people like Atanyu Dey. This is where the seemingly unrelated two groups connect. This is not simply about ‘scurrilous’ articles, thrown in for good measure.

The evangelicals want to convert the Indian masses to Christianity. The neo liberals, while seemingly concerned for growth and development want the wrong kind of growth and development. Hindu India, except for the long night of the two Occupations, has always supported the harmonious development of both city and village. This is the uniqueness of Hindu civilization. This must be consciously recovered. Satya Sai Baba helped millions of Hindus to regain this genuine prosperity. He advocated the removal of social injustices and set an example by providing water to drought ridden land, setting up educational institutions, medical institutions and hospitals where all services were free of charge to anyone who came, regardless of caste or community. He upheld this high ideal to the business community. He redefined in meaningful ways the balance found in varnashrama dharma (for example he emphasized that the famed Gayantri mantra is for all people, regardless of caste, creed, nationality, ethnicity or gender). He emphasized the integrated city-village nexus of Hindu dharma. The integrated city-village nexus is the enduring strength of Hindu civilization.

Any Hindu who attacks authentic Hindu religious figures such as Satya Sai Baba, is attacking this nexus, and wittingly or unwittingly is a pawn in the evangelical and the neo liberal globalization game.

(The writer taught Political Philosophy in a Canadian university. Her academic training has been in Political Science, Political Economy, Philosophy and History).

DENIGRATING RECENTLY DECEASED HINDU SPIRITUAL LEADER

2011-05-06T22:15:00.000-07:00
Smear campaign against Sai Baba

05/05/2011 13:07:10

by

Dr Vijaya Rajiva
Courtesy: "http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=13777"

The nation has been mourning the death of Sri Satya Sai Baba,an outstanding religious figure and considered by many Hindus both in India and abroad as a godly figure. During the funeral ceremony he was referred to as an avatar purusha and a siddha purusha. Since his spiritual mission began in the 50s he has been an inspirational figure in the Indian landscape.

His message of peace and universalism are in the best traditions of Hinduism. He has advocated peace and amity amidst the multi religious, mutlti ethnic population of India. He has provided solace and comfort to millions of Hindus and confirmed them in their faith. Above all, his social work and the many projects that he instituted such as providing irrigation to drought ridden areas, starting educational institutions, starting state of the art medical institutions and hospitals (where all service is free) mark him not only as a great religious figure in modern India, but also as a great social reformer.

However, within days of his demise, some articles have started to appear questioning the spirituality of Satya Sai Baba and even making wild unsubstantiated allegations, accusing him of all crimes under the sun. This trend has been there from the earliest years of Baba’s spiritual career and is clearly the result of a combination of trends.

The first, ofcourse, is the age old attempt by the two monotheistic faiths (Islam and Christianity) to denigrate everything connected to Hinduism and Hindu India. The Christian attempt began as early as the 18th century and continues to the present day. It has been well documented in the recent book published by well known intellectual in the Indian diaspora Rajiv Malhotra in his path breaking book Breaking India (2011, co authored by Aravindan Neelakandhan).

The smear campaign against Baba fits into this category. Several unsavoury characters are associated with this, but the most important one is the fundamentalist and evangelist Christian Tal Brooke who hates the non monotheistic faiths with a sacred passion. His writings are deliberately calculated to tarnish the religious figures of Hinduism of whom the most well known both within India and internationally is Sri Satya Sai Baba. Tal Brooke has tried to propagate the notion that all Gurus are in a state of perfect demon possession and that all Eastern philosophy, New Age Beliefs and Hindu beliefs are evil paths leading to Satan.

This is reminiscent of the European Middle Ages, where all evil resided with Satan. It is estimated that 99% of the scurrilous writings against Sai Baba are inspired by Tal Brooke’s work. None of the allegations have ever been proven. They remain the wild ravings of an evangelist and his camp followers.

He has drawn into his net some Hindus also who are ignorant of Hindu traditions and are eager to be more Roman than the Romans, as it were. Some are genuinely ignorant and some have an agenda made attractive by financial and other inducements. Some are just talking wildly about a subject they know very little about, but want to be considered ‘cool.’
They manage temporarily at least togather a following among the young college going crowd.

Interestingly, some even consider themselves patriots who want to bring economic development to their country. Their schemes are uneven and are somewhat impractical and unrealistic, as for instance the scheme of urbanizing all of India’s villages ! Beware of the Greek who comes bearing gifts !

Hindus have to be doubly vigilant. Senior journalist Sandhya Jain has written a definitive article on the exposure of at least one prominent smear campaigner against Satya Sai. This is Alaya Rahm whose wild allegations caused the BBC to produce the sensational program The Secret Swami (2004) and broadcast the world over. Jain examines the fraudulent case and its subsequent withdrawal in ‘Move to malign Sai Baba fails’ (The Pioneer, 31 March, 2009).

Millions of devout Hindus worship Baba as a godly figure. They have been spat upon by the evangelical crowd, both national and international. But the wannabe bringers of their brand of Enlightenment, their dogmas of monotheism and so on, are doomed to fail. And, Hindus will continue to defend a great and ancient civilization against all assaults. This is not the first time that Hindu India has had to bear the attacks against their religious figures and it won’t be the last.

(The writer taught Political Philosophy at a Canadian university).

INTERNAL BEAUTY OF SANSKRIT-PART II

2011-04-30T23:11:00.000-07:00
Internal Beauty of Sanskrit (Part II)

"Abhi-nrutya of Sound and Sense"

by

Narayan R. Joshi Ph.D.
(All rights reserved by the author)

Introduction

There are three puzzles in the ancient history of India. The first is the Indus script and seals. The second is the time of Mahaabhaarata war. The third is the origin of Sanskrit language. There are many theories about the origin of human languages. This is also true in case of Sanskrit. Many theories are proposed about the origin of Sanskrit by eastern and western scholars. One finds interesting information about early development of Sanskrit from Vedas, Braahmanas, Nirukta and from other ancient literature. Western linguists in the past two hundred years discovered the language families among languages of the world. The discovery of Indo-European language family generated new interest in Sanskrit, the important member of the family. The discovery destroyed the myth of Tower of Babel and threw the western world to revise their linguistic theories dominated by Bible for almost two thousand years. The discovery posed many challenges to the traditional beliefs of Hindus such as divinity of Sanskrit and Vedas.

Changes in Sanskrit

Language is not static. It is dynamic. It keeps changing. There are many reasons for linguistic changes. One obvious reason is the Principle of Least Efforts. People are lazy to pronounce words as they are. They change sounds in words to make it easy to say. The most common example from the north Indian dialect is changing Indra into Indar and Chandra into Chandar. Such changes (Apabhramsha) might have occurred in Sanskrit words although great efforts were made in ancient India to preserve all features of Sanskrit intact as much as possible. Sanskrit produced many Apabhramsha languages. At the same time Sanskrit maintained her integrity due to her prescriptive grammar of Paanini. Did Sanskrit undergo changes from 3000 BC to 500 BC before she reached hands of Paanini? Taking into consideration dynamic nature of languages, it would be very difficult to deny changes. Epic Mahaabhaarata tells us that languages other than Sanskrit were in vogue during its era. The discussion stresses the point that languages are prone to systematic changes. I have no knowledge of changes that occurred in Sanskrit from 3000 BC to 500 BC. It is certain that during the period 500 BC to 1AD there was much activity in Sanskrit linguistics in India. Scholars were complaining that certain expressions from Vedas make no sense to them. It is said that there is 5 percent difference between Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit.

Saadhu and Asaadhu Words

According to Meemaamsaa and Vaishes’ika schools Sanskrit language is the only standard (Saadhu) language and its use alone can engender merit. They also say that meaningfulness is coextensive with saadhutva. The words in Vedas have no beginning, yet they are meaningful. Other words used in folk languages have a beginning of meaning by way of convention (Sanketa), and thus their meaning is not eternal. Hence they (Asaadhu) cannot be the sources of our duty. All words, to whatever language they belong, are meaningful. But all of them are not saadhu, i.e. they cannot give merit to the user. Meaningfulness cannot be confused with saadhutva. A word may be asaadhu yet meaningful. Paanini was concerned more with the form of language of his time rather than with its meaning. Grammarian Patanjali in unambiguous terms says that the purpose of writing grammar (Shabdaanushaasana) is to give a standard language (saadhu shabda) the use of which facilitates communication and assures merit to the speaker hereafter. Different languages may have their own grammars. So it was added that a particular use of language confers merit. In this way dialogue revolves around special status of Sanskrit and Sanskrit words although grammar presents a more logical and liberal view than that proposed by Meemaamsaa school.

Meaning of Saadhu and Asaadhu words

Meanings associated with asaadhu words rise out of human convention. Language using asaadhu words is thus a conventional language. Ancient Indians were debating about the special status of Sanskrit. Is it a conventional language like any other language or is it a special one because it was the language of Vaidika revelation? Let us assume that it is the special language with stock of saadhu words. In ancient India the debate did not end here. There were various opinions about meanings of saadhu words of Sanskrit. As regards the meaning of a word, all schools of Indian philosophy have their own views revolving around Sphotavaada and Varnavaada.

Dhvani and Sphota Aspects of Words

In a room father, mother and a younger child are reading the same story book loudly turn by turn. The older brother is studying in the neighboring room. When he listens to voices in his room coming from the adjacent room, he recognizes the voice of father, mother and his younger brother. Variations in voice tambre of father, mother and the child produce three different dhvanis. In short in pronunciation of the same word by three different people, Dhvani was different but Sphota was the same. The problem of meaning of Sanskrit words is very much discussed by different Indian schools of linguistic philosophy.

One Word and One Meaning

When we subtract voice variations from the uttered word we get Sphota. When we eliminate poetic shades of a word, we then concentrate on denotative meaning (Abhidhaa) of the word. In this way Abhidhaa meaning of the word and Sphota of the pronounced word become subject of further discussion. Now the discussion revolves around the origin of Abhidhaa meaning of a Sanskrit word. According to one school of Jainas, one word expresses one meaning only. A word which appears to convey more meanings than one is to be treated, not as one word, but as many words as the number of meanings it appears to convey. In the discussion of the relation between word and meaning, Jain linguistic philosophy favors the view that every distinctive meaning needs a distinctive word. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what we do when we write glossary at the end of the scientific manual. We create Paribhaas’aa (technical terminology) in order to reduce ambiguity from the meaning of technical words used to describe the technical subject. This discussion leads us to the new concept, viz., could all words in Sanskrit be treated as words of Paribhaas’aa? We are choosing Sanskrit here because debate was revolving around Sanskrit semantics in ancient India in which all schools Vaidika, Jain and Bauddha participated with enthusiasm. They produced wealth of linguistic philosophy.

Philosophy becomes a linguistic problem

Generally speaking recent Indian philosophical discussions revolve around either Vedaanta or Upanisads. The wealth of information from Jain and Bauddha sources is rarely acknowledged. In some cases philosophical discussions show shades of sectarian biases. Even within the domain of Sanskrit linguistics, hardly any attention is given to the technical Sanskrit words used in the ancient treatises on Astronomy, Metallurgy, Mathematics and Physical sciences. Nobody discusses sources of the ancient Sanskrit terminology in the light of discussions on Sanskrit semantics continued through the long chain of ancient scholars to the modern day scholars. Religious verses are repeatedly used by people centuries after centuries. Hence they are prone to changes in pronunciation, changes due to development of new dialects and translations. Different sects interpret religious words with different meanings. That makes philosophy a linguistic problem. Ancient Sanskrit technical manuals were used by a small number of scholars interested in the subject. Any scientist playing with ancient technical terminology and changing it purposefully is of very remote possibility. So the stock of ancient Sanskrit technical words is the treasure that needs to be explored for validity of Varnavaada proposed by a certain group of scholars from ancient India.

What is Varnavaada?

Right from the time of Patanjali to this day, discussions on Sanskrit semantics are revolving around the origin of Vedic Sanskrit, the language of the most ancient scriptures, Vedas of India. Is the meaning of a Sanskrit word decided by Loka Sanketa (convention of the community) or is it decided by God or is it decided by the nature (Svabhaava)? If it is decided by Loka Sanketa, then Sanskrit is like any other conventional language and no further elaboration is needed. One can say that saving Vedas sound by sound was simply the act of religious faith. If Vedic Sanskrit is inspired by God in revelations to ancient sages, then new questions arise. Did Vedic sages know Sanskrit before revelations? However the possibility of meaning of Sanskrit words connected to the peculiar nature of Sanskrit opens new chapter of investigation. Sanskrit is highly inflected language. The letters of alphabet of Sanskrit are arranged scientifically according to their origin in human vocal tract. The table of alphabet contains 36 consonants and 16 vowels. According to Varnavaada, each letter (phoneme or Varna) of Sanskrit alphabet carries fixed basic semantic unit. The Abhidhaa meaning of the Sphota of Sanskrit word arises by adding elemental meanings of phonemes making that word. This kind of arrangement is called Phonemic Symbolism. The phonemic symbolism is denied by modern linguists for conventional languages like English, Arabic etc. Although the ancient Indian books talk about Phonemic Symbolism (Varnvaada), they do not offer consistent presentation of semantic units of Sanskrit phonemes. The author of the present paper took different approach. His attention was drawn to the physical properties of sounds of phonemes. His hypothesis was that if the wide scale phonemic symbolism existed in Sanskrit, then it cannot be a random arrangement. It has to rest on some intrinsic scheme and the scheme has to be tied with physical properties of phonemic sounds. He made efforts in that direction and it worked. In short Sanskrit words tell their own stories. This scheme leads to fixed meanings of Sanskrit prefix which could help in coining new consistent technical terminology. Let us see some examples of phonemic symbolism discovered by the present author.

Fixed meaning for the prefix “Abhi”

The dictionary meanings of the prefix ‘Abhi’ are many. They are as follow: towards, for, against, over, above, upon, across, etc. However, according to the phonemic symbolism proposed in this paper, the prefix Abhi means the ‘process of making a replica’ of something like a rubber stamp. Now the replica is a copy of the original or it is like the original or as if it is original. The fixed meaning of the prefix ‘Abhi’ is therefore taken as ‘as if’ in this work. Let us see examples. Examples are taken from the dictionary of V.S. Apte.

(1) Abhi-naya: Acting, any theatrical act.
The root in the parent word, -naya is ‘Nee‘. Its meaning is to carry, to lead, to guide, to direct. Now in the act of ‘Acting in a drama’, the actor is not carrying anything or anybody physically but he carries with him or directs emotions of audience. This is equivalent to saying, ’as if he is carrying or guiding or leading’. Here one act is replaced by the other similar act.
(2) Abhi-roopa: Corresponding with, conformable or suitable to.
The parent word is ‘roopa’. Its meaning is form, figure, and appearance. When school children mimic the court of law on the stage of their school, (as in a mock trial), it is called Abhiroopa Nyaayaalaya (the mock court). It is not a real court but it looks like a court, or ‘as if it is a court’. It is like a copy of the real court.
(3) Abhi-ruci: Desire, taste, liking, relish, delight, pleasure.
The meaning of the parent word ‘ruci’ is taste. It is the physical act of tasting something, say, a candy bar. But the word Abhiruci means liking. When one likes good literature, one is said to have uccha (high) Abhiruci or high level taste. Here again the prefix has the same meaning ‘as if he is tasting’!
(4) Abhi-jaata: Original
The parent word ‘jaata’ means born. It indicates physical birth. Original poetry or literature is also born but it is not a physical birth from the womb of a mother but from the brain of a poet. However it is like a birth or ‘as if born’. It is therefore called Abhijaata Saahitya (Original literature).
(5) Abhidhaa: The literal sense of a word, denotation.
The parent word ‘dhaa’ means to hold, to set, to contain. The word Abhidhaa means the denotative meaning of a word. It is the meaning held to the word even in circumstances where the word may suggest different meaning. This holding is not physical but it is ‘as if holding’. The Abhidhaa meaning of Sanskrit words is the topic of discussion in this research work.
(6) Abhi-jnyaana: Recognition, Remembrance.
The parent word ‘jnyaana’ means cognition. The name of one of the dramas of the celebrated Indian poet Kalidasa is Abhijnyaana Shaakuntalam. The king Dushyanta forgot his bride Shakuntalaa because she lost the wedding ring given by him to her. The fisherman, who found the ring, recognized the royal insignia on the ring and took it back to the king. At that moment the king remembered giving the ring to Shakuntalaa. The recognition came back to the king because of the copy of the cognition stored in his brain. For this reason Kavi Kaalidaasa chose the appropriate name to the drama. It is said that when GOD realization comes to a devotee, he recognizes ‘abhijaanaati’ GOD. This is so because he knew GOD originally. He forgot GOD due to delusion. When the curtain of the delusion (or illusion) is lifted, he recognizes GOD which process is called Abhijnyaanam, the replica of the original ‘jnyaanam’.
(7) Abhi-udaya: Prosperity
The parent word ‘udaya’ means physical rise like the Sunrise. However, the word Abhi-udaya or the sandhi word Abhyudaya does not mean a physical rise but ‘as if rise’. This is advancement in life or prosperity.
(8) Abhi-nava: painted, refurbished, polished, recast.
The parent word ‘nava’ means new but Abhinava means ‘as if it were new’. This could be because of polishing the item or painting it or redoing it or reworking it makes it like new.
(9) Abhi-sarana: Circulation
This word was used in connection with the circulation of blood. The parent word ‘sarana’ means to move. The blood in a body moves but it does not go away. It returns or circulates. It appears ‘as if it is moving away’ which is ‘Abhisarana’.
(10) Abhi-yukta: Engaged, or occupied or absorbed in.
The parent word ‘yukta’ means joined, united, fastened, yoked. When one is absorbed in say in his study, he is not physically attached to the study. So he is ‘as if yukta’ or Abhi-yukta. Now if somebody engaged in the criminal act. Then also he is Abhi-yukta.
These ten examples illustrate that the prefix ‘Abhi’ has the fixed meaning ‘as if’ consistent with its new single meaning discovered first time in this work.

Fixed meaning of the consonant ‘/gh/’

This sound is voiced and aspirated. This velar (guttural) sound is loaded with features more than those of the earlier three velar sounds of /k/, /kh/ and /g/. Here, the meaning of /k/ is ‘to resolve’. The meaning of /kh/ is ‘increased resolution’. The meaning of /g/ is ‘greater resolution leaning to almost independence’. After /g/ change takes place in the meaning of ‘gh’. The semantic category chosen for /gh/ is of ‘decreased resolution leaning to trapping’. Let us see examples.

(1) Ghars’ana
It means friction. In friction between two surfaces, the microscopic hills and valleys get locked into each other resisting the relative motion. Thus in friction there is slight trapping and then release.
(2) Gharma-bindu
It means sweat, perspiration drop oozing out of the skin pore. It does not flow because of partial trapping.
(3) Ghos’a
The word Ghos’a means noise, tumult, cry or noise. It also refers to thundering of clouds. Noise in voice or sound is due to fricatives and hence the word has the sound of /gh/ in it.
(4) Ghatikaa Paatra
The Ghatika Patra is the copper pot with hole at the bottom used to trap water in the ancient Indian water clock.
(5) Ghoorna Vaayu
It means whirl wind where wind is partially trapped and also free to turn around.
Let us see examples where the phoneme /gh/ occupies the position other than the first in a word.
(6) Megha
It means a cloud. It is trapped water vapor.
(7) Deergha
It means long in time or space. It is said Deerghasootri Vinashyati. It means procrastination spoils the job due to complications or trapping.
These examples are enough to prove the point that the chosen fixed meaning for the phoneme /gh/ makes sense.

It is not possible to offer fixed semantic categories discovered for all Varnas of Sanskrit. They show that there is internal mechanism in Sanskrit to preserve meanings of her shabdas. This is internal beauty of Sanskrit where sound and sense go hand in hand.(Editor's comment: It is indeed the abhi-nrutya of sound and sense.)

N. R. Joshi.

(Editor's Note: www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com is extremely privileged to have an opportunity to publish this unique discovery by Dr. N. R. Joshi. His book on this
topic will be published soon giving elaborate details which will make it possible to
coin new words in Sanskrit that have defined connotations and meanings that would be easy to decipher even for those with preliminary knowledge of this system who are reading or hearing the word for the first time. Editor has illustrated this by coining a word "abhi-nrutya" of sound and sense.)

AMARTYA SEN'S NAIVETE IN TILLING THE GROUND HE STANDS ON

2011-04-27T23:37:00.000-07:00
Amartya Sen’s Failed Attempt

23/04/2011 12:07:24

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

(Courtesy: Haindava Keralam)

After winning the Nobel Prize for Economics (1998) Amartya Sen took a fateful turn at freelance writing about Indian history, politics, religion, culture and what not. In 2005 he produced a book ‘The Argumentative Indian’ which sought to contain Hindu India by a well known technique, that of appropriating the merits of Hindu civilisation and adopting them as part of his new effort at a renaissance , while at the same time rejecting the ongoing strengths of that civilization which has provided the foundations for his contemporary project. His dual method seeks to appropriate the open ended vision and enquiry that has been characteristic of Hindu civilization since its earliest beginnings, while rejecting Hindu Dharma, which is the source of that very open endedness.

His attempt has failed because it is not an authentic one. Why he embarked on this project is a question mark. His future career may provide some answers.

Meanwhile, it is important for Hindus to recognize the aims of this project and its modus operandi. Unlike Arundhati Roy’s vindictive comments about her mythical evil Brahmanic Hindu state, Amartya Sen moves carefully and cautiously to build his case against Hindu India. The style is chatty and leisurely. Hindu civilization Sen intones has a long standing tradition of argument and debate, ever since the time of the open ended Vedas. It should be revived. It should not be abandoned in the face of Hindu nationalism which he alleges has rejected this open ended tradition and has “incarcerated Hinduism.”

The question ,ofcourse, is who is doing the incarceration, and indeed who is trying to deal a death blow to Hinduism ?

Sen cannot sound , does not sound, like Arundhati Roy. He cannot make blanket generalizations against Hinduism ( as she does) since that would take the bottom out of his project which stakes its claims of authenticity on an open ended Hinduism which he feels must be revived. Gradually, after the first salvo against the Hindu nationalists it becomes clear that he has an agenda. In a charming biographical essay in the book he speaks about his early atheism and materialism. Presumably, that still obtains.

What are the characteristics of his method in this book ?

1.Omissions : while speaking about the Ramayana he does not mention that Valmiki saw Lord Rama as a divine figure. Needless to say he does not even mention the other famous Ramayanas, Tulasidas’s Ramacharitamanas, the Kamban Ramayana and Ezuthatchan’s Ramayana.,all of which extol Rama as a divine figure. The songs and music , both of the north and the south view Rama as a divine figure. The Rama temples house a deity. Hanuman the quintessential devotee worships him as divine. Festivals, dance dramas, the classical music of India all focus on Rama as a divine figure.

Why does Sen omit all this ? He has to maintain the secular character of the Rama
figure because he needs to eliminate the central role of Rama bhakti in contemporary Hindu life and thought, especially among the masses. It is, therefore, a combination of lack of knowledge of the topic, snobbery (the aam admi’s religious sensibilities do not count in HIS view of a secular India) and a deliberate omission with an agenda in mind.

The second striking omission is the absence of the word Dharma in his rather superficial account of the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna. He will repeat this argument in his later work The Idea of Justice (2009). Arjuna questions the wisdom of the war where there will be a great deal of bloodshed and devastation. Krishna advises him that since he is a warrior his DUTY is to defend his people against the wicked.

Sen uses the word ‘duty’ but not Dharma, which has huge moral and ethical implications in Hinduism and goes beyond the word ‘duty.’ He strenuously avoids that central word of Hinduism.

2.The inaacurate rendering of Indian history. Buddhism, according to him, dominated India for a thousand years. This is not quite accurate. Some three hundred years after the Buddha’s death Buddhism migrated to other countries such Tibet , China, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Sri Lanka and the far East. Its influence waned as early as the first years of the first millennium (CE )and lingered on till the rise of Sankara and his Vedanta in the 8tt to 9th century of the Christian era.

3.And certainly while Ashoka (3rd century B.C.) and Akbar (16th century of the Christian era) were great kings there were many other great kings in Hindu India.

It is embarrassing to have to repeat the long line of great Hindu kings that he has ignored, both in the north and in the south. With regard to the south the silence is deafening. Nothing about the great kings of Vijayanagar (Hindu kings) ,nothing about the Cholas, the Cheras and the Pandyas etc.

Indeed, anything south of the Vindhyas is omitted in his accounts. There are some brief references to Ujjain, to Kalidasa and so on with regard to the north. It soon becomes clear that Dr. Sen is not in his element.

4.The frequent references to the ‘greatness’ of the selective figures of his choice. For instance while talking about devotional Hinduism in the middles ages, he omits Tulsidas and hails Kabir as the greatest poet of the times ! No doubt Kabir was a great figure, but the greatest !

Medieval India was bustling with great poets, savants and sages.

The present writer is of the opinion that Dr. Sen is ill prepared to write about Hindu culture, philosophy and literature. He would be more credible if he stayed with economic issues, with development, with the issues of poverty and class injustices etc. This indeed is where he could make a difference.

By his own reasoning, the ‘argumentative Indian’, the one who is open and tolerant of diverse traditions, has been the Hindu norm. Amartya Sen’s advocacy of it is neither here nor there. It is nothing new. What is new about his project is his attempt to separate out this ethos from Hindu India and present it as something brand new under his aegis and his sponsorship of it. In other words, by his rather exaggerated notion of his own project if Amartya Sen had not appeared on the Indian scene this ‘argumentative ‘ tradition is alas bound to disappear !

As matters stand, his individual agenda is misplaced . Hindu India carries on. People still go to their temples, throng at festivals, pray at Kumbh Melas, watch in awe at the celebration of ancient rituals and celebrate Hindu festivals. Hindu syncretism is alive and well. The life affirmation vision of the Vedas, the worship of the terrestrial, the atmospheric, and celestial forces continues. The Devas and Devis continue to inhabit the land as they did since time immemorial. Hindus worship their gods and goddesses.

And Hindu Dharma is the order of the day.

(The writer taught Political Philosophy at a Canadian university . Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History ).
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=13694

HIGHJACKING ANTI-CORRUPTION MOVEMENT:ROBBERS YELLING THIEF, THIEF!!!

2011-04-11T21:36:00.000-07:00
Anna Hazare’s Campaign - truly Gandhian, truly evil - I

The End Result

by

Radha Rajan

The truth is simple and direct. Anna Hazare has replaced Baba Ramdev as the central figure in the nation’s war against corruption in exactly the same way that Gandhi replaced Tilak and Aurobindo within the Indian National Congress; and for the exact same reasons: no people’s movement in Hindu bhumi will be allowed to be led by a conscious Hindu, no campaign in this country will be allowed to wear a Hindu face; the critical difference being as events proved, Ramdev is no Aurobindo.

Aurobindo, having studied and judged Gandhi for what he was, was not impressed by Gandhi’s premature, motivated and imposed mahatma-hood, was not intimidated by his undeserved stature and refused to meet Gandhi anytime in both their lifetimes. Not so Baba Ramdev and as we read from newspaper reports, not the RSS either. Living up to the writer’s firm and disheartening belief that Hindu organizations and Hindu religious and political leaders doing politics, armed with nothing more than their colossal egos

1.have no political sense;

2.can be intimidated into compliance

3.can be coerced into proving their imposed inclusive credentials by being seen in the company of non-Hindus and anti-Hindus in their work,

4.can be pressured into sailing with the wind even if the wind is leading them astray

Baba Ramdev belittled his saffron robes and the RSS demonstrated appalling poor judgment by visiting the hero of the Cheltenham tragedy at Jantar Mantar to extend their support - support which he did not need, did not acknowledge or respect.

Baba Ramdev and the RSS, who stood in Hazare’s shadow and sang the chorus to his NGO-authored song, urgently need lessons in political history - the Hindu view of the freedom struggle and its end result to be exact.

Sonia Gandhi and her minions in English television news channels were taken aback when Baba Ramdev galvanized the nation against endemic corruption afflicting every arm of the state and every aspect of public life. Reeling under the still unfolding saga of meta-corruption, the Congress party denounced Baba Ramdev’s foray into politics and advised him to confine himself to giving tummy-tucking lessons in Yoga.

Baba Ramdev’s campaign against corruption, which was seen as attacking the Congress and its imported President, had an explosive beginning on February 27 at Ramlila grounds in Delhi with a blood-curdling mammoth gathering of around two lakh people; but all major English newspapers and English TV news channels, in stark contrast to their contrived hysteria over Anna Hazare’s campaign, either blacked out entirely or made only passing reference to the start of what would soon become Baba Ramdev’s cataclysmic campaign against corruption in public life.

Baba Ramdev followed Delhi with Goa, Chennai and Bangalore and at every stop the movement against corruption gathered unstoppable momentum. Sonia Gandhi and her handlers in the Generic Church had to move fast to stop the Ramdev juggernaut and contain the damage.

The writer had observed on an earlier occasion that the Church has the unmatched capacity to turn all events, including adversities, adroitly in its favour. In less than two months the Church changed the face of the people’s movement against corruption. The saffron-clad Hindu religious face of the movement was replaced by the Gandhi cap; and Baba Ramdev’s movement which was aimed directly at Sonia Gandhi was now turned into a movement directed by Sonia’s minions in the NGO industry.

The Church and the world feel safe again as idiot Hindus - film stars, students, upwardly mobile professionals, lawyers, judges and politicians - indulged their craving for catharsis to cleanse their corrupt, guilt-ridden souls and gathered penitently around Anna Hazare’s toothless belligerence under the Gandhi cap.

Breaking his thunderous ‘fast-unto-death’ in just 97 hours, the first thing that Anna Hazare said was, "The most significant thing about this movement was that it had no religion". What Sonia Gandhi and her NGO industry speaking through Hazare actually meant was Baba Ramdev and by extension all Hindus had been effectively de-fanged and marginalized. This was now Sonia’s show all the way.

In light of this wholly Freudian slip Baba Ramdev and the RSS must ask themselves and tell us why they extended support to this man. It would be well for Baba Ramdev to observe silence for a fortnight and introspect upon why the campaign he had launched with such fanfare and success came to such an ignominious end; as for the RSS it has proved yet again that it lacks the drive and the will to equip itself with the intelligence and skill to do even simple politics and succumbing yet again to the pressure to sail with the wind, the RSS placed itself with eyes wide open on the wrong side of an important issue.

The RSS is still laboring without direction stuck with antediluvian ideas and methods because it has not summoned the courage to discard powerbrokers doubling as in-house intellectuals.

The fatal weakness of sailing with the wind afflicts not just the RSS; it afflicts all Hindus without exception. The Hindu competition to Reliance-funded think-tank, the Observer Research Foundation, called Vivekananda International Forum (tired old faces manning a new desk) conducted a two-day seminar in Delhi last week and invited Arvind Kejriwal as one of the speakers.

Yet another RSS affiliate, India Policy Foundation, not to be left behind the mainstream which was sailing furiously with the wind, also invited Kejriwal to speak about corruption. Vivekananda International Forum and India Policy Foundation invited Kejriwal because Baba Ramdev showed off the Magsaysay awardee as a prize catch in his movement; and these are Hindu think-tanks. Talk about oxymoron.

The writer has come to the conclusion that Hindus doing politics do not think, do not read and do not listen. The Vigil book on NGOs detailing the lives and deeds of NGOs and a certain species of social activists, published in 2006, had entire sections and even chapters dedicated to Arvind Kejriwal, Harsh Mander, Sandeep Pandey and others of their ilk; and yet even Baba Ramdev relied on these very personages to adorn his movement - Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh, Arvind Kejriwal and Mallika Sarabhai, to name just four.

It has to be repeated and repeated yet again, that when the RSS sent its letter of support to Anna Hazare it chose to ignore the explosive material contained in the Vigil book on NGOs and despite knowing the unhealthy company which surrounded and powered Anna Hazare’s hunger strike, the RSS went ahead and announced their support to the man.

The writer will bet her last pair of dog-eared shoes that the RSS had not read the fine print of the papers that Hazare’s NGO friends were shoving in the face of the nation and its in-house intellectuals in the Vivekananda International Forum and India Policy Foundation had not read it either or if they had, did not understand the import of what they were reading.

Headlines Today, CNN IBN and my favorite-for-all times Times Now in the last three days competed fiercely to project three-year and nine-year olds with balloons and ice-cream in hand and earnest-looking bespectacled management graduates from Pune and Penzance as the face of mass frenzy to tell us why we must all march to Jantar Mantar or at least allow our soul to take wing and fly there, or at the very least, like the RSS, send letters of support because, and smile when you say it, ‘Anna is doing it for me and you’.

Remember Jesus died for your sins and mine and those of our great grand fathers and mothers and great grand sons and daughters, be they Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsi or Jew? Just as bizarre is the generic Church’s propaganda that Anna Hazare is doing Gandhi-like fast-unto-Jesus-like death for me and my great grand sons and daughters.

Anna Hazare’s actions will therefore be judged by -

•The end result
•His inspiration/role model and
•The company he keeps
While the entire episode beginning with Hazare’s threat to fast-unto-death and the course the melodrama traversed until the moment Hazare broke his fast will come in for ruthless analysis, the end result of the Cheltenham melodrama-turned-farce merits immediate attention. The end result is that the Government of India for the second time in 12 years succumbed to blackmail which was instigated, goaded, aided and abetted yet again by English TV news channels. The UPA government, like the NDA government in 1999, capitulated to a bunch of anti-national blackmailers.

It is hard not to question the timing of it all. Just as Baba Ramdev’s anti-corruption juggernaut seemed like gathering greater momentum with every passing day, Anna Hazare, out of the blue, one fine day, announced that he was going on a fast-unto-death until the Lokpal Bill was passed or whichever happened first.

Surrounded by familiar, notorious and discredited NGOs, social activists, one disgruntled lady police officer and one activist danseuse, Hazare put on his Gandhi cap, climbed up the well-arranged and well-equipped dais and sat himself down on a hunger strike. To retain the focus on the end result of the media-driven blackmail, we will telescope the events between Anna Hazare sitting down on day one with microphone in hand to day four when microphone in hand Hazare announced he would end his hunger strike because the government spine had finally been broken.

The writer is convinced that Anna Hazare was the single stone useful instrument with a colossal ego, chosen for his Gandhi cap, to bring down two mangoes - one, push the Prime Minister into a corner and send him the unmistakable signal not to think or act independently of the imported Congress President; two, resurrect the defunct NAC by pushing some member NGOs and activists to center-stage by staging this dangerous blackmail melodrama. Needless to say, both mangoes were intended for Sonia Gandhi’s consumption.

By handing over the letter of support to Anna Hazare through their ubiquitous spokesperson, the RSS has only strengthened Sonia Gandhi vis a vis the Prime Minister and the Indian parliament. Anna Hazare and the bunch of NGOs and activists blackmailing the government from behind Hazare in the Gandhi cap, have demanded that the government should pass the Lokpal Bill with draconian provisions which will give them the right to usurp the powers of parliament, judiciary and the police and make them a three-in-one monster body with vast scope for misuse and abuse of power.

There are two drafts of the Lokpal Bill - one that has been drafted by successive governments, a version that is available with the incumbent government in some form and the second which has been drafted by Hazare’s foreign-funded NGO camp. Just so did the same group of NGOs and foreign-funded activists act through the Lawyers Collective to get the Domestic Violence Bill amended and passed in 2005 by the UPA government as the Domestic Violence Act.

When Baba Ramdev and the RSS went to Jantar Mantar to express their solidarity with Hazare and these NGOs and when they extended their support, what exactly were they supporting?

The draft Lokpal Bill, as crafted by Kejriwal, Agnivesh, Kiran Bedi, in collusion with Prashant Bhushan an activist lawyer, demands that members of Lokpal be conferred with judicial and police powers. These appointed members will form their own investigating team, will summon persons to depose before them, will initiate action, will order prosecution and will also mete punishment. Sonia’s NGOs and foreign-funded social activists with the full support of all English Television news channels were all pushing Hazare to fast-unto-death to impose an oligarchy under Sonia Gandhi’s leadership to rule the country, by-passing every and all national democratic institutions! This is what Baba Ramdev and the RSS supported -

Section 12 of Hazare’s draft Bill states -

Lokpal to be deemed police officer

•For the purposes of section 36 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Chairperson, members of Lokpal and the officers in investigation wing of Lokpal shall be deemed to be police officers.

•While investigating any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, they shall be competent to investigate any offence under any other law in the same case.

Section 10.2 of their draft Bill says -
We are also deemed judiciary

(2) For the purpose of any such investigation (including the preliminary inquiry) the Lokpal shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:-

a.Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
b.Requiring the discovery and production of any document;
c.Receiving evidence on affidavits;
(3) Any proceeding before the Lokpal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 of the Indian Penal Code

Lokpal, after getting such enquiries and investigations done as it deems fit, may take one or more of the following actions:

a.Close the case if prima facie, the complaint is not made out or

b.Initiate prosecution against public servants as well as those private entities which are party to the act

c.Order imposition of appropriate penalties under CCS Conduct Rules Provided that if an officer is finally convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, major penalty of dismissal shall be imposed on such government servant.

d.Order cancellation or modification of a license or lease or permission or contract or agreement, which was the subject matter of investigation.

e.Blacklist the concerned firm or company or contractor or any other entity involved in that act of corruption.

Baba Ramdev and the RSS have supported Anna Hazare’s fast-unto-death whose end objective is to force the government to accept this blackmailing group’s version of the Lokpal Bill arrogating to themselves unbridled powers of parliament, police, CBI, CAG, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one as shown above. Sonia Gandhi’s NGOs have forced Manmohan Singh’s government to accept all their demands which essentially renders the Indian Parliament, the highest democratic institution of the country with powers to impeach judges and even the President of India, totally redundant.

The generic Church is selling gullible idiots in the nation the lemon that what the nation’s investigating agencies, police, parliament and judiciary have failed to do, Lokpal can and will do - impeach judges and Presidents for dessert even as they punish politicians and bureaucrats for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Such was the media-instigated hysteria over the fasting Gandhi cap that the nation collectively put its brain to sleep. Subjecting the components that will go to make the Lokpal to intense scrutiny is in order. The three core components of the Lokpal are -

•Who are the people constituting Anna Hazare’s drafting committee which will draft the Lokpal Bill

•The law itself (assuming the Bill is passed by a frightened and cowering parliament) and its provisions

•Members of Lokpal who will enforce and implement the law

•The selection panel which will appoint the all-important members of the Lokpal

The melodrama has already turned to farce with Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi and co. bickering fiercely over who should form part of the drafting committee and who should become members of the supra-god selection panel which will select members who will constitute the Lokpal. Greed and overarching ambition lie at the root of all corruption and these have already given the country a preview of what lies in store for the nation if this group is allowed to become the ruling oligarchy under Sonia Gandhi. The fight to squat on the floor in the corner in the same room as Sonia Gandhi can only get bloodier and noisier.

We have already seen the relevant sections of Hazare’s draft Bill which confers upon our foreign-funded activists who aspire to become Lokpal Members, the high status of deemed police and deemed judiciary. Now the norms for constituting the selection panel which will appoint the members is even more of a give-away of what really is the real intention behind this melodrama to pass the Lokpal Bill. Hazare, Kejrival, Agnivesh and co. have listed -

•The Chairpersons of both Houses of Parliament
•Two senior most judges of Supreme Court
•Two senior most Chief Justices of High Courts.
•All Nobel Laureates of Indian Origin
•Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission
•Last two Magsaysay Award winners of Indian origin
•Comptroller and Auditor General of India
•Chief Election Commissioner
•Bharat Ratna Award winners
Baba Ramdev and the RSS Sarsanghachalak really should tell us if they saw this before offering their support to Hazare. Did Shri Mohan Bhagwat know that Hazare came with a huge baggage which also included this draft Bill and Hazare’s views on who should be made members of the Selection Panel? Let us cast our eyes back to 2004 when Sonia Gandhi rode piggyback on the Congress and its shameless Hindus to rule the country as de facto Prime Minister. There is no UPA, no INC, no Cabinet and no Government of India. There is only Sonia Gandhi.

Sonia Gandhi made the choice of who will sit in the Rashtrapati Bhavan. The distasteful controversy surrounding Sonia Gandhi’s choice is of her making

Sonia Gandhi appointed the CEC
Sonia Gandhi appointed the CAG
Sonia Gandhi appointed the CJI
Sonia Gandhi appointed the Director of the CBI
Sonia Gandhi appointed the CVC

Every constitutional office, every high institution has been defiled and diminished because of the choices that Sonia Gandhi made. The NAC is also a creature of Sonia Gandhi’s making. Members of the NAC are the personages around Anna Hazare on the issue of the Lokpal Bill. While most categories for consideration to choose members of the Selection Panel have a direct or indirect Sonia Gandhi connection, the Magsaysay Awardee and Nobel Laureate suggestion is downright Machiavellian. There is a Rothschild and Rockefeller connection in these categories

Considering the sweeping powers that Hazare, Agnivesh, Kejriwal and idiot Hindus want for the Lokpal, considering that the Lokpal wants to be judge, jury, police and parliament in their dealings with politicians, bureaucrats and judges, to insist on foreign entities having a say in constituting the Selection Panel must cause grave disquiet in every thinking nationalist mind. Amartya Sen is married to Emma Rothschild who is a member of the Jewish Rothschild banking family in England while the Magsaysay Award has a direct Rockefeller connection.

The Magsaysay award may sound Asian because it is named after the late Ramon Magsaysay of the Philippines but the award is all American and the money component of the award is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Vigil book on NGOs exposed the intent behind the selection of persons for the Magsaysay award. Like the Nobel peace Prize, the Magsaysay too, no matter for what reason and in which category it is awarded, is political in its ultimate intent. To have a Rothschild and Rockefeller connection to the Lokpal no matter how distant and how remote is still nothing to laugh about.

There is no doubt in the writer’s mind whatever that forces outside the country instigated these NGOs and social activists, Sonia loyalists all and the English print and electronic media to select a Gandhi cap to stage a drama whose purpose is ostensibly to pass the Lokpal Bill. If the ruse succeeds in parliament, and it will not succeed, not in its current form, then the Lokpal is the least of our worries. Like the arrest of the Kanchi acharyas, this melodrama, in the view of the writer, was a test case. This experiment was conducted to test -

If Hindu can be replaced by Gandhi in 2011 as was done in 1909
How Hindu organizations react in times of mass hysteria
The power of the media in setting in motion a course of events to move in a specific direction

The capacity of the Indian government to withstand pressure - pressure from blackmail and pressure of public opinion even when the opinion is manufactured by the media

Anna Hazare was foisted on the nation by unseen forces; these forces used NGOs loyal to Sonia Gandhi to conduct this experiment and the writer’s worst nightmare turned real. Hindus and Hindu organizations failed and failed roundly to read the situation correctly from start to finish. Hindus proved yet again that they will readily pant behind every red-herring shown to them as long as it wears the Gandhi cap; the RSS and Hindu religious leaders being no exception. It is left for India’s parliament to defeat this diabolic plot by not allowing the Lokpal Bill to be tabled by these forces. By all means let us have a Lokpal Act but it has to be national and nationalist.

The writer is left with a question that will not go away. Did Baba Ramdev’s overseas constituency goad him to choose corruption over cow slaughter, over the alarming imbalance in religious demography and over the state of Hindu temples? It would seem so. The last three could not have been hijacked by Sonia Gandhi and her minions to her benefit. Corruption, as was proved, was a different matter. (To be concluded)

Radha Rajan
11th April, 2011.

LEFTISTS' AND FEMINISTS' COMFORTABLE INTEGRATION IN WESTERN SOCIETIES

2011-04-11T21:06:00.000-07:00
Emancipating the Left and Feminists

by

Dr. Gautam Sen

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/143/1/Emancipating-the-Left-and-Feminis
Published with the kind permission of the author.

A quiet revolution has been sweeping the Western world. It is the
integration into mainstream society of the two radical movements that
emerged during the political upheaval of the 1960s. Many Leftist radicals
who once protested the Vietnam War and argued in favour of the dispossessed
have now lined up behind President George Bush Jr., cheering on the utter
destruction of Iraq. The women’s movement in the West has also come full
circle and re-discovered their real enemy of long-established colonial
folklore, non-white men. Their own are doing some sporadic labour in front
of the kitchen sink and occasionally delivering the children to school and
are now comrades-in-arms. They stand shoulder to shoulder together to
confront a much greater threat out there against Western civilisation
itself.

The former Leftist radicals of that era, nowadays anxiously thronging the
gates of the sedate British Academy and entering it too, turn out to have
never been what they sought to project. Much of the anti-Soviet Trotskyite
Left was a creature of Western intelligence services. The latter was not
worried about radical student protest as such, reasoning intelligently that
it was all part of teenage angst and growing up pains. But they were very
concerned about a whole swathe of highly educated middle class students,
with pro-Soviet sympathies, potentially ending up occupying sensitive
positions within the establishment at some later date. Quite understandably,
they feared that once compromised early in life through contact with Soviet
agencies they might become life-long Soviet moles, doing untold damage to
Western interests.

The response of the intelligence services was to promote Trotskyism. The
implied premise was that advanced Western democracies were better suited
to the Marxist musings of the cosmopolitan sophisticate Leon Trotsky and the
inferior Asiatic, Stalinist variety should be denounced and resisted.
Trotskyism was already a bitter enemy of Soviet communism and unlikely to
assist it against the Western democracies. The intelligence services also
quietly set about infiltrating the Leftist radical movement, dominated by
the Trotskyite Left, and recruited some of its key leaders. They also funded
it in various ways by, for example, buying bulk institutional subscriptions
to their publications, including some of the hallowed radical journals that
emerged in the period. Quite clearly, some of the leaders had become paid MI5
agents as well, the sophisticated counter-intelligence organisation of
Britain. Any local damage radical students did on the street level by
putting up posters in upmarket commercial areas, urinating against lampposts
and hurling the occasional missile against the police was considered
entirely tolerable.

The antecedents of some members of the current British Cabinet vindicate the
astuteness of the judgement of the intelligence community that the young
radicals would eventually tire of it all and rejoin the political
mainstream. Indeed some the young radicals had come from wealthy, upper
class backgrounds and were probably easy to corrupt because personal
contacts could be exploited. The activities of these erstwhile radicals
today confirm their murky origins because they have become public supporters
of on-going Anglo-American imperialist wars against third world societies.
Thy include some of the most famous radical names of the period from France,
Germany and Britain, including the most renowned radical Marxist
theoretician in the latter. He and a leading German philosopher now
apparently support carpet bombing Iraq, and Kosovo as well in the latter
case, to advance the class struggle no doubt!

A similar phenomenon has overtaken their US counterparts too, raising
intriguing questions about the nature of their original involvement in
student and 1960s radicalism. European Left radicals have also sought
legitimacy for contemporary imperialist wars by ensuring the co-operation of
their Leftist third world co-conspirators, often occupying positions of
influence within their own societies. This execrable group has always sought
intellectual and emotional sustenance from the Western Left and their
livelihoods depend on various forms of intelligence-derived sponsorships,
i.e. the funding of local NGOs and lucrative foreign assignments. A small
fragment of these third world Leftists has been accommodated within Western
academia, mostly conniving as fraudulent human rights activists.

The women’s movement, primarily an educated middle class affair, though it
did have wider socio-economic repercussions for women as a whole has also
made progress by leaps and bounds. The door to well-paid, high status
professional jobs has largely opened to them though a glass ceiling to the
very top for significant numbers remains somewhat unbroken. Nevertheless,
changes in the past forty years have transformed opportunities for this
dominant white feminist cohort. Well-paid jobs galore in the public,
quasi-public and private sectors have altered their matrix of choices. Once
combined with the incomes of their partners, life is unusually comfortable
for this new aristocracy, the beautiful people, apt to quote Proust in
English and Yeats in French. A whirl of parties, good food, excellent wine
and genteel discourses on third world poverty and the awfulness of
patriarchy in such societies preoccupy them. And all under a gratifying
public gaze.

The one final frontier, concerning how to get domestic chores done, has been
overcome by employing hourly-paid third world women, barely human enough to
be noticeable through crystal wine glasses in manicured hands. It wouldn’t
really do to irritate the well-paid liberated partner who loves to
demonstrate his political consciousness by changing the occasional nappy. He
himself is also eager for his partner’s success in her high income career
that allows a lifestyle that most, the world over, will not enjoy in several
centuries to come, if ever. And Rosie from Manila or Ruth from Accra do need
the money to send back home to feed their children.

One final piece of the jigsaw completes the wondrous world of self-seeking
deceit. A small, but influential group of non-white feminists in Europe and
the America have joined in with hysterical denunciation of their own ethnic
and religious progenitors. The paradox of their situation, like that of the
entire comprador intelligentsia abroad, irrespective of gender, is that they
are only paid to interpret their societies of origin. And their unspoken
brief is to demonise them and legitimate their subjugation and destruction
by Western imperialism.

Their own personal assimilation, indeed escape from the terrifying abyss of
their origins, occurs through relationships with white partners. It is
strikingly noticeable that Asian women in the Western media, academia and
the professions rarely have partners from within their own community. Access
to this privileged white world and their sense of personal self-worth are
anchored to this inter-racial imperative. Despite complex subterfuges and
deceptions about opposition to Western imperialism their emphatic hostility
to third world self-assertion, even when subliminal, legitimates deadly
assaults against it.

(Dr. Gautam Sen formerly taught political economy at the London School
of Economics).

AMARTYA SEN'S DANGEROUS DELUSION OF JUSTICE

2011-04-10T11:37:00.000-07:00
Amartya Sen: The Dangerous Delusion

4/06/2011 23:15:59

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

Courtesy: Haindavakerala http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=13579

Nobel Prize winner (Economics, 1998) Amartya Sen’s new book, "The Idea of Justice" (2009), is an interesting work, written in a chatty latter day Wittgensteinian style. It seeks to deal with the age old controversy in Western thought between Contract Theorists (in the Lockean tradition) and the situational ethics of thinkers such as Adam Smith, Condorcet, Karl Marx et al. In the former camp is the late John Rawls whose major work,"The Theory of Justice" (1971), became important not only for its continuation of classical liberal theory but its advocacy of distributive justice.

Dr. Sen argues on the side of the second group. He takes issue with Rawls but also agrees with him in important ways. The book is impressive for its acknowledgements, an 8 page list (pps.21-28) of who’s who in Western academia. But as a philosophical work it is not rigorously argued (perhaps that was not the author’s intention !).

Whatever the niceties of Sen’s position the present writer will speak about those issues in some other venue. Here, we will concern ourselves with the important question for India, the dangerous delusion that Sen engages in while theorizing about the importance of reasonable accomodation in human conduct and political affairs, depending on any given situation. In essence he is advocating an abstract rationality in politics (unintentionally!) and he does this in an interesting but somewhat distorted way by engaging with the dilemma that Arjuna faced in the battle of Kurukshetra. This part of his book is only a few pages long, but is internally connected with the arguments of the entire book.

Arjuna, as Sen sees it, stands for "nyaya," while Krishna stands for "niti." Nyaya is easily understood as justice and niti can be understood as custom or tradition . Sen does not use the word Dharma which is the best word to use in the context of the dialogue between Sri Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Dharma is not only custom and tradition but encompasses a whole set of ethical and moral values that are not simply considered by Sen. He dismisses them as coming under the rubric of ‘religion.’

Arjuna, as is well known, is in a dilemma before the battle with the Kauravas who are cousins and who had banished Arjuna (and the Pandavas) to the forest in order to seize their kingdom. This was an unjust act and on their return after the period of banishment the Pandavas go to battle with the Kauravas. Arjuna’s dilemma is that he is not only engaged in the act of killing his kith and kin but also engaging in a general carnage of blood letting. In his anguish he turns to his mentor and advisor Krishna, who advises him to realize his Dharma and go to battle.

Hence, according to Sen, Arjuna’s dilemma is threefold:

1.Social Relevance : the significance of human lives. Hundreds of human beings will be killed in this war.
2.Personal Responsibility: he, Arjuna, is personally responsible for the act of destruction.
3.Positioned situation: he is killing those near and dear to him. Ethically speaking one has to be specially concerned with those nearest to us, such as one’s own family, children etc. (Of course, here he is not killing children or one’s immediate family, but kith and kin and those, moreover, who have been hostile to him and his own near and dear ones).

Dr. Sen calls all these three dilemmas a part of Nyaya or a broad based view of justice in human relations. Krishna, on the other hand, invokes a narrow Niti. Arjuna is a warrior and his duty is to defend Dharma (Sen oddly does not use this word, but that is the meaning). The Kauravas are engaged in adharmic conduct and should be defeated.

Sen, does not clarify whether Arjuna was right in going ahead with the battle or whether he himself would have called on Arjuna to withdraw from the battle. This ambiguity in Sen’s presentation of the debate is telling. But the entire thrust of the philosophical arguments of the book point in the direction of favouring a withdrawal.

What then would he advocate when India finds itself in a situation of dire threat?
Can reasoning with the enemy help, even though one would not like that outcome?
Can India roll over and play dead when terrorist strikes are imminent, for instance?

Or should Indians prepare themselves for any eventuality? Sen does use the phrase the ‘just war’ but does not elaborate on the more relevant (for the Indian situation) ‘defensive war’.

Instead he goes into a bizarre comparison of Robert Oppenheimer(who did his duty as a physicist and helped to develop the atom bomb to help his country) with Arjuna’s dilemma. Japan had surrendered and there was no need to have dropped the bomb, which was directly made possible by Oppenheimer’s actions. (Editor's note: "Although it was Truman's decision")

The more relevant comparison would have been the second world war, where many Arjunas, both inside Germany and outside would have anguished at the thought of war.

For Indians, their Dharma (however narrowly interpreted) is clear : they have to be prepared for any eventuality, and the defensive war, if and when it comes, must be fought without hesitation, to defend the Motherland. Had Indians in the past, clearly realized their Dharma, the two major Occupations (the Islamic and the British) could have been avoided.

Arun Shourie put it well when he said : We did not ask for it, but it has been imposed on us.

Vande Mataram !

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught Political Philosophy in a Canadian
university)

TALES IN INDIAN SECULARISM : by N S RAJARAM

2011-04-04T23:15:00.000-07:00
Tales in Indian Secularism

by

N.S. Rajaram -

Courtesy: http://www.newsgram.com

(Picture of Mahatma Gandhi -not copied)
Gandhi often aligned himself with rank communal leaders like Maulvis and Maulanas

Going back to Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian politicians and intellectuals have never stopped proclaiming that India is a secular country. A secular country, or more properly a secular state is one in which religion plays no part. The first modern states to constitutionally mandate secularism were the United States (through the First Amendment) and the Republic of France following the French Revolution. The Indian Constitution as originally adopted (in 1950) makes no mention of secularism. It was introduced into the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency.

The need for secularism in Europe arose because of the stranglehold which the Church had on all areas of life including the government and education. Popes, bishops and other church officials insisted that the government was only the ‘secular arm’ of the Church, and kings existed only to implement the wishes of the Church. The history of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire (5th century) to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and even beyond was dominated by religious wars. Gradually, over the centuries, the rulers and the people of Europe freed themselves from the clutches of the Church. Deeply influenced by this history, the Founding Fathers of the American Republic never allowed religion any place in the state.

Islam has no place for secularism. It recognizes only religious law or the Shariat. The Quran is not only the prayer book it is also the law book. It is different in the Hindu tradition. The priest could never be the ruler even though his advice was sought. Vishwamitra, who used to be a king, had to give up his kingdom and engage in austerities before he was recognized as a seer. When King Bharata adopted a son of sage Bharadwaja as his heir because his sons were unfit to rule, he could no longer be a rishi. The most famous instance is of Prince Siddhartha Gautama leaving his kingdom to become Sage Buddha.

But people calling themselves ‘secularists’ in India have turned this history and tradition on its head by attacking Hinduism as ‘communal’ while tolerating and even justifying theocratic institutions and movements. Nehru of course is well-known as a leading advocate of this so-called secularism. Some secularist intellectuals attack Hindu (and other) groups that advocate a uniform law – that is, a legal code which is the same for all religions. They justify it by invoking Gandhi’s name as the last word. But Gandhi often aligned himself with rank communal leaders like Maulvis and Maulanas as we shall soon see.

In a famous (or infamous) episode known as the Shah Bano case Rajiv Gandhi caved in to Muslim pressure and had a law passed denying support to divorced Muslim women
This is conveniently ignored or even falsified by secularists. Economist Amartya Sen, who like Arundhati Roy seems to think that his celebrity as an economist gives him the freedom to say anything he wants recently wrote: “Mahatma Gandhi was staunchly secularist in politics and insisted on effective separation of the state and the religions.” This is patently false. Here is the true story.

When Gandhi returned to India from South Africa in 1914, circumstances allowed him to rapidly gain control of the Congress party. Gandhi used his position to launch the Nonviolent Non-Cooperation Movement to gain Swaraj (self-rule). Muslim leaders like the Ali brothers (Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali) did not share his vision but simply found him useful to push their own communal agenda. Their main interest was not freedom for India but the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey following Ottoman Turkey’s defeat and dismemberment in the First World War. This was known as the Khilafat movement which finds little mention in Indian history books. They saw India as an Islamic country that had been taken over by the British.

It is important to recognize Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement was launched not to free India but to restore the Sultanate of Turkey. He promised support for the Ali brothers’ Khilafat in exchange for their support and the support of Muslims of India for his Non-Cooperation Movement. In fact, he went so far as to support their theocratic goal by defining Swaraj as Khilafat! In Gandhi’s words: “To the Musalmans Swaraj means, as it must, India’s ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. … It is impossible not to sympathize with this attitude. … I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat.”

So Swaraj according to the ‘secular’ Gandhi meant freedom to bring back Islamic rule! Indian history books carefully leave out the Khilafat fiasco, which Gandhi equated with Swaraj and for which he launched the Non-Cooperation Movement. If they mention it all, they present it as a unifier of Hindus and Muslims. The reality is quite different. It resulted in a massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus all over India. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where a Jihad (Holy War against infidels) called the Mopla Rebellion erupted which took the British several months to put down. It began as a Jihad against the British to restore Islamic rule. When it failed to drive out the British (as Gandhi had promised), it was turned against Hindus (and Christians) who were totally unprepared. After all Gandhi had promised them it would be nonviolent.

What was the Mopla Rebellion like to make secularist historians shy away from it? Sankaran Nair an eyewitness to its horrors had this to say: “For sheer brutality on women, I do not remember anything in history to match the Malabar [Mopla] rebellion. … The atrocities committed more particularly on women are so horrible and unmentionable that I do not propose to refer to them in this book. …literally hundreds might be selected from the English and vernacular papers…[of the period].” (Gandhi and Anarchy by Sir C. Sankaran Nair.)

What was Gandhi’s reaction to the Mopla outrages? At first he denied that the atrocities took place at all. But he could not keep it up for long in the face of overwhelming evidence including reports from his Muslim friends. He then rationalized it as part of their religion. He called the Moplas “God fearing” and said they “are fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious.” This from the Apostle of Nonviolence! It applied to the victims, but the perpetrators were excused as ‘God fearing’ because they were acting according to their religion which sanctioned violence against unbelievers.

This was too much for Annie Beasant. That spirited Englishwoman wrote: “It would be well if Mr. Gandhi could be taken into Malabar to see with his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the preaching of himself and his “loved brothers”, Mohammed and Shaukat Ali. … The Moplahs murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything…Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.”

So Gandhi, far from being secular, began his political career in India by supporting a strictly theocratic movement to establish an Islamic state (Khilafat Raj) as an adjunct to the restored Caliphate headed by the Sultan of Turkey! The final irony is that the Turks themselves had no use for their Sultan or the Caliphate. They kicked out the Sultan-Caliph (actually pseudo-Caliph). Their leader Kemal Ataturk also abolished Islam as state religion calling it an Arab superstition. Turkey became a secular state while Gandhi campaigned for Khilafat Raj in India!

This is the man about whom Amartya Sen unabashedly wrote: “Mahatma Gandhi was staunchly secularist in politics and insisted on effective separation of the state and the religions.” This is not the only instance of Sen engaging in blatant falsehood. In a different context, Sen tried to whitewash the persecution of non-Muslims in Medieval Spain with the words: “…when the Jewish philosopher Maimonides was forced to emigrate from an intolerant Europe in the 12th century, he found a tolerant refuge in the Arab (Muslim) world.”

This was too much for the Arab scholar Foujad Ajami who denounced Sen’s whitewashing by pointing out: “This won’t do as history.” The truth is that the ‘intolerant’ Europe Maimonides had to flee happened to be Spain then under Berber Muslim rule, which Ajami pointed out “made the life of Spanish Jews… utter hell.” But a lie can become the truth if propagated in the name of secularism, especially by an eminent (or pseudo-eminent) figure; at least according to Amartya Sen, Arundhati Roy and their ilk. Its oracle was Jawaharlal Nehru.

As India was about become free, Gandhi suppressed the strong nationalist leader Sardar Patel and anointed his favorite Jawaharlal Nehru as prime minister. Gandhi had previously eliminated Netaji Subhas Bose as potential rival by forcing him into exile. Nehru was less a nationalist than a product of Western colonial attitudes. His first act as prime minister of independent India was to ask the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten to continue as Governor General. He then took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on Mountbatten’s (and his wife’s) recommendation, against the advice of Sardar Patel and the Indian Army. (Nehru detested the military.)

As India was about become free, Gandhi suppressed the strong nationalist leader Sardar Patel and anointed his favorite Jawaharlal Nehru as prime minister. Gandhi had previously eliminated Netaji Subhas Bose as potential rival by forcing him into exile. Nehru was less a nationalist than a product of Western colonial attitudes. His first act as prime minister of independent India was to ask the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten to continue as Governor General. He then took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on Mountbatten’s (and his wife’s) recommendation, against the advice of Sardar Patel and the Indian Army. (Nehru detested the military.)

It is not widely known that Nehru wanted to take the Hyderabad dispute with the Nizam also to the UN, but Sardar Patel put his foot down. By then Mountbatten was gone and C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) was governor General; and Rajaji supported Patel. Had Nehru and Mountbatten had their way, India might have been saddled with a ‘Hyderabad Problem’ in the heart of the country to go with its Kashmir Problem.

It is not widely known that Nehru wanted to take the Hyderabad dispute with the Nizam also to the UN, but Sardar Patel put his foot down. By then Mountbatten was gone and C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) was governor General; and Rajaji supported Patel. Had Nehru and Mountbatten had their way, India might have been saddled with a ‘Hyderabad Problem’ in the heart of the country to go with its Kashmir Problem.

(Picture of Annie Besant - not copied)
Annie Besant was truly a secularist in the righteous way

Nehru also continued the colonial British policy of supporting divisive forces while suppressing nationalist aspirations in the name of secularism. To begin with, on the advice of the unscrupulous English missionary Verrier Elwin, he allowed missionaries in the northeast leading to the alienation of what are now Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. While forcing changes in the Hindu legal code, he allowed Muslim and Christian leaders to retain legal authority. Even today, it is possible in Kerala for church leaders to deprive women of inheritance by invoking a medieval Christian code. Most extraordinarily Nehru also introduced the Haj Bill to provide government subsidy for pilgrims going on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. This act of Nehruvian secularism is still with us.

Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi was not anti-nationalist like her father, but was entirely unscrupulous in the use of power. She introduced the word ‘secular’ in the Indian Constitution during the Emergency. But she was a woman of courage. That however was not true of her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi. In a famous (or infamous) episode known as the Shah Bano case Rajiv Gandhi caved in to Muslim pressure and had a law passed denying support to divorced Muslim women.

(Picture of Shah Bano- not copied)
Shah Bano, a 62 year old Muslim woman and mother of was divorced by her husband in 1978

Shah Bano, a 62 year old Muslim woman and mother of was divorced by her husband in 1978. The Muslim family law (marriage, gifts, inheritance, adoption and a few other civil laws are under the purview of personal laws in India – they are different for Christians, Muslims and Hindus) allows the husband to do this and also the wife: the husband just needs to say the word Talaq (meaning divorce) three times before two witnesses for a valid divorce. (This unequal treatment is thanks to Nehruvian secularism.)

Shah Bano, because she had no means to support herself and her children, approached the courts for securing maintenance from her husband. When the case reached the Supreme Court of India, seven years had elapsed. The Supreme Court ruled that Shah Bano be given maintenance money, similar to alimony. There was a huge outcry by Muslim leaders like Syed Shahabuddin who threatened to take their case to the streets. Rajiv Gandhi bowed to their demands and passed law in the Parliament that invalidated the court decision and upheld Islamic court ruling. He justified this blatantly communal act as an example of secularism in action.

After Rajiv’s death, the sordid saga of cowardice and disregard for women’s rights was followed by his widow and successor Sonia Gandhi. This came to the fore in a notorious human rights case that has drawn international attention. When Imrana, a young Muslim woman was raped by her father-in-law, a self-appointed Muslim body calling itself the All India Muslim Personal Law Board issued a fatwa (ruling based on Sharia or Islamic law) that the rape had made the victim Imrana ‘impure’ (haram) and as a result her marriage to her husband stood annulled. Adding insult to injury, it directed Imrana to leave her husband and live with her rapist father-in-law as one of his wives! It may be noted that in ‘secular’ India, polygamy is legal for Muslims but a punishable crime if practiced by non-Muslims. (So a Muslim judge with several wives can sentence a non-Muslim for polygamy.)

After Rajiv’s death, the sordid saga of cowardice and disregard for women’s rights was followed by his widow and successor Sonia Gandhi. This came to the fore in a notorious human rights case that has drawn international attention. When Imrana, a young Muslim woman was raped by her father-in-law, a self-appointed Muslim body calling itself the All India Muslim Personal Law Board issued a fatwa (ruling based on Sharia or Islamic law) that the rape had made the victim Imrana ‘impure’ (haram) and as a result her marriage to her husband stood annulled. Adding insult to injury, it directed Imrana to leave her husband and live with her rapist father-in-law as one of his wives! It may be noted that in ‘secular’ India, polygamy is legal for Muslims but a punishable crime if practiced by non-Muslims. (So a Muslim judge with several wives can sentence a non-Muslim for polygamy.)

There were protests all over India and the whole world reacted with shock. Salman Rushdie, himself a victim of religious persecution, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times denouncing Sharia (Islamic law) and religious bodies like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. In the midst of this storm, Mrs. Gandhi refused to come to the aid of the victim, or even condemn the atrocity. Instead, she directed the government’s law minister and her closest aide H.R. Bharadwaj to issue a statement exonerating the Muslim Personal Law Board— on the ground that the government cannot “interfere” in a matter touching on religion!

Conventional political wisdom holds that such cowardly acts by Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi were motivated by vote bank politics, that is, to gain Muslim votes. There could be another stronger motive—fear of street violence directed possibly against them. Wikileaks has revealed that the former president Dr Abdul Kalam wanted Afzal Guru, who had been convicted for the terrorist attack on the Parliament to be hanged. But Sonia Gandhi opposed it and opposed also a second term for Dr Kalam.

Conventional political wisdom holds that such cowardly acts by Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi were motivated by vote bank politics, that is, to gain Muslim votes. There could be another stronger motive—fear of street violence directed possibly against them. Wikileaks has revealed that the former president Dr Abdul Kalam wanted Afzal Guru, who had been convicted for the terrorist attack on the Parliament to be hanged. But Sonia Gandhi opposed it and opposed also a second term for Dr Kalam.

To be enlightened, secularism must be combined with humanism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were secular figures, but they were also among the worst mass murderers in history. Unfortunately, the Indian Nehruvian brand of secular is not truly secular but also anti-humanist.

In summary, what Nehru and his successors have created is not a secular state but a multi-headed theocratic jumble in which the law of the land is different for persons of different faith. India will become secular only when the law of the land is the same for everyone and there is total separation of the state from religion. Half measures and sophistry will not do.

Dr. NS Rajaram is a distinguished historian with several laudable works on history to his credit. He is also an Adjunt Professor with University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth.

THE ENEMY WITHIN : AN AWAKENING NOTE FOR HINDU INDIANS

2011-04-01T23:31:00.000-07:00
The Enemy Within

28/03/2011 23:18:40

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.asp

In a remarkable event at the India Today Conclave Dr. Subramania Swamy spoke honestly and forthrightly on the question of how there cannot be social harmony in the Indian subcontinent until the two proselytizing religions Christianity and Islam accept that India is a Hindu majority country with a long history of religious tolerance that was shattered with the coming of the Islamic and Christian (British) regimes. It ended with the Partition of Akhanda Bharat and the successive ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Bangladesh, Pakistan and within Indian itself, in the state of Kashmir.Nearly 500,000 Kashmiri Hindus were driven out of Kashmir merely because they were Hindus. The Hindu population of Bangladhesh which had been 35% is now
<7%. Likewise in Pakistan.

As Shri R.Venkatanarayanan, former Secretary to the Government of India, later former National Secretary of the HDAS (Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha) and currently Advisor to Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, put it :

“As far as I can recall, this is the first time in India that an eminent person has spoken so openly from a non-religious platform that social harmony in India, a religiously pluralistic society, is dependent on how Christianity and Islam conduct themselves in regard to Hinduism. Unless what Sri Swamy has brought out is assiduously buried deep by vested interests (the media will do its best to do so) the consequence in civil debate in India is likely to benefit social harmony. Hindus are the best neighbours in the world, provided their toes are not trampled upon."
(in an e-mail to Breakingindia.group)

(Readers may watch Dr.Swamy’s speech at the India Today Conclave at http:vimeo.com/21342400)

Dr. Swamy might have added that there is an enemy within, the deracinated Hindus of
India who have inherited the Macaulayian mantle and who now will be subjected to
the ongoing brainwashing by the left/liberal shenanigans of the University of Chicago project in New Delhi. This pertains to the establishment of an adjunct university to be set up at the University of Delhi, to be headed by no less a personage than the noted anti-Hindu academic Martha Nussbaum (Nussbaum is her married name, and she is divorced from that gentleman; she herself was born into a Christian family in the U.S.).

As Rajiv Malhotra (author of the book Breaking India 2010) pointed out: “What Macaulay failed to do will be accomplished by Martha Nussbaum” (in his comments to the Breakingindia. group). However, here too Shri Malhotra has temporarily forgotten the real damage that Macaulay’s educational system inflicted on the Indian subcontinent(and which is mentioned in the book Breaking India) along with the ongoing colonial Occupation of India. This was long before Nussbaum. She merely inherited Macaulay’s children, as they are called.

The destruction of the highly effective and organized Hindu educational system that existed prior to the advent of both the Occupations (the Islamic and the British) was one key and the other was the military domination and the economic exploitation by the colonial power. Hinduism as a religion could not be exterminated, this both the Islamic and the British rulers saw quite early on. Nor could the majority of the population be changed in its socio religious practices.

But a creamy layer could be created which would not only be enticed by the advantages of money and power but also by what Belgian scholar Dr.Koenrad Elst has called the colonizing of the Hindu mind. To continue that train of thought, the present writer would like to add the word ‘amnesia.’ Everything related to Hindu history had to be obliterated from the Hindu mind.

At this stage the revision of Hindu history by the Western revisionists, aided by their Indian counterparts, had begun. The post independence era saw a continuation of this process with very slight modifications only. Romila Thapar is a classic example of an Indian historian following the Western paradigm of writing Indian history.As a result, decolonizing the Hindu mind (to use Koenraad Elst’s phrase) has to begin with the opposite of amnesia, namely anamnesis, a remembering.

This is made easier for the educated elite by the staunch persistence of Hindu belief and Hindu worship by the majority of the people. The ‘aam admi’ (common man) is not only the producer of the wealth of the country by which the parasitical class lives, he/she is the staunch upholder of Hindu tradition, upholder and practitioner of the Hindu way of life.

Endless attempts by the ruling elite to describe and dismiss and eliminate Hinduism as Brahmanism have ended in failure. Attempts by avante garde writers such as the redoubtable Arundhati Roy to revile and anathematize the ‘Brahmanic Hindu state’ have ended in failure. This is simply because the construct of ‘Brahmanism’ is a straw man. Since the time of the Vedas, there has been an unbroken tradition of a way of life, of worship, of texts and rituals, which gathered momentum and enrichment with each century, an ongoing process which has defied the machinations and maneouverings of the Asuric forces (phrase coined by a Hindu in the diaspora).

And a new Hindu renaissance such as occurred in the 19th century amongst the educated elite seems to be in the offing, despite the thralldom of material and economic success.

Hindu India is fighting back, and hopefully it will not be only the aam admi that will carry the burden. And it will not only be the Sangh Parivar organizations that will carry the banner aloft.

Indian intellectuals have started a critical remembering. An outstanding example is Dr.Shrinivas Tilak’s book Reawakening to a Secular Hindu Nation (2008). Written by a scholar familiar with both Western and Hindu thought, this book is sure to provide a great impetus to that parallel line of enquiry that the present writer has talked about elsewhere, in conjunction with the polemical and pathbreaking historical perspectives of the book Breaking India (2010).

Breaking India provides a new interpretation of what passed as scholarship in the West concerning India. The book also gives a detailed analysis of the Dravidian-Christian nexus that seeks to balkanize India so that the Christian evangelical project may succeed.

Reawakening to a secular Hindu Nation shows how a secular Hindu polity is in keeping with the profound spiritual philosophy of Madhav Rao Golwalkar (Guru Golwalkar). The present writer has traced briefly the outlines of the book in a book review which the reader may usefully consult before proceeding to the complexities of the book, which also has a sensitively written Foreword by Dr. Shreekumar Vinekar. The book review may be consulted in the book review section of Haindava Keralam .

(http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aaspx?PagelD=9628&SKIN=l )

The aim of the author is to demonstrate that since the ancient past the state in India has always been secular, functioning within the parameters of a Hindu nation (Hindu Rashtra). Indians have inherited a civilization with common life-ideals and a life-philosophy based on values that today can be described as inclusive and pluralistic.

The Hindu Nation thus has been a continuously unifying idea and practice (pragatan) in the life of the peoples of the subcontinent. This process got submerged, though not destroyed, during the various conquests, invasions and occupations (vighatan). The way out is reawakening to this idea (sanghatan).

In his Foreword Dr. Vinekar observes:

“Very few scholars of India that is Bharat, reborn after the horrendous vivisection of Bharat that was India bothered to ask . . . What then is this Indian, this “new secular person” being re-moulded in the crucible of ‘secularism’ described as being independent of Dharma . . . since 1947?” Dr. Tilak following Madhav Rao Golwalkar asks this question and attempts to provide some answers.

Anamnesis or remembering, then, is a two pronged effort: that of counteracting the
false consciousness engendered by the asuric forces (*Editor's Note: This can be termed, "Cultural Miseducation") and the remembering and recovering of Hindu Dharma.

The process has begun in earnest in the last three decades or so with the
rejection by Indic scholars of the Aryan Invasion theory. This was followed up
by work on the discovery of the ancient river Sarasvati mentioned in the Rig
Veda. Dr. S. Kalyanraman, Director of the Sarasvati Research Centre, has
sponsored conferences on the topic.

He has also authored a book on the Sarasvati Sindhu civilisation script titled
Indus Cipher (2010).

Currently, there are two important works "Breaking India" by RM & AN (2010) and
Dr. Shrinivas Tilak's "Reawakening to a Secular Hindu Nation" (2008).

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).

*Editor's Note: See "Cultural Miseducation: Historian's Pitfall" on this blog.