Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra
Identity
"Why make such a fuss over this issue? Why not just maintain a polite silence? All this talk of Hindu rashtra may offend some people. Why is it so important that we openly proclaim this truth?" Because identity matters. It is important to know who we are and where we come from. Every individual is special. Who you are is your unique gift to society. What is true for individuals is also true for civilisations. Every civilisation has something to give to the world - which it can give only if it knows its true nature. A civilisation that loses its sense of identity is of no use to the world.
Yes, we should be welcoming and hospitable to others. But you can be welcoming and hospitable only if you have a house of your own. Identity is that house. Gandhiji said, "Keep your doors and windows open. Let the winds come in from all over the world. But do not be blown off your feet." Note that he said, "Keep your doors and windows open". He did not say, "Break your walls down". Just as we need four walls and a roof to protect us from heat, cold and rain, we need an identity to survive in the real world, in the world of culture and politics.
"Who am I?" is the most fundamental question a human being faces. Our civilisation gives us the answer to this question at two levels: the ultimate and the immediate. The answer at the ultimate level is "I am Brahman". And the answer at the immediate level is "I am a Hindu".
(Concluded)
21 September 2007
20 September 2007
Hindu Rashtra - 4
Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra
Secularism
The case is overwhelming. Yet secularists refuse to accept the obvious truth. What could be behind this cussedness? A desire to be broad minded, open, universal and tolerant? But those are exactly the values Hinduism stands for! There is no contradiction between asserting India’s Hinduness and wanting India to continue as a tolerant, pluralist society.
Secularists say declaring India a Hindu country would undermine the secular nature of our Constitution. They don't see that a secular state is perfectly consistent with Hinduism. In Hindu India the state was always secular; there was never such a thing as a Hindu state. Whichever sect a king belonged to, all his subjects had complete freedom of belief and worship. He did not discriminate among his subjects based on their sects; all subjects were equal; all sects were respected. Thus when the founding fathers of our Republic made India a secular state, they were not importing anything from the West (never mind what Nehru thought). They were merely staying true to Hindu tradition. Incidentally the Constitution did not originally contain the word 'secular'. The founding fathers saw no need for it. A secular state was a given. It needed a cynical politician like Indira Gandhi to insert the word into the Preamble. How unnecessary!
Secularists say declaring India a Hindu country would pave the way for a Hindu theocracy. A Hindu theocracy is not possible because Hinduism is not an organised religion. Secularists are unwilling to admit that Hinduism - with its tolerance and catholicity - is responsible for India being a multi-religious country today. If India is a vibrant, pluralistic democracy, it is mainly because of its Hindu majority. Thus accepting India’s Hinduness will only strengthen, not weaken, our secular polity.
Secularism
The case is overwhelming. Yet secularists refuse to accept the obvious truth. What could be behind this cussedness? A desire to be broad minded, open, universal and tolerant? But those are exactly the values Hinduism stands for! There is no contradiction between asserting India’s Hinduness and wanting India to continue as a tolerant, pluralist society.
Secularists say declaring India a Hindu country would undermine the secular nature of our Constitution. They don't see that a secular state is perfectly consistent with Hinduism. In Hindu India the state was always secular; there was never such a thing as a Hindu state. Whichever sect a king belonged to, all his subjects had complete freedom of belief and worship. He did not discriminate among his subjects based on their sects; all subjects were equal; all sects were respected. Thus when the founding fathers of our Republic made India a secular state, they were not importing anything from the West (never mind what Nehru thought). They were merely staying true to Hindu tradition. Incidentally the Constitution did not originally contain the word 'secular'. The founding fathers saw no need for it. A secular state was a given. It needed a cynical politician like Indira Gandhi to insert the word into the Preamble. How unnecessary!
Secularists say declaring India a Hindu country would pave the way for a Hindu theocracy. A Hindu theocracy is not possible because Hinduism is not an organised religion. Secularists are unwilling to admit that Hinduism - with its tolerance and catholicity - is responsible for India being a multi-religious country today. If India is a vibrant, pluralistic democracy, it is mainly because of its Hindu majority. Thus accepting India’s Hinduness will only strengthen, not weaken, our secular polity.
19 September 2007
Hindu Rashtra - 3
Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra
Unity
India is the oldest surviving civilisation in the world. The older civilisations (Sumer and Egypt) vanished long ago. Many younger civilisations (Greece, Rome, Persia, etc) also arose and fell. But India is still standing after 5000 years - despite being subject to countless invasions, conquests and long periods of foreign rule. How is this possible? How can a nation survive such severe trials? What gave it the strength to go on through its dark periods? What held it together through all the ups and downs of history? The answer is Sanatana Dharma.
Secularists say there was no India before 1947. They say the British made us a nation. I repeat: our nation is first and foremost a cultural entity. India may not have seen much political unity in its long history, but there was no lack of cultural unity. This land bound by the seas, the Himalayas and the Indus was one cultural unit. Its people may have followed different sects and worshipped different gods, but they all shared certain common core beliefs (such as karma and moksha). Irrespective of where they lived, they made pilgrimages to holy places scattered all over the country. The great epics were treasured in every home across the length and breadth of the land. It is not a coincidence that Shankara set up his four mutts in the four corners of India.
Thus it is Hinduism that binds this country. Secularists talk only about India's (and Hinduism's) diversity. They do not see the unity underlying this diversity. What unites us is much more than what (apparently) divides us. They say Hinduism is just one of the many religions in India. They are wrong; it is the first among equals. They say India is a salad bowl and Hinduism just one of the ingredients in the bowl. They are wrong; Hinduism is the bowl.
Unity
India is the oldest surviving civilisation in the world. The older civilisations (Sumer and Egypt) vanished long ago. Many younger civilisations (Greece, Rome, Persia, etc) also arose and fell. But India is still standing after 5000 years - despite being subject to countless invasions, conquests and long periods of foreign rule. How is this possible? How can a nation survive such severe trials? What gave it the strength to go on through its dark periods? What held it together through all the ups and downs of history? The answer is Sanatana Dharma.
Secularists say there was no India before 1947. They say the British made us a nation. I repeat: our nation is first and foremost a cultural entity. India may not have seen much political unity in its long history, but there was no lack of cultural unity. This land bound by the seas, the Himalayas and the Indus was one cultural unit. Its people may have followed different sects and worshipped different gods, but they all shared certain common core beliefs (such as karma and moksha). Irrespective of where they lived, they made pilgrimages to holy places scattered all over the country. The great epics were treasured in every home across the length and breadth of the land. It is not a coincidence that Shankara set up his four mutts in the four corners of India.
Thus it is Hinduism that binds this country. Secularists talk only about India's (and Hinduism's) diversity. They do not see the unity underlying this diversity. What unites us is much more than what (apparently) divides us. They say Hinduism is just one of the many religions in India. They are wrong; it is the first among equals. They say India is a salad bowl and Hinduism just one of the ingredients in the bowl. They are wrong; Hinduism is the bowl.
18 September 2007
Hindu Rashtra - 2
Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra
Culture
A nation is defined by its culture. Secularists want us to believe that a piece of land + some people + some laws are enough to make a nation. This is a dry and lifeless idea of nationhood. It is incapable of inspiring love, loyalty, pride and a sense of belonging - all of which make life meaningful and give us a reason to sacrifice for the common good.
A nation is above all a cultural entity. This is especially true of India. And Indian culture is basically Hindu culture. This is reflected in our greatest achievements in art, architecture and literature. The Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the great temples of South India, the plays of Kalidasa (the list is endless) - which are the wonder of the world - are all essentially Hindu. It is also reflected in the lives of the greatest men produced by this land. From Buddha and Shankara down to Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi, they are all known primarily for their contribution to Hindu thought and their upholding of Hindu values.
True, other religions have also made their contributions. Islam, for instance, has given us the Taj Mahal and Hindustani classical music, among other things. But these achievements were the result of foreign cultures mixing with the foundational culture, like rivers merging with the mighty ocean. And there can be no doubt what that foundational culture is. Secularists talk about composite culture. They refuse to recognise that we have a composite culture today precisely because of Hinduism's tolerant and assimilative nature. Honesty lies in giving credit where it is due.
Culture
A nation is defined by its culture. Secularists want us to believe that a piece of land + some people + some laws are enough to make a nation. This is a dry and lifeless idea of nationhood. It is incapable of inspiring love, loyalty, pride and a sense of belonging - all of which make life meaningful and give us a reason to sacrifice for the common good.
A nation is above all a cultural entity. This is especially true of India. And Indian culture is basically Hindu culture. This is reflected in our greatest achievements in art, architecture and literature. The Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the great temples of South India, the plays of Kalidasa (the list is endless) - which are the wonder of the world - are all essentially Hindu. It is also reflected in the lives of the greatest men produced by this land. From Buddha and Shankara down to Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi, they are all known primarily for their contribution to Hindu thought and their upholding of Hindu values.
True, other religions have also made their contributions. Islam, for instance, has given us the Taj Mahal and Hindustani classical music, among other things. But these achievements were the result of foreign cultures mixing with the foundational culture, like rivers merging with the mighty ocean. And there can be no doubt what that foundational culture is. Secularists talk about composite culture. They refuse to recognise that we have a composite culture today precisely because of Hinduism's tolerant and assimilative nature. Honesty lies in giving credit where it is due.
17 September 2007
Hindu Rashtra - 1
(This is the first post in a five-part series)
Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra
Secularists just don't get it. They are simply not willing to admit that India is a Hindu country. The point is so obvious that one doesn't know where to begin 'proving' it.
People
Firstly, it's a matter of simple numbers. India is 80.5% Hindu. Muslims and Christians are 13.4% and 2.3% respectively. That alone should be enough to clinch the case. But there is more.
History
Throughout India’s history, Hinduism has been the land’s dominant tradition. In fact, for a long time it was the only tradition.
India's history began with the Indus Valley Civilisation (3000 BC – 1700 BC). Elements from this civilisation were absorbed into the way of life that developed during the Vedic Period (1500 BC – 500 BC), forming what we today know as Hinduism.
The first alien faith (Christianity) arrived in India only in 50 AD, when we had been a purely Hindu civilisation for 3000 years! (And how much headway was made by this faith can be judged by the fact that after 2000 years of missionary activity and 200 years of European rule, it is still a mere 2% of the population) The second alien faith (Islam) arrived in India in 712 AD. So Islam has been in the subcontinent for only 1300 out of 5000 years of our history.
Secularists disagree with the above argument, saying that India was a "multi-religious" civilisation long before Christianity and Islam arrived. They point to Jainism and Buddhism. What they don't realise is that Jainism and Buddhism are not separate religions. These are just two of the many schools of thought (or 'sects') within Hinduism. Mahavira and Buddha did not teach anything fundamentally different from the Vedas. Their revolt was against the empty ritualism and ill practices that Vedic religion had degenerated into, not against the Vedas themselves. With their emphasis on concepts like satya and ahimsa - which are what the Vedas also teach - they succeeded in restoring Sanatana Dharma to its true spirit (A similar revival can be seen in the Upanishads during the same period, albeit at the intellectual level). The teachings of Guru Nanak 2000 years later should also be seen in the same light. Thus Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are just different streams (and such beautiful streams!) flowing into the great river of Sanatana Dharma. Yet secularists like Amartya Sen insist on saying that Ashoka, arguably India's greatest ruler, was "a Buddhist, not a Hindu".
Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra
Secularists just don't get it. They are simply not willing to admit that India is a Hindu country. The point is so obvious that one doesn't know where to begin 'proving' it.
People
Firstly, it's a matter of simple numbers. India is 80.5% Hindu. Muslims and Christians are 13.4% and 2.3% respectively. That alone should be enough to clinch the case. But there is more.
History
Throughout India’s history, Hinduism has been the land’s dominant tradition. In fact, for a long time it was the only tradition.
India's history began with the Indus Valley Civilisation (3000 BC – 1700 BC). Elements from this civilisation were absorbed into the way of life that developed during the Vedic Period (1500 BC – 500 BC), forming what we today know as Hinduism.
The first alien faith (Christianity) arrived in India only in 50 AD, when we had been a purely Hindu civilisation for 3000 years! (And how much headway was made by this faith can be judged by the fact that after 2000 years of missionary activity and 200 years of European rule, it is still a mere 2% of the population) The second alien faith (Islam) arrived in India in 712 AD. So Islam has been in the subcontinent for only 1300 out of 5000 years of our history.
Secularists disagree with the above argument, saying that India was a "multi-religious" civilisation long before Christianity and Islam arrived. They point to Jainism and Buddhism. What they don't realise is that Jainism and Buddhism are not separate religions. These are just two of the many schools of thought (or 'sects') within Hinduism. Mahavira and Buddha did not teach anything fundamentally different from the Vedas. Their revolt was against the empty ritualism and ill practices that Vedic religion had degenerated into, not against the Vedas themselves. With their emphasis on concepts like satya and ahimsa - which are what the Vedas also teach - they succeeded in restoring Sanatana Dharma to its true spirit (A similar revival can be seen in the Upanishads during the same period, albeit at the intellectual level). The teachings of Guru Nanak 2000 years later should also be seen in the same light. Thus Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are just different streams (and such beautiful streams!) flowing into the great river of Sanatana Dharma. Yet secularists like Amartya Sen insist on saying that Ashoka, arguably India's greatest ruler, was "a Buddhist, not a Hindu".
13 September 2007
Scientific Temper?
The UPA government has stated in an affidavit to the Supreme Court that Rama did not exist and the events in the Ramayana never occurred. Its argument is that there is no historical evidence for the same. Fine. The next time a case concerning Islam comes up, I would like to hear the UPA say, "There is no evidence to prove that Allah revealed the Quran to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. Going strictly by historical evidence, the Quran was written by Muhammad himself." And when a case concerning Christianity comes up, I would like to hear the UPA say, "There is no evidence to prove that Jesus was the son of God, born to the virgin Mary. Going strictly by historical evidence, Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Mary was not a virgin."
Seriously, what are the chances of this happening? The truth is that 'secular' parties take Hindus for granted and consider Hinduism a soft target. In this country 'secularism' in practice means 'anti-Hinduism'.
Seriously, what are the chances of this happening? The truth is that 'secular' parties take Hindus for granted and consider Hinduism a soft target. In this country 'secularism' in practice means 'anti-Hinduism'.
07 September 2007
The Politics Of God
There was this brilliant article* on secularism, religion and politics. In it the author tries to understand Islamic extremism - its absolute refusal to separate religion and politics - by looking at Christianity's own history. He notes that separation of church and state in the West is itself a relatively recent phenomenon, and is still an experiment.
For more than a thousand years religion and politics went together in the Christian world too. Then the Reformation happened, dividing Europe into Protestant north and Catholic south. The next century and a half saw the two sects busy killing each other (the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years' War in Germany, the English Civil War, etc). Finally they realised this madness had to stop, otherwise there wouldn't be any Christian left alive. Thus was born "The Great Separation". And the man who led them on this path was Thomas Hobbes, with his 1651 work Leviathan.
[I had always thought that the father of Western secularism was Machiavelli - the first European thinker to offer an amoral (not immoral) view of politics. Hobbes I knew mainly in a negative light, for his advocacy of despotism and criticism of democracy. So this article was news to me.]
The article is written in a completely Western context, talking only about the three Semitic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is understandable - the author is a Westerner (and a Christian) and the hot issue facing the world today is radical Islam. However it would be interesting for us to ponder over what all this means in the context of Hinduism.
(*Unfortunately the article is no longer available for free at the original site. You can try accessing it here.)
For more than a thousand years religion and politics went together in the Christian world too. Then the Reformation happened, dividing Europe into Protestant north and Catholic south. The next century and a half saw the two sects busy killing each other (the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years' War in Germany, the English Civil War, etc). Finally they realised this madness had to stop, otherwise there wouldn't be any Christian left alive. Thus was born "The Great Separation". And the man who led them on this path was Thomas Hobbes, with his 1651 work Leviathan.
[I had always thought that the father of Western secularism was Machiavelli - the first European thinker to offer an amoral (not immoral) view of politics. Hobbes I knew mainly in a negative light, for his advocacy of despotism and criticism of democracy. So this article was news to me.]
The article is written in a completely Western context, talking only about the three Semitic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is understandable - the author is a Westerner (and a Christian) and the hot issue facing the world today is radical Islam. However it would be interesting for us to ponder over what all this means in the context of Hinduism.
(*Unfortunately the article is no longer available for free at the original site. You can try accessing it here.)
20 August 2007
Why Advaita?
[A friend asked me for my view of Vedanta. So here we go]
This theory (of the unity of all creation) can be known as a fact only by those who have realised Brahman. What about the rest of us? We can either accept it as true (based on faith) or reject it (based on reason/doubt/whatever). Religious/spiritual people can do the former; while rationalists, skeptics and materialists will do the latter.
What about me? I am a fence sitter. I am also a pragmatist ("What is true? That which works"). I am more interested in the ethical implications of an idea than its metaphysical truth. In the case of Advaita, as I have already pointed out, the ethical implications are too good to ignore. A philosophy that preaches the essential oneness of all men is the only cure for the ills of today's world.
Some will criticise me for taking such a gross instrumentalist view of such a sublime philosophy - arguably the greatest achievement of the human mind. It is like drinking amrita to slake one's thirst (something that can be achieved by drinking tap water). Well, what to do? I am like this only.
This theory (of the unity of all creation) can be known as a fact only by those who have realised Brahman. What about the rest of us? We can either accept it as true (based on faith) or reject it (based on reason/doubt/whatever). Religious/spiritual people can do the former; while rationalists, skeptics and materialists will do the latter.
What about me? I am a fence sitter. I am also a pragmatist ("What is true? That which works"). I am more interested in the ethical implications of an idea than its metaphysical truth. In the case of Advaita, as I have already pointed out, the ethical implications are too good to ignore. A philosophy that preaches the essential oneness of all men is the only cure for the ills of today's world.
Some will criticise me for taking such a gross instrumentalist view of such a sublime philosophy - arguably the greatest achievement of the human mind. It is like drinking amrita to slake one's thirst (something that can be achieved by drinking tap water). Well, what to do? I am like this only.
08 August 2007
Rape Of Temples
| Apropos the point made by Naipaul, here is a list of the major temples plundered and/or demolished by Turks and Mughals. | ||
| Place | Year | Attacked By |
| Mathura | 1018 | Mahmud of Ghazni |
| Kanauj | 1018 | Mahmud of Ghazni |
| Somnath | 1025 | Mahmud of Ghazni |
| Varanasi | 1192 | Muhammad of Ghor |
| Varanasi | 1194 | Qutb-ud-din Aibak |
| Devagiri | 1296 | Alauddin Khalji |
| Somnath | 1299 | Alauddin Khalji |
| Devagiri | 1307 | Alauddin Khalji |
| Warangal | 1309 | Malik Kafur |
| Madurai | 1311 | Malik Kafur |
| Srirangam | 1311 | Malik Kafur |
| Chidambaram | 1311 | Malik Kafur |
| Puri | 1361 | Feroze Shah Tughlaq |
| Ayodhya | 1528 | Mir Baki |
| Hampi | 1565 | Bahmanid Sultans |
| Varanasi | 1669 | Aurangzeb |
| Mathura | 1670 | Aurangzeb |
The data is from John Keay's 'India: A History'. Keay, a British writer, isn't exactly an RSS supporter. But facts are facts. The remarkable thing is none of this was mentioned in our school history textbooks. Why? In the interest of 'communal harmony'? It is nobody's case that today's Indian Muslims be held responsible for these atrocities. But a nation that buries inconvenient parts of its history is asking for trouble. It is only by confronting and coming to terms with our painful past that we can move forward and build a new tomorrow - one that is based on honesty, not on denial. As Santayana said,"Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it".
Why make such a fuss over a few broken temples? It is important to remember that in traditional India, temples were not just places of worship. They were social, cultural and educational centres as well. Thus the attacks on them were an attempt to destroy our very civilisational fabric.
07 August 2007
Naipaul On India
V S Naipaul gave an interview to Outlook in 1999. Here are some excerpts.
On India's history
"The millennium began with the Muslim invasions and the grinding down of the Hindu-Buddhist culture of the north. This is such a big and bad event that people still have to find polite, destiny-defying ways of speaking about it. In art books and history books, people write of the Muslims 'arriving' in India, as though the Muslims came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence - the absence of Hindu monuments in the north - is convincing enough."
On Hindutva
"You say that Hindu militancy is dangerous. Dangerous or not, it is a necessary corrective to the history I have been talking about. It is a creative force and it will prove to be so."
On India's history
"The millennium began with the Muslim invasions and the grinding down of the Hindu-Buddhist culture of the north. This is such a big and bad event that people still have to find polite, destiny-defying ways of speaking about it. In art books and history books, people write of the Muslims 'arriving' in India, as though the Muslims came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence - the absence of Hindu monuments in the north - is convincing enough."
On Hindutva
"You say that Hindu militancy is dangerous. Dangerous or not, it is a necessary corrective to the history I have been talking about. It is a creative force and it will prove to be so."
06 August 2007
Spirituality, Revisited
I had rejected Indian spirituality as a negative philosophy, on the grounds that it is only about escaping from the cycle of births and deaths. However, other interpretations are available.
1. The aim of life is to realise the oneness of the universe, the essential unity of all creation. Advaita Vedanta teaches us that everything that exists is nothing but a manifestation of Brahman (Ultimate Truth, or Absolute Reality). [Vedanta, the last of the six orthodox schools, is generally considered to be the culmination of Hindu thought. In particular Advaita, which is Shankara's version of Vedanta] Once a man attains this realisation he will continue working for the welfare of mankind, knowing that other men are not separate from him, but merely sparks from the same Fire that he is also a spark from. He is them, and they are him. This is a more positive, more life- and world-affirming view.
2. The aim of life is to be happy. But if we seek happiness in material objects and sense enjoyment, we are bound to be disappointed. Because such happiness does not last forever. Once it is over, we are left wanting more. We are thus caught in an endless cycle of acquisition and consumption, without finding lasting happiness. Real and enduring happiness lies within, not without. It lies in contentment and a balanced mind. As Krishna says in the Geeta, "Samatvam Yoga uchyate" (Evenness of mind is called Yoga). However this does not mean a lazy life devoid of ambition. The happiest man is he who combines an active, dynamic life with a calm, serene mind. Sanjaya expresses this beautifully: "Yatra Yogeshwara Krishno yatra Partho dhanurdhara..." (Where there is Krishna, the Lord of Yoga, and the archer Arjuna...). Only here the ambition is for a larger cause, and not one's own petty material desires and comforts. This is also a more practical and worldly view.
3. The aim of life is to live in accordance with Dharma. This will result in the welfare of both the individual and society. What is Dharma? I won't go into that here. I hope to take it up some other day.
So we see that viewed in the right light, Indian spirituality is a positive and optimistic philosophy. Incidentally, I got these ideas from the first few chapters of "Bunch of Thoughts", a compilation of M S Golwalkar's speeches. Golwalkar ('Guruji') was the second, and longest serving, chief of the RSS - from 1940 to 1973.
[It also helps to keep in mind the definition of spirituality.
Spirituality = the state of being spiritual
Spiritual = relating to the human spirit, as opposed to material things]
1. The aim of life is to realise the oneness of the universe, the essential unity of all creation. Advaita Vedanta teaches us that everything that exists is nothing but a manifestation of Brahman (Ultimate Truth, or Absolute Reality). [Vedanta, the last of the six orthodox schools, is generally considered to be the culmination of Hindu thought. In particular Advaita, which is Shankara's version of Vedanta] Once a man attains this realisation he will continue working for the welfare of mankind, knowing that other men are not separate from him, but merely sparks from the same Fire that he is also a spark from. He is them, and they are him. This is a more positive, more life- and world-affirming view.
2. The aim of life is to be happy. But if we seek happiness in material objects and sense enjoyment, we are bound to be disappointed. Because such happiness does not last forever. Once it is over, we are left wanting more. We are thus caught in an endless cycle of acquisition and consumption, without finding lasting happiness. Real and enduring happiness lies within, not without. It lies in contentment and a balanced mind. As Krishna says in the Geeta, "Samatvam Yoga uchyate" (Evenness of mind is called Yoga). However this does not mean a lazy life devoid of ambition. The happiest man is he who combines an active, dynamic life with a calm, serene mind. Sanjaya expresses this beautifully: "Yatra Yogeshwara Krishno yatra Partho dhanurdhara..." (Where there is Krishna, the Lord of Yoga, and the archer Arjuna...). Only here the ambition is for a larger cause, and not one's own petty material desires and comforts. This is also a more practical and worldly view.
3. The aim of life is to live in accordance with Dharma. This will result in the welfare of both the individual and society. What is Dharma? I won't go into that here. I hope to take it up some other day.
So we see that viewed in the right light, Indian spirituality is a positive and optimistic philosophy. Incidentally, I got these ideas from the first few chapters of "Bunch of Thoughts", a compilation of M S Golwalkar's speeches. Golwalkar ('Guruji') was the second, and longest serving, chief of the RSS - from 1940 to 1973.
[It also helps to keep in mind the definition of spirituality.
Spirituality = the state of being spiritual
Spiritual = relating to the human spirit, as opposed to material things]
03 August 2007
Media And The Sangh
Of late I have been thinking a bit about the media's coverage of the RSS. This is an important issue because most people form their opinion about the RSS based on what they read, see and hear in the media. The RSS's membership is estimated to be 45 lakhs. If we include the families and friends of these swayamsevaks, the number may go up to 5 crores (roughly). That is only 5% of the country. The remaining 95% depend on the media to give them a correct picture of the RSS.
So the question is how well is the media living up to its responsibility of portraying the RSS accurately? (The responsibility here is to the readers/viewers/listeners, not to the RSS) Not very well, according to me. The portrayal is mostly negative and unfair. [My comments here are mainly about the English language media - with which I am most familiar. I believe the situation is slightly better in the case of the Indian languages media]
Most newspapers and magazines depict the RSS as a communal, fundamentalist, casteist and fascist organisation (I have responded to some of these allegations here and here). Prominent examples are Frontline, Hindu, Outlook and Times of India.
So the question is how well is the media living up to its responsibility of portraying the RSS accurately? (The responsibility here is to the readers/viewers/listeners, not to the RSS) Not very well, according to me. The portrayal is mostly negative and unfair. [My comments here are mainly about the English language media - with which I am most familiar. I believe the situation is slightly better in the case of the Indian languages media]
Most newspapers and magazines depict the RSS as a communal, fundamentalist, casteist and fascist organisation (I have responded to some of these allegations here and here). Prominent examples are Frontline, Hindu, Outlook and Times of India.
- Frontline - Perhaps the worst offender; mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China; helmed by the notorious Mr N Ram.
- Hindu - Should be renamed as Anti-Hindu; from the same publishing house as Frontline; another platform for leftist views; amazing how it is considered as one of India's most respected newspapers despite its espousal of a failed ideology.
- Outlook - Edited by Mr Vinod Mehta, one of India's chief pseudo-secularists; a good example of how otherwise intelligent people can be knuckle-headed in certain matters.
- Times of India - The less said, the better.
18 July 2007
An Example
Here is a good example of the social service being done by swayamsevaks. Bhatke Vimukta Vikas Pratishthan is an NGO that works for the welfare of nomadic tribes in Maharashtra. It was founded by Girish Prabhune, a veteran RSS member.
Interestingly, the article describes Prabhune as just an "activist". It does not even mention his Sangh connection. So this is also an example of the media's bias against the RSS.
Interestingly, the article describes Prabhune as just an "activist". It does not even mention his Sangh connection. So this is also an example of the media's bias against the RSS.
17 July 2007
Hindu = Indian
I said in one of my previous posts that 'Hindu' and 'Indian' are synonyms. Let me explain. First we must understand the significance of the river Sindhu (Indus).
Look at the physical map of India. We see that the territory of India is naturally defined. It is a diamond-shaped land, bounded on four sides by the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, the Himalayas - and the Indus in the northwest. Now most of the other ancient civilisations of the world (Greek, Roman, Persian, etc) were to our west [The only exception was China, which is to our north]. Thus the Indus was what separated us from the rest of the ancient world, and the river became the geographical reference for India.
Now the Persian form of 'Sindhu' was 'Hindu'. And the Greek form of 'Hindu' was 'Indus'. Thus the people who lived in the land beyond the Sindhu were the 'Hindu' (in Persian) or the 'Indoi' (in Greek). And the land was 'Hindustan' (in Persian) or 'India' (in Greek).
Thus we see that the two words are synonyms. What about the word 'Hinduism'? This is a recent term, coined by British scholars in the 18th century to describe the practices and beliefs of the Hindus. It is normal to believe that we are 'Hindus' because we follow a religion called Hinduism. The truth is actually the other way around - the religion is called 'Hinduism' because it is practised by Hindus! (Our own name for our way of life is 'Sanatana Dharma')
Look at the physical map of India. We see that the territory of India is naturally defined. It is a diamond-shaped land, bounded on four sides by the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, the Himalayas - and the Indus in the northwest. Now most of the other ancient civilisations of the world (Greek, Roman, Persian, etc) were to our west [The only exception was China, which is to our north]. Thus the Indus was what separated us from the rest of the ancient world, and the river became the geographical reference for India.
Now the Persian form of 'Sindhu' was 'Hindu'. And the Greek form of 'Hindu' was 'Indus'. Thus the people who lived in the land beyond the Sindhu were the 'Hindu' (in Persian) or the 'Indoi' (in Greek). And the land was 'Hindustan' (in Persian) or 'India' (in Greek).
Thus we see that the two words are synonyms. What about the word 'Hinduism'? This is a recent term, coined by British scholars in the 18th century to describe the practices and beliefs of the Hindus. It is normal to believe that we are 'Hindus' because we follow a religion called Hinduism. The truth is actually the other way around - the religion is called 'Hinduism' because it is practised by Hindus! (Our own name for our way of life is 'Sanatana Dharma')
16 July 2007
Jedi Knights
Jedi knights are Yogis. Or to be more precise, they are the American pop-culture version of Yogis.
George Lucas's Star Wars movies are set in "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". In this universe the Jedi knights are the keepers of peace and justice. They wear robes and wield light sabers. Their power comes from their mastery of "the Force" - an energy field that permeates all living beings and all creation.
Star Wars was inspired by Akira Kurosawa's Samurai films (especially The Hidden Fortress). So it's easy to see where the inspiration for the Jedi knights came from - the Samurai, who were the hereditary military class in medieval Japan. The similarities are unmistakable: the robes, the swords, the code (courage, honour, duty), the ascetic lifestyle and the spirituality.
The Samurai's life and outlook were heavily influenced by their religion, Zen Buddhism. Zen is the mystical school of Buddhism which emphasises meditation as a means for finding the Truth. It came to Japan from China, where it was known as 'Chan'. Now 'Chan' is the corruption of the word Dhyana, which means meditation. And the concept of Dhyana was borrowed by Mahayana Buddhism from Yoga.
Thus we have Yoga --> Dhyana --> Chan --> Zen --> Samurai --> Jedi knight. Get it?
George Lucas's Star Wars movies are set in "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". In this universe the Jedi knights are the keepers of peace and justice. They wear robes and wield light sabers. Their power comes from their mastery of "the Force" - an energy field that permeates all living beings and all creation.
Star Wars was inspired by Akira Kurosawa's Samurai films (especially The Hidden Fortress). So it's easy to see where the inspiration for the Jedi knights came from - the Samurai, who were the hereditary military class in medieval Japan. The similarities are unmistakable: the robes, the swords, the code (courage, honour, duty), the ascetic lifestyle and the spirituality.
The Samurai's life and outlook were heavily influenced by their religion, Zen Buddhism. Zen is the mystical school of Buddhism which emphasises meditation as a means for finding the Truth. It came to Japan from China, where it was known as 'Chan'. Now 'Chan' is the corruption of the word Dhyana, which means meditation. And the concept of Dhyana was borrowed by Mahayana Buddhism from Yoga.
Thus we have Yoga --> Dhyana --> Chan --> Zen --> Samurai --> Jedi knight. Get it?
13 July 2007
To Sleep Or Not To Sleep
| This has been commented on by several people already. But I'll go ahead and say my bit anyway. The subject is, of course, the Prime Minister's self-confessed loss of sleep after watching Mohammed Haneef's mother and sister crying on TV. I am sure he slept very well on these nights: | ||
| Date | Place | Deaths |
| 29 Oct, 2005 | Delhi | 59 |
| 7 Mar, 2006 | Varanasi | 28 |
| 11 Jul, 2006 | Bombay | 187 |
| 8 Sep, 2006 | Malegaon | 37 |
| 18 May, 2007 | Hyderabad | 13 |
And what perverse logic could have been behind this shocking statement? 'Secularism'? Sensitivity to 'Muslim' sentiments? If that is the reason, then it would be the ultimate insult to the 15 crore Muslims of India - for such a reasoning assumes that they are on the side of the terrorists, rather than on the side of the nation. Can anything be more offensive? After all, terror is blind to religion; both Hindus and Muslims have been victims of these attacks. Indeed, the Malegaon and Hyderabad attacks were specifically targeted at Muslims. If I were an Indian Muslim, I would be outraged by the PM's remark and what it implies.
12 July 2007
RSS, Part 4
Minorities (contd)
Hindutva is not anti-Islam or anti-Christianity. How can it be, when Hinduism believes in the principles of 'Sarva dharma sama bhava' (Equal respect for all religions) and 'Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti' (Truth is One; the wise say many things)?
The RSS is not anti-Muslim or anti-Christian. It regards all Indians as brothers and sisters, irrespective of the religion they practice. The RSS's campaign is against Islamic extremists (who are trying to destroy India) and Christian missionaries (who exploit poverty to convert Indians). The RSS has nothing against the majority of peaceful, law-abiding and patriotic Muslims and Christians. In fact, it invites them to join its struggle.
Caste
The RSS is anti-caste. It believes caste divides Hindus, and disunity has been the bane of Hindu society. The RSS seeks to unite all Hindus. The practice of untouchability is particularly heinous; it is a crime against man and God.
(This concludes my little series)
Hindutva is not anti-Islam or anti-Christianity. How can it be, when Hinduism believes in the principles of 'Sarva dharma sama bhava' (Equal respect for all religions) and 'Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti' (Truth is One; the wise say many things)?
The RSS is not anti-Muslim or anti-Christian. It regards all Indians as brothers and sisters, irrespective of the religion they practice. The RSS's campaign is against Islamic extremists (who are trying to destroy India) and Christian missionaries (who exploit poverty to convert Indians). The RSS has nothing against the majority of peaceful, law-abiding and patriotic Muslims and Christians. In fact, it invites them to join its struggle.
Caste
The RSS is anti-caste. It believes caste divides Hindus, and disunity has been the bane of Hindu society. The RSS seeks to unite all Hindus. The practice of untouchability is particularly heinous; it is a crime against man and God.
(This concludes my little series)
11 July 2007
RSS, Part 3
Hindutva and Minorities
First of all, the RSS does not believe in the concept of 'majority' and 'minority'. It believes that all Indians are one people. We are all the children of this motherland. The term is used here merely for convenience. The term 'non-Hindu' is also used merely for convenience. 'Indian' and 'Hindu' are actually synonyms.
India is a Hindu rashtra does not mean that Hindus should have special rights or that non-Hindus should be second class citizens. All Indians should be equal in the eyes of the law and have the same rights. In fact, the current situation is that non-Hindus have some rights that Hindus do not have.
Accepting that India is a Hindu country is in no way a threat to the identity of non-Hindus. Hinduism is an inclusive way of life, not a rigid religion. Non-Hindus are free to practice their religion and live their way of life. The only expectation from them is that they love their country and obey the laws of the land. This is the expectation from all Indians, Hindus as well as non-Hindus.
First of all, the RSS does not believe in the concept of 'majority' and 'minority'. It believes that all Indians are one people. We are all the children of this motherland. The term is used here merely for convenience. The term 'non-Hindu' is also used merely for convenience. 'Indian' and 'Hindu' are actually synonyms.
India is a Hindu rashtra does not mean that Hindus should have special rights or that non-Hindus should be second class citizens. All Indians should be equal in the eyes of the law and have the same rights. In fact, the current situation is that non-Hindus have some rights that Hindus do not have.
Accepting that India is a Hindu country is in no way a threat to the identity of non-Hindus. Hinduism is an inclusive way of life, not a rigid religion. Non-Hindus are free to practice their religion and live their way of life. The only expectation from them is that they love their country and obey the laws of the land. This is the expectation from all Indians, Hindus as well as non-Hindus.
10 July 2007
RSS, Part 2
Ideology
The RSS's ideology is Hindutva ('Hinduness'). Hindutva is the recognition of India's Hindu nature. It is the assertion that India is a Hindu nation. The foundation of Indian civilisation is Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma).
Some people think the RSS wants India to 'become' a Hindu rashtra, or that the RSS is trying to 'make' India a Hindu rashtra. This is hogwash. India is already a Hindu rashtra. India has always been a Hindu rashtra, and India will always be a Hindu rashtra.
The RSS's ideology is Hindutva ('Hinduness'). Hindutva is the recognition of India's Hindu nature. It is the assertion that India is a Hindu nation. The foundation of Indian civilisation is Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma).
Some people think the RSS wants India to 'become' a Hindu rashtra, or that the RSS is trying to 'make' India a Hindu rashtra. This is hogwash. India is already a Hindu rashtra. India has always been a Hindu rashtra, and India will always be a Hindu rashtra.
09 July 2007
RSS, Part 1
(In this and the next few posts I'll be putting up some basic information about the RSS - and responses to the common charges against it)
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a nationalist organisation, founded by Dr K B Hedgewar in 1925.
Mission
The RSS's mission is to restore India to her former glory. India can become a strong and prosperous nation again only when a critical mass of Indians work selflessly for the country. The RSS's job is to create such workers - men of character and ability, who have the right values, and are aware of their culture, heritage and history.
The RSS's primary way of achieving its mission is through the shakha. The shakha is the backbone of the RSS. It is a daily gathering of swayamsevaks, which is held in an open ground for about an hour, either in the morning or in the evening. In a shakha, swayamsevaks perform exercises, play games, sing patriotic songs, have discussions, etc.
The shakha makes swayamsevaks healthy and fit, teaches them about their culture and instills in them moral values. It also builds in them organisational skills and the ability to work as a team. Discipline, organisation, selflessness, sacrifice - these are the core values of the RSS.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a nationalist organisation, founded by Dr K B Hedgewar in 1925.
Mission
The RSS's mission is to restore India to her former glory. India can become a strong and prosperous nation again only when a critical mass of Indians work selflessly for the country. The RSS's job is to create such workers - men of character and ability, who have the right values, and are aware of their culture, heritage and history.
The RSS's primary way of achieving its mission is through the shakha. The shakha is the backbone of the RSS. It is a daily gathering of swayamsevaks, which is held in an open ground for about an hour, either in the morning or in the evening. In a shakha, swayamsevaks perform exercises, play games, sing patriotic songs, have discussions, etc.
The shakha makes swayamsevaks healthy and fit, teaches them about their culture and instills in them moral values. It also builds in them organisational skills and the ability to work as a team. Discipline, organisation, selflessness, sacrifice - these are the core values of the RSS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
