Re above article:
"Economist" wants us to believe this crap they have come up with that "Hindutva" is a militant branch of Hinduism, and vedanta is the peaceful branch. Adi Shankaracharya would be the first to kick their psec @$$es.
The "Economist" types have already made a large fraction of Hindus believe that Xtianity/Islam have done no wrong, and are doing no wrong. Kafir katl, inquisitions, rapes, Hindu kush, temple destruction, (with churches and mosks often built on top), library burning, university destruction...all these never happened. And is any of these things is irrefutably proven, well, "economist" types say that that is "just xtians/mohammedans acting out their faith..what is wrong with that? You are too narrow-minded.."
This is not just social engineering..it is "pissing on the culture as and when you like"
<!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->
02-02-2008, 07:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 07:17 AM by Shambhu.)
<!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Well written article:
Reexpositioning Hindutva Edition _ Article 1 _ Hindutva in the Present-day Context
http://hindurenaissance.com/index.php?opti...task=view&id=98
<span style='color:orange'>Hindutva in the Present-day Context</span>
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe
To discuss âHindutva in the present-day contextâ is both, simple and difficult at the same time. Simple because ample has already been and is still being said about Hindutva by its adversaries as also its advocates. Difficult because it is hard to sift the ocean of literature about Hindutva and interpret it in the present-day context.
What adds to the intricacies of the task is the confusion surrounding the concept of Hindutva - thanks mainly to the intellectual liberty, almost bordering on irresponsibility, enjoyed by both: adversaries and advocates alike. Too much political colouration of Hindutva and absolute apathy on the part of the academia and intelligentsia to understand its core message has made the task easier for its adversaries to paint it as a weird, unsustainable ideology.
No wonder that almost two decades after the Ayodhya Movement, Hindutva hardly figures in whatever serious intellectual discourse that is witnessed in India. On the one hand, adversaries of Hindutva indulge only in using it as an old stick to beat its advocates, while the latter do precious little to present it in the modern context and in the idiom, which the intelligentsia world over understands.
In the post-independence history of India, the nineties have their own importance. Early nineties saw the political consolidation of the forces behind the Hindutva movement only to be taken to its logical end in late nineties, manifested in the emergence of BJP-led governments in New Delhi. It was in this decade that Hindutva became a prominent, almost central theme of intellectual discourse in our country. Those who owed allegiance to Hindutva as a political ideology became a force to reckon with. Gradually, it became impossible to just ignore what was happening in the Hindutva camp. So much so that several political analysts of international standing attained fame for their very honest effort to understand what was happening in India. Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul believed that the movement was inevitable.
Ayodhya Movement
The Ram-Janmabhoomi movement was the perfect symbol of Cultural Nationalism and it communicated the message of Hindu Unity so very effectively that hundreds of Leftist scholars were at pains to explain as to how Hindus had come together through a movement, which was described by them as âBrahmnicalâ. While sound logical arguments in favor of Ram-Janmabhoomi made it acceptable in the educated urbanites and thinking circles, what was more important was the emotionality of the issue, which proved to be a unifier par excellence.
It was an issue, so very deeply rooted in our shared ethos that it became hard for even the staunchest secularists to gloss over it. At least for a certain period of time, Ram- Janmabhoomi made the Hindus forget their caste identities and in a way forced them to think of their larger cultural identity - the Hindu identity. A number of secularist journalists who witnessed the events in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 had to publicly accept the fact that the sea of humanity that they witnessed had only one inseparable identity and that was the Hindu identity. Regardless of the questions of legitimacy of the events on that fateful day, the one certainty was that in the entire length and breadth of our nation the entire Hindu society experienced an intense feeling of unity and solidarity, - so very unheard of about the Hindus earlier
This emotional unity, howsoever short-lived it might have remained; was the greatest contribution of the Ram-Janmabhoomi movement. True, that Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)[1] and other organizations had undertaken several programmes aimed at consolidation of all those who are essentially Hindus right after the Meenakshipuram[2] conversions, still; the success of the Ram-Janmabhoomi movement was simply unparalleled.
This single event had given rise to the expectations that now, with solid popular support, Hindutva ideologues would strive to make inroads into the intellectual and academic arenas. Expectations soared further after the installation of BJP or BJP-led governments, both in some states and also at the centre. It was thought that the ideology that has proved to be instrumental in seeing BJP at the helm of affairs would also be duly recognized in the academia and the thinking circles. But, unfortunately, it just did not.
Notwithstanding the propaganda of the Left leaning academics about the so-called Saffronisation of education, Hindutva as an ideology, continues to be untouchable in the corridors of academics. This untouchability emanates from various factors. Granted that largely this âuntouchabilityâ is thanks to the lure of political correctness, it is also true that there are sections in the opinion-making classes who have genuine misunderstandings and at times even serious complaints about this ideology. Not every objection deserves to be ignored, much less to be rubbished.
Demystifying Hindutva
While analyzing the challenge of demystifying Hindutva, it must be noted that the outer world has always been seeing Hindutva movement through a particular prism only. Three dimensions of this prism consist of three important events in post-independence history of India. These events include the most unfortunate murder of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya in 1992 and the post-Godhra violence against the Muslim community in Gujarat in 2002. Majority of the opinion-makers consider these three events as stereotypes and base their understanding of the Hindutva movement on themâ¦
While it is true that there could be different angles of looking at these three events, it is also true that regardless of whatever angle one desires to take; what is required is to understand the backdrop on which these three independent events happened. All these three events could be described as expression of anger or pent-up emotions and hence the state of collective minds responsible for these events needs to be dispassionately analysed and a sound understanding developed before one chooses to either defend them or denounce out rightly.
Noted journalist François Gautier[3] has brilliantly commented on this phenomenon of collective expression of anger. He says, âHowever reprehensible these acts of mass vengeance were, they have shown that Hindus keep quiet for a long time: they get riled at, they are made fun of, they are despised, their women raped, men killed, children burnt in trains and one day they blow up - and blow up badly. Riots donât erupt in a few days: they are the fruit of decades, of generations even, of suppressed anger, of frustration, of a silent majority which sees itself more and more marginalized and taken for granted.â
Due to this widespread belief based on impressions; that persons responsible for these three events were all avowed supporters of Hindutva, the entire movement received a bad name and a negative image, extremely hard to erase. People are aware that thousands of service projects undertaken for the underprivileged sections by hundreds of dedicated life workers believing in Hindutva are functioning consistently for several decades. Yet, such commendable work has not helped this movement earn acceptance because the so-called progressive and secular forces. have consistently and obdurately turned a Nelson eye towards the benign influence of Hindutva organizations and chosen to portray only the momentary aberration committed by a section of erring Hindus.
Destruction of Image
Behind this double whammy against Hindutva is the unwillingness of Hindutvaâs adversaries to really understand the strong sense of denial of the Hindu aspirations, the feeling that historical wrongs against the Hindus were not addressed by the governments of the day despite, serious efforts of the Hindu community to focus attention on them and negotiate a solution. The result has been that the adversaries of Hindutva relish painting the entire movement black!
Their series of allegations against Hindutva consists of following five points: -
1. Hindutva is sectarian and hence anti-Muslims and anti-Christians.
2. Hindutva is communal, pro-upper caste, pro-Manu, and hence against the backward and weaker sections of the society.
3. Hindutva is anti-women, obscurantist and against gender justice.
4. Hindutva is against freedom of expression.
5. Hindutva is anti-modernity.
Most of the above allegations have been repeated umpteen number of times creating thick clouds of misunderstanding around the entire Hindu movement. No ideological movement in the world may have ever faced such a grave image crisis. Considering the extremely wide gap between the reality about the movement and its largely established image, Herculean efforts from the defenders of Hindutva are a must.
Spiritual Democracy
Before we examine the basis of these allegations, it is necessary to enquire as to what exactly do we mean by Hindutva. Hindutva consists of the term Hindu that is largely understood as a way of worship, a religion or a belief system. However, the term Hindutva per se does not refer to Hindu religion. Literally speaking, Hindutva means Hindu ness. Just as the Sanskrit term Manushyatva means being a human, Hindutva can be explained as being a Hindu.
Due to a huge multiplicity of worshipped deities and a vast diversity of the ways to worship them, no straightjacketing is possible in Hindu religion; and, as a consequence, in Hindu worldview. It is in this complete denial of straightjacketing that lay the roots of spiritual democracy, which is the most distinguishing facet of Hindu religion. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Hinduism never presents itself as the only way to seek salvation. On the contrary, Hinduism considers that every path leads an individual to the same truth and to the same almighty, which wise / knowledgeable persons refer to in different ways.
A firm belief in this concept, as communicated in âEkam Sat, Vipra Bahudavadantiâ[4] (Truth is one, sages describe it differently) is the corner stone of Hindu religious thought. This notion has in effect, made all religions valid and reverential for all. It is due to this fundamental faith in the existence of multiple ways of seeking salvation that the concept of proselytisation and the resultant competition for converting people finds no place in Hindu religion. This is also true in other indigenous belief systems, be it Jainism or Buddhism. Let us not forget that this spiritual democracy, this fundamental spirit of accommodation alone could make India a shining example of centuries of peaceful co-existence of different religions and belief systems.
In other words, thanks to Hinduism, India could evolve a replicable model of sustainable pluralism. Acceptance of the fundamental equality of, and hence equal respect for all religions and all the ways of worship is the basis of such sustained pluralism. It must be remembered that if one commits him / herself to the cardinal principles of sustainable pluralism, one cannot talk of superiority of a way of worship and hence of the need to convert adherents of other faiths. Besides, once one decides to indulge in the concepts of superiority of a religion, no meaningful dialogue between faiths can happen.
Today, when the entire world is facing a sever threat of terrorist tendencies and the root cause of terrorism happens to be a particular religious belief system, can humanity survive without accepting spiritual democracy? The essence of the concept of spiritual democracy, I believe, has helped Hinduism survive. To put it simply, Hindu ness does not lie in a set of rituals, systems of worship or belief in any scriptures. It does not believe that there is only one path to attain salvation and openly concedes that belief, without any reservation. It is in this essential acceptance of, nay; welcome to other faiths and other gods that remains the crux of your Hindu ness, i.e. Hindutva. It is this very unique and supremely liberal characteristic of the Hinduism that makes one a Hindu. It is on this background that one has to look at the proposition that to be an adherent of Hindutva, one need not be a Hindu. It is in the light of this core concept of Hindutva that one has to examine issues such as social justice and gender equality.
No place for discrimination
Once one accepts that every path ultimately leads to the one and the same ultimate truth, the questions of caste and creed need to be settled once and for all. Hindutva has absolutely no place for discrimination on the basis of caste. Equality of human beings is the cardinal principle. In Hindutva scheme of things, superiority or inferiority of an individual just cannot depend upon in which family one has taken birth. When Hindutva aspires to put an end to such discriminations lock, stock and barrel, where comes the question of defending Chaturvarnya, untouchability or caste conflict?
The essential unity and equality of the mankind perceived by Hindutva just cannot accept any artificial divides promoted by politicians in the garb of academicians. Theories like Aryan invasion, conflict between indigenous people and non-indigenous people, differences between aboriginals or Adivasis and others, branding of certain social groups or communities as criminals by birth, or a conflict between the victor and the vanquished etc. cannot find any place at all in the concept of Hindutva.
It may be pointed out here that the adversaries of Hindutva always propagate that Hindutva is the other name of Brahmanatva. There cannot be any other statement than this that is farthest from the facts. Several references in what is known as Dalit literature are a testimony of the fact that the upbringing of Dalit children happens in the same religious-cultural ethos just like that of the so-called upper caste children. The way Brahmans celebrate Diwali is in no way different from the way Mangs or Matangs and other scheduled caste groups celebrate. Same is the case with Adivasis.
Several sociologists have established that Adivasis in India are not like aboriginals in Australia. There are several erstwhile nomads or even martial communities who took shelter in the thick forests during the times of turbulence, several centuries before. Today, they are identified as Adivasis, the original inhabitants, as if all others are either aggressors or outsiders. It is in this context that one has to have a re-look at the terms in which we refer to our own brethren.
Again, to say that simply because some of the Adivasis eat beef or worship nature and no idols, they go beyond the purview of Hindutva is a misnomer. When Hindutva can accept even Lord Christ or Prophet Mohammad, where comes the question of not accepting nature-worship? And above all, how can non-Hindus like church groups in Indiaâs North-East sit in the judgment and decide as to who are Hindus and who are not?
Social equality
On this background, it is necessary to discuss the question of social equality in general and caste based reservations in particular. It must be noted that the universally accepted and widely acclaimed concepts of affirmative action and positive discrimination for social justice are at the root of caste based reservations. Supporters of Hindutva have realised long ago that larger and lasting Hindu unity will not be possible without the so-called upper castes cultivating a mindset for creating a space, at the cost of their own opportunity; for the underprivileged classes.
It would not be wrong to suggest that the privileged and comparatively less unfortunate sections of the society also have to ensure that the weaker sections not only get reservations but also are also duly empowered to take advantage of them. Those who are committed to the cause of Hindu unity just cannot afford to be unmindful of the fact that if emotional integrity is not achieved, Hindu unity will remain a chimera. For emotional integrity to sustain one has to promote this spirit of mutual understanding, accommodation with a sense of fundamental social responsibility.
Hindus will have to remain fully aware about the designs of anti-Hindu-unity forces aimed at dividing this society and breaking the cultural-emotional bonds and inter-community harmony, whatsoever. Having said that, it must also be mentioned that the whole gamut of issues concerning reservations need a re-look. Thinking out of box with regards to the ways and means of making caste-based quota more effective and result oriented is the need of the hour. For this to happen, the issue of caste-based quota requires to be de-politicized. Our politicians will have to choose between securing vote banks and protecting national interest. After all, high decibels while clamoring for quota from the rooftop cannot be the only yardstick for being progressive.
Quotas cannot be de-linked from the wider issue of social and community identity. Narrow and communal identities need to be accommodated and amalgamated with the wider national and social identity. Ironical as it may seem, but this can happen only through respect and recognition for smaller identities. Lest one forgets, such identities can never be crushed. They can only be accommodated.
âRecognize first and then try to remoldâ could be the only effective way of dealing with these issues. Creating an atmosphere where every part feels that it can lead a meaningful life only while remaining inseparable from the whole is a severe challenge before the Hindutva movement. For this, disadvantaged sections of our society need to be assured of equal respect, equal opportunity and equal protection. Mahatma Gandhijiâs principles of Antyodaya (Placing the last man in the row, first when it comes to benefits of a welfare state) as the mainstay of our approach towards policies for social justice and social harmony alone can halt the process of social divide.
Sustainable pluralism
The vexed issue of conversions has a close connection with social justice and equality. Firstly, demands for quota also for the new converts from formerly scheduled castes and tribes have rendered the argument that conversions bring social equality and respect, completely hollow. But more importantly, when Hindutva itself means broad-mindedness, how can one accommodate an argument that a particular faith alone is valid or have a monopoly right to take one to salvation?
Granted that in a spiritual democracy, one is free to worship gods of his/her choice. However, this cannot be stretched too far to accommodate some kind of a âsole distributorship of salvationâ claimed by certain belief systems. It must be remembered that any argument in favor of conversion construes an acceptance to the attempts of proclaiming other faiths inferior and invalid. While there is nothing wrong in conversion per say, proselytizing through fraudulent means like claiming a particular faith as the only path, is totally against the very grain of spiritual democracy. In any truly secular democratic polity, conversions should find no place at all.
At several occasions in the past, those who swear by secularism have developed cold feet. The 45th Amendment of 1978 introduced in the parliament in India introduced the definition of âsecularâ as âequal respect to all religionsâ. However, the Rajya Sabha, with a Congress majority rejected this definition, mainly because some fundamentalist elements in non-Hindu belief systems were opposed to the same.
Yet another case in point of stubborn opposition to this equality of faiths is the fact that in year 2000, when UN had organised a an International Conference of all Belief Systems to mark the beginning of a new millennium, Vatican had chosen to stay away saying that they can not sit with other faiths and declare acceptance to equality of religions. Artificial or contrived conversions are an affront on Human Rights and if fraudulent conversion is allowed unabatedly, in the long run, it will render a body blow to sustainable pluralism.
Gender justice
The foundation of the Hindu ideology lies in scriptures like âsarvepi sukhina snatu sarve santu niramayahâ (Happiness and health should be reaching all). Naturally then, the idea of Hindu ness encompasses welfare of the entire Humankind. If this is the fact, how can Hindutva ever be discriminating on the basis of gender? Hindutva worldview in the context of the present days presupposes both men and women are equal and complementary to each other, at the same time. Excessive insistence on mere equality may not ensure the desired creative co-existence.
On the other hand, stressing complementary aspect alone may elude recognition and respect for the individuality of a woman. Element of justice has to be the basis of any ideological concept in this regard. As advocated by renowned scientist Dr.R.D.Mashelkar, evolving a family system where woman occupies centrality is the need of changing societies. Modern families where women get equal opportunities, equal respect and equal protection as well as facilities alone can survive. For this to happen, men need to change and become more family oriented. This mindset change can happen only through greater awareness amongst the male members of families about gender sensitization and gender equality.
In the context of women related issues, on the one hand women can no more be treated like a slave, and on the other hand portraying them as deities or goddesses is also unfair. What all women need is a humane treatment. Practices such as Sati or for that matter any other traditions connoting inequality of sexes are outdated and hence condemnable. Such obsolete and irrelevant practices have absolutely no place in Hindutva.
Liberalism
Unlike what is being portrayed, Hindutva forces have always stood for freedom of expression and for most of the times, disapproved any attempts to suppress creativity. Instances like the brouhaha over the infamous Danish cartoons or Da Vinci Code are so very rare in the context of Hinduism that many progressive artists take liberty to play with Hindu sensibilities. Hindutva movement will have to handle such issues with dexterity. The kind of maturity shown by Hindutva forces during the controversy over Dr. Ambedkarâs âRiddles in Ramayanâ,[5] in early eighties was illustrious since it ensured that the cause of larger Hindu unity is not harmed.
It has to be underscored that concepts of democracy and liberalism form the core of Hindutva. As desired by Sant Dnyaneshwar, [6]âJo je wanchhchil to te lahoâ meaning everybody should get whatever he or she aspires for is the bottom line of Hindutva. Hindutva believes in autonomy in all respect. From food habits to fashions and from family systems to festivities, everything that is not against human justice and human rights should be generally acceptable. Any kind of straightjacketing is an anathema to Hindutva.
Hindutva recognizes the importance of reforms, and also recognizes the fact that reforms cannot be transplanted from without. Only those who identify themselves with the traditions can effectively change them. For those who believe that practices like celebrating Valentine Day are Western and hence need to be abhorred, the best way could be to draw a longer line and popularize the indigenous version of this festival of love. Indulging in violence while decrying revelers just cannot be the answer.
About the observation that Hindutva represents anti-modern views, has no base at all. Obscurantist elements are in every society and even the way some of the Hindus preach and practice, they sound extremely fanatic. But since Hindu religion is not book based, really speaking there is no scope for any fundamentalism. âNitya Nutan - Chira Puratanâ (Innovation and Modernity going hand in hand with Ancient and Historical.) is the mainstay of Hindu thinking. The kind of resilience that Hindus have shown while accepting whatever is modern is a testimony of their being receptive to whatever is modern and in tune with the times.
For Hindutva to be embraced by the entire Humanity as a way of life, Hindus should be exporting their own cultural traditions, symbols and even social institutions. One pre-condition of this is that Hindus first of all, should come out of self-denial while understanding themselves. To that end, it has to start with the long overdue re-stating of Hindutva. An absolute lack of clarity and sheer absence of articulation, coupled with incoherence, and inertia, has made Hindutva forces appear like a bankrupt millionaire.
Hindutva has become a favorite whipping boy of the so-called progressives. Many consider that without assailing Hindutva, one can never be considered legitimate in the worlds of academia, scholarship and to an extent; even media. Let it be remembered that thinking circles in India let alone recognizing, are not even tolerating Hindutva forces. None of the Hindutva leaders have ever defended practices as irrelevant and anti-Humanity as either untouchability or child marriages.
From Swami Vivvekananda to Balasaheb Deoras[7] or L K Advani, those who have taken pride in their Hinduness (Hindutva) have, in no uncertain terms denounced all such practices describing them as perversions. But then, hardly ever efforts have been made to tell the world as to what are the ingredients of this new age or modern or say contemporary âHindutvaâ and present it once again, in the form of a theory or a thought. It was on this background that the Left - leaning thinkers had a field day, successfully hitting Hindutva with the same old sticks, wantonly indulging in self-flagellation and in the process demoralizing the cadre. That this further helped them consolidate their position and continue with their âThought Hegemonyâ. The most dreadful and anti-democratic consequence of this was the cult of ideological untouchability indulged in by several members of the intelligentsia. Clearing every kind of confusion about Hindutva in no uncertain terms, once and for all; is the only way. Let us walk this way togetherâ¦
About the author:
Vinay Sahastrabuddhe is the Director of Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini, a political activist training institute located in Mumbai, India.
EMail : vinays@rmponweb.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] VHP is a world body working for the unity of Hindus of the world. According to Vishwa Hindu Parishad, The word 'Hindu' is not to be taken in its narrow, restricted sense. The term 'HINDU' embraces " all people who believe in, respect or follow the eternal values of life - ethical and spiritual- that have sprung up In Bharat."
[2] 1981 Meenakshipuram conversion is conversion of hundred of dalits in 1981 in village Meenakshipuram in Tamilnadu state in India to Islam.It caused a major controversy then.
[3] François Gautier in Vivek Jyoti, Friday, November 3, 2006
[4] A shloka in Rigveda
[5] Riddles in Hinduism, (Vol.8) of the collected works of Dr. Ambekar (Maharashtra govt., 1987). In theâ Riddles of Ram & Krishnaâ both the heroes of Hinduism are shown in poor light and derogatory language is used. 6.Sant Jnaneshwar was born over seven hundred years ago in the village of Alandi, on the banks of the Indrayani River. The son of a sannyasi, he was shunned by the local Brahmins. It is said that Jnaneshwar won the right to investiture with the sacred thread by making a water buffalo recite the Vedas.
[7] Balasaheb Deoras was the third Sar Sangha Chalak or Chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangha, (RSS) between 1973-95.RSS is the worldâs largest non-government organisation of primarily of Hindus.
---------------------------------------------------
Vinay Sahastrabuddhe
About the author:
Mr. Vinay Prabhakar Sahasrabuddhe is the Director General of Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini, India's only training and research institute for voluntary social workers and elected representatives.
He comes from Khandesh or the north Maharashtra region. Born in a middle class family, Mr. Sahasrabuddhe has done his post graduation in English literature. Since his student days, he has been active in the social sector. During the infamous emergency of 1975, he participated in a Satyagraha and faced imprisonment for one and a half months. As a student activist, he was closely associated with Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and also worked as a full timer of this organisation for over four years. Since 1987, he is with Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini.
From 1987 to 2004, he was a Member of Senate of the University of Mumbai. He was also elected as a member of the Management Council of the University where he worked for five years. For three years, he was on the Board of Governors of 'Yashada' , a government institute for the training of officials. Today, he is on the Governing Council of Ahmedabad-based Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration. During 2001-2004 he was the Chairman of the Western Region Committee of the Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology, (CAPART) , a Government of India agency.
Mr. Sahasrabuddhe is also a freelance journalist and has been contributing columns to various journals regularly. To his credit, he has four edited books and one book written by him. One of his books has bagged the Government of Maharashtra award.
Mr. Sahasrabuddhe was selected as an Ambassadorial Scholar by the Rotary International in 1998 and was working as a visiting researcher at the University of Illinois in USA, during 1998-99. For the purposes of research, paper presentations, training and seminars, he has visited US, UK, Germany, France, Austria, Turkey, Afghanistan, Israel and China.
Hindutva Not a Way of Life PDF Print E-mail
Written by Arvind Bal
The concept of Hindutva got evolved in British period as Indian Nationalism. Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekanand, Swami Shraddhanand, Lala Lajpatrai, Masurkar Maharaj propounded various ideas which interpreted Hindutva as Nationalism of Hindu people and started various movements to put their ideas in practice. The concept was more concerned with Nationalism and less with religion.
Hindutva not a way of life
Arvind Bal
The concept of Hindutva got evolved in British period as Indian Nationalism. Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekanand, Swami Shraddhanand, Lala Lajpatrai, Masurkar Maharaj propounded various ideas which interpreted Hindutva as Nationalism of Hindu people and started various movements to put their ideas in practice. The concept was more concerned with Nationalism and less with religion.
Savarkarâs Hindutva:
Veer Savarkar is considered to be the father of âareligious concept of Hindutvaâ. Savarkar wrote a book âHindutvaâ in 1923, which elaborates the concept in great detail. The book runs into some hundred pages. The book gives historical background of the word âHinduâ, explains in details the idea of Nationalism and establishes Hindutva as a secular form of Bhartiya Nationalism.
He goes on to define the word âHinduâ in one Sanskrit anushtap shloka. His famous definition is
*** quote***
The definition comes almost at the end of the book and therefore should be considered as his inference of all the arguments made in the book.
The shloka defines who a Hindu is. The definition first describes a geographical piece of land with loosely defined boundaries. A person is a Hindu if he considers this piece of land as his âFatherlandâ and his âHolylandâ. Thus the definition considers three aspects (a) geographical, (b) ancestral and © emotional.
Savarkar claims that his definition is precise and it does not omit anyone nor includes any person who is not a Hindu (avyapti and ativyapti). But if we consider those Hindus who are dwelling in other countries for generations and considers that country as a fatherland are omitted. Also those foreigners staying in India, who have willingly accepted Hinduism cannot be called Hindus due to their ancestry.
Also, if Indian Muslims, Christians and others who got converted to Islam or Christianity from Hinduism, start considering this country India as their holyland also, will have to be considered as Hindus because their ancestral fatherland is anyway India. Punyabhu concept presumes that allegiance to religions established outside India makes a person non-Hindu because of extra-territorial faith. This is not correct. I deplore Islam not because it was established in Arabia, but because of its contents. Even if someone in India would have put forward such anti-humanistic ideology and established Islam as a religion, it would have been equally deplorable as it is now.
My intention is not to find fault with Savarkarâs definition, but to stress that it is not wise to hang on to any precise definition âwho is Hindu and who is notâ. Any person who wholeheartedly and very honestly considers himself as a Hindu must be accepted as a Hindu.
Because Savarkar specifically discerns Hinduism from Hindutva, he wants to keep Hindusâ religions away from Hindutva. He keeps his concept of Hindutva completely secular. He succeeds in this, because in any case Savarkar never believed in any religious tenets to interfere in worldly matters. It was therefore both easy and natural for Savarkar to keep his concept of Hindutva completely and strongly secular. But ultimately Hindutva is an abstract noun formed from the word Hindu. Savarkar even preferred English word âHindunessâ as a closest alternative to Hindutva. The point is the word Hindutva is derived from the word Hindu and if âHinduâ is defined wrongly, Hindutva also is misunderstood.
Savarkar wants to stress only one point in his book - Hindus are a National Society in Hindusthan and others are not. âOthersâ include mainly Muslims and secondarily Christians. He does not very much bother about Jews (anyway a very small community in India) and feels sorry that Parsees, who are loyal to the land and people of this land, cannot be included in âHindusâ. But frankly, there was no need to make such a precise definition of Hindus to exclude Muslims and Christians from Hindutva. No Muslim or Christian had ever made a claim to be called a Hindu.
But to prove his point, he went on to define who is a Hindu and therefore what is Hindutva. Unfortunately, he did not stop at that and went on to include Hindus settled in other parts of the world in the concept of Hindutva. It is worthwhile to give the extract from the book verbatim.
âThere are hundreds of thousands of Hindus who have settled in all parts of the world. A time may come when these our Hindu colonist, who even today are the dominating factor in trade, numbers, capacity and intellect in their respective lands, may come to own a whole country and form a separate state. But will this simple fact of residence in lands other than Hindusthan render one a non-Hindu? Certainly not; for the first essential of Hindutva is not that a man must not reside in lands outside India, but that wherever he or his descendents may happen to be he must recognize Sindhusthan as the land of his forefathers.
Nay more; it is not a question of recognition either. If his ancestors came from India as Hindus he cannot help recognize India as his Pitribhu. So this definition of Hindutva is compatible with any conceivable expansion of our Hindu people. Let our colonists, continue unabated their labour of founding a Greater India, a Mahabharat to the best of their capacities and contribute all that is best in our civilization to the up building of humanity. So long as ye, O Hindus! Look upon Hindusthan as the land of your forefathers and as the land of your prophets, and cherish the priceless heritage of their culture and their blood, so long nothing can stand in the way of your desire to expand. The only geographical limits of Hindutva are limits of our earth.â
The tone of the above passage is blatantly imperialistic. But we must realize one thing. Hindutva is not an intellectual property right of Veer Savarkar. We have our own talent and reason to make our own interpretation of the concept of Hindutva.
RSSâ Hindutva:
Now we must consider second claimant to Hindutva i.e. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). Dr. Hedgewar established RSS in 1925. Savarkar had already written his book âHindutvaâ in 1923. Dr. Hedgewar had not only read it but also had a dialogue with Savarkar before starting RSS. The difference which I can see in thinking of these two great men is, Savarkar thought Hindu people are actually a Nation, whereas Dr. Hedgewar was convinced that unfortunately Hindus never lived as one national society (this inspite of tall claims of âthis nation of last 5000 years etcâ). That was the reason all aggressors could easily succeed in their aggression. For centuries, Hindus could not push the aggressors out of the country.
Dr. Hedgewar therefore decided to form an organization to establish Hindus as a Nation. However, he scrupulously avoided to bring in religion and therefore named the organization as National Volunteer Corp. He behaved in his personal life in such a manner that none could charge him as a religious bigot. He also scrupulously kept Hindu religion and religious practices away from RSS daily shakhas. Thus the concept of Hindutva as put forward by RSS was also a secular national concept, clearly independent of Hindu religion.
The picture definitely changed after Guruji Golvalkar became Sarsanghchalak in 1940. Guruji was a Sanyasi himself and therefore had long hair and flowing beard. He used to carry Kamandalu always along with him. His personality was of a staunch religious Hindu from top to bottom. He used to perform Pratah Sandhya and Sayam Sandhya regularly. Such a behaviour of the Head of an organization inevitably attracted a criticism that RSS was an orthodox religious organization.
It is true that he believed in many antiquated practices like Chaturvarna and believed in pristine Vaidic Sanatan Dharma. If one reads his books âWeâ and âBunch of Thoughtsâ, it is not possible to repel the charge of religious bigotry and generally reactionary and regressive attitude. However again, whatever way, Dr. Hedgewar or Guruji Golwalkar might have interpreted Hindutva, it is not their intellectual property right either.
Before leaving Savarkarâs and RSSâ Hindutva, I must state one common objection taken against Savarkarâs Hindu Mahasabha and Dr. Hedgewarâs RSS. If the basic idea was to achieve a national resurrection in a secular way, why their membership was not open for non-Hindus. On the face of, it appears to be an insurmountable objection. But it is not really so.
After all, it was due to aggressive nature of Muslims that these organizations were started in self-defense. It was but natural that non-Hindus were not allowed to become members. That in itself does not make these organizations âCommunalâ. The basic condition to make any organization communal is that the organization must be working not only in the interest of that community but also against the legitimate interests of other communities. Hindu Mahasabha and RSS were organizations made for self-defense (although it may sound amusing that a majority community should be doing so) due to the strong communal character of Muslims and Christians.
Common Enemy â Islam and Christianity
Now let me come to redefining Hindutva in my own way. Before we do that, we must understand Islam and its philosophy. We should understand why Muslim psyche is so intolerant and perpetually aggressive.
Islam divides the mankind in two parts â One who believes in Allah, his last prophet Muhammad and Quran as the divine book of command i.e. Muslims; and those who are non-believers (i.e. those who do not believe in Islam) who are called Kafirs in Islam. Islam commands all Muslims to either convert the non-believers into believers i.e. Muslims or eliminate them. By obeying their religious command, Muslim population has increased from 200 believers in 622 A.D. i.e. at the time of Hijrat to Medina (the world population was 20 crores then i.e. Muslims constituted of 0.001 percent), to 126 crores at present in a world population of 804 crores i.e. 15 percent; a phenomenal increase indeed.
Muslims have developed a peculiar mentality. Where in majority, they have an Islamic state with total rights for Muslims and no rights for non-Muslims. Where in minority, they must have special rights over and above the rights of majority community. Muslims just cannot peacefully live with equal rights with non-Muslim community.
In spite of this coercive Muslim mentality, there is no doubt that Hindutva must remain a secular concept. This simply means that religious commands of Hindu religion should not interfere in worldly matters. But that should not mean that various indigenous religions of Indian people should have no space in worldly life. In fact, it is necessary to strengthen the pride in our own religion and keep that self-esteem high.
I feel that too much stress on Secularism has come to mean that concept of religion itself is something mean, substandard and outdated. To be a proud secular person has automatically come to mean a progressive person. To be religious has come to mean (in Hindus at least) to be retrograde, backward and behind times. This feeling must go. Hindus must be given to understand that being secular is a minimum condition of present day life and not something great achievement, not something lofty.
Secularism does not mean deriding Religion. A wide diversity in Hindu religious ethos is normally ridiculed by secular rationalists intellectuals. But this in fact was a strong point due to which Hindus and their religions did not get wiped out in Islamic onslaughts. A loose religious organization proved to be a strong point for survival.
Hindus have a unique problem, which no other religionists have to face. Hindu word had a geographical context in the beginning. It has become a religion later. There were several religious faiths in India, co-existing peacefully for ages. There were dissents, friction, even armed conflicts but never a total enmity. This was not a big issue until a totally alien religion aggressively entered India with an intention to destroy indigenous religions and convert the people to their intolerant religion. Hindus unfortunately could not judge the seriousness of the calamity fallen on them and considered Islam (and also Christianity) as just one more way of praying just one more God
Hindus â Their own enemy
Actually Hindus are their own enemies. Hindu intellectuals take great sadistic pride in making fun of Hinduism. Saffronisation is considered as worst form of communalism. But have you heard anything like Greenisation? Because for rationalists, Hinduism is a great danger to liberal civic society of India, not Islam or Christianity. The word Hindutva is used as a pejorative.
Now we must understand Hindu mindset also. Somehow Hindus are tolerant of external aggression though intolerant internally. Hindus must have inculcated this trait right from mythological period. The stories of Raja Harishchandra, Ram, Yudhishthir, Bhishmacharya, all depict this pervert mindset and still they are all considered great heroes. Whatever may be the historical background, Hindus must painstakingly change their nature, should realize who their enemies are and learn to behave with them as enemies.
The diversity amongst Hindu fold can be bridged only due to existence of a common enemy of all Hindus transcending caste, creed, language, ethnicity, etc. Fortunately Hindus have a common enemy in Islam and Muslims led by Mullah and Maulvis are really deadly, virulent and wicked enemy at that. As far as Muslims are concerned, they do not distinguish between Brahmins and Dalits, between Begalis and Maharashtrians, Aryas and Dravids, between Adivasis, Vanvasis and Nagarvasis, all are just Kafirs for them and hence all equally deserve extermination. This was very well experienced at the time of partition in 1946-47-48. All leftist Hindus got the same treatment like the rightists. All Manmohans, Indrakumars, Khushwantsinghs, Kuldeepsinghs, and Jyoti Basus, had to run away inspite of their leftist leanings, along with rightist LalKrishnas. Atleast such an enemy should help Hindus unite.
With eyes wide shut, Hindus are meekly observing their numbers dwindling and land shrinking. And progressive intellectuals of today and philosophers of yesteryears do not feel perturbed nor concerned. Hindus are by nature and also by its philosophical doctrine against spreading their religion. This has proved to be suicidal. As a religion, Hinduism either considered to be too great only to be admired but not be followed by others or some consider it out-dated and therefore not apt for spreading. Although these points are contradictory, they are put forward as they are.
Non-proselytizing nature of Hindu religion and Hindu people has turned out to be suicidal to Hindus. It is bound to be a permanently shrinking religion. It is not only that Hindus do not spread their religion, they even oppose taking back people in Hindu fold, who were forcibly converted to Islam or Christianity. Hinduism at one level is considered too sacrosanct to accept âfallenâ people back in its fold, lest it may be contaminated. At another level, Hindus plead that, after all, all paths lead to the same God. Therefore one can be good Muslim or a good Christian and achieve the same goal of Mukti (emancipation) or Swarga (heaven). But Muslims or Christians do not think that way. Therefore there is only a one-way traffic, Hindus getting converted to Islam and Christianity.
We can learn a thing or two from Buddhism. It is a proselytizing indigenous religion. However there are no instances of individual or mass conversions of Muslims or Christians to Buddhism. Either indigenous religionists of Srilanka, China, etc eastern countries accepted Buddhism two thousand years back or in recent times it is only a mass conversion within Hindu fold.
There are two aspects of proselytizing. One accepting Indian Muslims and Christians back to Hindu fold. Those Hindus, who were converted to Islam, fell in Stockholm syndrome. They started feeling love and affection for captors because Hindus considered those who were forced to accept Islam or Christianity as âfallenâ people and not âaggrievedâ. It is necessary to appreciate the circumstances in which they were converted and bring them back to Hinduism with all honour and not by âShuddhiâ process as if they were polluted. In fact Hindus must declare that Hinduism is purified to the extent more and more Muslims and Christians come back to Hindu fold.
While considering proselytizing, we should not rule out Sikhism. Although Sikhism has some similarities with Semitic religions like one founder, one book, strict worldly dress and behavioral codes, strong community life, that may in fact help in getting Muslims back to a similar alternative as Sikhism.
We should rope in spiritual Gurus also in our attempt to de-Islamise Muslims and bring them closer to Hindu ethos, if not a total conversion to Hinduism, Yoga, Meditation, Vipashyana, Art of Living, Swadhyay, etc. Rationally speaking, there is no reason why Hindus should find a counter answer for every Muslim religious symbol. Therefore Hindus need not invent an Avtar to counter a Prophet, invent a book Bhagwad Geeta as an answer to Quran or Swastik and Om to counter Star and Crescent.
But at the same time, creating, accepting and revering such symbols cannot be under-rated. Not only intellectuals, even common Hindus do not consider such symbols or even superstitions necessary to bring the people around some intangible mark of religion to sacrifice their life for. This has proved to be a disadvantage for making Hindus unite. A little irrational faith in religion is perhaps a practical requirement.
I do not see any point in perpetually whining against Muslim behaviour, their aggressive nature and their loyalty towards world Ummah. Hindus must develop a cogent policy for Hindus in various countries. Developing a Hindu commonwealth is not against any nationalism or patriotism towards a country. For centuries, Hindus have not given any thought in that direction. It is necessary to develop a well thought out policy.
Decolonizing Hindutva
Hindutva has nothing to do with any economic theory. There is a general feeling that Hindutva stands for rightist policies. This impression must be removed. With socialist and left leaning views, one can be a âHindutvaâwadi. A Bardhan or a Yechuri must ridicule Hindu customs to prove that he is a Marxist. But have you come across any Muslim Marxist who has blamed Islam for its anti-liberal views? No. Never. Because even for a Marxist Muslim, he is a Muslim first and Marxist afterwards.
Also, Hindutva is not any political theory. It has nothing to say, for or against, democracy, globalization, SEZs, big dams, etc. Bhartiya Janata Party or Shiv Sena has no right to claim an exclusive right on Hindutva. A Hindutvavadi can be a member and leader of any other political party like Congress, Janata Dal, etc for various other issues, keeping his Hindutva in tact.
Hindutva also does not have any sociological viewpoint. Hindutva need not subscribe to a joint family system and other conservative ideas. Even to the extent of accepting free sex relationship, same sex relationship should not come in the way of one being a Hindutvawadi. Hindutva is not Puritanism. It is, considering all Hindus as one people and protecting their worldly interests. So take courage in both hands and listen âHindutva is not a way of lifeâ.
Now we must come to the last point of the meaning of Hindutva in different contexts.
Savarkar had enunciated Hindutva before independence i.e. before partition of British India which Savarkar called Bharatbhumi. The country was partitioned entirely on the basis of religious nationalism. Pakistan became a Muslim nation-state and India (named as India i.e. Bharat in Indian Constitution subsequently as a Hindu nation, howsoever secular the state might be.)
It is necessary to fresh up the memory that it was Indian Muslims i.e. the Muslims in that part of India which never could have become Pakistan, who fought tooth and nail to create Pakistan under the leadership of an Indian Gujarati Muslim - a domicile of Bombay - Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
It is inappropriate here to narrate the entire story of partition. But it must be noted that All India Muslim League was not automatically partitioned on 15th August 1947 along with Indiaâs partition. A special session was called to split Indian Muslim League at Karachi in December 1947. In this session by a special resolution, All India Muslim League was split into two â Pakistan Muslim League (with Liaqat Ali Khan elected as special convener) and Indian Union Muslim League (with President of Madras Provincial Muslim League, M. Mohammad Ismail, elected as special convener.) The resolutions adopted in Karachi session are worth studying in totality. But I reproduce below (in part) resolution no.3.
Resolution no. 3 (All India Muslim League, Karachi Session, 14-15 Dec 1947)
The Council of All India Muslim League views with great satisfaction the attainment of its great objective, namely, the establishment of Pakistan, and congratulates Musalmans of the Indian subcontinent on sacrifices they have made for achievement of their national goal. The council feels confident that the unique struggle of Muslim League for establishment of a fully independent sovereign state, under the superb leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and its ultimate triumph in the birth of largest Muslim State and fifth largest of all States of the world, will go down in history as the most outstanding world-event of modern times.
The tenor of the above resolution will make it amply clear that Muslims in partitioned India could not sever their relationship with brother Muslims in Pakistan. After expressing their pride in partitioning the country on religious basis, they could not be expected to be loyal national of Bharat.
But Indian National Congress just automatically ceased to exist in Pakistan. Congress was not required to be partitioned. It was always a Hindu organization irrespective of what Congress pleaded. Therefore none ever thought what happened to Congress houses in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Multan and Dhaka.
Therefore we must redefine Hindutva in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh too as Pakistan was further dismembered and Bangladesh became a separate nation-state in 1971.
As far as India is concerned, the Hindutva concept remains unchanged i.e. same as before partition. But we must remember after complete independence from British rule and any left hangovers of Muslim rules, the responsibility of Hindus is increased. Not only they must remain as united national people in India, but they must be able to bring all non-Hindus and particularly Muslims in the main national stream, leaving behind their ambition of creating Muslim State. The onus is on Hindus to integrate Muslims in territorial and cultural Nation-State as Bharat and not look to making India a Hindu Nation-State.
The clock cannot be turned back. What Hindus could not achieve in thousand years, cannot be achieved now. If Hindus can turn all Muslims into loyal Indian nationals with no attachment to Muslim Ummah, it will be a big achievement. And it should be possible. After all, every Muslim is as much a homosapien as any Hindu. To turn a Muslim as a true national, he will have to be weaned away from Mullah, Maulavis who keep on harping on the old ideas of Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam. Muslims will have to be liberated from their blind faith in Islam and treating remaining humanity as Kafirs.
How do we define Hindutva for Bangladesh? Even today Bangladesh has 16 percent Hindu population. What is the meaning of Hindutva to them? Their Hindutva should aim at making Bangladesh a true secular Nation-State. In fact, it was born as a secular state in 1971. but due to lack of Indian diplomacy and lack of fighting spirit of Bangladeshi Hindus, Bangladesh became an Islamic State in 1975 and also a member of Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). Hindus of Bangladesh can still aspire to take more and more active part in political life to turn the country back to a secular state and press for their rights within the legal and constitutional framework.
<b>
Pakistan (then West Pakistan) solved the Hindu issue just by pogroms and squeezing Hindus out of Pakistan. The percentage of Hindus came down from ten percent at the time of partition to just one percent at present. So we are relieved of the issue of defining Hindutva of Pakistani Hindus.</b>
To sum up, Hindutva is a still relevant secular, non-communal, non-political concept. Just defining nationalism of Bharat keeping it open for non-Hindus to assimilate in a territorial cultural nationalism. In Bangladesh, it means attempts to turn the Islamic Republic to Secular Republic in which Hindus can live honourably and flourish as equal citizens.
Do people here think it's time we distinguished between Hinduism and Hindutva? Let me explain what I am trying to say.
Savarkar was a non-religious, if not irreligious, person. He was extremely practical, and his was a political Hinduism rather than a religious one. I think this is the right attitude, because the Hindu religion consists of so many different schools it'll be impossible to establish what Hinduism is. As of today, Hinduism is synonymous with Gandhian ahimsa, tolerance, and the rest. Who knows, what it's gonna be tomorrow.
Almost everybody claims to be Hindu, including anti-Hindus like Lalloo, Mulayam etc. So wouldn't it be better to identify ourselves as Hindutvadis rather than as Hindus? Because Hindutva stands for nationalism etc., rather than pacifism, respect for all religions, and all the things present-day Hinduism represents, thanks to Gandhi and co.
Bottom line, the very word 'Hinduism' has not only become synonymous with pacifism, cowardice etc., but even anti-Hindus are religious, practicing Hindus in their personal lives. That being the case, is it not better for the nationalists to separate themselves from this group, so that it'll be clear as to what Hindutva represents? Right now, thanks to sangh, Hindutva has become a religious movement rather than a political one, as Savarkar envisioned, and this antagonizes unorthodox Hindus, who otherwise may be interested in Hindutva.
P.S.
Is there any online text of Savarkar's book Hindutva?
02-06-2008, 07:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2008, 07:18 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ नà¥à¤ à¤à¥ à¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¤¨à¥, माफॠमाà¤à¤à¥à¤ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ
9 Feb 2008, 1934 hrs IST,à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤¾
हरिदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤° : बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬ मà¥à¤ à¤à¤ªà¥ à¤à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥ विरà¥à¤§à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤ªà¥à¤ªà¤£à¤¿à¤¯à¥à¤ à¤à¥ लà¥à¤à¤° हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ न बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ विरà¥à¤§ मà¥à¤ सड़à¤à¥à¤ पर à¤à¤¤à¤° à¤à¤ हà¥à¤à¥¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ नà¥à¤ नॠà¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¤¨à¥ दॠहॠà¤à¤¿ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ माफॠमाà¤à¤à¥à¤ या à¤à¤à¥à¤° à¤à¤à¤¦à¥à¤²à¤¨ à¤à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤à¤¾ à¤
à¤à¤à¤¾à¤® à¤à¥à¤à¤¤à¤¨à¥ à¤à¥ तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤° रहà¥à¤à¥¤
हरिदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤° à¤à¥ à¤à¤à¤à¥à¤¤à¤ªà¥à¤° à¤à¤²à¤¾à¤à¥ मà¥à¤ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ विरà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§ à¤à¤à¥à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨ à¤à¥ दà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¨ बà¤à¤°à¤à¤ दल à¤à¥ नà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤à¤ à¤à¤° महिलाà¤à¤ नॠबाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¤¾ पà¥à¤¤à¤²à¤¾ à¤à¤²à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ तथा बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ पà¥à¤¸à¥à¤à¤° à¤à¥ à¤à¤ à¤à¥ हवालॠà¤à¤° ' बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ मà¥à¤°à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ ' à¤à¥ नारॠलà¤à¤¾à¤à¥¤
बà¤à¤°à¤à¤ दल à¤à¥ सह सà¤à¤¯à¥à¤à¤ à¤
नà¥à¤ वालिया नॠà¤à¤¹à¤¾ à¤à¤¿ à¤à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬ मà¥à¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥à¤à¤ à¤à¥ मà¥à¤°à¥à¤, à¤
तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥, वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¿à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥ à¤à¤° धरà¥à¤®à¤à¥à¤°à¥à¤à¤ à¤à¥ 1008 à¤à¥ à¤à¤ªà¤¾à¤§à¤¿ à¤à¥ बारॠमà¥à¤ à¤
पमानà¤à¤¨à¤ à¤à¤¿à¤ªà¥à¤ªà¤£à¤¿à¤¯à¤¾à¤ लिà¤à¥ à¤à¤ हà¥à¤, à¤à¥ à¤à¤à¥ मानसिà¤à¤¤à¤¾ à¤à¥ परिà¤à¤¾à¤¯à¤ हà¥à¤à¥¤ à¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤à¤¨à¥ à¤à¤¹à¤¾, ' रामदà¥à¤µ हिà¤à¤¦à¥à¤à¤ सॠहà¥à¤, हिà¤à¤¦à¥ रामदà¥à¤µ सॠनहà¥à¤à¥¤ à¤
à¤à¤° हम à¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤ à¤à¤ªà¤° à¤à¤ ा सà¤à¤¤à¥ हà¥à¤ तॠà¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤ नà¥à¤à¥ à¤à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤°à¤¾ सà¤à¤¤à¥ हà¥à¤à¥¤ '
Min translation: Ramdev of Yoga fame calls Hindus as fools, oppressors, sexindulgents and insults the title of 1008 of sect Gurus. In retort, Hindu organisations like Bajrang Dal burn his effigy and further warn him that if can be promoted; so, he can be demoted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Capt M Kumar+Feb 9 2008, 08:32 PM-->QUOTE(Capt M Kumar @ Feb 9 2008, 08:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ नà¥à¤ à¤à¥ à¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¤¨à¥, माफॠमाà¤à¤à¥à¤ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ
9 Feb 2008, 1934 hrs IST,à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤¾
 हरिदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤° : बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬ मà¥à¤ à¤à¤ªà¥ à¤à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥ विरà¥à¤§à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤ªà¥à¤ªà¤£à¤¿à¤¯à¥à¤ à¤à¥ लà¥à¤à¤° हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ न बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ विरà¥à¤§ मà¥à¤ सड़à¤à¥à¤ पर à¤à¤¤à¤° à¤à¤ हà¥à¤à¥¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ नà¥à¤ नॠà¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¤¨à¥ दॠहॠà¤à¤¿ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ माफॠमाà¤à¤à¥à¤ या à¤à¤à¥à¤° à¤à¤à¤¦à¥à¤²à¤¨ à¤à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤à¤¾ à¤
à¤à¤à¤¾à¤® à¤à¥à¤à¤¤à¤¨à¥ à¤à¥ तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤° रहà¥à¤à¥¤
हरिदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤° à¤à¥ à¤à¤à¤à¥à¤¤à¤ªà¥à¤° à¤à¤²à¤¾à¤à¥ मà¥à¤ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ विरà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§ à¤à¤à¥à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨ à¤à¥ दà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¨ बà¤à¤°à¤à¤ दल à¤à¥ नà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤à¤ à¤à¤° महिलाà¤à¤ नॠबाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¤¾ पà¥à¤¤à¤²à¤¾ à¤à¤²à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ तथा बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ पà¥à¤¸à¥à¤à¤° à¤à¥ à¤à¤ à¤à¥ हवालॠà¤à¤° ' बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ मà¥à¤°à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ ' à¤à¥ नारॠलà¤à¤¾à¤à¥¤
बà¤à¤°à¤à¤ दल à¤à¥ सह सà¤à¤¯à¥à¤à¤ à¤
नà¥à¤ वालिया नॠà¤à¤¹à¤¾ à¤à¤¿ à¤à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬ मà¥à¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥à¤à¤ à¤à¥ मà¥à¤°à¥à¤, à¤
तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥, वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¿à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥ à¤à¤° धरà¥à¤®à¤à¥à¤°à¥à¤à¤ à¤à¥ 1008 à¤à¥ à¤à¤ªà¤¾à¤§à¤¿ à¤à¥ बारॠमà¥à¤ à¤
पमानà¤à¤¨à¤ à¤à¤¿à¤ªà¥à¤ªà¤£à¤¿à¤¯à¤¾à¤ लिà¤à¥ à¤à¤ हà¥à¤, à¤à¥ à¤à¤à¥ मानसिà¤à¤¤à¤¾ à¤à¥ परिà¤à¤¾à¤¯à¤ हà¥à¤à¥¤ à¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤à¤¨à¥ à¤à¤¹à¤¾, ' रामदà¥à¤µ हिà¤à¤¦à¥à¤à¤ सॠहà¥à¤, हिà¤à¤¦à¥ रामदà¥à¤µ सॠनहà¥à¤à¥¤ à¤
à¤à¤° हम à¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤ à¤à¤ªà¤° à¤à¤ ा सà¤à¤¤à¥ हà¥à¤ तॠà¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤ नà¥à¤à¥ à¤à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤°à¤¾ सà¤à¤¤à¥ हà¥à¤à¥¤ '
Min translation: Ramdev of Yoga fame calls Hindus as fools, oppressors, sexindulgents and insults the title of 1008 of sect Gurus. In retort, Hindu organisations like Bajrang Dal burn his effigy and further warn him that if can be promoted; so, he can be demoted.
[right][snapback]78232[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you please provide a link for this? If it's indeed true, I've lost all respect for this man. When he was insulted by the commies, all hindus stood by him. And this is how he pays them back? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
02-10-2008, 12:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2008, 12:04 AM by Capt M Kumar.)
<!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> This is from Navbharattimes of today.
Here is further action suggested:
He is coming around July to Houston and most probably may be going to other US cities; so, prevail upon sponsors to cancel his visit and if any money has been raised should be donated or returned to others <span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>e.g. I am myself looking for donors to start Yoga Temples.</span></span>
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Geneva'>Here is the link for my article:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...t=0&#entry78055</span></span>
www.savarkar.org
Excellent website on the great nationalist with lots of resources hard to come by for many people.
<!--QuoteBegin-Capt M Kumar+Feb 9 2008, 08:32 PM-->QUOTE(Capt M Kumar @ Feb 9 2008, 08:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ नà¥à¤ à¤à¥ à¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¤¨à¥, माफॠमाà¤à¤à¥à¤ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ
9 Feb 2008, 1934 hrs IST,à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤¾
 हरिदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤° : बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬ मà¥à¤ à¤à¤ªà¥ à¤à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥ विरà¥à¤§à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤ªà¥à¤ªà¤£à¤¿à¤¯à¥à¤ à¤à¥ लà¥à¤à¤° हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ न बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ विरà¥à¤§ मà¥à¤ सड़à¤à¥à¤ पर à¤à¤¤à¤° à¤à¤ हà¥à¤à¥¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥ सà¤à¤à¤ नà¥à¤ नॠà¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µà¤¨à¥ दॠहॠà¤à¤¿ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ माफॠमाà¤à¤à¥à¤ या à¤à¤à¥à¤° à¤à¤à¤¦à¥à¤²à¤¨ à¤à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤à¤¾ à¤
à¤à¤à¤¾à¤® à¤à¥à¤à¤¤à¤¨à¥ à¤à¥ तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤° रहà¥à¤à¥¤
हरिदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤° à¤à¥ à¤à¤à¤à¥à¤¤à¤ªà¥à¤° à¤à¤²à¤¾à¤à¥ मà¥à¤ बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ विरà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§ à¤à¤à¥à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨ à¤à¥ दà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¨ बà¤à¤°à¤à¤ दल à¤à¥ नà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤à¤ à¤à¤° महिलाà¤à¤ नॠबाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¤¾ पà¥à¤¤à¤²à¤¾ à¤à¤²à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ तथा बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ à¤à¥ पà¥à¤¸à¥à¤à¤° à¤à¥ à¤à¤ à¤à¥ हवालॠà¤à¤° ' बाबा रामदà¥à¤µ मà¥à¤°à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤¬à¤¾à¤¦ ' à¤à¥ नारॠलà¤à¤¾à¤à¥¤
बà¤à¤°à¤à¤ दल à¤à¥ सह सà¤à¤¯à¥à¤à¤ à¤
नà¥à¤ वालिया नॠà¤à¤¹à¤¾ à¤à¤¿ à¤à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤¬ मà¥à¤ हिà¤à¤¦à¥à¤à¤ à¤à¥ मà¥à¤°à¥à¤, à¤
तà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥, वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤à¤¿à¤à¤¾à¤°à¥ à¤à¤° धरà¥à¤®à¤à¥à¤°à¥à¤à¤ à¤à¥ 1008 à¤à¥ à¤à¤ªà¤¾à¤§à¤¿ à¤à¥ बारॠमà¥à¤ à¤
पमानà¤à¤¨à¤ à¤à¤¿à¤ªà¥à¤ªà¤£à¤¿à¤¯à¤¾à¤ लिà¤à¥ à¤à¤ हà¥à¤, à¤à¥ à¤à¤à¥ मानसिà¤à¤¤à¤¾ à¤à¥ परिà¤à¤¾à¤¯à¤ हà¥à¤à¥¤ à¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤à¤¨à¥ à¤à¤¹à¤¾, ' रामदà¥à¤µ हिà¤à¤¦à¥à¤à¤ सॠहà¥à¤, हिà¤à¤¦à¥ रामदà¥à¤µ सॠनहà¥à¤à¥¤ à¤
à¤à¤° हम à¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤ à¤à¤ªà¤° à¤à¤ ा सà¤à¤¤à¥ हà¥à¤ तॠà¤à¤¨à¥à¤¹à¥à¤ नà¥à¤à¥ à¤à¥ à¤à¤¿à¤°à¤¾ सà¤à¤¤à¥ हà¥à¤à¥¤ '
Min translation: Ramdev of Yoga fame calls Hindus as fools, oppressors, sexindulgents and insults the title of 1008 of sect Gurus. In retort, Hindu organisations like Bajrang Dal burn his effigy and further warn him that if can be promoted; so, he can be demoted.
[right][snapback]78232[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was puzzled by this report, since it doesn't match what I found.
In fact I got hold of three books by Swami Ramdev, one on pranayama, one on Yoga and other on Ayurveda. These seem to be the ones that are selling the most.
In these books, he is not only very pro sanatana dharma but also comes through as a strong nationalist.
It would have been good if the controversial book's name was mentioned. But neither the name was mentioned nor any actual quotes were given.
I suspect it is like the Maharshi Dayanand (founder of Arya Samaj) effect. He was very critical of many rituslidtic aspects of hinduism in practice, but that didn't mean he wasn't a great hindu.
Lets not be too eager to criticize Baba Ramdev yet. He seems to be doing a lot of good work. He is also very vocal, which means he will make many enemies. But before jumping to conclusions it is better to inform ourselves more about him.
Husky said in another thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Savarkar tried to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean he wanted Hindus out of the way. It simply means, rather than being the whole, Hinduism should become a small but significant part of the whole; that's all. It's not annihilation but assimilation.
Why is this necessary? Because Hinduism is so vast it's subject to numerous interpretations, and therefore confusing. Gandhi's interpretation restricts Hinduism to ahimsa and satya, whereas Mr. X may have his own interpretation. All this leads to chaos, as we've seen times without number. Gandhi's Hinduism became the official political ideology of the Hindu people, and we all know the good it's done for us. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's therefore imperative that we 'fit' Hinduism into the framework of Hindutva, doing which these interpretations will cease to have an effect on the national and racial consciousness.
Moreover, what matters at this stage is NOT religion but a solid political ideology. The secularists, Muslims, Christians, and commies all have an ideology, which is why they succeed. What's the ideology of the Hindus? Not many Hindus can answer that. In fact, even those claiming to be political Hindus have differing views on this matter. That's why it's very important to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. Anyone can be Hindu, even the most anti-national traitor like Lallo. <b>But only nationalists can be Hindutvadis. So our job is to strengthen Hindutva rather than Hinduism, because at the end of the day, religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people.</b>
It's in this connection that the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva must be understood. Not in terms of division, but as a convenient method to find out who subscribes to our ideology. There are many Hindus, even sanyasins, who don't believe in Hindutva, like the swaminarayan sect. They actively campaigned against Modi in Gujarat. OTOH, there are non-Hindus and even atheists who believe in Hindutva. Who's our friend here, the religious Hindu or the non-religious Hindutvadi? It's a no-brainer.
In conclusion, these are the following points:
#1 We distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean we're dividing the Hindu society. We distinguish in order to understand the political situation better, NOT because we want to divide. A complex whole is often divided into many parts in order to facilitate understanding. This is the scientific approach.
#2 This distinction <b>helps in weeding out worthless people</b> who, though calling themselves Hindus, are more dangerous than the enemy. Swami Agniwesh is one such instance, and there are many more. All the political parties, media, various activists, rights groups etc. are Hindus, but are more anti-Hindu than the enemy.
#3 With this distinction, one can do away with the confusion that arises from the multiple interpretations of Hinduism. Hinduism will continue to be a part of Hindutva, but without exerting a powerful influence on politics. Hindutva will handle the political situation of the Hindus, while Hinduism will be restricted to religion, spirituality and the like. So Hindutva and Hinduism will co-exist, neither is a threat to the other, neither will disappear. This is a sensible approach, because any ideology subject to multiple interpretations is quite suicidal in the political arena. It leads to total chaos. In politics, there has to be a clear-cut agenda, solid principles and foundation, and a clear political vision. Hinduism with its innumerable schools of thought can never fit the bill, whereas Hindutva can.
These are the reasons why any practical man will try to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. <b>It's not to divide the Hindu society any further, but to make the goal and the path clear.</b>
03-10-2008, 05:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2008, 05:24 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->#1 We distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean we're dividing the Hindu society. We distinguish in order to understand the political situation better, NOT because we want to divide. A complex whole is often divided into many parts in order to facilitate understanding. This is the scientific approach.[right][snapback]79440[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What it comes down to is that you're separating the core part of Hindu society from those you think you can mold your way:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But only nationalists can be Hindutvadis. So our job is to strengthen Hindutva rather than Hinduism, <b>because at the end of the day,religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society</b>, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So "religious" Hindus are pitted against 'Hindus' <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> We <i>are</i> the Hindus, you confusio. "Religious" Hindus - the ones that follow traditional Hindu Dharma - have always been Hindus, they have always made up the Hindu population of Bharat... Enough of your psecular doublespeak.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are many Hindus, even sanyasins... actively campaigned against Modi in Gujarat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You believe every falsehood against Hindus, don't ya?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#2 This distinction helps in weeding out worthless people who, though calling themselves Hindus, are more dangerous than the enemy. Swami Agniwesh is one such instance, and there are many more. All the political parties, media, various activists, rights groups etc. are Hindus, but are more anti-Hindu than the enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No they're not Hindus. They're pseculars (though some still keep their Hindu names so they can further fool people). And Agnivesh is a well-known communist. Hinduism Today exposed him long ago as an anti-Hindu liar, while the Arya Samaj body by-and-large knows about this fraudulent furball and his organisation that parades around like a valid Arya Samaj. Similarly, it is communist Sandeep Pandey who hires comrade goons to impersonate Sanyasins and boo against Ayodhya and other Hindu matters. All this has long been documented here at IF.
But the people who instantly fall for these frauds and then cite them as example arguments against "Hindus" usually tend to be the real anti-Hindus. An actual Hindu would bother finding out the truth first.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->OTOH, there are <b>non-Hindus and even atheists</b> who believe in Hindutva. Who's our friend here, the religious Hindu or the non-religious Hindutvadi? It's a no-brainer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"Our"? Who is "our"? You already said the "religious Hindus are of no use".
If the "non-Hindus and atheists who believe in Hindutva" are so valuable to you, why don't you start a non-Hindu/Atheist Nationalistutva instead, since the present Hindutva offends you so. Note the word <i>Hindu</i> in Hindutva. We're still here. In spite of christoislamics telling us our Gods are a myth, instead of communists and christo-psecular media lying about us and our traditions, instead of macaulayite christocommunist schools teaching that our Gods are make-believe and have nothing on jehovallah, we're still here. In spite of modern day Indians who want India and glorious Hindu history but oddly don't want Hinduism to continue, we're still here.
Shivaji, the Shaivite Shahis of Afghanistan, the Shakta Rajputs, our Vedic Rishis, the Arya Samaj, the Shakta-Shaiva-Vaishnava S Indian kingdoms, Vaishnava Hindus of the Punjab, Vishnu-KAli-Shiva-bhaktas Aurobindo and Vivekananda, and others including many unnamed but not unvalued Hindu ancestors who fought valiantly - they were all "religious" Hindooooos. Bharatam is because of them. And yeah, we are still following in *their* footsteps. The Hindoo's nationalism is of <i>that</i> kind that recognises the Divinity manifested in Bharatam, in our traditions, in our life. Arts, sciences, skills developed in Hindu history are often directly attributed to the teaching of the Gods - for instance Shakuntala Devi says her genius math is due to her friendship with Ganapathi, just as KAli was the originator of Kalidasa's literacy and artistry (even a Japanese hero attributed his acquisition of special skills to Ganapathi=Kangiten) - the allegedly-'atheist' Jains accord even reading and writing to the teachings of a great Tirtankara. Our progress is due to our understanding that we are part of that greater whole and our knowledge sourced from it. We are Hindus because we follow that traditional Hinduism still. We have not yet been "cured". Incurable and inconvertible.
But I forgot that our continued presence/existence irks quite a few others. There are indeed Indians who'd prefer Hinduism not to have Gods anymore, not to have followers who believe in Gods anymore. It is beyond incomprehensible and even very embarrassing for some, and it stands in the way of the plans of others. But here we are. Going by a doco's stats (couple of years old), at least some 90% of India's <i>Hindu</i> population - that's 'tribals', villagers and even the majority of town urbania - still believes in our Gods. It is traditional Hinduism, it has ever been part of Hindu Dharma.
(Sad but true: Macaulayite education hasn't succeeded yet - my, how long it is taking.... When will we learn.... when will we see the light? When will we stop obsessing over Sri Rama... and his bridge. Why do us Hindooos bother about this bridge anyway? What a mystery. So backward of us Hindoooos.)
All this scares the modern Indian who readily wants the <i>history</i> of Hinduism (and wants to have full claim on it), but does not want Hinduism in the <i>present</i> - they want a non-traditional but 'nationalist' Indian culture, and <i>ideally</i> would have that it had evolved from some historical traditional Hinduism to a modern 'progressive' neutral mental state (that is, no continuation of traditional Hinduism in the present. Some would even prefer rewriting <i>historic</i> Hinduism to one that was Gods-free, just so that it would make more sense to them and not feel so entirely alien and unrelatable to them. Hindu Gods just <i>don't</i> compute for them otherwise.)
The modern Indian is thwarted in his visions too. Because the dratted Hindooos are in the way. Again. We're always in the way, I fear. Nothing - except perhaps christoislamicommunistic tactics - is working (and even the dubious success of Macaulayite education is just toooo darnnnn sloowwwww).
<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are the reasons why any practical man will try to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. <b>It's not to divide the Hindu society any further, but to make the goal and the path clear.</b>
[right][snapback]79440[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No need to become all explanatory and try to side-track. You made your goal quite clear already:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hey, funny that. These "religious, temple-going Hindus" are the very same Hindoos that the christoislamicommunipseculars want made impotent/out of the way in India too! The same kind that the British targeted. What a coincidence!
Not a coincidence at all, of course, when one considers that this antagonism is but the result of christo-conditioning as well.
Psecularising the traditional Hindoo removes "religion" from it - first by indoctrination into western view of things and alienation from its traditions, then by the gap of generations, so that it ultimately becomes a foreigner looking at its own traditions as if these were entirely alien, incomprehensible and nonsensical.
Sometimes the successfully reprogrammed may still call itself Hindu for a while longer (maybe for a generation or two) even while it's opposed to traditional Hinduism. The psecularisation process may even have allowed it to retain some sense of its own identity in the form of a bare, stripped-down nationalism bereft of any deeper, meaningful sympathies (a modern-western style nationalism). And 100 years from now - or less - its offspring will be ready for molding by the Great Powers: ready to sell-out, buy-out.
These kinds of psecularised modern Indians were very much a part of the christocolonial plan too. And their minds have now been set such that they easily fall for the Christo Class Mindviruses - whichever thereof best appeals to the subject's mind (psecularism being the least violent of the lot). Yet there's one more peculiar (intended!) thing they have in common: an absolute incapability to understand or even sympathise with Hindu traditions, their actual background.
This is opposed to agnostic Hindus who always have sympathy for and often a connection to Hindu traditions. It's why they are willing to fight for the right of the average Hindu to continue Hindu traditions unencumbered by modern psecular taunts, even when these traditions are not all within their own personal sphere of experience - e.g. visiting temple or affinity with Hindu Gods or doing puja.
Balagangadhara is an example of an agnostic Hindu I think. (By the way, were I agnostic, I would argue all the points I made in the same way - to the extent that readers should not be able to distinguish between whether I am agnostic or whether I accept Hindu Gods' existence.... The goal of continuation of Dharmic experience is part of the basis of Hindu unity, IMO.)
Sometimes, agnosticism occurs when people have been separated from their Natural Religion by exposure to psyops/christo-education/equal-equal routine of discovering that christoislamism is a myth and thinking that "therefore, could Hinduism/Shinto/... be a bunch of stories too" and similar. It also happens if they've been too long away from traditional life in childhood and find it all a bit 'foreign'. But these are still people who couldn't actually be (successfully or permanently) reprogrammed away from their natural traditions. Instead, they try to merge back into their home; in any case, they already have or develop a sympathy and affinity for their traditions. In the Hindu case, sometimes they make their own way to the complete traditional Hindu experience: Sita Ram Goel for example, who in spite of his temporary infatuation with communism returned to develop a bond with Hindu Dharma and thereafter experienced Devi. (Often these Hindus also have a sympathetic or respectful position vis-a-vis other Natural Religions.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy "because at the end of the day,religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, so sad. I see how ~90% of the Hindu population being thoroughly traditional is tragedy to your alienating ideas.
Why don't you start your own thing instead of hoping to commandeer/hijack Hindu movements; I'm sure you can rustle up some of those likeminded "non-Hindu" friends you spoke of to join you. (In fact there are already many movements out there in India that you can join....)
I'm sorry that the majority of the Hindu population still believes in the "opium of the Hindu masses" (as some consider our Hindu Gods to be) and is unwilling to comply with your intentions and goals, but what can ya do? We're still happy little 'Mowglis', don't ya know - and glad to remain so. Oh what to do. Perhaps, as a superior social darwinist, you want to apply to the christoislamicommunists for tips on how to tackle the Hindoooo and <i>make</i> it comply. They have more practical experience...
http://www.savarkar.org/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Savarkar's philosophy finds full expression in the Flag he has designed for the Hindus. It bears the symbol of Kundalini with the Omkar and Kripan. Hindus have perfected the science of yoga. According to Savarkar's it is highest blessing on human life; it is the contribution of the Hindus to mankind. This yoga means full development of man's internal powers. The symbol of that power is Kundalini. To attain the wonderfully supersensuous joy through the awakened Kundalini is, Savarkar opines the highest ideal of men, be he a Hindu or a non-Hindu. In short, the Kundalini * represents all the ultimate aspirations, feelings and powers of mankind. The Kundalini represents yoga, the highest spiritual attainment while the Kripan represents Bhoga , Abhyudaya, the worldly advancement. The red-orchard colour of the Flag indicates renunciation-Tyaga. And there is no renunciation without Yoga and Kshema-protection. Therefore the Kripan is for the Yoga Kshema.
The Omkar is the sacred symbol of the great One with Whom the liberated souls become one in the highest state of Nihshreyas-spiritual bliss. It seems Savarkar was, with the exception of Aurobindo Ghose, the only first rate Indian leader who had experienced this super-sensuous joy. He had practiced this Yoga while in the Cellular Jail of the Andamans. So Savarkar was the only political philosopher who chose Kundalini on the Flag. The Swastik was added to the Flag later on by the Hindu Mahasabha when it accepted the Flag. Originally it was not there.
http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....unt1=14&cid=889<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see the flag on the savarkar website homepage.
Good article exploring the thoughts of various prominent Hindu leaders and intellectuals on Zionism and the Jewish community:
http://www.nhsf.org.uk/images/stories/Hind...h/hinduzion.pdf
And also gives u some idea about who the real anti semites in Bharat are.
<span style='color:red'>125th Birth Anniversary of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, today</span>
The man who saw tomorrow
Ashok Malik
The Pioneer
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar would have been 125 today. In life,
he was a demonised, marginalised 'political Hindu'. Yet, in contemporary
India, Savarkar stands vindicated and Savarkarism is more accepted than
ever before
In 2004, when the historian Ron Chernow wrote his eponymous
biography of Alexander Hamilton, he was partly impelled by the sense
that his subject had not been given his due. Hamilton was an American
nationalist, a votary of federal institutions, a Republican, an advocate
of limited Government and a patron of the industrial society before
these terms were coined or at least entirely understood. He was also the
first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and a widely
influential figure in the early years of the new republic.
Yet, over the decades, memories of Hamilton's contemporaries
overwhelmed his legacy. He was America's forgotten Founding Father, lost
in the crevices between George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.
Hamilton had opposed slavery even while his great rival Thomas Jefferson
had kept slaves; yet, it wasn't Hamilton who was remembered by human
rights chroniclers.
What Hamilton lost in life, Hamiltonism won in history. By the
20th century, Hamilton's ideas had triumphed. His initial postulates
continue to define American strategic thinking, foreign policy and
economic philosophy. Every White House resident in the past 20 years has
paid homage to Ronald Reagan; Reagan himself often evoked Hamilton.
It is tempting to see Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who would have
been 125 this morning, as an Indian Alexander Hamilton. By the time he
died in 1966, he had shrunk to a limited presence. Surrounded only by a
few devoted adherents and members of the Hindu Mahasabha, his writings
read mainly by his fellow Maharastrians, his heroic role in the freedom
movement had been effaced by official historians.
Savarkar was the intellectual equal of Jawaharlal Nehru. Revisit
the writings of the stalwarts of the pre-1947 period and you will
encounter few besides these two with a grasp and informed assessment of
contemporary world affairs. Yet, in the hard, harsh world of politics
and political ideas, Savarkar, by the 1960s, had lost to Nehru's cult
and charisma.
There were many reasons why the Left-liberal intelligentsia, most
of whom are, in some form or the other, pensioners of the Nehruvian
state structure, despised Savarkar. For a start, he was flesh-and-blood
refutation of the charge that Hindu nationalism lacked an intellectual
tradition. Second, he represented a cogent and coherent position that
believed the political choices India and the Congress had made in 1947
(or 1950 or 1952, after the first election) were not necessarily
correct.
These were inconvenient truths for Nehruvian fellow travellers,
Savarkar the inconvenient man. There was astonishing virulence towards
Savarkar. Some, like the perverse and bigoted Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar,
even mocked the 10 years that Savarkar spent in Cellular Jail, Port
Blair, in horrific conditions, alone in a tiny cell.
The antipathy to Savarkar has to be seen in a larger context.
Post-independence, the Congress establishment sought to rewrite history
in its own image. It determinedly underplayed the role of the early
Indian elites -- the Poona Brahmins, Bombay's Parsi constitutionalists,
Calcutta's Bengali and Brahmo activists -- who had dominated public life
prior to the Mahatma's mass politics.
As the Congress set out to establish that there was no history and
no freedom struggle before Gandhi, and no politics and no consciousness
of modern India before Nehru, these pioneer groups became expendable.
The Marxist historians who actually wrote the textbooks had their own
theories. For instance, not just was Savarkar demonised, even the
venerable Bal Gangadhar Tilak was painted in sectarian colours.
Even so, history has a strange way of getting back. Savarkar's
idea of the political Hindu, of a polity and of political parties that
would be sensitive to the Hindu cultural mainstay of Indian nationhood,
that would, while eschewing ritualism and dogma, incorporate robust
nationalism into policy-making, is more relevant than it has ever been.
Nehruvianism is in retreat and, even though Savarkar has been dead 42
years, Savarkarism has never been more alive.
Written in 1923, Savarkar's slim tract, Hindutva, remains a
remarkably contemporary articulation of organic nationalism. Indeed, it
anticipates some of the ideas expanded upon by Samuel Huntington in Who
Are We? (2004).
Leftist historians often divide Savarkar's life into two -- the
supposedly "acceptable" first part, till the mid-1920s; and, his
espousal of Hindutva after that. Actually, this division is bogus.
Admittedly, Savarkar's early life was one of a romantic
revolutionary. As a student in London, he was in touch with Irish,
Turkish and Chinese dissidents and rebels. In 1907, he wrote The War of
Independence of 1857. The book was deeply researched and provided an
interpretation of documents and events from the Indian perspective.
Admittedly, it is not the last word on the Indian Uprising. In
hindsight, Savarkar could be accused of glossing over the differing
motivations of the participants of the 1857 war and of being simplistic
in believing that there was overwhelming consensus in re-establishing
the Delhi throne as a Maratha protectorate -- as had been the case till
1803.
Nevertheless, this was a passionate young man of 24 writing the
first non-imperial account of a dramatic struggle. It was passionate and
pulsating, being smuggled to India wrapped in dust jackets saying Don
Quixote and Pickwick Papers. The British Government arrested Savarkar
and sought to send him to India to stand trial. At Marseilles, in a
dramatic move, he squeezed out of the porthole and swam to the shore,
claiming asylum from the French Government.
It was refused and he was re-arrested on French soil and handed
over to the British. This was in breach of international law and among
those who protested at Savarkar being denied asylum was Jean Longuet,
French lawyer-editor and grandson of Karl Marx.
Savarkar was heavily influenced by Italian thinkers such as
Mazzini. He saw Hindutva as an Indian Risorgimeto, conceptualising it as
a reawakening of the national spirit and of a pride in, and
understanding of, the territorial frontiers of India. He was not a
religious sort and did not interpret 'Hindu' solely in terms of worship.
He was an early opponent of Dalit exclusion, seeing a Hindu
harmonisation process as essential to national unity.
<b>Savarkar was often impatient with the RSS and it is piquant to
compare him with MS Golwalkar, 'Guruji' as he is called and the man who
made the Sangh the all-India institution that it is today. Savarkar was
a thinker, Golwalkar a do-er; Savarkar was the rare Hindu mind who
understood statecraft and the importance of state power, Golwalkar
sought to change society by working bottom-up from grassroots
communities. For Golwalkar (as for Gandhi), the Hindu was
ascetic-exemplar; for Savarkar, he was warrior-ideal.
The two streams were not antithetical but clearly complementary.
When they finally merged, consciously or otherwise, in the late-1980s,
it changed Indian politics and moved the polity irrevocably to the
Right. At its best, the BJP is a confluence of Savarkar and Golwalkar.</b>
Savarkar had known it all along. Just before his death, in an
emotional piece called "This, My Legacy", he had written: "<span style='color:red'>If we are to
live with honour and dignity as a Hindu nation -- and we have the right
to do so -- that nation must emerge under the Hindu flag. This, my
dream, shall come true -- if not in this generation at least in the
next. If it remains an empty dream, I shall prove a fool. If it comes
true, I shall prove a prophet. This, my legacy, I bequeath to you.</span>"
Savarkar is gone. Let us cherish his legacy, salute the prophet.
<b>Why Kaveri wears saffron</b>
The saffron Karnataka wears is aglow with the sacrifices of the anonymous workers who lived with a reason, for a cause. Who sowed saffron in Karnataka's soil â like Yadav Rao Joshi, H V Seshadri, Suryanarain Rao, often going to sleep on an empty stomach but worked day and night to spread the message of a strong nationalism, motherland first and foremost. Everything else was secondary.
When Seshadri breathed his last, he was listening to the Sangh prayer â namaste sada vatsale matribhume (Salutations to thee, O beloved motherland...) But Vidhan Saudha was never on their radar of achievements. <b>Their mission was and remains a total transformation of society into a proud, strong, self-reliant, knowledge reservoir with character which would lead Bharat, which is India, into the highest ranks of the comity of nations. Political power is just one small step in that direction.</b>
The people who remember their past have a future. The saffron we see blooming in the South is powered with the ideas of a man whose birth anniversary would largely go unnoticed today. <b>Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was the name of the man who shook Hindus from their lethargic and self-demeaning attitude and who put the word Hindutva in vogue. </b>
I remember Madhumangal Sharma who was killed while reading a book by Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya in his Imphal house. The day bullets pierced his heart, through the book, happened to be 11th February, 1995. It was also the martyrdom day of the author he liked most, <b>Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, who was murdered mysteriously on 11th Feb 1968 on a moving train. </b>
One could wonder in these times of extreme parochialism why a Manipuri in Imphal would be reading a book by a northerner? The same <b>Manipur has banned all books of Hindi writers, Hindi movies, and finally the national anthem now.</b>
The martyrdom of Pt Upadhyaya and Madhumangal and many others for a cause energised a collective will to bring change in polity. That's what nationalism is all about. Different parts, one body. There are youngsters who still have the courage to stand for a broader, Indian nationalism in Manipur facing foreign-funded extremists who have otherwise succeeded in silencing all other voices reflecting Indianness.
What makes them brave the bullets? Love for motherland, and that's saffron unquestioningly.
Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was born in Bengal and became the youngest ever vice-chancellor of Calcutta University at the age of 33. He was a close friend of Kaji Nazrul Islam, helped him when he needed most, was a part of the family of Rabindranath Tagore, became a legendary figure in his life time, inherited a legacy Bengal is justifiably proud of, and he died for Kashmir. <b>His mysterious âdeathâ in the jail of Sheikh Abdullah, in Srinagar on 23rd June 1953 raised questions that are still unanswered</b>. The only reason for his untimely death was his demand that Kashmir be assimilated in India like any other state. And there should not be two flags, two constitutional provisions and two heads in relation to Kashmir. He was arrested for entering the valley without a permit, in his own country and jailed where he met a sudden death.
Mookerjeeâs mother, Jogmaya Devi wrote to Nehru on 4 July 1953: âHis death is shrouded in mystery. Is it not most astounding and shocking that ever since his detention there, the first information that I, his mother, received from the government of Kashmir was that my son was 'no more', and that also at least two hours after the end? And in what a cruel, cryptic way the message was conveyed! '. A fearless son of free India has met his death while 'in detention without trial' under most tragic and mysterious circumstances. I, the mother of the great departed soul, demand that an absolutely impartial and open enquiry by independent and competent persons be held without any delay. I know nothing can bring back to us the life that is no more. But I do want that the people of India must judge for themselves, the real causes of this great tragedy enacted in a free country and the part that was played by your government.â
Nehru gave a short reply on 5 July 1953: âl did not venture to write to you before without going into the matter of Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee's detention and death fairly carefully. I have since enquired further into it from a number of persons who had occasion to know 'some facts'. I can only say to you that I arrived at the clear and honest conclusion that there is no mystery in this and that Dr Mookerjee was given every consideration.â
This was really rude and Jogmaya Devi replied on 9th July, 1953: âYour letter dated 5th July reached me on the 7th. It is a sad commentary on the whole situation. Instead of helping to clear up the mystery, your attitude deepens it (further). I demanded an open enquiry. I did not ask 'for your clear and honest conclusion'. Your reaction to the whole affair is now well known. The people of India and I, the mother, have got to be convinced. There is a rooted suspicion in the mind of many. What is required is 'an open, impartial, immediate enquiry'.
'Your experience in jails is known to all. It was at one time a matter of great national pride with us. But you had suffered imprisonment under an alien rule and my son has met his death in detention without trial under a national government. It is futile to address you further. You are afraid to face facts. I hold the Kashmir government responsible for the death of my son. I accuse your government of complicity in the matter.â
Nehru never cared to reply.
Shyama Prasad's martyrdom too has added to the saffron we see in Karnataka.
The Kothari brothers and others who died facing brutal police repression in Ayodhya during their satyagraha to demand a Ram Temple in 1990 is a scar on India's body that would hardly be forgotten. The other side of the secular Talibanism creates ghettoes of Gulags and Siberia-ism for votebank politics. Hasn't the accumulated angst against these discriminations fuelled a change in the Indian political scene? Remember the best of Indian soldiers, editors and actors like Gen Candeth, Gen. Jacob, Girilal Jain and Victor Banerjee joined the saffron side in the aftermath of Ayodhya. And who were those who died demanding a ban on cow slaughter? Were they simply an expendable crowd of illiterate, empty-headed buffoons, trampling on other's rights in times when editors love to write about restaurants serving the most tasty beef?
Those teachers and truck drivers and auto-rickshaw owners who were killed in Kannur and Palakad just for wearing saffron have also contributed to the Karnataka victory.
And those hundreds of highly qualified selfless workers who lived and died anonymously for seeing saffron bloom, did help in paving the way for the leaders who rule today with a broad smile on their faces, though they never aspired to work for a political fortune.
Who were those workers who dedicated their lives for a cause that would never provide them comfort or fame? What was that magic bond that bound them in a solidarity that would not be shaken under any circumstances. They first fought the British, then the Communists and their political mates in Congress and progressed astoundingly well in spite of a collective media assault and opposition that would surpass every logic and sense of balance. <b>Today the saffron brotherhood is running the largest number of successful schools, has the highest number of service projects in slums and tribal areas across the country from Port Blair to Leh and Naharlagun to the Nilgiris, runs centres to train Scheduled Caste youths as priests and computer engineers and provides the nation the sinews it needs during any crisis.</b> None will see these elements of fire and light but will only comment frivolously on the electoral underpinnings and caste-religion equations. The saffron we see blooming over the Vidhan Saudha in Bangalore is the result of a collective will engulfing the grand Indian picture we worship as mother incarnate.
Those who occupy the plush chairs inside must remember this and the responsibility that comes along with wearing colour. The land of Hampi and Basaveshwara and Kanak Dasa wants to see that the polluted Kaveri (Cauvery) of public administration, behavior and accountability be cleaned and Sanskrit and Sanskriti (culture) flowers unhindered. <b>Always remember why Hampi was razed and for whom. Should the children of that past forget their ancestors and get glued to elements that negate the fragrance of the land? </b>
Karnataka results have defied the pettiness of the polity we had been witnessing over water sharing and languageâregional conflicts and have proved that merger with the nationalist cause is worthier than asserting parochial and smaller identities. It's also a verdict against hate and ideological apartheid.
Media with seculars of the red variety have turned saffron into a term of abuse and derided its use as if belonging to saffron is a sin. Today with Karnataka, saffron rules over seven states on its own. <b>The red smart seculars, self-obsessed âupholdersâ of the peace marches and candle-burning rituals for Afzals and betrayers of faith, find themselves completely marginalized and shrunk.
Naturally so. As the grand Indian vision expands, the myopic market managers of Marx and Macs will have to squeeze into a smaller space. </b>
<b>I have always maintained that the hate factor in Indian politics is a contribution of the left and alien thought processes. Swami Dayananda fiercely attacked the practice of idol worship among Hindus but he was accommodated and respected, not turned into an outcaste and fatwa-ed to death. Guru Nanak and Kabir criticized ritualism and the blind faith prevalent among influential Hindus. But they were revered and adored. Hate and animosity on the basis of beliefs is alien to Hindus and was introduced by those who are inherently intolerant to the different viewpoint. </b>
There is no reason for the hate between various political parties in India â after all they all swear to work for the good of India and Indians. The polity must play on the foundation of a pan-Indian vision. Programmes may differ but the fragmentisation must come to an end giving way to fraternisation. <b>Seculars have so far invested their pride in being backward, most backward and other backwards. Yet they call themselves as most progressives. See what's happening in Rajasthan. A matter of pride?</b>
It's the dharma of all Indian political organisations to see that India prospers and doesn't fall prey to divisive and mutually hateful policies to nurse vote banks. The nation must stand taller than the South Blocked ambitions.
<i>The author is the Director, Dr Syamaprasad Mookerjee Research Foundation.</i>
For anyone to know more of Mr Advaniâs accomplishments, please visit
http://www.mycountrymylife.com/
L K Advani brought hindu revivalism from the fringe of the hindu society to the mainstream, launched the hindu revolution, launched the movement that destroyed the babri mosque, and brought BJP to power.
Advani as home minister
* set up chief of defence staff - CDS
* set up defense acquisition council
* set up Intelligence coordination group
* set up economic intelligence council
* One border One force initiative, bring all border security forces under one banner
* set up Central industrial security force, to protect airports and other internal strategic assets
* banned SIMI
In his book he has dedicated 80 pages on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and Somnath reconstruction.
http://mycountrymylife.com/index2.html
There are few other âstructuresâ in some holy sites, set up by some fanatic bigots that will eventually be sorted out =)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
An Offstumped exclusive courtesy Shri Sudheendra Kulkarni - the full text of speech by Shri L.K. Advani, Leader of the Opposition and the BJP led NDAâs candidate for next Prime Minister of India, at the CII National Conference and Annual Session 2008 in New Delhi on 30th April 2008.
The speech is titled âBuilding INDIA - Making Growth Inclusive and Sustainableâ
Shri Sunil Mittal, President of the CII; Shri K.V. Kamath, President-Elect of the CII; captains of Indian industry and business, ladies and gentlemen, It gives me great pleasure to be once again with you at an annual conference of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII). Over the years, the annual session of the CII has become an important platform for people from the political and business fields to meet together and exchange ideas on issues of common interest concerning the nation. Yesterday, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh addressed your session. He sought political consensus and help from the industry to fight inflation. âFor government to be more productive, more creative and more effective,â he said, âwe would need greater political consensus and some nationally accepted norms of governance in our Parliamentary system.â As a rhetorical statement, there is nothing wrong in what the Prime Minister said. However, apart from telling what the industry should do and what the Opposition should do, I wish he had also told the nation what his government is doing to bring the prices of essential commodities down. For people want to see results on the ground. After all, sound management of the economy is a core responsibility of the central government. The nation would also have liked to know from the Prime Minister what ânationally accepted norms of governanceâ the government is following on certain crucial issues. If a minister thinks that it is a part of his duty to seek favours from another ministry for businesses owned by his son, and if the Prime Minister chooses not to make a statement on the issue in Parliament, it is my understanding that neither the minister nor the Prime Minister is following a ânationally accepted norm of governance in a parliamentary democracy.â I hope nobody switches off the lights for my having made this remark. Corruption is a foe of pro-poor growth I have made this point because it is closely linked to the theme of my address today â âBuilding India : Making Growth Inclusive and Sustainableâ. It is my firm belief that corruption is one of the biggest obstacles to inclusive and sustainable growth. Indeed, corruption in governance, especially corruption in high places, results in malignant growth. It leads to moral degradation of politics and society, which cannot be measured in quantifiable terms. The case of the minister seeking gas supply at concessional rates for businesses run by his sons is only a tip of the iceberg. Many representatives of the business community tell me privately how the UPA government stinks with corruption, how several ministers run their ministries as their own fiefdoms with no command or control, and how this is undermining Indiaâs development drive and Indiaâs international reputation. Friends, today is the last day of April. Next month, the Congress-led UPA government will complete four years in office and enter the fifth and final year of its tenure. It is for different sections of society, including the business community, to judge the performance of the UPA government. However, what I have observed during my travels around the country is that the people are looking for change, for a better alternative. And I can say with full confidence that, with each passing month, it is the BJP and the BJP-led NDA that will emerge as the real alternative. NDAâs proud record of uncaging âIndia â the Caged Tigerâ My party and our alliance, under the leadership of Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, contributed to Indiaâs growth and development between 1998 and 2004. We shall do so yet again, if the people give us the mandate in the next Lok Sabha elections. Let me give a few snapshots of how our government not only accelerated Indiaâs economic growth but also tried to make it more inclusive.
  * The NDA government unveiled the most ambitious highway construction programme in the history of independent India. This has transformed Indiaâs economy like no other single infrastructure project ever has. Earlier, India had very few construction companies capable of executing world-class highway building projects. I am told that, because of the Golden Quadrilateral project, their number has increased dramatically.
  * Our government embarked upon the most ambitious rural roads development programme in the history of independent India. The number of direct and indirect jobs created by the highway and rural roads projects is, indeed, staggering. Moreover, these above measures contributed to greater physical connectivity, and thus literally paving the way for a more nationally integrated economic system.
  * Similarly, our government brought about the most far-reaching reforms in the telecom sector, without which the current spectacular expansion in telecom connectivity would not have been possible. I am sure both your outgoing president and incoming president will vouch for this. Shri Kamath was a member of the group that formulated the New Telecom Policy 1999, and Shri Sunil Mittal has practically demonstrated how the new policy unshackled the Indian private sector to bring mobile phones within the reach of the common man.
  * Our government provided the most crucial policy incentives to the information technology sector and, way back in 2000, set a target of $ 50 billion for software and services exports by 2008. I am happy that our IT companies are close to reaching the target, in spite of adverse international conditions recently. What is especially heartening, and what testifies to the inclusive nature of this growth, is that IT has become an essential part of the dream of young Indians belonging to all classes, castes, creeds and regions of India.
  * Our government not only enshrined elementary education as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution but also, in order to operationalise that right, unveiled the worldâs largest elementary education programme in the form of âSarva Shiksha Abhiyanâ.
  * Our government initiated the worldâs largest food security programme in the form of âAnnapoorna Anna Yojanaâ, under which over one crore poorest families started to get a certain amount of rice and wheat at highly subsidized rates.
Yes, we could not achieve all that we wanted to. The progress was slow in some areas. We also made mistakes. But the most important feature about our six years in office is that we made India stronger. We made India stronger in security, stronger in development and stronger, above all, in self-perception. I remember that The Economist, the influential British magazine had carried a survey of India in the early 1990s whose title was âIndia, the Caged Tigerâ. I had declared in one of our party conferences at the time that, if we came to power at the Centre, we would uncage this Tiger called India. The Tiger was indeed uncaged during the six-year rule of the NDA. It is not my claim that we alone accomplished this. The earlier government of Narasimha Rao also contributed to the unleashing of Indiaâs development potential. In general, we in the BJP have been far more generous and open in acknowledging the Congress partyâs positive contribution to nation-building than the other way around. But that does not bother us. The Congress might think that only one family has contributed predominantly to Indiaâs progress, but the people of this country know â and they fondly remember it even now â the path-breaking accomplishments and initiatives of the Vajpayee government. Govtâs performance must match the ambition of Indiaâs youth I have made this reference to the NDA governmentâs record in governance just to drive home the point that we have the experience, we have the commitment, we have the vision and we have the determination to strengthen India much more when we get the opportunity to run the government again. If people give us the mandate again, our government will be far more ambitious and far more result-oriented than any government has been until now. In saying this, I am not in any way belittling the achievements of the previous governments. Rather, the soaring ambitions, aspirations and expectations of the Indian people, especially Indiaâs youth, make it obligatory on any government to work with matching ambition. Anything less would mean letting down our people, letting down our youth. By ambition, I mean, first of all, expansion of the prosperity net to include all those sections of our society who have so far remained either deprived of the fruits of Indiaâs economic growth or received only some crumbs. What India has witnessed in recent years is growth with widening inequalities. A very responsible person in our public life, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India â no less â, recently stated that the earnings of 20 richest Indians exceeds those of 30 crore poor Indians. If this is true, it is shocking. Lopsided growth, however high its rate, can never be sustainable. This is the reason why the exclusive talk of 9 per cent GDP growth rate by some people in government or in the business community does not enthuse the general public. Forbes magazine, which is famous for tracking the wealth of businessmen around the world, has predicted that India will have more billionaires than any other country in the world by 2017. Frankly, this does not gladden me at all. Rather, I would be delighted if, ten years from now, we are able to eliminate abject poverty from India. Urgent need for rejuvenation of Rural India Therefore, it will be our endeavour â indeed, it will be our mission â to ensure that India makes the deepest dent in poverty than in any other previous five-year period in independent Indiaâs history. For this, the most important policy reorientation required is that which would ensure redirection of investment â both public and private â into agriculture and the rural economy. India needs massive new investments in irrigation and water management; soil enrichment; rural infrastructure development in areas such as power, markets, roads, storage and processing facilities; animal husbandry, extension and other support services and reaching of appropriate scientific and technological knowledge. If we want inclusive and sustainable growth, there is simply no substitute to massive re-industrialisation and rejuvenation of Indiaâs countryside, so that people get gainful employment, good living conditions and wealth-generation possibilities in their own villages and in the vicinity. But we cannot wait until that happens. The need to protect the poor and needy is now. Therefore, it will be our endeavour to see that every poor family in India is provided with adequate food at subsided rates, so that they are well-protected at least in their basic nutritional needs. We shall also see how basic social security can be reached to the entire needy section of our society. More schools and more health care centres will be built or renovated than during any comparable period in the past. So will more houses for the common people in both rural and urban areas. Some of you might ask, âDoes this mean MORE POPULISM IN A BJP-LED GOVERNMENT?â My frank answer would be: âIf by populism is meant efficient, corruption-free and well-targeted delivery of the most basic needs to the most needy sections of our society, yes, we will indeed practice more of such poverty-reducing populism. I consider this to be our moral and Constitutional duty. Money well spent on such missions is indeed investment in Indiaâs future.â âGolden Quadrilateral in education and healthcareâ Another area that will receive our highest attention is massive expansion of opportunities in all spheres of education, which I believe is critical for making economic growth both inclusive and sustainable. If we look at the educational landscape in India today, we cannot but notice that while the license-quota-permit raj may have made a partial or full exit from various sectors of the economy, it is alive and kicking in the education sector â especially in higher and professional education. Currently, as one study has noted, âthe education system remains suspended between over-regulation by the state on the one hand, and a discretionary privatization that is unable to mobilize private capital in productive waysâ. First, the various regulatory bodies in the field of education have not only become corrupt and highly bureaucratic, but they have indeed constrained the growth of educational infrastructure in India. We shall employ the sharp knife of reform to remove every layer of control that is unnecessary, while strengthening every regulation that enhances quality and accountability. Second, capacity creation, in which the private sector and philanthropic institutions will need to share the major economic cost of subsequent expansion. If successfully implemented, these measures will ensure that our talented girls and boys are able to have adequate and quality seats in engineering, medicine, management, agriculture, veterinary sciences and scores of new areas that have sprung up in recent years. Finally, in order to make higher and professional education inclusive, we shall increase the number of scholarships and attractive educational loans by such an order of magnitude that no deserving student is deprived of an opportunity to have an education of his or her choice. I believe that democratisation of education is the key to democratization of social and economic growth. It will, in short, be our resolve to have the equivalent of the âGolden Quadrilateralâ in education and healthcare â that is, building a new Highway to take our children and youth towards the goal of Sushikshit Bharat, Swastha Bharat and Samruddha Bharat. Enhancing employability of Indiaâs youth Friends, recent experience has shown that mere increase in the number of degree or diploma holders is not enough for meeting the needs of double-digit GDP economic growth. A disconcerting aspect of higher and professional education in India is the mismatch between the needs of our rapidly growing economy and the employability of our educated youth. NASSCOM has estimated that only about 25% of fresh graduates in India are employable. This situation must be changed. Recently, I had invited a group of experts from Bangalore to discuss this issue with senior leaders of our party. One of the experts whose views and suggestions impressed me deeply was Manish Sabharwal, who himself runs a skill development and employment placement company. I was particularly struck by his persuasive demonstration of how some of our existing laws severely hinder, rather than help, skill development and employment generation. Cynics might ask: âBut is inclusive economic growth â that is, growth with poverty elimination â at all possible?â My party believes that it is indeed possible. How? Good Governance: Key to inclusive growth Let me present three broad ideas. Firstly, and this is the most important requirement, it is possible if we can ensure Good Governance at all levels. We shall demonstrate our commitment to this by considerably raising the standards of governance at the Centre, which states and lower levels can then emulate. Simply by adopting Good Governance reforms, and thereby reducing inefficiency and corruption, it is possible to achieve additional 2-3 percentage points of GDP growth. But Good Governance will not only boost GDP growth. It will also boost inclusive and sustainable growth since money will be well-spent to benefit the intended beneficiaries. Apart from others, I seek ideas and suggestions from the business community on how to speed up Good Governance reforms. I assure you that you will not find in us a lack of political will. As an example of political will, let me tell you that the BJP government in Gujarat, headed by Shri Narendra Modi, has been implementing a revolutionary slum redevelopment plan which will make Gujarat the first state in India completely slum-free. The second requirement is security. We have seen how some of the poorest and most backward areas in India are those that have suffered from threats to Indiaâs internal security. There cannot be sustained economic development in places marred by terrorism, naxalite violence, organised crime and poor law and order. As you know, the BJP has always placed security high on its agenda of priorities. We shall be uncompromising on this score. Resources are no longer a constraint The third requirement is, of course, resources. Fortunately, the financial resources available to the government have been rising rapidly. Our tax collection has been exceeding expectations. Our tax-to-GDP ratio is steadily improving. This is no small measure due to the bold initiatives, such as the Tax Information Net, that my colleague Shri Jaswant Singh took in the finance ministry. I believe that there is still enormous scope for achieving further increases in tax revenue through better compliance, lower taxes and elimination of corruption in the tax administration system. In addition to increased buoyancy in Indiaâs tax revenue, Indiaâs savings rate is also steadily rising. Add to this the more than $300 billion of forex reserves, and we can see that resources will not be a constraint for undertaking an ambitious mission of inclusive double-digit GDP growth on a sustainable and long-term basis. If we need any expert ideas on how to raise resources, I am sure that we can count on the advice of the CIIâs new president and Indiaâs ace banker, Shri K.V. Kamath, and other geniuses in the field. If the increased resources available with the government, combined with the enormous new avenues for resource generation that the private sector has been tapping of late, are judiciously channeled in priority areas such as agriculture, irrigation, agro-processing, physical and social infrastructure in both rural and urban areas, energy security, etc., India will write a growth story that is truly unprecedented in its history. You will agree that this will also unleash the potential for new business opportunities â small, medium and big â across new geographical areas and integrating new hitherto-deprived social groups. Thus, India is on the cusp of the greatest, and most inclusive, entrepreneurial revolution in its history. It will be my partyâs endeavour to making this revolution happen. Friends, this in brief is my perspective on achieving inclusive and sustainable economic growth for building a stronger India. I thank CII for inviting me to share my views and I thank you for giving me a patient hearing. Thank you.
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2008...and-corruption/
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Narendra Modiâs Chennai speech - Offstumped Commentary
  * Post Information
     o Date: Friday, February 22, 2008 Time: 6:57 pm Category: Uncategorized Discussion: 17 Comments
  * Post Navigation
     o « Narendra Modiâs Chennai speech - Youtube Video
     o Sullying Chattrapati Shivajiâs Legacy »
Very interesting speech by Mr. Modi at the Tughlaq Magazineâs annual readerâs event.
Cho Ramaswamyâs introduction of Narendra Modi was an interesting twist to Sonia Gandhiâs Merchant of Death remark much to the pleasure of a cheering audience.
It was a speech that Modi delivered largely extempore without any prepared notes and interspersed with anecdotes and wisecracks at the Congress.
Few highlights that stood out worth commenting upon in Mr. Modiâs speech.
- He opened his remarks with a tribute to democracy and what makes Cho a true democrat. For someone who has been routinely bandied as a Hitler in the making it should strike even the most ardent Modi critic as important that he should have chosen to open his speech with a reference to democracy and not to Hindutva, not to BJP not to mundane politics but with a reference to that which is most paramount - a commitment to democracy.
- The next subject that Modi chose to comment on again was very interesting when he chose to highlight the importance of conviction and courage in being open to criticism not by those who despise you but especially those who are most dearest to you.
- A little known aspect of Mr. Modiâs work ethic also surfaces as well with an oblique dig at the mainstream media and its antipathy towards Modi for its praise of Manmohan Singh not taking a vacation in 3 years.
- Modi then went on to sound all the right notes on how he views the recent win in Gujarat as a burden and responsibility rather than as a trophy to be relished and enjoyed.
- More digs at the Congress on how âpoor its arithmetic wasâ in its allegation that Modi had 250 pairs of clothes.
The most important aspect of his speech surfaces a full 15minutes into the meeting when Modi goes on to exude why the Nation must adopt a Positive Attitude towards Change. Very important given the overwhelming mindset of negativism that dominates the public discource that seeks to justify entitlements in the name of social justice. Modi makes a great example of his life story and backward origins to defy this mindset that seeks entitlements by making the point that with convictions, courage and commitment anything was possible.
- Modi then goes on to talk about his social commitment for education to the girl child to improve Gujaratâs performance in this area and how over a span of 4 years Gujarat was close to 100% enrollment from a situation of 49% dropout with a target of 0% dropout by 2010.
Point to be noted, the ease with which Modi references social performance indicators in his extempore speech and the mindset which is performance oriented and metrics driven. A stark contrast with the typical Indian Politician who is high on rhetoric and emotion and low on substance.
- Modi then goes on to talk about the poor village to gynaecologist ratio and the high rate of mortality in below poverty line pregnant women and how his public-private partnership for pregnant women, along the lines of the Milton Friedman Voucher System for education, benefitted 1.58 lakh women and how atleast 6000 maternal/infant mortalities were prevented.
- Interesting tid-bit on how the entire bureaucracy opposed his Jyotigram scheme to fix rural electricity problems and how usolicited advise from the Congress conveyed the impossibility of making the scheme work. Modi then goes on to talk about how he borrowed 10 crores from the Co-operative sector to pilot the scheme in 45 villages to then go onto make it a success across the state in 1000 days - 23 lakh electricity poles, 56,000 transformed, 75,000kms of cable Modi reels off statistics to make the point that if it wills the creaking State Machinery can deliver. A snide jab at Karunanidhiâs extended and unaccounted for family follows <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
- Another great example follows on how technology can be used to eliminate corruption with toll gates and cross border checkposts between Gujarat and Maharashtra with another Modiquet - âif you have the will you can win⦠against corruptionâ
- Some media bashing follows on how cliched the allegations of communalism had become and the ever changing definition of secularism.
Modi gives an interesting spin to the secualrism debate saying his model of development was inherently secular for it benefitted all making no distinction or discrimination of none.
- Another anecdote follows on how illegal immigration from Bangladesh in Assam was distorting the local labor market.
Modi makes a point of fiscal discpline on how Gujarat went from a revenue deficit to a revenue surplus and how he was not a tax and spend liberal with his track record of not introducing new taxes. Point to note for all those to the right of center on economic issues.
- Another anecdote on the profitibaility of the electricity board
Modi takes entitlements head on how Karunanidhi was doling out free color televisions in Tami Nadu and the Congress made a similar promise in Gujarat with his counter promise to crack down on tax evasion.
- Modi goes on to praise the maturity of the people of Gujarat for their rejection of entitlements and their faith in a government that stood for upholding the rule of law while taking a dig at the media for its rubbish on structural polarisation in Gujarat.
- Reference to a world bank study on recovery in Kutch after the earthquake with parallels to the Indian Ocean Tsunami
- More anecdotes on taking hard decisions in the financial sector even at the risk of taking tough action against partymen.
- Some chest thumping follows on rural broadband connectivity and a dig at the United States on denying him a visa. Modi elaborates on distant education using the broadband network.
Modi goes on to eulogise on how he intends to develop Gujarat with a scientific temper leveraging technology.
Very important point follows on role of Government in Wealth Creation. Modi articulates a clear philosophy of âMinimum Government and Maximum Governanceâ. Leave wealth creation to the Enterprenuer who is most capable of creating wealth, focus on Governance and make sure the opportunities to benefit from wealth are maximized.
Offstumped Bottomline: A lot of debate has ensued on this blog, INI and elsewhere on what Right of Center means and which political entity in India stands for Right of Center values and principles. This speech by Narendra Modi must rank as one of the most clear articulation of a Right of Center philosophy premised on âMinimum Government and Maximum Governanceâ that rejects subsidies, denies entitlements, stands up for National Security while being fiscally responsible and letting Enterprises the freedom to create wealth.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2008...d-commentary-2/
Hindu Money In India Co-opted for Islam
Posted by jagoindia on May 31, 2008
Hindu Money In India Co-opted for Islam
Vinod Kumar
The revelations in Sandhya Jainâs article â Nationalization of the Hindu templeâ (Pioneer, Oct 7, 2003) about using money from Hindu temples for Madarasas development and Haj subsidy (and churches development) are no doubt disturbing but are they a surprise?
Not really. May be to a certain extent but is this a new phenomenon?
It is true, as Ms. Jain writes that these monotheistic creeds are not only at variance with Hindu dharma, but their very raison dâetre is expansion by the eradication of Hindu dharma and culture. It is a classic example of one digging oneâs own grave â to put it in simple language that a common man can understand.
Having said that, why are these revelations not surprising or not new? Not many Hindus realize that ever since Islam appeared on the Indian subcontinent, Hindu money has been used to support Islam. At times not only in India but abroad too.
When Islam first appeared on the West coast of India, Hindu kings gave grants of land and villages to the new Muslims to build their mosques, practice and preach Islam. There is no example of any Muslim king ever giving such grants to the followers of other religions and specially to the Hindus.
When Islam came to India as a victor with Muhammad bin Kasim, Hindu temples and treasuries were plundered to fill the treasury of Islam in Baghdad. The loot was several times what was spent on the military expedition to conquer Sindh. But if once a temple is plundered and destroyed, it is no longer a source of revenue. So when it was realized that the famous temple at Multan was a popular place of pilgrimage and source of great revenue, contrary to common practice of temple demolition, it was left standing. But to prove his Islamic credentials and to send unmistakable message as to who was the King, a piece of cowâs flesh was hung from the deityâs neck.
The wealth from the Hindu temples and taxes to the extent of 50% of produce continued to support the Muslim conquerors and rulers.
The Hindu wealth attracted wave after wave of Muslims from all across what is today known as Middle East and Central Asia. Muslim chroniclers like Ibn Batuta and others have left vivid accounts of such migrations and how Muslim immigrants were offered highest paying jobs at the Muslim courts and in the Muslim army of Indian Muslim rulers. Generous and regular grants were also sent to foreign Muslims rulers and Islamâs Holy places.
Let us not harp upon the past and jump to the present times.
In the last century:
In Hyderabad, the princely state of Nizam, 80% of the stateâs land was owned by the Hindus and from 95 - 97% of state revenue was derived from the Hindus. Hindus were overtaxed. And how was this revenue spent:
During the 1930s the Ecclesiastical Dept. spent an annual average of Rs. 300,000 on Islamic charities, Rs. 15,000 on Christian charities and Rs. 3000 on Hindus charities. Other large sums were expended on Islamic institutions abroad.
Between 1926 and 1932 RS. 10,000,000 was given to Aligarh University, Rs. 500,000 to London Mosque, Rs. 100,000 to Jama masjid in Delhi, Rs. 100,000 to a mosque in Palestine, Rs. 80,000 to a Muslim association in Turkey, and Rs. 232,000 to the travelling expenses of Muslims going to Mecca.
Even the British, to some extent, financed the Muslims at Hindus expense.
B R Ambedkar in his study of partition issue after M A Jinnah had given a call for the partition in his March 1940 address to annual convention of Muslims League at Lahore session went on to observe:
At least 50% of Indiaâs army were Muslim and these came mostly from the North West frontier area and the Punjab â principally from the areas that was demanded as Pakistan and predominantly Muslim. The government of Indiaâs total revenue was Rs. 121 crores and of this, about Rs. 52 crores were spent on the army â an army he went to question if it could be depended upon to defend Hindu India were it to be attacked by the Muslim army from Afghanistan either alone or in combination with other Muslim nation?
Apart from the money spent on the predominantly Muslim army, the Muslim provinces contributed very little to the Central government but were a drain on the Hindu provinces. Thus even during the British rule, the Hindu money was used to support the Muslim provinces.
Hindus did not have much control as to how the British or the Muslims spent money and wealth generated by the Hindus.
Ambedkar believed that after partition the Hindus will have control over their own destiny and Hindu money will not be used to finance Muslims and Hindus will be better off. But evidently even after partition, no doubt the Hindus are better off, but Hindu money is still being used to finance the Muslims and even in activities that are directly opposed to Hindu ethos and Hindu dharma.
But now, we cannot blame the Muslims or the British.
|
