We have socially engineered progressive people becoming a minority
--
âMake stand clear on religion, languageâ
Special Correspondent
SHIMOGA: Prasanna, theatre personality, said on Saturday that progressive writers would become irrelevant not only politically, but also culturally if they did not make their stand clear on religion, language and culture.
He was speaking after releasing Idu Bharata, du Bharatha! , a book by socialist and progressive writer D.S. Nagabhushana, at a function organised here by Srishti Samskritika Vedike.
He said that it was important for progressive writers to become popular through their works on common subjects in a simple language so that they could reach the common people.
âIf they do not do this, they will become irrelevant culturally,â he added. In the past, Leftist writers presented themselves as critics of imperialism.
âBut in the changed circumstances, BJP is trying to pose as an opponent of imperialism only to protect religion, language and culture, which is a dangerous development,â he said.
Stating that the growing tendency among progressive writers to react to anything they came across seemed to have become their main constraint, he said it was no surprise if the BJP came to power at the Centre in the next Lok Sabha elections.
âWith such being the situation, it is time for progressive thinkers, artists and writers to come together to ponder over why the surge of the BJP could not be contained?â
Mr. Prasanna said that the communal forces emerged stronger over the years because of the failure on the part of progressive writers to produce effective works on religion, language and culture.
What was ironical was that the BJP was trying to play on the sentiments of the people by whipping up religious passions, he added.
There is no bitter debate over sanskrit language
Summer Camps Revive India's Ancient Sanskrit
Effort Is Part of Bitter Debate Over the Role of Hindu Language in a Diverse Society
Sanskrit teacher Vijay Singh uses everyday props such as light bulbs, combs and toothpaste to teach the 4,000-year-old language at a camp in New Delhi.
Sanskrit teacher Vijay Singh uses everyday props such as light bulbs, combs and toothpaste to teach the 4,000-year-old language at a camp in New Delhi. (By Rama Lakshmi -- The Washington Post)
By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 15, 2008; Page A12
NEW DELHI -- Hemant Singh Yadav, a lean and sprightly 15-year-old, was sent by his parents to a summer camp to learn to speak Sanskrit, or what he calls the language of the gods.
He had studied the 4,000-year-old classical Indian language at school for six years. He knew its grammar and could chant the ancient hymns. But he could not converse in it. During a two-week course at the camp, Sanskrit Samvad Shala, he had no choice: He was forbidden to speak any other language.
"At first I thought it was impossible. The teachers and attendants spoke to us only in Sanskrit, and I did not understand anything," said Hemant, one of the 150 students gathered inside a Hindu temple on the outskirts of New Delhi. "I knew big, heavy bookish words before, but not the simple ones. But now Sanskrit feels like an everyday language."
Such camps, run by volunteers from Hindu nationalist groups, are designed to promote a language long dismissed as dead, and to instill in Hindus religious and cultural pride. Many Sanskrit speakers, though, believe that the camps are a steppingstone to a higher goal: turning back the clock and making Sanskrit modern India's spoken language.
Their endeavors are viewed with suspicion by many scholars here as part of an increasingly acrimonious debate over the role of Sanskrit in schools and society. The scholars warn against exploiting Indians' reverence for Sanskrit to promote the supremacy of Hindu thought in a country that, while predominantly Hindu, is also home to a large Muslim population and other religious minorities.
"It is critical to understand Sanskrit in order to study ancient Indian civilization and knowledge. But the language should not be used to push Hindu political ideology into school textbooks," said Arjun Dev, a historian and textbook author. "They want to say that all that is great about India happened in the Hindu Sanskrit texts."
ad_icon
One of the oldest members of what is known as the Indo-European family of languages, Sanskrit is a beleaguered language in India today, caught in a web of widespread apathy and questions about its utility.
Mainstream Indian schools teach the 49-letter language unimaginatively through tedious grammar lessons, and children learn by rote. Many parents see little use in encouraging their children to pursue a language that is not in any official use.
"Some people are constantly saying that Sanskrit is a dead language. It cripples our psyche to hear that, because we are nothing without Sanskrit," said Vijay Singh, 33, a teacher at Sanskrit Samvad Shala. "In the name of so-called secularism, it has become fashionable to attack any attempt to promote Sanskrit."
In January, government funding for a major Sanskrit program in schools was abruptly cut, prompting the program's managers to allege that officials were biased against the language.
The program, which encouraged immersive methods and developed computer-aided teaching tools and games, had been set up in 2003 by a Hindu nationalist government. One of the recommendations of the project included translations of English nursery rhymes such as "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" and "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" into Sanskrit.
When a new government was sworn in two years later, it ordered a massive review of the program, as well as other initiatives that were seen as being infused with Hindu supremacist rhetoric.
"The Sanskrit project was initiated by the previous government. They had their own priorities. The project was so-so. How many people really speak Sanskrit in India?" said Ramjanam Sharma, head of languages at the National Council of Educational Research and Training, a government body that designs school curriculums. Defending the decision to cut the funding, he said it was not appropriate for schools to teach children how to converse in Sanskrit. "We cannot replicate the teaching methods of traditional religious schools in our mainstream schools."
Although Sanskrit is one of the 22 official Indian languages, census figures show that only about 14,100 people speak it fluently, in a nation of more than a billion people. Still, it is prevalent in the hymns and chants at Hindu temple rituals, as well as at birth, marriage and death ceremonies. Not unlike Latin in the West, Sanskrit was long the language of intellectual activity in ancient India.
"Some people oppose anything that promotes Sanskrit because of its association with Hinduism. We were just trying to make the language a fun experience for students," said Kamla Kant Mishra, a Sanksrit professor and a member of the government project.
"To talk about Sanskrit is very political in India today," Mishra added. "That is the plight of the language."
The Indian government funds many colleges and universities that teach Sanskrit literature and scriptures, but it is not uncommon for even PhD students in the language to be unable to speak it. State-run schools offer a choice between a regional Indian language and Sanskrit. Many private schools offer Sanskrit, French, German and Spanish.
"I tell my students to opt for French, because it is useful if they choose to work in the hotel industry, or fashion or legal field. But there is no tangible use for Sanskrit except that they will learn an important part of our culture," said Vishakha Sharma, 40, a French teacher who teaches fifth- through eighth-graders in a private school. She said her school begins each morning with a Sanskrit chant. "It feels good to the ear, but students don't understand the meaning."
Meanwhile, some scholars are developing computer programs for Sanskrit and translating its rich repository of children's stories online. Last month, an alliance of international scholars from the United States, France and Germany was formed for Sanskrit computing.
"Sanskrit is very suitable for computing, because its grammar is complete with 4,000 rules and has a regular structure," said Girish Nath Jha, assistant professor of computational linguistics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.
At Sanskrit camp, a 19-year old undergraduate said that Sanskrit is in her blood.
<span style='color:red'>
"When I learn any language, I learn about its history and its literature," said Jaya Priyam. "But when I study Sanskrit, I learn who I am. It is my identity." </span>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews
06-16-2008, 03:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2008, 03:13 PM by dhu.)
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jun 16 2008, 08:33 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jun 16 2008, 08:33 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Some people oppose anything that promotes Sanskrit because of its association with Hinduism. We were just trying to make the language a fun experience for students," said Kamla Kant Mishra, a Sanksrit professor and a member of the government project.
[right][snapback]82902[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Secularism is just a training manual of how to make a target culture off-limits to the "adherents" and induce cultural amnesia.
<!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> Notwithstanding the bitter squabbles between the Left and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over India-US nuclear deal for the past three years, what kept the Government going till Tuesday when the Left parties finally withdrew support to the UPA Government?
The answer lies in the fact that after provoking the Left time and again the Prime Minister often chose a tactical retreat.
For instance, in October last the Prime Minister had told an audience in New Delhi (indicating that he had given up the Nuclear deal issue) that "there are some disappointments in life, but life must go on".
This he said after asking the Left to get off his back if they so chose and get out of his way for completing the India-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement.
But his October retreat had its soothing effect on his Left allies and they agreed to carry on parleys on the issue in the UPA-Left Nuclear Committee.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=1
<b>How to become an Intellectual in India</b>
November 19, 2007 at 12:02 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
For getting the status of an intellectual, the caste, religion, sex, age, language or any other regional or linguistic parameters are not a criteria.
* It is easy to get the status, if you are a Hindu who always criticizes his own religion and sanathana dharma
* Your education qualification, actual intelligence, vocabulary, position, etc do not have any bearing for getting the status.
* You should always be little and denigrate Indian heritage and culture, whenever you get opportunity or even by creating opportunity.
* Always make fun of Hindu dharma and ancient Hindu scholars, saffron colour, Omkar, temples and priests
* You have to make the show that you have the authority to criticize Hindu dharma.
* Try to find a good place in the electronic media screen and print media. Keep a charisma for attracting the media people; give them whatever they need for doing so. Keep the relation with them very strong.
* Tell always the positives about other religion while degrading and denigrating Hindu dharma. * This will give a good image as an âimpartial and unbiased scholarâ
* You will automatically become famous as a true secular leader and gain respect from other other intellectuals.
* You should never quote anything from Indian heritage or ancient Indian books because it is cheap and unscientific to quote indigenous knowledge. Quote always the West, Russian, Chinese or even from Iraq leaders. If you are compelled to quote from India, quote only from Jawaharlal Nehruâs words.
*Use as many quotations as possible from foreign and locals cholars of your status for denigrating Indian heritage and culture. Some good examples are strongly anti Hindu Harvard Sanskrit Professor Michael Witzel, marxist historian Romilla Thapar or Hindu baiter Kancha Iliah.
*Never, never praise the past â present and future India.
* Always share your views with the objective of further degrading our cultural heritage. And remember, tell all the memorable negatives about Hindu dharma so that people will appreciate you secular, rational and scientific vision which can even fetch you some awards.
* Appreciate only foreign scientists and scholars, if possible from the West or communist countries.
* Belittle and denigrate Indian scientific and technological heritage whenever and wherever possible and encourage younger generation to do so.
Always be the first to put the first signature in anti Hindu pro-minority mass memorandum or petition, preferably in presence of the media photographers. * Do not follow law and order; this can get a place in media easily.
*Make sure to tell good about Mother Teresa, Bukari Imam and St Xavier Francis, even though he has destroyed 480 temples and converted thousands of Goan Hindus to Christianity in Goa.
Create an image that you are also aware about what is happening around us. * Make the people aware that you know what are all happening in Iraq, Houston, Iran, Korea, Lanka and also in Mizoram. But never say any negative about Kashmir and Nagaland or the activities of the minorities in those States.
*Tell anything negative about Military or police action in Kashmir or Nagaland making sure that you do not touch anything against minorities.
*Even if you have to say something about minority fundamentalism, say that it is due to majority fundamentalism.
*While delivering lectures to Christians tell that in the next janma you want to be Christian, to the Muslim audience tell that you want to become a Muslim, in the next janma. *Tell them, in your speech that Upanishads and Vedas are taken from Koran and Bible.
*Try to attend âall religious meetâ as a representative of Hinduism and tell negative about Hinduism. It will be printed in big letters in media. *Learn two or three lines from Koran or Bible and quote appropriately for getting the applause.
*If you want to write a book there are many Christian writers who write about Hinduism, they will help you how to write on the subjects in which you are fully ignorant. * You can start writing against Hinduism first, with their help, so that the marketing is easy and building your career also becomes easy.
*Many churches and Christian agents will help you directly and indirectly for propagating your anti Hindu messages.
*Be in contact with the media people, whenever you are travelling. Build strong relationship with minority leaders during travelling from place to place. This relation will give you enormous credibility as an intellectual and will last for a long time.
<b>
In short remember, your success as an intellectual in India is directly proportional to your statements you make against Indian culture, tradition and religion. The more you look down upon it and talk well of minority religions, you will be respected by one and all.</b>
(Originally received as a forward from IISH COMMUNICATION TEAM. ( www.iish.org). Modified.)
Every regional party that is teamed up within the UPA, the NDA or the UNPA or is ostensibly independent and unattached, has its own regional agenda, often at cross purposes with its larger commitments.
The solution to the deepening mess, bizarre as it may seem, is coming to more and more strategic, economic and political commentators. It is simply an alliance of the centrist elements in the UPA and those in the NDA, or, if one has to peel the onion somewhat in the process, between the Congress and the BJP.
After all, they account for nearly 400 of the 542 seat Lok Sabha between them and are likely to easily tally up the 272 seats needed for a parliamentary majority together going forward. They also represent most of the political and administrative acumen available to the Indian political class. Not only would such a formation end the descending spiral of political blackmail that is dragging us more and more into its boa constrictor-like grip but they could be regarded as natural allies if each dropped a few of its irreconcilable differences in favour of a common minimum programme of their own.
Together, the Congress and the BJP are capable of providing governance and stability to this country after the impending election. Mr Bush knows why he doesn't do nuance. Likewise our political leadership too must, in the service of our nation, dispense with chicanery and refuse to nuance their differences. Today, they need to unite against the rest.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=3
Dear Capt M Kumar,
The coming together of the Congress and the BJP may become a reality. This possibility can arise in case the third front, particularly the BSP gains in strength. Basically, the Congress and BJP may have a better working relationship than the Congress and the Left had till recently. As most of us have seen, in Indian politics no political formation or outfit is considered untouchable by their peers. It is only a matter of political expediency that dictates the formation of the coalition groups.
Today, we find Muslim political formations that are quite moderate in their outlook as well as formations having extreme views. This is precisely the reason that there are Muslim leaders and workers in almost all major political parties. The so called concept of Muslim vote bank is also fast fading and the same is the case with the caste vote Bank. We have already got a taste of the same in UP where BSP got elected with votes from across the society. The same is possible in most of the other States also barring a few exceptions.
However, to have this experiment work it will be necessary to persuade some of the regional leaders to join the main national level political parties. This would ensure that the main political parties are able to play a much more decisive role in the governance of the nation; as distinct from running a Government.
You may enlighten us further with your thoughts on the isse.
Ravish:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The coming together of the Congress and the BJP may become a reality. This possibility can arise in case the third front, particularly the BSP gains in strength. Basically, the Congress and BJP may have a better working relationship than the Congress and the Left had till recently. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We had a thread on this started by Kaushal after 2004 elections and had found wide acceptance then. For late comers who view everything through their colored anti-UV (safforn?) Ray Ban lens, this might be breaking news.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Today, we find Muslim political formations that are quite moderate in their outlook as well as formations having extreme views. This is precisely the reason that there are Muslim leaders and workers in almost all major political parties. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I trust you followed the Shah Bano case. If you have, you'd have noted that most enlightened/educated Muslim MPs did support the SC ruling. Now why Congress party chose to ignore their own Muslim MPs and give voice to rabid fundamentalist is something worth thinking about - "an introspection" as Manmohan would put it. I could go over dozen such examples, but then one doesn't have to eat the entire pot to judge the taste.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The so called concept of Muslim vote bank is also fast fading and the same is the case with the caste vote Bank.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Linclon said that one can't fool all, all the time. Unfortunately for Congress, Muslims have caught on to their game and are not putting all their eggs in one basket. If BSP comes to power with Mayawati as PM, it'll be a welcome change.
Why Indian governmet don't allow political radio channels? e.g. Rush and Hannity in US.
Why they want to supress different political views?
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 31 2008, 03:13 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 31 2008, 03:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Indian governmet don't allow political radio channels? e.g. Rush and Hannity in US.
Why they want to supress different political views?
[right][snapback]85444[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Myopia over Radio</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Governments can be an unthinking barrier to the productive (and imaginative) use of communication resources. Radio frequencies exist, but the government decides to regulate their use. Fair enough, except that in India it has meant that the government simply bans their use. For more than six decades it has been illegal to utilise these frequencies because of a pre-independence law that is yet to be scrapped.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>
âDhwajâ is symbol of peace, says Palemar</b>
Special Correspondent
MANGALORE: Minister for Ports and Inland Water Development Krishna Palemar on Saturday stressed the significance of the saffron âBhagava dhwajâ, which the sangh parivar uses as a symbol of Hinduism.
Launching a campaign to create awareness on the National Flag, organised by the Mangalore chapter of the Junior Chamber International, Mr. Palemar said that the bhagava dhwaj represented a great tradition. âIt is wrong to brand the people respecting bhagava dhwaj and the âkaaviâ (saffron) dress as supporters of a particular party. The dhwaj is a symbol of peace,â he said. Inaugurating the students council of the SDM Law College for 2008-09, Mr. Palemar said that it was wrong to put up plastic buntings representing the dhwaj or the national flag during functions. âThis is because they will be strewn all around the place after the function and people may walk across them. It amounts to insulting the national symbol. It is the responsibility of everyone to uphold their dignity,â he said.
Dwelling on the Hindu philosophy of respecting elders, he said: âThis tradition is still alive in the country and people should continue it.â
He said that the joint family system with large number people living together was being followed by the Muslim community. It would protect youth from treading on wrong paths, he said. MLC Ganesh Karnik presided over the function.
<b>Indian Conservatives Struggle to Build Alternate Media</b>
Dr. Richard L. Benkin
02 Aug 2008
Amitabh Tripathi is convinced his nation of India is under attack; so he did something few people are willing to do. He abandoned a promising freelance career with India's mainstream media (MSM), so he could he could write openly as a conservative about Indian leftists, Islamists, and government policies that play into their hands.
"You cannot write about the leftists," he told me, "because the Congress [Party] government is dependent on them"; and if you identify the terrorist threat as Islamist, "you are called anti-Muslim and a racist." But, Tripathi said, that is not what worries him the most. "The major threat to Indian sovereignty is government policies that are based on pseudo-secularism and Muslim appeasement." For journalists, that translates into a rigid political correctness that forces them to adhere to the MSM's left-wing bias or look for employment elsewhere.
"After meeting Dr. Daniel Pipes and Dr. Richard Benkin," Tripathi said, "I came to know the gravity of the Islamic threat, what the whole world is facing, and the ignorance people have about the Israel-Palestine struggle. India is entering the most critical period in its history and that the current government and other elites are handing our enemies a victory." Since most of what we hear about the world's largest democracy centers on its new role as an economic giant, its nuclear status, and perhaps its ties with Israel, we might think Tripathi is exaggerating; but there is a great deal that our own MSM does not report.
I was in India for the better part of February this year, when almost every day saw radical action: "road strikes" where separatists and other protesting radicals closed major thoroughfares; a thwarted cyber-terrorist attack by Islamists; communist agitation and demonstrations against India's proposed nuclear deal with the United States; and a military operation by Maoist terrorists against a police station that killed dozens.
Islamic radicals are flexing their muscles, too, building radical madrassas (or Islamic schools) throughout the country, especially in Muslim-dominated villages. Darul Uloom Deoband, the seminary that produced the Taliban's Mullah Omar, is located less than 100 miles from the capital and continues to issue regular fatwas. Muslims are demanding autonomy in several areas; and three Indian states have communist governments. The most entrenched of them, West Bengal, sits less than 15 miles from a barely-patrolled border with China.
So Tripathi started Lokmanch, a Hindi-language web site that features frank criticism of what he and others call the government's "ostrich-like behavior." He also has translated articles on Israel, the US war against Islamist terror and extremism, Barack Obama, and other topics. They provide Indians with information that their media simply does not report. Quietly, Tripathi is attracting more and more Indian journalists, including bona fide members of the MSM. Several of them offered me their candid opinions about the media's leftist bias, the center-left government, and the severity of the Islamist threat facing their country. They work for major newspapers and broadcast channels; English and Hindi-language outlets, purely Indian companies, and some with an international reach. Their concern was genuine; their passion intense.
But because, they told me, they "would surely be sacked" if their editors or colleagues heard those candid opinions, we met in out of the way hotels, coffee shops, and other inconspicuous places. So concerned were they that only some agreed to let me tape our conversations. And all of them-with the exception of Amitabh Tripathi-agreed to speak openly only so long as they remained anonymous. They hoped our interviews would garner support for their cause, especially in the United States. "At the very least," one told me, "perhaps it will help people know just how dangerous things here are."
"India is regarded as a very soft state."
Every journalist echoed the sentiments expressed by this one. "The US and India are two great democracies. We [India] must support the US War on Terror. It is the only thing we should do!" They are frustrated and concerned, however, at India's reticence to do so whole heartedly. The ruling parties "fear a negative response from Muslims [and a loss of votes even though] more people believe India should openly ally itself with the US in the war on terror...the politicians are afraid to be seen as anti-Muslim."
Muslims make up about 20 percent of the Indian population, and their interest groups and organizations are united and vocal. In the media, reports must adhere to a certain formula "because they feel that these kinds of [anti-terror] reports will build up feelings against Muslims." Thus, they attribute things to generic "terrorists, but they are not terrorists. They are Indian Muslim institutions getting money from the Saudis...to create mosques that look like five-star hotels."
In the lead up to this year's Indian budget, Muslim groups rolled out statistics showing their constituents lagging behind in education and income and demanded subsidies and government commitments. No one challenged their assumption that the lag was due to prejudice or that the Indian taxpayers had to shoulder the burden. They simply caved and acceded to most of the demands. Hence, the budget contains large sums for Muslim pilgrimages to Jerusalem's Al Aqsa, but not a penny for stateless Hindu refugees from Islamist terror in Bangladesh. "If you are pro-Hindu, you are called a racist."
India's parliamentary system also complicates things. The ruling Congress Party had to ally itself with Indian Communists (CPIM) to oust the right wing Bhatariya Janata Party (BJP). The CPIM is part of the ruling coalition and holds the balance of power. "If they believe their demands are not being met, they can bring down the government. This is why India still has not ratified the nuclear deal with the US." Many Congress leaders recognize its critical security role and want to sign it, but their communist partners have made the deal's rejection key to their remaining in the coalition. This also helps explain India's puzzling reaction to the recent Maoist takeover in neighboring Nepal. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukharjee hailed the communist victory as a new era in South Asian politics even after the new Nepalese commissars vowed to end "Indian dominance" in Nepal. "He comes from West Bengal...and cannot represent his state without support of communists," which drives Indian foreign policy.
"Israel is our role model; America is our ally."
The wedge issue separating the Old Left elites from today's Indian conservatives is Israel. The MSM reports Israel as the villain in the Middle East and the Palestinians as victims. For the first half century of their existence, India and Israel did not even have diplomatic relations. It was not until the 1990s that common security concerns prompted a thaw; and relations did not really take off until 2003 with a visit by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Previous Indian politics built on the late Jawaharlal Nehru's union with Yugoslavia's Josip Broz Tito and Egypt's Gamal Nasser to form the non-aligned bloc of nations. The anti-US and anti-Israel course they charted set the basis for the UN's endemic hatred of both nations and dominated Indian policy for decades. That is why, one journalist told me, "there is something of a generation gap between the [established and generally older] editors and publishers" and people today.
Media coverage remains biased, which is why, according to Tripathi, it came as a tremendous surprise to many Indians when they saw evidence that Israelis were the victims of Arab terror. They began wondering at MSM condemnation of actions that were no less self-defense than their own. "We must give people the real picture of Israel-Palestine struggle" as parallel to our own struggle for existence. "The network of madrassas and imams in India, holds that the entire subcontinent was once under Muslim rule and still would be were it not for the British. That is how they look at Israel, as darul Islam"; that is, as a land once under Muslim hegemony and so by rights always under it. They opposed Indian partition in 1947 and the partition of Palestine in 1948, because it would recognize the legitimacy of the non-Muslim state on land they consider their own.
Many Indians "are enraged" by their nation's "soft policy" and have begun holding up Israel as a role model publicly. They also point to Israel's development in areas like agriculture and defense. "Despite adversities, Israel progressed a lot but we Indians were far lagging behind." "Without a doubt," another said, "if Israel did not say to hell with those who wanted it to be soft, it would be gone. And if India does not do the same thing, it will be gone because the official philosophy of the [Muslims] is the same."
A couple days after Tripathi and I parted, I found myself addressing a journalism class at the University of Lucknow in Upper Pradesh province. I spoke about the role of journalists, the war against Islamist terror, and about Bangladeshi Hindus living in India-victims of ethnic cleansing. The students were lively and engaged on a variety of topics, but their eyes really lit up when I mentioned that I am a Zionist and had been to Israel. Their thirst for knowledge and analysis seemed unquenchable; their questions non- stop. "How has such a small country like Israel been able to defeat all of the Arabs and their terrorists?" "How can we [India] be more like Israel?" Even the one student who took a vocal, anti-Israel position addressed admitted to the class that "I have to do more work to check my information."
"Axis of evil and axis of terror in this world are Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran"
"There is not a single democracy between Tel Aviv and New Delhi, and if we keep taking the road of weakness, our enemies could easily defeat us...Our foreign policy is to have friendly relations with our neighbors. But our neighbors are all radical Islamists and dictators." These journalists freely admit that they are not "completely objective, but at least we say so" in contrast to the MSM. They believe that the vast majority of India's 1.1 billion people see things the way they do but that their nation has been hi-jacked by "leftists, weaklings, and corrupt people." For instance, one said, "it's a crime that the communists are still in power. They use intimidation and voter fraud, but Congress lets them because they want to stay in power. If BJP and Congress would come together and force a fair election, the Communists will lose."
Providing Indians with good information, uncensored by a fearful and rigid MSM is what Amitabh Tripathi hopes to accomplish with Lokmanch. "The web site is only the first step," he said. "Small, local papers publish in huge numbers and they are not part of the mainstream media. They are just as frustrated with things as we are. We want to channelize (sic) them to become an alternative media." He estimates it will take "two to three years perhaps" to build a news network and mobilize opinion makers in India. Several small papers already have joined Tripathi's network. We can help by providing them with access to news and opinion and original articles (much as I did with Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in Bangladesh). And like all such endeavors, this one is struggling to find funds, as well.
Mandhol Kalan is a small village about 50 miles from Delhi where Deoband imams banned television, radio, photography, even singing. One Hindi TV network did a story exposing it, which forced the government to react. But instead of addressing the issue it raised, the Ministry responded by distributing new television sets. Not surprisingly, the Deobandis returned, confiscated the TVs, and re-instituted the ban. <b>But now, the government does not return calls, and networks have not returned to Mandhol Kalan. Thus, just outside the Indian capital is a village that makes Afghanistan look like Las Vegas. Worse, said one of the journalists involved in the original report, the media's silence "allows [the Islamists] to impose their views exclusively and produce more terrorists."</b>
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2308
<b>
Donât blame a single section for all terror attacks: Secular Forum</b>
Staff Reporter
âNo such violence can take place without political failure and injusticesâ
Demands an inquiry either by CBI or by apex court judges into the recent blasts
NEW DELHI: Calling terrorism a response to politics and not religion, Asghar Ali Engineer of the All India Secular Forum has asked the Centre and the media to stop blaming one section of society for all the terror attacks in the country recently. Addressing a press conference organised by Anhad here on Monday, he appealed to all Indians not to be misled by any religious rhetoric.
âIn our country, the Hindutva forces too use such rhetoric for their own political purposes. Terrorism is a political response to a political situation. It would be futile to look for its roots in any religion. As Hindutva is not a product of Hinduism but that of a right-wing Hindu political party, jihadis are not a product of Islam but of politics of right-wing Muslim outfits. In principle, our democracy should keep religion at a distance from governance and politics should be based on secular issues pertaining to people.â
Stating that no such violence would take place without political failure and gross injustices, Dr. Engineer said: âEven after Independence and vivisection of our country, we never shed our communal outlook and politics. Our politicians were hardly made of secular democratic stuff and our administrative machinery was hardly any different. Our politics was never based on soci0-economic justice and the naxal problem is an outcome of gross socio-economic injustices.â
Also present were Shabnam Hashmi of Anhad (Delhi), Jyotsna Shukla of Quami Ekta Samiti and L.S. Hardenia, editor of Secular Democracy.
Seek CBI inquiry
The speakers demanded an inquiry by the CBI or by sitting judges of the Supreme Court into the recent bomb blasts in Ahmedabad and Surat. An inquiry was also demanded into the role of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bajrang Dal and other Sangh Parivar organisations in various attacks.
Ms. Hashmi said: âThere are several Muslim families who fought the British during the Indian freedom struggle. We are proud that we belong here but why are we forced to prove our patriotism after every terror attack? We also want to know why very often innocent young men are rounded up and harassed after every bomb blast in the country just because they happen to belong to a particular community.â
<b>
Togadia wants ban on madrassas
</b>
Special Correspondent
AHMEDABAD: Vishwa Hindu Parishad international general secretary Pravin Togadia has demanded a ban on madrassas and the enactment of a law âstronger thanâ the repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) to fight terrorism.
Talking to journalists after a meeting of the Sant Marga Darshak Mandal here, Mr. Togadia claimed that madrassas bred terrorism and must be banned immediately. The curriculum of the madrassas was the same in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
âBritish patternâ
He said the police dealing with the âjehadisâ should be given a free hand to deal with them. He wanted the Central government to follow the British pattern of enacting a special law which gave death penalty to anyone for professing, propagating and practicing âjehad.â
Describing the recent Ahmedabad bomb blasts as âshockingâ and as a âwar against the people of Indiaâ by the Islamic jehadis, <span style='color:red'>Mr. Togadia said that if anyone was to be blamed for âencouragingâ the jehadi movement in the country, it was the Indian government. Whether it was the BJP-led NDA government or the Congress-led UPA, the governments at the Centre had never shown the will to fight terrorism, he added.
</span>
Here people are dying of Islamic terrorism and these joker parties are talking about banning RSS
came in email
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.organise r.org/dynamic/ modules.php? name=Content& pa=showpage& pid=250&page= 4
<b>This is the only country where majority feels persecuted </b>
Arsha Vidya Gurukulam
Organiser
The religious freedom is the right to practise oneâs religion without any suppression from the State or the society.
When one is fundamentalist Hindu, one will allow other people to pursue their religion. India is the only country where the Jews were never persecuted because of the tenets of Hinduism. Hindus do not mind one more god or one more path. We do not disturb anyone.
The question is how one is going to change oneâs religion without oneâs religion being belittled, ridiculed.
Their method of propaganda is to create fear, self-loath and then offer their solution. Any form of worship is devil worship and they say it in so many words. âFollow me, go to heaven or you go to hell.â These are all non-verifiable beliefs and one is not going to be proved right and another wrong.
Religious leaders should never get into political issues. If some leaders politicise their religious congregations for creating vote banks, the basis for political negotiations, they are in politics.
When people see the politicalisation of religions around them, they say enough is enough.
Only in India we have the notion of religious minorities, elsewhere there are only racial minorities.
The AIM for Seva is under the auspices of Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Now all the Acharyas are engaged20in altruistic activities in their own areas. In Karnataka, for example, the Lingayat Mutts are doing good work in the field of education, setting up a number of colleges including engineering and medical colleges.
Water harvesting, public well, pond for cattle, providing opportunities for people to earn their livelihood, choultry (homes for school-going children, for the handicapped and the aged)âall these are said to be purtam.
Swami Dayananda Saraswati is a champion of Hindu spiritual revival through Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. He tours extensively all over the world spreading the message of Hindutva. Swamiji runs a number of service centres, and his clarion call has evoked positive response in confronting forced conversions by Christian Missionaries. He is a highly respected spiritual leader.
Here is an interview with Swamiji on various challenges encountering Hindu society.
<i>Q.You have been speaking on various occasions of the doctrinal intolerance of certain religions in contrast to the doctrinal tolerance of Hinduism. Does every religion not claim to be the only true path?</i>
A. The claim of Catholic theologians is that only their religion is salvific. Why God has chosen the Catholic Church exclusively for salvation is a mystery, according to them. This is their belief. And the salvation itself is a belief, a non-verifiable belief. One attracts the original sin for being maculately born, that one needs to remove this sin in order to gain salvation. Salvation is in the form of going to heaven after
death where god is. This is the essence of their theology. For the removal of the original sin, the Catholic Church says it is solely empowered. Through Papal hierarchy, the priest in the parish has the power to baptise and remove the sin. They also believe that Jesus will come again when the entire humanity is Christian.
Therefore, it is important for a Christian to go out and convert everyone. This and other similar aggressive religions have destroyed many indigenous religious traditions.
We do not have any more people belonging to the culture that built pyramids in Egypt and South America.
It is one thing to believe in something, it is quite another to impose that belief on others, that too aggressively with an organised evangelical programme. This belief is there in every denomination of Christianity, even though there are differences in their doctrines.
The Catholic Church does not accept that other denominations of Christianity are salvific. They are considered deficient even though they accept Jesus. But each one of them claims it is salvific including later religions.
The freedom to have a belief is one thing, but that this freedom does not extend to destroying another religion is my plea. You are free to pursue your religion and in India we have total freedom to pursuer oneâs own religion. But that freedom does not mean the right to destroy others.
In the United States there is a body that looks at the religious freedom around the world and they point out20the countries where there is freedom and where there is no freedom. On what basis do they decide? The basis is that Christian Church should be able to convert people. I say the religious freedom is the right to practise oneâs religion without any suppression from the State or the society.
<i>Q.What about the freedom to change oneâs religion and to propagate oneâs religion without the use of force or allurement or aggressively attacking other religions? </i>
A. That right is always going to remain sacred. Suppose somebody wants to change his or her religion, it should be all right for the person to do so. The question is how one is going to change oneâs religion without oneâs religion being belittled, ridiculed. Their method of propaganda is to create fear, self-loath and then offer their solution. Any form of worship is devil worship and they say it in so many words.
âFollow me, go to heaven or you go to hell.â These are all non-verifiable beliefs and one is not going to be proved right and another wrong. So my point is that everyone has the right to practise oneâs religion without being looked down upon by anybody. That is human right.
<i>Q. But not to propagate?</i>
A. They have the right to propagate their religion among themselves. People in general do not know much about their own religion, and religious leaders should tell their own people or others who walk in. They should not go to remote places and tell the innocen
t people there that what they are doing is wrong. They take children to the homes they run and they all become Christians. Do they have any choice? More often than not they become nuns and priests. They are even sent to Europe and the United States where people make a conscious decision to become nuns while here nuns are manufactured from childhood.
The children are often lost because they have to disown their parents, religion and customs. If you want to do something good to the children, you need to validate their culture, their way of life.
<i>Q. Is it not the unique selling point of every religion that it is superior to other religions, that it is the only true path? </i>
A. That is what a belief is. If they have to prove it, there should be a discussion. And there are two ways of discussion; one is called jalpa, the other vada. In jalpa, each one of the two persons in dialogue claims his/her religion alone can save people, there is no end, no winner or loser. Then there is vada in which both are interested in the truth; they can have a meaningful discussion. They can discuss even about beliefs, whether they are against reason, for beliefs can be above but not against reason. If irrational concepts are there, they can be pointed out. I say whether rational or irrational, they can have their beliefs, but they cannot tread on our toes.
<i>Q. Does Hinduism also not lay exclusive claim to be the only right faith? For instance, in the Gita Sri Krishna calls up
on people to abandon all other dharmas and surrender to Him.</i>
A. We do have discussion within Hinduism; different acharyas look at the same sentence of the scripture and come up with different conclusions. We can examine these conclusions, we need not accept them just because someone said so, whoever it might be. That is why though we have small differences among sampradayas, there is freedom to differ. All accept the Vedas; all accept the concept of karma; all accept that you are responsible for your actions, nobody else; and you can gain enough punya here by doing certain karma. Only when talking of what is the ultimate, one differs from the other. One will say you are the ultimate, you need to know. Another will point to the knowledge of God of whom you are an attribute and say that you have to know that and surrender. Some will say your act of devotion will get you punya and after death you go to a place where you are in the presence of God. All these contentions can be examined. I say finally God-world-you are one reality. This is taught as surely as one plus one is two.
<i>Q. There is the question of unchangeability of religious texts. In every other field, particularly in science, a better understanding and the growth of knowledge has disproved the old texts but in the area of spiritualism alone the ancient text holds the field unchanged. Is there a case for re-interpreting ancient religious texts to suit modern conditions or current knowledge?</i>
A. There are two types
of sacred literature in Hinduismâone is cruti, the other is smriti. The cruti is given, it is not subject to change. We can interpret but there is a rule that any interpretation should not have any self-contradiction, that is, the interpretation should not be contradicted within the cruti itself. Then, there should be no external contradiction, the other types of knowledge of different disciplines that we have including science should never be contradicted. The subject matter of the cruti is not accessible to our means of knowledge such as perception, inference, presumption and so on. Therefore it cannot be improved upon. Basic truths unfolded by the cruti are not subject to change.
Then we have smriti literature which is written by human beings in keeping with the cruti. Sometimes it is interpretative, sometimes it is just related to a particular time and place. It relates to conduct, it talks about how to do rituals and so on, and that is changeable. The cruti itself allows space for interpretation on such topics. The smriti literature and the gahyasutras for day to day living should be changing. Whether they change or not, people are changing and they have to keep up with the change. The religious leaders are supposed to provide leadership here. If they get stuck in orthodoxy, the people will move away on their own without leadership. And the traditional leadership is without following! The leaders are then forced to compromise with their customs and manners. When what can be variable is not u
nderstood in its spirit, the orthodoxy is always left behind.
<i>Q.There is a debate, more outside India but within India as well on the relationship between
religious leaders and some of their fundamentalist followers. There is the view that religious leaders do not rein in some of their extremist followers who take to violence against other religions either out of sympathy or out of fear that they may be misunderstood as not supporting their religion. What role can religious leaders play in promoting harmony?</i>
A. Basically, when one is fundamentalist Hindu, one will allow other people to pursue their religion.
India is the only country where the Jews were never persecuted because of the tenets of Hinduism.
Hindus do not mind one more god or one more path. We do not disturb anyone be they Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew.
Religious leaders should never get into political issues. If some leaders politicise their religious congregation for creating vote banks, the basis for political negotiations, they are in politics. When people see the politicalisation of religions around them, they say enough is enough.
Only in India we have the notion of religious minorities, elsewhere there are only racial minorities.
Some of the people who are politically aware fear that this is the only country where Hindu dharma exists and already it is divided.
This is also the only country where the majority feels persecuted.
A politician can be a religious person and can seek advice from
whoever he chooses including religious leaders.
For instance, a problem arose in Tirupati when some people wanted to have a church on the hills. The Lord is considered Saptagiriswara, the Lord of the seven hills. Why should there be any pressure to build a church there? Then they said two of the hills belong to Venkateswara and the other five to the Panchayat, according to a Government Order issued during the British rule. It was all too manipulative. The Pejawar Mutt Swamiji Vishveswara Tirtha, myself and some other protested this stand. We issued a statement of protest and appealed for a new G.O. declaring the seven hills as sacred. We did get finally a G.O. When a religion is attacked, religious leaders must provide enlightened leadership in time.
<i>Q. What should be the attitude of a religious organisation to service to wider society in such areas as education and health? What is the right mix of social service and conventional religious activity in a religious organisation?</i>
A. Giving is a means of spiritual growth. In fact we have only two ways to earn punya, one is prayer, the other giving as purta-karma.
vapekupataoagadi- devatayatanani ca|
annapradanam aramau purtam
ityabhideyate| |
Water harvesting, public well, pond for cattle, providing opportunities for people to earn their livelihood, choultry (homes for school-going children, for the handicapped and the aged)âall these are said to be purtam.
When giving is already there in our culture, we need to emphasise more now in a
competitive culture which is foisted upon a non-competitive culture like ours. Everyone contributes in a non-competitive culture. In the other, every one tends to grab. If someone is not able to compete because he is physically disabled or mentally challenged, he should be provided a place to live. Families have become nuclear and for persons who cannot compete you need to have homes where they are looked after.
The AIM for Seva is under the auspices of Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Now all the Acharyas are engaged in altruistic activities in their own areas. In Karnataka, for example, the Lingayat Mutts are doing good work in the field of education, setting up a number of colleges including engineering and medical colleges. So too, Adichunchunagiri Mutt.
For us, giving is not meant for some other purpose; there are no strings attached. When the Tatas run a cancer institute, they do not expect anything in return. There are many organisations that run their charitable services professionally, first pumping in money and then trying to make the institutions self-sustaining.
However, you cannot start a school or college which is a means for conversion or for creating an atmosphere for conversion elsewhere. All the alumni are always sympathetic to the missionaries getting things done for them. If you want to do service, it should be only service, that is noble charity.
Even an ulterior motive of name and fame is not that bad. If charity is considered an investment for achieving something else, that
is considered an action of adharm.
If the attitude is proper, giving makes one grow spiritually.
Further, the act of giving is religious because it gives the result of punya besides satisfaction. One has to see oneâs own threshold in terms of time, resources in doing seva.
<i>Q. Some religions are regarded as favourably disposed towards economic activity by encouraging hard work and saving, for instance. What is the attitude of Hinduism to business in general? </i>
A. Hinduism is not averse to artha or material well being which is one of the four purusharthas, human ends. But the pursuit of wealth should never be against dharma, every sampradaya would put dharma first among the purusharthas. Dharma is the universal values and also the duties that go with every role one plays like son/daughter, husband/wife, father/mother, citizen and so on. Hinduism accepts business, vaeijya and accepts it with a stern warning it ought to be governed by dharma. In other words, you can earn any amount of money but there should not be any transgression of dharma.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
08-27-2008, 07:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2008, 08:13 PM by Husky.)
^ Interrupting above, but please read that ^
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Aug 27 2008, 04:16 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 27 2008, 04:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->came in email
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.organise r.org/dynamic/ modules.php? name=Content& pa=showpage& pid=250&page= 4
<i>Q. Does Hinduism also not lay exclusive claim to be the only right faith? For instance, in the Gita Sri Krishna calls up
on people to abandon all other dharmas and surrender to Him.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]87099[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I just wanted to comment on this question and say that the question itself is <i>so</i> loaded - christoconditioned. What acrobatics must have been required to twist Krishna's words into that?
Krishna says no such thing in the Gita. He says people can and do worship all Gods and that he naturally accepts all this devotion since it is ultimately rendered to him anyway. That is because he is Brahman - as he explicitly reveals in the Gita - and because, similarly, Brahman is all the Gods. In Hindu Dharma, we can see scriptures revealing various Gods as being Brahman (from Guha, Ganapathi to Devi, Shiva and more).
(The gawd jeebusjehovallah of the terrorist ideologies being non-existent - and terrifyingly demonic if it had existed - and since it does not have anything remotely to do with our Gods/Brahman, is obviously utterly irrelevant to a Natural Traditionalist's discussion on Gods.)
Swami Dayananda Saraswati should have boycotted that question or - as is more in conformity with his being a Swami - should have corrected the questioner.
08-27-2008, 07:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2008, 08:00 PM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Aug 27 2008, 07:27 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Aug 27 2008, 07:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Aug 27 2008, 04:16 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 27 2008, 04:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->came in email
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.organise r.org/dynamic/ modules.php? name=Content& pa=showpage& pid=250&page= 4
<i>Q. Does Hinduism also not lay exclusive claim to be the only right faith? For instance, in the Gita Sri Krishna calls up
on people to abandon all other dharmas and surrender to Him.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]87099[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Krishna says no such thing in the Gita. He says people can and do worship all Gods and that he naturally accepts all this devotion since it is ultimately rendered to him anyway. That is because he is Brahman - as he explicitly reveals in the Gita - and because, similarly, Brahman is all the Gods. In Hindu Dharma, we can see shlokas revealing various Gods as being Brahman (from Guha, Ganapathi to Devi, Shiva and more).
[right][snapback]87103[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky, the questioner was probably referring to the 66th shloka of the last chapter:
sarvadharmAn parityajya mAmekam sharaNam vraja
aham tvA sarva pApebhyo mokshayishyAmi mAshuchaH (Bg. 18.66)
{Abandoning All Dharma-s, Take Shelter in Me Alone
I Shall Grant You Moksha Despite All Your Sins, Grieve Not}
But indeed an acrobatics is needed to turn it into "Hindu is the only Valid religion". Here kR^iShNa is talking about a devotee's complete sharaNAgati/surrender into iShTa as the final way to liberation. (Occuring therefore in the last chapter, when everything else failed to convince arjuna.)
08-27-2008, 08:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2008, 08:15 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Aug 27 2008, 07:54 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 27 2008, 07:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->sarvadharmAn parityajya mAmekam sharaNam vraja
aham tvA sarva pApebhyo mokshayishyAmi mAshuchaH (Bg. 18.66)
{Abandoning All Dharma, Take Shelter in Me Alone
I Shall Grant You Moksha Despite All Your Sins, Grieve Not}
But indeed an acrobatics is needed to turn it into "Hindu is the only Valid religion". Here kR^iShNa is talking about a devotee's complete sharaNAgati/surrender into iShTa as the final way to liberation. (Occuring therefore in the last chapter, when everything else failed to convince arjuna.)
[right][snapback]87106[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->OMG, they twisted THAT line? I never even suspected it.
But the meaning is exactly as you said.
And Dharma in Samskritam is NOT NOT NOT religion. I don't know why in Hindi today Dharma has been equated with religion. Dharma's real meaning is in Samskritam and is the subset of Rta that is applicable to creatures (generally humankind) in this world.
In the shlokam you posted, Krishna is simply saying to Arjuna/creaturekind to "Rise above the three Gunas, life, everything, because to get Moksha I am all that you need."
So how does this statement have anything to do at all with any exclusivist claims on faith? Krishna is not even talking about Gods here.
Actually, that shlokam is a summary of the rest of what Krishna says in several chapters of the Gita: the goal is to abandon all one's desires, surrender the fruits of one's actions to him while never renouncing action itself (which steps will free one from Karma) and to take refuge in him, Bhagavan. He will then free you from all sorrows, and the circle of rebirth will no longer apply to you. You will go back to Bhagavan.
But how come the questioner doesn't know that the modern Hindi usage of the word 'Dharm(a)' in the shlokam you pointed out is NOT the same as Samskritam 'Dharma'?
|
