Indian Core Values

11-01-2004, 12:57 AM

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/oct/27inter11.htm

QUOTEBut no one can be naÃ¯ve enough to think that any businessman, not just Reliance, will give any money that will not enhance their business interests.

I ask you, why have the Birlas set up so many temples? Why have Tatas created the Tata Institutes of Energy Research and Social Sciences? All Indian businessmen are not narrow-minded. Dhirubhai encouraged ideas and creativity.

I once put your question to him. He said, "I want Reliance to become a big company, it can become one only if India becomes a big nation. Then, Indians will buy my products." It is as simple as that. We should get out of this anti-businessman thinking generated by Indian bureaucrats. They think that businessmen are not concerned with national interests. Whenever I meet Indian businessmen I am telling them that the way American businessmen have done it, you can also build universities and participate in creating think-tanks. All the universities in America have been created by public philanthropy.

This probably comes from the trait mentioned above (probably a more recent one) that makes the society feel guilty in being rich and once rich feel guilty in spending the money. I am from Ahmedabad - while growing up in Ahmedabad (Gandhiji's base) i had always seen this. I have heard other non-amdavadi gujjus (Suratis, Kathiyawadis and Mumbaikars) complain about this. We felt guilty or maybe are too cautious in earning money and then spending it. Happy to report however that atleast the last few times i visited my city thats not the case anymore - people are spending like there is no tomorrow. I dont know this is a long term thing or not but thats what i observed over the last few years.

Have to mention one thing about Dhirubhai - whatever his drawbacks he commoditised stocks. I dont have the numbers with me but atleast in gujarat Reliance must be one of the most held company. These are small investors - not crorepatis. He took the concept of earning money to the masses.

11-04-2004, 01:30 AM

From

Nationalism and its Enemies by N S Rajaram

A quote of Aurobindo..

QUOTEâIt is this Dharma that I am raising up before the world, it is this that I have perfected and developed through the rishis, saints and avatars, and is now going forth to do my work among the nationsâ¦ When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is Sanatana Dharma that shall rise. When it is said that India shall be great, it is Sanatana Dharma that shall be great. When it is said that India shall expand and extend itself, it is Sanatana Dharma that shall expand and extend itself all over the world. It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India existsâ¦ I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatana Dharma which for us is the nationalism.â

11-27-2004, 06:54 AM

We are in denial

QUOTEThe conflict in the world is because people are either stuck in their identity, and die for it, or shy away from their identity and lose their roots. One has to opt for a middle path. The ideal situation will be when every religion transcends its identity. Until that time, it is unwise for the Hindus to let go of their identity. We cannot, and should not, eliminate differences on this planet. We need to celebrate the differences. And this is the uniqueness of Bharat â from the atheism of Charvaka to Bhakthi Panth and Sufism, itâs one beautiful bouquet.

An identity is related to an action. Denial of identity will dump you in inaction, sloth and lethargy and hence Krishna reminds Arjuna of his Kshatriya identity even while giving âBrahma gyanâ to remind him of his duties and responsibilities. Otherwise while giving this High knowledge of the Self, why would Krishna remind him again and again of his limited identity. The limited identity in no way contradicts the universal one. A policeman cannot perform his duties â steer the traffic â if he fails to acknowledge his identity. Similarly, if a businessman shies away from his identity, he cannot function. The same is the story of Hindu identity. India cannot make a distinct mark on the world if it ignores its religious and spiritual heritage.

Good article from Sri Sri Ravisankar

**acharya** · 11-27-2004, 07:07 AM

We are in denial
Negating identity causes inaction, sloth and lethargy
SRI SRI RAVI SHANKAR
Send Feedback E-mail this story Print this story
Posted online: Saturday, November 27, 2004 at 0000 hours IST

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar If you come across a Communist, with a Hindu name, and ask him about his identity, he will deny being a Hindu. Yet, a Muslim Communist often claims his identity without hesitation. One wonders what causes this difference in attitude.

It is interesting to probe into the psyche of identity, which often is a source of security, insecurity, conflict and comfort. Perhaps the following reasons would answer the identity crises of the Hindus. The broadmindedness of Hinduism, its inherent inclusiveness and secularism, makes Hindus feel guilty about claiming their identity, as it is embedded in their philosophy that it is wrong to exclude others. Claiming a religious identity makes them feel they are excluding others and so they shy away from doing so.

Advertisement
Make My Trip
Hindus have been traditionally groomed by the Vedanta to drop all identities. This has deeply influenced the Hindu psyche. Hindu philosophy is woven around egolessness. Let alone their religion, some sadhus donât even say their name; they would say, âWhatâs in a name?â Sanyasis are even shy to talk about their parentage. A renowned ascetic in Rishikesh would meet with everybody, but not his own mother and family. When asked, he would say, âI am Vedanti; once I have taken sanyasa, I have dropped all my identities.â

This is an erroneous understanding of Vedanta. Why do we fear the identity so much? Seeing identity as stumbling blocks for oneâs growth is ignorance. Sanyasa is transcending identity; it is being in that centredness from where you have equal love and compassion for all. It is the unshakable light and richness that one has found in oneâs Being which is universal. Transcending identity is different from denying identity. When religious leaders themselves denounce their identity, the community follows suit. This is akin to the thought that secularism is anti-religion.

Caste identity is in some places much stronger than religious identity. The normal tendency is to go for one single identity than for a dual one. So, between caste and religion, many Hindus seem to go for caste. Hindus feel ashamed of the ills of Hinduism â its superstition, untouchability, and practices like sati are usually highlighted in the media, rather than its unparalleled philosophy and scientific temperament. Thus, for several centuries Hindu bashing has been a fashion.

The media seems to have given the prerogative of Hindu identity to the RSS and VHP and secular-minded Hindus would not like to associate with these two organisations. As a result they shy away from their own identity.

Within India itself, we witness a great deal of ignorance about the Hindu religion and its scriptures. Although Hindus form 80 per cent population of India, there is still only one university which teaches Hinduism â whereas there are five which teach Islam, five which teach Christianity, two which teach Sikhism and one that teaches Jainism. You would find every Muslim would know a couple of verses from the Quran; you can hardly find a Christian who has not read the Bible.

But Hindus who know Sanskrit or a few shlokas are rare. Most educated Hindus know the Bible; they know Christmas carols. When they know nothing about their religion, how can they take pride in it?

There are 1.25 billion Hindus in the world, a little over one-sixth of the worldâs population, but you hardly find a single Hindu lobby at international forums. You will find a Christian lobby, a Muslim lobby or a Jewish lobby, but you canât find a Hindu lobby. Just 12 million Jews in the world are such a powerful voice. Buddhists also have a voice and make their presence felt at world forums.

In countries of south and central America and in Europe, although they are secular democracies, they are not shy to proclaim their allegiance to Christianity. You will find the religious symbol of the Cross placed in their parliaments; chaplains offer prayer before every official dinner. While associations like YMCA (Young Menâs Christian Association) have gained wide acceptance. Why then is it that Hindu associations are viewed with scepticism?

A strong community is an asset to any nation. A weak community will always be in fear and because of insecurity will become aggressive. It is the pride in oneâs identity which strengthens the community. Identity is in no way contradictory to universality.

People often ask, âWill not the concept of global family, Vasudhaiva Kutambakam, contradict patriotism? Similarly, will your religious identity not conflict with your universality?ââ The answer is âNoâ. Your duty as a family man is not a hindrance for your realisation that you are Brahman. You donât need to run away to the forest to realise âAll this is Brahmanâ. Your being spiritual in no way contradicts your being a socially responsible citizen. In fact, it enhances your ability to care and share.

The conflict in the world is because people are either stuck in their identity, and die for it, or shy away from their identity and lose their roots. One has to opt for a middle path. The ideal situation will be when every religion transcends its identity. Until that time, it is unwise for the Hindus to let go of their identity. We cannot, and should not, eliminate differences on this planet. We need to celebrate the differences. And this is the uniqueness of Bharat â from the atheism of Charvaka to Bhakthi Panth and Sufism, itâs one beautiful bouquet.

An identity is related to an action. Denial of identity will dump you in inaction, sloth and lethargy and hence Krishna reminds Arjuna of his Kshatriya identity even while giving âBrahma gyanâ to remind him of his duties and responsibilities. Otherwise while giving this High knowledge of the Self, why would Krishna remind him again and again of his limited identity. The limited identity in no way contradicts the universal one. A policeman cannot perform his duties â steer the traffic â if he fails to acknowledge his identity. Similarly, if a businessman shies away from his identity, he cannot function. The same is the story of Hindu identity. India cannot make a distinct mark on the world if it ignores its religious and spiritual heritage.

ramana · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2004, 01:47 AM by ramana.)

KPS Gill in Pioneer 10 Dec. 2004

QUOTEWhat's India's grand strategy?

KPS Gill

A nation has security, Walter Lippman notes, when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war. It must be clear to any objective observer of the trajectory of developments in this country that India does not meet these criteria, and that its leadership has not even begun to imagine the task of building them into a national vision.

Indeed, for decades, India has even failed to neutralise the challenge arising out of the malevolence of a single hostile neighbour one-eight its size.

The disaster of the confrontation with China in 1962 has simply been pushed out of our strategic perspectives, and the political and military leadership in the country appears to have convinced itself that shared economic interests, China's "good intentions", and our "friendly relations" with Western and other powers are sufficient guarantee against any future threat from that direction. And given China's overwhelming size and rising power, in any event, what can India do?

But why doesn't Pakistan think in this way of India?The truth is, though there is much talk of India's emerging "great power status", the strategic vision and the awareness of both the collaborative and competitive imperatives that this would involve is still to develop within leaders and leadership institutions in this country. It is significant that, while we pit ourselves repeatedly, exclusively and with very limited success against a manifestly inferior adversary, preparing for an engagement with a superior enemy has been integral to Chinese military and national philosophy since the very creation of the "New China" under Mao Zedong's inspired, though ruthless, leadership. China clearly sees itself as being engaged in sustained and protracted competition with other major powers, while India sees itself substantially as little more than a hopeful supplicant before, and occasionally as an inferior partner with, these.

It is useful to recall that China has confronted and defeated the United States in two wars-directly in the Korean war and indirectly in the war in Vietnam-at a time when the new nation was only just beginning to stabilise after two decades of civil war and a seven year conflict with Japan. At that time the Chinese economy was shattered, there was mass distress among the people and the nation's industries had virtually collapsed. On the other hand, the US was already well established as the number one power of the world.

Indeed, the earlier victories of the People's Liberation Army in both the civil war and the war against Japan were also secured against adversaries who were far better equipped and, at least at some point, far more numerous. In June 1950, when General Douglas MacArthur made a daring push towards the Yalu river-the boundary between China and North Korea-he was confident that China would not dare to intervene because of America's air superiority and nuclear power status. But China pushed in more than 200,000 "volunteers", who attacked and overran the US 8th Army 50 miles south of the Yalu River.

History-even recent history-is replete with instances where "inferior" powers have prevailed in the battlefield over "superior" powers, and, at least once, China has been the victim of this process. In 1979, China attacked Vietnam to "punish" Hanoi for toppling the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, but had to withdraw in haste after it was given a bloody nose by fierce Vietnamese resistance.

In Iraq, today, rag tag bands of insurgents and terrorists are tying down the Armies of the world's "sole superpower" and it is far from clear who will emerge the eventual victor.

It is clear that established military doctrines in countries like India, Russia, even America, have failed to grasp the transformations in the fundamental nature of warfare that have occurred. America's overwhelming firepower can devastate the infrastructure of any country in the world, but it cannot impose the necessary conditions of an unambiguous victory. There is, indeed, both among great powers and among "aspiring great powers", a failure to evolve the necessary concepts of war and of "soft power projection" that can help guarantee their interests in the new world order.
If India is to rank among the world's first nations-indeed, given its particularly hostile neighbourhood, if India is to survive over the long term-its leadership will have to evolve a grand strategy that will guide the nation into the future. If the political, administrative and intellectual leadership of this country remains completely mired, as it presently is, in the chaotic exigencies of daily political survival and the pressures of the most immediate challenges at hand, the future of the country is in serious jeopardy.
Within this context, a military doctrine that seeks to prepare the country only for a "short, intense war-the only kind of ar that we are, in fact, currently prepared to fight is worse than absurd, it is a preparation for defeat. India does not appear to have any strategic minds at least not in the nodes of power-and has manifestly lacked these for a very long time. The fact is, war has been systematically and substantially factored out of the Indian political world view in its unrealistic-often delusional-pursuit of peace. To desire and to work for peace is, of course, admirable. To fail to prepare for the wars of the future is suicidal.

The country's leadership appears to have put its entire faith in the capacity of our limited economic successes (these are a fact of life only for a microscopic minority in a fraction of the country's geographical area) to catapult India to great power status. The fact, unfortunately, is that this success is itself permanent hostage to the multiplicity of internal and external security challenges confronting us today.

It is now time to evolve and articulate India's grand strategy, and to tailor specific policies in every area-the economy, governance, administration, defence, foreign policy, human security, development-to the realisation of this strategy. Within this context, a radical restructuring is needed to create an integrated system of military and commercial production that would not only directly benefit both these sectors, but would create the sinews for the wider task of nation-building.

Defence science has, historically, led national (commercial and industrial) science in the advanced nations. In India, defence science lags far behind the commercial sector, despite the billions of rupees that have been poured into the defence scientific establishment. The gap between our indigenous defence technology capabilities and the cutting edge technologies of the modern world is several generations wide. This is not the case in at least a selection of our best private and non-military technological enterprises.

We have the scientific capabilities; we are simply failing to apply these where they are needed because our present security perspectives and doctrines are flawed. Our technological efforts and institutional structures need to be redefined by clear thinking on the projected demands of future operations and conflicts, and not just of current threats. The development of technologies in line with a comprehensive and realistic security doctrine could radically alter our entire strategic and tactical vision, not only on the conventional and sub-conventional battlefield, but in every aspect of the national enterprise.



I think Gill raises timely questions. The current situation is a result of the numerous fractured verdicts that the country has been delivering since the middle of 1960s. One thing to consider is who benefited from all this? Also the problem could be that the political class is not really have its roots in the country. It is a made up class that tru did suffer duting the Freedom Struggle but its thoughts and inspiration were not indigenous. While undergraduates are studying grand strategy iat Yale and lecturing India the Indian leadership is doing its best to pull each other down.

It is forums like India Forum and Bharat Rakshak that are keeping the flame alive.

**acharya** · 12-11-2004, 03:58 AM

What's India's grand strategy?

KPS Gill

core interest is a function of either the race, ethnicity and religion

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-11-2004, 04:18 AM by acharya.)

If India is to rank among the world's first nations-indeed, given its particularly hostile neighbourhood, if India is to survive over the long term-its leadership will have to evolve a grand strategy that will guide the nation into the future.

Hauma Hamiddha · (This post was last modified: 12-13-2004, 08:19 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

CHANGE YOUR ID TO MEET FORUM REQUIREMENTS
If not all your posts will be deleted.
Administrator

ramana · (This post was last modified: 01-20-2005, 11:00 PM by ramana.)

Has anyone read Mahatma Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj"? it appers to have most of these questions answered in 1908.
-----------------------------
Link to pdf file of Hind Swaraj: Hind Swaraj pdf file

What a great man!!! Now I know how and why India got its freedom. He provided the intellectual basis for India's freedom struggle and the Idea of India.
By emphasising his views on non-violence modern Indians managed to dig themsleves into the morass.
------------------------------------------------------------

Link: Hind Swaraj

QUOTEHowever, it is not for this reason alone that Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj, and indeed its afterlife suggests that it is seldom read as a treatise on non-violence. Over the remaining forty years of his life, Gandhi would continue to write on non-violence, and his later writings have eclipsed Hind Swaraj in this respect. But if Hind Swaraj occupies a seminal place in Gandhiâs oeuvre, and can even reasonably be described as one of the most critical documents of the twentieth-century, it is because in this work he initiated what he himself described as "a severe condemnation of âmodern civilization" (p. 16). Gandhi inaugurated the most far-reaching critique of modernity that one can imagine, and though it must have struck the preponderant number of his contemporaries as an absurd treatise, Hind Swaraj strikes the reader of late modernity as a work of extraordinary prescience and insight. All too often Hind Swaraj has been read as a denunciation of the West (qua West), but this reading is nowhere substantiated by the text. Throughout, Gandhi remains clear that the replacement of white rulers by brown rulers would be of little consequence to the people if the new set of rulers governed by the same principles, with the same objectives, and with a similar commitment to principles of modern civilization. As he put it with characteristic forthrightness, addressing his imaginary interlocutor, "we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tigerâs nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan." As he adds, pointedly: "This is not the Swaraj [freedom, self-rule] that I want" (p. 30). Doubtless, Western civilization was already largely synonymous with modern, industrial civilization: to this extent, Hind Swaraj can be read as a critique of the West. But Gandhi remained unequivocally bound to the view that India had been grounded into submission not so much by the British as by modern civilization; it is the glitter of the modern world that seduced India and rendered it captive. As he wrote, in a chapter entitled "Why was India Lost?", ""The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them" (p. 38).

In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi launched into a ferocious critique of the "parasitic" professionals who staff modern society, particularly doctors, engineers, lawyers, and the like. He gave it as his opinion that sometimes "quacks are better than highly qualified doctors"; as for doctors trained in modern, allopathic medicine, Gandhi observed that "for the sake of a mistaken care of the human body, they kill annually thousands of animals. They practise vivisection" (pp. 59). Lawyers existed to "advance quarrels instead of repressing them" (p. 55). These and numerous other similar sentiments which crowd the pages of Hind Swaraj continue to be profoundly embarrassing to modernizing Indians, and Gandhiâs own contemporaries predicted that Hind Swaraj would soon be forgotten, repudiated by Gandhi himself. Gandhiâs own âmentorâ, the political leader Gokhale, opined that Gandhi would consign Hind Swaraj to the dustbin of history, but Gandhi affirmed in 1921, and again in 1938, that he saw no reason to retract anything he had written in Hind Swaraj. There seems even less reason today to view Hind Swaraj as a merely Luddite or romantic document: in its ecological wisdom alone, and in its profound sense that there must be limits to human consumption, wants, and addiction to technological solutions, it remains an enduring and endearing work. Hind Swaraj is the indispensable work in the Gandhian canon.

01-24-2005, 11:08 PM

QUOTEConceptual civilisation - by Sukanya Ghosh

This refers to the articles by Ram Gopal (January 14) and Prafull Goradia (January 15) on the matter of 'Hindutva' and 'Bharatiyata'. I believe that the concepts of Hindutva and Bharatiyata are relevant in the Indian context but their area of application may be different.

Vishnu Purana describes the area south of Himalayas as 'Bharatvarsha' and calls the people living there as 'Bharati', the progeny of King Bharat. The civilisation and culture of this land remained Hindu, irrespective of the political changes during the ancient times. Today, Bharat embodies all the three dimensions -civilisational, geographical and political. True Bharatiyata includes taking pride in being the descendants of great ancestors, having a firm commitment to preserve this great civilisation symbolised by its essential Hinduness, and promoting among the people a commitment for the territorial integrity of the country. Unfortunately, the type of secularism that forces inimical to Hinduism have practiced has encouraged divisive tendencies in society. Emphasis on Bharatiyata includes defeating this perverted secularism and building the sentiment of "One nation, one people".

Hindutva is the socially-activated Hindu consciousness, which is a civilisational and cultural concept. Its prime components are: A deep faith in the Sanatan Dharma postulates which primarily are spirituality and service of humanity; and a feeling of belongingness with Bharat bhoomi and oneness with the followers of Sanatan Dharma in all its forms. Hindu consciousness does not consist of attitudes which are negative or are hostile against any other faith or sect.

Hindutva, however, is not a narrow political concept. It is not the counterpart of Islam, which is an entirely political doctrine. Islam has the political objective of establishing Islamic rule everywhere in the world. Islamic doctrines contain instructions for organisation, training, motivation and strategies necessary to achieve this mission. Muslims are expected by their religion to view themselves as part of the ummah (the world community of Muslims), and maintain their primary allegiance to it, transcending all national boundaries. Hindutva does not possess such features. Numerous Hindus live in countries outside India as citizens of those countries, yet Hindutva does not expect their allegiance to India to transcend their national boundaries. The existence of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as an organisation with many overseas branches also indicates that the VHP does not view Hindutva as a political concept. If it had, Hindus of these countries would have been expected to work for India's national interests in a political manner.

Both Bharatiyata and Hindutva are rooted in Bharatvarsha. While the former is a civilisational, geographical and political concept, the latter embodies the broadest of these three - the civilisational concept. The two cover a lot of common ground. If Bharatiyata has not been practiced forcefully by political parties in the country, it is they who should be faulted and not the concept. Hindutva as a potent integrating force among Hindus is far short of realising its full potential. Any political party can work under the concept of Bharatiyata in a committed manner to push forward india's national interests. Various socio-cultural organisations, filled with Hindutva vigour, can work at the ground level without any political ambitions to strengthen the Hinduness of India and mobilise Hindus in India and the world over for the great task of serving Bharatvarsha and humanity.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp? main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit4%2Etxt&counter_img=4
Jan 24 2005 â edit page

02-18-2005, 10:09 PM

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=64873

QUOTEOur legacy of modernity
Towards an Indian aesthetic that integrates and excites
JAITHIRTH RAOÂ

Jaithirth Rao I am trying to piece together seemingly unrelated views on the Indian aesthetic sensibility and create an integrated perspective. I work on my laptop sitting in a Rishi Valley guest house. The atmosphere is one of enormous silence interrupted by birdsong. It is an ideal environment to contemplate the aesthetic heritage of this puzzling peninsula.

Let us start with Jamini Roy who held that the only authentic Indian experience was/is the Adivasi one. Let us then jump to John Keay who sees sculpture as central to our visual aesthetic. Even our architecture is sculptural according to him. And of course, one can never forget Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy, can one? He was concerned about a loss of something central to our heritage as we deal with âmodernityâ â and I now suppose post-modernity.

First of all, let me simply assert that there is an Indian sensibility. This is not to deny our membership of the human race or that aesthetic experiences have a common basis across all of humankind. In fact, in asserting the particular, we affirm the universal.

Jamini Roy, grandchild of the Bengali renaissance, had extraordinary insight. Adivasis may not be the only ones who count. But they are central to the evolution of our collective consciousness in many ways. Ahobilam, Kalahasti and Srisailam in Andhra, Puri in Orissa, Sabarimala in Kerala, Pandharpur in Maharashtra are all symbols of the enduring presence of the Adivasi psyche in our contemporary religious fashions. As they are central to present-day religion, so are they central to contemporary art. It is not just Roy himself, but Sultan Ali, Swaminathan, Sooriyamurthy and so many others who have consciously and unconsciously worked out this linkage.

Our ancestors did not just live in caves, they loved, cherished and embellished caves. Our temples and monasteries have literally been dug out of and dug into the rocks of the land. Mahabalipuram, Elephanta, Udayagiri, the gigantic Kailasa temple in Ellora, Sittanavasal, the list goes on. The Pallavas were of particular significance. Mamallaâs legacy was that he left models for future generations of artists. They have not let him down. All over India, even free-standing buildings (Khajuraho, the Taj Mahal, Ranakpur and so on) have been literally âcarvedâ and made to stand on the landscape. It is not accidental that âsthapatiâ can mean both a sculptor and an architect. This sculptural tradition of ours is under assault both by the PWD and by âreinforced cement concreteâ. But of course, the country never ceases to surprise. I was recently walking past Charles Correaâs Jeevan Bharati building in Connaught Place in Delhi and I was struck by the sculptural quality of the building.

It is not just in architecture. The overwhelming influence of sculpture on Indian dance cannot be underestimated. Watching a performance of Odissi or Kuchipudi or Bharata Natyam is really watching the coming to life of exquisite statues. No wonder so many of our best dancers study temple friezes in order to derive inspiration for their choreography.

All traditional cultures and civilisations fear change (a one-word description of our disturbing encounter with modernity!). New mediums, new contexts, new technologies, will they snuff out something that has been enduring and endearing in our traditions, the great ones as well as the little ones? Aniline dyes (the pet hate of Coomaraswamy) and RCC (my pet hate) all have a tendency to destroy the specific and reinforce the boredom of global homogenisation.

Increasingly, I am coming to the conclusion that fear is a misplaced emotion. The consciousness of the robust strength of our traditions and of our ability to withstand the measured judgements of ages should give us self-confidence.

Adivasis, hunter-gatherers by tradition, who should have disappeared under the assault of agricultural and industrial progress, have amazing vitality. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya helped the âParamparik Karigarâ reconnect with contemporary audiences and today we have a Baghel from Bastar who keeps alive the glorious Indian âlost waxâ process and deals with a universal aesthetic that is not just modern or post-modern, it is timeless and immediate.

Let us not forget that Ramanand Sagar in recent times created literally a new version of the most enduring story of our land. Those who donât know should be told that Kamban and Tulsidas in their time were criticised for creating new-fangled low-brow versions of the Ramayana. They survived the criticism, and of course their works are classics today.

In infotech terms, India would be referred to as a âcontent-richâ environment. And irrespective of context or media, let us not forget that âcontent is always kingâ. We will fight global homogenisation not out of fear but simply because out of the well-springs of our collective unconscious will emerge so much locally differentiated, but universally valid, pleasing, enchanting, inspiring stories that we will supply the world of our children with more Panchatantras.

I for one fear no âmodernityâ. It can and will be an opportunity. In the volcanic ash of Pompeii, archeologists discovered ivory combs and mirrors from India. If the Indian artisan of 70 AD could compete in the global marketplace so can the Indian artist of today. Coomaraswamy was a child of the colonial-imperial experience and had to deal with the resultant fears. In large measure due to the work of pioneers like him, we can be confident without being shrill.

Where does that leave us? Constant reconnection is important. Every society needs its Jamini Roys, practitioners who reach back to roots in an unusual and positively asymmetric manner. He reminds me of T.S. Eliot who sparked off a revival of interest in the metaphysical poets who had been all but forgotten. And we are lucky, we have so many traditions to choose from, to dissect and to re-integrate as we wish. Truly, here our cultural diversity is our ultimate strength. We are like biologists who can gorge themselves on the study of multiple species. We have that in the aesthetic arena.

The nexus between sculpture, architecture and dance, building on top of Keayâs insights, possibly extending it to an artist-artisan nexus, is worth pushing the envelope on. And of course be wary of assaults. But there is no need to fear them. Confidence without shrillness will be our best tribute to Coomaraswamy.

The writer is chairman and CEO, Mphasis. Write to him at jerryrao@expressindia.com

ramana · 02-23-2005, 12:02 AM

Governor Lamm of the US worries about the future of the US. One can see similar trends wrt to India.

QUOTESubject: Road to DestructionÂ Â by Gov. Lamm

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant.

Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

 Note the destruction is a project of the internationalist US elites just like it is the project of the de-racinated Indian elite (DIE) in India

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

 Hello India anyone?

"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malyasia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: "Invent 'multi-culturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

"We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'" {Its the majority Hindu glue that holds India together.} Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."

"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were no strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- >From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'zenophobe' halt discussion and debate."

{In India the word is anti-secular and that label would tar and feather any one and stop them dead in the tracks.}

"Having made America a bilingual/ bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.'

American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

02-23-2005, 01:41 AM

Woh!!! same is happening in India as we speak. Nehru policy - "How to destroy India is working" and major contributors are commeis of India.QUOTE"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
Muslims in India and second under class will be Brahmin in India. QUOTE"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity
Pakistani and Bangladeshi

03-22-2005, 11:11 PM

Buraa jo dekhan main chalaa, buraa naa miliya koi
Jo dil khojaa aapnaa mujhse buraa naa koi - Kabir (IIRC)

xlation -

I went looking for the bad guys and I found none
When I started looking at my own heart there was none as bad as I was.

__________________________________________________________________

Can this be considered to be one of the 'values' that has been deeply ingrained into the Indian psyche ?? From the scare-quotes around values members can probably guess where I am coming from. I guess what I am trying to say is -> are we ever going to be perfect ? When is it ok to defend oneself, criticize others and say "i dont give a rats behind what i did yesterday, but you do the same thing and i have you for appetizer" ? Can it ever be India's core value ? Was it ever ? Or were we always this self-critisizing mess who just sat in the corner looking at the mirror and feeling horrible about ourselves ?

ramana · 04-05-2005, 11:16 PM

i think I have an understanding of Hegel's remarks vis a vis Indians in his landmark "Philosophy of History".

Eg. He says" It strikes every one, in beginning to form an acquaintance with the treasures of Indian literature, that a land so rich in intellectual products, and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History; and in this respect contrasts most strongly with China - an empire possessing one so remarkable, one going back to the most ancient times. India has not only ancient books relating to religion, and splendid poetical productions, but also ancient codes; the existence of which latter kind of literature has been mentioned as a condition necessary to the origination of History - and yet History itself is not found. "

By History he means a feeling of oneness a sense of belonging. However in our minds History is a narrative of kings and queens and peoples. What he alludes to is that Indians and in particular Hindus do not feel a sense of kindered spirit for their own. And in this they are so differetn despitre having many superb acievements.

I got this relaization while speaking to a visitor of mine. He is an othrodox Hindu well conversant with the rituals etc. Howeve he had no problems in supporting the arrest of the Shankarachrya. His rationale was that the civil authority would be careful of the evidence before making such a move. That the timing and the law under which the Acharya was arrested were particularly demeaning to Hindus at large were lost on him.

**acharya** · 04-06-2005, 12:41 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 5 2005, 05:46 AM) i think I have an understanding of Hegel's remarks vis a vis Indians in his landmark "Philosophy of History".
I got this relaization while speaking to a visitor of mine. He is an othrodox Hindu well conversant with the rituals etc. Howeve he had no problems in supporting the arrest of the Shankarachrya. His rationale was that the civil authority would be careful of the evidence before making such a move. That the timing and the law under which the Acharya was arrested were particularly demeaning to Hindus at large were lost on him. 
Here the modern Indian is a product of psy ops and imposed colonial behaviour pattern to obey law. Hence the behaviour of the secular Hindus is a conditioned response who has lost the sense of what is his interest in his own community and also the interest of the his own community in the nation. Hence his sense of nationalism is lost.

04-06-2005, 01:27 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 5 2005, 01:46 PM) I got this relaization while speaking to a visitor of mine. He is an othrodox Hindu well conversant with the rituals etc. Howeve he had no problems in supporting the arrest of the Shankarachrya. His rationale was that the civil authority would be careful of the evidence before making such a move. That the timing and the law under which the Acharya was arrested were particularly demeaning to Hindus at large were lost on him. 
Not at all surprised. Our own Pathama's had a same stand for months.

04-06-2005, 03:28 AM

QUOTENot at all surprised. Our own Pathama's had a same stand for months. 
Pathama is neither Indian nor Indian origin.

04-07-2005, 07:36 AM

Please ignore his rants against an oral tradition. Consider the question, is India mainly oral tradition ?

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050407/asp/...ory_4519797.asp

QUOTE SPEAKING AND WRITING
- The Indian attitude is that of an oral, not a written, culture
AndrÃ BÃteille
The author is chancellor, North-eastern Hill University

Indians are much more at ease with the spoken than with the written word. They speak eloquently and with evident pleasure, but their writing is often hasty and careless. It is of course true that vast numbers of Indians lack the capacity to use the written word altogether. But there are many others who do have that capacity, and my purpose here is to draw attention to the ways in which they use and misuse it. The most common way of misusing it is to write at excessive and unnecessary length.

I am aware that there are first-rate poets, playwrights and novelists in several Indian languages who write clearly and elegantly, and even economically. But I am not concerned here with individual talent. My concern is with attitudes to writing common among those who have to use the written word in the course of their ordinary work, such as scholars, journalists, civil servants and even judges. Here there is remarkable laxity not only in the way things get written but also in allowing them to get into print. Reading and writing were known in India well before they were known in the West, yet our basic attitudes are those of an oral rather than a written culture.

Indians excel with the spoken word. Anyone who belongs to that large and ill-defined category known as public intellectuals in India can speak at any length and on almost any subject. Not only that: he can speak without reference to any notes and often without much application of the mind. Western academics are often struck by the fact that their Indian counterparts can speak fluently and effortlessly, if not always faultlessly, without consulting notes.

I may illustrate the contrast from my experience of two lectures that I gave at two premier universities, each of which was chaired by the vice-chancellor of the university concerned. The first lecture was at the University of Cambridge, where the vice-chancellor was a distinguished medical scientist. He introduced me briefly and, after I had concluded, also thanked me briefly. As we were walking out, he told me that he had greatly enjoyed my lecture. When I remonstrated that he was merely being polite, he quietly took out the notes he had made during the lecture which ran into three pages: he had come to the lecture to listen rather than to speak.

At the other lecture in the Indian university, the vice-chancellor arrived 35 minutes late while the speaker and the audience waited. Having arrived late, he embarked on a lengthy and eloquent speech on the challenges facing the country and the need for teachers and students to rise up to them. By the time he sat down and I began my lecture, on whose preparation I had spent more than a month, it became evident that he and most of the audience had lost interest in it. As to taking notes, here no self-respecting vice-chancellor takes notes at a lecture given by a mere professor.

Indian academics like to say that the defects of academic prose in India are due to the use of a foreign language. This is only a small part of the story. The more important part is the lack of patience and care in the writing. If Indians find it a struggle to write in English, why do they write at such immoderate length? The problem is not lack of facility with the language but lack of measure and discipline which escapes notice more easily in speech than in writing. The same lack of measure and discipline, and the same excessive length may be found in our judicial as in our academic prose. Commenting on the inordinate length of our Supreme Court judgments, Nani Palkhivala had once observed that they give clear evidence of the Indian preoccupation with eternity and infinity.

Indians of standing do not like being interrupted while they are talking, but they do not seem to mind when what they have written is revised or even rewritten. Sham Lal, under whose tutelage I began writing for the newspapers, would tell me about his tribulations with academic writers. He took pains to offer the columns of the editorial pages of The Times of India to distinguished academics. But what they sent him was often carelessly and badly written. When he revised and sometimes rewrote their pieces, they rarely objected; perhaps they did not notice.

A senior colleague once sent me an advance copy of a book review. Since the author of the book had been his teacher as well as mine, he wanted to make sure that the review would not cause offence. What struck me about the review was not that it was critical but that it was 27 pages in length. When I pointed out that it was far too long to fit into the Sunday newspaper for which it was written, he agreed and added genially that the editors would reduce it to the required length. It is not simply that I knew that the review was far too long; he also knew it.

A great English historian wrote that reading and writing are solitary pursuits while talking is a way of being gregarious. The Indian is gregarious by nature. He finds it hard to be solitary unless he is a sanyasi or a poet. From childhood he grows up in the company of others: relatives of many different kinds, friends and neighbours. He is discouraged from being by himself, and made to believe that being by oneself is a way of being selfish and arrogant. In adult life, if he achieves any standing at all, he is continuously surrounded by others. As he grows in stature, his visitors grow in number and variety.

During my long period of service in the University of Delhi, I often wondered how vice-chancellors, deans and principals ever found time to think, since they were constantly surrounded by people. Though my experience of professional life in the West is limited, it is difficult not to notice the contrast. It is not that professionals there do not have to spend time in meetings or do not enjoy committee work, but they are also mindful of the time they need to be by themselves. Successful Indian academics complain endlessly of the time they have to spend on meetings and committees, but their complaints need not be taken seriously. They relish nothing more than being surrounded by people before whom they can hold forth; what they cannot bear is being by themselves.

Being able to write clearly and well is not just a matter of intelligence or even facility with language. Above all, it requires patience and care, and emotional investment of a certain kind. Where so much is invested in being gregarious, the concentration of effort required for serious writing naturally suffers. Obviously, there are individuals who are masters of both the spoken and the written word. Such individuals are outstanding, and are therefore not confined by their circumstances but are able to rise above them. That apart, there appear to be marked differences of general orientation between cultures. Some cultures tolerate careless, disjointed and vacuous writing while others discourage it.

04-22-2005, 05:15 AM

Many Indians detest Nirad C. Chaudhuri or are at least ambivalent towards him regarding him as a "brown sahib". However his book "Hinduism - A religion to live by" (coincidentally, I bought this book on the very day of his death - sometime in 1998 I think) is thought provoking. Note that Sir Chaudhuri accepted some form of Aryan invasion/migration theory and moreover seemed to believe that there is a strong possibility that devotionalism in India is the result of Christian influence. However one can ask if he would have modified his views had he been living today. I quote some material from the book that I think is relevant to this thread and which may perhaps throw some light why Indians are reluctant to assert their identity - a question that is implicit in many of the posts made by esteemed members.

QUOTEHindu religious sentiment never [took the line of development that christianity did], but remained true to the original motivation of spirituality, which was to become free of all restraints imposed on man by nature. Thus Hindu spirituality is a pursuit not of beatitude, but of power. It has to be pointed out that in Sanskrit there is no word for spirituality, nor was there any in any modern Indian language until the notion was introduced through the english language. Then with a grotesque and illogical disregard of its original meaning, a sanskrit word (adhyatmik = concerning the self) was made the equivalent of "spiritual" in English.

This has never been understood by occidental writers who have dealt with Hindu spirituality. I might illustrate this failure by referring to the famous story of Kipling, that of saint Purun Bhagat. The story was based on fact. In it the Prime minister of an Indian princely state, with an outstanding record of public service, becomes a hermit and devotes himself to religious meditation in the himalayas, living only on the food brought to him by the people of a nearby village. One night he is awakened by the tremors of a landslide and rushing out as a man of action saves the villagers. On this Kipling's comment was: 'He was no longer the holy man, but sir Purun Dass, K.C.I.E., Prime minister of no small state, a man accustomed to command, going out to save life.'

This was all wrong, for in Hinduism the distinction does not exist. In it the minister and the man of action Purun Dass, and the saint Purun Bhagat are the same man in two characters and roles, complementary to each other. In the ultimate analysis, Hindu spirituality is interwoven with the cosmos. It is the old guard of the world, always held in reserve to be launched into action when a serious crisis arises which cannot be met with any mode of rational action open to man. Or to vary the metaphor, in his spiritual activities the Hindu is like the dynamo which generates electricity, and in his wordly life the motor which expends it. Hindu spirituality and Hindu phenomenal existence are inseperable. They stand together.


He further goes on to say that there do exist observable features of Hindu spirituality of a different quality that can mainly be attributed to the influence of bhakti (which he believes was influenced by Christianity) and the worship of Krishna - and that these tendencies have been reinforced by Christianity and also by the impact of Islam. He goes on to say about the Bhagwad Gita:
QUOTE[Two new elements] of the Gita were not part of established Hindu traditions. The first of these was the doctrine of disinterested action, or niskama karma. According to it a man could remain in the world and do everything he had to do in it without any sacrifice of his religious aspirations. Indeed no renunciation was expected from him. But the condition was that he must not expect to profit from his wordly actions and efforts This is emphasised again and again in a couplet that has become a proverb among the Hindus [For those who understand Sanskrit]:

Karmany eva dhikaras te
ma phalesu kadakana


Thou art entitled to work
But never to its result.

Now such a doctrine is opposed to the natural inclinations of the human mind, and even more opposed to the inclinations of the Hindu mind, for a Hindu does not even worship his Gods without the motive of gain. None the less it appealed to the choice spirits among the Hindus as Stoicism appealed to the Greeks and Romans. In fact in India the attraction was greater for reflective minds.

....

[The] second new thing that the Gita offered was infinitely higher, something that was not merely an armour but an adequate and positive prop of life, a great love. And the object of this love was to be a God who would never disappoint the devotee who loved him. This God was totally different from any God the Hindus had known before.
...
But in assessing [this part of the Gita] it must not be forgotten that it was neither a dogmatic nor a philosophical treatise, but a work of devotional poetry. It follows from this that the grandeur of its message cannot be felt fully unless it is read in the original, whereby all the combined power of its diction, sound and rhythm, all of which transmit an intense passion, even an unbeliever is swept off his feet.


Then from the next chapter titled "Gain from religion", he says:
QUOTEThe two most powerful human desires are for power and protection [security], the first being dominant in those whose vitality is above average and the second in those in whom it is not sufficient for the trials which they have to pass.
...
Naturally the two urges cannot be wholly separated even in one individual, but by and large those who want power and those who look for protection can be found to form distinguishable groups in society.
...
The professionals in Hindu religious life, that is to say, those who left the world to devote themselves to religion, were ready to concede that a majority would remain satisfied with protection and peace, but they had a certain condescension for this aspiration, and considered power to be the higher end.
One day this was brought home to me in a casual, but therefore all the more significant way. I was listening to a conversation between an eminent barrister of Calcutta who was also a well known political leader, and a learned professor of Sanskrit who belonged to the Guru clan of the barrister. The barrister suddenly looked up and appeared to be meditative. Then he remarked as if to himself: "There is peace in religion". The pundit who had a blazing vermillion mark on his forehead, replied with a smile which seemed to be compassionate, though he was the younger man: "Also power.". The barrister had completed his education in England, the pundit was the product of traditional Hindu learning.


Now in my opinion, these two aspects of the Hindu character are not mutually exclusive as they might seem. Over the ages have not all the sages said that "the other" cannot be willed, invited or attained by desire. In that sense the doctrine of disinterested action is a continuation of this idea. It says perform your duties but don't get carried away in the act of performing them for that will only diminish you. By asserting an identity you only narrow yourself so be grounded - that gives you the energy and power to do whatever is required. Thus ironically all of Hinduism tells us that the power exists but you can never attain it by desiring it, the ultimate contradiction - To have power you must renounce power.

This said, what are the immediate manifest reasons why Hindus are reluctant to assert their identity? I would say, depending on the individual, one or more of the following:
1. Hindus feel they would narrow themselves by asserting an identity.
2. Fear of getting hurt if they assert their identity.
3. Fear of getting carried away by an identity.
4. No awareness of the power inherent in Hinduism - so why assert anything?

The last of these reasons cant be underestimated and is probably the most debilitating in its effect. If you dont even know or are unsure of what you have, how do you assert it? But the very fact that this thread exists means there is something - and if one has doubts it behooves one to find out and clear them. If I am unsure about whether there is any real power left in Hinduism then I need to take the risks neccessary to remove any doubts - one way or the other - to dirty my hands and not be afraid of experience so to speak, and the exact actions that need to be taken are, I think, clear to each one of us. After that assertion will be but a minor issue.

A final quote from Sir Chaudhury which may surprise some of us:
QUOTEHistorically, the great achievement of Hindu religion is that it has enabled Hindu society and culture to survive through vicissitudes which have destroyed other cultures contemporaneous with it.
In addition the religion has created what must be regarded as the true nationalism of the country. It is this which gives appropriateness to the name of Hinduism, which foreigners have given to the religion of the Indo-Aryans, for whom their religion was nameless. The word Hindu was only a geographical term, employed by the Persians to designate the inhabitants of the country which is known to the outside world as India. And the words 'India' and 'Indian' are only Greek and Latin adaptations from the persian word. But since the inhabitants could never in any aspect of their life be separated from their religion the word Hindu became religious, and the national identity became the same as adherence to a religion. The fusion is the only real guarantee behind the national identity of Indians. If Hinduism disappears at any time, the inhabitants of India will, unless they acquire identities from other religions like Islam or Christianity, cease to have any distinctive identity.


Regards,
Sandeep.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?