<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â ----- Original Message -----
 From: Krishnan R
 To: sandhya206@
 Subject: Some facts regarding your Open letter to the Acharyas
 Dear Ms Jain,
 I have long been an admirer of your courageous and hard-hitting articles that tackle issues of oppression and persecution of Hindus in India and abroad. However recently, I have noticed a unfortunate tendency on your part to come out with half-baked and ill-researched articles, and that deeply worries me.
 A basic tenet of journalism (made clear in the breach by your "secular" colleagues) is that one researches one's facts thoroughly, gets to the level of specific detail, reaches out to sources that can speak with insight and authority, cross-checks these statements with other sources and THEN goes public. Not to do this amounts to an unprofessional laziness bordering on dishonesty. Even if some sources (as you allege) are bafflingly slow or fail to respond to one's queries, using the power of the press to jump the gun and denigrate and defame them so as to retaliate for one's frustrations is just plain wrong. Perhaps there is more in common between you and India's "secular" journalist elites than you care to admit.
 Your scurrilous and ill-informed screed about the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha has been making the rounds of the internet and I as a Hindu, who has been long followed the Acharyas' work, cannot but respond. While I know & revere many of the Mahatmas you impugn, I speak only for myself as a Hindu.
 One of the key ways in which you sow misinformation and confusion among Hindus is by alleging that Swami Dayananda Saraswati and the great traditional Acharyas, Mathadhipathis and Mandaleshwars who constitute the Acharya Sabha are somehow softening up Hindus for Christian conversion and proselytization. Note that you do not present any actual evidence for this, but what riles you is simply the fact that the Acharya Sabha has entered into inter-faith dialog with various groups including the Vatican and the Jewish Rabbinate. You then pick up a word here and a term ("eastern religions") there and allege that a deep conspiracy is at work. You also use guilt by association (another common tactic of anti-Hindu forces).Â
 Your attack is wildly meandering and all over the place, all the better perhaps to sow misinformation. In this letter I will address only a few topics- with facts, rather than speculation. If you show an honest willingness to accept your errors of fact and judgement, I would love to continue a debate with you on other issues you raise.
 Shamefully, you have chosen to broadcast rumor and innuendo, and your own admittedly unconfirmed notions, about one of the greatest traditional Hindu teachers living today, who has worked most his life -of some 78 years- to uphold the uniqueness of Hindu Dharma and to protect so many of the downtrodden from being preyed on by proselytizers.
 Note that the Acharya, Sri Dayananda Saraswati,  about whom you seek to sow doubt and confusion is one of the few remaining who has immersed himself in studying and teaching the Shastra- for almost 60 years now. And until he recently became a more public figure, he has been quietly re-generating the rigorous and scholarly tradition at the heart of our Dharma by creating well-grounded teachers and scholars like himself- fulfilling his duty to the parampara. Many who know him realize that he is that rarest of persons-a Jnani, a Jiavan-Mukta. But he does not claim any special divine dispensation, nor teaches a path "beyond religions" as some self-proclaimed sages do, but instead upholds the Hindu tradition that the Veda and the parampara combined with antahkarana Shuddi- are the means of liberation.  Consequently he teaches with deep commitment to and insight into the sampradaya (rather than his own clever ideas) and has been changing lives and transforming individuals by bringing them to the Shastra and to a Dharmic/Hindu life.  It is unconscionable, that without proper inquiry, you defame as a sell-out, a scholar whose clear mind and deep honesty have to generations of students and audiences, repeatedly shown -openly and fearlessly- HOW all religions are NOT "the same", and do NOT lead to the same goal; and that to confuse Paradise-promoting, and Salvation-promoting theologies with the Sampradayas that deal with Moksa, -freedom here and now -is the greatest self-betrayal possible for anyone.
 BTW, under his guidance, co-ordination and hard work, numerous schools, hostels and hospitals and even a college or two serve the downtrodden in most states of India- again done very quietly without any drumbeat of publicity. (this is a huge topic that we can cover later, if possible). You provide none of this background, and so deny your readers any knowledge of the kind of Hindu you wish to defame and tear down.
 Due to his total devotion to the Veda, and his willingness to work, and his compassion for all Hindus, he became moving force behind bringing together so many variegated Hindu Sampradayas, (across all Varnas and jatis) into a body called the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha (HDAS). This is a historical achievement in itself - that Vaishnavas, Saktas, Shaivas, Lingayats, Smarthas and numerous other sampradayas have gotten together to acknowledge what is common to them, and to begin thinking and discussing togther about the threats and challenges we all face. To attack this organization thru innuendo and half-truths (which I will demonstrate you have done) is malicious and harmful to all Hindus.
 ? Fact: Sri Dayananda Saraswati is one of the few living Acharyas who has fearlessly, publically and actively opposed proselytization of Hindus for several decades. I am certain that many Hindu Acharyas, who are not as vocal as he is, also do so in their hearts, and that is why- in addition to respecting his learning- they have welcomed him.
  A key role that a teacher, an Acharya, plays is to give us the theoretical constructs that will inform our thinking and make us morally strong and bring us closer to the clarity of the Veda. How many Acharyas can you name, of his eminence, who have clearly and publically framed conversion of Hindus as Violence,? His thesis is that it does psychological violence to the core person, and helped many passive Hindus understand how proselytization's root is religious intolerance and bigotry, and its fruit the destruction of India's (and the world's) tightly-knit families and communities, leading to artificial conflicts and actual, physical violence? His famous pamphlets "Conversion is Violence" or "Violence to Hindu Heritage" used to be handed out to the audiences at his public talks for years and years. This book has opened the eyes of hundreds or perhaps thousands of neutralized Hindus. Perhaps you should read it. A brief excerpt from the booklet is available here: http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
 BTW, since you are such a fan of open letters, perhaps you should read Swami Dayananda's open letter in 1999, to the late John Paul admonishing him for his ugly Christian Supremacist statements about his Church's coming religious and cultural conquest of Asia. Yes, he tries to reason with the Pope, treating him as an equal, capable of treating others with dignity and understanding. You may find this futile, but your readers may see the profoundly ethical stand of this Hindu Acharya made clear:
 "Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others."
  http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
 You may find it strange that Swami Dayananda can respect Christians and Muslims as religious people, while forthrightly condemning and fighting Christian and Muslim Supremacist ideas and agendas, but I do not. That he advocates mutual respect between religions is in fact an admonishment to those religions that seek to destroy others, but is also based on the Vedic understanding that the Lord can be worshipped in many ways (quite different from saying all religions are valid all the way).  As a Sadhu who reveres and lives the Bhagavad Geeta, Pujya Swamiji is truly "adhvesta sarva bhutanam", but also heeds Isvara's call to duty in defense of Dharma and combating adharma.Â
 ? Fact: In his 70th decade, Sri Dayananda Saraswati, ill in body, but strong in spirit, went around the country for one whole year, waiting on the great Acharyas and traditional Mathadhpathis- in their ashrams and persuading them, one by one to come together, to meet in defense of Hinduism, funding the great meet out of his small purse gathered from his followers and well-wishers. This fragile beginning is a ray of hope- instead of wringing their hands about the lack of Hindu unity, the Acharyas have at least tried to achieve some unity of purpose.Â
 Their role has to be to think, debate and provide wise direction on a multiplicity of issues- and we, the Hindu Grihastas need to broadcast their unified voice and make it count in our society and our nation. Right now all they have from most of us is a convenient reverence- none of us has followed through to help our traditional acharyas, get their work off the ground. Anything achieved thus far has occurred because a handful of them have striven, not because Hindus like you and I have served them.Â
 The issues the Acharyas have debated are many, and many are of great importance to Hindus. Almost all have to do with protecting the rights of Hindus, including the poorest. We grihastas, we regular Hindus who work and earn and vote and have families and columns in newspapers have to further the Acharya's agenda - but what have India's journalists done to bring the Acharya Sabha's concerns to the public? If the work of the Acharya Sabha has not taken India's heart by storm, it is not these revered Sadhus who are to blame but we, the Hindu grihastas.Â
 Ms Jain, You seem to want them to adopt you agenda wholesale or go away. If they do not toe your line and embrace your priorities, you seem willing to destroy their fragile effort even before most Hindus have internalized that there is this ray of hope, and have mobilized to help their Acharyas.
  We need to ask ourselves, how can we help our Acharyas- that's how a Hindu (Indian or foreign) is supposed to think. You want to westernize us, by making us ask only- what have they done for us lately?
 While their role is chiefly to guide, they have also had to act.
  ?Fact: Just one instance of the HDAS acting for us Grihastas: when the crypto-Christian Supremacist state Government of Andhra Pradesh threatened to take away the Seven Hills of the Tirupati Temple, the Acharyas, including the Pejawar Math Swamigal, the Lingayat Pontiff, and Swami Dayananda (and not grandstanders like you) called a public meeting to protest. Here their firm but quietly worded resolution caused the government to back off substantially. See the Tirupati Declaration.
 www.hindu.com/2006/07/17/stories/2006071709040300.htm
 and
 rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2006/08/tirupati-declaration-by-swamis.html
 ?Fact: Seeing that other indigenous peoples around the world have been preyed upon by the aggressive religions of Christianity and Islam, Swami Dayananda convened the world congress of Religious Diversity in New Delhi. Only the aggressive, proselytizing and supremacist religions were not invited. Oppressed peoples from all over the world- Native American Shamans, Zorastrians, traditional Yoruba and other African priests, Buddhist lamas, Shinto practioners, Confucian sages and Jewish Rabbis all gathered together to state their opposition to proselytization and conversion. Their presence, and their stories, made it clear that the fight against religious aggression and missionary predation was an international Human Rights issue, not something to do with "some Right-wing Hindus". http://www.swamij.com/religious-diversity-2001.htm
  Have you, Ms Jain, ever used your bully pulpit to make the embattled Hindus and Indians aware of this remarkable gathering? or its significance in geo-strategic and moral terms for furthering the fundamental human right to follow one's own religion or tradition without aggression, denigration and intervention? Perhaps you were even then too busy sowing dissension and division among Hindus (grandly "excommunicating"the Hindu diaspora for instance) and embellishing your own reputation as a lone crusader to notice?
 ? Fact: There is nothing in the discussions or in the resolution of the 2 Hindu-Jewish summits that discredits or disparages Hinduism. (I reproduce them below so your readers can see how you have misled them).
 Judaism like Hinduism is a non-proselytizing religious tradition, and like the Hindus, Jews have suffered enormous persecution at the hands of Christian and Islamic aggression and supremacist agendas. Yes, the grand tradition of Judaism does have some irrational and harmful prejudices like its abomination of "idol-worship", but there is no history of Jews persecuting Hindus for their religious practices, nor of Jews trying to convert us. True, the World Council of Religious Leaders, headed by a Hindu-Jain (one of those you have grandly ex-communicated for- gasp!-leaving India's shores) named Bawa Jain approached the Acharya Sabha with the idea of a Hindu-Jewish Summit. True, Swami Dayananda had already been in touch with Jewish Rabbis over the preservation of religious diversity and the idea found immediate resonance in him, and many traditional Acharyas also seconded the idea and agreed to the meeting.
 The First Hindu-Jewish Summit In Delhi (2007) was attended by many eminent traditional Acharyas from India, and even other Sadhus who are not heads of the Traditional Mathas, and Rabbis from Israel and around the world. Far from being offensive or harmful to Hindus are many vital things the declaration affirms, including the sacredness of India's Land to Hinduism, and our rootedness in it (and acknowledging a similar Jewish idea about Israel) (resolution no.2). Proselytization, a common enemy born in the supremacist beliefs of Christianity and Islam is directly condemned as being a violation. (no.4). Your readers can judge (without your poisonous spin) whether the One Supreme Being referred to in No.1 is in keeping with the Hindu Shastras and Sampradayas (no Vaishnava, Shaiva, Sakta or Smartha scholar or practioner that I have spoken to finds it objectionable, but perhaps in your exclusive self-created sampradaya it is). Vitally, the horrendous suffering and sustained religious persecution that Hindus have been subjected to by the aggressive Monotheistic religions is acknowledged in the same breath as the prolonged Jewish suffering. This is a meeting of two kindred peoples, Ms. Jain and we lose nothing of our uniqueness by acknowledging our kinship.
 Exhibit I:
 In the Declaration of The First Hindu-Jewish Summit,The participants affirmed that:
  1.. Their respective Traditions teach that there is One Supreme Being who is the Ultimate Reality, who has created this world in its blessed diversity and who has communicated Divine ways of action for humanity, for different peoples in different times and places.
  2.. The religious identities of both Jewish and Hindu communities are related to components of Faith, Scripture, Peoplehood, Culture, Land and Language.
  3.. Hindus and Jews seek to maintain their respective heritage and pass it on to the succeeding generations, while living in respectful relations with other communities.
  4.. Neither seeks to proselytize, nor undermine or replace in any way the religious identities of other faith communities. They expect other communities to respect their religious identities and commitments, and condemn all activities that go against the sanctity of this mutual respect.
  5.. Both the Hindu and Jewish Traditions affirm the sanctity of life and aspire for a society in which all live in peace and harmony with one another. Accordingly they condemn all acts of violence in the name of any religion or against any religion.
  6.. The Jewish and Hindu communities are committed to the ancient traditions of Judaism and Hindu dharma respectively, and have both, in their own ways, gone through the painful experiences of persecution, oppression and destruction. Therefore, they realize the need to educate the present and succeeding generations about their past, in order that they will make right efforts to promote religious harmony.
  7.. The representatives of the two faith communities recognize the need for understanding one another in terms of lifestyles, philosophy, religious symbols, culture, etc. They also recognize that they have to make themselves understood by other faith communities. They hope that through their bilateral initiatives, these needs would be met.
  8.. Because both traditions affirm the central importance of social responsibility for their societies and for the collective good of humanity, the participants pledged themselves to work together to help address the challenges of poverty, sickness and inequitable distribution of resources.
  9.. The representatives of the two faith communities also agree to constitute a Standing Committee on Hindu-Jewish Relations.
 What about the Second Hindu-Jewish Summit, which you claim was "scandalous"? In your fevered fantasies you accuse the Hindu Acharyas of having "tacitly agree[d] that idol-worship is an abomination". You call this the Acharya's "assault upon the glorious tradition of murti-puja and all rituals and prayers associated with it". Again Ms Jain, you twist facts to such an extent that you lie, you mislead, and then you arrogate to yourself the role of an interrogator asking for "personal explanation" from the very human-beings you victimize. One expects this from Stalinists and fascists, but not from a self proclaimed "Hindu".
 The declarations from the 2nd Hindu-Jewish Summit are appended below
 What does the "scandalous" resolution say?Â
 "It is recognized that the One Supreme Being in its formless [nirguna] and manifest [saguna] aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over the Millenia. This does not mean that Hindus worship 'gods' and 'idols'. The Hindu relates only to the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation"[My insertions for clarity]
 It is prefaced by resolution no.1 which talks about the One Supreme Being who is worshipped by both Jews and Hindus, avoids giving a gender to this being (surely in deference to Hindu practice), and sets the context of striving for deeper mutual understanding before bringing up resolution 2 above.
 Ms Jain, where is the "assault upon the glorious tradition of murti-puja and all rituals and prayers associated with it"? Where indeed is even a deviation from what Vaidhikas, Advaitins, Vaishnavas, Shaivas and even Shaktas believe and accept? I am sorry Ms Jain, but there are Hindu Sampradayas (such as the Arya Samaj, the non-murti Pujak Jains, the avowedly non-Hindu Sikhs) who have an unfortunate history of condemning Murti Puja, but that did not happen here.
 This declaration has its roots in a train of discussion that was begun in the First conference. Because one cannot have a meaningful friendship with the Jews if they carry in their hearts an ill-informed prejudice about us, the Acharyas brought it up and continued the discussion over the 2 meets. http://frfnet.org/1st-Hindu-Jewish%20Summi...eport-Final.pdf There, after a detailed discussion of how Iswara is manifest as the universe, so all things that have form also have the presence of God, and can be worshipped as God, Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati of Gujarat says that even in Murti puja " God is not confined to a particularity, but the form is an aid to worshipping the one who pervades all names and forms. The devotee is asked to see God as all names and forms, and ultimately transcend forms and sees him as the self. Therefore we urge you to study fundamental Hinduism and see that it is very inclusive of everything. This being the case, we can develop respectfully. We don't need to tolerate anyone. We need to respect them. Gandhi said to missionaries, 'Hindus are capable of achieving the goals through their religions, and do not need other religions'." (p37)
 This "Transcending of all forms" or Murt Puja as a step in a larger journey, is a very traditional Hindu view in the Shastras, and in Advaita and other allied Sampradayas (but hotly debated by yet other sampradayas). This is NOT diluting or dressing up Hinduism for out Jewish hosts- it is an honest statement of a traditional Hindu teacher. And unless you are arguing for curtailing the freedom of speech of such Acharyas, to render them politically correct, you have no case.
 Knowing the bloody history of those who have brutally attacked us, simply for following our Hindu way of worship, by labeling us "idolaters" Swami Viditatmananda said earlier:
 "The world is not apart from God. Therefore, we seek a sympathetic
 understanding on the part of other religious leaders to not dismiss us as idolaters."(p36)
 Perhaps the mild tone of this is irksome to you. Tough. You do not control how other Hindus express themselves. Clearly, he is asking for mutual respect, not "toleration" from the Jewish Rabbis. How did our Jewish leaders react? Rabbi Rosen in his response backs away completely from calling the Hindu saguna worship "idolatry". Instead he says the core Jewish injunction is against immorality in religion, and this is what is called idolatry:
 "Idolatry, when it is used in the Hebrew Bible is not just referring to a theoretical abstraction; it is referring to particular way of life of immoral conduct. In other words, that denial of the transcendent reality is denied in the individual, which sanctions all kinds of abominations with the norms that the Bible records with the norms when the children of Israel came into the Holy Land. Therefore, the great 14th century sage, Rabbi Menachem, affirmed that community which adheres to moral principles of ethical conduct is by definition not idolatrous." (p37)
 In a different place, Rabbi Rosen poignantly hopes that contact with Hindu elders will make Jewish Rabbis do some soul-searching: "Our understanding of idolatry has to undergo a transformation." (p.40)
 Clearly Rabbi Rosen does not "get it" with regard to the coeval reality of Saguna vis a vis the manifest world - he calls it "a theoretical abstraction". This needs to be worked on. But his responses seem sincere and respectful of the Hindu viewpoint. That is what dialog- especially with an unfamiliar but sympathetic interlocutor- is all about.
 I see nothing here that calls for a personal explanation by any of our great Acharyas, drunk with power and a sense of desperation though you may be. I sympathize that your role is often a lonely one- you do stick your neck out, and you need our support. But attacking and denigrating those who have contributed immensely more than you have to the Hindu cause is not they way- at least, it is NOT the Hindu way. The saddest part is that by simply searching the web, you could have gotten specifics on the issues I have outlined, and just by doing your job as a journalist you could have followed up by simply travelling to the Ashrams or the meetings and interviewing some of the key people.
   I apologize for any offence caused inadvertently, but the challenges to the world-wide Hindu community too grim to permit the luxury of idle dissension and malicious misinformation.
 Greetings,
 Krishnan Ramaswamy
 Exhibit II: Second Hindu-Jewish Declaration :Jerusalem
 1. In keeping with the Delhi declaration, the participants reaffirmed their commitment to deepening this bilateral relationship predicated on the recognition of One Supreme Being, Creator and Guide of the Cosmos; shared values; and similar historical experiences. The parties are committed to learning about one another on the basis of respect for the
 particular identities of their respective communities and seeking, through their bilateral relationship, to be a blessing to all.
 2. It is recognized that the One Supreme Being, both in its formless and manifest aspects, has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. This does not mean that Hindus worship 'gods' and idols'. The Hindu relates to only the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation.
 3. Central to the Jewish and Hindu world view is the concept of the sanctity of life, above all the human person. Accordingly, the participants categorically reject violent methods to achieve particular goals. In this spirit, the participants expressed the hope that all disputes be resolved through dialogue, negotiation and compromise promoting peace, reconciliation and harmony.
 4. As the two oldest religious traditions of the world, the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and the Jewish religious leadership may consider jointly appealing to various religious organizations in the world to recognize that all religions are sacred and valid for their respective peoples. We believe that there is no inherent right embedded in any religion to denigrate or interfere with any other religion or with its practitioners. Acceptance of this
 proposition will reduce inter-religious violence, increase harmony among different peoples.
 5. The participants expressed the hope that the profound wellsprings of spirituality in their respective traditions will serve their communities to constructively address the challenges of modernity, so that contemporary innovation may serve the highest ideals of their respective religious traditions.
 6. In the interests of promoting the correct understanding of Judaism, Hinduism and their histories, it was agreed that text books and reference material may be prepared in consultation with the scholars' group under the aegis of this Summit.
 7. Svastika is an ancient and greatly auspicious symbol of the Hindu tradition. It is inscribed on Hindu temples, ritual altars, entrances, and even account books. A distorted version of this sacred symbol was misappropriated by the Third Reich in Germany, and abused as
 an emblem under which heinous crimes were perpetrated against humanity, particularly the Jewish people. The participants recognize that this symbol is, and has been sacred to Hindus for millennia, long before its misappropriation.
 8. Since there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory of an Aryan
 invasion/migration into India, and on the contrary, there is compelling evidence to refute it; and since the theory seriously damages the integrity of the Hindu tradition and its connection to India; we call for a serious reconsideration of this theory, and a revision of all educational material on this issue that includes the most recent and reliable scholarship.
 9. The bilateral group of scholars may engage in further elaboration of the foregoing affirmations, exchange material to enhance mutual understanding, clarify the positions of the Hindu and Jewish traditions regarding contemporary challenges in science and society, and identify programs of action for the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Sandhya Jain
Dear Krishnan ji
Namaste, and thank you for writing to clear your anxieties about some of my views.
r   As I do not know you and you are writing directly to me, and your email identity (krinfinity@) suggests you are part of the Infinity Foundation, I am assuming that you are writing in defence of its founder, Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who was intimately associated with the Hindu-Jewish Summitry to which I made strenuous (but private) objections some years ago.
r   Your valiant defence to some Acharyas is not the core of my objection to Inter-Faith dialogue and multi-religious spiritual fairs. Assuming however, that there may be some confusion in the minds of other Hindu brethren also - I take this opportunity to clarify my position as completely as possible.
r   You have kindly suggested that I could have searched the Internet for any information desired or talked to certain gurus. My contention is that dialogue was resented and resisted (and I will not in public go into the unseemly manner in which this was done by Acharyas who did not wish to face questions from Hindu bhaktas). As for the Internet, it is my contention that a Hindu bhakta should be able to get information regarding Inter-faith dialogue in India itself, in a transparent manner! That this was resented and resisted is both odd and suspicious.
I will now come to specifics:
r   For some years I have been working on a study of religious conversions in Tripura, a state selected because of conversions are at the point of the gun and because a prominent Swami was murdered on account of his fame and following among tribal and non-tribal people alike.
r   Inter alia, I studied the missionary defence of conversions, and was horrified to discover that unknown to many of us who are fighting evangelism at the intellectual level, the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha had in May 2006 sent representatives to attend an inter-religious meeting at Lariano, Italy, hosted by the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Vatican City, and the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, on Conversion: Assessing the Reality.
r   The declaration signed at this meeting featured prominently in the website of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, but the Hindu representatives were not identified. All questions have failed to elicit answers, which should be difficult if the concerned superiors are convinced of their bona fides.
r   Some of my specific objections to the Vatican meeting are:-
1] It specifically endorses "the freedom to embrace another faith out of one's own free choice." In my understanding of Hindu Dharma, the family and not the individual is the smallest unit of the social organism, and this cannot be ripped apart by giving individuals the right to be brain-washed or bribed by an evangelist and leave the religion and culture to which he or she was born. This is the basic tenet of all native traditions in the world, and by agreeing that individuals can be weaned away from non-monotheistic faiths, the Hindu leaders SECRETLY signing this declaration were violating the tenets of the faith. The failure to respond to this charge is a self-indictment.
2] I also questioned the need to sign any document at all in any gathering without a wider discussion of the same in the home country. If the Vatican document had been shown to any major Shankaracharya or Mathadhipathi, or concerned Hindu citizenry, it would NEVER have been signed. It could only be signed because it was kept a closely guarded secret, and the names of the signatories are still secret.
3] The Vatican document further agrees that freedom of religion includes freedom to propagate one's faith to "other faiths" also. What more could missionaries ask for? Is this not making a mockery of the Acharya Sabha's claims to represent, protect, and defend Dharma?
4] The document further accepts that EVERY faith has perpetrated injustice in history, and must introspect and repent for the same. Will Acharya Sabha like to openly tell the Hindus of India what these historical sins have been vis-Ã -vis other faith traditions, particularly the ones that have perpetrated murder and mayhem upon our people and revered Swamis, who are even now being murdered for upholding dharma in the rural un-policed areas of the country?
5] All talk of mutual respect becomes hollow rhetoric in the light of these hideous concessions, which not only make the job of missionaries that much easier, but worse, assault Hindu Dharma by manipulating its very nature.
6] Will Acharya Sabha tell the Hindus of India what are "ethical conversions" so that we know if our children and brothers were converted ethically or unethically?
7] Does signing this document mean that the Acharya Sabha does NOT support the passing of Anti-Conversion legislations in Indian states, and that it would be opposed to such a legislation at the national level, which is a demand of Hindus all over the country? The question cannot be avoided and deserves an answer - not obfuscation, which is all we have got so far.
8] Finally, will the Acharya Sabha tell us what steps it has taken to evolve the "code of conduct" on conversion, which it agreed to at the Vatican? Can we humble Hindus of India ask to at least see this grand code, or is it one of the secret clauses of the Treaty of Versailles?
r   In view of over Two Years of Secrecy and sullen silence on this issue - during which I have not made my discomfort public -you will agree that I have not defamed anyone.
You have said that I am alleging that Swami Dayananda Saraswati and the Acharyas who constitute the Acharya Sabha "are somehow softening up Hindus for Christian conversion and proselytization." I think the points raised above about the Vatican meeting should answer all your contentions in this regard.
This brings me back to where we started - the very purpose and motivation for Inter-faith Dialogue; that is to say, who initiates it, and for what purpose?
Here I would like to say that in recent times, a plethora of bodies variously designated as the Dharma Raksha Manch, Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Aim for Seva, Arsha Gurukul, etc. have come up with different clothes and different mandates, and are indulging in inter-faith dialogue internationally.
One common thread that appears to bind them is the presence of Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji. A close follower of his has indicated a fierce desire to project Swami ji as a Hindu Pope, and this ambition is shared equally by the foreign bhaktas of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Mata Amritananda Mayi ji! A unipolar source of religious authority is anathema to Hindu Dharma, yet this attempt to monotheise the faith is being attempted by many non-traditional swamis. Good luck to them, but I don't think it will succeed.
A second thread here is the excessive presence and domination of these set-ups by White foreigners who claim to have become Hindu (but clearly forward the agendas of their native traditions and countries), foreign Hindus (mostly American citizens), and perhaps some non-resident Indians (with financial stakes in the West).
Both the native foreigners and the naturalized foreigners steer the discourse in a direction favourable to the interests of Monotheistic nations and traditions. Hindu Acharyas joining these dialogues are going along with this, and we have every reason to question this deviation from dharma.
The Hindu intent of an inter-faith dialogue can only be to:
1] Get an outright declaration that conversions are bad and unacceptable, and will not be done on the bhoomi of Bharat.
But as the Vatican 2006 document makes clear - a major sell-out of Dharma has taken place, surreptitiously. None of those associated with that document and subsequent dialogues can now be trusted to represent Hindu Dharma in any respect, at any forums, and must cease and desist from all such secret summitry. Even governments which are notoriously secretive do not function with such non-transparency.
As you have also mentioned the Hindu Diaspora, I will only say
r   I believe India must concern herself with Hindus of Pakistan, Bangladesh and those sent to colonies as indentured labour.
r   Hindus who went to the West for "better prospects" can look after themselves, because they willfully abandoned their bhoomi with the active connivance of their parents
r   Hindus in America and Britain have taken to hectoring Hindu India about religious and cultural issues, to conform to the critiques of white Christians, and improve their own comfort levels. A case is point is the supercilious condemnation of Hindu Indian concerns over the promotion of pub culture and Valentine's Day by a Minister in the UPA government chaired by Ms. Sonia Gandhi!
r   So we don't think you are going to serve any meaningful Hindu cause or battle. If you have the energy to do so, examine the murders of Andhra youths in America, and do tell us why this is happening, we are also curious.
Finally, the Hindu Jewish Summitry has been discussed by me in detail, and the critique is on the same lines as above. I reiterate that no one has the right to decide that the Hindu murti puja is or is not idol worship. I personally belong to the non-murti pujak group in the Jaina pantha, and am familiar with all nuances of the faith.
I was present at the 2007 Hindu-Jewish Summit, and my objections to its virtual hijack by foreigners were silenced then, and remain unanswered to this day. We have no kinship with the American or Israeli Jews - they are here for political objectives, and they will disappear when they realize that they cannot be fulfilled on this soil, especially as the emerging world order militates against this. Hence there is no need for me to digress upon this at present.
Your lengthy epistle has not addressed any Hindu Indian concern, so maybe you should just leave it to Swami Dayananda and the Revered Hindu Acharyas to come forward and tell the bhaktas about the fruits of their foreign forays.
Thank you and warm regards
Sandhya Jain <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
 From: Krishnan R
 To: sandhya206@
 Subject: Some facts regarding your Open letter to the Acharyas
 Dear Ms Jain,
 I have long been an admirer of your courageous and hard-hitting articles that tackle issues of oppression and persecution of Hindus in India and abroad. However recently, I have noticed a unfortunate tendency on your part to come out with half-baked and ill-researched articles, and that deeply worries me.
 A basic tenet of journalism (made clear in the breach by your "secular" colleagues) is that one researches one's facts thoroughly, gets to the level of specific detail, reaches out to sources that can speak with insight and authority, cross-checks these statements with other sources and THEN goes public. Not to do this amounts to an unprofessional laziness bordering on dishonesty. Even if some sources (as you allege) are bafflingly slow or fail to respond to one's queries, using the power of the press to jump the gun and denigrate and defame them so as to retaliate for one's frustrations is just plain wrong. Perhaps there is more in common between you and India's "secular" journalist elites than you care to admit.
 Your scurrilous and ill-informed screed about the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha has been making the rounds of the internet and I as a Hindu, who has been long followed the Acharyas' work, cannot but respond. While I know & revere many of the Mahatmas you impugn, I speak only for myself as a Hindu.
 One of the key ways in which you sow misinformation and confusion among Hindus is by alleging that Swami Dayananda Saraswati and the great traditional Acharyas, Mathadhipathis and Mandaleshwars who constitute the Acharya Sabha are somehow softening up Hindus for Christian conversion and proselytization. Note that you do not present any actual evidence for this, but what riles you is simply the fact that the Acharya Sabha has entered into inter-faith dialog with various groups including the Vatican and the Jewish Rabbinate. You then pick up a word here and a term ("eastern religions") there and allege that a deep conspiracy is at work. You also use guilt by association (another common tactic of anti-Hindu forces).Â
 Your attack is wildly meandering and all over the place, all the better perhaps to sow misinformation. In this letter I will address only a few topics- with facts, rather than speculation. If you show an honest willingness to accept your errors of fact and judgement, I would love to continue a debate with you on other issues you raise.
 Shamefully, you have chosen to broadcast rumor and innuendo, and your own admittedly unconfirmed notions, about one of the greatest traditional Hindu teachers living today, who has worked most his life -of some 78 years- to uphold the uniqueness of Hindu Dharma and to protect so many of the downtrodden from being preyed on by proselytizers.
 Note that the Acharya, Sri Dayananda Saraswati,  about whom you seek to sow doubt and confusion is one of the few remaining who has immersed himself in studying and teaching the Shastra- for almost 60 years now. And until he recently became a more public figure, he has been quietly re-generating the rigorous and scholarly tradition at the heart of our Dharma by creating well-grounded teachers and scholars like himself- fulfilling his duty to the parampara. Many who know him realize that he is that rarest of persons-a Jnani, a Jiavan-Mukta. But he does not claim any special divine dispensation, nor teaches a path "beyond religions" as some self-proclaimed sages do, but instead upholds the Hindu tradition that the Veda and the parampara combined with antahkarana Shuddi- are the means of liberation.  Consequently he teaches with deep commitment to and insight into the sampradaya (rather than his own clever ideas) and has been changing lives and transforming individuals by bringing them to the Shastra and to a Dharmic/Hindu life.  It is unconscionable, that without proper inquiry, you defame as a sell-out, a scholar whose clear mind and deep honesty have to generations of students and audiences, repeatedly shown -openly and fearlessly- HOW all religions are NOT "the same", and do NOT lead to the same goal; and that to confuse Paradise-promoting, and Salvation-promoting theologies with the Sampradayas that deal with Moksa, -freedom here and now -is the greatest self-betrayal possible for anyone.
 BTW, under his guidance, co-ordination and hard work, numerous schools, hostels and hospitals and even a college or two serve the downtrodden in most states of India- again done very quietly without any drumbeat of publicity. (this is a huge topic that we can cover later, if possible). You provide none of this background, and so deny your readers any knowledge of the kind of Hindu you wish to defame and tear down.
 Due to his total devotion to the Veda, and his willingness to work, and his compassion for all Hindus, he became moving force behind bringing together so many variegated Hindu Sampradayas, (across all Varnas and jatis) into a body called the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha (HDAS). This is a historical achievement in itself - that Vaishnavas, Saktas, Shaivas, Lingayats, Smarthas and numerous other sampradayas have gotten together to acknowledge what is common to them, and to begin thinking and discussing togther about the threats and challenges we all face. To attack this organization thru innuendo and half-truths (which I will demonstrate you have done) is malicious and harmful to all Hindus.
 ? Fact: Sri Dayananda Saraswati is one of the few living Acharyas who has fearlessly, publically and actively opposed proselytization of Hindus for several decades. I am certain that many Hindu Acharyas, who are not as vocal as he is, also do so in their hearts, and that is why- in addition to respecting his learning- they have welcomed him.
  A key role that a teacher, an Acharya, plays is to give us the theoretical constructs that will inform our thinking and make us morally strong and bring us closer to the clarity of the Veda. How many Acharyas can you name, of his eminence, who have clearly and publically framed conversion of Hindus as Violence,? His thesis is that it does psychological violence to the core person, and helped many passive Hindus understand how proselytization's root is religious intolerance and bigotry, and its fruit the destruction of India's (and the world's) tightly-knit families and communities, leading to artificial conflicts and actual, physical violence? His famous pamphlets "Conversion is Violence" or "Violence to Hindu Heritage" used to be handed out to the audiences at his public talks for years and years. This book has opened the eyes of hundreds or perhaps thousands of neutralized Hindus. Perhaps you should read it. A brief excerpt from the booklet is available here: http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
 BTW, since you are such a fan of open letters, perhaps you should read Swami Dayananda's open letter in 1999, to the late John Paul admonishing him for his ugly Christian Supremacist statements about his Church's coming religious and cultural conquest of Asia. Yes, he tries to reason with the Pope, treating him as an equal, capable of treating others with dignity and understanding. You may find this futile, but your readers may see the profoundly ethical stand of this Hindu Acharya made clear:
 "Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others."
  http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
 You may find it strange that Swami Dayananda can respect Christians and Muslims as religious people, while forthrightly condemning and fighting Christian and Muslim Supremacist ideas and agendas, but I do not. That he advocates mutual respect between religions is in fact an admonishment to those religions that seek to destroy others, but is also based on the Vedic understanding that the Lord can be worshipped in many ways (quite different from saying all religions are valid all the way).  As a Sadhu who reveres and lives the Bhagavad Geeta, Pujya Swamiji is truly "adhvesta sarva bhutanam", but also heeds Isvara's call to duty in defense of Dharma and combating adharma.Â
 ? Fact: In his 70th decade, Sri Dayananda Saraswati, ill in body, but strong in spirit, went around the country for one whole year, waiting on the great Acharyas and traditional Mathadhpathis- in their ashrams and persuading them, one by one to come together, to meet in defense of Hinduism, funding the great meet out of his small purse gathered from his followers and well-wishers. This fragile beginning is a ray of hope- instead of wringing their hands about the lack of Hindu unity, the Acharyas have at least tried to achieve some unity of purpose.Â
 Their role has to be to think, debate and provide wise direction on a multiplicity of issues- and we, the Hindu Grihastas need to broadcast their unified voice and make it count in our society and our nation. Right now all they have from most of us is a convenient reverence- none of us has followed through to help our traditional acharyas, get their work off the ground. Anything achieved thus far has occurred because a handful of them have striven, not because Hindus like you and I have served them.Â
 The issues the Acharyas have debated are many, and many are of great importance to Hindus. Almost all have to do with protecting the rights of Hindus, including the poorest. We grihastas, we regular Hindus who work and earn and vote and have families and columns in newspapers have to further the Acharya's agenda - but what have India's journalists done to bring the Acharya Sabha's concerns to the public? If the work of the Acharya Sabha has not taken India's heart by storm, it is not these revered Sadhus who are to blame but we, the Hindu grihastas.Â
 Ms Jain, You seem to want them to adopt you agenda wholesale or go away. If they do not toe your line and embrace your priorities, you seem willing to destroy their fragile effort even before most Hindus have internalized that there is this ray of hope, and have mobilized to help their Acharyas.
  We need to ask ourselves, how can we help our Acharyas- that's how a Hindu (Indian or foreign) is supposed to think. You want to westernize us, by making us ask only- what have they done for us lately?
 While their role is chiefly to guide, they have also had to act.
  ?Fact: Just one instance of the HDAS acting for us Grihastas: when the crypto-Christian Supremacist state Government of Andhra Pradesh threatened to take away the Seven Hills of the Tirupati Temple, the Acharyas, including the Pejawar Math Swamigal, the Lingayat Pontiff, and Swami Dayananda (and not grandstanders like you) called a public meeting to protest. Here their firm but quietly worded resolution caused the government to back off substantially. See the Tirupati Declaration.
 www.hindu.com/2006/07/17/stories/2006071709040300.htm
 and
 rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2006/08/tirupati-declaration-by-swamis.html
 ?Fact: Seeing that other indigenous peoples around the world have been preyed upon by the aggressive religions of Christianity and Islam, Swami Dayananda convened the world congress of Religious Diversity in New Delhi. Only the aggressive, proselytizing and supremacist religions were not invited. Oppressed peoples from all over the world- Native American Shamans, Zorastrians, traditional Yoruba and other African priests, Buddhist lamas, Shinto practioners, Confucian sages and Jewish Rabbis all gathered together to state their opposition to proselytization and conversion. Their presence, and their stories, made it clear that the fight against religious aggression and missionary predation was an international Human Rights issue, not something to do with "some Right-wing Hindus". http://www.swamij.com/religious-diversity-2001.htm
  Have you, Ms Jain, ever used your bully pulpit to make the embattled Hindus and Indians aware of this remarkable gathering? or its significance in geo-strategic and moral terms for furthering the fundamental human right to follow one's own religion or tradition without aggression, denigration and intervention? Perhaps you were even then too busy sowing dissension and division among Hindus (grandly "excommunicating"the Hindu diaspora for instance) and embellishing your own reputation as a lone crusader to notice?
 ? Fact: There is nothing in the discussions or in the resolution of the 2 Hindu-Jewish summits that discredits or disparages Hinduism. (I reproduce them below so your readers can see how you have misled them).
 Judaism like Hinduism is a non-proselytizing religious tradition, and like the Hindus, Jews have suffered enormous persecution at the hands of Christian and Islamic aggression and supremacist agendas. Yes, the grand tradition of Judaism does have some irrational and harmful prejudices like its abomination of "idol-worship", but there is no history of Jews persecuting Hindus for their religious practices, nor of Jews trying to convert us. True, the World Council of Religious Leaders, headed by a Hindu-Jain (one of those you have grandly ex-communicated for- gasp!-leaving India's shores) named Bawa Jain approached the Acharya Sabha with the idea of a Hindu-Jewish Summit. True, Swami Dayananda had already been in touch with Jewish Rabbis over the preservation of religious diversity and the idea found immediate resonance in him, and many traditional Acharyas also seconded the idea and agreed to the meeting.
 The First Hindu-Jewish Summit In Delhi (2007) was attended by many eminent traditional Acharyas from India, and even other Sadhus who are not heads of the Traditional Mathas, and Rabbis from Israel and around the world. Far from being offensive or harmful to Hindus are many vital things the declaration affirms, including the sacredness of India's Land to Hinduism, and our rootedness in it (and acknowledging a similar Jewish idea about Israel) (resolution no.2). Proselytization, a common enemy born in the supremacist beliefs of Christianity and Islam is directly condemned as being a violation. (no.4). Your readers can judge (without your poisonous spin) whether the One Supreme Being referred to in No.1 is in keeping with the Hindu Shastras and Sampradayas (no Vaishnava, Shaiva, Sakta or Smartha scholar or practioner that I have spoken to finds it objectionable, but perhaps in your exclusive self-created sampradaya it is). Vitally, the horrendous suffering and sustained religious persecution that Hindus have been subjected to by the aggressive Monotheistic religions is acknowledged in the same breath as the prolonged Jewish suffering. This is a meeting of two kindred peoples, Ms. Jain and we lose nothing of our uniqueness by acknowledging our kinship.
 Exhibit I:
 In the Declaration of The First Hindu-Jewish Summit,The participants affirmed that:
  1.. Their respective Traditions teach that there is One Supreme Being who is the Ultimate Reality, who has created this world in its blessed diversity and who has communicated Divine ways of action for humanity, for different peoples in different times and places.
  2.. The religious identities of both Jewish and Hindu communities are related to components of Faith, Scripture, Peoplehood, Culture, Land and Language.
  3.. Hindus and Jews seek to maintain their respective heritage and pass it on to the succeeding generations, while living in respectful relations with other communities.
  4.. Neither seeks to proselytize, nor undermine or replace in any way the religious identities of other faith communities. They expect other communities to respect their religious identities and commitments, and condemn all activities that go against the sanctity of this mutual respect.
  5.. Both the Hindu and Jewish Traditions affirm the sanctity of life and aspire for a society in which all live in peace and harmony with one another. Accordingly they condemn all acts of violence in the name of any religion or against any religion.
  6.. The Jewish and Hindu communities are committed to the ancient traditions of Judaism and Hindu dharma respectively, and have both, in their own ways, gone through the painful experiences of persecution, oppression and destruction. Therefore, they realize the need to educate the present and succeeding generations about their past, in order that they will make right efforts to promote religious harmony.
  7.. The representatives of the two faith communities recognize the need for understanding one another in terms of lifestyles, philosophy, religious symbols, culture, etc. They also recognize that they have to make themselves understood by other faith communities. They hope that through their bilateral initiatives, these needs would be met.
  8.. Because both traditions affirm the central importance of social responsibility for their societies and for the collective good of humanity, the participants pledged themselves to work together to help address the challenges of poverty, sickness and inequitable distribution of resources.
  9.. The representatives of the two faith communities also agree to constitute a Standing Committee on Hindu-Jewish Relations.
 What about the Second Hindu-Jewish Summit, which you claim was "scandalous"? In your fevered fantasies you accuse the Hindu Acharyas of having "tacitly agree[d] that idol-worship is an abomination". You call this the Acharya's "assault upon the glorious tradition of murti-puja and all rituals and prayers associated with it". Again Ms Jain, you twist facts to such an extent that you lie, you mislead, and then you arrogate to yourself the role of an interrogator asking for "personal explanation" from the very human-beings you victimize. One expects this from Stalinists and fascists, but not from a self proclaimed "Hindu".
 The declarations from the 2nd Hindu-Jewish Summit are appended below
 What does the "scandalous" resolution say?Â
 "It is recognized that the One Supreme Being in its formless [nirguna] and manifest [saguna] aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over the Millenia. This does not mean that Hindus worship 'gods' and 'idols'. The Hindu relates only to the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation"[My insertions for clarity]
 It is prefaced by resolution no.1 which talks about the One Supreme Being who is worshipped by both Jews and Hindus, avoids giving a gender to this being (surely in deference to Hindu practice), and sets the context of striving for deeper mutual understanding before bringing up resolution 2 above.
 Ms Jain, where is the "assault upon the glorious tradition of murti-puja and all rituals and prayers associated with it"? Where indeed is even a deviation from what Vaidhikas, Advaitins, Vaishnavas, Shaivas and even Shaktas believe and accept? I am sorry Ms Jain, but there are Hindu Sampradayas (such as the Arya Samaj, the non-murti Pujak Jains, the avowedly non-Hindu Sikhs) who have an unfortunate history of condemning Murti Puja, but that did not happen here.
 This declaration has its roots in a train of discussion that was begun in the First conference. Because one cannot have a meaningful friendship with the Jews if they carry in their hearts an ill-informed prejudice about us, the Acharyas brought it up and continued the discussion over the 2 meets. http://frfnet.org/1st-Hindu-Jewish%20Summi...eport-Final.pdf There, after a detailed discussion of how Iswara is manifest as the universe, so all things that have form also have the presence of God, and can be worshipped as God, Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati of Gujarat says that even in Murti puja " God is not confined to a particularity, but the form is an aid to worshipping the one who pervades all names and forms. The devotee is asked to see God as all names and forms, and ultimately transcend forms and sees him as the self. Therefore we urge you to study fundamental Hinduism and see that it is very inclusive of everything. This being the case, we can develop respectfully. We don't need to tolerate anyone. We need to respect them. Gandhi said to missionaries, 'Hindus are capable of achieving the goals through their religions, and do not need other religions'." (p37)
 This "Transcending of all forms" or Murt Puja as a step in a larger journey, is a very traditional Hindu view in the Shastras, and in Advaita and other allied Sampradayas (but hotly debated by yet other sampradayas). This is NOT diluting or dressing up Hinduism for out Jewish hosts- it is an honest statement of a traditional Hindu teacher. And unless you are arguing for curtailing the freedom of speech of such Acharyas, to render them politically correct, you have no case.
 Knowing the bloody history of those who have brutally attacked us, simply for following our Hindu way of worship, by labeling us "idolaters" Swami Viditatmananda said earlier:
 "The world is not apart from God. Therefore, we seek a sympathetic
 understanding on the part of other religious leaders to not dismiss us as idolaters."(p36)
 Perhaps the mild tone of this is irksome to you. Tough. You do not control how other Hindus express themselves. Clearly, he is asking for mutual respect, not "toleration" from the Jewish Rabbis. How did our Jewish leaders react? Rabbi Rosen in his response backs away completely from calling the Hindu saguna worship "idolatry". Instead he says the core Jewish injunction is against immorality in religion, and this is what is called idolatry:
 "Idolatry, when it is used in the Hebrew Bible is not just referring to a theoretical abstraction; it is referring to particular way of life of immoral conduct. In other words, that denial of the transcendent reality is denied in the individual, which sanctions all kinds of abominations with the norms that the Bible records with the norms when the children of Israel came into the Holy Land. Therefore, the great 14th century sage, Rabbi Menachem, affirmed that community which adheres to moral principles of ethical conduct is by definition not idolatrous." (p37)
 In a different place, Rabbi Rosen poignantly hopes that contact with Hindu elders will make Jewish Rabbis do some soul-searching: "Our understanding of idolatry has to undergo a transformation." (p.40)
 Clearly Rabbi Rosen does not "get it" with regard to the coeval reality of Saguna vis a vis the manifest world - he calls it "a theoretical abstraction". This needs to be worked on. But his responses seem sincere and respectful of the Hindu viewpoint. That is what dialog- especially with an unfamiliar but sympathetic interlocutor- is all about.
 I see nothing here that calls for a personal explanation by any of our great Acharyas, drunk with power and a sense of desperation though you may be. I sympathize that your role is often a lonely one- you do stick your neck out, and you need our support. But attacking and denigrating those who have contributed immensely more than you have to the Hindu cause is not they way- at least, it is NOT the Hindu way. The saddest part is that by simply searching the web, you could have gotten specifics on the issues I have outlined, and just by doing your job as a journalist you could have followed up by simply travelling to the Ashrams or the meetings and interviewing some of the key people.
   I apologize for any offence caused inadvertently, but the challenges to the world-wide Hindu community too grim to permit the luxury of idle dissension and malicious misinformation.
 Greetings,
 Krishnan Ramaswamy
 Exhibit II: Second Hindu-Jewish Declaration :Jerusalem
 1. In keeping with the Delhi declaration, the participants reaffirmed their commitment to deepening this bilateral relationship predicated on the recognition of One Supreme Being, Creator and Guide of the Cosmos; shared values; and similar historical experiences. The parties are committed to learning about one another on the basis of respect for the
 particular identities of their respective communities and seeking, through their bilateral relationship, to be a blessing to all.
 2. It is recognized that the One Supreme Being, both in its formless and manifest aspects, has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. This does not mean that Hindus worship 'gods' and idols'. The Hindu relates to only the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation.
 3. Central to the Jewish and Hindu world view is the concept of the sanctity of life, above all the human person. Accordingly, the participants categorically reject violent methods to achieve particular goals. In this spirit, the participants expressed the hope that all disputes be resolved through dialogue, negotiation and compromise promoting peace, reconciliation and harmony.
 4. As the two oldest religious traditions of the world, the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and the Jewish religious leadership may consider jointly appealing to various religious organizations in the world to recognize that all religions are sacred and valid for their respective peoples. We believe that there is no inherent right embedded in any religion to denigrate or interfere with any other religion or with its practitioners. Acceptance of this
 proposition will reduce inter-religious violence, increase harmony among different peoples.
 5. The participants expressed the hope that the profound wellsprings of spirituality in their respective traditions will serve their communities to constructively address the challenges of modernity, so that contemporary innovation may serve the highest ideals of their respective religious traditions.
 6. In the interests of promoting the correct understanding of Judaism, Hinduism and their histories, it was agreed that text books and reference material may be prepared in consultation with the scholars' group under the aegis of this Summit.
 7. Svastika is an ancient and greatly auspicious symbol of the Hindu tradition. It is inscribed on Hindu temples, ritual altars, entrances, and even account books. A distorted version of this sacred symbol was misappropriated by the Third Reich in Germany, and abused as
 an emblem under which heinous crimes were perpetrated against humanity, particularly the Jewish people. The participants recognize that this symbol is, and has been sacred to Hindus for millennia, long before its misappropriation.
 8. Since there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory of an Aryan
 invasion/migration into India, and on the contrary, there is compelling evidence to refute it; and since the theory seriously damages the integrity of the Hindu tradition and its connection to India; we call for a serious reconsideration of this theory, and a revision of all educational material on this issue that includes the most recent and reliable scholarship.
 9. The bilateral group of scholars may engage in further elaboration of the foregoing affirmations, exchange material to enhance mutual understanding, clarify the positions of the Hindu and Jewish traditions regarding contemporary challenges in science and society, and identify programs of action for the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Sandhya Jain
Dear Krishnan ji
Namaste, and thank you for writing to clear your anxieties about some of my views.
r   As I do not know you and you are writing directly to me, and your email identity (krinfinity@) suggests you are part of the Infinity Foundation, I am assuming that you are writing in defence of its founder, Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who was intimately associated with the Hindu-Jewish Summitry to which I made strenuous (but private) objections some years ago.
r   Your valiant defence to some Acharyas is not the core of my objection to Inter-Faith dialogue and multi-religious spiritual fairs. Assuming however, that there may be some confusion in the minds of other Hindu brethren also - I take this opportunity to clarify my position as completely as possible.
r   You have kindly suggested that I could have searched the Internet for any information desired or talked to certain gurus. My contention is that dialogue was resented and resisted (and I will not in public go into the unseemly manner in which this was done by Acharyas who did not wish to face questions from Hindu bhaktas). As for the Internet, it is my contention that a Hindu bhakta should be able to get information regarding Inter-faith dialogue in India itself, in a transparent manner! That this was resented and resisted is both odd and suspicious.
I will now come to specifics:
r   For some years I have been working on a study of religious conversions in Tripura, a state selected because of conversions are at the point of the gun and because a prominent Swami was murdered on account of his fame and following among tribal and non-tribal people alike.
r   Inter alia, I studied the missionary defence of conversions, and was horrified to discover that unknown to many of us who are fighting evangelism at the intellectual level, the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha had in May 2006 sent representatives to attend an inter-religious meeting at Lariano, Italy, hosted by the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Vatican City, and the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, on Conversion: Assessing the Reality.
r   The declaration signed at this meeting featured prominently in the website of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, but the Hindu representatives were not identified. All questions have failed to elicit answers, which should be difficult if the concerned superiors are convinced of their bona fides.
r   Some of my specific objections to the Vatican meeting are:-
1] It specifically endorses "the freedom to embrace another faith out of one's own free choice." In my understanding of Hindu Dharma, the family and not the individual is the smallest unit of the social organism, and this cannot be ripped apart by giving individuals the right to be brain-washed or bribed by an evangelist and leave the religion and culture to which he or she was born. This is the basic tenet of all native traditions in the world, and by agreeing that individuals can be weaned away from non-monotheistic faiths, the Hindu leaders SECRETLY signing this declaration were violating the tenets of the faith. The failure to respond to this charge is a self-indictment.
2] I also questioned the need to sign any document at all in any gathering without a wider discussion of the same in the home country. If the Vatican document had been shown to any major Shankaracharya or Mathadhipathi, or concerned Hindu citizenry, it would NEVER have been signed. It could only be signed because it was kept a closely guarded secret, and the names of the signatories are still secret.
3] The Vatican document further agrees that freedom of religion includes freedom to propagate one's faith to "other faiths" also. What more could missionaries ask for? Is this not making a mockery of the Acharya Sabha's claims to represent, protect, and defend Dharma?
4] The document further accepts that EVERY faith has perpetrated injustice in history, and must introspect and repent for the same. Will Acharya Sabha like to openly tell the Hindus of India what these historical sins have been vis-Ã -vis other faith traditions, particularly the ones that have perpetrated murder and mayhem upon our people and revered Swamis, who are even now being murdered for upholding dharma in the rural un-policed areas of the country?
5] All talk of mutual respect becomes hollow rhetoric in the light of these hideous concessions, which not only make the job of missionaries that much easier, but worse, assault Hindu Dharma by manipulating its very nature.
6] Will Acharya Sabha tell the Hindus of India what are "ethical conversions" so that we know if our children and brothers were converted ethically or unethically?
7] Does signing this document mean that the Acharya Sabha does NOT support the passing of Anti-Conversion legislations in Indian states, and that it would be opposed to such a legislation at the national level, which is a demand of Hindus all over the country? The question cannot be avoided and deserves an answer - not obfuscation, which is all we have got so far.
8] Finally, will the Acharya Sabha tell us what steps it has taken to evolve the "code of conduct" on conversion, which it agreed to at the Vatican? Can we humble Hindus of India ask to at least see this grand code, or is it one of the secret clauses of the Treaty of Versailles?
r   In view of over Two Years of Secrecy and sullen silence on this issue - during which I have not made my discomfort public -you will agree that I have not defamed anyone.
You have said that I am alleging that Swami Dayananda Saraswati and the Acharyas who constitute the Acharya Sabha "are somehow softening up Hindus for Christian conversion and proselytization." I think the points raised above about the Vatican meeting should answer all your contentions in this regard.
This brings me back to where we started - the very purpose and motivation for Inter-faith Dialogue; that is to say, who initiates it, and for what purpose?
Here I would like to say that in recent times, a plethora of bodies variously designated as the Dharma Raksha Manch, Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Aim for Seva, Arsha Gurukul, etc. have come up with different clothes and different mandates, and are indulging in inter-faith dialogue internationally.
One common thread that appears to bind them is the presence of Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji. A close follower of his has indicated a fierce desire to project Swami ji as a Hindu Pope, and this ambition is shared equally by the foreign bhaktas of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Mata Amritananda Mayi ji! A unipolar source of religious authority is anathema to Hindu Dharma, yet this attempt to monotheise the faith is being attempted by many non-traditional swamis. Good luck to them, but I don't think it will succeed.
A second thread here is the excessive presence and domination of these set-ups by White foreigners who claim to have become Hindu (but clearly forward the agendas of their native traditions and countries), foreign Hindus (mostly American citizens), and perhaps some non-resident Indians (with financial stakes in the West).
Both the native foreigners and the naturalized foreigners steer the discourse in a direction favourable to the interests of Monotheistic nations and traditions. Hindu Acharyas joining these dialogues are going along with this, and we have every reason to question this deviation from dharma.
The Hindu intent of an inter-faith dialogue can only be to:
1] Get an outright declaration that conversions are bad and unacceptable, and will not be done on the bhoomi of Bharat.
But as the Vatican 2006 document makes clear - a major sell-out of Dharma has taken place, surreptitiously. None of those associated with that document and subsequent dialogues can now be trusted to represent Hindu Dharma in any respect, at any forums, and must cease and desist from all such secret summitry. Even governments which are notoriously secretive do not function with such non-transparency.
As you have also mentioned the Hindu Diaspora, I will only say
r   I believe India must concern herself with Hindus of Pakistan, Bangladesh and those sent to colonies as indentured labour.
r   Hindus who went to the West for "better prospects" can look after themselves, because they willfully abandoned their bhoomi with the active connivance of their parents
r   Hindus in America and Britain have taken to hectoring Hindu India about religious and cultural issues, to conform to the critiques of white Christians, and improve their own comfort levels. A case is point is the supercilious condemnation of Hindu Indian concerns over the promotion of pub culture and Valentine's Day by a Minister in the UPA government chaired by Ms. Sonia Gandhi!
r   So we don't think you are going to serve any meaningful Hindu cause or battle. If you have the energy to do so, examine the murders of Andhra youths in America, and do tell us why this is happening, we are also curious.
Finally, the Hindu Jewish Summitry has been discussed by me in detail, and the critique is on the same lines as above. I reiterate that no one has the right to decide that the Hindu murti puja is or is not idol worship. I personally belong to the non-murti pujak group in the Jaina pantha, and am familiar with all nuances of the faith.
I was present at the 2007 Hindu-Jewish Summit, and my objections to its virtual hijack by foreigners were silenced then, and remain unanswered to this day. We have no kinship with the American or Israeli Jews - they are here for political objectives, and they will disappear when they realize that they cannot be fulfilled on this soil, especially as the emerging world order militates against this. Hence there is no need for me to digress upon this at present.
Your lengthy epistle has not addressed any Hindu Indian concern, so maybe you should just leave it to Swami Dayananda and the Revered Hindu Acharyas to come forward and tell the bhaktas about the fruits of their foreign forays.
Thank you and warm regards
Sandhya Jain <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->