“Are Hindus Violent?” - Excerpts
Brief excerpts from a three-part series on “Are Hindus Violent?” by Bandyopadhyay Arindam, courtesy iVarta (emphasis mine).
*** Excerpts Begin ***
…are the “nonviolent” Hindus taking recourse to violence? Do Hindus indulge in unprovoked violence? Even if provoked, is “Hindu” violence justifiable? Should Hindus retaliate and be revengeful? What is the Hindu scriptural dictate”?
During the Mahabharata war, according to the Bhagvat Gita, Lord Krishna revealed himself to Arjun and asked him to wage “dharma-yuddha”. Do we question the Lord for inciting Arjun into violence? Was Lord calling for revenge or was he merely advocating preservation of Dharma and the path of righteousness that befits Kshatriya Dharma? Arjun rightly feared the destruction but the Lord merely asked for right action guided by Dharma, not action tailored to outcomes of personal gain.
To make a nonviolent interpretation of the Gita, was what perhaps Mahatma Gandhi did, but that does not negate the need for necessary violence, without which we would not have any need for judiciary, police or armed forces. Protection of self is a necessity - all civil societies so agree. Nobody argues that nonviolence is a desirable quality….(but)…A malignant self-destructive nonviolence has been subtly allowed to sprout and mushroom in the collective psyche of the Hindus, and “inaction” has been deceptively euphemized as “tolerance” to destroy our righteous will. Our independence struggle has been almost totally credited to this Gandhian philosophy, which is a huge injustice to the large number of leaders and common people who have given up their lives for our freedom.
Have Hindus always been nonviolent? Don”t we believe that the “virtuous Devtas” always fought the “evil doing Asuras”? Wasn”t it a necessity for Lord Vishnu to incarnate repeatedly in the form of his various “avatars” to save the universe from evil forces? Wasn”t it required of Ram to kill Ravan for a just cause? Didn”t Krishna use his divine power right from childhood to slay the demons and “save the innocents” repeatedly?
It is devious to say that Sanatan Dharma preaches only “nonviolence”? It is equally wrong to claim that tolerance of atrocities and adharma is a virtue. On the contrary acceptance of “adharma” is not merely cowardice, it is also sinful. This is why Swami Vivekananda said, “if there is a sin, it is weakness”.
Does that make Hinduism the same as other religion in its approach to the concept of violence? The answer is no. Unlike the scriptural sanction of violence in propagation of some monotheistic faiths, Sanatan Dharma has no such parallel; it merely exhorts one to righteousness, which does not include propagation of one”s faith as the only true faith. This is a foundational difference which must never be lost sight of.
Why do you keep posting...