|| Satyameva Jayate ||

“The Idea of India” - *must read*

I am grateful to Sh Krishen Kak for allowing me to publish this essay by him (in full), first published as THE IDEA OF INDIA by India First Foundation, Nov 2008:127-138.  I would encourage everyone to please read it in full. It is superbly thought-provoking, richly referenced and well researched. Without further ado (CAUTION: Long Post),

*** THE IDEA OF INDIA ***

KRISHEN KAK 

The idea of India is a conception often credited by our English-speaking “secular” elite to Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru or Sunil Khilnani, not necessarily in that order. 

Our British colonizers too gave themselves credit for it, with an echo by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 8, 2005 at Oxford University.  It is they, he said, who gave us our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories, our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy, the English language, and cricket.[1]  Mr Singh on that occasion did make the token nod to “India’s ancient civilization”, but it is clear he believes we did not have these notions before the British blessed us with them.  Regrettably, he omitted mentioning the railways that are supposed to have knitted us together and, for universal school education, he omitted making the conventional ascription to British missionaries[2].

In point of fact, however, the historical conception of the one-ness of what in English is called “India” goes back at least 6000 years to the Rig Veda[3]. It is important to understand this history because the name we give ourselves or that others give us provides us with a social and political identity and meaning, so that “India” says something about how we see ourselves and how others see us.

The citizens of India are called Indians, as distinguished from the followers of a “religion” called Hinduism[4].  At the same time, the indigenous peoples in many parts of the world are called “Indians”.  “Indian” was frequently a Western imperial and pejorative label for dark-coloured indigenes and, at least till the end of the 14th century (a Vijaynagar inscription c.1393 referring to the emperor as “Hindurayasuratrana”), that is, just about 600 years ago in the history of our civilization going back at least 9,000 years, we had no such thing as “Hinduism”.  So let us see how we got our name, and the meanings often connected with it.

The word “India” is the pronunciation in English of the Greek pronunciation of the Iranian pronunciation of the Sanskrit word “sindhu”, which was our own name in our own language for the mighty river called Indus which has always been a major landmark for travellers to our country from lands to our northwest.

The ancient Iranians - or Persians, as they used to be called - found difficulty in pronouncing the initial “s” of “sindhu”, so they called it “hindu” – the word occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient Iranians, and they used it to describe generally this land and all the people in it.  From Iran the word passed to Greece where it became Indus, with variations among the ancient Arabs, Turks, Mongolians, and Chinese (the last saying “shin-tu”) who came into contact with us to study, trade or conquer.

This word “Hindu” is not found in any of our ancient texts. It is nowhere in the Vedas; it is nowhere in our epics, nor in the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, nor in any of the treatises of Yoga. It does not appear in any of our indigenous languages, not till the 7th century when it was brought in by the Islamic invaders.  The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang who visited our country between 630 and 645 AD reports that while “shin-tu” or its variants could be heard outside our borders, it was unknown within our country. Even after Islamic rule was established in our country, the word did not gain popular currency and was not used, at least till the 14th century, except by the Islamic rulers to refer to the non-Muslim population as a whole of this land.

So, it is quite clear that, to begin with, “Hindu” was a foreign word.  It was not a “religious” description.  It was a purely geographical label, initially describing the land and people in the vicinity of the Sindhu river but gradually spreading to cover all parts of this country and its people. It can be said that the word “Hindu” acquired a pan-Indian connotation from ancient Iranian times - but this was only in the speech of foreigners, and even with them it did not indicate any distinction of class, caste or creed.  To emphasize, it was merely a foreign geographical description, and “Hindustan” was the land of the “Hindus”.  How from being a geocultural description this was made into a “religious” label is another story.

Thus, the word we have adopted to describe our country and ourselves evolved as a word foreign to us.  Over the millennia, this word has acquired a number of meanings that foreigners associated with us, and many of which we have internalized.  Most of these meanings are not complimentary.  In fact, most frequently, in the post-colonial international eye, India stands for overpopulation, poverty, dirt and corruption, and the majority of our people are believed to be lazy other-worldly Hindus.  Remember that it was an  Indian who made an international joke of what he cunningly called  “the Hindu rate of growth”[5] – conveniently forgetting, of course,  that in pre-colonial times it was this same rate of growth that resulted  in making us what the historian KM Ashraf described  as  “the wealthiest  colossus  of the world”.  How British colonial rule reduced us from being one of the richest lands to becoming one of the poorest is also another story.[6]

Keep Reading…

November 16th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, British Rule in India, Conversions, Missionaries in India, Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, History, Identity, Indian Culture, Arts and Music, Politics and Governance in India, Sanatana Dharma, Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization, Spirituality & Philosophy, Women in Hinduism & India | no comments

Of Thiru Karunanidhi, Tilak and Secular Fundamentalism

….and a deja-vu moment.

Courtesy Sridhar, this news-item from earlier today: Karuna does it again, flays Hindus for sporting tilaks

Flaying the Hindu practice of smearing ash or saffron or sporting a ’tilak’ on the forehead for yet another time, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi questioned the need for ‘such things in a country which preached equality of all religions’. 

which reminded me of Don’t wear a “tilak” to work ! …

…and of Mark Tully’s memorable quote:

Secular fundamentalism is alive and kicking in India too. 

Next target, Sanskrit? 

P.S. I doubt that Thiru Karunanidhi needs any education in the significance of either a Tilak or a “Bindu/ Pottu” in Hinduism but I thought it would be nice to refresh my own memory.

A brief excerpt from Ten Questions about Hinduism on the “Bindu/ Pottu”:

Question Eight: Why do many Hindus wear a dot near the middle of their forehead?

A: The dot worn on the forehead is a religious symbol. It represents divine sight and shows that one is a Hindu. For women, it is also a beauty mark.

Longer answer: The dot worn between the eyes or in the middle of the forehead is a sign that one is a Hindu. It is called the bindi in the Hindi language, bindu in Sanskrit and pottu in Tamil. In olden days, all Hindu men and women wore these marks, and they both also wore earrings. Today it is the women who are most faithful in wearing the bindi.

The dot has a mystical meaning. It represents the third eye of spiritual sight, which sees things the physical eyes cannot see. Hindus seek to awaken their inner sight through yoga. The forehead dot is a reminder to use and cultivate this spiritual vision to perceive and better understand life’s inner workings…to see things not just physically, but with the “mind’s eye” as well.

…In addition to the simple dot, there are many types of forehead marks, known as tilaka in Sanskrit. Each mark represents a particular sect or denomination of our vast religion. We have four major sects: Saivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism and Smartism. Vaishnava Hindus, for example, wear a v-shaped tilaka made of white clay. Elaborate tilakas are worn by Hindus mainly at religious events, though many wear the simple bindi, indicating they are Hindu, even in the general public.

Related Posts:

“Who is this Ram?” - Will Thiru Karunanidhi look at this evidence? 

If you thought banning a “tilak” was funny, think again 

November 6th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | A Hindu Identity, Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy, Women in Hinduism & India | 20 comments

Building the Indian Mind - Brick by Brick

I received this email yesterday and could not stop before reading it right through to the end…It is a long read…quite a long read, in fact.  And it is seriously thought-provoking.  Below, excerpts from a speech delivered by Sh. Gurumurthy at IIT Chennai in 2003 which - although five years old - still retains its and relevance and punch.  This is a *must read*.

*** Excerpts from “The Intellectual Scene in Post-Independence India“ by Sh Gurumurthy ***

A critical review of strengths and weaknesses

… Defeat and anger go together. Abuse and defeat go together. So, it is in this norm and with this understanding of what an intellectual debate means, I would like to place before you some of my thoughts today. Some of may find it provocative. I am confident that the audience is competent enough to absorb this and think rather than get into the mood which all of us have got used to in the last 30-40 years abuse.

Background: India before Independence

Let us see the pre-independence background, the intellectual content of India. See the kind of personalities who led the Indian mind Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Gandhiji, Tilak- giants in their own way. Most of them were involved in politics, active politics, day-to-day politics, handling men, walking on the road, addressing meetings, solving problems between their followers. And, meeting the challenges posed by the enemy, the conspiracies hatched against them. They were handling everything, yet, they were maintaining an intellectual supremacy, and a record and an originality which history has recorded.

Let us look at the academic side. Whether it is a P. C. Ray who wrote on Indian Chemistry in 1905 or Sir C. V. Raman who wrote about mridangam, tabala, and violin, and saw the Physics in it (this was in 1913); whether it was R. C. Majumdar or Radhakumud Mukherjee who saw greatness in the Indian Civilization; trying to bring up points, instances, historical evidence to mirror the greatness of India, to the defeated Indian race, they were all building the Indian mind brick by brick. Sri Aurobindo spoke of Sanatana Dharma as the Nationalism of India. He didn”t rank it as a philosophy. He brought it down to the level of emotional consciousness. Swami Vivekananda spoke of spiritual nationalism; it was the same Swami who spoke of Universal brotherhood. For them philosophy was not removed from the ground reality. The nation was at the core of their philosophy. Swami Vivekananda was called the “patriot monk”.

Mahatma Gandhi spoke of Rama Rajya. Bankim Chandra wrote Bande Maataram. The song, the slogans in it, the mantra in it made hundreds of people kiss the gallows smilingly and many others went to jail. It transformed the life of the people; this was the intellectual scene, this was the content…This was the core of India, the soul of the Indian freedom movement.

The symptoms: India immediately after Independence

…Let us look at post Independence India. The persons who led post-Independence India were also trained in the same freedom movement. They went to jail, but they were not rooted in the intellectual content of the Freedom movement!

The first Prime Minister of India, he was in jail for 7 years. He was a great intellectual himself, purely in the sense of his capacity to reason, understand, read, and expound a thought. He told Galbrieth once, “I would be regarded as the last English Prime Minister of India. See the intellectual capability of the man, the enormously competent mind.

But intellectualism doesn”t exist in a vacuum. It has to be rooted in something concrete. Vivekananda”s universal brotherhood was rooted in India”s greatness as a civilization, which proclaimed it. The concept of “Vasudaiva Kutumbakam” cannot exist without a living form, a population which believes in it and believes in itself. You need to have a society, which believes in it.

That is why India could invite the Jews who were butchered, raped, all over the world. In 107 out of 108 countries, this race was butchered. At least they had the courtesy and the gratitude to publish a book, the Israeli govt. published a book that out of 108 countries that we sought refuge, the only civilization, the only country, the only people, the only ideology that gave us refuge was the Indian civilization. They published a book, which most Indians are unaware of.

And we invited the Muslims. The refugee Muslims first landed in Kutch. And they are called the Kutchy Memons even today but not the Memons who bomb Bombay. But the Memons who lived with us.

Keep Reading…

October 26th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | A Hindu Identity, An Indian Identity, British Rule in India, Hindu Dharma, Identity, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, Sanatana Dharma, Women in Hinduism & India | 7 comments

What about reforms in Hinduism?

In response to my previous post, a loyal reader emailed me and asked, what about reforms in Hinduism? or did I think that Hinduism was perfect and really did not need any changes?

That question prompted this post…Now, I have written on this subject before (pl. see list of related posts at the end) but I realised there was still some value in enumerating what is “wrong” with Hinduism and what needs to change for the better…

So here is my first cut (and I must say that this is an amateur’s attempt - I am by no means a scholar on Hindu-ism; more an interested observer…and of course a practising Hindu)… Please add your own thoughts and please do comment freely - especially those of you who have read far more widely than me - and are better versed in our philosophical/ religious texts.

How can we make Hindu-ism “better” or more in tune with our current lives? Here are some thoughts (in no particular order):

• Dowry: Publicly declare that Dowry is illegal and goes against the respect and honour accorded to a woman in Hinduism
• Untouchability/ caste-based discrimination: Unequivocally condemn anyone who indulges in this practice or condones such acts of others.
• Female foeticide: Anyone found guilty of female foeticide must be publicly named and shamed by the Acharya Sabha, the Shankaracharyas and community leaders…
• Temple entry: Seek free and unfettered entry to every temple (subject to regulations established by the trustees - such as no entry during the late hours) for every Hindu, regardless of caste, sex and birth, participation in every ritual/custom and access to every privilege which hitherto was limited only to certain classes (e.g. the “right” to become a priest or to conduct a “pooja”).
• Treatment of Widows: Unequivocally condemn the shameful treatment of widows in society - especially in Vrindavan and Mathura - and do something for the painful plight of child widows. For more, pl. read this post…There is some hope though.
• Cleanliness in Temples: I have written about this before: Why are our temples so dirty? 

Are these things enough? Almost certainly not…

So please add your own thoughts…Looking forward to everyone’s responses, comments and suggestions.

Related Posts:

Hinduism, Caste System and discrimination - Join the debate

Is this too much to�ask?

Utterly shameful and�inexcusable� 

Adjacent Posts: A Valentine’s Day “fatwa” and The last word on “Water”

September 9th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Social System, Sanatana Dharma, Women in Hinduism & India | 40 comments

Spot the H-word

Thanks to Sh Nachiketa Tiwari for spotting this and Sh Kak for emailing it to me.

Although this is a fairly long excerpt from an exchange of emails re. learning Sanskrit, pl. try and read in full. It shows how some western academics tarnish any attempt(s) at learning more about our ancient heritage (including language) with labels such as “fundamentalism” and of course, “Hindutva”.

I have taken out email addresses of  the respondents to protect privacy.

By the way, many of you would remember that learning Sanskrit is now considered to be a “communal” activity.

*** Excerpts from the email exchange ***

Keep Reading…

September 4th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Ancient Indian History, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, History, Identity, Indian Culture, Arts and Music, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 7 comments

The ridiculous extremes of pseudo-secularism

Fellow blogger Varnam recently wrote two�posts on how learning Sanskrit is now considered to be a “communal” activity and something that might put you at odds with the “secular” brigade.

In the first one, he pointed out:

Usually you see the word saffronization associated with the Hindutva folks, not Sanskritization…the revival (of this word)�is with mischievous intent. Now the name of a language has become a synonym for communal politics.

In fact this attempt to brand Sanskrit as a non-secular entity happened once before, believe it or not - by the Central Board of Secondary Education. It was an attempt to pull the rug off India’s cultural heritage and history by branding an entire language as not-secular.

…The Supreme Court in a landmark verdict rejected the accusation that teaching Sanskrit was against secularism.

…the Court wrote that Sanskrit was the language in which Indian minds expressed the noblest ideas. It was also the language in which our culture, which includes the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, the teachings of Sankaracharya to Vallabhacharya and classics of Kalidasa to Banabhatta were expressed. Without understanding Sanskrit, the Court wrote, you cannot understand Indian philosophy on which our culture is based.

In a follow-up, he wrote:

Don�t wear a �tilak� to work�!�

�Secular Fundamentalism��alive & kicking in�India�

Also read: �Pseudo-secularism� at its�best?�

June 17th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Ancient Indian History, Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Identity, Impact of Islam on India, Indian Culture, Arts and Music, Indian Media, Media Related, Politics and Governance in India, Politics of Minority Appeasement, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 2 comments

Must we separate religion from politics?

This post was inspired by Hrishi and Dnyanesh’s comments�which I am reproducing below. The point raised by Hrishi was (essentially) that democracy and politics (of the modern kind) is incompatible with religion…

***

Comment by Hrishi on 5th May

…There�re are few points I thought worth making, as saw them:

…iii) Viewing religion as a politically relevant practice is more of an imported concept, definitely applcable today to �Hinduism� but I am inclined to believe its more of a �me too� reaction to the activities of the more organised and politically (as against spiritually) ambitious semitic religions operating in India today

Separating religion from politics is essential in any debate that proceeds on the basis of reason and logic which is a democratic process and if you agree with this - would be interested in some more of your views and insights

***

Response by Dnyanesh�on 5th May

HRISHI

�seperating religion from politics��..this comments surprises me many times over. religion is a way of life, our thoughts, ethics, dos donts, our behaviour patterns, our beliefs, culture, way we treat others, logic/thoughts are part of this. therefore in essence it is the foundauion of what we are and stand for. how can we leave that behind. what kind of governance we are likely to give then�

well may be this is not the thread to be followed here�just a few thoughts on an oft repeated comment�.

***

Response�by Hrishi on 5th May

Dnyanesh - since you bring it up (and the moderator allows it, God Willing) - religion is based on two premises as I understand it

- where one acts out of beliefs based on pre-written / revealed scriptures, many of which cannot be disputed or debated (e.g.Islam in toto, Catholicism, etc)

OR

- where one acts out of insights coming out of direct insights based on oneness with the Absolute.

The latter while possible is extremely rare and the overwhelming majority would rely on the former process i.e. acting based on beliefs (many of which are �blind� or not allowed to be exposed to objective reason and logic)

Given this, politics particularly of the modern kind (democracy/ constitutional guarantees of personal, legal, moral and political freedoms) would be impossible.

So as far as religion giving us do�s & don�ts, moral standards, ways of life, �. this must necessarily be subordinated/superceded by the guarantee of constitutional freedoms (mentioned above) and the democratic process based on reason and logic in free debate. I dont know of any �religion� encouraging the primacy of reason and logic based on facts; mostly beliefs are summarily handed down.

Democracy and universal suffrage developed in the �Christian� world only after the separation of the Church and the State, ushering in the Enlightenment (of the rational kind)..

***

Please share your comments and thoughts.

To further provoke your thinking,�I would recommend having a look at:

Hinduism as a secular�concept�

Of Turkey, Secular States and�Religion�

Flat World Hindutva - A moral compass to guide contemporary issues��and

A �nationalism� rooted in Sanatan�Dharma�

June 6th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Politics and Governance in India, Politics of Minority Appeasement, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 12 comments

Thou shalt go out and convert

From an article in UK’s Daily Mail today:

The Church of England was accused by one of its most senior bishops yesterday of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

…The Pakistani-born bishop…was echoing concerns that many Church leaders are abandoning attempts to spread Christianity among Muslims out of fear of a backlash.

The bit that I found most interesting was this:

Synod member Paul Eddy…said that the active recruitment of non-believers and adherents of other faiths had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians, commanded by Christ himself.

But he claimed that many bishops were downplaying the missionary role of the Church and official documents often glossed over the requirement to convert Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions.

I think�this “officially” answers the question I had raised in�an earlier post wondering� why Christian missionaries appeared to be targetting India? �

The article went on to reveal that “…numbers attending mosque on Fridays will overtake those going to church on Sundays by 2050″� and an estimated “50,000 Britons had converted from Christianity to Islam over the past decade, while the number of Muslims becoming Christians was negligible.”

I wonder though whether Muslims are “allowed” to change their religion (see: Can Muslims change their�religion?). As a commentator on Daily Mail’s website has pointed out, the punishment for apostacy in Islam is death.

The problem of course is that with everyone going around claiming that they are the sole purveyors of “truth” the stage is ripe for conflict.

Does anyone need more convincing why Sanatan Dharma may offer the best “model” for any faith and.or religion and why Hinduism�may be key to�an inclusive, peaceful, liberal and tolerant culture in the 21^st century?

.

Related Posts:

Of �Monkey Gods� and �Elephant�Heads���

Christian Aggression in Cauvery�Layout?

Excerpts from �The Dangers of�Monotheism���

�Why have Missionaries chosen to attack India?��

and finally,�Francois Gautier on Conversions�

May 25th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | Conversions, Missionaries in India, Current Affairs, Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Islam & Reform, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 19 comments

Source of “Satyameva Jayate”

In the middle of some idle web-surfing a few days ago, I hit upon the source of “Satyameva Jayate”

From Nila-Kantha-Chandra’s blog:�

“…as I was rapidly scanning the Sanskrit verses of the Mundaka, I came upon �satyameva jayate�� (3.1.6). Extraordinary! This was a great chance discovery!

…as I now discovered…the national credo was from the Mundaka Upanishad. A concluding verse of this Upanishad declares that its aim is to make man attain Self-Knowledge. �Munda� means head; hence the name indicates that this Upanishad is the Head of all Upanishads…”

सत्यमेव जयते नानृतं
सत्येन पन्था विततो देवयानः
येनाऽऽक्रमन्त्यृषयो ह्याप्तकामा
यत्र तत् सत्यस्य परमं निधानम्

satyameva jayate naanritam
satyena pantha vitato devayanah
yena aakramanti rshayo hi aaptkaamaa�
yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhaanam

Meaning:

Only truth prevails, not untruth; by the path of truth is laid out, the Divine way, on which the sages of yore, fulfilled in their desires, attain the supreme treasure of Truth.

.

Wonderful…Thank you Nila-Kantha!

P.S. I think the third line should read: “yenaa kramantyarishayo hyaptakaamaa” but I am not sure. Can anyone please help?

Thanks to Dr Ranjit Singh (please see comment below), this has now been corrected.

December 1st, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Miscellaneous, Politics and Governance in India, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 18 comments

Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination - Join the debate

Dear Readers,

I am moving several comments on the Turkey and Secularism post here due to the fact that they are more to do with Hinduism and discrimination and less with the subject of the original post.

Please continue this discussion on this thread.

Thanks

*** COMMENTS BEGIN ***

1. Patriot, on October 8th, 2007

There is this whole positioning about Hinduism (excuse me, VCK) being such a tolerant religion, which has not imposed its faith on others.

I really, really want to question this:

Keep Reading…

October 9th, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, Medieval Indian History, Sanatana Dharma, Women in Hinduism & India | 123 comments

Hinduism as a secular concept

Here is a question for all readers:

Why is a “Hindu nation” automatically assumed to be a “fundamentalist, fascist state led by Hindutva fanatics”?

My hypothesis is: A Hindu state can�be the ultimate secular state since respect (not just tolerance or indifference) for all beliefs and religions will be enshrined as part of the constitution - officially*.

Note: This is a hypothesis; not an assertion.

I need your thoughts and comments to prove or disprove it. What do you think?

Comments, thoughts - including opposing points of views�- and reactions very welcome.

.

* I know that a truly “secular” state will actually separate the state from religion completely but as you know we have adopted a slightly different interpretation of the word “secular” in India (Amardeep Singh has a good post explaining the differences: “Secular Constitutions: the U.S. and India“).

August 2nd, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Sanatana Dharma | 19 comments

Of “Puja”, “Murti” and Idol Worship

Pandit Dev Maharaj recently sent me a very well written (and easy to understand) introduction to the Hindu way of worship and an explanation of the different symbolisms.

In the article, he makes the point that, “Practitioners of Sanatan Dharma have frequently and erroneously been accused of idol worship…(which is not true)…Hindus believe that the spirit of God is both formless and without attributes called the Nirguna Brahman and with form and attributes called the Saguna Brahman, present in all things animate and inanimate. All is the creation of God and all is dissolved back into God, hence reverence is paid to God in the form of the Supreme spirit, in man, in animals and in nature.”

Essential reading for anyone wishing to know more about the various aspects of the traditonal “Puja”.

The pdf version of the article can be accessed by clicking the “Hindu Idol Worshippers” file in “Docs and Slides” in the right hand panel (lower down this page)

Dhanywaad, Panditji.

Related post: Of �Sacred Bulls�, Divinity &�Development

.

If you liked this article, consider subscribing to my feed or Subscribe by Email�

July 15th, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | no comments

“Hindutva Explained” - excerpts

Sandeep�has written an eloquent essay�on DesiCritics which makes for interesting reading� “Hindutva Explained”

Excerpts:

“…One of the fundamental aphorisms that embodies the whole of Sanatana Dharma in it is Tat Tvam Asi (You are That). The Tvam or Tva concerns us here.

Tva in its fullest sense can also mean “the state of becoming the object itself.” Like sugar that merges its identity with water upon dissolution. That is how I define Hindutva: Hindu + Tva(m).

As a political movement, Hindutva was a product of its time in the pre-Independence days. An essential product because the Congress party steadily began making ridiculous concessions to extremist Islamic demands. Not too many people remember that the Congress party was dubbed as a party of “Hindus who sought to tyrannize the Muslim minority.” That refrain continues to date sung by our Prime Minister.

On the other side of the fence, the Muslim leadership gave robust calls to restore the pristine Islamic glory that was India under the Mughals. Hindutva as a political ideology grew in both strength and numbers when the Congress party’s subsidences to Muslim demands accelerated under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership.

The version of Hindutva one hears and reads about in the media is heavily biased against it. Issues like the Babri Masjid and Gujarat violence are blown out of proportion to convey the impression that Hindutva stands for only this. Some vocal proponents of Hindutva need to share part of the blame for this representation because the climate of today’s public discourse has altered.

A small picture of a RSS worker with a Trishul in his hand splashed across front pages and TV screens convey very powerful impressions. Indeed, the most powerful and respected defenders of Hindu causes stemmed from, and are located outside organizational frameworks.

Hindutva is simply a revival of the rich spiritual tradition of India sans numerous evils that crept in with time. It has nothing to do with banning western clothes or books or films. Least of all, it doesn’t concern politics, a common Leftist misrepresentation, which equates a Hindu spiritual head with a Mullah.

Hindutva seeks to revive, expand, and promote the way of life that gave birth to concepts like Rta, Dharma, and Brahman. The fact that few understand these terms and/or ridicule them as backward, illogical, and fictitious makes the need for their revival more urgent. These concepts and their application to practical life has made possible the “tourist attractions” (temples, sculptures, etc) that India offers.

Most political parties who profess Hindutva are ignorant, confused, power-hungry or all of the above. The ones who work towards reviving the Hinduism based on what I just mentioned are typically outside the pale of politics. The kind of politics practiced today cannot revive Hindutva–at best it results in antics like banning Western clothes, distributing Trishuls etc…”

I doubt if I could have put it any better. Thanks Sandeep.

Related Post: Redefining Hinduism - Need of the�Hour. See also this article to understand the difference between “Dharma” and “Religion”: Excerpts from �Word as a�Weapon��

July 11th, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 4 comments

Redefining Hinduism - Need of the Hour

Tavleen Singh wrote a great piece�in Indian Express a few days back titled, “A dark, distorted Hinduism“.

In that�article, Tavleen talked about how “in these jehadi times, when Islamists run around the globe killing innocent people to prove that their Prophet and their book are the best, now and forever, the Hindu idea becomes even more relevant. What grander idea of faith can there be than that everyone is entitled to their own truth?“.

I was reminded of� �The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization�, in which Jean-Pierre Lehmann suggests that India (and the�Hindu tradition) can be the new ethical and spiritual role model for the world.

Sadly, the�only “brand” of Hinduism that does get publicity these days is�either the�”make�Shilpa Shetty�apologise for kissing Richard Gere” variety or the “seeking guidance from spirits” variety.

In her story,�Tavleen writes about her meeting with Rajiv Malhotra�of Infinity Foundation who has made his life’s mission to rectify misconceptions and mis-representations about Hinduism by, amongst others, “highly regarded American professors who have written scholarly tomes on Hinduism that make it sound like a mix of voodoo and pornography”

Keep Reading…

July 5th, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | A Hindu Identity, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, History, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy | 7 comments

Is this too much to ask?

For the last several�weeks, I have been deeply distressed�by several comments, reports and other articles re. the question of caste and how it is destroying the very fabric of our society and ruining�any chances of a united Hindu society.

See for example, the string of comments�in response to my two posts Utterly shameful and�inexcusable��and��Periyar was against Brahminism, not Brahmins�.

In response to one of the comments to the fore-mentioned posts, Selvan suggested I have a look at this�site:� “NavyaShastra“.

NavyaShastra’s aims are noble and its focus is clear. As it mentions�on its site, while judicial activism can trigger change in society (as can constitutional provisions, e.g. reservations) they may not be “sufficient to transfigure the often miserable status of the so called lower castes” in India.

For example, even though a recent�Supreme Court decision has confirmed that non-Brahmins are entitled to serve as temple priests, �”most religious leaders have remained conspicuously silent on the decision and, whether out of indifference or disapproval, have not publicly reflected on the potential consequences of the decision for Hindu society.”

Their silence is not surprising.

As I wrote�in my post�commenting on�the barring of Dalits to the Jagannath temple in Kendrapara, “The news is the conspicuous silence of the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and others on this matter. “

…Why is there not more of unequivocal condemnation of this practise? and why is not more being done to stop this? There can be no Bharat which alienates such a large section of our own - isn�t this obvious?”

In the post, I had�suggested�we enshrine the following words�at the entrance of every temple across the country:

�Every Hindu, irrespective of his caste, has a right to enter any Hindu temple which is open to other persons professing the same religion,�

NavyaShastra however has decided to do something more about it:

“Rather than bemoaning…we have decided to take matters into our own hands by inciting a public debate on the caste issue and other salient social issues. Would a Navya Shastra (or a comprehensive reinterpretation of existing Dharmashastras), proposing a more egalitarian configuration of Hindu society, be a beneficial template for affecting change?”

I tend to agree with that sentiment. Even though there is a large body of evidence to prove that discrimination and untouchability were never part of any Vedic scriptures,�the same perhaps cannot be said of the interpretations of some later day Shastras and religious texts (I may be wrong here, so please correct if you feel this is mis-leading or inaccurate).

As the NavyaShastra site says, “The caste system, as it is currently structured, spiritually disenfranchises the vast majority of Hindus” and unless there is a will�to change�”from the Hindu leadership itself”, we cannot expect much. It also mentions how the traditional interpretation of Dharma leaves no place for “Non-Hindus who wish to convert to Hinduism” and how the established orthodoxy must put its full weight behind the reform to help it succeed.

The site also has a letter of�apology�on its site “for the atrocities committed on the sons and daughters of the depressed communities of India, including the tribals, the “untouchables” and all of the castes deemed as low”.�

What�more can�be done?

A simple first step could be to publicly declare ourselves as�Hindus first and last and agree to the following:

1. That we will treat every Hindu regardless of caste, region, birth or sex as equal and deserving of an honourable and respectful treatment within the great Dharmic tradition that has become distorted, has been misinterpreted and�is widely misunderstood.

2. That we belive every Hindu has equal “right” and opportunity to participate fully in the great culture of Sanatan Dharma ,�regardless of caste, sex and birth and he/she should have�free and unfettered entry�to every temple, allowed participation in every ritual and access to every privilege which hitherto was limited only to certain classes (e.g. the “right” to become a priest or to conduct a “pooja”).

3. That we declare ourselves the true followers of Sanatan Dharma and commit ourselves to unite Hindu society against the onslaught of narrow-minded, casteist divisions which undermine our society, culture and traditions

Is that enough? Almost certainly not…but we have to begin somewhere. Inaction and indifferene is not really an option today.

Let these be the�first�steps towards reclaiming our great heritage and the core traditions & values inherent in Sanatan Dharma.

Please feel free to add other points to the short declaration above�in�comments.

Together, we can make a difference. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.

UPDATE: There is a lively debate going on in the comments section of this post on DesiCritics.Org. Have a look.

July 2nd, 2007 Posted by B Shantanu | A Hindu Identity, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, Sanatana Dharma | 2 comments