Hindu Dharma Newsletter Issue #3

Issue # 3

Dear Friends,
Namaskar,
This issue has been somewhat delayed but I hope my haste in getting this out has not compromised the quality.
Feel free to email feedback or suggestions (or indeed criticisms) that you may have. Comments and contributions gratefully recieved.
And as always, do let me know if you do NOT wish to receive this OR send a reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject.
Dhanyawaad and Jai Hind,
Shantanu
hindu_dharma@yahoo.com

*************************************

HINDUTVA AND THE INDIAN IDENTITY
I am sometimes asked what is my motivation behind this effort?
It is not easy to explain (particularly in the written form). How do you convey the intensity of passion in dry words or phrases – words and phrases in a language that are inherently separated from the experiences and emotions of a culture and a country that, somewhere along its 5000 years of history, has lost its identity?
Don’t get me wrong – I think one of the most profound side-effects of the British colonial experience has been the ability of the intelligentsia to communicate with each other in a shared language i.e. English. I do not think a common ground in terms of intellectual expression was realised in India’s recent history (although the Mughals did try with Farsi) before the British and their imposition of English as the language of the Empire.
But I am digressing.Coming back to the motivation point.
To me this effort is part of a grand challenge: How does one inspire a sense of identity amongst a population of a billion – a sixth of entire humanity – with all its attendant diversity, differences, disparities and distinctions?
There are no obvious answers – culture, language, geography, history all begin to diverge pretty rapidly.
If you hold this thought for a moment, here is another, equally daunting task:
How do we preserve and maintain nay strengthen, the essence of a great religion that has flourished in this land, a religion that is really a value system and a way of life… a religion that is perhaps one of the most (if not the most) tolerant of all major religions in the world today? Indeed, one of the reasons why it has survived several millennia (in spite of not having a Prophet or a Messiah) is its inclusiveness, its tolerance of diversity (try counting the number of sects), its successful assimilation of seemingly irreconcilable differences and thoughts (the “saguna” and the “nirguna” tradition for instance) and above all, its fluidity that intrinsically opposes any attempts at dogma.
The important thing is to be able to maintain the pride while acknowledging the imperfections. I am proud to be a Hindu – at the same time, I am ashamed of some of the perversions that have crept in over the centuries – the secondary status of women, the distortion of the varna-ashrama dharma into a rigid caste system and several other ills.
Faced with these two questions, I grasp at the most obvious, and logically elegant answer – what if these are two sides of the same coin? Seemingly so different yet part of the same complete picture?
How about defining our identity in terms of religion – something that is far more inclusive than language, customs, cultures, geography and history can ever be?
But, this is far easier said than done – & phrased this way, appears too simplistic to be worthy of any serious thought.
However, this would be the beginning of my definition of “Hindutva” – the understanding of an Indian identity with its roots in Hinduism.
What might be the defining characteristics and features of this ideology?
I am not presumptuous enough to think that this has never been attempted before – We have a whole body of literature and philosophical tracts that have attempted to define and simplify Hinduism and broaden its appeal and reform it*. Yet, this does not help much. Most of this work is difficult to access (even in India, let alone abroad) and so dry as to be totally un-interesting except for the most patient and persevering student of Hinduism.
Is there a way to resolve this – to encapsulate the ideology in a few salient points, to make it simple to understand, easy to explain and to make it logically consistent?
Here are my first thoughts: these will, obviously, need to go through several iterations and modifcations before they can be intellectually and logically defensible – and I am neither so naive nor so arrogant to think that I can do this alone – I need your help – and our collective intellectual wisdom. Between us, we have the intellectual capacity to begin this task – what we now need is motivation and a little bit of passion.
Here is a crude, first version of what the fundamentals of such an ideology might be:
* This ideology should not be anti-anything – BUT its most important characetristic will be PRO-Hindu (and we need to be clear of what exactly is pro-Hindu and what are these *Hindu values* that we stand for?
* It will need to have a simple, symbolic manifestation of the faith and identity that will be very important in raising collective consciousness. Thanks to a rich tradition, such symbols abound – from the *swastika* (crudely hijacked by the Nazis) to *Om*, to the *tilak*, the *Sindur*, *Rudraksha*, or the appealingly simple red thread tied on the wrist. Such a symbol needs to be clear and conspicuous but not mandatory – in other words, based on a system of active *opt-in* – such that not wearing a thread does not necessarily make one a non-believer but wearing it is a clear affirmation of identity.
* The ideology must be tolerant and respectful of diversity – a monolithic, unifying philosophy ultimately ends up as narrow-minded, regressive and divisive. We will need to actively avoid this – what I seek is not a monolithic unification but the power of assimilation. To me, the essence of Hinduism is “freedom”, not diktats….free will, not mandates.
* It should be inclusive – and actively so. Not just in belief but in actions – which means that everyone is welcome to join in and be a part of this and everyone who is in is equal to every one else.
* There should be no place for hierarchies or exclusiveness – both breed rigidity and ultimately lead to decay (This was one of the major reasons behind the decline of Buddhism in India)
* It must offer freedom of expression, the freedom to challenge the values and the system, without attracting any stigma or vicious condemnation
This much for now – as I said, your thoughts will be most appreciated. This is just a humble beginning.
*My own inspiration has been Swami Vivekananda.

*************************************
OPEN BORDERS AND UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION
Now to something that is really worrying from a long-term perspective.
As most of you may have read, the government recently announced plans to liberalise the visa regime for Pakistani citizens in the name of promoting good relations [“Liberalised visa norms for Pak citizens”, Agencies, Sept 18, 2004].
Amongst the categories of people that can now come in without any checks are: journalists and academics (+doctors, anyone above the age of 65 etc.) It is the loosely defined categories of journalists and academics that worries me most. In the past, ISI is known to have used journalists as cover for their activities – this makes it even easier.
But wait, this is not all. Here is an excerpt from a news-story reporting the recent developments:
“To a question, he (MEA Spokesman Navtej Sarna)said these were “unilateral” measures taken by the Indian Government which hoped similar steps would be taken by the Pakistan Government.”
Up until this point, I was just worried. After reading this, I was aghast. Can you feel the naiveté pouring out of this statement – “(Indian) Government… hoped similar steps would be taken by the Pakistan Government”?. Almost two months since this announcement – and still no sign of any reciprocal measure? Does it surprise you?
So while we worry about the implications to national security of letting a large number of people in, who we will find difficult to monitor and trace, we make sure that this problem becomes worse by encouraging this movement.
My fears about uncontrolled immigration were confirmed when I read these two recent reports (within a few days of each other) – which at first glance seem unrelated.
The first one ran as follows:
“Police detain Pakistani family for staying illegally in Meerut
Meerut, Sept. 14 (ANI): Police in Meerut have arrested an Indian woman married to a Pakistani national for staying illegally for the last more than six years. Police said Reshma Safdar arrived in India six years ago on a Pakistani passport….
Police said they suspected her husband was also staying in India. Sept 14, ’04 ”
The second was a news article on the recent Census:
“Assam has witnessed a record growth of Muslim population in the country and is second to only Jammu and Kashmir in terms of proportional growth, with 30.9 per cent of the State’s population being recorded as Muslims, according to the Census Report on religion.
Countrywide, Assam is second to J&K in terms of proportional growth of Muslims. With 67 per cent of its population being Muslim, the State has the highest Muslim population in the country and is a Muslim majority State.
West Bengal with 25.2 per cent of its population being recorded as Muslims closely follows Assam. In the North East, Tripura and Manipur has a significant Muslim population with the percentage of Muslim population hovering around eight per cent.”
Then a few weeks back, I heard first-hand accounts of how Pakistani men are increasingly “disappearing” this side of the border (particularly in Punjab) after entering the country on limited duration visas.
Although I will grant that there may well be an economic (rather than a religious/ or more sinister ) motivations driving this, it is not something that we can turn a blind eye to.
And finally, I came across this thought-provoking article by M V Kamath [“Religious demography and Census findings”, Organiser, October 10, 2004] which had some seriously alarming statistics.
To quote, “….Shri Banthia may have messed up some figures a bit but there are other scholarly works available that provide us with a precise picture of the demographic situation in the country. One such is Religious Demography of India authored by Messers A.P. Joshi, M.B. Srinivas and J.K. Bajaj and published by Centre for Policy Studies, Chennai. It is a brilliant study but ends with the 1991 Census. It has one major shortcoming. It does not specifically mention Hindus as a religious category. Rather, it speaks of ‘Indian Religionists’-a category that includes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as well. In that sense it is hard to make out the demographic strength of ‘Hindus’ as they are generally known, but if this factor is recognised, the conclusions arrived at by the authors are acceptable. What do they say?
If the Indian sub-continent (and that includes both Pakistan and Bangladesh) is taken as a whole, then, it is claimed, “the proportion of Indian Religionists is likely to fall below 50 per cent early in the latter half of the twenty-first century”. Significantly, the proportion of Indian Religionists declined by 11 percentage points in the Indian sub-continent in the last 110 years.”
So you have uncontrolled migration, declining growth in the Hindu population (accompanied by a disproportionate increase in the Muslim growth rate) and an increasingly assertive minority that has a history of using religion as basis of dividing the land.
This becomes more disturbing because the new immigrants (almost all Muslims) are influenced by an ideology that stresses assertions of a distinctive identity.
Islam has a history of demarcating itself, stressing its distinctiveness, carving out a niche – and gradually, through this process, promoting a distinct identity that eventually becomes so strong (and gains so much momentum) that it begins to subsume the majority consciousness and the culture of the very society that had so tolerantly played host to its distinct identity.
What are the consequences of this?
In the worst case, we face the horrifying sceptre of another partition – as specific immigrant groups/ minorities begin to demand their own *homeland*, in regions where they are dominant in numbers (exactly the argument used to justify the creation of Pakistan).
I am afraid that if this continues unabated, the combination of factors will lead to an internal turmoil of such magnitude that is scary to contemplate. The seeds for that turmoil are being sown now.

************************************************
BEFORE THE MASJID, THE MANDIR
Over the next few issues, I will include excerpts from Dr. Koenraad Elst’s excellent analysis of the history and the issues surrounding Ram-Janmabhoomi in his book “Ayodhya and After”. To those of you who wish to read his book in its entirety, it is available on the web
In this issue, I have attempted a précis of his excellent summary that outlines the evidence supporting the contention, that a Mandir existed on the site much before the Masjid. Read on:
The thrust of Dr Elst’s argument is this:
“The historical starting point of the Ram Janmabhoomi issue is the contention that the Babri Masjid structure in Ayodhya was built after the forcible demolition of a Hindu temple on the same spot by Muslim soldiers.”
1. There is archaeological evidence that a temple, or at the very least a building with pillars, has stood on the Babri Masjid spot since the eleventh century.
Although the JNU historians claim that there is no evidence of a temple on the site, the sheer topographical …lay of this part of the land renders itself to a prominent structure. To quote, “If you go to Ayodhya and walk to the Masjid/Janmabhoomi, you will find yourself walking uphill, even after passing the Hanuman Garhi which itself is on a little hill. Relative to the flatness of the entire Ganga basin, the disputed split is quite an elevated place, and it overlooks Ayodhya. Now, either prince Rama was a historical character, born in the castle of the local ruler, which would logically (i.e. strategically) have been built on this elevation, and then his birthplace temple would also have to be there. Or we do not assume Ram’s historicity (without necessarily excluding it) and we also do not assume that he was born there, which is the JNU historians’ position, and then the question is reduced to whether people would have refrained from building a temple on this hilltop.”
In an ancient town that has long been a place of pilgrimage (not just for Vaishnavs but also Shaivas, Jains and Buddhists), is it possible that “the geographical place of honour would have been left unused”?.
2. The temple was a *live* palce of worship, just before itw as razed to build the Masjid. It was neither dis-used nor abandoned.
“…It is very unlikely that the place was not functioning as a Hindu place of worship just before the Babri Masjid was built.
There is evidence for this in the fourteen pillar-stones with Hindu temple ornamentation that have been used in the construction of the Babri Masjid. Considering the quantity of bricks employed in the building, one cannot say that these fourteen pillar- stones were used merely to economize on bricks: quantitatively, they simply didn’t make a difference.”
Bearing in mind that this has been a pattern in previous Muslim structures (particularly in North India, e.g. the Gyanvyapi Mosque), it is almost certain that the Masjid was built just after the demolition of a “pagan” place of worship – to demonstrate the superiority of Islam and the power wielded by its adherents.
NB: No alternative explanations for the presence of these Hindu pillar-stones have been offered, not even by those historians who would have an ideological and argumentative interest in doing so.
To quote further from the text, “That the Babri Masjid replaced a pre-existent centre of worship, is also indicated by the fact that Hindus kept returning to the place, where more indulgent Muslim rulers allowed them to worship on a platform just outside the mosque. This is attested by a number of different pieces of testimony by Western travelers and by local Muslims, all of the pre-British period, as well as from shortly after the 1856 British take-over but explicitly referring to older local Muslim sources. A number of these documents have been presented by Harsh Narain and A.K. Chatterjee.
Most of these sources explicitly declare that the Babri Masjid had replaced an earlier Hindu temple, and even specify that it has been Ram’s birthplace temple. But whatever their historical explanation for this unusual phenomenon of Hindus insisting on worshipping in a mosque’s courtyard, they testify to the existing practice. And these Hindus were going into a mosque courtyard for specifically Hindu worship — not for common Hindu-Muslim worship of some local Sufi, as you find in some places, but for separate Hindu worship of Lord Ram. The JNU historians completely fail to explain this well attested fact. ”
3. Regardless of historical evidence (or lack of that), the spot in Ayodhya has had a huge symbolic significance for Hindus for more than a millenia.
The JNU historians also claim that the place has had no special significance to Hindus and that issue of the destroyed temple became high profile and attracted publicity simply due to political propaganda. This is untrue.
If you accept the JNU arguments, they do not explain why, even after the Mosque was built, Hindus kept returning to the place. Over the 800 years or so of Muslim rule in India, numerous temples were destroyed. In most cases, the Hindus simply built a new temple somewhere else and life moved on. Even after the end of Muslim rule, hardly any attempts were made to reclaim the sites.
Why then was there such a strong emotional attachment to Ayodhya?
“If they were so attached to the place, it is probably not because the erstwhile temple had made it important, but because the place had an importance of its own, and retained its special character even regardless of there being a temple in place or not. This assumption is coherent with the unanimous and uncontradicted testimony of Hindu and pre-colonial Muslim and Western sources, that the place was believed to be Ram’s birthplace.”
The quality of analysis in Dr Elst’s work is outstanding and I encourage everyone to read the full text and judge the evidence for yourself.

***********************************
FALLACY OF A PEACEFUL ISLAM.
Finally, another letter which I wrote to the Times some weeks ago, in response to a poorly argued viewpoint about Islam being essentially a peaceful religion.
The letter was titled, “Interesting Insight?” And is reproduced below:
In his article on “Our one-cudgel approach to Islam is costing us dear” [Sunday Times, 8th August ’04] Michael Portillo appears to express surprise at Anthony Browne’s view that (to quote) – Islam does really want to conquer the world – and dismisses it as an interesting insight.
Let us more fully explore this “insight” which Michael Portillo dismisses as only part of the argument, going on to assert that over 1400 years of history, Islam has also had “long periods of quiescence.”
Curiously (and tellingly) he does not mention when. I am assuming that at least part of these long periods were between 7th and 14th century (between the fall of Jerusalem to the occupation of Constantinople) which he refers to in his article.
But was this really a period of quiescence? Historical evidence does not suggest so.
From the late 9th century onwards, began a period during which the recent converts to Islam would unleash their full fury and zeal eastwards. Somewhere around the 10th century, as Islam seeped through the warlike and martial tribes of Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent became the new focus for their missionary zeal. Most notorious amongst the Islamic invaders of this period was Mahmud of Ghazni (971-1030), also known as the “Sword of Islam,” who ransacked the fabled temple of Somnath in modern day Gujarat not once but seventeen times, each time carrying so much gold that the weight supposedly crippled some of his elephants.
This plunder stopped only around 1010 AD once the Hindus had agreed to send Ghazni an annual tribute in the form of annual trains of elephants laden with gifts.
By the beginning of the 13th century, as the Muslim invaders pressed deeper inwards and strove to exercise their control over the non-muslim majority of India, vast tracts of land saw terror, carnage, enslavement and cruelty on an unimaginable scale. Even to begin describing this would make the plunder in Europe look tame by comparison.
Not surprisingly, Will Durant, the eminent historian (in his book, “Story of Civilisation”) remarks that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.
To put some more facts in perspective, Islam did not brought back to the West the knowledge of architecture, mathematics and astronomy (as Mr Portillo mentions in his article)
The phrase “brought back” is at best, condescending and at worse, historically inaccurate.
For this knowledge, which Arab traders brought to Europe (typified in the Arabic numeral system – itself a misnomer, since the Arabs did not invent it but merely acted as the purveyors of this knowledge) was not Islamic or Arabic. In fact much of this knowledge was originally derived from ancient Vedic literature from India and passed through Arab traders and conquests to Middle East and eventually reaching Europe.
To quote from Carl B. Boyer in his “History of Mathematics”, “…Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, …, who died sometime before 850, wrote more than a half dozen astronomical and mathematical works, of which the earliest were probably based on the Sindhind derived from India. Besides … [he] wrote two books on arithmetic and algebra which played very important roles in the history of mathematics. … In this work, based presumably on an Arabic translation of Brahmagupta, al-Khwarizmi gave so full an account of the Hindu numerals that he probably is responsible for the widespread but false impression that our system of numeration is Arabic in origin. … [pages 227-228]…”.
Further, in a translation of Alberuni ‘s “Indica”, a seminal work of this period (c.1030 AD), Edward Sachau, writes this in his introduction, “Many Arab authors took up the subjects communicated to them by the Hindus and worked them out in original compositions , commentaries and extracts. A favourite subject of theirs was Indian mathematics…”
Indica contains further numerous examples of the state of knowledge (including mathematics, astronomy and medicine that existed during and before this period in ancient / medieval India.
This is what Sachau writes about the Arab knowledge of astronomy, “As Sindh was under the actual rule of Khalif Mansur (AD 753 – 774), there came embassies from that part of India to Baghdad, and among them scholars, who brought along with them two books, the Brahamsiddhanta to Brahamgupta (Sirhind), and his Khandkhdyaka (Arkanda). With the help of these pandits, Alfazari, perhaps also Yakub ibn Tarik, translated them. Both works have been largely used, and have exercised a great influence. It was on this occasion that the Arabs first became acquainted with a scientific system of astronomy. They learned from Brahamgupta earlier than from Ptolemy.”
Mr Portillo would do well to reflect on the question he poses in his article, “Why does nobody ever read books?”

***********************************
The letter never got published.