Hindu Dharma Newsletter Issue # 6

4th Mar ‘05

Issue # 6

Dear Friends,

Namaskar,

It is now almost six months since the idea to begin this newsletter was born.
Since then, I have tried to nurture and develop this into something that is readable, informative and provokes introspection and discussion.
During these past months, I have also been asked about the objectives of this newsletter. I have rarely paused before answering this question – until recently, when several readers and close friends suggested that it would be a good idea to explicitly articulate the aims considering the wide range of issues that I tend to include and discuss on these pages.
In particular, I have received comments from readers who wonder why I need to have any discussion or analysis of Islam, Muslims and/or Pakistan in this newsletter given that this is explicitly a “Hindu Dharma” Newsletter. Some suggested that the contents may become more readable and/or consistent if I only discussed Hinduism, Hindutva and India and did not talk about Muslims, Islam and Pakistan.
Let me first say that please do not look for too much meaning in the title – It was chosen simply as a convenient umbrella under which I could discuss a range of issues.
Next, let me quote from the very first issue that I published back in September: “This modest and occasional newsletter is an attempt at sharing some of my thoughts on current events (including excerpts from interesting articles and news stories on contemporary happenings) and their impact on Hinduism and Bharat. I will also include commentaries on events happening in India that I believe will shape our destinies this century.”

OBJECTIVES AND AIMS
Broadly speaking, the objective is to educate, inform and make people aware about Hinduism, Bharat (a name that is at risk of being forgotten if we don’t use it enough), “Hindu Rashtra” (at this stage, just a concept) and “Hindutva” (which I define in socio-cultural as well as political terms). This includes raising issues that are often ignored in mainstream media and/or are considered taboo.
How do these issues link? … and what is the common theme?
I believe “Hindutva” provides us with one of the best means to define our identity as an Indian. Although, in theory (and notionally), we do have a sense of some identity, the differences amongst us are so prominent (at a social level), that we struggle to think of ourselves as Indians first and Maharashtrians or Punjabis second.
I see “Hindutva” as a means of forging this identity (which I define as “the understanding of an Indian identity with its roots in Hinduism” – e.g. see Issue # 3). “Hindutva” is not a ideological doctrine that defines itself in terms of rituals or deities – rather it is an attempt to create an identity based on certain shared ideals that most of us adhere to (whether sub-consciously or consciously – such as tolerance of others, faith in an all Supreme Being) and that manifests itself in some visible (but not too onerous) form to create a stronger sense of belonging.
A “Hindu Rashtra” will not be a theological state (as understood in the western context) but a country that will define its identity in terms that manage to encompass the largest number of our citizens, regardless of their personal inclinations and beliefs. It will also provide a strong anchor for our culture of tolerance and respect for diversity and allow us to adopt elements of modernity without having to abandon traditional values.
As you will notice, these thoughts link together Hinduism, Hindutva, my ideas about a symbol as a mark of identity and the concept of a Hindu Rashtra.
Why then, you may ask, do I raise issues like “Muslim and Birth Control”? For two reasons (i) because this (and other such issues e.g. “Open Borders and Uncontrolled Immigration”) have implications for our economic development and future and (ii) the issues are intertwined with religion which we either deliberately ignore (out of fear for hurting sensibilities) or tend to overlook (e.g. by focusing only on the socio-economic aspects of birth control).
Similarly, the reason for discussing the controversy surrounding Taj Mahal had nothing to do with Hinduism directly but was more an attempt to find (and correct) distortions in historical accounts that may have lead to false conclusions about the development of arts and architecture in medieval times and recent history.
What about Islam, Muslims and Pakistan? Why are they relevant to a newsletter about “Hindutva”, Hinduism and “Hindu Rashtra”?
As any student of Indian history will realise, no serious study or debate about the last 2000 years of our history can be had without involving Islam and Muslims (and latterly the British).
To put things in perspective: Muslims not only notionally “ruled” India for about a millennium years, they were also directly responsible for plunder, rampage and cruelty that exceeds anything that the modern mind can comprehend.
To cite a couple of examples: The Himalayan range of “Hindu Kush” (literally translated as “Hindu Killer” in Persian) mountains got its name from the genocide of Hindus that occurred about a 1000 years ago. To the Hindus, the range was “Pariyaatra Parvat” – but this was forgotten after the last Hindu king of Kabul was killed. Significantly, this is one of the very few place-names on earth that reminds us not of the victory of the winners but rather of the slaughter of the losers* (*source: Koenraad Elst).
The second example is that of the plunder by Nadir Shah, in particular the looting of the Peacock throne which even today remains the most expensive man-made work of art. The throne was “…wrought out of 1150 kg of gold and 230 kg of precious stones including the famed Kohinoor… Encrusted with 26,733 precious stones and ascended by silver steps, its back was a peacock’s tail of sapphires, pearls and turquoises” (more at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000130/spectrum/main7.htm ) The French historian Alain Danielou describes Nadir Shah’s attack on Delhi in these words: “Nadir Shah, of Iran attacked Delhi in 1739 and for a week his soldiers massacred everybody, ransacked everything and razed the entire countryside, so that the survivors would have nothing to eat. He went back to Iran taking with him precious furniture, works of art, horses, the Kohinoor diamond, the famous Peacock throne and 150 million rupees in gold.” (“Histoire de l’ Inde”, Alain Danielou pp. 251- 290). In his words, “From the time when Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, destructions.” (“Histoire de l’Inde”, Alain Danielou, p.222)
I believe we cannot honestly discuss the future of Bharat and Hindutva without discussing and mentioning the one religion that has been responsible for shaping so much of our past history and has been the source of a great lot of our misery.
More importantly, several centuries of foreign subjugation have left such a lasting imprint on the Hindu psyche that even today, our subconscious tendency is to be apologetic about our beliefs – no doubt a survival instinct born out of hundreds of years of domination.
Finally, Islam was a crucial and undeniable factor behind the events that led to partition, inexcusable bloodshed and the creation of a state that was built on the premise of antipathy towards India, Hindus and the culture that has flourished in this land.
With this backdrop, is it really possible to have a fair, open and informed debate about the future of India, “Hinduism” or “Hindutva” without involving Muslims, Islam and Pakistan in the discussion?
Not just that, but is it possible to have a serious discussion regarding the future of India without worrying about an enemy and a neighbour who harbours deep-seated hatred, a feeling of inadequacy (having lost a dominion) and, to top it, remains dangerously armed, drawing support from a violent pan-regional ideology (Islam)? I think not.
I sincerely believe that any serious and meaningful discussion about the future of Bharat, Hindutva and Hindu Dharma will have an undercurrent of Islam and Muslims in it.
But let this not mean that I am anti-Muslim or anti-Pakistan. In fact, I strongly feel that stability in Pakistan would relieve us of a great strategic threat and it is in our interest to have a Pakistan that is stable and one that does not define itself simply in terms of being “anti-India”.
So much for now. I would welcome comments
As always, do let me know if you do NOT wish to receive this newsletter anymore OR simply send a reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject.

Dhanyawaad and Jai Hind,
Shantanu
hindu_dharma@yahoo.com

***********************************
HINDU MAHABODH ABHIYAAN:
Should History be compulsory reading at school and in colleges?
In a society like India, where our sense of identity and self-worth has been battered by alien influences and foreign domination for more than 12 centuries (first under the Mughals and then under the British), I think teaching History – or at least making it available in a easily readable form – could be a very important in our quest for defining our identity.
This could be an important step in fostering an Indian sense of identity and helping Indians become aware of our extra-ordinarily rich, varied and glorious heritage and make us feel proud to be a Hindu and an Indian.
In particular, I would like specific focus on ancient Indian history (which will no doubt make all of us feel very proud) and medieval history (which will help us in learning from the mistakes of the past and not repeating them).
Traditionally, Indians have not been good at learning from our past mistakes and this has been a “theme” throughout the course of Indian history. Indian kings and rulers – lacking a tradition of rigorous historical accounts – have repeatedly made similar mistakes in dealing with external aggression and internal problems.
The Hindu psyche has never given much attention to the factual past and there has not been a clear demarcation between history & tradition. Absence of any critical view of mistakes made in the past, have contributed to our inability to learn from them.
In this context, a mass awareness campaign (“Hindu Mahabodh Abhiyaan”) could be a good idea. The objective of this campaign could be to make Indians aware of the great legacy that we have and the great tradition that has survived through the centuries. Ironically, even as the West is increasingly recognising the importance of advances in Indian science and mathematics, we are at risk of creating an entire generation that has no idea of (or interest in) our heritage and history.
The inspiration to suggest the “Mahabodh Abhiyaan” came after I had a look at a recent booklet published by the Swaminarayana Temple in London. (This is now on the web at this website http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside.asp?cat_name=qanda&cid=1077&sid=175 Although I have my points of disagreement with the “Swaminarayan” ideology, I must admire the efforts that they have put in and the very sincere attempt to promote Hinduism amongst children and adults who may be unaware of our tradition and the progress that had been made in those times.
What do readers think? Is there anyway that we can began this effort on a smaller scale?
I cannot resist adding that the RSA Security Conference (the biggest event in Information Security) next year is going to be dedicated to celebrating the achievements in mathematics in ancient India”.

***********************************
SWASTIKA AND ITS RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE
As some of you may be aware, there has been a great deal of controversy in the UK regarding the wearing of an armband by Prince Harry that had a “swastika” badge on it.
This created a predictable uproar in the local media with many people being reminded of the grim horrors of the Holocaust (the Prince was wearing a replica Nazi uniform).
Along with the reaction, there were calls for the symbol to be banned (on the grounds of being racially offensive).
Thankfully, the Hindu Forum of Great Britain got into the act (see, “HFB launches national campaign to reclaim swastika”, http://www.hinduforum.org/Default.aspx?sID=45&cID=100&ctID=11&lID=0 ) and decided to start a campaign to create awareness amongst the general public about how an ancient Hindu symbol had been misappropriated by the Nazis.
As I watched this controversy unfold, I realised that I was myself not fully aware of the significance of “swastika” and how it had come to be associated with the Nazis.
Below is a summary from my research on the subject.
Origins
The word “swastika” originates in Sanskrit. It is composed of “su”, meaning good/well and “asti” meaning “to be”; svasti thus means “well-being”; “-ka” forms a diminutive, and svastika/swastika might thus be translated literally as “little thing associated with well-being”. In ancient Indo-European cultures, it was put on objects to symbolise good luck.
In geometric terms, the swastika is an irregular icosagon or a 20-sided polygon.
The right-handed clockwise swastika is considered an auspicious symbol of the sun or of Lord Vishnu, the sustaining aspect of God (in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwar). It also represents the world-wheel around a fixed and unchanging centre, God.I am not sure about the first appearance of the word or the symbol in ancient Indian texts but it has been in use since antiquity.
Usage
As a symbol, it has been used for several millennia – not just in India but also in other ancient civilisations (e.g. it has been found in the ruins of the city of Troy). Other than Hinduism, it has also been used in Buddhism, Jainism, and other cultures including in the Native American cultures.
In earlier times, the swastika was used freely by Sumerians, Hittites, Celts and Greeks, among others. Even the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo, England, contains gold cups and shields bearing swastikas. The swastika has also appeared in South and Central America, and has been widely used in Mayan art during that time period.
In both Hinduism and Jainism, the swastika is used to mark the opening pages or their account books, thresholds, doors, and offerings.
The major difference between the Nazi swastika and the ancient symbol of many different cultures, is that the Nazi swastika is at a slant, while the ancient swastika is rested flat.
Here is a fascinating titbit from a BBC article on the subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4183467.stm>
“The British author Rudyard Kipling, who was strongly influenced by Indian culture, had a swastika on the dust jackets of all his books until the rise of Nazism made this inappropriate. It was also a symbol used by the scouts in Britain, although it was taken off Robert Baden-Powell’s 1922 Medal of Merit after complaints in the 1930s.
The Finnish Air Force also used it as its official symbol in World War II, and it still appears on medals, but it had no connection with the Nazi use.It is rarely seen on its own in Western architecture, but a design of interlocking swastikas is part of the design of the floor of the cathedral of Amiens, France.”
Association with Nazism and anti-Semitism
The almost universally positive meanings of the swastika were subverted in the early twentieth century when it was adopted as the emblem of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Since World War II, most Westerners see it as solely a fascist symbol, leading to incorrect assumptions about its pre-Nazi use and its current use in other cultures.
Below is an abbreviated chronology of how the symbol became associated with Hitler in the early part of 20th century.
The symbol’s first use as an anti-Semitic symbol was in 1870 when it was used by the Austrian, pan-German followers of Schoenerer, an Austrian anti-Semitic politician.
In 1910, a poet and nationalist Guido von List suggested that the swastika as a symbol for all anti-Semitic organizations. When the National Socialist Party was formed in 1919, it adopted this ancient symbol, thus setting the stage for destroying the positive symbolism with which the swastika had been associated for thousands of years.
The Nazi party formally adopted the “swastika” (called Hakenkreuz meaning the hooked cross) in 1920. This was used on the party’s flag, badge and armband.
In 1935, the black swastika on a white circle with a crimson background became the national symbol of Germany.
While it is important to make every effort to reclaim the swastika, we should, at the same time, make strenuous efforts to ensure that it is clearly differentiated from the design and symbolism used by the Nazis and everything associated with it.Next, some excerpts (paraphrased slightly for readability) from an interesting thesis regarding how (and why) the symbol was hijacked by the Nazis. This is one of the more credible explanations that I have come across so far (see full article here). I have paraphrased it slightly for purposes of summary.

A (possible) explanation of how this ancient symbol became associated with Nazi ideology”…In the later part of 18th century, as British interest in India grew, there began efforts to do more research on the art, culture and languages of ancient India. One of the earliest researchers was Sir William Jones (1746-94) who established the Royal Asiatic Society. A gifted linguist who studied Sanskrit, Jones is widely regarded as the father of “Indology”. Knowledge of this ancient and sacred Hindu language made many scholars realise not only its great antiquity, but also its affinity to most of the languages spoken in the West – an interest that was taken up most stridently by the Germans.

A weak and divided people at the time and suffering the threat of domination by both France & Austria, the Germans were split into various states and dukedoms, the largest of which was Prussia. This period of alienation, accentuated by events such as the fall of the Holy Roman Empire due to Napoleon’s conquest, led many German thinkers of the early nineteenth century to look for inspiration to India.

These included Frederick von Schlegel, his brother Augustus Wilhelm, Wilhelm von Humbolt, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Hegel. There was also the rise of romanticism in Germany, a reaction to the industrialisation of European society that was fast gathering pace. While “romanticism”, i.e. an idealisation of the past before industrialisation, manifested itself in the poetry of Wordsworth in Britain, in continental Europe, it meant something else.

As well as idealising the pre-industrial “purity” of humans living in harmony with nature, the German romanticists also talked of the pagan heroes before the time of Christianity, in their view, brave warriors who held off the Romans in the almost impenetrable forests of central Europe.

This however, had a more sinister side. Some romanticists wanted to free themselves of the “alien” Jewish contamination brought into German society by Christianity, as well as by the Jews themselves. As Prussia emerged as a military power and German unification was achieved in 1871, the British looked on with alarm. Indeed Sir Henry Maine, former Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University said: “..a nation has been borne out of Sanskrit.”In the meantime, in their efforts to create a intermediating class (“white Brahmins”) between themselves and the “dark subjects”, the British began a programme of “re-discovering” (and researching) ancient Indian culture in earnest. The intention may have been to undermine the belief system of at least the “progressive” Indians with the hope that they would become dis-enchanted with the literary and cultural heritage of India, once the “truth” (via such research) became evident.

In this effort, the person they turned to for help was a devout Protestant and gifted Vedic scholar, German Sanskritologist, Friedrich Max Muller.

For a princely sum (in those days) of £10,000 Max Muller was persuaded to work for the British East India Company by Macaulay, to translate the Rig Veda. His intentions were, however, less than noble.

In 1866, in a letter to his wife about his work, he wrote, “…this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda, will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion and to show them what the root it, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.”Though one cannot cast doubt on his intelligence and talent, Muller’s scholarship is nevertheless marred by this ulterior motive. This was only the beginning. It was Max Muller who gave “Aryan” a racial meaning, knowing full well as a scholar well versed in that ancient language, that Sanskrit “Arya” does not mean race.From this point onwards, the idea of Aryan race could not be contained; In parallel, the idea of an “Aryan” invasion by Indo-European (and obviously fair-skinned) tribes from Central Asia, who authored the Vedas and established the basis of Hinduism, came to be widely accepted, even though it had absolutely no basis in any indigenous tradition of India – In reality, this was an “invention” of Muller who employed it as an ideological mechanism for colonial domination by the British.

The idea was adopted and further enhanced by romanticist intellectuals who wanted to free themselves of all Judaic influence brought upon them by Christianity, and saw this Aryan racial theory as another string to their bow.

Like the artificial dating of the Vedas to 1400BCE (so as to be more recent than the books of the Bible), it had absolutely nothing to do with India itself, and the people of India neither had any role nor any influence in this discourse.

The swastika, symbol of ancient cultures par excellence, was an ideal mechanism with which to manufacture a mythical past, which never existed. And it served as a counter-point of stability in a turbulent environment that was dominated by power politics, the formation of nation states, anti-Semitism and influenced by ideas of Social Darwinism and eugenics.

Runic symbols, Norse gods such as Odin, and even the ancient Greek myth of Atlantis, all were exploited along with the swastika and idea of the Aryan race to bolster Nazi theory and ideology….”
Some more information on how the symbol was hijacked by the Nazis and completely deprived of it original meaning (from an article by Chirag Badlani, “Nazi Swastika or Ancient Symbol? Time to Learn the Difference”, Jun ’97) http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/swastika.html>
Here is a somewhat dated (’99) article about how a misunderstanding about the symbol caused an Indian employee to loose his job in the US http://www.tamiltigers.net/tamilcanadian/canada9901l.html>
Finally, a link to an excellent and scholarly introduction to various Hindu symbols: http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa121400a.htm>

And a fascinating hypothesis regarding the origins of “Aum” and “Swastika”:
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/omkar.html>

***********************************
PAKISTAN AND STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM
Few weeks ago, I came across a brilliant analysis of the failures of US Intelligence in assessing the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden and how the administration (and the various agencies – particularly the FBI) repeatedly failed to act on warnings and specific evidence in the belief that terrorism would never be a threat on US soil.
The book, “The Age of Sacred Terror” by Daniel Benjamin and Stephen Simon includes several sections and references on Pakistan, the links between ISI and Al-Qaeda and the duplicity of Pakistani leadership.
Aptly, the major section on Pakistan (in a chapter titled, “Fields of Jihad”) begins thus: “as a state, Pakistan has been failing since birth” and concludes with this remark:
“The apocalyptic mentality of the terrorists and their fantasies of omnipotence are driving them toward the use of weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan is probably their best potential source of the materials, or of the weapons themselves”. [Pg 205]
This view found an echo in the latest issue of TIME magazine in a cover story titled “The Merchant of Menace” (Feb 14, 2005 issue) which details how A Q Khan (head of Pakistan’s nuclear programme) became the world’s most dangerous nuclear trafficker.
It is hard to believe, after reading these accounts, that the US had no idea of Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear programme or the fact that there were serious leakages of nuclear technology happening through channels that were supported and funded by the military establishment, ISI and the Pakistani government itself.
Back to the book. Here is a particularly stark example of the duplicity of Pakistan’s leadership in their dealings with India (this particular episode occurred at the time of Kargil crisis):”The (nuclear) tests and much international diplomacy brought the two governments back from the extreme positions that they had staked out. In February ’99 Prime Minister Vajpayee of India met Sharif in Lahore for a summit but the respite was short. In the spring, a dangerous military confrontation erupted between the two countries in the Himalayan region of Kargil, as Pakistani forces made a surprise incursion across the northern section of the Line of Control……India’s leaders, who quickly realized that the planning for the Kargil adventure had been going on during the Lahore summit, were in no mood for half-measures….(Page 277, Chapter titled, “The Unknown War”]
This is the leadership and the country that we “trust” and want to encourage a dialogue with. In this, I would blame the BJP-led government as much as I would the present Indian leadership (which of course wants to be a step ahead in appearing to be conciliatory and friendly towards Pakistan.
Continuing further, on Page 280, here is what the authors have to say about President Musharraf, “….the general was a virtual unknown to American policy makers, His record, however, had one transfixing blot: he was the architect of Kargil.” And yet we continue to negotiate with this man!
Talking about the time when the media’s obsession with the Clinton’s impeachment story (& the Lewinsky scandal) was overshadowing other major stories, Benjamin and Simon note: “When one of us was asked over lunch by the foreign editor of The Washington Post what the most important story was that the press was missing, the answer given was: the rise of radical Islam, especially in South Asia.”
“…In March (2000), again on the (New York) Times op-ed page, we warned of “Pakistan’s accelerating disintegration” and the dangers to South Asia posed by the “graduates of the terrorist camps in Afghanistan”…” [The story was “As a Conflict Intensifies, It’s India’s Move”, New York Times, 15 Mar 2000, A3].
Isn’t it extraordinary that in spite of these statements and views by independent/ third-party observers, we continue to harbour the “hope” that Pakistan will some day cease to be a hotbed for radical Islamism and stop abetting terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere?
To make matters worse, we are now allowing Pakistani citizens without passports and visas to come into Kashmir and cross back. What next – open borders? (read an excellent commentary on this issue at http://www.sulekha.com/weblogs/weblogdesc.asp?cid=25495 )
I shudder to think of the consequences of this. Of course this government and these leaders will long be gone by the time this becomes an obvious problem – and we will be left to face the brunt and the consequences of this disastrous, myopic and populist decisions.
I just hope that it will not be too late.
***********************************

LAST WORD
P.S. Came across this nugget on the sulekha website (regarding the new bus service between Srinagar and Muzzafarabad):
“It is worth bearing in mind that the last time the Indian PM took a bus to Pakistan, we got the Kargil war”.
***********************************