Will Ayodhya be the deciding battle for the Hindu nation?

That is very unfair analysis. I agree that Christianity and Islam had violent past but beyond that there is not much in common. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions, but the latter is very different from the first two. Judaism and Christianity are evolving with time. But Islam is not. It is true that xian missionaries are aggressively avagelizing in the non-xian world mainly in the under developed countries, but it is also true that in the developed xian world they are allowing all religions equal opportunity to flourish. Try doing that in Islamic countries. I would suggest that you do not lump these two religions together. There is very little in common between them except some violent past.

If Greeks and Romans want to revive what they had in the past no one is stopping them. In fact it is the xians who are trying to preseve and restore the past all over the world. And you cannot deny that Judeo xian culture was the source of the present day concept of human rights, democracy, social justice etc.. The judicial system that ruled on Ayodhya issue came out judeo xian culture.

The battle has been enjoined at several levels: The rootedness, vibrancy and timeless relevance of Hinduism is noticeable everywhere; instead of its’ own mess in the CWG, Kargilgate, emerging/ ongoing “interlocutor” mess etc etc, the Kkangress chose to take up Ayodhya at its’ meeting. The pseu-secs and pseu-sec “eminent” historians, the BMAC all stand thoroughly exposed. What is stated today was realized by the likes of M.N.Roy and assorted commies, Nehru and psec gang a long time ago: their crowd would have no relevance once Hinduism re-emerges. I would love to see the Kkangress, the Nehru-Gandhi clan and the Commies crushed and destroyed in my lifetime.

Yes it will be the deciding factor and it establishes few main points…

The Muslims destroyed the Hindu temples and built their structures on top of it in the past hoping that these acts will not be challenged in future. If we do not reverse these barbaric acts, it only gives more confidence and encouragement for these perpetrators to do more of such acts in the future. When these are reversed, it teaches a lesson of goodwill that righteousness will always triumph even if it takes violence to uphold it.

The Muslims still uses violence on Hindu society as the Hindu society did not confront or reverse their acts. They do it with the ultimate hope that when damage is done on the Hindu society, it is irreversible with the current secular, legal and civil establishments.

Thus, these reversal, will pave way for India to decolonize its demography and thoughts and get back to its roots. Thus giving a strong signal that all adharmic deeds will always fall when dharma raises back. This will send a positive impression to all to uphold dharmic way and shun adharmic ways as it fail ultimately.

“Ayodhya – Deciding Battle for the Hindu Nation“:

An apt heading. There is hardly anything that you have stated can be challenged.

This is perhaps the first article which has addressed the core issue of why Ayodhya is important for India? Its significance for Hindus. We are not given to aggressive projection of our religion. Live and let live has been our way of life.

We have withstood many debilitating attacks from raiders and other religions, yet have not been wiped out or retaliated with force seeking revenge for their acts, speaks volumes of our forbearance.

The time is upon us to reconnect with our glorious past and spread the message of peace and love unlike other religion have been doing.

We do not indulge in proselytizing, we do spread the message of universal brotherhood. which is the central theme of our religion and religious discourse.

Some of you are dreaming. Get real, folks. Use more logical thinking and less emotions. Not much is likely to change. Some one said here that days of hindu rashtra are gone. I agree. We cannot go back there. There never was any hindu rashtra to begin with. The only religion that wants to establish and has established their rashtas is Islam. And look at the mess they are creating all over the world. Look at the next door to Pakistan. In this 21st century it makes no sense whatsoever to establish a nation based on religion. What you need to do is to esablish a true secular state which India is not at the present time.

Americans and others are attracted to hinduism not because they are impressed with the way hinduism is practised. They are impressed with the teaching of hinduism. The way hinduism is practised in India needs to be reformed. Not long ago I read that in order for some untouchables to enter a temple, they needed police escort. Brahmins came back later and performed purification ritual. It is no wonder that such folks are enticed to xianity or islam. Why not?

Hinduism has a lot to offer to the world. But that is because of its broad concept of inclusive society accepting all different paths including that of denial of existence of god. By pushing this concept of hindu rashtra you are bringing down this great religion in line with Islam, the only other religion with their rashtra. No other religion is trying to go after their rashtra. Vatican is not really relavant. Separation of religion from politics is a part of hinduism. That is why none of our great religious teachers in the past and even now enter politics. Hinduism itself does not support hindu rashtra.

The idea of Hinduism as the lynch pin of the Hindu Rashtra meets head on with the inherent contradictions of Hinduism which have to be resolved before accommodation can be made with other religions such as Christianity and Islam. Islam and Christianity are distinct sets of beliefs in a way Hinduism with its all embracing approach can never be. Even without introducing divisive elements of Christianity and Islam, the normal state of Hinduism has been a state of disarray for as long as anyone can remember. Disarray in religion might be tolerated if the state was able to hold together, that is the idea of people working together in a joint enterprise. We see evidence of that when the Spartans numbering 300 held of an army of 10,000 Persians at the battle of Thermopylae with the help of about 1,000 Greeks. That was a display of strength in diversity which we Hindus talk so casually about which has been difficult to find in our own history. Our history instead is replete with betrayals in which a few have prospered at the expense of the many: they do so to this day. It is perhaps too harsh blame the Hindu religion when it is the character of the people that has been at fault. Since that is the case, then no effort should be spared in dealing ruthlessly with them.

@Ravi

Even you must recognize that the Hindus of India are not a paragon of virtue. If Hinduism does nothing else, it should at least provide the guide by which people live ethical and wholesome lives. There is not the space to go into detail but it hard not to see that it falls well short of even Christianity and Islam. As Hinduism decided to go as a religion in which the course is chosen from a menu to suit the person, it needed an institutional and legal framework of sanctions that protected society against the excesses of anarchy. Both have been absent. This was most evident in the last election when Hindu religious leaders appeal for Hindu unity in the face of assaults of the Congress Party on Hindus, went unanswered.

India’s independence leaders feared the village option provided by Gandhi as regressive. Hindu Rashtra has to be more than a cliche for it to have any meaning for the Hindu and any government in waiting. The claim of the Hindu Rhastra is valid as it comes from the Ramayana and King Bharat’s rule. The rule of the West originates from the constitution provided by the holy bible. If America’s constitution withered away, America could, with some difficulty function by the code of ethics contained in the bible to govern personal and business relations. The same question does not arise for the UK because it does not have a constitution. Tall claims have been made for the Hindu Rashtra and the claims of Hinduism’s rational philosophy, but I have seen little evidence of it having filled any of the many holes in the Indian state. A beginning beyond idle chatter is long overdue.

Morris wrote:

“I agree that hindu thinkers of the past perhaps did think about human rights and other issues. But that is not very important.”
==

Yes – perhaps, maybe, perchance, conceivably, could be, might be. Not important. What’s important is to create doubt.

Morris wrote:

“What is important is that it is the judeo xian culture that articulated the importance of these values and tried to put them in practice.”

==

Now we come to what is really important – assertions of certitiude, with complete absence of “perhaps.” Of course what is really important is the judeo ctian culture that not only articulated the importance of these values of equality of all, but tried to put them in practice – the same Judeo-Christian culture that legalized and elevated to a fine art, the practices of slavery, racism and women disenfranchisement, and wrote all this in its holy books as word of almighty god.

Morris, conflating Hinduism with only the caste system is a trick that is getting very old and ineffective. Please come up with some new tricks – that stick of caste system has worn thin with repeated use.

@Morris: “What is important is that it is the judeo xian culture that articulated the importance of these values and tried to put them in practice.”

two WORLD wars in the just last 100 years, genocide, colonialism, terrorism, nuclear weapons (actually used), thanks to the judxians

in fact, a case can be made that such monotheistic religions can NEVER be religions of peace by definition. because US and THEM is hardwired into them. All these catastrophes can be traced back to be a consequence of this basic fact. …

sorry, your statements dont stack up.

The following articles may be of interest to your readers:

AYODHYA, IS IT JUST A TITLE DISPUTE?

HAS THE COUNTRY MOVED ON?

@morris

“What is wrong with that? If you are aware of what is going around the EU and Americas, you should know that they are honestly trying. What else can you ask for? At least they are trying. Some parts of the world do’nt care about such values let alone trying to practice”

Do American and European nations profess and practice as per their convenience or as deep rooted convictions. Havent they been opportunistic? Isnt it a fact that western nations that you have been bragging about have exploited and are still exploiting poorer nations for their self interest? Isnt it a fact that the establishment in US treats African Americans as mere objects in the economy? When they need a hitting stick they profess human rights and values to other nations. When they need the rogue regimes for economic or strategic interests, they remain silent collude or condone in the violations of rights and values. What about imperialism and colonialism which employed the most inhuman practices?

“What is important is that it is the judeo xian culture that articulated the importance of these values and tried to put them in practice”

You talked of the evils in Hinduism. The taste of pudding is in eating. Is it not a fact that the xtians invaded and imposed their religion by indulging in mass violation of human rights and destruction of places of worship? Do you deny the acts of violence propagated to spread their religion? What about the utter disregard for human rights and values.

Yes there is realization about the importance of human rights and values in western nations(so is the case with all open societies), but how can you say that “it is the judeo xian culture that articulated the importance of these values and tried to put them in practice”.

Once again lets compare the track record of Hindus versus xtian religions. Lets do a comprehensive comparison. Not just “caste system” alone, lets do a comprehensive analysis on the respective track records.

All of us have past that we are not proud of. But what we are doing now and where we are heading is what counts

Absolutely. But lets not deviate from the original point of discussion.

@Morris & Shantanu

I appreciate the frank and honest expression of views which has shed light on some dark corners of importance to us. I have not seen anything you two have said which was not intended to work towards greater understanding.

There are some things on which we keep running around in circles. Any talk of Hinduism and dharma has a habit of turning into semantics blocking all possible progress. For a language like Sanskrit which has been described as very precise, it seems not to have named the religion of India. In religion much like politics, it is the derogatory name which tends to stick. Hinduism has become the accepted word for the religion of the Hindus. Because the Vedas were mostly inaccessible and arcane, treatise prescribed the conduct expected of the Hindus. That is how the name dharma came into being. Other religions likewise have extensive writings, but no similar word. There is no need to read more into the word dharma.

The other question that arises is the place of Hinduism in India’s declared “secular” constitution? The word secular has a special meaning in the West which cannot easily carried into the Indian context. When Locke wrote on secularism, he specifically excluded Roman Catholicism and Islam as dangerous to the state. Secularism therefore really only has meaning to a Christian state which has decided to live in tolerance of their other faiths.

The problem for India’s constitution is that as great as they were, they were wrong to pursue the path of the secular republic. The logical corollary of the bloody partition of India called for a Hindu state. There seemed little possibility of resurrecting her kings which had no connection with her ancient past. Hindus had arrived into the 20th century with beliefs and social practices not best fitted for the modern world. Any country then had the choice of choosing the communist model or the constitutional democracy. The Chinese experience suggests that the Communist model has removed from their people the disabilities their country suffered from struggle for primacy of religion and political ideas. If the Chinese parliamentary democrats had won, there is reason to believe that China would have progressed even faster and better. For them salvation of a great civilization and country would have been their mission whoever was in charge.

With India, it is hard to see who if anybody is in charge in the same sense as the Chinese, Russians etc have been. This is why it is so crucial to revisit our Hindu past, not simply for how the Hindu religion could help in re-dedication of our endeavors for a better India but to fashion a state that is fit for the purpose in a way the current one is not.

Morris wrote
“I did not mean to be unfairly critical of Hindus. But it is true that hindu society was full of injustices to women, to widows, to lower caste people etc. To their credit they are trying to adopt measures to remedy these injustices.”
__

Morris,

I doubt that anyone is making the case that Hindu society was (and is) wonderful + perfect with no negative behaviors at all. I doubt that any society like that ever existed, or will exist – except in the minds of utopians. Human nature being what it is, there will always be some negative behaviors in societies, which will express themselves through certain actions, and will be corrected in due course of time.

Where you show your ignorance – willful or otherwise – is in not giving credit to leaders in Hindu society (over the ages, and continuing to this day) for making efforts to not only recognize ills, but bringing about positive changes to fight the social ills you mentioned. In your comment above, you mentioned Gandhi as being the one who fought against the practice of untouchability, ignoring many others before him and many after him who did/have done the same.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my previous comment, you seem to ignore the ills of the western societies and paint them as perfect, whereas you focus on the ills of the Hindu society to paint it as worse-off; in effect, using two different yardsticks.

Finally, you seem to be either ignorant, or dismissive of any attempts to discover and highlight the positive and “human rights” thoughts espoused in Hindu philosophy, and seem to imply that everyone should ape the judeo-xtian way of thinking. (“Important/Not important.”) It seems to me that to you, it matters little in your singing hosannas of western way that Greek philosophers were OK with slavery, and that slavery is found in the religious books of Abrahamic religions (which includes judeo-xtian). Whereas, you seem to hold caste system under “one strike and you’re out” rule for Hinduism, ignoring facts like Hindus offering refuge to Parsis, while your judeo-xtians and Abrahamics were busy fighting over whose god is a better god (and still continue to do so). Obviously, there must’ve been some positives in the Hindu philosophy which allowed people to co-exist peacefully and allow others to continue practicing their religion (Dalai Lama/Buddhists, Jews). Your ignoring (or ignorance) of such facts is what prompted my comments.

BTW, how many of those judeo-xtians who advocate for human rights, are also religious? From what I’ve seen, the secularism in western countries is very much anti-xtian. So it is arguable as to how valid it is to call such secular-progressives, judeo-xtians.

The last two articles mentioned in the previous comment were cited in the following article and should be acknowledged:

The International Enquirer

Morris wrote:
“But then they can elect Obama as well. That is the reality of xian religion and culture and to ignore that reality and to harp about the past is either being ignorant of what is happening now or being michievous.”
___

If holding of public offices is an indicator of progress (your yardstick), then here you go – plenty of minorities, OBC, Dalits, women, as well as different religions:

1. Indira Gandhi
2. Manmohan Singh
3. Abdul Kalam
4. Mayawati
5. Zakir Hussain
6. KR Narayanan
7. Janaki Ramachandran
8. Narendra Modi
9. Zail Singh
10. J. Jayalalitha
11. Shabnam Mausi (first trans-gender Indian to be elected to public office)
12. Phoolan Devi

Here are some questions for you:
1. How many western countries have elected a woman as head of state?

2. How many western countries have elected a non-Christian (Hindu, Muslim) as head of state, or would be open to it?

3. How many western countries have elected a non-white black person as head of state?

4. How many western countries will elect a trans-gender person or a reformed criminal like Phoolan Devi?

You’re talking of western culture where people of Indian origin have to convert to xtianity and downplay their Hindu/Indian roots to be a viable candidate. (eg. Bobby Jindal)

You’re talking of western culture where politicians have to not only display, but affirm their Christianity to have any chance of winning the election. (Obama, any number of US Presidential candidates)

There you go – I have used your own yardstick and shown that India is much more progressive than judeo-xtian culture, and got there much before western countries did. Who’s being mischievous here?

kaffir

Perhaps you are right about my ignorance. But in reality it is those leaders who can make the difference (whether positive or negative) that counts. Who is the hero of the society? Who was the agent for change? Who do we remember and for what?

As far as my singing praise of the western cultural is concerned, it is simply relative. As I said before they are not paragon of virtues. But I am judging simply on the basis of permitting freedom of expression, changing with time(I call evolving) and accomodating differnt cultures and religious beliefs. In the rapidly changing world culture must change or be isolated. That is the way I see it.

Secular concept is accepted politically. By saying seculars as antic-xian you are not suggesting that xians have been marginalized in their own countries. In the US, most political leaders including the president proudly practice xianity(at least go to church). So I diagree that it is anti-xians who are promoting secularism. Perhaps the answer is that the western society is becoming less and less religious if you go by church attendeace. I don’t have any problem with that.

I am fully aware of hindus accepting all other religions and parsis arrival in India. No question about that. Hinduism surpass most if not all others in being able to function in multi-religious society. And that is why hindus do not seem to present any problem living in non-hindu xian world. They seem to be able to do so with ease. Credit must also go to the host country for making this possible. I realize that hindus have done that for ages. But for the xian world, better late than never, because some parts of the world it seems never.

kaffir

Your #31 is totally out of context. There was no suggestion that electing Obama is progress or otherwise. I was simply drawing contrast. All I was saying is that leaders do not have freedom to do what they like to. You are the one who is trying to prove that since India elected all the ones you listed, India is far more progressive. I am not judging the culture by who they elect.

kaffir

No one forced Bobby Jindal to change his religion. He just improved his odds of getting elected. That is a minus for the US culture. Of course there are negatives and positives. I did not say that western culture tops in every thing? I admit that is where India excels, where a Roman catholic Italian woman can be elected the leader of the ruling party. If you want to consider this as a sign of progress India is away ahead of America.

VOXINDICA

I did not mean to say any thing negative about hinduism. That was not the point I started with. And for the third time I will say that my point was with respect unjustified criticism of christianity based upon the days of colonialism and the way beyond. No one here seems to acknowledge that they have evolved in their thinking and the mainstream xianity does not present such colonial thinking and desire to conquer the world with their own monotheist religion any more. Those days are gone. Now in defending this position of mine, I may have pointed out negative sides of hinduism. But I did acknowledge that hindus are adopting measures to remedy the ills. But then I have not heard from any one here any indication that xians are any better to day than they were in colonial days. Perhaps xians have not changed and I am wrong and you folks are right. Or perhaps our thinking has been colored because of the days of the British Raj. Who knows?

Thanks for suggesting the reading.

What Morries is pointing is add-on to the article that “Monotheism religion had their past with violence.” and “People of western countries had grown up in their thinking. These has been contributed by influence + their own thinking + religion + observation + .. so many other parameters”.

Bharat are also understanding and moving towards a better society because of its understanding of Dharma + own thinking + influence + observation.

एक शसक्त भारत के लिए अपना धर्म का पालन आज कल से ज्यादा जरूरी हैं|

Shantanu,
Do Hindus want a Hindu nation? I have began to doubt this. Sure, a few Hindus want. Do most want? I do not care what West says or thinks about it, but this is a question that we ourselves have to answer. If we want, what is the nature of such a “rastra”? The concept of nation is not universal, it changes over time. The way Guptas and Mauryas integrated the sub-continent is simply back-dated today. You attempted to bring in a good question, but I believe instead of considering this question, some hijacked the discussion to discuss about judaism/christianity/islam.

Radha Rajan’s article made me remember the writer Alain De Benoist. Mr. Benoist runs a think tank that attempts to discover the pre-christian era cultural thoughts and beliefs( http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/ ). You may want to take a look at his article about mono-theism and poly-theism.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html

The article may be slightly off-topic though.

I will say that many did not understand what it is meant by the term “Hindu Nation”. A Hindu state or Nation will simply mean a nation that is based on its own civilizational thought and character of this nation. When Islamic invasion and British colonization took place, they forcefully imposed their respective thoughts and system on the native people of this land and this was done by loot, force, violence and fraudulent means which is fundamentally against the will and freedom of the native people.

Today even though India as a nation got its independence from the former colonizing forces; it has still not decolonized its thoughts and systems effectively let it be in the field of education, historiography, scientific understanding, economic policies or view on religion. In fact we are still haunted by the colonial mindset to the extent that we fail to recognize what our unique civilization stands for. In fact if today there are many ills in the Hindu society like corruptions, religious conflict, crumple of judiciary system, worsening social crime etc., we can’t even blame the Hindu system as we are now following the Western model like secularism, human-rights, religion, etc. which has its root in the Judeo-Christian thought.

When it comes to the issue of Nation and State the first word that comes into the Hindu mind is Dharma and Duty. Now ask this question, how many of our politicians are debating national issues based on the principle of Dharma and Duty? In fact it is totally absent from the scene and how then we blame the Hindus or the Hindu thought for the present ills?

Islam and Christianity may call themselves as a different religion, but form the civilizational point of view, they are not really different. They literally expound the same worldviews which are at odds with the Hindu worldview. This includes the concept of Self, on Humanity, of Action/Deeds, of Free Will, democracy, on equality, of Time, recognition of others Faiths, tolerance, social order etc. The Judeo-Christian models of these concepts are also employed by the present secular establishments, religious, communal and scientific communities.
To illustrate this, just take some simple example at different levels:

1) View on Action or Deeds

How the Hindu and Judeo-Christian worldview differs in regards to view on Action or Deeds? The Hindu view talks about rebirth and karma to explain the principles of action or deeds. It says that all individuals are accountable for their actions and deeds as it comes back to them whether it is in this life or the next. Thus it creates a sense of responsibility on the individual level to uphold noble deeds. Whereas the Judeo-Christian thought expounds a single life theory and there is no accountability for the individual actions or deeds. Thus many who view life from the perspective of single life will not hesitate to commit crime as they think they are born once therefore not accountable in future. The Judeo-Christian erasure of the principle of karma reduces our feeling of direct responsibility for our life, our circumstances and our personal spirituality. It actually encourages immediate gratification and sensationalism. Canceling the principle of rebirth in preference for a single-life doctrine also encourages irresponsible action since we can supposedly atone for any bad actions by last minute conversion.

2) On Secularism and Dharma

Another Judeo-Christian invention is Secularism!! Secularism is not a lofty ideal. It owes its birth to Christianity’s inability to maintain peace between warring Christian sects, especially as the State itself sponsored pogroms against different denominations. Wearied of prolonged intra-religious warfare, France invented secularism. Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith. India has traditionally vested spiritual authority in the Guru and political power in the King, giving the latter the duty to protect Dharma.

Dharma is not religion in the sense that monotheistic creeds are. Dharma is a generic term for all native spiritual experiences and includes the specific Dharmas of specific groups (desachara, lokachara), which the king is duty-bound to uphold and protect. Since Dharma was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was never doctrinaire. However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, non-religious), because Dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all without discrimination. The duty of the State (king) in Hindu thought is best exemplified by the concept of rajdharma, which is a sacred duty for which the ruler can sacrifice anything. Stories of the travails of Raja Harishchandra and the sufferings of Shri Rama reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his responsibilities and fulfill commitments.

Dharma is thus not co-terminus with religion; the closest Indian word for religion is pantha. Secularism in India, as noted jurist Dr L.M. Singhvi insisted on when translating the modified Preamble of the Constitution into Hindi, is pantha-nirpeksha (non-discrimination towards individual faiths). So, while “secular” is the opposite of “religion” and “communal”, Dharma is neither secular in the sense of being anti-religious nor communal in the sense of favouring a particular sect.

3) Idea of Religion and Conversion

There is a cultural conflict between two very different ideas of religion and of religious freedom. For Judeo-Christian model, the “right to change” is central. To the Hindu model the right to retain or continue without interference from the state or from powerful global institutions is paramount. Current rights language (based on Judeo-Christian model) favors the former and insufficiently protects the latter.

Every human being has the right to be free from being subject to the preaching of exclusive religious doctrines. Every person is free to participate in and learn from none, one or more ways to happiness and fulfillment without being asked to specify a religious identity or to convert from one to another.

In the Indian context, religious freedom will mean being indifferent to another’s faith. That means there is no reason to look upon another differently just because they are of another faith or an atheist. It also gives all due respect to another person’s faith irrespective to whether you agree or not. The person is left free to explore his or her religious life without being challenged to change his or her religion. Such exploration need not be confined to any one religion, and may freely embrace the entire religious and philosophical heritage of humanity.

There is certainly freedom to practice or preach anything provided it does not interferes or harms another’s freedom or way of life. Freedom here operates from the context that, if we aspect freedom form another we must also readily give the same freedom to another. Freedom is that which have responsibility and respectful of another’s freedom.

The premise of evangelical activity is the belief that theirs is the only true way and everyone else is, at best, in error if not absolutely demonic. This belief inevitably sets those who believe thus into conflict with everyone else. It is not surprising that the primary principle under attack by evangelicals is the principle of religious pluralism.

The present Indian state that is based on the Judeo-Christian model gives free ride for the evangelical activities at the expense of true freedom, which in return is responsible for all the religious conflicts that exists today.

4) Idea on Human Rights

There is basically two different models where one determines what is right and what is wrong. Christianity and Islam has the tendency to see what is right and what is wrong from the perspective of “Good vs. Evil”, this determines what is right and what is wrong in their lives.
Whereas for the Hindus or Buddhist, dharma plays an important role in determining what is right and what is wrong. Understanding these two different approaches helps one to understand the various conflicts that are occurring in this world.

Good vs. Evil is a powerful meme in the human mind, and I would wager that it is one of the primary factors in the rapid spread of Christianity in the past and Islam today. Even though this notion of “Good vs. Evil” is predominantly a theological aspect, it is indeed has influenced the Western psyche in addressing various issues. The secularization of the modern West has not eliminated this tendency. In some ways it has intensified it, because we can no longer rely on a supernatural resolution. We have to depend upon ourselves to bring about the final victory of good over evil.

In fact if we see deeper, most of us today are using this simplistic duality between good and evil as our way of understanding and evaluating the world.

For example, the reason why the Christian missionaries wants to convert all to Christianity is driven by the doctrine “good vs. evil”. For them the non-Christians faiths are “evil” therefore by converting everyone, the “evil” faiths can be eliminated. It is for the same reason why the Muslims hoping to make this world Darul-Islam. It is a drive to eliminate the “evils”.

In this way of thinking, there is no room for what is righteous and what is not righteous, what is justice and what is not justice, but simply seen in the frame of what is “good” and what is “evil”. As for the Christians they feel that whatever they do and propagate is “good” and others irrespective of righteous or not is considered “evil”. On the other hand the Muslims will see everything to do with Islam is “good” and anything non-Islamic is “evil”. Here the sense of what is right and what is wrong arise from is what constitute “good” and “evil”. So as far as they strive for the “good” against the “evil”, it is considered right.

Perhaps the basic problem with this simplistic good-vs.-evil way of understanding conflict is that, since it tends to preclude further thought, it keeps us from looking deeper, from trying to discover causes. Once something has been identified as evil, there is no more need to explain it; it is time to focus on fighting against it.

The Hindu tradition shares a different perspective addressing these conflicts. In Hindu thought evil, like everything else, has no essence or substance of its own; it is a product of impermanent causes and conditions.

To understand this one has to understand Dharma. Dharma means that which upholds truth, righteousness, justice and order. Instead of looking at a conflict from the prism of “Good vs. Evil”, dharma sees it from the perspective of what dharma is and what leads to adharma (absence of dharma). If there is adharma in this world, it basically means there is no dharma (Truth, Righteousness, Justice and Order).
Unlike the simplistic idea of “good” fighting against the “evil”. Dharma does not mean fighting against adharma, but merely means reestablishing dharma as adharma is nothing more than the absence of dharma. That means, reestablishing truth, righteousness, justice and order.

This notion of dharma makes a Hindu to determine what is right and what is wrong based on truth, righteousness, justice and order and not based on what constitutes a Hindu and what constitute a non-Hindu. However the problem today is Hindus have been influenced by the “Good vs. Evil” doctrine due to Judeo-Christian dominance and are failing to see it from the prism of dharma.

Today we see Hindus bearing Judeo-Christian inventions or labels such as “I am secular”, “I am communist”, “I am democratic”, “I am minority/majority”, “I am humanist” etc.

What do all these categories do? A secularist will propagate that anything to do with secularism as “good” and the other is “evil”. On the contrary the communist will propagate that anything to do with communism as “good” and the other is “evil”. So if a communist says anything truthfully, for a secularist it is still considered “evil” and wise versa. Here what constitutes truth, righteousness, justice and order is not determinant of what is right and what is wrong, but basically what is “secular” and what is “not secular” and what is “communist” and what is “not communist”, thus via “good (us) vs. evil (other)” prism.

A similar dictum is applied in the theological view of the Islam and Christianity that divides humanity into “non-believers” and “believers”. Thus the unfinished business and need to convert the former into the later. Therefore it explains the massive and aggressive conversion, missionary, crusading, or jihadi motives and drives that define the basic characteristics of Christian and Islamic operations from their early history to the present.

The Judeo-Christian concept of “freedom of conversion” itself is born out of the unrighteous or intolerant notion of separating humanity into non-believers and believers. Whereas in the Hindu tradition, there are no such conceptions as the entire human race is seen as part of the same body of spiritual evolution that is moving from asat (ignorance) to sat (True-Knowledge). None is considered separate or excluded from this process.

The influence of good (us) and evil (them) tendency is seen even in the media. Think of the plot of every James Bond film, every Star Wars film, every Indiana Jones film, etc. The bad guys are caricatures: they’re ruthless, maniacal, without remorse, so they must be stopped by any means necessary. We are meant to feel that it is okay – to tell the truth, it’s pleasurable – to see violence inflicted upon them. Because the villains like to hurt people, it’s okay to hurt them. Because they like to kill people, it is okay to kill them. After all, they are evil and evil must be destroyed.

What is this kind of story really teaching us? That if you want to hurt someone, it is important to demonize them first: in other words, to fit them into your good-vs.-evil script. That is why the first casualty of all wars is truth: the media must “sell” this script to the people.

In the current Judeo-Christian model of Human Rights — at first sight, the term may sound noble in its intent, but in reality, it also falls on the same “Good vs. Evil” prism in its propagation. The Human rights dictum always falls into the notion of defending or reclaiming ones rights from the perceived evil other (which is sometimes dragged into the level of “evil”). It is not dealt with the dharmic notion that sees the entire issue from the perspective of Truth, Justice, Duty, Sacrifice and Coexistence. Western notions of individual rights have entered Indian society, initially through British law and education.

Most of the contemporary debates fall into these lines of thinking as seen from the following example:

• West vs. the World
• America vs. the West
• white vs. colored
• male vs. female
• atheist vs. agnostic
• believers vs. non-believers
• religion vs. science
• polytheism vs. monotheism
• Renaissance vs. Dark Age
• socially progressive vs. socially conservative
• economically conservative vs. economically progressive
• majority vs. minority
• classic vs. modern
• liberals vs. objectivists

These Judeo-Christian constructs have also inflicted into the Indian intelligentsia that is dominated by the same line of debates. Here is some example of common constructs that exists in the Indian politics:
• Secularism vs Hindutva
• Minority vs. Majority
• Secular vs. Communal
• Communist vs. Capitalist
• Secular or Communal
• Fundamentalist vs. Liberals
• Dravidian vs. Aryan
• Brahmanism vs. Non-Brahmin
• Hindus vs. Non-Hindus

Where all these notions do came from? Essentially from Judeo-Christian worldview. There are many more to it when we speak about Hindu Nation and if anyone believes this to be a mere “religious thing” it is just a reflection of the dominant Judeo-Christian way of thinking. We have to free our nation from these adharmic doctrines and the only way forward is to reastablish the “Hindu Nation” that is grounded on the principle of Dharma!!

Some important illustration about Dharma for us to ponder…

1. Dharma is not a belief system or dogma.

2. Dharma is not a religion. Dharma is not based on religion, but a religion or social system can be based on Dhrama. E.g. All Bharatiya based traditions such as Hindu, Buddha, Jain, and Sikh is based on dharma as its foundation.

[We don’t see infighting between Hindu, Buddha, Jain, and Sikh faiths because Dharma is placed above faith and the dharmic principles are respected]

3. The word Dharma is of Sanskrit origin which is used natively in all Indian languages from Hindi to Tamil in the south.

4. Dharma is a “non-partisan” in nature that traces its origin in Bharat (Sanatana Dharma) like we have the concept of “secularism” that traces its origin from Judeo-Christian religious encounter or roots.

5. In all western countries, Secularism means “separation of the Church and State” and “non-discrimination towards individual faiths”. It DOES NOT mean “equal respect for all religions”.

6. In India Secularism has been extended to mean “equal respect for all religions” based on Dhrama as its guiding principle. However this notion of “equal respect for all religions” is only practiced uphold by the Dhrama based tradition and non-adherence of “equal respect for all religions” by Christians and Muslims is causing religious intolerance and instability in present India.

[Religious tollerence does not mean “equal respect for all religions”. “equal respect for all religions” means you accept the legitimacy of other religions apart from yours — this is what Dharma stands for]

7. While ‘secular’ is interpreted as the opposite of ‘religion’ and ‘communal’, Dharma is neither secular in the sense of being anti-religious nor communal in the sense of favoring a particular sect. Dharma is not co-terminus with religion. Thus in a Dharmic society an atheist (non-religious) person cannot sideline a religious person and vise versa.

8. Since Dharma was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was never doctrinaire. However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, non-communal), because Dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all without discrimination.

9. Secularism does not address or solve the problem of religious exclusivity, separatism and religious intolerance that is evident today.

10. Religions like Christianity and Islam which indulge in religious exclusivity, divides humanity into believers and non-believers therefore there is an unremitting urge and propagation to convert the non-believers to their respective believe system. Dharma on the other hand does not divide humanity into believers and non-believers. Thus all traditions that inherit Dharma do not naturally seek conversion. There is no concept of “religious conversion” in the worldview of dharma.

11. In Dhrama, every individual is left free to explore his or her respective beliefs and practices without any need for conformity and conversion.

12. The doctrine of “religious conversion” which has its roots in Abrahamic religions put an end to individual freedom by restricting the individual to conform into a particular belief system, holy book, prophet and mode of worship and requires them to shun the others. Dharma on the other hand guarantees freedom at individual level to seek and explore what is best for them without any kind of restriction, whether it is on beliefs, holy book, prophet or mode of worship.

13. In Dharmic context, religious freedom will mean being indifferent to another’s faith. That means there is no reason to look upon another differently just because they are of another faith, a believer or an atheist. It also gives all due respect to another person’s faith irrespective to whether you agree or not. The person is left free to explore his or her religious life without being challenged to change his or her religion. Such exploration need not be confined to any one religion, and may freely embrace the entire religious and philosophical heritage of humanity.

14. Dharma gives no room for religious exclusivity and separatism, therefore the establishment of Dharma as the foundation of Indian constitution is opposed and resisted by all exclusive religions that separates humanity into believers and non-believers and seeks to convert all. Acceptance of Dharma means, end to religious exclusivity and separatism.

15. Every human being has the right to be free from being subject to the preaching of exclusive religious doctrines. Every person is free to participate in and learn from none, one or more ways to happiness and fulfillment without being asked to specify a religious identity or to convert from one to another.

16. Peaceful and tolerant society can only be achieved when all faiths and ideologies accepts and integrate Dharma as its foundation.

17. The duty of the State based on Dharma is best exemplified by the concept of Rajdharma, which is a sacred duty for which the ruler can sacrifice anything. Stories of the travails of Raja Harishchandra and the sufferings of Shri Rama reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his responsibilities and fulfill commitments.

18. Due to Dharma, the Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith.

19. ‘Dharma’, in fact, transcended the narrow boundaries of religion. It offered limitless freedom of choice of methods as well as goals. It encourages free enquiry and never seeks to confine people into categories and denominations. It is this inherent tolerance and catholicity that enabled people, in the ancient times, to pursue faiths independent of their rulers and vice-versa. The rights and duties of the rulers and the citizens, though never codified were always respected. Each institution of the society, each individual, almost intuitively knew where to draw the line, where to define the limit. Tolerance is, therefore, integral to ‘Dharma’., plurality is inherent in it. This tolerance and plurality do not find space in the concept of religion.

The reality today is all Dharma based religions do not have conflict with each others and only when encountered with Islam and Christianity the conflict arise due to non-compliance to Dharma by these 2 religions. The Abrahamic religions in general, contains a lot of adharmic (anti-dharmic) elements that make it impossible for all dharmic tradition to coexists.

The secret to peace and prosperity is cannot be assured by “secularism” as it is based on the “religious” doctrine. It is only by adhering to Dharma that peace and prosperity will prevail. For this to be possible, all religions should adhere to DHARMA as its core principle.

In societies that practices secularism, religious intolerance cannot be eradicated. The result of India’s insistence on secularism at the expense of DHRAMA can be seen today. The Indian society is slowly being polarized under religious lines and if this process continues, even the Dharmic based religions will eventually forced to become exclusive and separative in their outlook and this will ultimately lead to intolerance and conflict.

The question that the Indian society should ask today is, are they working towards establishing a Dharma conscious society or in the process of disintegrating the Dharma conscious society (sociopolitical culture of the Indian nation). It is impractical to expect some to adhere unconditionally to DHRAMA and others don’t. The karmic law of cause and effect will eventually materialize and react to this very principle being pushed on the people and nation.

As the saying goes …

Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitaha
Dharma protects those who protect it!

@Khandu,
The idea of modern nation comes from Europe and it has been sold to us as an universal concept. Even that idea passed through stages of evolution. The European/American idea of nation is probably never applicable in Indian sub-continent. America is often described as melting pot of multiple cultures, but what is not mentioned is that the pot itself is made up with European-caucasian tradition.

With the current administrative framework in India there are grivances everywhere. The solution may lie in a federation like structure which is probably more centralized than EU but less centralized than the current republic – something like a common market/defence/infrastructure/communication but states having authority in every other aspect. Such a federation can only be bound by Hinduism because what other factor is there that would force a Tamil Hindu to travel to UP to touch Ganges?

On historical responsibilty of faith saystems

I do not understand this whole issue of absolving or not absolving.

“So can we absolve Islam and only blame the assorted kingdoms and countries, kings and rulers for the persecution and terrors inflicted in the name of that faith.”

You asked as a question. But I do not know whether your answer is yes we can or no we cannot. I assume your answer is, no we cannot when it comes to xianity. I further assume that you have absoved Islam because you do not seem to have any comparable demand from them or you are one of those leftists who do not think they did any thing wrong. Whether it is islam or xianity, my question to you is that, what choice do you have. If you do not absolve them, what are you going to do about it. Punish them? That is out of question. So my friend absolving or not absolving is not the choice of others. It is their decision not ours. We can only judge whether they deserve absolution or not depending upon what they are doing now.
Have they accepted that atrocities or whatever misdeeds did take place?
Are they showing any remorse or guilt?
Are they prepared to make restribution if that it is possible and relavent?
Are they taking steps that such misdeeds will not occur in futue?
I suggest to you that based on answers to these and such other questions we may or may not consider them absolved.

For instance if there was a clear evidence to prove that Ayodhya masjid was built after destruction of a Ram temple and if muslim community admitted that and showed some remorse and generosity by making it easier for hindus to restore it, one can say they are moving towards absolution. It is not a single act one has to look at the pattern.

With that in mind I think xianity has moved a long way towards absolution. I dare say that if they were xians who destroyed the temple they would have willingly given up the land. Right after 9/11 in Canada some xians mistakenly damaged a hindu temple. The xian community there helped hindus raise money and rebuilt the temple. I am sure you can find an isolated similar act by muslims. But the comparable act has to be in muslim majority country. But it is the pattern counts. Now you tell me your logic of absolving Islam and not xianity.

On faiths are one and related conclusions

When I said all paths are equal what I meant is that all paths are acceptable. Truly speaking we cannot qualitatively compare them, because it is a personal belief. But that is not to say that one is not going to try to convince you that he has a better path. That is the human mind. Think and evolve, what appears good today may not appear good tomorrow. You are absolutely right, there are as many paths as people. More reason you should have no problem with monotheism. I still do not see what is your complaint about monotheim. Whatever compaint you have about xianity the same applies to Islam even doubly so because muslim countries even politically do not accept paths other than Islam. But I guess you have absolved Islam, so your complaint is about xianity only. I agree with what you said in the 1st para. But I do not see what that has to do with my quote.

“…it refuses to accomodate aggressive monothiesm.”

What is aggressive monotheism? Who is refusing to recognizes it? You mean xians refuse. The believers think they are right they consider their duty to show the right path. Is’nt that what you are trying to do with me? I don’t see hindus have any problem with xainity or islam as well. Islam is monotheist and far more aggressive than xainity Hindus seem to love them. They even subsidise the huj pilgrims. So what in the world you are talking about? My guess is that you do not like their missionaries. My friend there is no answer to that. Freedom of expression has to be our core value and if you accept that then you have to live with people buying and selling not only goods and services but ideas as well. Alternative is to create a culture of blasphemey and prison the people in their belief.

“The reasons for this have more to do with the practicality of respectful coexistence rather than any belief in the “right path”. It is a way of reconciling people to live with differences when those differences cannot be bridged or overcome. It is a way of accepting that differences exist and coming to terms with the fact that there would always be differences.”

Of course. So what is wrong with that? You can never bridge the differences period.
Well, frankly I am lost when I read the balance. You have to be specific and give examples.

Elst Konrad replies to R. Guha, lofts him for a six. Must read

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2010/11/guha-vs-elst.html

@Nageshnath

We live in an age where life and nature holds few mysteries. So in any examination I would always be guided by what is the wisest thing to do in all the circumstances we find ourselves. Even to the blind, there can be no denying the moral vacuum that lies at the heart of Hindu values: the 2G scam does not even spare the so called Mr Clean, Dr Singh. India was deluded from the outset about his credentials to lead the country at the start, and they will be deluded to their dying last breath.

America’s President, Thomas Jefferson, ever mindful of theology on the secular American state he helped frame, discarded all the religious references in copy of his bible to distill ethics underpinning it as his working model. Of course India’s present predicament can be blamed on Judeo-Christian values in which the law of the land is framed. But then how do we explain the fact that the Christian West is not similally infested with India’s level of corruption and moral decadence?

If sanatana dharma was to have any equivalent meaning in the West, it is to the natural law ordained by divine providence explained by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae: the second part of divine providence is that man’s natural place in the universe has endowed him with reason to see in eternal law man’s place in the natural law that pervades the universe.

That is the theory but in practice dharma morphed into an expansive meanings it should never have asked to take. The many variants in which dharma has been laid down would not be so bad if there was a head under which its practical application was unified: political, legal and religious. As a consequence it lost most if not all its potency. That is a journey Hindus have not made in adopting the present constitution India. The so called representative government Indians chose to live by is not in any sense Judeo-Christian but has its roots in the Greek democratic experiment. The ancient Greeks themselves had little need of a priestly class to lay down the rules of their society. They had no inhibitions in blowing away the boundaries of knowledge for which they are famed.

The Hindus of India have already been affected by the profound changes that has transformed the world to an extent that it presents dangers to a Hindu India closeted in its delusions of the grandeur of its ancient past. It is easy to go on living by wishful thinking of its return and that the greatest dangers lie.

@sat

Nigeria is 70% Muslim. There is a world of difference between India’s sort of corruption which undermines the state and other varieties which is a reflection of power structures which has not adversely affected the state. There is no sense in which it could be said that those close to the Chinese government who have corruptly amassed their great fortunes are behaving in the way detrimentally to Chinese interests in a way the Indians at all levels of the chain have been willing to sacrifice Indian interests. This has made a India a banana republic, a very big one.

This is also why it is crucial to find a way for the Hindu religion to reinstate values that deals with fault lines in our society and answers questions as to the way Hindus should be governed. Without such action a grand Ram temple would be an expense the country could ill afford when such money would be better spent in establishing schools or hospitals. Justice Aggarval took the first steps in clarifying the doctrinal basis in which the Hindu religion could move: the much vaunted unrestrained approach of the Hindu religion in doctrinal matters is not sustainable. Seeing that the nation has not deal with it, the task fell to this judge.

The shambles that presently passes for the Hindu religion was safe as long as the Courts did not have to intervene. The worst possible judgement the Supreme Court could inflict is for it to wash its hands of the matter. There is Supreme Court precedent for that too.

A hurried response-

@Morris

St. Thomas Church is said to be built upon Mylapore Shiva Temple. Will Christians return it?

How are you dissociate Western Society from Christian Theology and Missionary system? The missionary machinery is alive and kicking, (quite badly in India, sorry for the pun!)

@Sat

As GyanP has said in his preceding posts, the Ram temple raises other equally contentious issues. In mattered little to Islam or Christianity as the nature of their societies that they formed recognised no other primacy than their own. They occupied churches or mosques depending on who triumphed in decisive battles for supremacy. This they chose not to do with Hindu temples which did not project asceticism which was more attuned to these two faiths. As with the Ram temple, they were razed to the ground in their thousands with missionary zeal. Mosques were built on the lands that were vacated. This raises two separate issues.

It is not just that Hinduism was left bleeding from the trauma inflicted by Islamisation, deep divisions in Hindu society was exposed as the cause of its failure to defend the nation and to remove them. Hinduism is still lacking in the determination and comprehensiveness of Islam and Christianity who laid it low and has yet to confidently rise again. By its very nature, Hinduism has refused to rise to the challenge in the way of the Sikhs. This analysis remains as relevant today as it was then.

The practice and devotion in the Hindu religion came at the tail-end of a Hindu’s life (if at all) when it gives way to asceticism and negation. This has contributed little to the nation when it has been challenged and needed most the wise counsel and support of its elders. As it excuses everyone else, any devotion to the sacred duty for all to serve the nation which can only come from its religion has been and remains absent.

Israel’s Western Wall (wailing wall) has the same significance to Jews as the site of Ram births place at Ayodhya has to Hindus. The Muslims similarly built a mosque on their national temple. Like Ayodya, it is the Jewish nations deepest desire to rebuild their temple on the holy site which stands to the Jews as a symbol of God’s punishment for the error of their ways. The lesson of Judaism is that the foundation stone of any lasting and meaningful Ram temple should to be based on occupying the comprehensive space which puts the cares of the nation at the top. I would hold the building of the Ram temple contingent on Hindus making the leap of faith for a better for the country which we hold so dear.