116 comments

1. Palahalli
   16. September 2009 - 3:24 AM

   Sandeep, please question the premises of modern liberalism.

   Your post-script is in danger of doing the same damage as has been done the likes of simple minded Gurcharan Dases of the world.

   Ironically, I’ve just completed posting on the notion of liberalism and the damage it does to our societies.

   I have little argument with the other portions of your analysis

   Thank you

2. Bhavananda
   16. September 2009 - 6:12 AM

   I agree with Palahalli and disagree to the postscript of the analysis that a Hindu is a liberal – Gandhi was a liberal, Savarkar was not. The rest of us probably lie somewhere in the middle … and when I mean Hindus, I mean the groups of #1, #2 and #3 in the group of Hindus mentioned above. To that extent, I think the whole “liberal Hindus” fall into the category of “Safe Hindus” of category #5, described previously as non-Hindus, with a few outliers like Gandhi and his likes. I think Sandeep has seriously contradicted himself here … or, shall I say, self-incriminated himself

3. hari
   16. September 2009 - 8:34 AM

   Why cannot some truths be simple?

   Most of these media liberals seem to fall into the trap of arguing that the principle of secularism is noble while the problem lies wholly in the implementation.

   Wrong. Secularism (and indeed Atheism) was born as a strong Karmic reaction against the control of monotheistic State religion (read: the Church) in the West and cannot be seen as a universal human virtue. It has no applicability in India.

   That’s why the framers of our Constitution recognized this inherently and avoided using that term entirely. Remember the terms “Socialist” and “Secular” were added in the 42nd Amendment.

4. Rajiv Chandran
   16. September 2009 - 10:03 AM

   Sandeep, I agree with Palahalli, that the premise of modern liberalism needs to be questioned. It would seem that semantically ‘liberalism’ means very little by itself. It is a value perception that may be different for different groups of people. So commenting on American liberalism Thomas Sowell (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4187) says

   “Liberalism at one time referred to liberty, to making people as free as possible from the control of their presumed betters, and especially free of excessive control by the government. More broadly, liberals tended to favor change while conservatives defended the status quo.”

   From WIkipedia “Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and free trade.”

   Western political theorists generally categorize liberalism into three forms – political, economic and civic.

   Turning the discussion to India there is primarily little difference between political parties on all three principal areas (except for fringe leftists). Very few from the apparently ‘conservative Hindu’ constituency would claim to have differences on these key areas. In my view the differences between so called ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ Hindu voices are in fact a manifestation of the indigenous versus western struggle.

   Rajiv Malhotra in his ‘Whiteness Studies and Implications for Indian-American Identity’ (http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/04/whiteness-studies-and-implications-for-indian-american.htm) of how formative principles, dogma, and assumptions of enlightenment thought have been borrowed from the European judeo-christian tradition. Judeo-Christian as well as Islamic tradition segregates the world into the God’s chosen people – the insiders and the outsiders who need to be brought into the fold – through conversion. Similarly enlightenment thought treats the world as one of civilized (read westernized) and those who need to be civilized – through democracy, western education, human rights etc etc. Liberalism – as a product of enlightenment – can be examined in this light as being an exclusivist dogma – that seeks its converts to propagate a certain world view. Thus many self proclaimed Hindu liberals are infact Hindus looking at the world through westernized lenses. Also liberalism seems to have been made into an aspirational attribute. People are encouraged to aspire towards becoming ‘liberal’ and those who dont are made to feel guilty and prejudiced.

   From this perspective – I would beg to differ with Bhavananda – that Gandhi and Savarkar was liberal and conservative respectively. There are those who would argue that both had adopted western value systems and thought processes to different degrees. Regardless, I think both propounded ideas for empowerment and assertiveness of the indigen. I would say that both Gandhiji & Savarkar were ‘conservative’ hindus while Nehru was a ‘liberal’. In fact that explains why Nehru’s prescriptions for India’s ‘ailments’ are the source of so much of today’s political, cultural and social confusion.

   Politically liberals, leftists in most countries are ones who choose to change the status quo, support indigenous causes against westernization, centralization of political power etc. However quite the opposite is true in the case of India. ‘Liberals’ have a choking grip on all power structures, dictate choices, have always shaped political arrangements. Liberals elsewhere go against entrenched bias and power structures. In India they form part and parcel of it.

   My conclusion is that the terms liberal and conservative are borrowed (or imposed) and do not mean anything intrinsically as far as Indian reality is concerned. I think writers may believe it – but they use it polemically without realizing it’s futility. We should learn to jettison such labels in order to carry on a meaningful debate.

5. Sid
   16. September 2009 - 10:41 AM

   Sandeep,
   I am very glad to find your posts. I wish a lot of us have that clarity of thought and ability to express their thought.

   However, I do not agree to the sentence in Postscript. Who is a “liberal” or what exactly is “liberalism”? Liberalism is a political concept. The problem is we are used to couple this concept with “secularism” and “marxism” strongly. In the process, we did a great disservice to ourselves. If one follows Gita (and Das studied the Gita it seems), let us remember that Krisha advised Arjuna at the end to follow his own judgment after learning all the advise. In my mind, this is the greatest liberal advice that can be given and any Hindu who follows Gita is a liberal thus. But few Hindus today has the patience of reading Gita. Every coward who fears conflict but can not admit that find great solace in learning that his behavior is pretty close to liberalism. Therefore liberalism is falling from it’s grace pretty fast.

   In west, “secularism” held pretty well because the society is largely Christian and Caucasian. Today, if you look at the Europe and some pockets in USA where minority representation is strong, secular dreams are creating a lot of frustration. In my mind, next few decades would be the true test of secularism as a viable concept.

6. Ramaswamy
   16. September 2009 - 11:13 AM

   Hi Sandeep,

   I have been reading your articles for about a month now. I admire your keen interest and reverence for Sanatana Dharma. Was wondering if you have read the works of Swami Rama Tirtha (contemporary of Swami Vivekananda). The relevant website is http://www.ramatirtha.org. But only titles are given. His works in the form of seven volume collection titled ‘In Woods of God Realization’ is worth everything.

7. shadows
   16. September 2009 - 11:54 AM

   Gurcharan das seems to be a bit confused kind of person. I once read an article by him which inserted the customary Modi and Gujarat stuff. Irrelevantly.

8. Sandeep
   16. September 2009 - 12:05 PM

   All,

   Now now now, relax a bit. I said:

   >>If you are a Hindu you’re liberal by implication.
   If you think I’ve used Western lenses to define this in the Hindu context, you’re mistaken. The universally accepted definition of a liberal is one who believes in the importance of individual freedom. I’m sure if you’re a Hindu you cannot disagree with this.

   My point was: being a Hindu automatically means you are tolerant, liberal, you accept different darshanas, forms of worship, etc etc etc. The Hindu-as-a-liberal is just one of the defining traits of a Hindu.

   Phew!

9. Kishkindhaa
   16. September 2009 - 12:17 PM

   Liberal, conservative, right, left – all these categories apply only within the colonizer’s internal society. Doniger, Witzel, Kipling, Nussbaum, Romila, Arundhati, all of these are hyper-liberals and seculars but, still, consummate anti-hindus. All the Orientalists who like to keep darkies as their pets are “liberals”. Liberalism (Orientalism) is a branch of the colonialist project, and the Westerners sponsor various liberal agencies, awards, and color revolutions (eg NED, Kluge chair to Romila, Booker, Magsaysay, western sponsors of Nepal Marxists) to further the colonialist project. The orientalizing movie ‘Slumdog’ itself was fashioned and promoted by the hyper-liberals in the west.

   The purpose of liberalism is to appropriate the narrative of native or heathen resistance and to locate this narrative as an element of the colonizer’s plan for the native; thus, the British were overthrown by the Hindu awakened by the latter century Hindu Renaissance but the narrative of this resistance has been appropriated by the secular nehruvians. They also tried to break the thread running between Hindus’ current struggles and past Native Resistance as offered by Shivaji and Sikh Gurus. Even 1857 was recast as a petty affair when in fact it was a violent resistance to the Empire’s plan for total conversion.

   Liberalism is the mask of the western colonizer.

10. S B
    16. September 2009 - 1:16 PM

    http://dailypioneer.com/202915/TN-sets-9-of-blast-convicts-free.html

    Tamil Nadu releases the terrorists of the Coimbatore blasts.

11. Palahalli
    16. September 2009 - 2:27 PM

    Sandeep, I think your deeply mistaken. It’s a subtle blunder and so I will not disagree with you when you say – “The universally accepted definition of a liberal is one who believes in the importance of individual freedom.”
    The modern liberal premise, apart from dictating that the individual has inalienable *rights*, also says that the individual is The Unit that must be solely in charge of itself. Modern liberal “freedom” is only recognizable in this light.

    Hindu society on other hand recognizes individual rights but in conjunction with his responsibilities toward family and society and ultimately, nation.

    I would also disagree with commenters who are pre-disposed toward assuming liberalism to be some kind of colonial “arm”. Please look at the West and see where their liberalism has got them. The Colonialist and his Church have long overplayed their hand. The Church today has become “internationalist” and is no longer any “arm” save enough elbow-room for Western moneybags.

    But it has also disarmed the West in a way that is causing it (the West) to lose its war against its enemies. On the one hand the Church cannot befriend the Western traditionalist (with the Church’s current mind-set) and on the other hand it is driving its flock toward liberalism.) –

    So in this sense it’s a different ball game today. The more the West “colonizes” the more vulnerable they get. The Traditionalist recognizes this danger. The Liberal and the Church don’t.

    If I were a Western nationalist, I would throw out liberalism hook, line and sinker.

    Therefore I argue that liberalism is a universal evil. It adversely affects any society that lets it have a free run. Especially those societies that are multi-cultural.

    Hindusthan is a victim of it too.

12. Sandeep
    16. September 2009 - 4:45 PM

    Palahalli,

    I don’t understand why you are needlessly nitpicking on something I mentioned in passing. Seriously, I mean, my post isn’t a scholarly or indepth exposition of the Liberalism theory.

    You seem to be bent on hammering home the negative consequences of liberalism while my hint (postscript) to Gurcharan Das simply meant to ask him to give a thought in the direction of the all-inclusive nature of Hinduism.

    Do you find this simple point hard to comprehend?

13. Palahalli
    16. September 2009 - 5:37 PM

    Sandeep, I wouldn’t push this point further but for the fact that Gurcharan Das and his ilk use the same “all-inclusive”nature of Hinduism.

    The fact really is that Hinduism is not “all-inclusive”. It really grades “ideal states” rather than blandly and lazily say..”these are all equally true and part of me”.

    This is what Das does and your “ps” is in danger of being understood the same way.

    I guess I’m nit picking because I take what you write very seriously. Plus this stance is a common pit fall amongst us Hindu nationalists.

14. hinduonline.blogspot.com
    16. September 2009 - 9:35 PM

    Hello Blogger Friend,

    Your excellent post has been back-linked in
    hinduonline.blogspot.com/

    - a blog for Daily Posts, News, Views Compilation by a Common Hindu
    - Hindu Online.

15. Sandeep
    17. September 2009 - 1:02 AM

    Palahalli,

    I’m honoured you take what I write very seriously. Over time, I have come to regard this blog as a form of my own education–I mostly write to clarify things for myself. And I really don’t claim perfection or scholarship except that I strive to do adequate research and write with as much sincerity as possible.

    >>Sandeep, I wouldn’t push this point further but for the fact that Gurcharan Das and his ilk use the same “all-inclusive”nature of Hinduism.
    Frankly, this is Gurcharan Das’ problem to solve and/or ignorance that he needs to overcome. The real problem with majority of Hindus “fighting” to defend Hinduism is the pains they take to convince others. That is a futile–and foolish–approach.

    >>The fact really is that Hinduism is not “all-inclusive”. It really grades “ideal states” rather than blandly and lazily say..”these are all equally true and part of me”.
    Disagree with your perception of all-inclusive but that merits a separate post.

    On others, I Agree to an extent. Hinduism does ALSO give broad guidelines and/or choices to attain these ideal states, which is, really, humanly possible. In this life, yes. There’s a concept called Adhikari Bheda. A simple analogy is enough to explain this: you cannot hope to understand Algebra unless your fundamentals are strong in Arithmetic.

    More later.

16. Palahalli
    17. September 2009 - 1:30 AM

    Sandeep, I don’t think you would disagree with the position that Hinduism’s “all-inclusiveness” is vastly different from liberal “all-inclusiveness” which is, in our terms, the secular understanding of Sarva Dharma Samabhava.

    I don’t generally fight to convince. I fight to fight..You know that

17. Rajiv Chandran
    17. September 2009 - 7:05 AM

    Usage of foriegn terminology has the potential to pollute discourse, examples of this being the equation of dharma with religion, karma with fate, sin with paap, jaati with caste etc, etc. I would agree with Kishkinda that a lot of the terminology left, right, liberal, conservative, modernity, secularism etc are applicable only within a different frame of reference – call it colonial, or western or any other term. The post-colonial liberal project works under the assumptions that these are universal categories, thereby perpetuating these implicitly discriminating and falsely divisive approaches.

    The problem with saying that Hindus are liberal is that it attempts to describe Hinduism from a frame of reference that can be interpreted differently when the gaze is reversed. For example Gursharan Das – when he says that he is a liberal hindu is appropriating all the best Hindu traditionals into the liberal framework – this then allows him to define the illiberal Hindu (along with false equation with western conservatism) and then go on to situate all thqt is wrong with Hindu polity in within a western political framework – nationalism, chauvinism, secularism, communalism etc. I do not recall – but there is a sophisticated presentation by Ashish Nandi where he situates Savarkar’s nationalism within the western framework. By the same framework most of Indian national movement can be placed within the same context. Marxist use the same method to place most of the early freedom struggle, Shivaji, Sikh Gurus etc within the feudal framework – another neo-colonial construction.

    Santana-dharma can be termed universal, calling it liberal is – I believe- somewhat limiting. The tragedy is that many secularized-westernized Hindus implicitly (though innocently) seek to appropriate hinduism’s loftiest ideals – without making a commitment to the Hindu identity or it’s preservation or perpetuation. Many (I think most) secular people are well meaning, so debating and convincing them about the Hindu case is the only way forward – short of resorting to brute force, or underhand missionary tactics. In any case it looks like the only way to bring about a positive change. May be I misunderstood the point being made here – but why is this being termed futile and foolish ?

18. vivek iyer
    17. September 2009 - 9:23 AM

    The late Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, who came from a distinguished scholar family- drew attention to the liberal manner in which traditional Mimamsa (prior to British) had operated. In particular the notion that dharma was to follow best practice amongst the best people gave a lot of leeway. However, codification- abandonment of traditional Court Pundits in the 1860’s and the rise of Racism as the legitimating ideology for the Empire had the curious effect of turning the British courts into the enforcer of extreme conservative (fossilised) Hinduism (which may never have existed!) Thus, Gajendragadkar himself- that too as a Chief Justice!- protested in vain that sva-gotra marriage was valid and could in no case be used to declare an heir illegitimate.
    Another example has to do with Temple Entry in Madras Presidency. The priests were eager to co-operate but needed the Government to enact bills so as to protect them from being sued for breach of trust.
    Unfortunately, the drift first to codification as opposed to proper Mimamsa (also visible in countries like Iran) and then to all sorts of foolish statutes being passed have created an extraordinary situation where one must convert to Islam to cleave to a standard jati-dharma practice the need for which had not greatly diminished- at least in some parts of the country.
    Hinduism lost its vitality and ability to create first rate educational or voluntary institutions, in part, because of a pre-emption of reform by the Government. In psychoanalysis, there is a term ‘extractive introjection’ whereby a sort of psychic violence is done, or agency denied, when the legitimate feelings or views of the subject are voiced by the person in authority. The subject is rendered powerless.
    This is what has happened to Hinduism. Sects may flourish. Godmen may build better Ashrams. But Hinduism is dying. Moral anarchy is the result.

19. Palahalli
    17. September 2009 - 11:45 AM

    Two of the most brilliant comments I’ve read in a long time anywhere! Thank you Rajiv Chandran and Vivek Iyer!!

    Sandeep, it’s to your credibility and credit that your website attracts such minds.

    On the subject matter Rajiv and Vivek addressed –

    Rajiv – The problem with Western political categories within Hindusthan’s political framework is that they have been introduced. By design or default they are there. I for one cannot think of a way these can now be eliminated without changing our political tools and discourse.

    So the next best thing to do is use existing tools effectively. Go to the meanings and premises of parlance while attributing them is my suggestion.

    Vivek – Is the complete withdrawal of Govt from society’s functioning the way to regain flexibility and consequent balance? I think so. However our institutions have been destroyed and confidence crushed. The way forward could be that a future Hindu State gradually builds the talent again and gives back to Society that which should never have been taken away from it in the first place.

    Looks to me that in either case Political Power must rest with Hindus in the body of a Hindu State. That’s the first lock that needs to be opened.

    Thank you

20. Kishkindhaa
    17. September 2009 - 12:35 PM

    Santana-dharma can be termed universal, calling it liberal is – I believe- somewhat limiting.

    The term ‘catholic’ can be used with the same meaning as ‘liberal’. ‘Christian’ can be used with the same effect, as well, as in “that’s mighty christian of you”. Of course, no one would even dream of using ‘hindu’ in such a sense. Liberal, catholicity, ecumenical, freedom, etc are ‘filler terms’; they have a shelf life of a few colonizations and then they are quietly retired from the colonizer’s discourse, and a new mask is fashioned.

    It is completely counterproductive for a heathen survival/resurgence “movement” to use such imperialistic euphemisms to escape the colonizer’s demonizations – no one will believe that- the hindus are more liberal than the liberals, more secular than the seculars, more catholic than the catholics, and more ecumenical than the ecumenicals, especially when each of these ‘belief systems’ can easily summon umpteen ‘witnesses’ of every conceivable diversity. What is needed, instead, is a discourse about ‘Colonial euphemism’ and its origin in Christianity’s imperialistic discourse about “saving” the heathen.

21. Raghavendra
    17. September 2009 - 5:16 PM

    @Vivek iyer,

    >> Sects may flourish. Godmen may build better Ashrams. But Hinduism is dying. Moral anarchy is the result.

    I have come across the people often say Hinduism is dying religion, but let us see how does it fair against other religions in the world.

    Christianity has lost ground in its home land, it has failed to stand the test of rationality, it will die fast but before it happens missionaries will do enough harm to divide our country.

    Islam will follow Christianity very soon, as both are two faces of same coin.

    Buddhism is one of the sects in Hinduism, but it is lacking in diversity it will surely interest some people but cannot hold on to every one,Its true with any sect for that matter.

    Only religion with diversity prevails in the end.

    “Moral anarchy” in India is applicable to political state of affairs ,but our social order is very much self controlled by the value system well rooted in Indian tradition, Our family system is a best example for this.

    Society is not just about politicians and businessmen, its much more than that.

22. vivek iyer
    17. September 2009 - 10:16 PM

    @Raghavendra
    Well, I’m not saying the Hindu way of life is dying or that Hindu orthopraxy has ceased to have relevance and appeal. However, the notion that there is a ‘Hindu Dharma’ on the basis of which social cohesion and fruitful interaction can be taken to a higher level- in other words, the notion that there is a coherent and dynamic system here which it is worthwile to support and foster- that notion seems to be dying. Why? Well, we have vote bank politics. The false notion is created that people are ‘broken’ or ‘backward’ because of something that was done to them thousands of years ago. Granted, Hindus didn’t fare well under foreign masters- but they have no reciprocal right to demand reparation and reservations and so on. Why should this be the case?
    The answer has to do with the invidious way that Gandhism stole Hinduism clothes, pre-empted its voice, and the manner in which the State disguised its rent-seeking and political jerry-mandering under the rubric of ‘Social reform’, attacking ancient evils- all, will ye nill ye, associated with Hinduism.
    Hindu dharma has two parts- one prescriptive of rights and obligations, the other a spiritual, empathic, process by which rights and entitlements, once upheld, become defeasible- indeed they turn into obligations and debts to raise the other to a level of equality. This is group selective and has the highest adaptive value. However, the discourse of the State is to pre-empt this voluntarist process by putting in its place a mirage of some perfect society and just allocation of resources to be achieved by administrative fiat. Hinduism ceases to be a ‘positive sum game. Instead we have a meta-game- a game about which game we should play. Instead of public goods we have ’second order’ public goods- i.e. people demanding public goods and being rewarded for the vociferousness or violence with which they voice those demands.
    Hinduism does function. It is not dying. You are right. People are contracting in- but fastest where the State has no say. It is in India that we see the three phenomena Hirschman referred to w.r.t dysfunctional organisations- viz. Exit, Voice and Loyalty being perverted.
    In India, there is an State created incentive to Exit Hinduism to preserve your private Hindu dharma. Voice, in Hinduism, is destructive of its object for oriented towards the very corruption against which it seeks to make itself heard. Loyalty to this Hinduism, too, is nothing but to tie onto one’s hands and feet the strings of a puppet master whose fundamental claim to legitimacy is that Hinduism is wrong. It is evil. Passing laws is what enables Society to achieve Utopia. Only some Nineteenth Century nutjobs had the monopoly of truth.
    Hinduism (which includes all jati dharmas, and Shramanic codes) makes no such ridiculous claim. You begin by respecting existing rights and obligations but, as you prosper, remit your own entitlements setting a new moral standard others can aspire to. Thus alone is formed what Thomas Putnam calls ‘Social Capital’ and Ken Arrow describes as ‘professional integrity’.
    This Benthamite State that imposed itself, and continues to impose itself on us, by the basest sort of intrigue and atrocity, is a State that must be combatted and confined to its own proper sphere.
    In other countries, the power of Religion has been succesful in rolling back the irrational and destructive power of the state. The Iranian revolution occurred because the Shah- like Nixon- imposed price and wage controls to deal with an overheating economy. Nixon was forced to backtrack. The Shah threw petty merchants in jail. His doom was sealed.
    However, not even the Shah intervened in family affairs in the way that the Indian State does. True, the more obnoxious aspects of the anti-dowry law- which permitted female relatives to be imprisoned on the basis of a false complaint of dowry harrasment- have been rolled back. Yet, the mindset at the bottom of such measures has not been challenged, let alone defeated.
    What we have in India is a State that maintains itself by the political instrumentalization of disorder. Yes, Hinduism survives- but only because the resources of the State have lagged behind their true potential- again because of the State’s mismanagement.
    Yes, India is a democracy. But the rival parties are like the two vicious snakes that grew out of Zahak’s shoulders- they hiss at each other but reserve their venom to poison the body from which they grow.
    The remedy to this disasterous situation is the development of a proper, wholly indigenous, political and moral science. All the materials are there. Much of the work has already been done. It is merely a question of synthesising and spreading the methodology in an timely fashion.
    No question, people like yourself and Palahali and others in this forum are and will continue to do your part to bringing that day closer.

23. Kumar
    18. September 2009 - 6:31 AM

    Vivek Iyer,

    Another excellent comment from you that opens up a different perspective.Thanks.Some times, forums like this blog tend to become echo chambers.

    You have raised a few interesting points, but I feel the entire argument will come across better as a longish essay/blog post than a comment.Please consider doing so.

    But, haven’t you ended up using Western theories and terminology about State and Society interactions to describe the status of Hinduism in India? Is this what you mean when you say ‘the remedy …is the development of a proper, wholly indigenous, political and moral science’? To synthesie and spread the existing materials, we need to first arrive at a common understanding or consensus on the approach.

    There is a growing tendency among some of the Hindu activists to either become reductionist or all inclusive (see, I am also forced to used a Western term that may or may not mean exactly what I want it to mean for the readers)and either too literalist or too liberal in their interpretation of the scriptures.

    While this will never be as bad as the Wahabi or Marxist reductionism or liberal inclusivism, it does not serve the purpose of developing a common understanding of the existing materials. We need a ‘madhye margam’ of interpretational approach that remains faithful to the spirit of the thoughts, and yet is eminently suitable for implementation.We shouldn’t end up replacing one flawed idea of utopia with another misunderstood one.This is what happened in Iran, IMO.

    Yes, implementation.Will we be content with defining the message and expect society to create the messenger/s (Sambhavami Yuge Yuge?).I think there is a need for a conscious effort to create leaders.Any Hindu open source project to redefine ‘how this country needs to be run’ will need thousands of leaders across the country to take it into the masses and ensure a true change of the status quo, if not now, 10-20 years from now.

24. vivek iyer
    18. September 2009 - 10:55 AM

    @Kumar
    Thank you for your kind comment. I too feel that the use of Western terminology seriously distorts productive thinking. However, Mathematics, Semantics & formal Logic is a common language- one moreover where the greater sophistication of Indic traditions enables a shift from Western terminology to richer and more subtle indigenous terms. The great advantage of this approach- though it will not advance anyone’s academic career or chance of lucrative co-optation by the International Literary mafia- is that it immediately starts to unlock all sorts of treasures not just from our canonical texts but the still extant ‘folk’ traditions and genuine (as opposed to air-conditioned Ashram type) peripatetic Spiritual sects.
    The other way to go about it is simply to read books by proper Acharyas in plain and simple Hindi or other vernacular languages. I emphasise Hindi because, even prior to Independence, we find true Sadhus and Sadhavis, whatever their mother tongue, using this simple and direct language to communicate. Many also use poetry- quite simple and easy to understand- but utterly glorious and greatly enriching to the heart.
    I myself write novels and short stories and poetry and so on- these supposedly humorous ‘literary’ experiments can be read on Google Books- but though written in English (the only language I can type in!)they show the built in inadequacy of that language (which turned its back on its own very rich spiritual heritage and indigenous Mimamsa for purely economic reasons) to describe what makes India- despite everything- still not just a karma-bhoomi but a true bhoga-bhoomi for the enlightened heart.
    The importance of preserving the Hindu ethos- which, I have it on good authority, is what will most ameliorate ‘Minority’ anxieties- was brought home to me as a young student by Prof. Morishima. He explained how ‘Japanese Spirit’ was the hidden variable which had enabled the country to make rapid strides. However, he himself became almost a refugee from his own country- driven out by the ‘68 Student agitation, though he himself was a Marxist! It was those same students- lazy, greedy and thoughtless- who prevented Japan from capitalising on its strong position in the mid 80’s, consigning it back to the Hell of ‘Dualism’- double standards- Western technique for manufacturing and NOT Japanese spirit for Services BUT Corrupt Coalition politics imported for no other aim than to destroy Japanese ethos- especially family and reciprocal values.
    The fact that Mimamsa hermeneutics- actually, I believe there is a living Pan-Indian Adi Mimamsa tradition unknown to the Witzels (Doniger is no scholar)- was supplanted by Nineteenth Century trash (the one epoch in European History when Epistemology and Ontology were at a lower ebb than at the Court of Atilla or the sacrificial altar of Stonehenge) and that our State derives its legitimacy from affirming that infamous lie- is the explanation for ‘the Games that Indians play’ (Raghunathan), the Moral Anarchy which sees our country downgraded in the latest ‘Ease of doing Business’ Global rankings.
    The actual task of producing leaders is in fact greatly simplified if we base ourselves on Hindu tradition. Like book-keeping, the principles are easy to learn, understand and apply. However, you have to have ‘incentive compatibility’- in plain terms, the person who applies the principle is rewarded, the fellow who discards that rule for a bribe is punished. Currently, things are the other way round.
    The Catholic Church, the Marxist International, etc, featured a lot of irrational stuff which had to be learnt as dogma. They needed Inquisitors, Thought Police. Not so with Hinduism which spread without the waste, inefficiency and downright atrocity of Centralised bureaucratic systems.
    The principles are easy to understand. True, when we seek to cast them into English it becomes a little difficult. We are aware that some clever sophist will pick out one or other of our words and then accuse of us of not having read some Nineteenth Century nutjob who- it is received wisdom- defined it or gave it meaning. This hurts us, because we actually have read that crap! After all, we too wanted to pass exams, make Mummy and Daddy happy etc.
    I stand amazed at how well young people who were taught correct principles have done, and are doing, in life.
    No question, Indian Econ and Society were never quite as bad as the academic literature might suggest.
    Incidentally, as a glance at my last novel- Samlee’s daughter- will show I am close to the Muslim community. No question at all, young Muslim entrepreneurs and professionals- brought up with the same principles- do just as well or even better. People with good principles trust each other- regardless of caste, community or region- they come forward and lift up the country.
    However the Nehru-Gandhi ideology is that the people are beasts. They can have no principles. Confuse the s.o.bees by lecturing them one way and doing your saam-daam-dhand-bhed the other way.
    As for the term ‘Hindu activist’- this is a misnomer- no! an oxymoron! Young people have to first discipline themselves to receive wisdom. Without nivritti there is no pravritti. These are not activists but ‘passivists’- yes, sparks are struck but they are the stone not the blade and that knife has been at our throats long enough.
    There is only one path to good principles- self abnegating service. Answering ‘I don’t know- but, meanwhile, what I can do to help you? Clean your toilet? That, I can do!”
    What is this ‘bin Guru Gyan’ which turns these Yavakridas into would-be rapists- that too of Ma Sarasvati?
    Iran, by the way, did not actually become a ‘Velayet-e-Faqih’. Khomeini was not the senior Jurist. His understanding was flawed. He played politics like a ‘pro’. The story is that the Indian Shias chanted not ‘Khomenei zindeh ast’ but ‘jindeh ast’ and the Iranians thought the Indians truly were wise!
    I have respect for the Iranian people who are more simple in their food and humbly devout in their worship than our so called ‘Spiritual’ elitists.
    Religion must act as a countervailing force to the burgeoning State. It must support property and other rights of the Commons against ‘Eminent domain’ and administrative fiat. Fatwa must check firman.
    In India, the State says the people have the wrong religion. It is evil. That, by itself, justifes and legitimises anything the State wants to do. Still, the State would like more resources. So, to grow the economy, Religion and Morality are granted a grudging tolerance.
    To pass I.A.S exam, we have to learn to write something like this- ‘Tulsi Das was a great poet.. but he was a bigoted upholder of the caste system…’. This makes it easy for people who don’t know Avadhi, or who are utterly interested in reading anything but thrillers, to pass the exam. But what if you have actually read Tulsi Das? You will lose a mark for not mentioning ‘bigoted upholder of caste system’. Yet, Tulsi is the best satirist of the notion! How can the opinions of a crow (khakabhushandi) be attributed to the author?
    Anyway, sorry, I have written at too great a length. Now I will get back to enjoying your blog.

25. Kishkindhaa
    18. September 2009 - 11:05 AM

    Rajiv Chandran wrote:

    Politically liberals, leftists in most countries are ones who choose to change the status quo, support indigenous causes against westernization, centralization of political power etc. However quite the opposite is true in the case of India.

    Many of the hispanicized, fodderized, deculturated, and deracinated classes in the west (the legions of dispossessed nonwhites) have themselves tried to reconstruct their past; because of limitations imposed by the prevailing discourse, they cannot reconstruct (with any authenticity) their heathen past nor recover the true frameworks of their original traditions. These elements often subsume themselves under the label ‘liberal’ (since they have nowhere else to turn). They are quite distinct from the neocolonial western liberal project which often tries to appropriate these victims’ specific struggles and showcase it as a case of western remorse, western magnanimity, and western adaptability. That they are wholly and resolutely unsympathetic to Native Hindu struggles against the same colonizers means that their postures are mere rationalizing phenomenon occurring within the framework of monotheist colonialism.

    These same western neoliberals (Donigers, Caldwells, Nussbaums, Witzels) violently refuse to acknowledge the Hindu struggles against the double colonizers in Islam and Christianity, and they carelessly further impugn the Hindu as the real colonizers in India (caste hierarchy theory, AIT). This group is the one which secularized the missionary account of the heathen (embodied devils) in India and imparted a scientific veneer to the account. Now, they are the ones forging the anti-Hindu discourse and the missionaries are the camp followers.

    Orientalism was a categorically legitimate enterprise in the last century, such that (I’m sure) even Tilak would have referred to themselves as orientalists, and, in all earnestness, would have declared that ” we are the real orientalists, we love the orient more than the orientalists,” oblivious to the exact nature of the orientalists’ “love” for their “subject”. Today, Orientalism is defunct because the ideological basis of the discourse has been made unbearably plain to everyone. The same need to be accomplished with the “Modern” and “Liberal” rubrics behind which the colonizer is currently masked. AIT, a major cornerstone of the colonial project (most developed by the liberals), has already been successfully assailed.

    Just as both Catholicism and Protestantism are subsumed under the category of Christianity and their respective Colonialisms in South versus North Americas are viewed as aspects of the same colonial phenomenon, we need to create broader (inclusive) categories for the Conservative and Liberal Aspects of the Colonial project. The mere existence of one cannot be allowed to deny the lethality of the other as regards the native culture in India. Conservative Missionary propaganda and Liberal “Slumdog’ propaganda both have their discrete functions. It is truly a nexus (as in 4M nexus). Even in the nuke deal, all the liberal Arundhatis and Kuldips quickly fell in line behind their declared conservative enemy Bush.

    With Sikhism, the British redescribed the Sikh narrative as a rebellion against the native oppression of priests and idols, a congener of purifying Islam in the subcontinent.

26. vivek iyer
    18. September 2009 - 12:49 PM

    @Kishkinda
    Admiring your intellect and way with words, I, yet, am alarmed by your Saidian take on ‘Orientalism’.
    There was always an older notion of ‘Lux Orientalis’ or, in Islam, Ishraqi illumination.
    The interconnection between, mainly Hindu, South India and the West is full of delectable ironies- Voltaire founded his Deism upon a supposed Hindu Upanishad which was actually a translation of a Jesuit forgery, composed in a South Indian language, to foster their own creed. But, because the Jesuits turned the Bible into a wholly Hindu kavya- we admit De Nobili and Beschi etc. to the canon of our own literature. Voltaire in the Berlin of Fredrick the Great passes on his ‘Hindu’ wisdom to a newly Nationalistic (by reason of Freddy’s defeat of the French) German student community- thus sowing the seeds of German, Indologically founded, Romanticism.
    Even in England we see, Shelley- Subbu Bharati’s favourite poet- kindled by a book written by a fellow Etonian ‘the Empire of the Nairs’- thus firmly establishing him in his theory of Love.
    Raja Ramohan Roy had more influence on the Unitarians- then very influential- then they had on him. Guys, we can multiply instances. The fact is Christians safeguard and retransmit Hinduism. Their basic dogma is an excellent preparation for Hinduism. Xtianity is a sort of default Hinduism.
    Macaulay writing about the young Gladstone’s views on the unity of Church & State, points out that the fact that Gladstone’s refusal to extend his principle to India invalidates his whole argument. Ultimately, Gladstone became not the Tory’s rising hope but the Liberal who admitted that the Empire was immoral. Macaulay had already got there. No people- however benefitted by foreign fule- are not morally obligated to overthrow that system of government since Liberty is the highest human good.
    Emerson, or later Matthew Arnold, saw more in the Gita than their own Bible. But Karl Krause- Schopenhauer’s Sanskrit tutor- had already transmitted to the Spanish and Latin American countries that ‘Krausismo’ which Tagore later encounters in the person of his Peruvian Jesuit teacher!

    The fact is an ordinary Joe like me only woke up to how Noether’s theorem applies to Mahabharata reading a little about Weyl and Grothendieck- not Kausambi or Vijayraghavan!

    Gandhi’s grasp of the Gita was nothing comparable to Mexican Pres. Madero (whose nom de plume was Arjuna). Indeed, Gandhi’s Ahimsa was the plutocratic Quaker nonsense of the Rupert Murdoch of his day. Madero, despite his wealthy background, on the other hand, joined hands with Zapata.

    Boss, if- like Said- I was a Palestenian Protestant abandoned by the American Episcopalians- sure! I’d write crap about ‘orientalism’.
    I’m not. I’m a stupid Tam Bram Iyer. Annie Beasant Amma is like a saint to me. My grand-dad would scarcely have become a labour leader had she not come to settle in Adyar.
    Boss, Hinduism has absolutely nothing to fear from xtianity.
    Inquisitions, yes- Dupleix toppling a temple to please his wife… well, Ananda Ranga Pillai tells us that the original plan was to destroy both the Mosque and the Temple. The Muslims said ‘over our dead body’. The Purohits made representations, but ran away. I don’t know who the shebait of the temple was. Pillai said to the priests- ‘You only know how to demand more and more. Yet, if threatened you will quietly run away.”
    I for my part will fight for my ancestral Pallani. Ordinary Joes like me have been made to feel we OWN that place. Tirupati? Why? It’s where one side of my family throws money down a well. Very famous and so on. Sindhi merchants made the pilgrimage in the bad old days. What do I care who controls the revenues of that Holy Place? Those people look down on the likes of me.
    Christianity could have been a disaster for India. It wasn’t. Why?
    Face it. Christianity is NATURALITER Hindu! As is all devotional theism where the preceptor is venerated.
    I look at the history of certain Xtian families and see that they converted to HELP THEIR COUNTRY though they suffered loss in the process.
    Sir, Mother and Motherland are higher than Heaven. Such families are the true exemplars of Sanatan Dharma.
    To say- Xtians did such and such in the Americas and elsewhere is beside the point. The fact is the greatest Xtians embrace Hinduism and use it to illumine dark points of their own dogma.
    But such talk is irrelevant. Dharma is regulated by well understood laws. Indian Christians (of Hindu descent) are fully Hindus and in no sense Aliens until some truly unexampled and atrocious act of treachery shows them otherwise.
    Sir, no such event has occurred.
    Christianity is an approved path- not a short cut- THE SAME HUMILITY IS REQUIRED.
    I myself, I confess, am an Acharabrashta Brahminbandhu and lowest of sinners.
    Yet, in this matter, my words are canon law.

27. Raghavendra
    18. September 2009 - 1:25 PM

    @Vivek,

    State in India is week, and historically It was meant only for external shield, to protect society from the enemies. Communities were free to have rules and mores of their own in which state had no say(or limited).

    This way the state and communities were loosely coupled,and communities were paying security tax for their safety.There was no single constitution common to very one, each community had its own.

    If State in India is weak it was meant to be that way. In Indian varna system everyone subserved Ideals, society respected Ideals and was consider sacred.

    In every man these ideals are deep rooted in one’s conciseness,time and again he falls for it, the craving never ends, so In my opinion religion dies only with Mankind,in one dies another will take birth.

    From an Indian perspective its difficult to distinguish spirituality, religion ,culture and nationalism, one overlaps with the other.

    India was never concerned to much about morality until the time of Gandhi’s , for them self realization took the precedence.

    My point is,society will remain chaotic no matter what rules are brought in and what enforcement you wish to apply, all that matters is to what extent the society can bring in the freedom at individual level, the freedom of thought and the freedom of expression.

    Just an another viewpoint

28. vivek iyer
    18. September 2009 - 2:07 PM

    Actually, I’m ashamed of having posted too often, and with exponential witlessness, on this topic.
    However, my God is Nirlajjishvara, so to finally adress the real topic- viz Gurcharan Das- a guy who had high hopes of the B.J.P, just like (in an earlier epoch) Rajinder Puri and many others- W.T.F SANDEEP?
    Since when do we rend one of our own- just coz Indian politics is what it is- and Das, no more than Dayal, Datta and lots of other similarly placed guys whose names begin with D, didn’t know the ropes?
    The notion that either Vajpayee or Advani knew anything about Hinduism (compared even to a guy like me)is utterly risible.
    Hinduism is about clean, effective, Government. Proper law and order and National Security. How does B.Raman rate these guys on the latter issue?
    Both gentleman slobbered over the Paks. They love them- you see the Paks (in the upper class) are more ‘gora’ than people like me. Frankly, that type makes me sick. If Pak was truly a Muslim country I too would bow my head to them. The reverse is the case. There, it is Kitchener- not, as in India, Curzon- gone mad. The Moral Anarchy is worse not better.
    My problem with the R.S.S is the Chitpavan bias. Initially, these great people came forward for Moral and National reconstruction because, otherwise, they were descending into vice and rural imbecility. However, Chitpavans are not, have never been, canonical Hindu exemplars and preceptors.
    Savarkar recoiled from two of the five components of the 5 fold cow elixir. A brave man- but Hindu?
    A Congress Muslim M.L.A was asked whether it was legal to oppose an invasion by a Muslim power. He answered no. Savarkar saw a 5th coulumn type threat. But what was that M.L.A to do? He wore the Gandhi topee. Gandhi said don’t resist ANYBODY.
    And, after all, there is such a thing as tokenism and vote-bank politics…
    When Socialism looked good- all these guys were Socialists.
    Vajpayee once spoke of an alliance with Israel and America. Attaining his first Cabinet post, we saw a diffent picture.
    Failure of ‘hindu’ parties is not the failure of Hinduism.
    Stupidity of these half-baked, K.L Saigal era, ‘fashion pe marne vaaloon’ who only escaped the fate of ‘faaqoon marna’ by becoming crap journos and party organisers and shit like that- has nothing to do with my Religion or my country.
    Those ‘gora’ gerontocratic ‘chiknas’- what have they to do with a large, dark skinned, person like myself?
    Why should I worship them as if they were incarnations of Krishna?
    Nuclear test?
    My Uncle has recently come forward to show- contra Kalam- we needed a second test. I have no access to confidential material. But from Western sources, it seems clear, a huge blunder occurred.
    Sandeep, Bhai, seriously, GET SERIOUS!

29. Raghavendra
    18. September 2009 - 2:34 PM

    @Vikek,

    Tell me with whom you don’t have problem with? Looks like you have got lot of time to kill…

30. Sandeep
    18. September 2009 - 2:45 PM

    Vivek Iyer,

    I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What did I say that elicited a WTF with reference to me? And what do I need to get SERIOUS about?

    It’d help if you lay down your argument a little coherently if you want me to respond.

31. Rajiv Chandran
    19. September 2009 - 8:17 AM

    Sad to see the direction this otherwise interesting and stimulating debate has taken, hope we can return to further discussing and arriving at some understanding of

    1. The various frames of refernce that describe and define (or impose) identity, and the methods that can be adopted nullify such classifications

    2. The role of the state in defining, restricting indigenous agency , and what should be the nature of a remediating hindu state.

    Here is Prof. Vaidyanathan from Vijayvaani blog contextualizing the subject of our debate – I initially came across it on Shantanu’s blog :

    http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=790

    All – hope we can carry on a dispassionate and stimulating discussion.

32. prachetas
    19. September 2009 - 1:42 PM

    @Vivek Iyer

    hahaha..Mr.Acharabhrasta brahmin bandhu …feel of infinite guilt, inferiority & persecution complex and inability to swallow the bitterness about the sectarian , political dogma – 3 typical traits of xtianity followers. I have few Keralite christian friends (ex-namboodiars) whose grandfathers used to tell me that they were once Namboodiars and actually are more brahmin than me. I used to laugh and think that conversion is like teen pregnancy..peer pressure, selfishness, greed, infatuation ..all vices are there in it. Usually they do it in fit of rage or for other short term benefits and then spend rest of their lives justifying it or coping up. To sum it up..take wine, women and wealth out of christianity…see how long it will survive….a housefly would live longer. Islam according to few historians was a movement that started out because of the stupid things church in the middle east was doing. Of course how it shaped itself and what atrocities it committed in the name of God is a equally brutal story.

    Left to church, Europe and Americas would have been much worse than current Islamic nations of Afghanistan & Somalia. Thanks to sacrifices made by the brave pioneers of reformation & renaissance who looked at and learnt from the east to fight the bull shit and lead life driven by common sense. How the hell can a political doctrine be compared to santana dharma. How are superstitious Indian christians who are scared to bring a picture of Hindu god for their Hindu friend living abroad be same as a Hindu who would get his christian friend a cross if he is coming from Jerusalem. ?

    Intolerant, non pluralistic semetic cults must die, are dying and will die.

33. S.Hari
    19. September 2009 - 3:20 PM

    The Hindu is liberal to the point that it does not affect it his or her family personally. The average Hindu does not want to show resilience on community realted issues. Any Muslim who does not react to some cartoons in some unknown newspaper in an unknown country is a traitor to the community that he belongs. For the Hindu to react to much greater taunts and insults it requires speeches of the kind that Varun has allegedly made.
    However in matters such as caste reservation and benefits that may directly be recieved by his or her family the Hindu is second to none and his liberalism will vanish.
    The sum toto is that the Hindu is selfish to himself and his immediate family.

34. vivek iyer
    19. September 2009 - 4:12 PM

    Dear Sandeep
    Alas, waiting for Video to render in the wee hours is productive of intense frustration rather than sweet reason. My post isn’t coherent. But the paranoid kernel- not of an objective truth, certainly, but an apophatic unthought known- it contains amounts to this- B.J.P stood for nothing specifically Hindu. The disappointment of people like Das and Puri with the party had less to do with ideology than its absence.
    In real time politics there must be leadership- it is not a field where independent thought can somehow lead to everyone rallying to a common Schelling focal point. The failure w.r.t the development of a proper ‘Dharmic’ party- call it what you will- which infuses the twin and related tasks of National Defence and maintenance of Justice with overiding spiritual significance, rather than just another political football- has been with the leadership rather than people who write a bit.
    Where now is there the sort of intellectual and moral leadership Ranade and, later, the Servants of India Soc provided?
    What is the point of having a nation of Chanakyas when there is no Chandragupta?
    Answers on a postcard for the chance to win a free D.V.D.
    Incidentally, according to the Wikipedia article on the B.J.P
    The term “iyer” used by southern BJP functionaries is a very recent one and not prevalent during ancient times. The brahminical identity of many such people itself remains a suspect. A good number of these people are from deccan. With the help of anti-socials and vested interests within the state of TN and south they create an identity for themselves linking them to the state from remote past. The usual modus operandi is by trying to enter into matrimonial relationships with those who are presumed to be “natives”.

    So now you know.

35. Ot
    19. September 2009 - 4:46 PM

    Rajiv Chandran, do you have a blog or an online collection of your writings? Thanks in advance.

36. Palahalli
    20. September 2009 - 2:38 AM

    Rajiv Chandran – I’m a little drunk now and so can think more clearly. I have some queries that may help clarify;

    1. The various frames of reference that describe and define (or impose) identity, and the methods that can be adopted nullify such classifications

    - Does the State have an identity that’s different from it’s Nationals? I don’t want to say “Citizens” just now.

    Should the State have an identity – necessarily? If yes, when does the State assume it’s identity? When the National identity is threatened? When it needs to be asserted in the face of aggression from within and without?

    I asked if the State can possess an identity that’s similar to it’s “National” identity? Can the State possess another? Or can a State deny an identity even in the face of aggression?

    The State in Hindusthan, I believe, did not always possess an identity different from its Nationals. It does today. Secular States deny by rule, any identification with it’s Nationals. They stand apart. A Traditional State by rule, does the reverse.

    Since liberalism by rule is a denial of Tradition, that Liberal State must also be Secular. Of course I would characterize theoretical Communism as Liberalism minus any orthodoxy.

    I don’t think we can or should pussy-foot around these facts.
    Any Nation that faces aggression or Foreign-hostile elements, must assume an identity through its State. Else the State is not Its. That State is apart and outside It.

    So, so long as there is conflict..there will be identity that’s sharply defined. If there isn’t then there is chaos.

    2. The role of the state in defining, restricting indigenous agency , and what should be the nature of a remediating hindu state.

    - As you might see, the State’s assumption or not, of the National identity is key.

    In times of conflict (if the State even recognizes the conflict) if the State refuses and spurns a National identity then such a State will turn hostile to any indigenous aspiration. It must, by definition.

    The only role that I can see for a Hindu State is to build self sustaining Hindu societal institutions. It must keep Hindu society safe and must disown any identity in proportion to the waning of any threat to the Hindu Nation. The requirements of such a flexible bulwark will have its own requirements.

    I believe this is how it was.

    Thank you

37. Nikhil
    20. September 2009 - 9:53 AM

    Can anyone tell me in a nutshell – what is Dharma? A brief definition will do, thanks

38. Indian
    20. September 2009 - 4:52 PM

    See here for a criticism of Gurcharan Das and other liberal Hindus.

39. kaangeya
    20. September 2009 - 8:04 PM

    I am surprised that with all this talk about liberalism, even a well read man like Gurcharan Das hasn’t heard, leave alone read of the modern Indian liberal tradition. an essay about liberalism without DVG? Among the others today are Prof.(Retd) Emmanuel Raja formerly of Loyola College, Madras and his wife Prof. (Retd) Hilda Raja.

40. Sid
    21. September 2009 - 1:58 AM

    Palahalli,
    I am a bit confused after reading your thoughts.
    “Does the State have an identity that’s different from it’s Nationals? ” – No. A big NOOOO. But then,
    “Secular States deny by rule, any identification with it’s Nationals.” – really?
    In theory, the basic tenet of secularism is the separation of church and state. In Indian context, church can be thought to represent religious orthodoxy. Any kind of orthodoxy prevents new thought or change that may be necessary for the state to survive in a particular time. From this stand point, secularism is not in conflict with nationalism. It is the irony of time that the perverted secularism practiced in India took the role of very orthodoxy that it is supposed to prevent.
    This particular brand of “secularism” does have a serious conflict with nationalism (By nationalism I am not referring to RSS “Hindi first” brand).
    “Any Nation that faces aggression or Foreign-hostile elements, must assume an identity through its State. Else the State is not Its. That State is apart and outside It….
    So, so long as there is conflict..there will be identity that’s sharply defined. If there isn’t then there is chaos.” – Yes completely agreed. However,
    “The only role that I can see for a Hindu State is to build self sustaining Hindu societal institutions. It must keep Hindu society safe and must disown any identity in proportion to the waning of any threat to the Hindu Nation. The requirements of such a flexible bulwark will have its own requirements.” – Do we really want any theocracy? Is theocracy the only way to get rid of this disastrous secularism that is pretty much re-defining the meaning of mass suicide?

41. Rajiv Chandran
    21. September 2009 - 6:42 AM

    @OT – Thank you for your interest. I am working hard on getting some blogs, wikis and other sites up and running before the end of the year. I shall be updating their status on twitter and facebook.

42. Krishnan
    21. September 2009 - 1:34 PM

    Dear all,
    I’m sorry for drifting away from the topic. Could anyone here suggest me a good, well-written English version of Mahabharatham?

    Thanks in advance.

43. Hari
    21. September 2009 - 3:59 PM

    Krishnan,
    I’d recommend the Ganguly version which is available online, in http://www.sacredtexts.com. However it was written over 100 years ago, so there might still be inconsistencies that you might want to see through.

44. Palahalli
    21. September 2009 - 8:53 PM

    Sid(dharth?)-

    Let me respond;

    Firstly your reading of secularism is not the same as is being read by regimes in Hindusthan or elsewhere.

    1. Hindusthan – Secularism is based on two premises.

    a. Sarva Dharma Samabhava – All *religions* are the same and so will be treated equally by the State.

    b. Dharma Nirapekshata – The State will not assume a *religious* identity and therefore will remain outside the *religious* sphere.

    2. The West – Secularism in the West is seen and meant as separation of Temporal and Sacral spheres of influence and power/authority. Please note, this does not mean the State forsakes it’s religious identity. It simply does not assume one – a very subtle difference that was necessary for the West to creep out of it’s seemingly interminable Tempora-Sacra conflicts that was generally about power and influence and its imposition.

    In the midst of all this and in particular post WW-2/post Colonial periods and the multifarious guilts it engendered in the West; we witnessed the advent of various “rights”. Of these, Human Rights and within that ambit, Minority Rights assumed mantraic properties. For a largely homogeneous White West, the guilt took on forms that made possible *Civil Rights* laws and that saw the inflow of immigrants (Legal & otherwise).

    In Hindusthan itself we had been playing with similar fire courtesy Gandhi and friends. We had “Minority nee Muslim Rights” even before anything like it had become fashionable elsewhere. So this new International (really guilt ridden Western) development was hardly surprising and very easy to accept for us.

    Witness the birth of modern liberalism.

    I have repeated elsewhere the premises modern liberalism labors under;

    # Inalienable Individual Rights

    # The liberal truth that all cultures are equal

    - These premises act as a bulwark for secularism. They go hand in hand.

    So, a State that is secular in a Multi-Cultural country cannot but be a liberal State too. (Btw I cannot think of a singly exception to this rule today.) Once this condition is set, there is no way the Secular-Liberal State can or will identify itself with the National Society. (Please mark the differences between “National”, “Citizen”, “Minority”)

    # Hindusthan – Hindu Society

    # The West – White Christian Society

    Observations –

    1. I think you are not aware of the “RSS brand” of Nationalism.

    2. I have nowhere spoken of a “theocracy”. A Hindu State is not a theocracy and has never been one. This is because the Hindu notion of *religion* is very different.

    Thank you

45. Kedar
    22. September 2009 - 1:40 AM

    Pala, to add to your statement:
    “This is because the Hindu notion of *religion* is very different”

    Hinduism doesnt even have a name for the world “religion”. The word “matah” in samskrtam means opinion, and “dharmah” means “that which sustains” (roughly duty).

    Also, there was no translation for “theocracy” in Samskrtam before the english word “theocracy” came to India. What does that tell you?

46. Sid
    22. September 2009 - 2:05 AM

    Palahalli,
    It is Siddhartha.
    “Firstly your reading of secularism is not the same as is being read by regimes in Hindusthan or elsewhere.” – Not sure about elsewhere. In my country India (I would call it Bharath) it is considered to be theoretical basis for cowardice and lack of sense of self preservation.

    Are you prepared to consider all Hindus in Indian subcontinent as a nation? If yes, then would you want all of these Hindus to leave their customs and follow a single path to attain Dharma?
    Our religion does not have a caliph or pope, neither we need one. As Sriramkrshna put it two centuries back, there are as many roads to God as there are opinions. The Hindu society is largely multi-cultural, multi-lingual and each sect belonging to this society has a rich cultural heritage. Sanatan Dharma is the only framework that could manage to accept and encourage the existence of these many sects.
    If we deny individual rights and acceptance of difference in opinion, we would deny the very essence of our Dharma. Therefore, in my view, an inclusive (if you do not like liberal) view is necessary to consolidate Hindus as a nation. The major failure of the organizations under RSS umbrella is an adoption of extremely constrained view of Hinduism and a Hindi-centric viewpoint. This is the primary reason the organization never took root in South Indian states or East Indian states.
    If you are not suggesting theocracy and your affection for democracy is hardly visible, is there any political solution you would like to offer (beyond anarchy off course)?

47. Sid
    22. September 2009 - 2:27 AM

    Kedar,
    ‘…Also, there was no translation for “theocracy” in Samskrtam before the english word “theocracy” came to India. What does that tell you?’ – Was there a Sanskrit word for “Democracy” before it came with English in India? Just because we can not find some concepts in our culture (actually democracy existed on our history long before Indian elites found that in the western culture) does not mean it would not exist.

48. Rajiv Chandran
    22. September 2009 - 7:20 AM

    @Sid – European democracy has specific antecedents. Modern european democracy owes it’s birth to the protestant faith. Protestant faith was a revolt against Catholic Papal Rule – a direct inheritor of the roman empire. This cleavage led the northern kingdoms to declare a measure of independence from the Catholic Church.

    Other historical circumstances esp renaissance, and political situations local to the fringe island – Britain – would lead to a more permanent divorce from the catholic church and the transfer of power to an oligarchy instead of the monarchy. Later historians look back at this and coin terms theocracy (for the much disliked and feared papacy ) and democracy (from the idealized pre-papal past – greece and rome). Usually democracy is contrasted against monarchy (not theocracy) as being the ideal political system. My argument would be that the theocracy-democracy binary better relates to modern european historical experiences. Such a binary is not even applicable to ancient greece or rome (until its conversion to christiantiy). It is of course utterly inapplicable to pre-islamic India as well.

    The point being that democracy and theology are not universal terms – they are understood differently on the basis of differing historical experiences (and political systems) in different countries. Same is the case with religion. This is something that social studies are just begining to recognize only now.

    Finally in response “Just because we can not find some concepts in our culture does not mean it would not exist”. True – but lacking underlying evidence arbitrary conceptual categorizations should also be avoided. Can someone cite examples of theocracies from ancient India ? Also no ‘theological’ basis for Hindu Rashtra has been presented. One of the prime proponents of the idea – Savarkar – was infact an athiest – his writing on the subject are labelled sectarian by some – but never theological. I believe the idea of Hindu Rashtra is primarily political. Hence the question that i had asked earlier – what should be that nature of a Hindu Rashtra ?
    This answer to this has not been readily available. Perhaps someone can guide me to it.

49. Kishkindhaa
    22. September 2009 - 1:03 PM

    Vivek,

    The interventionist state is a direct transformation of the Christian Church. Dharma and Monotheism are, thus, only united as theism from the point of reference of the secular state. So, your claim of a symbiotic relationship between Dharma and Monotheism is made under the typical secular assumptions. Of course, it is another matter that the monotheists/seculars may end up getting acculturated by the heathens, instead of vice versa, but it cannot be claimed that Monotheism is a waystation to Dharmic sensibility. Native Americans were not culturally dispossessed as part of a symbiotic exchange.

    Again, working with these categories of theism versus secular nontheism, right versus left, liberal versus conservative only serves to mask our perception of the colonial project. The diversity among the monotheisms is ideological; while among the heathens, diversity is cultural.

    1857 was a failure of the missionary project in India and henceforth the Missionary efforts were confined to the peripheral “tribal areas” (Northeast), in addition to being transferred over to the Americans (Methodists, Baptists). At this point, the secular, liberal project gained currency (as a forced alternative) among the colonizer and Macaulayite education was instituted to alienate Indians from their traditions. What the missionaries could not accomplish was accomplished by the liberals/seculizers of the Empire.

    If the native traditions are contextualized as ideological, if a certain community is described as the owners of the sankritic and the imposers of the culture on the basis of ideology and as the agents of historical and ideological change, then the rest will automatically be alienated from the culture. If India’s culture and the native response to colonialism is described as an instance of rightist (read bigot) ideology, then the populace will automatically lose its fervor for such an “enterprise.” The missionaries could not accomplish with umpteen convoluted argument about ‘original sin’ and the consequent need to be “saved” was accomplished by our beloved secular. The Liberals and Seculars have salted the field and the set the heathen civilization itself to wither away, merely by ‘norming’ one category of heathen against another and by describing the culture of India as ‘religious’ in the fashion of monotheism. The heathens’ response to Colonialism is thus a mere rightist and bigoted religious sentiment. The heathen concern has been trivialized by the liberal discourse as mere Religion.

    That cultural diversity is a result of the imposition of ideology is the typical abrahamic claim; thus, they can deem culture itself as a manifestation of false religion and false belief!! The claim works only in the closed world of ideology but not in our real world where each being’s vyaktigatt dharma is unique!! Thus these fellows can further claim that any positive happening is due to the application of liberal principles and any untoward happening is due the absence of the same. If you are standing next to your mother and not killing her with your bare hands, it is due to your liberal principles!! They are merely redescribing a reality by christening it as an instantiation and implementation of the pet ideology!! And, in turn, these types of chimerical constructs are then used to describe the native heathen as irremediably repressive or unmindingly libertine, as the situation demands. That is Orientalism.

    Said’s perspective was limited to the the modern liberal project; though he mentions KM Pannikar in the Introduction, because of conceptual constraints, he was unable to delineate the Monotheist origin of Orientalism. Islam as a colonizer in its own right thus escapes his scrutiny as well as the heathen survival narrative. In fact, the Enlightenment itself resulted as a way to cope with the inherent instability introduced into Protestantism by the “discovery” of heathens in the colonies (ghent group). This story is, of course, glossed as an internal development to Europe with the priests suddenly “wondering” about the ubiquitous pagan ruins in Greece. To admit the “heathen challenge” would automatically discredit the entire modernist movement as merely reactionary; for they blamed the Church for their plight while the native heathen was Orientalized (eg Rousseau’s Romanticist Noble Savage). The developments represented by Schopenhauer and Freud must be seen in such a light, as attempts to forestall the threat posed to the “ideology” prism itself by the heathen’s dynamic. These have been transformed into the the current appropriation of Buddhism and the Doniger type “analyses” (as described by Rajiv Malhotra). FW Engdahl even describes how the ’saffon revolution’ in “Burma” was a Western-sponsored ‘color revolution’. The same has been described by Sandhya Jain for the Maoist “People’s Revolution” in Nepal .

    Of course, they managed to produce some great art as well, but the magnificence of Chartres is not the heathen’s point of dispute; only colonialism (alienation from one’s Traditions). Shelley and the like are thus not being contested.

    Twain, Thoreau, Emerson do represent a true heathen thread somehow transplanted into abrahamic absolutism, IMO, but these were eclipsed by the statist Whitman. No one denies the tragedy of conversion; we must cut relations with those who were once our own. In Sindh, when the time came to convert to the “liberator’s” Islam, the jatis chose certain sections which were to continue to remain Hindus, and these were protected by their muslim caste compatriots. But where are the Hindus in that land today? The break may be distant in time but it seems mandated nonetheless by the nature of the colonialist monotheist beast we’re confronting.

50. Sid
    23. September 2009 - 12:18 AM

    Rajiv,
    Thanks for an informative response. I agree mostly to your point except a few.
    “It is of course utterly inapplicable to pre-islamic India as well.” – No. Actually democratic systems did exist in ancient India. During Buddha’s time the region had so many communities that used to govern them through discussion among it’s members. They were summarily called “Gana” which was different from “Janapada” i.e. kingdom. Granted that most of them were oligarchy, but are we in a better democracy at present times? Until Chanakya changed the political thinking of that age and marginalized “Gana”, the concept flourished. The last major “Gana” Kalinga challenged Ashoka significantly in his last battle.
    Theocracy never existed India the same way it existed in Europe. However, religious orthodoxy deeply impacted later kingdoms. Brahmin envy in the sixthth century allowed the conquering Hindu king Sasanka to cut the bodhi tree under which Buddha is said to gain Nirvana. During the 10th century the religious orthodoxy marginalized the kings in most of the kingdoms and extreme riches and lack external challenges made the Hindu/Buddhist India so vulnerable, that they lost to Islamic thugs like castle built on sand. When I said theocracy, I mean the kind of ruling legitimacy religious orthodoxy got in our land before and still gets in middle east.

51. Sid
    23. September 2009 - 12:23 AM

    Rajiv,
    More to this: What should be the nature of Hindu Rastra? I really do not know. What I know is that a Hindu Rastra in the line of Islamic republic (read Pakistan) or Christan republic (read Ireland) is something that is unlikely to gain support among Hindus.

52. vivek iyer
    23. September 2009 - 1:25 AM

    @ Kishkinda
    Many thanks for your enlightening post.
    Your opening line sparkles with clarity and intellectual rigour-
    “The interventionist state is a direct transformation of the Christian Church.”
    This is exciting. My reaction (no doubt, jejune)is, “Aha! So that’s the big deal about Dun Scotus’s Univocity as opposed to Aquinas- in plain words, the notion that a predicate must always mean the same thing no matter how applied- God is good in the same way that my dog is good. This approach tends to promote haecceity- what makes a thing unique- over the Platonic notion of Being as ‘participation’in a Universal. In other words, when the Church- simply to keep up with the Joneses- in this case the Banu Jaafaris- switches from Plato to Aristotle- what happens is
    1) On the one hand the simoniac priest can validly baptise because (contra the English Platonism of Wyclife etc) the fact that the priest (or the Church of Rome for that matter) does not ‘participate’ in the quality of Holiness is irrelevant. Here we have the germ of the notion- whose modern champion is Nozick- that just title consists in nothing more than just acquisition of title- thus, so long as Rome- or later Cantebury- has a chain of title then the apostolic succession stands. The corruption of the Church is irrelevant. In other words, you have a pure Legalism.
    2) Since Platonic Universals are downgraded and haecceity is made the focus of attention, Mystic contemplation, hesychasm or any other sort of proper spiritual practice (such as that of Julia of Norwich, Richard Rolle and countless other ordinary (not ordained) anchorites in medieval Europe, suddenly becomes uninteresting. In other words, the European equivalent to our Bhakti mysticism was simply relegated to low class hysteria and imbecility. INSTEAD you have Inquisitions! It is interesting that ‘heretical’ sects like the Cathars derived from syncretic Alexandrian Plotinism.
    The notion that the State has a duty to enforce the Ruler’s own Church’s dogma creates the ground for an infinite interventionism- ‘from Cradle to Grave’. On the one hand, there is a rudimentary ‘Welfare State’- the Elizabethan ‘Poor Law’ and the Workhouse system that developed from it- on the other, vast and costly wars. Yes, no question, Securlarism- of Macaulay’s sort- arises out of expediency and economic motives.
    Indeed, Macaulay fixes on the Principle of Division of Labour and Comparative Advantage (as great engines of economic growth) to rubbish the young Gladstone’s theory of Church and State.
    However once expediency and economic growth become the prime motive for change, the development of an interventionist state is inevitable.
    Thus it makes a lot of sense for you to say= ‘The interventionist state is a direct transformation of the Christian Church.’ The qualification I’d make is that this is so only if the Church is dogmatically Aristotelian. A Platonist or mystical approach- founded upon Hesychasm- as in the Russian Orthodox Church might have developed differently. It is noteworthy that Russian Indologists were unique in seeing Indian sources as representing scientific and useful stuff from which there was much to learn. Sadly the doyen of Indian historiography then resident in Moscow was a hysterical Stalin fan- and no friend to this tendency.

    In your second line, you say=
    Dharma and Monotheism are, thus, only united as theism from the point of reference of the secular state.
    Here my problem is with the word theism. I tend to use it for true devotional religion. I can see what you are getting at- I just need to put it into my own words so as to think this through.
    But before doing that, I might as well confess- as a reader of Mahabharata, I learn that knowledge of Probability and Game theory is necessary for a Just King. This gives rise to the idea that Dharma is not a scalar but a vector- viz. the set of Evolutionarily Stable Strategies which fulfil certain symmetry conditions.
    The combination of Univocity and Aristotelian logic really screws up ‘deontics’ and (as Brouwer and Weyl found) knowledge derived from ‘intuition’.
    Indeed, Univocity by itself generates Heideggerian Nihilism- an amoral anti Humanism.
    There is no way, I know off, you can get to Theism (bhakti) as opposed to fanaticism for fanaticism’s sake, on this road. Thus far I am in agreement with you. Indeed, the manic interventionism of the ‘Secular’ (but, as you show, actually Church sized hole of a) State impoverishes the individual’s ethos, destroys the moral basis of family and communal life
    - in a manner that is widely recognised.

    But, I had better cut this short.
    Thank you for giving me so much food for reflection!

53. Rajiv Chandran
    23. September 2009 - 2:29 PM

    Sid

    Thanks for your post. I do relate to your statements to some extent, My reservations and causes thereof are listed below :

    1. The apparent Hindu-Buddhist conflict in ancient India can be viewed as a constuction of colonial historiography. It is likely that early british historians were

    enamoured with the idea of a protestant buddhist faith rising in revolt against mainstream hinduism. Similar conflicts between other mathas and systems of belief are

    never cited with such prominence by our historians ostensibly because it would damage the case to project hinduism as a backward religion resistant to reform by

    ‘rational’ buddhism.

    2. On the specific case of Sasanka – historians have conceded that accounts from King Harshavardhana’s court or that of Hueng Tsang might be one sided demonizations of

    one of the great kings of the time. In buddhist lore the Bodhi tree has been destroyed number of times – allegedly by Ashoka, his wife, by Sasanka et al – anyone

    inimical to that faith – so much so that the act attains almost allegorical stature. It would be a little unfair (and also a gross generlization) to attribute the

    failure of polity throughout the country to religious fanaticism and orthodoxy – based on evidence we have not yet fully investigated and understood. All other

    evidence – including the heavy participation of Brahmanas in Buddhist academic institutions, open debates – and the very fact that for centuries Buddhism spread from

    it’s source in India – bely the claim for persistence of sustained religious conflicts. Also one may notice that Buddhism inspite of being a missionary religion lives

    in harmony with local faiths in almost all countries it has spread to. Was this ethos instilled in it in it’s land of birth ? Could this have been the case in a land

    in throes of religious conflicts.

    3. By some accounts Kota Venkatachalam, KD Sethna there has been a displacement of our chronology by anywhere between 500 to 1200 years. A majority of traditional

    accounts (with the exception of Ceylonese) accounts place the date of the historical Buddha at around more than a thousand years before (ie at around 1900 BC) the

    current academic consensus . Correspondingly the Mauryas start at around 1500 BC. The point of mentioning this is that since we dont have a correct idea of the

    chronology of Indian history (we are not even sure who Ashoka was – and how many there were) – it would be leap of faith to assert that we understand the social and

    political circumstances of that time (as our ‘eminent’ historians so frequencly assert). Ganas mentioned in the vedas, and the mahabharata could be even more ancient

    (>3000 BC) against the sanghas and the janapadas (>1500BC). Hence I suppose the terms ‘ganarajya’ and ‘ganatantra’ were prevalent much before we inherited the term

    democracy. We dont have a similar sanskrit terminology word for theocracy. Hence my point that the democracy-theocracy binary is invalid in the case of India – since

    it does not relate to circumstances on the ground. Even if we believe the buddhist account about Sasanka – it would seem more of an exception than a rule – in the

    absence of a history of sustained inimical relationship.

    Also please note here that the point I am trying to make is that our historical constructs about ancient India are so severely compromized and mutiliated , and so

    infilterated by ideological positions – that is perilous to draw any viable conclusions from that discipline.

    Regarding Ancient India’s vulnerability to Islam one may note that it took a better part of many centuries before they gained control of India-proper. I think the

    reasons for that are probably not far to see. Ideological Islam thrives on unremitting hostility towards the heathen. Where two such identical forces clashed – Spain,

    Middle-east etc, the rout of one meant the total defeat, annihilation, destruction of the other (eg christians in the middle east, muslims in spain). Hindus by

    contrast has never been awake to the sustained hostility that continues unabated for centuries (look at pakistan). It is likely that Rajas of yore might have treated

    outlying muslim states with consideration – only to be attacked, and annihilated when they were down. An analogy would be that inspite of defeating Pakistan we have

    never pushed the advantage, however if they ever win – they will seek to mortally wound india. I digress, but it seems that Hindus never understood the idea of

    sustained hostility embedded in the strictures of abrahmic faiths. We tend to treat it as just another dharma – and are consequently in perpetual retreat. The need

    therefore is to define polity, and intellectual positions which without emulating the worst parts of Abrahmic system – still manages to protect Indic ethos and interests.

    Apologies for the longish post.

54. Palahalli
    23. September 2009 - 6:53 PM

    Siddhartha, apologies for my delayed response;

    I noticed the ongoing debate is truly classy and so will not spoil it with my semi-literate litter – at least not more than necessary

    1. Not sure about elsewhere. In my country India (I would call it Bharath) it is considered to be theoretical basis for cowardice and lack of sense of self preservation.

    - Only the aware Hindu Nationalist looks at secularism in this light. Not anybody else. For instance, the BJP has always prided itself in being “truly secular”. The RSS has never taken an official stand against secularism too.

    2. Are you prepared to consider all Hindus in Indian subcontinent as a nation? If yes, then would you want all of these Hindus to leave their customs and follow a single path to attain Dharma?

    - What is that single path in Sanatana Dharma? There is none that would suit all Hindus. Nevertheless Hindus are a nation unto themselves – some aware of this fact, some unconscious.

    3. Our religion does not have a caliph or pope, neither we need one. As Sriramkrshna put it two centuries back, there are as many roads to God as there are opinions. The Hindu society is largely multi-cultural, multi-lingual and each sect belonging to this society has a rich cultural heritage. Sanatan Dharma is the only framework that could manage to accept and encourage the existence of these many sects.

    - I agree. Sanatana Dharma does not have a Pope. I also agree that Hindu society is multi-cultural. I wholly agree with this – “Sanatan Dharma is the only framework that could manage to accept and encourage the existence of these many sects.”

    - A note – Islam does not have a Khalipha anymore.

    4. If we deny individual rights and acceptance of difference in opinion, we would deny the very essence of our Dharma.

    - And yet the exercise of Dharma implies responsibility. How does each individual exercising his/her own “right” decide how responsible they are being? That ensuring responsibility lies with Society. Since our secular state has perfected the art of despoiling Hindu society’s institutions through its rigorous “constitutional” interventions, we Hindus perforce have to look to the same state for sustenance and hope.

    The only reason why this state does not finish off Hindu society at this stage is because of the need to wield power effectively. I have said in my blog article that Hindusthan’s is a “liberal” establishment ruling over a conservative society.

    Really, our establishment would at once turn overtly Hindu conservative, if they saw they could still exercise similar power.

    But how does Hindu society deny such a corrupt establishment this privilege? And yet rebuild its institutions that would sustain its society irrespective of who is in power?

    Therefore Hindus need that true shot at political power.

    5. Therefore, in my view, an inclusive (if you do not like liberal) view is necessary to consolidate Hindus as a nation.

    - Where is this inclusive view denied? I agree the Hindu style is not to say all views are equal. That’s a very liberal thing to do. The Hindu way would be to say -”Hey..looks like that helps you. But i’ll look for something else”.

    Let’s take another example. The recent controversy wrt section 377. It was not the Hindu that imposed this code. It was the colonial govt. But it also looks like Hindu society did not oppose it. This does not mean we supported this code too.

    So a good way to see it is that Hindu society was indifferent to homosexuality. “Homosexuality is for homosexuals”. The liberal attitude is truly perverse and this gets the Hindu goat like none other. The liberals say, “Hey look. We are homosexuals…and we are the same as heterosexuals. Therefore we need the section decriminalized..and want more. We need similar legal and social rights and legitimacy too. We want to get married and adopt”. We are all, after all, equal.

    I hope you see the difference. The modern liberal is a great deceiver too. He will never let out that his cause is for the so called – LGBT. Now if you expand that up and see “individual rights” in this fresh glow, you will realize you must insist on responsibility.

    This above is just one example of many.

    6. The major failure of the organizations under RSS umbrella is an adoption of extremely constrained view of Hinduism and a Hindi-centric viewpoint. This is the primary reason the organization never took root in South Indian states or East Indian states.

    - I disagree. The RSS dog was given a bad name very early and many have tried to kill it since.

    There are certainly historical reasons why the RSS has never been strong in the East and South but to say that the West and North are “Hindi-centric” is not very accurate, is it?

    Moreover the RSS has no particularistic view of Hinduism.

    These are facts that can be attested by any RSS publication and interview.

    7. If you are not suggesting theocracy and your affection for democracy is hardly visible, is there any political solution you would like to offer (beyond anarchy off course)?

    - Nothing beyond what I have already said till date.

    Thank you

55. vivek iyer
    24. September 2009 - 2:40 AM

    @Palahalli
    Sir, you endeared yourself to me by referring to yourself as being a little drunk and thus better able to post.
    Good for you! You are an incarnation of Abhinavagupta!
    A wonderful friend of mine- from a senior Muslim family which opposed Antulay (the father was a brave- brave because khandani Muslim- Income Tax Comissioner) recently wrote to me pointing out that Bal Thackeray took drink- and as Khushwant Singh said- someone who takes ’suboo’ can’t be all bad.
    It is interesting that the architects of Japan’s transformation were terrible drunkards. There is a story about Chou En Lai- while a student in Japan he got drunk. A friend reproved him quoting the line ‘the deepest regret is of uncarveable wood… Even if we overtop Tien Shan with the mountain of our wine dregs what will we have earned but an unheroic name?”
    Thus the great actor and diplomat, gave up drink (when drinking toasts he was actually drinking water) subordinated himself to Mao.
    How much better China would have fared if, Chou En Lai- imitating Juan Chi- had stayed drunk during the Cultural Revolution, or, before that, the Great Leap Forward?

    Gandhians really hurt Gujerat- building Gandhinagar rather than enabling Surat to displace Mumbai. Drunkards, however, kept that latter alive and vital.

    Okay- there are drinkers… and drinkers. Stalin, drunken sot- still wins not Hitler the abstemious vegetarian.
    Is Sanatan Dharma really ‘ Meat is bad, Wine is bad, Ciggies are bad, Coffee- chee, chee- coffee is bad, Tea- hai, hai- Tea is bad, ONIONS! bastard, you eat ONIONS! Don’t you know that is as bad as eating GARLIC! I will not say TOMATOES- because Ladies and children might be reading this column- still, without doubt, a peson who eats ONION will inevitably commit the crime of scratching his backside during Vajapeya ceremony, or Advani Chaturmas, without simoultaneously cleansing himself with cowdung, burnt peacock feathers, and the faeces of random rodents.
    However, appeal of R.S.S to sober youth can not be gainsaid-
    ‘Urm… due to reservations, I’m too stupid to get into I.I.T or I.A.S… could I please be considered a great Hindu leader? I promise to go beat up some Muslims. I really do. But could it be like Muslim babies and very old women? Or at least, very old women and babies who- for all I know- could be like maybe Muslim or Xtian or something like that.
    Would that do?’
    Yes of course. You don’t drink. You are a ‘pussy’- marry my daughter why don’t you? India needs more like you.
    Boss, strength is strength. R.S.S have not produced great atheletes, boxers, wrestlers, kallari fighters etc. I really don’t know what they do do- other than do do. Arya Samaj and R.S.S were active in Kerala. But they let down ordinary Nairs. Why? They were ignorant, weak (that is physically) stupid and… hang on, that is the Communist recipe for success.. and LACKING IN CUNNING! LACKING IN THE DESIRE TO DOMINATE!
    R.S.S is the ‘dog that didn’t bark’- too busy licking its self inflicted wounds- except there weren’t any. Why? Who desire power but do not drink- they are the vampires of their own votaries’ blood. For a time, there may appear to be the appearance of War. Actually, as in the case of Nazi Germany, there was nothing but a piteous cry for enslavement and re-education.
    Not with our R.S.S- it’s just dress up, that’s all. It is the impotence of men with grown sons mouthing off to each other till wifey calls us home to mend a fuse or go queue for ration.
    Liqour, indeed, is Liberation.

56. Sid
    24. September 2009 - 5:31 AM

    Rajiv,
    “Apologies for the longish post.” – no apologies needed. To settle the score I would post even longer, but not today.

    1. Yes. That would be one way to look at it. However, by any account, there was no love lost between Hinduism and Buddhism until Puranas started accepting Buddha as Vishnu’s 9th avatar.

    2. It was not my goal to accuse Sasanka, the first powerful king coming out of Gauda. I was trying to show that mix of kingly and priestly power is very lethal for the kingdom itself. Initially it shows terrific result (like expansion of Islam or advances made by Gupta dynasty in North), then the kingdom surrenders to the religious orthodoxy, blocks free thought, hinders the earlier advances and then the religious perversion makes it impossible to keep the kingdom together. If you want to see how history repeats itself, look at Pakistan.

    3. I did not know about this. Can I have a link or book?

    I agree to the rest. It would be foolish to sing the secular song when enemy does not care to understand the language.

57. Sid
    24. September 2009 - 6:07 AM

    Palahalli,
    No problem, take your time. I do not believe you are littering here, but if you are doing so, who cares. See, we are Indians, it is our birth right to waste somebody else’s property or time. This blog is Sundeep’s after all.
    So far no tree is wasted for writing bigger web pages.
    But I digress.
    In west, cynics often say, truth is out there. When I see our media, I never fail to grasp the idea. Secularism is the new fashionable religion and this will not go out of fashion until a new one comes in the light. What can a group of bigots say anyway? Time and time again, I remember why are the ideas of George Orwell so relevant in a world where internet the great leveler invaded almost every facade of human lifestyle.
    Point 1, 2 and 3 – no arguments.
    Point 4 – Should we or should not we? There is a need for us to band together for our own self preservation. How far should this be politicized is open to debate.

    Point 5 – This may seem odd to you but I support LGBT cause. We yet do not know whether LGBT community is suffering from a physical problem or is it a perverted demand? Can we pass the responsibility of judgment to the almighty God? As long as a Gay man is not murdering someone or harms anyone, I would prefer to stay away from how he is treating his boyfriend. Opposing LGBT seems to be a missionary hangover. Our own scripture does not give a damn.

    Point 6 – RSS as an organization, if at all accused wrongly, repeatedly failed to reach the people who mattered. RSS failed to come up as a viable alternative. Most of the ground level so-called RSS swayam sevaks behave like thugs, their behavior is something that makes me feel they are suitable to join Talibans or LeT. If you ask me, I would much prefer to respectable and decent man representing my religion than these thugs who seem to be unable to control their mouth at the sight of someone’s good-looking wife or daughter.
    Accept or not, there are many ground level local organizations that could do much better by accessing RSS funds yet has deep annoyance for RSS for it’s hindi-centrism.

    7. well, no comments.

58. Sid
    24. September 2009 - 6:12 AM

    Vivek,
    Awesome!! I have never heard a better indictment of prohibition.

59. Touchwood
    24. September 2009 - 11:11 AM

    God bless you Sandeep. Touchwood

60. Palahalli S
    24. September 2009 - 2:57 PM

    Vivek -

    And yet I was drunk when I spoke for the RSS.

    There must be a reason why one of the most benign spiritual traditions on the face of this Earth is also one that attracts such contempt that it’s detractors and upholders hardly ever refer to it’s owned nomenclature – Hindu and/or Sanatana Dharma.

    It is then certainly not surprising that an RSS that is till date unable to extract any price for the calumny of being responsible for Gandhi’s death flung against its face – is spat upon for even merely existing.

    It is not the perpetually defensive who command respect and inspire fear. One must be seen to be and be able to and do cruel acts – their place is then assured in the memory of men.

    Still there was really one time in it’s longish life that the RSS truly commanded respect and inspired fear – that was the Janmabhoomi epoch. They could have seized the initiative post demolition but for that shameful defensive instinct that took over them. Too much tolerance and too much accommodation.

    People learn. Perhaps slowly but they surely learn. There is a reason Modi does not identify himself with the Sangh Parivar. He does not care to share in their civilized stoop. He seems to have learnt the lesson many heroes have taught the human race. God speed to him and more in his stead!

    But now some facts -

    1. Japan’s drunks made certain that their supplies of raw material never dried up. And how! They are respected.

    2.Mao himself would not refuse a drink and more, a masterful womanizer. The Great Leap lacked in intelligence – cruelty was but collateral to it. The Cultural Revolution was a crutch meant to steady Mao. Chou Enlai seems to have identified his place – drunk or sober hardly mattered. Died before Mao – lucky lucky. And yet who dares deny Mao his place as The Emperor if China ever had such a one?

    3. I smoke, drink, eat meat, eat beef too…love onions and garlic and I sure do know that the orthodoxy detests the RSS!
    I have been an active Swayamsevak and have known fellow Swayamsevaks, some still active and some not. I can say that their hearts burn…mine does..we need cruelty to respect. We need offensive strategicing and execution to admire..in the RSS.

    Where I attended my shakhe the RSS was accused of being infested with Gowdas..Hindus are like that. They can do with a bout of cruelty and blood-letting in order to be admired again. After all, it is the Hindu himself that seems to be wanting it.

    I really have nothing against your post.

61. Palahalli S
    24. September 2009 - 3:18 PM

    Siddhartha –

    I’d like to confine myself to the few points below;

    1. Does the homosexual have the right to marry the homosexual? Does the lesbian have her right too? The bi-sexual cannot do without both man and woman and so might want both? The transgenger..yes, let them decide who they want. All want the right to adopt too.

    Will I be accused of discrimination if I don’t want my daughter to have two fathers-in-law? Or will I be accused of intolerance if I arrange her marriage? What about the innocent babe’s right to a pater and mater?

    But what does he know of relationships? He will call a bitch dog his mother if she lives long enough…and that’s another sexual minority.

    2.The RSS does what it does. It’s schools, it’s hospitals, it’s shakhas etc etc. It’s multiples of organizations in the social, economic and political sectors may all be reduced to thugs.

    Perhaps that’s it’s fault.

    That it fails the Taliban everytime. And once it becomes, it will be feared and respected and spoken about…in whispers with awe.

    See, even the US wants a deal with the Taliban.

    Yes, I must agree with you. The RSS thugs are at fault.

62. Rajiv Chandran
    24. September 2009 - 6:20 PM

    Sandeep

    Two previous posts did not appear – so posting again. Kindly do delete if the posts are redundant.

    Regards
    Rajiv

63. Rajiv Chandran
    24. September 2009 - 6:23 PM

    Siddhartha,

    I shall most eagerly await your long writeup. At this rate – I suspect we will soon be testing everyone’s patience with us !!! But then such debates sharpen our arguments, and clarify a great number of issues to our own minds. So do keep it coming.

    Coming back to the topic of our debate – please bear with me if I seem repetitive.

    1. There are certain issues with constructing a picture of conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism. Firstly many contend that the conflict in posterity is manufactured by modern political impulses. A false equation has been sought to be created equating Hinduism with catholic Christianity and Buddhism with the protestant faith. Much like the Aryan Invasion fiction – the square peg of ancient narratives have been tendentiously sought to be fit to the round hole of political expediency. Just like the AIT many scholars have now begun to question not only the chronological accuracy of current historical narrative – but also the premise, the politics and basic assumptions of social theories around which it is constructed. Many questions in this specific instance come to mind.
    Is there really any evidence for conflict between the many mathas of Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism ? Are these conflicts exclusive to the given context or were there conflicts between the various mathas of Sanatana-Dharma as well ? If so what circumstances warrant the study of the conflict with Buddhism in exclusion to other inter-sect conflicts ?

    Is there any evidence that people in general strictly practiced one faith to the exclusion of the other ? What does the evidence from most Buddhist countries show – where people follow Buddhism along with their native faiths – and there exists no dichotomy between the practices of the two. Is is possible that such might have been the case in ancient India as well ?

    I have a difficult time understanding the basis for classification of the various schools of Indic faiths into the many ‘isms’ – vaishnavism, shaivism, buddhism, jainism, hinduism etc (as opposed to the ‘ity’ of christianity). What specifically clubs together vaishnavism and shaivism together as hinduism, but segregates jainism and buddhism from the fold ? Who decided this classification – who had the power to initiate a discourse where jainism and buddhism are seperate from other faiths of India ? Is it that since Buddhism was spread all over Asia – and it’s roots were traced to India – cleaving it from it’s Hindu roots was considered necessary from the perspective of the colonial-missionary enterprise ? I have my suspicions regarding the same.

    I digress – so returning to the topic – I understand that there may have been rivalries between various mathas (of which the buddha faith was but one) – but to expand
    that to the realm of persistent conflict requires evidence of an altogether different magnitude – and this I think is sorely lacking. Even the purported evidence of Sasanka’s intolerance is an ambitious extrapolation by modern historians. The story of the destruction of the Bodhi tree is a magical fable narrated Hueng Tsang. The following link contains an excellent debunking of the Sasanka fable – and provides us an opportunity to rethink the premises for Baudha-Sanatana dharma conflicts.

    http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/184703-did-shaivite-king-persecute-buddhists.html

64. Rajiv Chandran
    24. September 2009 - 6:24 PM

    Contd.

    2. Antipathy towards religion – and a plea for it’s separation from politics has it’s roots in european experience – where political theory and practice had to evolve in order to keep statecraft seperate from religion – in view of the intrusive nature of the papacy. Post enlightenment liberalism further tried to liberate the public and personal space from the domination of christian religion. The question is – can the definition of religion, state, etc developed in this context accurately and safely applied to the ancient Indian historical narrative and experience ? I think not. Apart from the fact that there is scanty evidence for the supposition that infiltration of religious (a suspect term) orthodoxy into statecraft weakened the state, the very concept of religions effecting statecraft (in Indian context) is suspect. In Christian and Islamic faith – certain political obligations are clearly laid out in the scripture – which led to papal / clerical interference in the affairs of the State. What would be a similar (or dissimilar) dynamic be in the case of ancient India ? There is very little evidence cited to backup claims of statecraft being subverted by religious orthodoxy in ancient India.
    That said I would agree with you that not only religious but any orthodoxy generally leads statecraft down a blind road. So we have a case of the orthodoxy of marxism,
    socialism and secularism in modern India – which by themselves are not very different from abrahmic religions – leading Hindus and their entire nation down the path to
    perdition.

65. Rajiv Chandran
    24. September 2009 - 6:26 PM

    3. Interesting historical Links and bibliography – As requested I am providing a list of books which discusses the puranic chronology (as against the western imposed one).

    I have read K.D Sethna whose works are extremely academic, highly cross-referenced with other extent works and a little difficult to get through for the lay reader. I am
    still searching for books by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam – which were published first in the 1950s and is currently out of print .

    K.D. Sethna
    ————————————
    The Problem of Aryan Origins , 1980
    Karpasa in Prehistoric India , 1981
    Problems of Ancient India, 1992
    Ancient India in New Light, 1989

    Kota Venkatachalam (as listed by Prof. Narayan Rao)
    —————————————————-
    Chronology of Ancient Hindu History, in two volumes, 1957
    Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed, 1953
    Chronology of Kashmir History Reconstructed, 1955
    Plot in Indian Chronology, 1953
    Age of Buddha, Milinda & Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana, 1956

    Sethna’s book Ancient India in New Light is a massive tome – a succinct summarization of whose contents can be found in this review
    http://www.boloji.com/history/033.htm

    A review of another work is listed here
    http://ramkumaram.tripod.com/book.html

    I would certainly hope to lay my hand on Pandit Kota Venkatachalam’s books – however I have so far been unsuccessful – my knowledge about him is only through secondary sources – so I will withhold comment for now. Here is a blog by an admirer which contains a wealth of information on his works
    http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.com/

66. Sid
    25. September 2009 - 9:04 AM

    Palahalli,

    1. “Does the homosexual have the right to marry the homosexual?” – So, we, the hetero sexual would decide for them? And who give us that right? Is their God different from ours? As I said before, conformity is not something that is demanded in our religion.
    “Will I be accused of discrimination if I don’t want my daughter to have two fathers-in-law?” – Not sure. But one thing I am sure of is that your dear daughter would like to reserve the right to choose father-in-laws and husbands.

    2. Let us not be envious of fatwas please. Our avatars and reformers are not conquerors and robbers, neither any one of them married nine year old girls at old age. Our fundamental belief separates us from Muslims. If we follow their way, we can not call ourselves Hindu, can we? Self-defense and thuggery are not same. There is a vast difference between self-respect and arrogance. Talibans are killers inspired by religious doctrine. My religion does not need killers, they need self-respecting men who value their religion, culture and identity.

    At the end, who do you think represent Hinduism better: Babu Bajrangi or Sri Chaitanya?

67. Sid
    25. September 2009 - 9:32 AM

    Rajiv,

    Thanks for a grand response (and the links, I would check them out).

    1.A I am not accusing or absolving Sasanka here. It seems that we really can not agree whether he did cut the tree or not. Given the state of the world today, any tree cutting activity should be regulated

    1.B. Buddhism and Jainism are different from a Vaishnav or Shaiva beliefs that they really put the God in the back seat and place the time and nature in the front seat. While any Hindu belief (or at least Hindus believing the mythologies literally) would tell us that it is possible for Gods to create anomalies in the nature when they intend to do so, Buddhist belief (initial, until mythology walked into it) tells us that Nature’s laws can not be altered and attaining Nirvana is the only way of life that can get rid of confusing cycle of joy and sorrow.

68. Sid
    25. September 2009 - 9:44 AM

    1.C. The only major example of religious orthodoxy affecting politics is the Hindu-Buddhist conflict. Are you trying to say that Hindu-Buddhist conflict never existed in India and Europian historians “Invented” it? That is a pretty tall claim.

    1.D. In our case, religious orthodoxy created a situation where priest and ruling clan used their social status to get away any kind of atrocities on other classes. The perversion of Varnashram eventually weakened the society in the sense that aggrieved classes felt deep anger towards the others, priests forgot that they were supposed to search the knowledge, not wealth and ruling clans forgot that ruling involves organizing the society to prevent attack of the enemies. Do you know of a different cause for which a remarkably advanced and powerful civilization fail to outside attack?

    The other part that you said about ideological orthodoxy, I fully agree. This is the era of liberalism and secularism (whatever the hell it means to everybody), so we will see more attack on us.

69. Palahalli S
    25. September 2009 - 10:32 AM

    Siddharth -

    1. This won’t do. I’m not questioning the LGBT right to marry but to adopt. Naturally, if they win the right to marry they win the right to adopt.

    Whilst speaking for the LGBT you somehow don’t seem willing to concede equal right to the bisexual and the bestial.

    I’ve had this debate here before with CC along similar lines. Somehow all sexual minorities don’t get equal share in rights. Why? What is your basis for such selective grant of equal rights?

    2. Why should I not search out the worst in any and every society and pose that example as the model it’s representatives follow and idealize? Unless you want to provide some evidence of Bajrangi being a hero to his people. This is preposterous, don’t you think?

70. Palahalli S
    25. September 2009 - 12:41 PM

    Come to think of it, even Babu Bajrangi is a reaction to the perverse environment liberals have created.

    Siddhartha – It’s not so hard to identify who Secularists and Liberals are. All one needs to do is to question their assumptions and premises based on which they take a stance.

    You will be surprised that even those that think of themselves as conservatives are really liberals when scratched.

    The entire Uniform Civil Code debate for instance is a Secular-liberal agenda. Not a conservative or traditionalist one. Now see *who* espouses it the most and see *how* it is opposed by self declared Secular – liberals.

71. Rajiv Chandran
    25. September 2009 - 2:13 PM

    Sid,

    Thanks for your response. Hope I can keep my posts as succinct as yours

    1.A Not blaming you for citing Sashanka. The reality of Sashanka notwithstanding my point was to illustrate how the case against Sashanka was based on faulty methodologies – and how perilious it is to draw assumptions based on the same. Hope the link I sent over helped.

    1.B Based on your statement, how would ‘Naastika’ schools of thought such Aajivikas and Charavaka’s Lokayata qualify as part of Hinduism ? On the other hand how can deep constituent mythologies of Buddhism and Jainism be qualified ? My point is that the terms Hinduism, Buddhism are later arbitrary costructs arising out of colonial experience – without the colonial lens it is difficult to define the differentiating factors of each.

    1.C My point is that India had a diversity of faiths and belief systems – many having significant differences – however unlike Europe, no evidence exists for faith driven conflicts. I am saying that Europeans not only defined ‘religious’ categories but defined the differences/conflicts between them in light of their own experiences in Europe. And this is what we inherited and understood (through seculars et al) – not what actually was, but what Europeans thought it was or ought to have been.

72. Rajiv Chandran
    25. September 2009 - 2:22 PM

    Sid,

    1.D. For India’s diversity and size, – orthodoxy, varnashrama system, class conflict etc offer simplistic models for failure of statehood and society. Historians have to understand and develop a sophisticated understanding afresh.

    Islamic conquest was a long slow process spread over many centuries (as Sita Ram Goel has shown). It is not easily explained by current models pointing to social or moral weakness. India’s prolonged failure may have to do more with the extraordinary nature of the threat, than it’s own internal weaknesses. Europe was not particularly strong, or rich but managed to fend off Islamic threats. The inability of Indian states to understand or recognize the nature of the threat – something a fanatical Christian Europe was able to do instinctively – can be a possible reason.

    Some points (generalizations actually) countering standard explanations are presented here :-

    a. varnashrama – Akbar’s challenger Himu (who titled himself Chakravartin) – was the son of a saltpetre merchant (Vaishya). Quite a few such examples can be quoted showing that the current construct of caste (as rigid and repressive) does not accurately represent the realities of hindu society even as late as the 16 century.

    b. social weakness – Knowledge generation by Brahmins (esp in case of Mathematics) retreated from all over India to a few pockets in the south throughout the centuries of muslim rule. Not only Kshattriyas but many clans all over north India were decimated, disarmed, massacred, or converted during this period. By some accounts regressive practices like child marriage, purdah, sati, strictures against travel, caste orthodoxy etc gained currency during these times. The entire top-order of Indian society was replaced by the invader.

    Loss of self agency in socio-relegious matters (and resulting regressive practices and orthodoxy) could have been the result of the invasions rather than a factor which facilitated it.

73. prachetas
    25. September 2009 - 2:31 PM

    I believe in God but I aint a conservative or anything of that sort but just a normal person who wants to stick to common sense (in short a Hindu). This is a genuine question. If man-man, woman-woman is acceptable, why not fight over accepting a man-dog or a dog-man relationship ?. People refused that there was not enough research evidence to prove my point yet when I argued that modern homosexuality might be a strange cocktail of social, political and mental conditions. But then what evidence is there to argue against pronouncing dog and a man or a woman as partners, after all dog is human’s best faithful mate (thanks to weird internet sites, plenty of evidence available to prove it).

    Well my dull brain can only think of a story to convince myself that all this is a big sham. The story goes like this -

    Once upon a time in USA, a human and a dog got married at a local church that had recently opened up all kinds of programs to attract everyone and everything as it was desperately looking for members to meet its running expenses. Straight from the church, the human and his doggy went to an orphanage and adopted a human baby, it took a while to select the right baby as the bitch was very picky about the diaper smell, but that is a totally different story. Then they went to a pet shop and adopted a hamster. They also got an owl and a skunk from the zoo. And it was one big happy family which ate micro waved pre-processed canned food 5 times a day. But one day the man lost his job and as he was the sole bread winner for the family he filed a petition to get money from govt that would cover him and his family’s medical and veterinary needs and amusements. The govt asked him to f*&^ off and thus started the great gay war. The man was told by a smart lawyer friend of his to go and seek the help of lobbyists and lawyers who would fight on behalf of him and his ilk to see that things are set straight at the govt and constitution level. But money is needed to wage any campaign and only a famous campaign would bring in huge money. And to become famous you need a famous, notorious opponent. So, the smart lobbyists roped in catholic church and Hollywood into the game. The other notorious ones (politicians, NGOs, jolie pitt, paris hilton etc) were smart enough to see where things were going and joined the big game. Now with big and famous players in the game there was enough money to keep it running. Lobbyists used media to make common people take sides of various players and donate liberally to the cause their favorite players were fighting hard for. The plan was to keep the ball rolling until the govt gave in and brought tax payers money onto the field to meet all the demands of lobbyists and founding fathers of this great game. Finally the war ended one day, everybody won their share of money, some churches got new members, some churches got new donations, lawyers and lobbyists went on vacations to Europe and Australia. Angelia Jolie adopted yet another black baby, an orphaned son of a Somalian pirate killed by US navy seals, Paris Hilton adopted a shaved African orangutan and people talked about these things for several days and everybody lived happily ever after.

    Morals of the story:

    Money is evil.

    Desi gays should should use commonsense and get back to Indian ground reality.

    Not everyone who makes fun of a gay is his enemy and not everyone who supports a gay is his true friend.

    (@c Not to offend anyone, just my persoal take on the issue)

74. Palahalli S
    25. September 2009 - 7:09 PM

    Prachetas – I think what you say is pretty accurate wrt how the State is arm-twisted to give in in the name of “rights”.

    This is also a double edged sword. The more folks run to the State the more say the State has in the affairs of society.

    In so far as section 377 is concerned, a Hindu state would firstly, not have legislated any such act at all and secondly, if it was going to decriminalize or alter section 377 in any way, it would have done it quietly without creating a fuss.

    I don’t see Hindu society having a say in the “act” of homosexuality – for or against. Homosexuals should not now insist on infringing upon the normal function of society by insisting on legal marriage and adoption rights.

    If homosexuals cannot reproduce by design then they cannot be compensated by anybody else for their design failure.

75. Kaffir
    25. September 2009 - 10:26 PM

    =>
    The only major example of religious orthodoxy affecting politics is the Hindu-Buddhist conflict. Are you trying to say that Hindu-Buddhist conflict never existed in India and Europian historians “Invented” it? That is a pretty tall claim.
    =>

    Sid, when you say conflict, do you mean intellectual debates and discussions, or wars of aggression? And how many examples are there that show Hindus killing Buddhists or destroying their viharas/temples/monasteries? Are those examples widespread enough and the norm to reach a conclusion?

    I keep seeing this “Hindu-Buddhist conflict” repeated without much basis, while ignoring that it was the Islamic invaders who killed Buddhist monks and destroyed their viharas. You can read comments relevant to this issue here: http://nirmukta.com/2009/07/26/a-scientific-view-of-the-god-delusion/

76. larissa
    26. September 2009 - 1:51 AM

    The inability of Indian states to understand or recognize the nature of the threat – something a fanatical Christian Europe was able to do instinctively – can be a possible reason

    This is true. The Romans also did not understand Christianity–how it destroys everything apart from it as far as religion is concerned—i.e. paganism of Europe. In Kashmir the Sufis were what you can call “stealth” Jihadists–many Hindus and Buddhists being of non-Abrahamic religions thought of the Sufis as just another a sect and joined them ignorantly without understanding what Islam entails–this is another category of how Islam spread–apart from those converted directly via the sword and those who had to convert to survive economically to survive in an Islamic dominated court…

77. larissa
    26. September 2009 - 1:54 AM

    The inability of Indian states to understand or recognize the nature of the threat – something a fanatical Christian Europe was able to do instinctively – can be a possible reason

    This is true. The Romans also did not understand Christianity–how it destroys everything apart from it as far as religion is concerned—i.e. paganism of Europe. In Kashmir the Sufis were what you can call “stealth” Jihadists–many Hindus and Buddhists being of non-Abrahamic religions thought of the Sufis as just another sect ( the Sufis tried to promote this image eager for followers)joined them ignorantly without understanding what Islam entails–this is another category of how Islam spread–apart from those converted directly via the sword and those who had to convert to survive economically to survive in an Muslim dominated court…

78. larissa
    26. September 2009 - 2:44 AM

    Europe was not particularly strong, or rich but managed to fend off Islamic threats.

    Yes. Do you know why Spain is Christian? The Spanish got rid of Islam much in the same way as Islam gets rid of other faiths–they said to all non Christians “convert or die” and gave them no option–Also one has to remember that the conversion of Europe to Christanity was complete– but Europe finally got out of the “dark” ages when it gained touch with its pagan or greco-roman heritage during the Renaissance. Christianity being an Abrahamic faith, it was easy for a brother to understand a step-brother which is essentially what Islam is to Christianity-much easier than for a man to understand that which has no blood relation to him(metaphorically speaking)–which is essentially what Islam is to Hinduism.

79. larissa
    26. September 2009 - 2:57 AM

    By some accounts regressive practices like child marriage, purdah, sati, strictures against travel, caste orthodoxy etc gained currency during these times. The entire top-order of Indian society was replaced by the invader.

    Many Europeans attribute the current state of European society to the fact that the best and noblest men of Europe died in the war among the 50 million dead–Now juxtapose that to Hindu society. What happens when millions of the nobles are systematically exterminated in the course of centuries under Islam…when the cream of a society–the educated, the nobles are killed off…and then slavery for hundreds of years under a foreign religion and rule and then later colonial rule…Most societies don’t even recover or lose their identities completely…HIndu culture survives in a sickly form, is it capable of healing itself?…Whether the culture is still capable of surviving as a culture–i.e. as a distinct creative culture–is something to be seen. But with the way things are going there is little room for optimism.

80. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 5:06 AM

    Palahalli,
    It is wrong to classify LGBT in same class with bestiality. I really do not know a case that a human does not belong to LGBT or hetero sexual class but he is bestial. What is the big deal with bisexuals I do not know.

    Can you please enlighten me about the disasters that would struck the Hindu society if LGBT couples can adopt children? At least if the children would find a home that is better than foster homes that is a joke played on our tax money.

    2. “Why should I not search out the worst in any and every society and pose that example as the model it’s representatives follow and idealize? Unless you want to provide some evidence of Bajrangi being a hero to his people. This is preposterous, don’t you think?” – preposterous indeed. Yet, is that not what you are trying to do when you are trying to be a RSS advoate, sir? The concept the created RSS may be novel, but over time the organization developed the kind of human resources we can do away with.

    “Come to think of it, even Babu Bajrangi is a reaction to the perverse environment liberals have created. ” – And I am assuming that this is a good reason to allow a criminal to be presented as the face of Hindu Dharma?

81. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 5:21 AM

    Rajiv,
    This is getting interesting.

    1A. Yes. the links did help me understand the point of view that does not agree with “official” version. There is indeed enough to make a case.

    1B. Philosophies such as Charvaka’s are definitely not part of Hindu belief. However, they are part of our history and cultural heritage. Similar point exists for Buddhism and Jainism. If Hinduism or Buddhism are colonial constructs – and you may have a point here – then are you trying to say that concept of Buddhism and Hinduism was very much aligned before English baniyas arrived in Bay of Bengal? Please elaborate.

    1C. This is not the first time I am hearing it. What you are stating would require us to deconstruct the very lens through which we view our own history. This would involve a gigantic effort and belief system of the several so-called intellectuals would crash. But, yes, you do have a point.

82. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 6:43 AM

    Rajiv,

    1D. “orthodoxy, varnashrama system, class conflict etc offer simplistic models for failure of statehood and society” – For me, it is the intellectual class and ruling class that failed to protect the society. How else would you explain two battle of terrains when the first battle was won by a Rajput military alliance and second battle was lost by Prithviraj when he failed to gather help of entire Rajputana? Even Gauda’s Sen dynasty that was related with him by blood remain passive.
    The fanaticism that Europe or Central Asia displayed at that time was absent in Indian sub-continent because society was pretty much organized at that time. The fanaticism that you are talking about is the result of a social evil our ancestors called “Matsyanaya”. In front of an external challenge, the same chaotic people released their negativity towards outsiders. Our own system was supposed to answer this attack well but the system became corrupt and weak. Muslims were not the only outside invaders.
    For centuries, different races tried to attack sub continent (Alexander was a well known one, but less known invaders exist too). So how did the Hindu society respond? They mostly held their ground. So how did we fail to respond to Muslim attackers? The decay pretty much started after fall of Gupta empire. The next strong and big empire was Pala empire which rose from the remnants of Shashanka’s kingdom. Pala kings were dominantly Buddhist. So Hindu power and society were in slow yet steady decline after fall of Gupta empire (if you accept Buddhism and Hinduism were different)

83. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 9:04 AM

    Rajiv,

    Contd…

    Varnashrama long lost their meaning before Himu occupied the throne of Delhi. Muslims just happened to be the first invader after Indian society fell from it’s powerful position. One may raise the doubt: am I absolving the “Muslim” invaders of their crime against Hindu civilians? No. Only an ideology that could create this remarkably persistent and powerful attacks can do whatever has been done to us.

84. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 9:21 AM

    Kaffir,
    “Sid, when you say conflict, do you mean intellectual debates and discussions, or wars of aggression? ” – I believe it was both. I do not believe that a conflict in the scale of catholic/protestant conflict in Europe ever occurred. There are enough proof in Puranas that tells us that intellectual discussion sometimes resulted in hostility. Simmering political tensions created incidents that were undesired. I can recall that when I read biography of Sankaracharya, the great Hindu reformer, there was an incident where Buddhist beat Hindu priests in a big mela. The great sage was infuriated at this and scolded the priests for their cowardice. I do not believe that Hindu/Buddhist conflict is any way comparable to Hindu/Muslim conflict, but the statement “Then they happily lived ever after” is well suited for fairy tales, not for history.

85. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 9:28 AM

    larissa,
    “HIndu culture survives in a sickly form, is it capable of healing itself?” – Being a hindu, I do not have a choice but try. If I try to do what my forefathers did not, our children may not have to suffer the same way we had to.
    The culture of stupidity and cowardice – otherwise known as Secularism – made our job way more difficult than it could be. This culture and religion has to be recovered from both likes of Pronoy Roy and likes of Raj Thackaray. Failure may or may not be an option, ignorance is not.

86. Palahalli S
    26. September 2009 - 3:31 PM

    Siddhartha –

    Well, I am simply asking you to apply your own logic to cases involving sexual minorities or any minority, for that matter.

    I don’t think you can make a case that limits the possibility of sexual diversity to the LGBT.

    I ask the question – what is your stance if and when a case for bestialty is made? The acts are already there.

    In so far as adoption is concerned, yes of course it should never be allowed wrt sexual minorities for the following reasons;

    1. Sexual minorities, by their own choice have forsaken their right to reproduce. This means they also negate their right to parenting.

    2. In such cases an insistence to adopt will be akin to keeping pets and not raising children.

    3. Sexual minorities must by design, remain minorities. They cannot be allowed to grow through dubious adoption rights. Such will be the case with “children” adopted by sexual minorities. One cannot imagine the plight and confusion of such a child when he instinctively gets attracted to the opposite sex. What goes on in his mind about his two fathers or two mothers or two mothers and a father or vise versa?!

    Who dares decide for this child?

    4. Then, there are plenty of young couples who cannot have kids but would love to adopt. Let them adopt. Let’s make it easy for them to do so.

    Sexual minorities have foregone their rights with both eyes open.

    5. There are many reasons why sexual minorities want to adopt. One is surely to increase their numbers. Two is to try and leverage their own constituency politically and become a lobby of sorts. With 10% of any population slated to be deviant, that’s huge. We will then have the likes of Deve Gowda wanting to be born homosexual in his next life.

    None of this is alarmist. All are very real possibilities. Just look at the havoc created in the West.

    6. The argument that Sanatana Dharma does not persecute sexual minorities is true but only half the argument. There has never been any tradition of sexual minorities being accorded rights that are not in conformity with their innate choices.

    - Babu Bajrangi has never been projected as any face of Sanatana Dharma.

    The fact is that the fellow is used as a punching bag by liberals who in any event miss no opportunity to berate our Dharma.

    So what I say to them is be careful because if they are not, then all they will get is Babu Bajrangis. There won’t be anybody else.

87. Sid
    26. September 2009 - 11:10 PM

    Palahalli,
    There are certain problems with your logic.

    1. “what is your stance if and when a case for bestiality is made? The acts are already there.” – What are they? May I know the facts that compels you to make the case for bestiality?

    2. “Sexual minorities, by their own choice have forsaken their right to reproduce.” – As far as I know, alternate sexuality is not a choice. Given the history of prosecution against LGBT community, nobody in their right mind would make a choice. If LGBT community is said to have forsaken their rights, then with the extension of the same logic, men who are unable to reproduce or the women who has a defective womb have forsaken that right too. Did they?

    3. “In such cases an insistence to adopt will be akin to keeping pets and not raising children. ” – Why? How? Because they do not share any blood relation with the adopted child? How is adoption any different in case of LGBT people? Is adoption any different in case of a single person adopting a child and a couple adopting a child?

    4. “They cannot be allowed to grow through dubious adoption rights. ” – What makes you think that the adopted child of a lesbian couple would be a gay or lesbian? Did all the children of a heterosexual couple become hetero sexual?

    5. “One cannot imagine the plight and confusion of such a child when he instinctively gets attracted to the opposite sex” – I never saw a child getting attracted sexually. It is the teenagers who gets attracted sexually. They acquire enough maturity to handle the difference in sexuality. Can you imagine the plight and confusion of a gay/lesbian teenager in a hetero sexual household?

    6. “Sexual minorities have foregone their rights with both eyes open. ” – I am yet to see a LGBT agenda that says so. Right to engage with opposite sex is not same as right to adopt the child. Refer to point 3.

    7. “Two is to try and leverage their own constituency politically and become a lobby of sorts.” – What is the guarantee that adopted children would be a homosexual? Homo sexuality is not a life style, it is beyond one’s ability to enforce homosexuality on oneself. Even one percent of India’s population is 10 million. If there are 10 million Indian belonging to LGBT community demanding an end to their prosecution, we have to ignore because a few hundred thousand moulavis and missionaries does not feel that way?

    8. “The argument that Sanatana Dharma does not persecute sexual minorities is true but only half the argument. There has never been any tradition of sexual minorities being accorded rights that are not in conformity with their innate choices.” – Not true. Our culture, tradition and dharma accepts and agree to the right to normal life for trans-sexuals. Remember Srikhandi in Mahabharata. In Manu-smriti, it is specified that the same kind of punishment is reserved for men and women if they have sex with an unmarried girl. I am not saying that ancient India resembled Spartan society in it’ sexual choices, but LGBT practices existed out of mainstream and they were at least tolerated.

    “Babu Bajrangi has never been projected as any face of Sanatana Dharma.” – Interesting. So why did certain organizations under RSS umbrella hailed him initially?

    “The fact is that the fellow is used as a punching bag by liberals who in any event miss no opportunity to berate our Dharma. ” – This fellow who, as per your statement, is a reaction to random secular liberal environment. By all his statement, he is responsible for man slaughter. Dharma advises to punish those who were not able to control his ripus. Babu Bajrangi, if convincingly proved to be murderer should be tried without mercy. This guy is more suitable as a Taliban, he should not be counted as one of the devout Hindus.

    “So what I say to them is be careful because if they are not, then all they will get is Babu Bajrangis. There won’t be anybody else.” – Well, I am speechless.

88. Rajiv Chandran
    28. September 2009 - 9:51 AM

    Sid,

    Thanks for the response and provocative queries. Couldn’t agree with you more when you say “Failure may or may not be an option, ignorance is not”. In context of our larger discussion I hope to respond to your observations from the following perspectives.

    A. Definition of Hinduism and it’s Scope & it’s Relation with Buddhism.

    and

    B. Contemplation of reasons for establishment of midieval muslim rule in India.

89. Kaffir
    28. September 2009 - 12:20 PM

    “I believe it was both.”

    Believe, or know based on facts? It’s not the same.

    “There are enough proof in Puranas that tells us that intellectual discussion sometimes resulted in hostility.”

    Which Purana(s) mention Hindu-Buddhist hostility and Buddhist persecution?

    “Simmering political tensions created incidents that were undesired. I can recall that when I read biography of Sankaracharya, the great Hindu reformer, there was an incident where Buddhist beat Hindu priests in a big mela. The great sage was infuriated at this and scolded the priests for their cowardice.”

    But I thought you were talking of Buddhist persecution at the hands of Hindus, not the other way round.

    “I do not believe that Hindu/Buddhist conflict is any way comparable to Hindu/Muslim conflict, but the statement “Then they happily lived ever after” is well suited for fairy tales, not for history.”

    Who has made that statement? I haven’t. You’re constructing a strawman argument and demolishing it.

90. Kaffir
    28. September 2009 - 12:22 PM

    And Sid, you still haven’t cited any proof of “wars of aggression” by Hindus on Buddhists, which you believe happened.

91. vivek iyer
    28. September 2009 - 12:41 PM

    @ Sid
    I was looking at Anthony Giddens comment on the seemingly unproblematic way Hinduism accommodated itself to Liberalism and his closing comment which suggests that the problem of secularism is a Xtian one uniquely exported to a totally different milieu.
    The reason for seeing Secularism as problematic rather than some sort of blessing is because it turns its back on a hugely important source of legitimacy and morality without any obvious substitute.
    Stalin himself, with the Nazis at the gates of Moscow, started talking of ‘Holy Mother Russia’.
    In a crisis- where is the substitute?
    No question, it would be dangerous to empower some particular sect and let their pontiff become a ‘moral dictator’. But, that danger does not appear to have been a big problem in Hinduism.
    From the British perspective, Hindu law seemed amenable to Codification, Court Pundits could be dispensed with and though Hindu Law of Contract did show some variability but Law of Torts appeared to be underdeveloped and presented a blank slate.
    That last seems to suggest Hindu law- and hence Civil Society- was less developed than that of England. True, emphasis in the Shastric literature is on penalties imposed by the State rather than Civil damages for Torts. Even after Independence, it looks as though the preference is to treat Torts through the Criminal system or through Judicial activism rather than on the American model.
    Indeed, the preference for Codification and Legislation supplemented by P.I.L- rather than organic growth of Civil Law- shows that the point Macaulay made is still valid- viz. that to codify law is difficult both under barbarism as well as in a free society. It is only in a despotism (enlightened or not) like the British Raj that his type of project could be successful.
    There seems to me something important missing from this type of thinking viz. recognition of the density of countervailing power in classical Indian civilization.
    The caste system- operating like a Trade Unionism- has no counterpart in Europe. Foreign observers were amazed that workers in the Bombay textile mills did not obey the overseers but took their ‘natural’ rights for granted. In Europe or Japan, they would simply have been sacked and replaced. However, caste solidarity- even in a heterogenous group- prevailed. Now, this can explain why tort law in India would be less developed. The master-servant relationship was mediated by caste tribunals rather than clear cut as in England. Even in the case of animals- the situation was fuzzy- the Brahmin may ‘own’ the cow in one sort of way, the sahukar has another sort of lien, the herdsman has another more practical type of ownership, however- if it drops dead, it then becomes the property of someone else altogether! Yes this did lead to conflicts but for precisely that reason an institutionalised collective conflict resolution system became fundamental to every day life. Once again we see the notion of countervailing power.

    The co-parcenary or joint family concept also places a lot of restrictions on unfettered use of resources through contracts. Even if control was well defined, ownership was fuzzy. But these concepts also applied to the Crown. It was not uncommon for an older brother, securely holding the throne, to divide his kingdom with the younger- even giving him choice territory.
    In Religion, the priests had no monopoly of ‘the power to loose and bind’. Apart from the Bhramin/Shraman polarity there were many other types of people with sacred power- including hereditary priests drawn from different ‘varnas’.

    A final point has to do with the simultaneous presence of State and Anti-State- people have a relationship with both. If they derive a benefit from one, they may be paying a tax to the other. Also there is a Church and Anti-Church. If one member of the family shows zeal for the one, you can be sure someone else will take care to propitiate the other. Again, there was a Commons and an anti-Commons. The same person who behaved ethically in one context showed complete amorality in another.
    When India was under alien rule, we can explain the existence of a sort of underground or parallel State as being a type of resistance. Yet the full blossoming of the phenomena starts twenty or thirty years after Independence.
    Now, it used to be an easy game to just criticise the Indian people. A.K. Ramanujan himself gave the lame excuse that Indian thinking is context dependent. However, there can be no excuse for this sort of disguised racism now. A proper theory- with good predictive power- is needed. I used to find it strange that the supposedly educationally deprived Sadhus had a lot of insight into these phenomena and practical remedies to offer, whereas there was a parallel debate among ‘the great and the good’ which showed little or no contact with reality. Unfortunately, that trend may have reversed. Okay, Swaminarayan and Ramakrishna mission failed to get themselves declared non-Hindu. But sooner or later we will have something like the recent Gujjar agitation and one sect after another will mobilise to get minority status.
    At that stage it will be too late. The equation of Hinduism with tolerance, liberal and progressive thinking will have been destroyed. It may happen- in some states- that there will be language based Hindu sects warring with neighbouring states over river water etc.
    A secularism aimed against what- in many states- is a majority religion- could lead to the fracture of that religion. At that point, India will become ungovernable. It is all happening in slow motion- as in a dream- but new technology means time is speeding up…we are sleep-walking off a cliff and must wake up now or never.

92. Rajiv Chandran
    28. September 2009 - 2:25 PM

    A. Definition of Hinduism and it’s Scope & it’s Relation with Baudha Dharma.

    Defintion and Terminology :

    Historically Hindus haven’t called themselves Hindus. The term has constantly expanded and contracted in scope. Used by Arabs and Persians (even now) to identify people of Al Hind, it was standard appelation for all Indians – religious affiliations notwithstanding. The definition held until progenitors of modern indology attempted to classify faiths of India. Thence we had categories such as the Adivasi, Jain and Buddhist which would (depending on the scholar’s whims) find itself within hinduism or outside it. Over time Sanatana-dharma (orthodox hinduism) was (and is) presented as the defining term for hinduism.

    Historical Process :
    In ancient times Indian systems of belief were broadly divided into orthodox and heterodox faiths (aastika & nastika ?). While some orthodox beliefs drew direct inspiration from the vedas, most heterodox beliefs (with exception of Charavaka’s Lokayata) and some orthodox beliefs drew profound inspiration from the Upanishads. Many of the formative ideas of Baudha Dharma and Jainism are found in the Upanishads. That the ideas evolved differently in these faiths is a testament to the free-thinking, all inclusive nature of early India. Baudha Dharma did go on to develop a very sophisticated doctrine and worldview – a lot of which scholars contend – was later absorbed into other concurrent systems of belief.

    It is likely that Baudha Dharma diverged from the mainstream because it was an academic religion (of educated, elite people) – much like most of the liberal, secular theology today. It’s association with the most prestigious academic institutions of the time , are seemingly testimony to this fact. Most likely – post Shankara (500BC), it lost much of it’s exclusive appeal among the masses. It continued to be practised (as it is even now in east-asian countries) as a complementary belief amongst the many dominant belief systems of the time. Evidence for the same exists in India – where one can cite the mingling of Saiva and Vaishnava beliefs amongst the masses (except for certain orthodoxies). That is, people who followed a sanatana faith also believed in the Buddha (much like people follow Shinto and Buddhist beliefs at the same time ) – this is the likely historical process by which Buddha was absorbed into Vaishnava system (and not through any brahminical conspiracy – as is made out by our secular historians). Much later during Muslim raids the the royalty and the centers of education which sustained Baudha Dharma were extinguished leading to the disappearance of the faith amongst the masses. Buddha survived only through the folk religion, ie as part of the Vaishnava canon. In the rest of Asia, in places where the royal patronage, educational institutions still existed Baudha Dharma managed to retain its hold.

    Analysis:
    Earlier we cited orthodox & heterodox (jaina,baudha,caravaka) systems and contended that some equate orthodox with the Sanatana Dharma. In my view this may be a limiting assumption. Many faiths like those of tribal, and forest people (Adivasi being the colonial term – built on assumptions of Aryan Invasion Theory) reveal the formative influences on the early Indian belief systems ; some others from Baluchistan (Hinglaj ?) to Puri (Jagannath) reveal how local beliefs seamlessly joined overarching systems of faith. It is difficult to include all the different beliefs with a narrow definiton of hinduism. Again the definition of Hinduism as theistic as against Baudha Dharma’s athiestic causes problems for such schools of thought as vaiseshika, purva-mimamsa, and Samkhya to be a part of Hindu thought.

    In short a restrictive definition of the neologism ‘hindu’ is perilous. The term Hindu has to be broader than Sanatana Dharma. So my contention is that though Baudha Dharma and Sanatana Dharma are definitely different, if we forego arbitrary categories used to define ‘hinduism’ – seperating Baudha Dharma from Hinduism is somewhat difficult. If we consider the neologism ‘hinduism’ to be a modern day definition of an overarching indic belief system – moulded by common historical processes from the most ancient times, we have a broader, inclusive and less contradictory definition of hinduism.

    Conclusion :
    In conclusion my point is that Hinduism is an identitiy we have insuffeciently examined. We have a choice to redefine it in the context of our history, culture, and needs, or stick to cliched definitions that promote extrenous interests whiie actively undermining ours.

    I understand these unconventional and somewhat heretic ideas are not complete – or fully thrashed out – so please feel free to educate and enlighten me.

93. Incognito
    28. September 2009 - 6:17 PM

    Rajiv Chandran >>>Historically Hindus haven’t called themselves Hindus…
    …In short a restrictive definition of the neologism ‘hindu’ is perilous.
    … If we consider the neologism ‘hinduism’ to be a modern day definition of an overarching indic belief system – moulded by common historical processes from the most ancient times, we have a broader, inclusive and less contradictory definition of hinduism.

    A definition is like a boundary that is erected to segregate what is this side from the other side.

    And precisely because of its such nature a definition applied to mental processes or belief systems that are part of growth stages of a person tends to suffer on two counts. One, it acquires certain artificiality, second, it becomes restrictive.

    Human beings being adaptive manage to thrive in artificial and restrictive environments, even though temporarily.

    But nature actually suffers in an artificial and restrictive environment and eventually outgrows the artificiality and the restrictions to survive.

    In this context, the statement “Historically Hindus haven’t called themselves Hindus” is very significant.

    It was the ‘others’ who tried to give definition to the belief systems of the people who inhabited this land.

    The people of this land, wise, comprehended the futility of such definitions. And as a result innumerable belief systems flourished, grew and changed in this land. Until the ‘others’ started imposing their restrictive artificial definitions on the psyche of these people.

    The question before us is, whom do we draw inspiration from ?

    The wise people of this land who recognised the meaninglessness of applying artificial restrictive definitions to humans, or the ‘others’ ?

    If we are to regain the wealth of ancient wisdom, we may need to re-cognize our selves and transcend definitions.

    It takes courage. And that is the hallmark of ancients of this land. And dharma is rooted in this quality.

    Comments by Rajiv Chandran are very illuminating. Thanks.

94. Palahalli
    28. September 2009 - 7:23 PM

    Siddhartha –

    There is a reason why the earth did not quake with the “decriminalization” of section 377 and did not also shake when the Union Govt after first supporting the court’s ruling; later on washed it’s hands off and handed over the matter back to the courts, to decide.

    To say that this was to appease religious minority opinion is simplistic, in my view. The fact is there wasn’t any debate generated outside of the pages of some english language newspapers. In short, it wasn’t worth the govt’s efforts vis a vis gaining or losing voter support.

    It is worthwhile to note that both the courts and the govt have carefully avoided the question of “rights” accruing from such decriminalization. This has confused the LGBT brigade no end and naturally, they see in it seeds of a betrayal.

    To anybody who is not blind, decriminalization equals normalization of relationships. Such is the liberal credo that it does not allow for distinctions or discriminations to be made on merit, while judging human relationships.

    All relationships are equal to each other. All are good.

    The courts could have well made the point that even though sexual (minority) acts were not criminal offenses, these are of a different nature and requiring of a different set of rights other than accorded to heterosexuals. But this action would have attracted the accusation that the courts are being conservative and are upholders of the old order or worse, of being fascists out to dictate how individuals should live their lives.

    The Govt, filled as it is with politicians with proven survival skills, would not touch this with a barge pole even with an upstart Moily shooting his mouth off at every given opportunity.

    Everybody but the liberals realize that decriminalization is the easy part. According a place to the LGBT in human society, is what requires balls of steel.

    Largely Hindu silence in this controversy has come to mean -like always – acquiescence on the side of the LGBT. Any and every argument has been thrown about to prove that Hindu society has never persecuted the LGBT. That argument is granted. What is not granted at all but taken as given (by the LGBT) all the same is that the LGBT will have the same rights too. That’s the hoax and the sleight of hand.

    Now to respond specifically –

    1. What are they? May I know the facts that compels you to make the case for bestiality?
    - Well, I hope you are not denying the existence of bestiality (Refer Kinsey reports). If not, then please tell me if they are entitled to equal rights? If not, why not?

    2. As far as I know, alternate sexuality is not a choice. Given the history of prosecution against LGBT community, nobody in their right mind would make a choice. If LGBT community is said to have forsaken their rights, then with the extension of the same logic, men who are unable to reproduce or the women who has a defective womb have forsaken that right too. Did they?

    - Where is the “history of persecution”, in this country? I don’t see it. You seem to be making a psychological argument for LGBT. Good. This negates your argument for rights because psychologically, the LGBT are not ready to parent children. Psychologically, they have withdrawn themselves from the process of reproduction.

    This is not the same as a woman with a defective womb. Here, the unfortunate woman is psychologically set to take on the role of motherhood. She cannot have her child because of a physical disability.

    3. Why? How? Because they do not share any blood relation with the adopted child? How is adoption any different in case of LGBT people? Is adoption any different in case of a single person adopting a child and a couple adopting a child?

    - Single “parenthood” is as ridiculous as LGBT “parenthood”. Both don’t need children. They need pets.

    4. What makes you think that the adopted child of a lesbian couple would be a gay or lesbian? Did all the children of a heterosexual couple become hetero sexual?

    - I know this; that the adopted child will be under tremendous pressure to conform. I don’t think anybody can deny it. Not just this, but this child will be hard pressed to fit in and mingle in society that is largely heterosexual.

    5. I never saw a child getting attracted sexually. It is the teenagers who gets attracted sexually. They acquire enough maturity to handle the difference in sexuality. Can you imagine the plight and confusion of a gay/lesbian teenager in a hetero sexual household?

    - The plight of an LGBT teenager is qualitatively different from the plight of a heterosexual child now teenager, given in adoption to LGBT “parents”. The latter is forced to conform to liberal standards of relationships.

    6. I am yet to see a LGBT agenda that says so. Right to engage with opposite sex is not same as right to adopt the child. Refer to point 3.

    - This is the most unnatural thing I’ve heard.

    7. What is the guarantee that adopted children would be a homosexual? Homo sexuality is not a life style, it is beyond one’s ability to enforce homosexuality on oneself. Even one percent of India’s population is 10 million. If there are 10 million Indian belonging to LGBT community demanding an end to their prosecution, we have to ignore because a few hundred thousand moulavis and missionaries does not feel that way?

    - The adopted child will be forced to conform – if for nothing else but to prove that the LGBT were always right in claiming to be as normal as heterosexuals.

    You still have to prove “persecution” in this country.

    8. Not true. Our culture, tradition and dharma accepts and agree to the right to normal life for trans-sexuals. Remember Srikhandi in Mahabharata. In Manu-smriti, it is specified that the same kind of punishment is reserved for men and women if they have sex with an unmarried girl. I am not saying that ancient India resembled Spartan society in it’ sexual choices, but LGBT practices existed out of mainstream and they were at least tolerated.

    - Yes. They were at least tolerated. That has not changed. However, marriage and adoption are something else altogether. They were not condoned then, they will not be condoned now.

    9. Interesting. So why did certain organizations under RSS umbrella hailed him initially?

    - Hail him as what? And why “initially”? What happened afterwards?

    10. This fellow who, as per your statement, is a reaction to random secular liberal environment. By all his statement, he is responsible for man slaughter. Dharma advises to punish those who were not able to control his ripus. Babu Bajrangi, if convincingly proved to be murderer should be tried without mercy. This guy is more suitable as a Taliban, he should not be counted as one of the devout Hindus.

    - Please try him and then, if proved, prosecute him.

    11. Well, I am speechless.

    - Don’t be. Trying and prosecuting is a mechanical process. What brings forth Babu Bajrangis in a society like ours is a stern lesson for the liberals.

    There is this great tendency to not view society and developments in terms of cause and effect. So there are islands all over the place. When a Babu Bajrangi speaks of killing and persecuting, only he is wrong by himself. His acts are wrong and his speech is wrong. What is forgotten or ignored as irrelevant is what made a Babu Bajrangi in the first place? Have the causes been addressed?

95. larissa
    28. September 2009 - 9:45 PM

    A secularism aimed against what- in many states- is a majority religion- could lead to the fracture of that religion. At that point, India will become ungovernable. It is all happening in slow motion- as in a dream- but new technology means time is speeding up…we are sleep-walking off a cliff and must wake up now or never.

    That’s right. Sleeping walking is a good metaphor to describe what is happening. And Hindus who have become refugees in their own country and expelled out of their ancestral homes and have witenssed the utter destruction of their culture and way of life in the parts that they inhabited understand this more than anyone else. Hindu culture has survived till today like a badly mauled creature, that it will continue to survive is not a given. But what can Hindus do against this phony “secularism”? If you speak the truth, the thought police of political correctness will be at your throat and your entire career can be ruined. How can Hindus draw people against the current grain of secularism in a way that does not entail violence and in a way that does not let mob elements come to the forefront?

96. prachetas
    28. September 2009 - 11:29 PM

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/6239790/First-female-Indian-troops-are-prostitutes.html

    This is the place for women in Semitic religions. If their thinking, expression are so low & cheap, the think of their actions.

97. Palahalli
    29. September 2009 - 12:08 AM

    Well Prachetas, here’s what I think.

    We must disband all women’s combat units and give women suitable other duties in the forces.

    The frontline is no place for women and we have enough men who can take their place.

    As for male soldiers natural requirements, I think we should rotate them more often. If our chiefs are finding this difficult then are we under-manned?

    This country should start thinking of compulsory conscription now.

98. vivek iyer
    29. September 2009 - 12:29 AM

    @Larissa
    The fundamental problem for Hinduism arises from the abandonment of its own hermeneutic tradition (i.e. Mimamsa, seeing deeper and deeper meaning in sacred texts as well as everyday observances)
    This happened during the Nineteenth Century. Now it is true that a historicist hermeneutics (i.e. treating the Bible as History) helped free Europe from terror of Hell fire and all sorts of bizarre beliefs. However, Indian hermeneutics was never historicist. On the contrary, as is being realized in the West only now, Indian hermeneutics was far in advance of the most advanced of Gadamer or Habermas’s pupils.
    Hindu hermeneutics stressed ‘apoorvata’- something unprecedented, something novel- as a condition of meaning. This is the opposite of that sort of Religion or Statism which consists of going on repeating the same thing over and over again- Gandhi did this, Nehru did that,on their own Hindus could never have achieved anything. They are like wild beasts- they must never taste blood. They are like savages- they must never learn how to be able to work machines for themselves otherwise they will run amok. Yes, from time to time, the paternal dynasty will arrange some massacres and communal violence for us. They will promote some butcher and bandit as representing such and such caste. Even Gurus and Godmen will get a look in provided they claim to be able to fly or produce gold from thin air. People say the British were masters of saam, daam, dhand, bhed- believe me, the British themselves will tell you they are in awe of how Aristocratically ultra-Brit our rulers are.
    You can write any nonsense so long as it is derived from Gramsci or some other thinker equally irrelevant in the Politics of his native country. You have a ’subaltern studies’ which resolves down to this- the Indians are subalterns who can not speak for themselves. Only some half witted Ivy League Professor- who got ahead by cramming and chamchagiri- can speak for the real Indians. A fellow who actually earned his own money, built up a business, etc has no right to speak. He is a ‘fundamentalist’.
    Amartya Sen- who spent his life making noises like a Leftist while spouting irrelevant, dated, orthodoxy- okay, he saved his own skin. But now it is he who is the expert on Gita- not one word of which he understands- and talks about ‘nyaya-niti’ distinction which is simply wrong.
    Now we did have a good socially progressive, knowledge based, Mimamsa in the vernacular languages. However, where the competitive exams require you to regurgitate things that you KNOW to be untrue- Tulsi Das was a great poet but a bigoted upholder of the caste system- Tipoo Sultan was a beloved patriot-etc… then, what is the alternative? Double think becomes the rule. A ludicrous situation arises where Sadhus and Sadhvis get their Religion from London or Boston.
    Vernacular languages have been poisoned by bureaucratic speech translated in formulaic style from bureaucratic English.
    Meanwhile, political instrumentalization of disorder is the order of the day. The Soviets decided to destroy the Russian orthodox church by forcing it to accept all sorts of rogues and thieves as monks and priests. They did not succeed- but then they did not have what we have- namely manipulation of communal violence for political ends.
    The West is now facing a crisis of values. They see that morality, ‘professional integrity’, incentive compatibility (a fancy way of saying ‘truth telling) etc. are absolutely vital to prevent the utter impoverishment and destitution of ordinary people simply so as to line the pockets of the racketeers and their pet politicians.
    There is a line in one of Wendy Doniger’s books where she writes ‘in South India, a Brahmin woman beheads her consort, cuts off his penis, stuffs it in his mouth and then enters the fire.’
    That is acceptable- nay it is a mark of high scholarship!- not the ravings of a silly failed dancer who understands as little of Freud as she does the Vedas.
    But you know someone threw an egg at her in London. PROOF POSITIVE- Hindus are ten thousand times worse than TALIBAN!
    America is fighting the wrong enemy.
    Dalit Christians, who form the vast majority but are denied a proper share of authority in the hierarchy protest to their American brothers. But these people were now concerned about them.
    To restore Hinduism first we need to re-establish proper hermeneutics. This isn’t about knowing 14 different ancient Aryan dialects and having 26 different bitter enemies among your fellow nutty professors- it is about using your brain.
    Think- what if those brown beggars weren’t totally crazy from using drug?. What if they weren’t more primitive and violent in their thinking than a brain damaged mass murderer? What then? Well just Mahabharata alone, just Ramayan alone- arre just ANY page from a Saint-poet anywhere in the country will be enough to set us back on the right path.
    Hindu Scripture can make a great contribution to Social Science, Game theory, Jurisprudence, Philosophical Logic etc.
    (I include Jain, Buddhist, Sikh etc. because, in practice, that was our ancestral tradition)
    Instead of Amartya Sen nonsense, or Gayatri Spivak nonsense (she believes that Bharatvarsha is named after Lord Rama’s younger brother!)and the hordes of ambitious hacks who lack even their talent- well, we could be helping each other. The dhobi, the chai wallah, the nai- everybody can collaborate in re-establishing the true doctrine and its correct implementation in changing times. That was how it was in the old days.
    This notion that to understand India, to speak for her, you first have to become a Nineteenth Century European nutjob- please, that notion has to go.
    SORRRRY! SO SORRRY! I apologize! I just remembered that if what I suggest happens then Rahul Baba will get into a huff and just pack his bags and leave. You know, Amartya Sen thinks he’s very bright. He will go off and become a Professor.
    What on earth will we do without him? Well, I hear good things about his cat. Tell you what we will manage with the cat. After all, we’re Indians. Our development is not SUSTAINABLE. Planet Earth is in danger because of Indian Middle Class only. Fast food, mobile phone- chee chee! Apne aukat mat bhool! Gandhi would be so ashamed.

    W

99. Sid
    29. September 2009 - 6:26 AM

    Kaphir,
    “Believe, or know based on facts? It’s not the same.” – mere figure of speech. Beliefs are created through learning or discussion or experience.

    “Which Purana(s) mention Hindu-Buddhist hostility and Buddhist persecution?” – Buddhist prosecution? Hang on? When did I say that? Where in the reply to you? I am amazed with some of you here. Must you assume that everybody who does not agree with you is a stupid liberal? Hostility did exist as it is evident in my narration from Sankaracharya’s biography.

    Your next comment was made on a similar vein.

    “Who has made that statement? I haven’t. You’re constructing a strawman argument and demolishing it.” – As I said, there is no reason to assume that there were big conflicts, but equally no reason exist to assume that all was well between two communities.

100. Sid
     29. September 2009 - 7:01 AM

     Kaffir,
     About Purana, try Bhabishya Purana, 3rd part (if memory serves me right).

101. Sid
     29. September 2009 - 7:33 AM

     Vivek,
     If I understood you correctly, then you are arguing that:

     If Hinduism is to survive, it has to adopt some of the traits of Abrahamic religions. The adopted traits would force Hindus to group under a central framework and form a cohesive as well as much stronger response to the hostilities of other religious communities.

     There is no denial that if a nation has to survive it must group itself. For example, China has followed path of ultra-nationalism that trumps every other differences Chinese people has. Only recently, intolerance (religious or regional) of uighurs has trumped the ultra-nationalism.

     But is it same when we think of a religious community like Hindus? If we are to adopt a central framework, would not we loose the very essence of Dharma? Do we need a temple to tell us whether we should use condom or not? We have a social caste system, but does our religion permit only a class of people to communicate to him (like Christian Father or Maulavi or Rabbi)?
     For example, I was born to a family that is loosely affiliated to a small Vaishnav sect. Our religious practice does not make us dependent on Brahmins (although I happen to be son of a Brahmin) and we do not believe that God only exists in Tirupati or a small temple a few rich man in city built in outskirts. What religion should we identify with if a central framework establishes certain do’s and dont’s and our belief system is not among those do’s? If we Hindus recognize our religion and basic nature of the religion, that is good enough of a bond. The history of last 1000 years do not make me hopeful, but I am not fond of the idea of a Hindu central framework that would have a iron hand.

102. Sid
     29. September 2009 - 7:37 AM

     Vivek,
     Contd…..
     However, I share the concern. Unfortunately, I can only hope that a better solution emerges, because if it does not we will have a much harsher life than our predecessors had.

103. Sid
     29. September 2009 - 7:50 AM

     Rajiv,

     That clears a lot of smoke about your argument. Hmmmm….a different point of view indeed, but not heretic, not at the intellectual level. Man, what would you call Chetan Bhagat if you call this heretic? Ooppsss, sorry, I did not want to insult you.
     All I can say is that you should have a blog. There is nothing I can disagree to.

104. Sid
     29. September 2009 - 8:58 AM

     Palahalli,
     What is not granted at all but taken as given (by the LGBT) all the same is that the LGBT will have the same rights too.

     What would you loose if they have the same rights?

     1. Well, I hope you are not denying the existence of bestiality (Refer Kinsey reports). If not, then please tell me if they are entitled to equal rights? If not, why not?
     Well, just because that exists, that would not mean that there is a case for it. If I make a case for bestiality, one can extend the same case to pedophilia. I do not believe there is any legitimate case that can be made for bestiality. People who engage in it need help. It is not right to think LGBT and bestiality are same cases. They can not be put to the same category together.
     2. …the LGBT are not ready to parent children. Psychologically, they have withdrawn themselves from the process of reproduction.
     I am having trouble getting this line of argument. LGBT have not withdrawn themselves from right to reproduce psychologically. They have lost it by birth. A heterosexual can not become homo sexual by choice, a lesbian can not find attraction in a man regardless of her willingness to do so.
     3. Single “parenthood” is as ridiculous as LGBT “parenthood”. Both don’t need children. They need pets.
     Would you mind explaining this blanket statement? What are the scientific or logical or empirical facts that helped you to reach this blanket statement? My aunt managed to bring up two sons after her husband died early and both of her sons have grown to be successful men. Until I read your post I did not know that for twenty years she has done a ridiculous job. She actually needed pets!!!!
     4. ..that the adopted child will be under tremendous pressure to conform…
     Conform to what? Hetero sexuality like most of their friends? Homo sexuality like their parents? They would be what they would be. The fact that they are gays or heteros is not within their realm of choices. Where is the question of conformity or question of choice comes from?
     Why do not you answer this with simple logic: Would the adopted son of a homo sexual be a homo sexual always? If yes, how and why? If yes, by the extension of same logic, do you believe that adopted/biological son of a hetero sexual couple be a hetero sexual always? If yes, then how come LGBT community exist? After all, each of them is a child of a hetero sexual couple?
     5. The plight of an LGBT teenager is qualitatively different from the plight of a heterosexual child now teenager, given in adoption to LGBT “parents”. The latter is forced to conform to liberal standards of relationships.
     Interesting. So the plight of a LGBT teenager in a hetero sexual household is small enough to ignore? The question of rights come up just to ease both the plights.
     6. This is the most unnatural thing I’ve heard.
     If you think so, then so be it. I am just returning the favor. I have heard plenty of unnatural things in last one or two of your posts.
     The adopted child will be forced to conform – if for nothing else but to prove that the LGBT were always right in claiming to be as normal as heterosexuals.
     If an adopted child is forced to conform, then I have to believe that every child in hetero sexual household is forced to conform too. So how did LGBT community managed to exist without conforming to hetero sexual doctrine that would be supposedly imposed on them?
     You still have to prove “persecution” in this country.
     OK, google “Manavendra Singh Gohil” or “Zoltan Parag”. Also consider the reaction to movie “Fire”, especially the awesome reaction of your heroes including Thackaray clan. On a side note, do not start a separate line of discussion on why “Fire” is wrong. I did not like the subject matter (it was horribly stupid given the story line), so I did what was logical. I did not buy the ticket. That is the same reaction to all the B movies the cinema halls in my small city put at 11:00 AM show.
     However, marriage and adoption are something else altogether. They were not condoned then, they will not be condoned now.
     Over time, our definition of marriage has changed. The old family structure has gone. We have changed, some of the old laws have no meaning. Some of the old prejudice should go too. We can not go back to 100 BCE or 100 CE. We are in 2000 CE, we should discuss and decide. What is the logic for not allowing gays and lesbians to marry? Nobody is saying that they should marry in a temple. Let them get married. If two gays are not married and goes to public market holding each other’s hand, how grand would our social structure would look like?
     Hail him as what? And why “initially”? What happened afterwards?
     Please go and read some old newspaper, will you? And why blame the RSS or VHP only? Every time we have discussed that name, you always tried to provide a reason of why he was like that.
     Please try him and then, if proved, prosecute him.
     ……
     There is this great tendency to not view society and developments in terms of cause and effect. So there are islands all over the place. When a Babu Bajrangi speaks of killing and persecuting, only he is wrong by himself. His acts are wrong and his speech is wrong. What is forgotten or ignored as irrelevant is what made a Babu Bajrangi in the first place? Have the causes been addressed?
     Finally I have something to agree to. If the causes were addressed we would not be discussing this here.

     Are not we going too far from our line of discussion? You apparently believe that homo sexuality (as well as trans sexuality) is a choice that should not exist or must be discouraged. I believe that it is a natural phenomena and anyone should help those people who are desperately in need of assistance. Did you ever see how most trans-genders live in our country? Do they deserve the life they get? Arguments like yours do not solve anything, they create more problems and complicates the situation.

105. vivek iyer
     29. September 2009 - 3:26 PM

     @Sid
     -’Vivek,
     If I understood you correctly, then you are arguing that:

     If Hinduism is to survive, it has to adopt some of the traits of Abrahamic religions. The adopted traits would force Hindus to group under a central framework and form a cohesive as well as much stronger response to the hostilities of other religious communities.’

     No, I don’t suggest that- I agree that an attempt to create a monolithic centralised religion would be counter productive. I was merely arguing for a return to a Spiritual and Ethical Mimamsa rather than this Historicist Mimamsa which justifies ignoring Dharma and just concentrating on the adversarial relationship between jatis.

     No question, there was a tradition of heated polemics in India. Indeed the ‘brahmoyuddha’ concept was that the loser in a Brahminical debate should lose his head. In Buddhist monasteries too you see this tradition kept up. However, long ago in our history, the whole thing became a comedy item. The young Brhaman/Shraman- often no more than a boy- shows his brilliance, everyone claps but the real gift of grace may lie with a bullock cart driver, a butcher, an old woman etc.
     If we consider our own family religion, we may find it is a sort of hybrid of 2 seemingly irreconcilable sectarian positions- e.g. Jain-Vaishnava, which combines Jain emphasis on non-violence, self reliance to achieve kevalya, plural ontology- and Vaishnava, pure devotion, i.e. salvation by Grace. This marriage works very well. However, in practice there is little to really distinguish an Iyengar like this from a Saivite-Buddhist Iyer- who combines ‘Smarta’ i.e. Purva Mimamsa with SAivism (itself seemingly incongruous) but then throws in Nagarjuna into the mixture. But, it works.
     Initially, reading Radhakrishnan or other older generation writers, one may have a bigoted sort of Advaita belief. When one reads well argued presentation of Madhavacharya, however, this belief in the primacy of ontology melts away.
     We are struck by Madhava’s interpretation of R.V ‘rupam rupam pratirupo &c’- we lose our suspicion of ‘new’ temple set up by Swaminarayan or who ever.

     Let study, knowledge and inspiration remain free and decentralised. However, there would need to be some pooling of resources, more co-ordination and mutual support.
     I don’t know how this can happen without good leadership coming forward.

106. Palahalli S
     29. September 2009 - 4:02 PM

     Siddhartha -

     Once more now.

     # The acts of the LGBT(B) are acts that cannot be denied. They cannot be wished away.

     The fact also is these “sexual minorities” have existed for as long as life itself. What is new is their clamor for heterosexual rights to marriage and adoption. This is something that has never been recognized even by Hindu society for good enough reasons.

     These “sexual minorities” can use their existing model or evolve another without encroaching on heterosexual societal norms, thereby causing confusion for everybody.

     Decriminalizing LGBT(B) cannot mean creating an imbalance elsewhere. Heterosexuals have rights too you know.

     What would you loose if they have the same rights?

     - Well, what will I lose if my next door neighbor is having a sex orgy? Or is “partnering” a dog or a cat? Or is indeed partnering his or her own son or daughter?

     Human imagination can come up with many things that need not affect me. But that’s how a dead society would think. Not a living one.

     Cause and effect.

     The rot generally starts when we are given to easy rationalizations.

     1.Well, just because that exists, that would not mean that there is a case for it. If I make a case for bestiality, one can extend the same case to paedophilia. I do not believe there is any legitimate case that can be made for bestiality. People who engage in it need help. It is not right to think LGBT and bestiality are same cases. They can not be put to the same category together.

     - Why not? Because Siddhartha says so? How cruel?! These were the very same arguments used against the LGBT. How very oppressive! Zoophiliacs exist but they are insane. They need help. Is this because they don’t have a campaign going? Or don’t have powerful sponsors?

     Indeed why not paedophilia too? Surely you know there are countries with ages of consent going down to 12 years or less? Aren’t human beings the same everywhere?

     The fact is you are not comfortable with bestialty today. However its only a matter of time before even this is justified in the name of rights.

     2. I am having trouble getting this line of argument. LGBT have not withdrawn themselves from right to reproduce psychologically. They have lost it by birth. A heterosexual can not become homo sexual by choice, a lesbian can not find attraction in a man regardless of her willingness to do so.

     - Arranged marriages was always a good idea.

     Btw, there are folks who have normal families but suddenly discover they are amongst the LGBT. Then they want out. They don’t give a damn about how their loved ones feel.

     This is amounting to the drive of pure selfishness.

     When they cannot, psychologically, reconcile with the opposite sex, how can they psychologically feel the need to parent?

     All organic cause and effect is lost here. Only “individual rights” at play.

     The need for human pets is being whitewashed as “parental desire”.

     3. Would you mind explaining this blanket statement? What are the scientific or logical or empirical facts that helped you to reach this blanket statement? My aunt managed to bring up two sons after her husband died early and both of her sons have grown to be successful men. Until I read your post I did not know that for twenty years she has done a ridiculous job. She actually needed pets!!!!

     - You prove my point. Firstly, your aunt married her husband. Secondly, she bore children. Thirdly and very unfortunately, she lost her husband and she could have married again. A choice to remain unmarried could have been driven by the need to care for her sons fully and without distractions and possible complications with a step-father.

     She has been absolutely selfless and perhaps an excellent reason why her sons turned out so well. I just hope her sons take care of her as well as she did, them.

     This lady is ideal. She cannot be compared with the LGBT or single parenting. The latter is a fashion statement these days. Not one arising out of circumstances.

     4. Your 4th point is answered by the fact that if 10% of any population is homosexual (mind you, only homosexual) we are talking in excess of a 100 million people here.

     It would be very interesting to see how many are leading normal lives. The fact that’s undeniable is that many indeed are. Why is the LGBT crowd not taking this into consideration?

     But they have. They simply label them “conformist” or “oppressed”.

     5. Interesting. So the plight of a LGBT teenager in a hetero sexual household is small enough to ignore? The question of rights come up just to ease both the plights.

     - Ignoring his/her plight is subjective. There are many who will still lead normal lives.

     However, an adopted child in being thrown into a virtual whirpool. Why is the child being experimented with simply to alleviate adult LGBT guilt at not being able to have their own? Or to show their “normalcy”.

     6. If an adopted child is forced to conform, then I have to believe that every child in hetero sexual household is forced to conform too. So how did LGBT community managed to exist without conforming to hetero sexual doctrine that would be supposedly imposed on them?

     - Because heterosexuality is not a doctrine. Because it is natural for human beings to reproduce and exist. Because the LGBT cannot exist without, parasite-like, feeding on the heterosexual fruit.

     Conformity with the most obvious benefit is essential.

     Not all of us or any of us get our own way in life every time. Perhaps the LGBT too, need help? We will not be giving that help if we keep giving in to their preposterous demands.

     7. Do you really want me to buy this story of “persecution”? No numbers or percentages? The CJI himself has said he has not come across a single prosecution of the LGBT in his courts.

     In Bengaluru, at most traffic signals, there are Transgenders accosting drivers for money. I have not seen a single arrest. Cops are at every signal. So…

     8. I’m sorry. Our family structures have served us very well. In fact where such structures have been willfully destroyed, there is mosty degeneration and chaos.

     I realize any argument can be made to support a theory but let’s not go overboard. Would you rather families cease to exist just so that sexual minorities can feel at home? That’s what Ashok Row Kavi says when he pronounces marriages an “oppressive institution”!

     Today, there are fancy studies being conducted that show how psychologically damaging divorce and then re marriage can be for women. The same thing has been taught by societal norms since ages; but those are somehow oppressive. The list goes on.

     9. Please go and read some old newspaper, will you? And why blame the RSS or VHP only? Every time we have discussed that name, you always tried to provide a reason of why he was like that.

     - The onus is on you to prove Babu Bajrangi had stature and why he doesn’t today. Asking me to refer news reports is lazy. You made the charge, prove it.

     10.Finally I have something to agree to. If the causes were addressed we would not be discussing this here. Are not we going too far from our line of discussion? You apparently believe that homo sexuality (as well as trans sexuality) is a choice that should not exist or must be discouraged. I believe that it is a natural phenomena and anyone should help those people who are desperately in need of assistance. Did you ever see how most trans-genders live in our country? Do they deserve the life they get? Arguments like yours do not solve anything, they create more problems and complicates the situation.

     - So, I agree with you when you see it as a problem. But disagree strongly when you see it as something that needs to be accepted into heterosexual society.

107. larissa
     29. September 2009 - 8:58 PM

     “”You know, Amartya Sen thinks he’s very bright. He will go off and become a Professor.
     What on earth will we do without him? Well, I hear good things about his cat. Tell you what we will manage with the cat. After all, we’re Indians. “”
     vivek iyer

     Even Western economists do not think highly Amartya Sen–I was told that he engages in “Mother Teresa” economics, and has really done nothing substantial in economics–I read his book “The Argumentative Indian”–what can I say? Its just full of politically correct nonsense –Bengali Mule is what I said to myself when reading him. That book is total garbage. Well he caters to the political correctness of the times–there are a lot of adademics like that —because if they dare speak the truth, they are in danger of losing their jobs–when you read him you can see though that he is writing things he himself does not believe in–that was my impression.
     India’s problem lies in the fact that its classical civilization was destroyed and interrupted( although not completely) by barbarian invasions–and that it entered the dark ages under Islamic rule–whether it can get out and rediscover its old greatness is something to be seen–but with the forced secular environment and a government that wants to keep Indians in “amnesia” as far as their history is concerned, one can’t be optimistic. India simply has to advance economically and recover its dignity again in the modern world–thats whats really at issue–
     But Western Europe is also undergoing a change and is in a post-Christian era…

108. vivek iyer
     30. September 2009 - 7:28 PM

     Bengali Mule! That’s very funny. Or tragic when you see how much genuine creativity and scholarship from that region- absolutely vital to the whole country- has been crowded out by intellectual chamchagiri backed up by ruthless goonda tactics.
     Make no mistake- I absolutely worship Bengal. However elite foreclosure of the true spirit of Bengal, which does not speak with a post Oxbridge accent because it actually has something to say- something vital for our moral and spiritual survival- is a threat to our ethos.
     I remember, I was once giving a speech on Hinduism at Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park. An expert heckler reduced me to uttering impotent expletives. A big man, there with his wife and children, came to the defence of Hinduism. I thanked him later on. He was a Bangladeshi Muslim on holiday.
     Unfortunately, Western Professors and ‘intellectuals’- though of Bengali origin- will never raise their voice to support the true Bangladeshi who does not want goondagiri in the name of religion. Instead they will do any sort of intellectual somersault to prove that hooliganism and violence is always good so long as it is Marxist or ‘Muslim’.
     Incidentally, the Gandhi family cat is showing some signs of tolerance towards Hinduism- drinking milk rather than savagely attacking and devouring cows it encounters.
     So, I’m sorry, cat will not be available to lead us. Even Amartya Sen has revised his opinion about the cat’s high intelligence and fitness for Prime Ministerial office.
     Sorry to be the bearer of bad news- still, better you hear it from me than some malicious neighbour.

109. larissa
     30. September 2009 - 8:33 PM

     Well I also respect cultured Bengalis ( or anyone with culture for that matter), but what to make of this man who praises Akbar–the illiterate one–as an enlightened emperor? Because he threw some scraps of mercy at Hindus every now and then? What was enlightened about him? His attempt to found a new religion and force it on others? Moreover, in that book, his treatment of enlightened Hindus is confined to Bengalis, and just represents typical Bengali communal thinking…I have always wondered why so many Bengalis become Marxists–perhaps its because Bengal is largely agricultural. People like Amartya Sen should stick to being an economist and write within their area of specialization –why write about things which obviously he does not know much about?

110. vivek iyer
     1. October 2009 - 7:29 AM

     Larissa, I take it you are a man.
     Just now- within the last hour or two- I went to see my pakistani brothers at their house.
     These cowardly shits did not open the door- probably because few real Pakis live there. However, one foul mouthed little shit PUT UP THE SHUTTERS of his window and treated me to some choice epithets.
     I said Come down. Let us sort it out here.
     As you can imagine, the entire Pak Hostel shut down. Everybody turend off their lights. The gentleman on the second floor who had used choice epitheta against em – turned off his own light.
     I was supposed to be frightened off the British Police. But, these cowards did not even try to challenge me when I stood outside their so called Muhammad Ali Jihhah house and accused them of being Homo and Rubbish.
     You may say, you have disgraced only youself. However, the fact is, Pakistani people are asking to be able to stay in the Hostel for which their Govt. is paying. Don’t think Pakis dont have some fighters on their side. However, this time, some crap and small Punjabi abused me but did not come down. I strode up and down that road like the cock of the walk.
     But, I won’t stop there. The cowardice of this fellow- younger than me- when I tell him I’m a Hindu from India- he makes obscene comment- which also I reply to- but he is a coward- it is so shameful. The cunt says I’m calling police just now- I say- cunt you are a fucking drug dealer. You call the police and we have a warrant. (this is not actually true- under Zardari you have absolutely rubbish people making money.
     The only reason I’m blogging this is because I’m not about making money for Pak or Bangla.
     However, the cowardice of these MONKEYS should be placed on record.
     I used to be Night Receptionist of Indian YMCA- back in 1980- I would go and fight anyone who fucked with us. My elder sister was staying there. I ever had to hit anybody- still people knew I had a motivation to kill them- RESULT- only one Punjabi escaped my wrath- but my cure killed him.
     Anyway, as a good South Indian Brhamin- I’m now going to use my Urdu to really fuck up those Paki cowards.

111. vivek iyer
     1. October 2009 - 7:52 AM

     Sorry, I just read what I have written. Real bad spelling.
     But, I do want to say something about Pak. They are more cowardly now, under Zardari, than ever before in their history.
     One man stormed their Student Hostel. Can you imagine what would happen to one man standing outside an Indian student hostel saying ‘ You are all cowards and homos’
     I mean, I am quite a big man- but let me tell you we would have killed anybody who said like that to us.
     I myself felt ashamed at the cowardly response op this Zardari Pakistan.
     No, no, don’t make a mistake- there was a gentleman using choice epithets who said he’d come down and deal with me.
     Like a fool, I was standing there. Then he turned off all the lights. You see, if he wanted me arrested, he should have kept on some lights. Anyway I strode up and down , crowing like a cock.
     Bhai, is Pak worthy off our attention? They are like us. But bottom line- they are cowardly little shite.
     Haan, I’m about six foot. These fucking cunts only want to fight with Bengalis weighing 35 kh. They don’t like ‘High Caste’ who will beat the fuck out of them.

     Which I wouldn’t- it is true when I start to beat I don’t stop- however that is in the context of men who want to have sex with children- my son is now 23 years old- I never beat these cunts till they dont know their own name

112. larissa
     1. October 2009 - 7:48 PM

     Hey Mr. Iyer,
     You started out as somewhat intelligible but are not the more I read your posts. Your language is atrocious–you should have at least some respect for those here who post decently-

113. Sandeep
     1. October 2009 - 9:45 PM

     Vivek Iyer,

     Please moderate your language. While commenting is free and I don’t generally moderate comments here, I draw a line after a certain threshold.

     Thanks in advance for your understanding.

114. madhav
     4. October 2009 - 12:35 AM

     though i might agree with what you have to say…it is not smart to condemn people who cannot be as shameless(as they themselves call themselves) and fearless as arun shourie or sitaram goel. the good thing we have to see is there are now different kinds of hindu voices rising and we must make sure that hindus can fearlessly choose the umbrella they like. For instance someone who has amazing respect for our culture but doesn’t have the required intellectual ammo to take on others will feel pretty secure to come under gurucharan das ji’s umbrella. We might need a few crusaders , but the majority just needs a strong and significant identity .let hindus of all kinds arise and declare their love for their culture, and if they can safely do so only by distancing themselves from RSS or BJP,let it be so…..after all if all hindus can collectively protest against any injustice ….it’s the RSS’s burden that is reduced.

115. vivek iyer
     4. October 2009 - 9:30 PM

     Delete posts with bad language. That is not censorship but good editorial policy and helpful for all concerned.
     Sorry to have annoyed.
     The truth is bibhatsa (disgusting) rasa is a check on Manyu and Rajsic aspects of personality and thought.
     For creative artists the point is not to engage in mere rhetoric but provide a mimesis showing both sides of the question.
     However art has its place and it is not always in the home.
     As I said delete posts with bad language or which arouse disgust and shame. A man has the right to regulate his own space.
     No question of understanding- the worst goonda can understand this.
     If a person, or a people, gets seduced by a false tolerance to permitting the space it is their duty to protect to be besmirched then there is no free dialogue- rather it is a type of invasion.

116. Rajiv Chandran
     4. October 2009 - 11:45 PM

     Just came across an excellent write-up by Ms Sandhya Jain defining in her own way what Hindutva is or should be ?. One possible answer to the question we asked ourselves earlier in this blog.

     http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=849

     Many of us remain very concerned with the direction the secular state is taking us. Unfortunately the Sangh organizations have not only been not able to articulate this concern – it has not succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of many intellectually capable Hindus who can take on all the imperial intrusions in the name of secular and theological truth claims. Here is a fresh example of one such intrusions (courtesy Shantanu’s blog and Vijayavaani) – which if allowed to go unchallenged will harm us in no small measure :

     http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=846

     On a seperate note I shall post my views on the reasons for establishment of muslim rule in India (as the second part of my response to past discussions) in a few days time.

No trackbacks/pingbacks

Leave a comment

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

You can use the following tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>