• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

'Pseudo' Secularism

Status
Not open for further replies.
KRS ji,

I am sorry.

My previous post gives an import that i am "calling" Dr Swamy a j***r. What was unsaid is that the 'vernacular press' which is a big opinion maker treats him so. No one takes him too seriously.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Dr Swamy is not too comfortable in tamil and that is yet another reason why his "connect with people" is not strong.

I agree that any message/idea has to be evaluated independent of its source.

My profound apologies.

SF - 'P-I-L' is Public Interest Litigation.

You have called it correct when you said that the practicality of co-existence with many religions is somewhere in the middle.

Where am i, i wonder !

Dear Sri Hari Ji,

No apologies required.

I know Dr. Swamy has changed his political clothes as often as Imelda Marcos bought her pair of shoes.

I know he does not understand the Dravidian politics and culture. His intellectual honesty at times haas been compromised by his political stance.

He is good at being 'against something' rather than being 'for something' all through the years. But now for once, he is trying to change and support the 'Hindu' cause. We all need to support this, till he either succeeds or fails. I fervently hope that he succeeds.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Dear Sri Silverfox,

Namaskaram. Sometimes I give my opinion without recongnizing the persons whose thought thread I have picked. No slight is meant out of my hasty actions. Everyone here is great and I love them all. As a Tamil Brahmin to all Tamil Brahmins which affinity has brought all of us together my humble opinion is that we should celeberate the achievements of our fellow Tamil Brahmins instead of denigrating them. This comes from the basic pride 'I am a Hindu' and 'I am a Tamil Brahmin'.

Let me speak a little about Dr.Subramanian Swamy. He is perhaps the only Tamil Brahmin politician that we have. JJ is only half a Brahmin and half Tamil and most of us would like to disown her because of her association with anti-Brahmin forces and extremely opportunistic stand that she often takes sacrificing Hindu and Brahmin interests and her craving for immense wealth by hook or crook which no Brahmin would consider as Dharmic. Dr. Swamy is the only highly educated professor of great renown that we have in politics in India. He is a Harvard scholar and a professor at Harvard University. He still teaches there! He is an authority on Economics and Statistics and particularly index numbers. His knowledge of China is such that the foreign universities and governments vie with each other to invite him to lecture to them on the emerging economic giants - China and India - and how to deal with them. I can give you examples but that is beside the point. Dr. Swamy is perhaps the only Indian politician conversant speaking Mandarin.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a Chanakya in the modern day politics. If we can recall the history, sorry Hari that I have to do this(!), the Mourya king slighted Chanakya for his Brahminical traits and Chanakya brought down his empire! The same thing happened when the BJP slighted him on his authority on economics and pooh poohed his claim to become the Finance Minister and they hardly stayed in power for an year only to be brought down by Dr. Swamy! In fact it was the same Dr.Swamy who was instrumental in bringing down Indira Gandhi when she clamped down emergency rule suppressing fundamental rights. Dear Hari, this is the 'joker' who is the king-maker you are talking about. If you think you would rather garland 'Sonia Maino' because she is able to hoodwink the masses, then I cannot compete. On the contrary if your intention is to give us an opportunity to counter the venoumous propaganda against Brahmin leaders, which I think it is, then I thank you for it. We will do our best.

It was Dr. Swamy who persuaded the Chinese to let Hindu pilgrims visit the holy Maanasarovar that now lie in China. If you are one of those who do kshethraadanam as the Hindu belief is that each Hindu should undertake it in his life time, then you will be one of those who would thank Dr. Swamy's contribution to the Hindu peity.

In Tamilnadu the last Tamil Brahmin of any stature was the Marxist P.Ramamurthy who in spite of not having great formal education. He was a brilliant man of scholarship with such a vast knowledge on many subjects. In spite of idealogical differences Rajaji taught him the nuances of poitics. He was so much respected at the centre though Tamilnadu politics would ignore him even though he was articulating radicalism and not conservatism. He was a mini-Bharathi who actually married a Harijan. After his demise his own party suffocated the Brahmins in their fold. The politics of gangsterim is such that in Tamilnadu both Rajaji and his chela PR as he was fondly called were sidelined.

Dear Hari, Brahmins are a small community and in a country that is getting organized on caste basis thanks to the constitution, we do not have a mass following and you cannot blame Dr. Swamy for not having one. In this number game we are outnumbered. And even though we call India a democracy, people don't vote on the basis of the merit of the issue but on many consideration that are non-issue. (even in western democracies people don't vote on merit but on self-interest). Therefore India is actually practising mobocracy and since Dr. Swamy does not have the 'mob' support and he tries to exploit the lacunae in the consitutional-judicial system to win his argument. So people deride him as the PIL man if they have no argument against him.

Regards,
 
For one last time, i regret for the remark. I didnt want to mean any dis-respect to Dr Swamy.

I have high regards for his academic attainments.

As to whether he can make a difference, well, i will only say, i wish i could say Amen.
 
Hari Om!

Dear Sri Hari,

You have said: "I am only saying that at 187 Million, we cannot but deal with them. This is a fact that we cannot shy away. I only wonder how we will engage them if we continue to harbour suspicions."

First of all, in all these years since independence the party that enjoyed power has been appeasing them to the hilt. They have rescinded equality of citizens in favour of the Muslims, they have declared that Kashmir is not like any other state of India, they have allowed them to marry merrily many times and multiply and so on and so forth. After having given huge portions of the country to the right and to the left as Pakistan and Bangladesh with full state and military and soverinty which have been used only to make alliances with nations of the world against the truncated India, to buy and arm themselves to the teeth, kill and persecute Hindus and rob them of their possession, What else do you want us to favour them? This government of India which has stoically kept blind, deaf and mute to the fate of the Hindus in those erstwhile parts of India now under Muslim dispensation, this government of India and the secularist dispensation that have formed the unholy alliance to rule India have embarked on a venomous campaign that Hindus and their leaders are out to distroy them. This is a vicious calumny indulged by the secular media. In the name of attacking BJP when it was in power the secular media denigrated Hindus like dirty worms and depicted them like poisonous snakes. Today the secularists are in power and their media hides the terrors of Muslims under the carpet or never reports them. The secularist to which the BJP also makes a claim are vying with each other to nominate a Muslim for the VP's job. Yea, BJP is still dreaming they can earn Muslim votes.

Yet you say nothing was done in favour of the Muslims.

Those Muslims historically were Hindus and were all converted under threat of the sword. You and I should point out this fact that their ancestors have gone through inexplicable pain during conversion. If you don't want to go back in History, just visit your neighbouring countries and see for yourself or just read the accounts of those who witnessed such heinous crimes. If you continue to turn a blind eye and bury your head in sand, you will get first hand knowledge when this menace happens to you and your fellowmen in this very land you stand on.

As you stand judiciously apart away from Hindus and Muslims to pronounce your wisdom did it not occur to you that we in India kept these 187 millions of Muslims the second largest in the world after Indonesia relatively safe and happy considering what their counterpart Hindus have gone through in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Also, do you know that the the country with the largest Muslim population that is Indonesia was actually a Hindu country as late as 600 years ago and the hoards of Muslims (unfortunately they were from Gujarat) that landed there so very swiftly converted those hapless Hindus into mohammedans?

If one wishes to be a Hindu any more than being agnostic he has got to have a Hindu mindset. Dear friend our Dharma offers to humans much more than what secularism would offer to the westerners or shall I say our Dharma offers all the good that secularism stands for and much more. If anyone says that he belongs to Sanathana Dharma and more particularly a Brahmin, yet if opts for something less called secualarism then I have to pity his ignorance.

Please read the thought provoking article given below by Sandhya Jain.

Diaspora Hindus lament loss of human rights

By Sandhya Jain

Nearly twenty million Hindus live outside India, and find themselves subject to discrimination, terror, murder and other forms of violence, including forced conversions, ethnic cleansing, destruction of temples, socio-political ostracization and disenfranchisement. Politicians and governments of many countries engage in hate speech and myriad forms of discrimination against ethnic minorities.

Hindus in other parts of the globe consistently face discrimination and human rights violations in countries where they are either residents or citizens. In its report of 2006, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) has documented the problems of Hindu minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Fiji, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Trinidad & Tobago.

The report also documents the problems that Hindus face in India’s Jammu & Kashmir, but there is inexplicable silence about the real and perceived discrimination faced by Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) in America and other Western countries. At precisely the moment the HAF report was being released to the media, Sikh construction workers in America had joined a legal battle with Western employers to protest against unpaid wages of several years, discriminatory hire and fire policies, unsafe working conditions in the form of absence of safety equipment, and a host of other issues. In Britain, Indian (mainly Hindu) doctors invited by the government to settle there are unwelcome on account of the unconquerable racism of British society, and may now find themselves thrown out on the pretext of the Bangalore links of Indian Muslim doctors.

In Afghanistan, the ancient Hindu community dates back to the earliest recorded history, the Vedic Age, approximately between 3000 BCE and 1000 BCE. Yet Hindu temples destroyed by the Taliban have not been rebuilt, many temples are still occupied by Muslim groups, and no Hindu places of worship exist today. Afghan Hindus who were forced into exile during Taliban rule are not being provided with any basic facilities for resettlement if they return. The governments of Britain and Germany are pressurising Hindu Afghans to return, when the resurgence of Taliban outside of Kabul has rendered remaining Hindu families extremely vulnerable. Hindu families cannot even send their children to public schools for fear of persecution and ridicule.

Positioning the United States as world leader for inexplicable reasons, the HAF has asked it, jointly with the international community, to exert pressure on Germany and Britain to stop involuntary deportation of Hindu refugees from their territory to Afghanistan. HAF wants India to provide visas and adequate financial support to settle the refugees. It demands the restoration of Hindu temples and institutions in Afghanistan, but does not say who these will serve if Afghanistan’s minority population is planning to leave anyway. Finally, it argues that Pakistan must be discouraged from supporting resurgent Taliban as this will further destabilize Afghanistan to the detriment of Hindus and other minorities.

Hindus comprised 30 percent of Bangladesh’s population in 1947, but today constitute less than 10 percent. By 1991, as many as 20 million Hindus were reported as “missing” from the country. Bangladeshi Hindus even today continue to be victims of ethnic cleaning at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, and incidents of rape, murder, kidnappings, physical violence, and iconoclasm are daily occurrences. Human rights activists and honest journalists are terrorised and often driven out of the country. In just nine months of 2006, for which data is available, there have been 461 incidents of murder, rape, kidnappings, temple destruction, and land grabing, targeting Hindus. (contd.)
 
(contd.)

A formidable 44 per cent of the 2.7 million Hindu households have been adversely affected by the Enemy Property Act 1965 and its post-independence version, the Vested Property Act 1974. Individuals with links to the Bangladesh National Party (BNP)-Islamist party alliance in power between 2001 and 2006 became beneficiaries of over 45 per cent of lands confiscated from Hindus under the outrageous Vested Property Act. HAF urges the interim Bangladesh regime to ensure an end to attacks upon Hindus and exemplary action against their assailants. Anti-minority laws such as the Vested Property Act must be repealed and land restored to the rightful owners. Western donor countries should ensure that such measures are undertaken! This constant reliance upon the West discredits the report, as it is prone to misuse by countries seeking to advance their strategic and corporate interests.

Bhutan has been criticised for evicting one lakh Hindu and Buddhist citizens in the early 1990s; most are living in Nepal, though there are some in India also. The Fiji Islands are a Christian majority state with a 34 per cent Hindu population, and Hindus are constantly subject to hate speech and assaults on their temples. The Methodist Church of Fiji wants to create a Christian State. In Kazakhstan, Hindus are a small minority amidst Sunni Muslim and Russian Orthodox Church followers. Here, Hindus with allegiance to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) are being intimidated by Kazakh authorities.

Malaysia has also come under the HAF radar as a country where minorities have to struggle to retain their religious identities. Hindu temples have been destroyed, and mosques are given precedence in the allocation of public funds and lands. Pakistan, of course, has taken its Hindu population from 25 percent in 1947 to an abysmal 1.6 percent today, and openly discriminates against non-Muslims through blasphemy laws. These have actually been invoked against the country’s Christian population, rather than against Hindus. Hence this mention in the HAF reports leads to the suspicion that it may be catering to other-than-Hindu agendas.

Saudi Arabia, where Hindus go only to work rather than to settle as citizens, is targetted for a system of identity cards that identifies holders as ‘Muslim’ or ‘non-Muslim.’ It does not permit the practice of other faiths upon its soil, which is well known and accepted by Hindus visiting the kingdom.

Here again, HAF is lending itself as a tool of US foreign policy, which undermines the purpose and efficacy of the report, especially when America is constantly invoked to ensure freedom in countries that are likely to be targets of its oil-hungry corporates. HAF appears to be entirely unaware of the atrocities being perpetrated in Iraq and other countries where US has a military presence (e.g. Philippines), and the evangelical-imperial project - Joshua project - that is menacing Hindu dharma in India.

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=193&page=9
 
Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

A simple observation - nothing more than that.

If I were a minority in a country and the Government that is elected by the strength of votes by the majority populace (in this case the Hindus) is ready to appease me to get my vote, of course, I will play up to that. In a country like India, where every community is trying to gain an edge, one can not blame a community for playing the 'politics' like any other community.

While I abhor terrorism and the foreign Jihad, we should not treat this community all of a sudden with iron gloves and send them to seek refuge in the hands of the extremists, more than what it is today.

As Hindus, we need to unite, and vote out any government that practices this kind of 'vote bank' politics. India is a republic and within her system, there are ample oppotunities for any community to assert their rights.

Who had been electing the 'pseudo-secular' governments? Not the muslims, as they are a minority.

Yes there are muslim theocratic states around the world. And they do proclaim that Islam is their sole religion. It is up to other countries, based on their own self interest to determine whether to be friendly with those governments are not. I do not see anything wrong with it, as different nations are at different levels of human understanding and religious tolerance. I would never want to go to those countries anyway.

Religion, in my opinion is mostly cultural. What is the point in telling the Indian muslims that once their ancestors were Hindus, who were forcibly converted? Will they then convert back? This is where I agree with Sri Hari Ji. Let us look at this type of history in the rear view mirror. Let us start at ground zero. Let us live and let live (as long as every community has that credo).

We in India are in a unique position. With proper policies, we can show the entire world that we in India can allow any religion to flourish, in peace, as long as everyone works together as Indians and leave their religions at the doorstep of his/her home when they step out.

The major problem is not the muslims, it is us Hindus. We need to unite first. To do that first we must know 'Who we are?'.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Hari Om!

Dear Sri Hari,

If one wishes to be a Hindu any more than being agnostic he has got to have a Hindu mindset. Dear friend our Dharma offers to humans much more than what secularism would offer to the westerners or shall I say our Dharma offers all the good that secularism stands for and much more. If anyone says that he belongs to Sanathana Dharma and more particularly a Brahmin, yet if opts for something less called secualarism then I have to pity his ignorance.

Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

I contend that the 'Hindu mindset' is no different from a true 'secular' mindset. Can you amplify your statement above, with the contradictions between these two?

Pranams,
KRS
 
Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

Your statement:

"If one wishes to be a Hindu any more than being agnostic he has got to have a Hindu mindset. "

by the face of it does not make sense to me. I thought even atheism is accepted as a part of Hinduism!

And I do not know that there is a theological 'temple' (as opposed to a church) in Hinduism that gave out a dictat like the one above!

Can you perhaps cite a reference in our Sruthis that supports this staement of yours?

Pranams,
KRS
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri KRS,

I will try to answer your questions as I go along. Please bear with me.

Islamic Fundamentals for Hindu Dummies

Subramanian Swamy
[The writer is a former Union Law Minister]

Recently, thanks to Shri Vedantamji of the VHP, I had visited Thondi and Rasathipuram Municipalities of Ramanathapuram and Vellore districts respectively, and was truly shocked by what I saw. Both these municipalities are in Muslim majority areas, and the Local Bodies election had empowered the Muslims with their capture of the municipalities.

The Muslim--ruled municipalities have thereafter converted these areas into mini 'DarulIslams', in a Hindustan of 83% Hindus! The minority Hindu areas of the municipality were thus denied civic amenities, funds for schools, garbage clearing etc., and sent notices in Urdu. Hindus were bluntly told convert to Islam if they wanted civic facilities.

I could not believe that in South India this was possible where Hindus are actually above national average at 90 percent of the population. I know that in Kashmir valley, Muslims who are in majority have actively or passively connived in driving out half a million Hindus out of their homes and made them refugees in their own country. Temples have been demolished in the valley on a daily basis. The world could not care less. An American had once told me: "Why should we care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers?"

Such atrocities are happening not only in Kashmir, but in other parts of India as well in pockets wherever Muslims are in majority, e.g., Mau and Meerut . In pocket boroughs ofIndia thus, Darul Islam has today returned to India after two centuries. Considering that a demographic re-structuring is slowly but surely taking place, with Hindu majority shrinking everywhere, Darul Islam in pockets might indeed, like amoeba, proliferate, coalesce, and jell into a frightening national reality---unless we Hindus wake up and take corrective action now, actions for which we shall of course not get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Darul Islam is a Muslim religious concept of a land where Muslims rule, and the non-believers in Islam are termed as 'Dhimmis". The term 'Dhimmi' was coined after the Jews were crushed in Medina [Khaybar to be exact], and the defeated Jews accepted that if they did not convert to Islam, then they would accept second class status politically, culturally, and religiously. This included zero civil rights including the right to modesty of women, and the special tax jizya.

There is thus no scope for Muslims and non-Muslims uniting as equals in the political, cultural, or social system in a Darul Islam where Muslims rule. Secular order in India thus is possible only when Muslims are not in power. Thondi, Rasathipuram, and other places prove that the Muslim mind suffers from a dangerous duality---of seeking secularism when out of power and imposing a brutal demeaning theocracy for non-Muslims when in power.

It is this duality that patriotic Hindus must re-shape by modern education and other means, as also retain its demographic overwhelming majority in India . We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. 'X' represents the two trends—Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising, and intersecting in the year 2061.

The 'dhimmitude' of Jews in Medina and later in Mecca represents the beginning of religious apartheid inherent and basic to Islamic mores, and practiced long before what we saw in South Africa on the basis of colour and race, and that which became prevalent during the Islamic imperialist rule in parts of India. Hindus were dhimmis for six hundred years in those parts of India despite being a bigger majority in the country than even today. Hence, a majority is not enough. Hindus need also a Hindu mindset to be free.

In his Presidential address to the Muslim League in Lahore in 1940, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had articulated this concept of apartheid in his own inimitable way:

" To visualize Hindus and Muslims in India uniting to create a common nation is a mythical concept. It is only a fancy dream of some unawakened Hindu leaders….The truth is that Hindus and Muslims are two different civilisations…. since their thought process grow on different beliefs."



Large sections of Muslims in India then had rejected Jinnah and his concept of non-compatibility of Muslims with Hindus. But after Independence and Partition, instead of building on this rejection by many Muslims, the Nehru era saw increasing pandering precisely to the religious element that believed in this apartheid. Indira Gandhi vigorously continued this appeasement thereby nurturing the apartheid mentality of Muslim orthodoxy.

(contd.)
 
Dr. Subramanian Swamy: Islamic Fundamentals for Hindu Dummies

But the final undermining of the enlightened Muslim came when the government capitulated in the Shah Bano case. Thousands of Muslims had demonstrated on the streets demanding that the government not bring legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah Bano case but in vain. Rajiv Gandhi, I learnt later, on counsel from his Italian Catholic family, had surrendered to the hard line clerics who protested that the Supreme Court had no right to interfere and to defacto amend the Shariat, the Islamic law code. These relatives on a directive from the Vatican thought that if secular law would be applied to Muslims, it can be to the Christians too.

This was a nonsense argument of the Muslim clerics, since the Shariat had already been amended, without protest, in the criminal law of India . The Indian Penal Code represents the uniform criminal code that equally applies to all religious communities. I therefore ask the clerics: if a Muslim is caught stealing, can any court in India direct that his hand at the wrist be cut off as the Shariatprescribes ? If Muslims can accept a uniform criminal code what is the logic in rejecting the uniform civil code?

In India ,Dhimmi status for Hindus during Islamic imperialist rule has had other social implications. Defiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to convert and chose to remain Hindus, were forced to carry night soil and suffer great indignities for their women folk. Or it meant gross mental torture. Guru TeghBahadur, for example, had to see his sons sawed in half, before the pious Guru's own head was severed and displayed in public.

The debasement of Hindu society then was such that those targeted valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to convert and thus made to carry night soil, were disowned by other Hindus and declared to beasprashya or "untouchable". The ranks of the Scheduled Caste community which was not more than 1% of the population before the advent of Islam in India , swelled to 14 percent by the time Mughal rule collapsed.

Thus, today's SC community especially those who are still Hindus, consists mostly of those valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to become Muslims but preferred ostracization and ignominy in order to remain Hindus. Hindu society today should offer koti kotipranams to them for keeping theBhagwaDhwaj of Hindu religion flying even at great personal cost and misery.

I have already written enough in these columns about Hindus being under siege from Islamic fanatics and Christian proselytizers. I have suggested that we can lift this siege only if we develop a Hindu mindset, which is a four dimensional concept. But that mind must be informed, and understand why others do what they do to Hindus before we can defeat their nefarious designs. Here I suggest therefore that we Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us. In a later column I will write about the true nature of Christianity and how to combat the menace of religious conversions of Hindus.



At this juncture let me add even though I oppose conversion as violence, as Swami Dayanand Sarasvati bold wrote to the Vatican Pope, nevertheless if an Indian Muslim or Christian changes his religion to Hinduism today, I will not regard it as conversion because it is a return to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted.



Islam is not only and merely what is stated in the Koran. Islam is a trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. This trilogy defines a "true" Muslim or believer. Therefore those who sing praises of the Koran to prove that Islam is intrinsically humane, have not read the Sira and Hadith. While Koran is a compilation of revelations of Allah to Mohammed through angel Gabriel, Sira is essentially a biography of Mohammed, while Hadiths are a collection of proverbs, poems, and practices of Mohammed. Thus Islamic theology is Koran plus what the Prophet said or did. This is borne by content analysis of the trilogy. Koran has 153,000 words, while Sira has 408,000 words, and Hadith compiled by Bukharihas 338,000 words. Hence, Koran is just 17 % of Islam, while Sira and Hadith are 83% and about Prophet Mohammed.

For 13 years in Mecca , Mohammed preached the Koran and managed to convert just 150 persons. But in Medina , Mohammed did and said what is contained in Sira and Hadith. Within 10 years he became the King of Arabia, and converted 100 percent of the people who survived the sword of Islam. (contd.)

To enforce his revelations, Mohammed resorted to Jihad, which meant sacred violence as a process of spreading Islam. Holy war is just one phase of Jihad, because Jihad is a process. It is in Sira that one finds a detailed manual of the complete strategy of jihad and political dimension of Islam. Sira is about how Mohammed dealt with those who disagreed with him. In Mecca , Mohammed was conciliatory because he was in a hopeless minority. But he became completely different in Medina ,

While Koran is personal to every Muslim or believer, Sira and Hadith affect non-believers. Islam as a trilogy is obsessed with what to do with unbelievers and non-believers. Unlike Hinduism, which says not a word against non-believers, in fact says that other religions also lead to God, Islam is harsh on them, and justifies violence against them as sacred. The choice to non-believers in Islam is: convert or accept dhimmitude. Hence, the explanation for Thondi, Rasathipuram, Mau etc., and the duality in ethics practiced by Muslims everywhere. A true Muslim is Dr.Jekyll when in minority, and Mr. Hyde when in majority.


So what should we Hindus do ? First, recognize that being a pious Hindu is not enough. Hindus must unite and work to install a Hindu-minded government. If 35% of the 83% Hindus unite to vote for a party, absolute majority is attainable. If Hindu Dharma AcharyaSabha, RSS, and VHP decide to mobilize the voter to support a party that espouses an approved Hindu Agenda, then the union government is within reach through the ballot box. Second, search for those Muslims who are ready to openly and with pride declare that their ancestors were Hindus. My guess is that about 75% of Muslims will be ready to do so. These are the Muslims who can be co-opted by Hindus to fight Islamic fundamentalism. If we do not do so, then the Muslim clerics will have a free run of their fanaticism.

For this a required reading is Sri Sri Ravishankar's Hinduism & Islam: Dedicated to the People of Pakistan Who have Forgotten Their Own Roots [www.artofliving.org]. In this Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has shown how "Muslims have completely forgotten that their forefathers were Hindus, so they have every right to vedic culture". He in fact traces the pre-Islam origins of the K'aaba and many key words in Koran as of Hindu origin. Third, invest heavily in primary education to make it world class, ban the madrassas for any student below 21 years, and make Sanskrit a compulsory language for all students.
 
Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

Thank you for the long posts. Anyone who has studied Islam knows about the attributes you highlight above. This is why I said that Islam is going through upheaval and change today as the result of increased violence and as well as the search within the religion by some moderates to redefine the tenets. One head Imam of the Sharia court in Egypt, only today decreed that Muslims can change religion there without being tagged as a criminal. There is an internal debate going on also. But irrespective of that we Hindus should unite and fight for the revival of our religion. Dr. Swamy, interestingly is asking the same question we are asking in this Forum: Who are we?

Please read the following article, which gives Dr. Swamy's five point solution to the problem:

http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_061112.htm

But I thought I would paste a section of the article which amplifies on what I think true secularism should be in the Indian context. But Sri Amoorkan Ji, even this type of secularism seems to be an anethema to you:

The Second Fundamental is the paramount national need for an Enlightened Secularism resting on a Common Cultural Heritage. Since India is a land of different religious faiths, we need a concept of how people bond together and mutually accommodate their religious aspirations without conflict. He rejects the Marxist view of secularism as Aggressive Left Secularism. In this context he cites the example of Marxist M.Ps stupidly objecting to our Prime Minister lighting lamps at public functions as non-secular! Enlightened Secularism means: a) State neutrality to all religions b) Equality of all religions before Law c) Uniform laws for all religious groups to adhere to d) The majority has a special responsibility to foster harmony with minorities, but necessarily founded on the concept of mutual obligation. Minorities must thus concede majority concerns / rights as well. Secularism cannot be a one-way obligation. e) Acceptance of Sanskritization process for cultural integrity. Dr. Swami makes it clear that the State and Religion are separate. The State should enact laws which, without interfering with the essential fabric of culture and religion, integrate society and promote a national outlook. Dr Swami rightly observes that Nehru subscribed to the Marxist concept of secularism and failed to define what historical roots ought to be the part of the modern India and what was to be rejected. In the name of scientific temper, he destroyed the soul of Mother India by rejecting most of our glorious past as "obscurantism". It is on this vicious principle that he rejected the concept of a Uniform Civil Code for India.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Thank you Sri KRS for posting the link to Sri V.Sundaram's article. Sri V. Sundaram is a great Hindu. A man of excellent education and a retired IAS officer. His fabulous and voluminous article based on historical facts against the wanton destruction of Rama Sethu is a treatise in itself. His series entitled "Defaming Hindusim" is being published in Ihttp://newstodaynet.com/ and I recommend to our members of the Tamilbrahmins.com to go to that website and read them.

Dear Sri KRS, you have said: "But Sri Amoorkan Ji, even this type of secularism seems to be an anethema to you." I have said in reply to Sri Hari, "Dear friend, our Dharma offers to humans much more than what secularism would offer to the westerners or shall I say our Dharma offers all the good that secularism stands for and much more."

"Kani iruppak kaai kavarndhatru!"

Dear Sri KRS, Please, Please do not put words into my mouth. Please let me say what I have to say. If you want to speak both sides it is fine and I recognize your right. In fact I have no intention of winning an argument with you or anyone else. All I am doing is to honestly give out my opinions and if people consciously take it my purpose is served. Thank you.
 
Dear Sri Amoorkan Ji,

I did not think I 'put' words in to your mouth! This is a discussion forum and as such I am trying to fathom what you are saying - not to win a debate but to really understand what is different from Hindu Dharma and the 'enlightened' secularism that Dr. Swamy speaks of.

I have been, I thought, very cordial. I am not accusing you of anything, on the contrary, you have now couple of times said that I speak from both sides of my mouth. When you say such things, you need to elaborate on what you mean. I let it pass last time, but this time again you make such a comment.

If you do not want comments or discussions on your postings, please say so. I did not know that you did not want responses.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Dear Sri KRS,

You have said: "I have been, I thought, very cordial. I am not accusing you of anything, on the contrary, you have now couple of times said that I speak from both sides of my mouth. When you say such things, you need to elaborate on what you mean. I let it pass last time, but this time again you make such a comment.

If you do not want comments or discussions on your postings, please say so. I did not know that you did not want responses."

I would not pick up on this but let other readers form their own opinion about us.
 
"Losing my Jihadism"

Dear friends:
In the context of what is going on in this forum, I thought all of you might want to read this. This came on the Sunday Washington Post. Written by a Saudi journalist. Silver Fox
[SIZE=+2]Losing My Jihadism[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Mansour al-Nogaidan
Sunday, July 22, 2007; B01
[/SIZE]
BURAIDAH, Saudi Arabia Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther.
This is the belief I've arrived at after a long and painful spiritual journey. It's not a popular conviction -- it has attracted angry criticism, including death threats, from many sides. But it was reinforced by Sept. 11, 2001, and in the years since, I've only become more convinced that it is critical to Islam's future.
Muslims are too rigid in our adherence to old, literal interpretations of the Koran. It's time for many verses -- especially those having to do with relations between Islam and other religions -- to be reinterpreted in favor of a more modern Islam. It's time to accept that God loves the faithful of all religions. It's time for Muslims to question our leaders and their strict teachings, to reach our own understanding of the prophet's words and to call for a bold renewal of our faith as a faith of goodwill, of peace and of light.
I didn't always think this way. Once, I was one of the extremists who clung to literal interpretations of Islam and tried to force them on others. I was a jihadist.
I grew up in Saudi Arabia. When I was 16, I found myself assailed by doubts about the existence of God. I prayed to God to give me the strength to overcome them. I made a deal with Him: I would give up everything, devote myself to Him and live the way the prophet Muhammad and his companions had lived 1,400 years ago if He would rid me of my doubts.
I joined a hard-line Salafi group. I abandoned modern life and lived in a mud hut, apart from my family. Viewing modern education as corrupt and immoral, I joined a circle of scholars who taught the Islamic sciences in the classical way, just as they had been taught 1,200 years ago. My involvement with this group led me to violence, and landed me in prison. In 1991, I took part in firebombing video stores in Riyadh and a women's center in my home town of Buraidah, seeing them as symbols of sin in a society that was marching rapidly toward modernization.
Yet all the while, my doubts remained. Was the Koran really the word of God? Had it really been revealed to Muhammad, or did he create it himself? But I never shared these doubts with anyone, because doubting Islam or the prophet is not tolerated in the Muslim society of my country.
By the time I turned 26, much of the turmoil in me had abated, and I made my peace with God. At the same time, my eyes were opened to the hypocrisy of so many who held themselves out as Muslim role models. I saw Islamic judges ignoring the marks of torture borne by my prison comrades. I learned of Islamic teachers who molested their students. I heard devout Muslims who never missed the five daily prayers lying with ease to people who did not share their extremist beliefs.
In 1999, when I was working as an imam at a Riyadh mosque, I happened upon two books that had a profound influence on me. One, written by a Palestinian scholar, was about the struggle between those who deal pragmatically with the Koran and those who take it and the hadith literally. The other was a book by a Moroccan philosopher about the formation of the Arab Muslim way of thinking.
The books inspired me to write an article for a Saudi newspaper arguing that Muslims have the right to question and criticize our religious leaders and not to take everything they tell us for granted. We owe it to ourselves, I wrote, to think pragmatically if our religion is to survive and thrive.
That article landed me in the center of a storm. Some men in my mosque refused to greet me. Others would no longer pray behind me. Under this pressure, I left the mosque.
I moved to the southern city of Abha, where I took a job as a writer and editor with a newly established newspaper. I went back to leading prayers at the paper's small mosque and to writing about my evolving philosophy. After I wrote articles stressing our right as Muslims to question our Saudi clerics and their interpretations and to come up with our own, officials from the kingdom's powerful religious establishment complained, and I was banned from writing.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave new life to what I had been saying. I went back to criticizing the rote manner in which we Muslims are fed our religion. I criticized al-Qaeda's school of thought, which considers everyone who isn't a Salafi Muslim the enemy. I pointed to examples from Islamic history that stressed the need to get along with other religions. I tried to give a new interpretation to the verses that call for enmity between Muslims and Christians and Jews. I wrote that they do not apply to us today and that Islam calls for friendship among all faiths.
I lost a lot of friends after that. My old companions from the jihad felt obliged to declare themselves either with me or against me. Some preferred to cut their links to me silently, but others fought me publicly, issuing statements filled with curses and lies. Once again, the paper came under great pressure to ban my writing. And I became a favorite target on the Internet, where my writings were lambasted and labeled blasphemous.
Eventually I was fired. But by then, I had started to develop a different relationship with God. I felt that He was moving me toward another kind of belief, where all that matters is that we pray to God from the heart. I continued to pray, but I started to avoid the verses that contain violence or enmity and only used the ones that speak of God's mercy and grace and greatness. I remembered an incident in the Koran when the prophet told a Bedouin who did not know how to pray to let go of the verses and get closer to God by repeating, "God is good, God is great." Don't sweat the details, the prophet said.
I felt at peace, and no longer doubted His existence.
In December 2002, in a Web site interview, I criticized al-Qaeda and declared that some of the Friday sermons were loathsome because of their attacks against non-Muslims. Within days, a fatwa was posted online, calling me an infidel and saying that I should be killed. Once again, I felt despair at the ways of the Muslim world. Two years later, I told al-Arabiya television that I thought God loves all faithful people of different religions. That earned me a fatwa from the mufti of Saudi Arabia declaring my infidelity.
But one evening not long after that, I heard a radio broadcast of the verse of light. Even though I had memorized the Koran at 15, I felt as though I was hearing this verse for the first time. God is light, it says, the universe is illuminated by His light. I felt the verse was speaking directly to me, sending me a message. This God of light, I thought, how could He be against any human? The God of light would not be happy to see people suffer, even if they had sinned and made mistakes along the way.
I had found my Islam. And I believe that others can find it, too. But first we need a Reformation similar to the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther led against the Roman Catholic Church.
In the late 14th century, Islam had its own sort of Martin Luther. Ibn Taymiyya was an Islamic scholar from a hard-line Salafi sect who went through a spiritual crisis and came to believe that in time, God would close the gates of hell and grant all humans, regardless of their religion, entry to his everlasting paradise. Unlike Luther, however, Ibn Taymiyya never openly declared this revolutionary belief; he shared it only with a small, trusted circle of students.
Nevertheless, I find myself inspired by Luther's courageous uprising. I see what Islam needs -- a strong, charismatic personality who will lead us toward reform, and scholars who can convince Islamic communities of the need for a bold new interpretation of Islamic texts, to reconcile us with the wider world.
Mansour al-Nogaidan writes
for the Bahraini newspaper Al-Waqt.
 
Dear Sri Silverfox Ji,

Thank you for the posting. One should ask the question, how religions advance to keep up with the modern times? Every religion has to adapt to the eveolving culture of the times or it will die, however great it's brute power is at that time.

Let us examine some facts:

Judaism did not embrace Christ and so it was reduced to a minority religion in the very places its logic thrived once. They just could not accept the fact that Christ was the Messiah, written in their scriptures.

Catholicism, which over centuries ruled on the authority of the very being who was embodiment of love, had the inquisitions and tried to suppress science and worse got degenerated in to a money making operation. So Martin Luther came along.

Hinduism, who had a grand philosophy, but had the unfortunate situation of its priestly caste not taking care of an ordinary man's concern begot Buddhism - thank god that Buddha's philosophy was 'defeated' in India for various reasons - chief among them is the presence of Sri Shankara (but having some ruthless Hindu kings in your corner also helps) - and Hinduism prevailed.

Islam have not had the transformation to keep up with the modern times since Muhammed - unfortunately, they did not have a Martin Luther because the religion increased its membership by conquests very easily and because of the fundamental concept of 'Umma' (brotherhood). So they have not kept up with the modern times. Adding to this is a problem, very similar to what Hinduism faces, is that there is no central authority to speak for the religion. So it will take time for these things to work out.

Can Islam convert other folks by force any more? I doubt it. The world is too small nowadays for it to happen, as long as a country like India does not address the problem of 'pseudo' secularism she faces.

When evil starts to take over, there is always a backlash - this has been proved again and again in history. Mankind has always progressed towards enlightenment in the past, regardless of the price to be paid.

Pranams,
KRS
 
I think it would help our readers if some more relevant portions of Sri V.Sundaram's very important review on Dr. Subramanian Swamy's famous book "Hindus under Seige - the way out". So here it is.

" In this book (Hindus under Seige - The Way Out!) Dr Subramanian Swami argues that Hindu Civilization, Hindu Religion, Hindu Society, Hindu Culture, Hindu Way of Life - in short our time-honored traditions of Sanatana Dharma - are all under multi-dimensional siege today in India. The siege against Hinduism in in all spheres - religious, psychological, physical and cultural - has been described in a vivid, vital, vibrant and vigorous manner by Dr Swami. He has eloquently argued and proved that Hindus must collectively acquire a new mindset immediately on a war-footing to meet the growing challenge from the international forces of Islam, Christianity, Communism on the one hand and the domestic forces of Macaulayism, Nehruvian Secularism, Sonia's Pan-Christendom and no less Pan-Islamic Pseudo-Secularism, wedded to the cardinal objective of destruction of Hindu religion and Hindu society. Hindu society is the only significant society in the world today which presents a continuity of cultural existence and functioning since times immemorial. Most other societies known to human history - East and West, North and South - have suffered a sudden interruption and undergone a traumatic transformation in history due to the planned dastardly invasion of latter-day ideologies - Christianity, Islam and Communism. The pre-Christian, pre-Islamic and pre-Communist cultural creations of these societies are now to be met only in libraries and museums, thanks to the labors of antiquarian scholars. According to Dr Swami, Hindu society can meet the same frightful fate if there were no Hindu society to sustain it. This is the point which is not always remembered even by those who take pride in Hindu culture. If Hindus do not unite in India against the lethal forces - International and National - which are working round the clock for the destruction of Santana Dharma under the overall Generalissimo of Sonia Gandhi's UPA Government, Hindus also run the risk of perishing like the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians or the Babylonians. In his Avant-Garde book, Dr Swami has come out with radical proposals, programs and prescriptions, letting loose his well known and complete intellectual armory - the bludgeon from the platform, the rapier for a personal dispute, the entangling net and unexpected trident for the Courts of Law and a jug of clear spring water for an anxious perplexed conclave of mute and helpless Hindus.

To quote Dr Swami's brilliant words from his introduction: "Since achieving independence from colonial rule in 1947, we Indians have been unsuccessfully grappling with the following question: Who are we? This as yet unanswered question represents India's identity crisis. The failure to date to resolve this crisis has not only confused the majority but has also confounded the minorities as well in India. Without a resolution of this crisis, (which requires an explicit, clear answer to the question), the majority will never understand how to relate to the legacy of the nation. In other words, the present dysfunctional perceptional mismatch, between who we are as a people and the legacy of the nation, is behind most of the communal tension and intercommunity distrust in the country. Even in other countries such a question arises from time to time. In the United States, following relatively liberal immigration policies since 1965, the question has again arisen. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard has tried to answer this question in his new book: WHO WE ARE?

Dr Swami goes on to ask further equally relevant and pointed questions. What is India? Why are we Indians? Is India an ancient nation, a continuing civilization of thousands of years or is it a relatively recent administrative construct of British imperialists and legalized by the British House of Commons legislation, viz ; the Indian Independence Act of 1947 ? What is the core of India's ethos; Hindu, Secular, or Hindustani? And what does each mean? Citizens of India are of course not sure! That is India's identity crisis."


(contd.)
 
Dr. Subramania Swamy

Dear Amoorkan:

Very good posting on Dr. Swamy, his book, his questions..... However, does he also go on to answer the very questions he has raised? In other words, does he come up with a plan?
In my opinion, it is going to take a revolution to change the status quo. But it will never come because of the inherent lackadaisical attitude of the Indians as a whole. Just look at our brahmin community! We have been pleading for contributions (however small it is) to help out our own needy, but except a handful, nobody has bothered to send any money.
I am very discouraged, disillusioned and disheartened.
 
"Hindus under Seige - the way out" (contd.)

"Hindus under Seige - the way out" (contd.)

Unless we answer this question clearly, finally, unambiguously and authoritatively as to who we are, Indians will flounder, flip-flop and generally be devoid of healthy patriotism. This is not to suggest that any person's identity is uni-dimensional. The nature of a person's questioning mind in a pluralistic democracy makes identity a multi-dimensional concept. But a national identity dimension is an imperative for a nation to become vibrant and dynamic. What we are concerned with here is the lack of a national identity, not how to make such an identity the sole concern. When the nation is in danger, national identity must take precedence. That is what Chanakya meant by the concept of Chakravartin. Dr Swami says that the core fundamentals of our national identity, through a correct perception of our history, will help to restructure and reform our society on that basis and will make it cohesive and united. To achieve such a restructure, of course, requires a complete de-falsification of Indian history (now Arjun Singh's, Union Hindu Religion / Rights Destruction Minister (HRD), all these italics within the two brackets mine!!), rejecting that portion that has been contrived by British imperialists and their Indian compradors ( worthies like Arjun Singh ! ), to snap the linkages to our real past.

Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of States for India, sowed the seeds of Two-Nation Theory of Jinnah on 26 March, 1888 when he wrote: "I think the real danger of our rule is not now but say fifty years hence. We shall therefore break Indians into two sections holding widely different views. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened." Dr B R Ambedkar, the only true nationalist after our independence, had challenged this view as far back as 1916, when as a PhD student in Columbia University, he wrote a paper for an Anthropology Department seminar as follows: "Ethnically, all people are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian peninsula with respect to unity. It has not only geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and much more fundamental unity - the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end". Sadly and even more so badly for all truly nationalistic Indians (Hindus definitely not excluded!!), according to Dr.Manmohan Singh, Arjun Singh, Sonia Gandhi and all the known political thugs from the other political parties forming part of the utterly pernicious alliance (UPA) today in New Delhi, Sir George Hamilton was a truer patriot who fully supported the erection of communal Quota Raj of UPA Government today.

A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form.

Man does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavors, sacrifices, and devotion. Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate, for the ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, glory (by which I understand genuine glory), this is the social capital upon which one bases a national idea. To have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more these are the essential conditions for being a people. One loves in proportion to the sacrifices to which one has consented, and in proportion to the ills that one has suffered. One loves the house that one has built and that one has handed down. The Spartan Song- "We are what you were; we will be what you are" is, in its simplicity, the abridged hymn of Hindutva today.

Swami Vivekananda said: "Arise, Awake and Go Forth as Proud Hindus". This message forms the basis of Dr Swami's definition of the following five maxims which should constitute the fundamentals of Hindu Unity today:

Firstly, a Hindu, and those others who are proud of their Hindu past and origins, must know the correct history of India. They must learn the concept of India as Hindustan (not Soniastan or Secularistan!)

Secondly, according to Hindu belief, all religions equally lead to God, and not that all religions are equal in the richness of their theological content. Respecting all religions, Hindus must forcefully demand from others that such respect is a two-way obligation. Muslims and Christians shall be part of the Hindustani parivar or family only if they accept this truth and revere it.

Thirdy, Hindus must prefer to lose everything they possess rather than submit to tyranny or terrorism.

Fourthly, the Hindu must have a mindset to retaliate when attacked. The retaliation must be massive enough to deter future attacks.

Fifthly all Hindus to qualify as true Hindus must make an earnest effort to learn Sanskrit and the Devanagiri script in addition to their own mother tongue and must pledge that one day in the future, Sanskrit will be India's link language since all the main Indian languages have large percentages of their vocabulary in common with Sanskrit.

Dr Swami declares with majestic aplomb: "These five fundamentals constitute the concept of VIRAT HINDU UNITY".

The tide of Hindutva was inaugurated by Raj Narain Bose (maternal grand father of Aurobindo Ghosh) and Nav Gopal Mitra in undivided Bengal in the 19th century. Two strong currents of thoughts, ideals, and aspirations met together and strove for supremacy in Bengal in those days. One was a current of Hindu Nationalism - of the revived life, culture and ideals of the nation that had lain dormant for centuries and had been discarded as "lower and primitive" by the first batch of English-educated Hindus, especially in Bengal. The other was the current of Indo-Anglicism - the onrushing life, culture and ideals of the foreign rulers of the land, which, expressing themselves through British law and administration on the one side, and the new schools and universities on the other, threatened to swamp and drown the original culture and character of the people going back to the dawn of history.

Bankim Chandra Chatterjee offered the next milestone for those marching on the road of Hindutva by the publication of his novel Anand Mutt in 1882. Swami Vivekananda awakened the Indians and the Western world to the glorious wisdom of Hindutva. Swami Dayananda Saraswathi, founder of Arya Samaj, made us aware of our glorious Vedic heritage. Aurobindo Ghosh was another sage whose thinking enriched the philosophy of Hindutva. In 1909 he wrote: "An Indian Nationalism, largely Hindu in its spirit and traditions, because the Hindu made the land and the people and persists, by the greatness of his past, his civilization and his culture, and his invincible virility. The "Nation Idea" India never had. By this I mean the political idea of the Nation. It is a modern growth. But we had in India the cultural and spiritual idea of the Nation". This is the quintessence of Hindutva. Bal Gangadar Tilak, Vir Savarkar, Dr Hegdewar, Guruji Golwalkar have all built up this great edifice of Hindutva. Hindutva is not a word but a history. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction or a part of Hindutva or Hinduness!! Dr Subramanian Swami's new book clearly proves that our struggle for establishing a Hindu Nation based on Hindutva is a continuing movement, and not a condition; a sacred and eternal journey and not a harbor.
(contd.)
 
"Hindus under Seige - the way out" (contd.)

Let me summarize the fundamentals laid down by Dr Swami for creating a new Hindu Renaissance. The First Fundamental is the national acceptance of the concept of India as Hindustan. Hindustan does not mean that the land belongs to the Hindus. Even on that score a citizen has a claim to Hindustan by birth. In fact, whoever has lived in India, has had forefathers who were Hindus. Paradoxically, Bharat has a religious connotation, while Hindustan does not. One has to read the Vishnupurana to recognize that. Instead of calling "India that is Bharat", our constitution makers should have said "India that is Hindustan". Hindustan has to be defined as a nation of Hindus and those who accept that their ancestors are Hindus. The concept also includes refugee minorities who accept the core values of the Hindu culture and are therefore recognized as a part of the Hindu nation. In other words, Dr Swami rejects the notion of India as a multinational state as advocated by the communists and the pseudo-secularists in the Congress and other Islam-Embracing, Christianity-Coveting and Anti-Hindu political parties. Instead India, that is Hindustan, has an organic cultural core which is Hindu in character.

The Second Fundamental is the paramount national need for an Enlightened Secularism resting on a Common Cultural Heritage. Since India is a land of different religious faiths, we need a concept of how people bond together and mutually accommodate their religious aspirations without conflict. He rejects the Marxist view of secularism as Aggressive Left Secularism. In this context he cites the example of Marxist M.Ps stupidly objecting to our Prime Minister lighting lamps at public functions as non-secular! Enlightened Secularism means: a) State neutrality to all religions b) Equality of all religions before Law c) Uniform laws for all religious groups to adhere to d) The majority has a special responsibility to foster harmony with minorities, but necessarily founded on the concept of mutual obligation. Minorities must thus concede majority concerns / rights as well. Secularism cannot be a one-way obligation. e) Acceptance of Sanskritization process for cultural integrity. Dr. Swami makes it clear that the State and Religion are separate. The State should enact laws which, without interfering with the essential fabric of culture and religion, integrate society and promote a national outlook. Dr Swami rightly observes that Nehru subscribed to the Marxist concept of secularism and failed to define what historical roots ought to be the part of the modern India and what was to be rejected. In the name of scientific temper, he destroyed the soul of Mother India by rejecting most of our glorious past as "obscurantism". It is on this vicious principle that he rejected the concept of a Uniform Civil Code for India.

The Third Fundamental relates to the strategy for economic reform in a globalize world. Nehru rejected the economic programs advocated by Gandhi or Sardar Patel before independence and adopted the Soviet model. It suited the interests of two powerful vested groups within our country: One, the feudal compradors whose progeny during British rule received English education and then entered the bureaucracy through Civil Service examinations. The other group was Left-Inspired Indian intellectuals educated in the 30s and 40s in Oxford and Cambridge (the "Kim Philby" group). The latter group gave Nehru the necessary intellectual ballast, and used their friendship with Nehru, to secure posts in key points in Government, press, academic and diplomatic service in India after 1947. The economic perspective that Dr Swami advocates for National Renaissance is radically different from the other competing ideologies like Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. He whole heartedly advocates the socio-economic philosophy of Integral Humanism which was propounded by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya who had clearly foreseen the dangers of globalization and mechanical imitation of the West even in the mid 1960s, long before even the process had started. Another great intellectual Dattopant Thengadi wrote a monograph on the conflict resolution called for between market economy and Hindu human values. It is prudent to stay with the globalization process and search for ways and means to carve our own corner and niche in it. Dr Swamy advocates a new economic program to make Hindustan's participation in the globalization process, socially tolerable and morally adequate. Dr Swami makes out a strong case for a national system of education designed to empower our teeming millions with IT savvy self-employment skills, and also to develop a secular patriotic ethos that courageously resists fundamentalism and terrorism. Such an orientation will enable the country to remain focused on development issues instead of the commercial or political fortunes in perpetuity of one family called the Nehru Family!

The Fourth Fundamental has been outlined by Dr. Swami in these words: "If a market-oriented economy that fosters self-reliance in individuals and protects the weak through a safety net is ideal for renaissance, an effective National Security Doctrine in which the goal is to defend the assets of the nation and to achieve for India a polar position in the international power structure, is best suited for the country and conducive for our national renaissance". He clearly shows that the national security of a nation is a composite of the GDP, defense capability, effective and innovative population, technological capacity, national health and environmental stability. India has been lacking in collective political will during the last six decades of our independence to realize India's potential to its fullest capacity mainly because of our identity crisis. Our National Security Advisory Board is like any Rotary Club or Lion's Club, its formal structure lacking an ideological support framework and concept of national identity. By following the current TERRORISM-EMBRACING NATIONAL INSECURITY DOCTRINE of the UPA government in New Delhi, India is bound to collapse and balkanize like the USSR, Yugoslavia, Lebanon or fragments like Columbia into separate countries or areas with rampant terrorism, narcotic rackets and AIDS, stark poverty and unemployment.

The Fifth Fundamental for Dr Swami is declaring Sanskrit as the link language and Devanagiri as common script. Nothing divides our nation today more than linguistic and caste differences. After our independence, these differences have been promoted as a crucial plank of national policy by the Congress Party under Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao and now Sonia Gandhi. Dr Swami makes out a strong case for making Sanskrit the official link language of India by adducing valid reasons. In this context he refers to the recent discovery by NASA in USA about the multiple uses of Sanskrit language for computer processing in the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI). To the chagrin and dismay of all the anti-national pseudo-secularists in New Delhi, NASA has discovered that Sanskrit, the world's oldest spiritual language, is the only unambiguous spoken language on the planet.

To conclude, Hindustan must wake up to her destiny which is to revive her spiritual culture and share it for the benefit of all mankind. This requires that the intellectual elite of the county cease denigrating the soul of India in hasty and superficial attempts to be secularly stupid and modern and inhumanly humanitarian. It requires a new Hinduism that corrects the social evils of the older Hinduism while maintaining the greater spiritual basis of the eternal tradition for a new awakening to Sanatana Dharma. Such an awakening is essential not only for India but for the entire world. This in short seems to be the quintessence of Dr.Subramanian Swamis clairvoyant message to all our countrymen in his new book.

(concluded)
 
Dear Sri Silverfox,

The following article Madan L. Goel, Professor of Political Science, Florida outlines the Muslim tsunamic spread and the valiant Hindu resistance. Great eye opener.

By the way I received in the mail today about Dr.Subramaninan's talk in Manhattan slated for Aug 16 2007 and the topic is "Will India overtake China by 2025?" I am eager to find out. Just imagine how faster it will be if India can get rid of these corrupt secularists (from Sonia Maino to KK or is it MK) who suffocate the society?

Regards,

ARE HINDUS COWARDS?

That "Hindus are cowards" is a theme which has been repeated ad nauseam.
Mahatma Gandhi wrote: "Hindus are cowards and Muslims are bullies." A large
number of Hindus themselves accept this epithet. Nothing could be farther
from the truth. History does not bear out the conclusion.

A brief review of Islamic expansion is necessary.

Islam may be dated to 610 AD, when Mohammad began having conversations with
Archangel Gabriel. Mohammad's message one true God named Allah attracted a
number of followers. But the leaders of Mecca rejected his new teaching.
Conflict ensued. In 622, Mohammad was forced to flee to Medina, some 240
miles to the North. Mohammad became the leader of Medina and within a few
years felt emboldened to raid Meccan caravans. Mecca signed a treaty of
friendship and allowed Muslims to enter the city for pilgrimage. This
treaty, however, was abrogated two years later. Muhammad captured Mecca in
a bold move. He was now an unchallenged leader. By the time Mohammad died
in 632 AD at age 62, he had become the supreme figure in all of Arabia.

Muslim conquests did not stop with the death of Mohammad. Within two years,
the holy warriors attacked and conquered the two very powerful empires of
the period: Byzantium and Persia. It seemed that, armed with faith in
Allah, nothing could stop the soldiers of Islam. In 712, Arabs captured a
slice of Sindh on the frontiers of India. In 715 they took Spain after
decimating North Africa.

In less than 100 years after Mohammad's death, the Islamic rule stretched
from the frontiers of India all the way to Spain. Victories resumed after a
hiatus of three centuries. Believers captured Anatolia (Turkey) in 1071,
the throne of Delhi in 1201, and Constantinople in 1453. The Ottomans, once
established in Constantinople, took over the countries of Eastern Europe
including the Balkans. Only in 1683 did the clock turn when the Turks
failed in their siege of Vienna and retreated.

Islam's rapid rise from insignificance to vast international empire had a
touch of the miraculous. How could the Muslims have attained all this if God
was not on their side? The fabulous military victories demonstrated to the
faithful God's pleasure with their ways and displeasure with the ways of the
infidel.

Observation

Islam's conquest of India was incomplete. The South in India never fully
fell under Islam. Majority of the Indians continued being Hindu and
maintained their culture even though they labored under Islamic weight.
Contrast the situation in India with Islamic conquest of Byzantium,
Constantinople, Persia, Egypt, North Africa and Eastern Europe (Albania,
Bosnia, Kosovo, etc). Here, the local cultures and indigenous religious
groups (Pagans, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians) could not and did not
withstand Islamic pressure and they succumbed. The Berbers of North Africa
(the dominant ethnic strain in Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, etc) have
been Arabized. Africans in northern Sudan identify themselves as Arabs.

The Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul (in Beyond Belief) observed that the Arabs
were the most successful colonizers in the world. Arabic becomes a sacred
language for over a billion people. They pray while facing towards Mecca.

The failure of Islam in India was lamented by Altaf Hussein Hali
(1834-1914), who otherwise sang the praises of Islam. In his famous poem
called Mussadas, which now is a required reading in many Pakistani schools,
Hali lamented as follows. I give the lines in both Urdu and English
translation.

Voh Din e Hijazi ka bebaak bera
Nishan jis ka aksay alam me pahuncha
Mazhaam hua koi khatra no jis ka
Na Oman me thithka Na Qulzum (Red Sea) me jijhka
Kiye paar jis ne saton sumundar
Voh duba dahane me Ganga ke akar

That fearless fleet of Hijaz (Bagdad),
Whose mark reached the extreme limits of the world
Which no hesitation could obstruct
Which did not falter in the Gulf of Oman or in the Red Sea
That Hijazi fleet which spanned the seven seas
Lies shattered in the mouth of the Ganges

Allama Sir Mohammad Iqbal (1873-1938) also lamented that Hindus (Kafirs)
prospered while the Muslims were backward and poor. In his long poem Shikwa
(Complaint), Iqbal penned the following famous lines:

Tujh ko maloom hai leta thaa koi naam tera
Qavat e buzoo e Muslim ne kiya kaam tera
. . .
Qahar to yeh hai ke kafir ko mile Hur-o-qusur
Aur bichaare Muslmaan ko faqt vada i Hur


Allah, do you know that none sang your story
It is the strength of the Muslim that spread your glory . . .

The shameful thing is that Kafirs enjoy Houries in this life
But Poor Muslims have only a promise of Houries in after life

When temples and shrines were being destroyed, Hindus turned within and
produced the most lyrical devotional poetry. Mirabai, Kabir, Guru Nanak,
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Surdas, Ravidas, Tulsidas, these and many more
composed their poems during Muslim ascendancy in India. It is easier to
bring down temple walls. How do you bring down the shakti encased in
shlokas and bhajans? Who survives after 500 years? Mighty Babar or Guru
Nanak?

Hindus should give up the false notion that they succumbed miserably before
the Muslim or British colonization. Shivaji defeated a Mughal army in 1660;
Europe followed in defeating the Turks in 1683 (on 9/11/1683, mark the date)
at Vienna. India was the first country in all of Asia and Africa to throw
off the British colonial yoke in 1947. Independence in Afro-Asia followed
only after India succeeded.

Today the headlines dominate the threat from monotheistic, closed
ideologies, especially radical Islam. Quietly without firing a shot,
however, Indian ideas are resurgent in the globe. From 10 to 20 percent of
the American populace subscribe to New Thought spiritual philosophies
derived largely from Vedanta. The 21st century may well be an Indian
century, not because of India's growing economic might, but because of its
perennial philosophy.
 
Folks,

When you read above that Mahatma said "Hindus are cowards and Muslims are bullies", one needs to know the entire context of Gandhi Ji on this:

""There is no doubt in my mind that in the majority of quarrels the Hindus come out second best. But my own experience confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. I have noticed this in railway trains, on public roads, and in the quarrels which I had the privilege of settling. Need the Hindu blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies. They say that in Saharanpur the Mussalmans looted houses, broke open safes and, in one case, a Hindu woman's modesty was outraged. Whose fault was this? Mussalmans can offer no defence for the execrable conduct, it is true. But I, as a Hindu, am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying. Why did not the owners of the houses looted die in the attempt to defend their possessions? Where were the relatives of the outraged sister at the time of the outrage? Have they no account to render of themselves? My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.""

Pranams,
KRS
 
but the fact is muslim religion perse support killing in the name of Jehand. people of other faithare not allowed to live in their middle. All asian nations are not muslim nations/ But the muslims by their terror tactics and killing forced them to get converted into their religion. Afganistan, Paksitan, Bangaladesh, Malaysia etc. a re not muslim nations initially.

Muslim go to western anations to pursue their economic gains, and not to muslims nations. Unlike Hindus who also migrate to these nations, they are not integrating with the national ethos of that countries.

Muslim terrorism is major threat to world peace unity and no muslim will allow others to coexist intheir social environment. They speak of secularism when they are minorities and speak muslim hegemony when they are in minority.

Kashmir is classic case. Even after communal flare ups muslims still live in Gujarat. They have not been drivenor hounded out. But in Kashmir hinuds have been systameticall eliminated. they live like refugees intheir home land.
fault - they adhere to different faith.
 
Dear Sri Krishnaswamy Ji,

There are two aspects to your posting:

1. Islam is a major threat to world peace, because it's adherents can not integrate with other societies and will make trouble.

2. As long as they are a minority they will spew 'secularism' and will call for 'Sharia Law' once they are in majority.

Both are excellent observations, worth looking at.

1. The section of Islam that is wreaking violence in the world today, originated from a radical Imam from Saudi Arabia, which is now called wahabism. Many other Imams, especially from Egypt have borrowed from this fundamental philosophy and has turned in to a political movement in this century. The problem with Islam today is that they have not found a common ground with the modern society and they are confused. For example, in Turkey, they are secular by constitution, but there is a fundamentalist movement because of social stratification. When people are educated with 'secular' ideas, (which are usually the middle and upper classes of people in any country), they become 'secular'. But poverty attracts dogma. This is why you find the fundamentalist Islam taking root around the world (Phillipines is a good example).

Like Hinduism where Sathi, Jathis, the Thuggies and other things unsavoury were let in to the religion in the guise of authencity, so has been the concept of Jihad in Islam.

But I want to make one thing very clear: The difference between the Monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and Hinduism is very deep and can not be simply resolved. Hinduism believs that the Universe is permeated by the divine and so everything in nature posseses a soul (conciousness, including inanimate objects) whereas the Abrahamic religions looks at the man as the most advanced creation of God, seperate from Him, and the rest of the nature is there for the enjoyment and the utilization of the man.

This has created difficulties in the History. Jaudaism does not convert, so we will let them out of this discussion. But both Christianity and Islam, spread through conquests, mainly on the belief that their way is the correct way, respectively. We have a word for a 'foreigner' in our religion (Mileccha), but we would never dream of converting such a person to believe in our religion. But we know that the 'non-believers' and the 'kafirs' did not fare as good.

This basic difference in the religions is the major cause of problems in the world today. Because:

a. If you believe that you are a God's creation and He is external to you, then killing other human beings, in a 'holy war' is justified. Because you know the Truth. After all, a human being who does not know the 'Truth' is an infidel, equal to an animal.

b. There is a final Judgement day, waiting for you without any concept of transmigaration of the soul, viz., Reincarnation.

The problem with these theories in all of the three Abrahamic religions I have mentioned above is that, their Mystics (comparable to our Rishis) have contradicted the above dictats. Please read Kabbalah. Christian Mysticism and Sufusm to understand this.

2. In India Hindus are the majority. Because we are so splintered on religious dogma, we do not come together as a voting block, and so we are exploited. The Hindu fundamentalists do not want to acknowledge that India is forever changed by both the Muslim and the Hindu rule. They would make the Mahathma, Sri Vivekananda Ji, the Paramahamsa or any other they deemed to speak against the 'Hinduism' they wanted to be as not valid.

If Hinduism statrs to resemble the dogmatic religions of the Abrahamic faith, in my opinion, we are lost as the Hindus. Because, Hinduism is not about a Church, but about a way of life - it is about the ancient Truth - about Sanathan Dharma.

If we, as Hindus lose this perspective as Hindus, Then I ams sorry, we are not HINDUS at all.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top