Fri02232018

Last updateMon, 13 Nov 2017 4am

A short and concise ‘Manifesto for a Liberal Hindu’

A short and concise

Extremely eminent intellectual and one of the greatest thinkers of our times, Sagarika Ghose had written an article asking Liberal Hindus to write their own manifesto. As her suggestions, nay, commandments are binding upon the people of this nation, I have written a short and concise Liberal Hindu Manifesto. It will help all unwashed Hindus to be liberal and intellectual like Lady Sagarika. Someday, I hope to see this manifesto enshrined in our constitution as well: 

***

WE, THE LIBERAL HINDUS OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to release a liberal manifesto, as ordered by the patron saint of liberalism, Saint Sagarika, do hereby declare that,

We may, at home, observe the Puja secretly, but on social media, we will dismiss all Hindu rituals as ‘mumbo-jumbo’. At the same time, we will visit some Dargah and click selfies with the skull-cap and dupatta over our heads.

We will, tweet about our dogs getting sick of Diwali firecrackers. We will also outrage against the Yulin dog festival and post heart-rending pictures of dogs in cages. We will also outrage against Jallikattu and write substandard blogs about how cruel the sport it. However, we will not break our silence over Eid slaughter. We will also refer to Gaurakshaks derisively, because cows are not animals worthy to be saved, except when we are talking about Jallikattu.

Read more...

Are Hindus Cowards?

Are Hindus Cowards

In the wake of Al Jazeera Channel – قناة الجزيرة الفضائية’s shameful interview of Ram Madhav RSS, where they tried to equate Narendra Modi & Hindus with ISIS, with hardly any protest from both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian Media, the question needs to be asked again:
ARE HINDUS COWARDS ?

“Muslims are bullies and Hindus cowards”, the Mahatma Gandhi once said. He may be right – at least about Hindus: there has been in the past 1400 years, since the first invasions started, very few Shivaji’s and Maharana Pratap’s to fight the bloody rule of the Moghuls, or hardly any Rani of Jhansi’s to stand against the humiliating colonial yoke of the British. If a nation’s soul is measured by the courage of its children, then India is definitely doomed: without the Sikhs, whose bravery is unparalleled in the more recent history of India, Hindus would have even lost additional land to the Muslim invaders and there would have been infinitely more massacres of Hindus by Muslims during the first weeks of Partition.

Read more...

Why 'Secularism' is not an Indian Concept

Why Secularism is not an Indian Concept

The concept of secularism was imported into India by the British. It was  a strategic tool to suppress and deny India’s quest for  independence by repeatedly asking the Indian National Congress that  was predominantly Hindu, to address the concerns of the minorities,  says Sanjeev Nayyar

Narendra Modi rattled the Congress by accusing it of hiding its inability to  govern under the burkha of secularism. This statement has once again brought the issue of  secularism into national focus.

Every leader claims to be secular. No one is asking, however, what is the  meaning of the word secular?

This article seeks to provoke thought by giving the origin of the word  secular and benchmarks, briefly, it with other countries worldwide.

The founders of the Constitution deemed it appropriate to use the concept  of secularism without spelling out its meaning. The word ‘secular’  was made part of the preamble of the Indian Constitution during the  Emergency (1975-77). However, the word was left undefined.

During the Emergency, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made the word  ‘secular’ part of the preamble of the Constitution but did not  define it. When the Janata Party came to power in 1977 an attempt was  made to define ‘secular republic’ to mean a ‘republic’ in  which there is equal respect for all religions’. The Janata  government had a majority in the Lok Sabha but was in a minority in  the Rajya Sabha where it was voted down by the Congress.

Read more...

Shades of Hindutva– Examining challenges from within and without

Shades Of Hindutva Examining  1

Hindutva, a stock of knowledge and way of life unique to Indian civilisation, is being viewed differently and is facing challenges from within and without. On January 21, M. Venkaiah Naidu, India's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, tweeted: "Feeling immensely motivated by seeing the great Hindu monk of India, Swami Vivekananda, who has taken…[the] message of Hindutva across the globe. Naidu made the comment after visiting the Vivekananda Rock Memorial in Kanyakumari. In this sense, Hindutva is seen as a universal way of life, and was presented in this meaning by Swami Vivekananda at the Chicago Parliament of the World's Religions in September, 1893. In Chicago, Vivekananda had stated: "We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true.

On January 25, Ramachandra Guha, a noted Indian historian who describes himself as a "lapsed Marxist", tweeted: "I admire aspects of Hinduism and am a Hindu too… I am opposed to Hindutva and Hindu bigotry. Guha's tweet got a rejoinder the same day from Sudhanshu S. Singh who works in the humanitarian sector: "There are no clear-cut definitions of Hinduism and Hindutva. Often people abuse Hinduism in the name of Hindutva."4 In short, Hindutva – as a way of life, as a corpus of cultural practices, as a civilisation and as a religion and spirituality – has acquired a set of contentious meanings in Indian society.

The English word "Hinduism" does not reflect it completely due to its association with "ism" which denotes "ideology."The word "Hindutva" too is not a complete translation of "Hinduism" insofar as it conveys a sense of ideology. For example, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) website views Hindutva as an ideological movement, stating:

Read more...

The Truth About Article 370

the truth

Politicians have been talking endlessly about Article 370, but many Indians still do not understand what it practically means.

It was drafted by Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Minister without portfolio in the first Union Cabinet of Nehru who felt that JK was not yet ripe for integration. Sardar Patel was so livid with the provisions of Article 370 that he had resigned on this issue.

WHAT DOES ARTICLE 370 IMPLY?

The state’s residents live under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to other Indians

Unlike other State legislative Assemblies, J&K legislature has a six-year term.

Jammu & Kashmir has two flags; a separate State flag along with the National Flag.

Read more...

A List of the 50 biggest enemies of Hindus (Dead or Alive)

A List of the 50 biggest enemies

Hindus should at least know who are their enemies. Jews have shown us that to remember, helps to make sure that atrocities do not happen again. Let us not forget that the biggest genocide ever – is that of the Hindus – which has been calculated at 100 million victims, from the Hindu Kush to the Mumbai attacks of 2006.

 This list, which is compiled without any hatred or malice, is not complete. I am counting on you to raise it to a hundred. If you think I missed someone, facebook it to me, with the name and two or three paragraphs on why you think he or she is an enemy of the Hindus.

 It would be also interesting to compile separately a list of say, the ten or twenty biggest enemies of Hindus in the US (or UK, or Canada) that could be circulated worldwide and damper the activities of these people….

 I have also made a hit parade of the ten countries that I feel are inimical to Hindus.

 HERE THE LIST:

  1. Thomas Babington, 1st Baron Macaulay. Played a major role in introducing English and western concepts to education in India. This was good and one cannot deny that English gives India an edge, say compared to China, in dealing with the West and conducting business. Yet, Macaulay had very little regard for Hindu culture and education: « all the historical information which can be collected from all the books which have been written in the Sanskrit language, is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgement used at preparatory schools in England ». Macaulay thus succeeded in fashioning a class of “brown Sahibs”, who thought and acted British. Today, much of India’s intelligentsia and Media stands proof that Macaulay succeeded: they look down on their own culture and analyse India through the western Prism
  2. Indian National Congress. Few people know that the Indian National Congress was founded on 28 December 1885 by a Britisher, A.O.Hume. Its goals were to « allow all those who work for the national (read British) good to meet each other personally, to discuss and decide of the political operations to start during the year”. And certainly, till the end of the 19th century, the Congress, who regarded British rule in India as a “divine dispensation”, was happy with criticising moderately the Government, while reaffirming its loyalty to the Crown and its faith in “liberalism” and the British innate sense of justice”!!! Real nationalist leaders like Sri Aurobindo or Tilak, were side-lined by the ‘Moderate’ Congress’. Today, we find that the British succeeded in implanting an eternal love of the ‘White’ in the Congress, witness the sycophancy around Sonia Gandhi.

Read more...

The strange irony of Indian history

The strange irony of Indian history

Indian history presents us with a delightful irony. On the one hand, most schools and colleges teach it in such offputting manner, with stale textbooks full of howlers, that most students come to hate the topic and happily erase it all from their memories the day after the exam. And on the other hand, Indian history seems to be alive and well, if we judge by the numerous historical debates that have filled the public space, from the Aryan theory to the Ayodhya issue, from the record of Aurangzeb or Tipu Sultan to pinning down the responsibility for the Partition, from “terrorism” in the Freedom Movement to Subhash Chandra Bose’s ultimate fate. That such “debates” are conducted more often through mud-slinging, if not demonization, than in a mature and civilized manner is another matter.

We also have a colourful range of scholars: At one end of the spectrum, some, dreaming of Puranic scales of time, are tempted to take Indian history millions of years into the past (or at least many thousands more than archaeology would permit), to visualize vimanas and other advanced technological devices from earliest times, and to imagine ancient India as a perfect golden age. And at the other end, scholars claiming to practise “scientific” history produce, instead, a brand heavily inflected by ill-suited imported ideologies and models, leave alone factual and methodological flaws. In between, are numerous solid, unprejudiced and meticulous historians who are passionate about the discipline; unfortunately, the wider public rarely gets to hear about them as the media can’t get desired sound bites from them .

Is this scene unique to India? By no means. Because history is at the root of the identity individuals, communities and nations choose to give themselves, it has immense bearing on current situations, and no nation escapes historical controversies. Did the Hebrews migrate from Egypt to Palestine as described in the biblical Exodus?

Read more...