1. Does BSA or Baba Ramadev support Dar ul Uloom as a back up plan if his drive for Hindutva in BSA fails?
2. Has RSS too become secular(so called) in nature and in action? They started Andolans, but why it stopped/fazed?
Background:
Before we address these questions, we need to understand the mind-set of Hindus in India, and how that mind-set has come about. If we take a look at the state of our nation, it is not difficult to observe that:
1. Hindus think that being Secular is a great virtue, Hinduism is Secular and India is, rightly, a Secular country.
2. Non-Hindus (Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs ...) think that India is a Hindu country, but it should be a Secular country, and it is the responsibility of Hindus in India to ensure that India becomes a truly Secular country.
Contemporary History:
Let me outline a few points from my understanding of the contemporary history.
1. Mohandas, who is touted as the role model for Indians, always claimed that he was a Sanatani Hindu, and therefore arrogated himself to be the sole representative of all the Hindus, was in his actions always an appeaser of non-Hindus, especially the Muslims.
Mr. Nathuram Godse has very clearly and skillfully analyzed and presented this aspect, in his defense statement.
2. Jawahar, who was Mohandas's illegitimate intellectual child was proactively anti-traditions, and since he identified Hinduism as representing Indian tradition, he was proactively and violently anti-hindu. That he was opposed to his daughter, Indira, marrying a Muslim, is another story, but it reveals how hypocritical this man was.
3. Mr. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, perceived the plight of Hindus, as he noticed that during most riots, which were quite frequent in his times (early twentieth centuries), Muslims were aggressors and Hindus were at the receiving end.
4. Mohandas proclaimed that a typical Muslim was a brave bully while a typical Hindu was a coward.
This might well have been true, and Mr. Hedgewar rightly wanted to change the attitude of the Hindus.
5. Further, as a consequence of Jawaharian direction in education, Communists of the likes of Romila Thapar, wrote, rather rewrote a doctored history of Indian subcontinent. The whole design was to achieve mass-indoctrination of the following two points :
a. Hinduism preaches tolerance, is secular, and is open from all sides.
b. Anything in Hinduism, that is other than the above, is superstition, casteism, and sexually perverted stories.
The Mistakes:
While Jawahar was being touted as a great intellectual (phew), and Mohandas was being hoisted as the role model (huh); most Hindus sucked up to it. And as a consequence of Jawaharian education with Mohandas as the role model, the above mentioned mass-indoctrination has been eminently successful.
Hedgewar entrusted the intellectual leadership with Madhavrao Sadashivrao Golwalkar, and in my opinion, he was less than equal to the job. Notwithstanding his other insights and his spiritual-intellectual competence, he expressed, at some places, his greatest admiration for the founder of Islam. And that has been one of his greatest undoings.
In my opinion, Hedgewar is the heart (emotion) of RSS, while Golwalkar is the head (reason) of RSS. It is not difficult to appreciate that while the heart of RSS may be passable, but its head is undeniably egregious.
The Present:
Owing to the success of the evil design of the education system, most Hindus have wrong ideas and even worse suicidal tendencies regarding India as the nation.
In that sense, it is not surprising that even some of the so called leaders, be it Atal Bihari Vajpeyee or Lal Krishna Advani, exhibit such rank stupidity when it comes to the survival or security of Hindus.
Needless to add that I have skipped the mention of Congress-Prime-Ministers as most of them including the current PM and super-PM, except Lal Bahadur Shastry, have been arch traitors, and have callously betrayed the Hindu electorate, who invested their confidence in them.
The members of the RSS, as well as Baba Ramdev are the products of the same educational-ethos. So it is not surprising that they have imbibed Mohandasian and Jawaharian instincts.
The Conclusion:
In light of the above, my answers to the questions you have posed are:
1. Baba Ramdev might shamelessly surrender to the Dar ul Uloom, even if he gets the support of very large number of hindus.
2. RSS is Secular in nature and in action, because they allow their Golwalkarian head to over-ride their (hopefully) Hedgewarian heart. Thus they start with a heart, and then stop without a head.
For a given problem, in a given situation, some of the best solutions may not be possible to implement. A series of suboptimal (or non optimal) solutions could create an environment which is more difficult to conceive and implement ideal solution.
ReplyDeleteAssesing the past is important. Impersonal analysis may appear boring and irrelevant. Mistakes of Mr. Gandhi in the past should not affect us in our present decisions and future actions. Over emphasis on Gandhi is a distraction in the present discussion. Reassement of Gandhi and Congress by Sangh Parivar OR reassesment of Sangh Parivar by Voice of India (or its admirers) - both of them exhibit anger emanating from helplessness and inexperience.
sdn is making some important points, and I address them:
ReplyDeletesdn wrote:
1. There could be difficulties in implementing the optimal solutions, and could result in a situation where implementing ideal solution is even more difficult.
Sam replies:
If there were difficulties, why were those difficulties not accepted? Why were there no open debates inviting public opinion on those difficulties? Further, why were the sub-optimal solutions portrayed as the solutions?
Also, inability to foresee situations is indicative of a substantial lack of home-work on the part of those who proposed the sub-optimal solutions.
Brushing these lacunae under the carpet is too devious to be condoned.
sdn wrote:
2. Assessment and reassessment of history exhibit anger emanating from helplessness and inexperience.
Sam replies:
sdn's comment is so typical of the incorrigible side-stepper, who instead of considering the analysis, attempts to distract by concerning himself with his assumptions about the state of the mind of the analyst!
sdn wrote:
2.a Impersonal analysis may appear boring and irrelevant.
sam replies:
sdn seems to be incapable of understanding analysis and also its import. His comments emanate from his inability to face his own intellectual incompetence.
One needs to grow up, and be able to look at the past and learn from it. One must be mature enough to learn from mistakes instead of covering them up.
2.b sdn wrote:
Mistakes of Mr. Gandhi in the past should not affect us in our present decisions and future actions.
Sam replies:
Mohandas, Jawahar, and so on, may be dead, but the influence their thoughts exercise on the present is still substantial and dangerous. Owing to the intellectual incompetence and lethargy, the mistakes are not a matter of the past, rather they are being perpetrated by the failure of the system to correct itself. Those who recommend ignoring those dangers are misleading the people, and are subverting the possibility of any corrective actions.
2.c sdn wrote:
Over emphasis ... exhibit anger emanating from helplessness and inexperience.
Sam replies:
sdn's use of the phrase over emphasis while there has never been even a semblance of an emphasis on either assessment or reassessment of the said leaders and organizations show his complete ignorance.
It must be noted that the efforts of the so called inexperienced are to stall and reverse our national slide into otherwise inevitable helplessness, the helplessness which is being wrought on us by the experience of people of sdn kind.
Further, sdn's self proclaimed experience reminds me of the repartee given to a person who claimed he had thirty years' experience in politics. The experienced person was asked if he had thirty years' experience, or one year's experience repeated thirty times!
I leave it to the readers to make up their opinions, regarding the experience of the leaders.
To preserving hindu interest what we need is
ReplyDeleteforward looking outlook
what to be done next, by whom, how
constructive suggestions
proactive actions
But typically what we are seeing is
reassesment of past - where nothing is new but gaining more and more experience and expertise!
blame Nehru, Gandhi, Indira, Vajpayee, LKA and now add Golwalkar (dont talk about Namboodari pad, Charu Mujumdar, Lohia ....)
blame game - RSS blaming Congress, VoI blaming RSS, etc
skewed analysis
criticising LKA talking of Hindu ethos (Note that Manmohan singh, Gadkari, Karat and Laloo dont talk about Hindu ethos and they are not criticised)
@sdn:
ReplyDelete1. Can you please clarify what do we mean by Hindu interests?
- Is the question based on religious aspects, or the Way of Living?
2. Only Hindu interests need to be preserved?
3. Point wise some 4-5 can you mention some of the interests, so that we can discuss on them?
Why do you say HINDU WOL is not secular?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say HINDU WOL is not secular?
ReplyDelete@Ekalavya:
ReplyDeleteCan you please refer who said, Hindu WOL is not secular?
Already we have 4 people in discussion?
More than putting it like; how is Hinutva affected by past present and future, can we identify certain aspects like:
ReplyDeleteSome current needs of India and how Hindu WOL or any other WOL can really help us in formulating a solution.
We can have a problem-solution(s) pair at the end of each discussion...
We can narrow down our topic based on the discussion, even though the discussion at the start may look broader, or vague...
sdn wrote:
ReplyDelete"To preserving hindu interest what we need is forward looking outlook what to be done next, by whom, how constructive suggestions proactive actions"
Sam replies:
The attempt to understand is indeed intended to develop a proper attitude for "forward looking outlook".
sdn wrote:
"But typically what we are seeing is
reassesment of past - where nothing is new but gaining more and more experience and expertise!"
Sam replies:
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Your urgency for the "new" with no understanding of the "past" will make you proceed with a cosmetic change of the "past", making you prone to the very mistakes that you want to avoid.
sdn wrote:
"blame Nehru, Gandhi, Indira, Vajpayee, LKA and now add Golwalkar (dont talk about Namboodari pad, Charu Mujumdar, Lohia ....)
blame game - RSS blaming Congress, VoI blaming RSS, etc skewed analysis
criticising LKA talking of Hindu ethos (Note that Manmohan singh, Gadkari, Karat and Laloo dont talk about Hindu ethos and they are not criticised)
Sam replies:
Is this another trap? If I criticize you blame that I only criticize; and if I don't criticize someone you blame that I am NOT criticizing enough!
Please see my new post for that.
Eklavya wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say HINDU WOL is not secular?
Sam replies:
I am not sure, for whom is your question posed, but I am giving my take on the matter.
The main point is, what do we take as our guiding principle? Hinduism-WOL or Secularism?
And my opinion on that is: Hinduism-WOL (rather Truth Based Civilization, Sanatana Dharma, or whatever you may name it as) is the guiding principle. Whatever "secularism" emerges from that is acceptable. But Hinduism-WOL is NOT to be made subservient to Secularism of the politicians be it Nehru, Charu, or whoever that may be.
Chaatra wrote:
ReplyDeleteMore than putting it like; how is Hinutva affected by past present and future, can we identify certain aspects like:
Some current needs of India and how Hindu WOL or any other WOL can really help us in formulating a solution.
Sam replies:
So what is India for you? The geo-political entity? The confusion regarding these terms is being exploited by politicians to fool people who are leading a Hindu-WOL.
I am bothered about the needs of the people leading Hindu-WOL. If you have a larger or different India in mind, I am not the one to be asked these questions.
Chaatra wrote:
We can have a problem-solution(s) pair at the end of each discussion...
Sam replies:
Precisely. Very Good point indeed.
Presently the problem is, who are Hindu-WOL, and how can their interests be protected. We are in the process of defining terms of the discussion.
It has to be appreciated that these are complex and large issues, and before we propose a "problem-solution pair", a clear understanding of the terms has to emerge.
chaatra wrote:
We can narrow down our topic based on the discussion, even though the discussion at the start may look broader, or vague...
Sam replies:
Again a very good point. But you also need to appreciate, that to be able to ask precise questions, we need to grasp the terms, and their scope clearly. Presently we are building the fundamentals.
And you are free to define your terms, and ask your questions based on them, if you feel that that will give you specific answers.
Chaatra asked sdn:
ReplyDelete1. Can you please clarify what do we mean by Hindu interests?
- Is the question based on religious aspects, or the Way of Living?
Sam replies:
Hindu-WOL includes Hindu religious aspects as well.
Chatra asked:
2. Only Hindu interests need to be preserved?
Sam replies:
Since almost all political parties are looking after the interests of non-Hindu-WOL, and they are constantly not only undermining but also compromising the interests of Hindus, we are, in these discussions, interested in ways of preserving ONLY the interests of people leading the Hindu-WOL.
Chaatra asked:
3. Point wise some 4-5 can you mention some of the interests, so that we can discuss on them?
Sam replies:
Before we attempt to understand larger issues or interests, let me mention some obvious things:
1. Funds accumulated in Hindu temples (Vaishno Devi, Somnath, and most such historical temples, etc.) are managed by the Government of India, which uses funds donated to these temples, to subsidize religious pursuits of non-hindus. For example, subsidy for Haj travel and so on.
2. Non-Hindus can run educational institutions funded by the Government, and teach their religious principles; but Hindus can not do the same.
Do you know that yoga can not be taught in government funded schools because it is a part of wisdom in Hindu-WOL? Whereas Jihad can be taught in Madrasas, funded by government of India, because it is a part of non-Hindu religion?
3. If you make nude pictures depicting Hindu gods and goddesses, the government promises you protection. However, Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad were banned, as was the book "The Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, claiming that it hurt the sentiments of Muslims.
4. As a house-owner, if you deny tenancy to a Muslim because you want to avoid the smell of meat-cooking, you can be sued for practicing "religious discrimination"; but a Muslim can deny tenancy to a Hindu on the basis that a Hindu practices idol-worship which is against Islam.
These are important issues, but still form only the tip of the ice-berg. You could also do a google search on various sites to obtain such a list. One, for example is, given here.
There are other deeper questions which need our attention and they are:
1. Are we free to investigate, discover, understand, disseminate, and practice truth in all possible aspects and ways?
2. Are we in control of the money that we earn through our labor, or is a rogue government robbing us to appease those whose votes it purchases by appeasement.
3. Further, are the resources, traditionally owned by the people leading the Hindu-WOL, being siphoned to cater to the lust of those avowed to destroy Hindu-WOL, and the politicians who win elections by fooling the Hindus and appeasing the non-Hindus?
4. Are we being coerced to be tolerant of even those who are intolerant of us?
of late i am seeing rss v/s hjs and rss vss/voi...hjs and voi are late entrants...remember this..and dont have much intellectual background..
ReplyDelete