A reader has blamed me for being selective in my criticisms. In particular, the reader, sdn, wrote:
To preserving hindu interest what we need is forward looking outlook what to be done next, by whom, how constructive suggestions proactive actions.
But typically what we are seeing is reassessment 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's comment has two parts.
1. That reassessment of past is incompatible with forward looking outlook.
and
2. I criticize many but not all. Specifically, I have not criticized Namboodripad, Charu Majumdar, Lohia, Manmohan and so on.
The first point is moot. If SDN is recommending that we must not look at and reassess the past, and that we must just concentrate on deciding future course of actions, one can at best sympathize with his acumen. Endless reassessment with no hint of a plan for proactive future action may merit disapproval, but censuring even a reasonable reassessment before action is downright foolhardiness.
The attempt to understand the past is indeed intended to develop a proper attitude for forward looking outlook. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Any preoccupation with an urgency for the new with no understanding of the past will result in merely a cosmetic change of the policies of the past. This will clearly precipitate in the very mistakes that we should actively want to avoid.
This partially answers why I criticize.
The second point is rather good. Even though I often clarify my stand on targets of my frequent criticism, I have never outlined a principled stand regarding my choice.
The purpose of this author is to work towards bringing about a reestablishment through reawakening of Truth Based Civilization. We have been using the terms, Sanatana Dharma, or Hindu-WOL (Hindu Way of Life) synonymously.
Mohandasian Non-violence, Jawaharian Secular State, Socialistic Affirmative-action have all been termed poisonous. Having swept all political leaders belonging to this creed in one stroke, I do not think there is any need to mention them and their follies again and again. In my opinion, they are so worthless that it is not worth criticizing them except occasionally.
Sangh Parivar and its members are a different matter. They claim to be the protectors of the Hindu interests. So, to the undiscerning, they appear quite worthy. I have also mentioned that some of their actions which spring from their heart do merit appreciation. However, their biggest shortcoming is in the cerebral domain. Despite claiming to be avowed opponents of poisonous ideologies, their words often betray implicit acceptance of the very poisonous ideas.
What can one surmise to be the fate of Hindus, if their best protagonists are so far below the necessary standards? What should one do, if not to point out this lacunae again and again, till the points sink in and understanding emerges?
Who should one criticize, if not those who lay claim on the crown of protectors of the Hindus? Is it worth wasting the critical acumen on worthless creeps, which is what Congress and Communist parties of various denominations mostly comprise of?
The need of the hour is to work towards a political scenario wherein even the Communist parties fight for always the cause of Hindus, rather than continuing in the present situation wherein the Hindutva brigade remains busy proving itself to be secular! And under these circumstance, it is only those who claim to profess Hindutva, while betraying secularism, who need to be chastised. The non-Hindutva types do not even deserve mention, except sparingly.
To preserving hindu interest what we need is forward looking outlook what to be done next, by whom, how constructive suggestions proactive actions.
But typically what we are seeing is reassessment 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's comment has two parts.
1. That reassessment of past is incompatible with forward looking outlook.
and
2. I criticize many but not all. Specifically, I have not criticized Namboodripad, Charu Majumdar, Lohia, Manmohan and so on.
The first point is moot. If SDN is recommending that we must not look at and reassess the past, and that we must just concentrate on deciding future course of actions, one can at best sympathize with his acumen. Endless reassessment with no hint of a plan for proactive future action may merit disapproval, but censuring even a reasonable reassessment before action is downright foolhardiness.
The attempt to understand the past is indeed intended to develop a proper attitude for forward looking outlook. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Any preoccupation with an urgency for the new with no understanding of the past will result in merely a cosmetic change of the policies of the past. This will clearly precipitate in the very mistakes that we should actively want to avoid.
This partially answers why I criticize.
The second point is rather good. Even though I often clarify my stand on targets of my frequent criticism, I have never outlined a principled stand regarding my choice.
The purpose of this author is to work towards bringing about a reestablishment through reawakening of Truth Based Civilization. We have been using the terms, Sanatana Dharma, or Hindu-WOL (Hindu Way of Life) synonymously.
Mohandasian Non-violence, Jawaharian Secular State, Socialistic Affirmative-action have all been termed poisonous. Having swept all political leaders belonging to this creed in one stroke, I do not think there is any need to mention them and their follies again and again. In my opinion, they are so worthless that it is not worth criticizing them except occasionally.
Sangh Parivar and its members are a different matter. They claim to be the protectors of the Hindu interests. So, to the undiscerning, they appear quite worthy. I have also mentioned that some of their actions which spring from their heart do merit appreciation. However, their biggest shortcoming is in the cerebral domain. Despite claiming to be avowed opponents of poisonous ideologies, their words often betray implicit acceptance of the very poisonous ideas.
What can one surmise to be the fate of Hindus, if their best protagonists are so far below the necessary standards? What should one do, if not to point out this lacunae again and again, till the points sink in and understanding emerges?
Who should one criticize, if not those who lay claim on the crown of protectors of the Hindus? Is it worth wasting the critical acumen on worthless creeps, which is what Congress and Communist parties of various denominations mostly comprise of?
The need of the hour is to work towards a political scenario wherein even the Communist parties fight for always the cause of Hindus, rather than continuing in the present situation wherein the Hindutva brigade remains busy proving itself to be secular! And under these circumstance, it is only those who claim to profess Hindutva, while betraying secularism, who need to be chastised. The non-Hindutva types do not even deserve mention, except sparingly.
@Samalochaka:
ReplyDeleteStmt: "The need of the hour is to work towards a political scenario wherein even the Communist parties fight for always the cause of Hindus"
1. Communism - a simple approach/philosophy what I understand is where there is no division/class of any kind.
2. Secularism - Govt. entities function/exist independently from religious aspects of the state.
[I know I am not diverting from topic, but very much req. are the below aspects of Hindu WOL]
Hindu WOL prophesizes about 4 Varnas.
And also, the Hindu religious systems have gone/crossed leaps and bounds.
Due to this we have lost the track of Varna system.
1. Intellect-Brahmin
2. Kshatriya
3. Vaishya
4. Shudra
And unfortunately when the system in early-ancient days was created for upliftment of the society, it was destroyed and adulterated.
Reasons and causes are many ranging from- profit earning by higher class, lobby for power, etc...
And now we are in Present, totally against Varna system. Then how is it possible to have Hindu WOL?
where the basis on which it is formed itself is missing and replaced by so called pseudo-secularism...
Was this Varna system really advantageous?
Or will it help us today to uplift the society to what is called a developed nation?
Or does it not?
If it is really advantageous, then what steps direct/indirect are to be taken to educate and create awareness about this philosophy?
It is conclusion of Samalochaka that Sangh Parivar is alone claiming the protection of Hindu interests. Congress was seen as representing Hindus before independence and by default it is still continuing. Congress does not (dont want to ) deny that fact. An observer can conclude that Congress is worthless and not worth criticizing them - but in fact, such a stance strengthens the default notion that it is representing Hindus.
ReplyDeleteBJP (sangh Parivar) claim that they are the sole protectors of Hindus. An observer could view them as quite worthy and focus his/her critism solely towards them. This will strengthen their claim that they are the only hope for the Hindu-WoL.
A forward looking person will not do these mistakes. What are the mistakes
1. Giving credence to BJP through crticism - indirectly approving its claim
2. Giving credence to Congress by neglecting it - not denting its default Pro Hindu image.
3. Approaching the task of preserving Hindu interests through these skewed political considerations
4. Antagonsing both Congress and BJP in the process.
Chaatra's comments are way way off the discussion.
ReplyDelete1. Communism may claim to be "class-less" but in India, they are perpetrating the stereotype that Hindu-WOL is the oppressing class, and the non-hindu-WOL is the oppressed class.
2. Secularism creates analogous trap.
Notwithstanding that Chaatra's questions are irrelevant in this discussion; I appreciate that they are important questions.
And the point that I have been making is very much related to these questions. Until now, Hindu-WOL has been consistently viewed as complete rubbish, full of problems, and useless in present times, except for those belonging to the "upper caste" who want to perpetuate their casteist hegemony and privileges.
Now, we need a "truth based" point of view. Taking Hindu-WOL as something worth exploring, worth understanding, worth pursuing, worth practicing, and worth defending.
For this to happen, we need to investigate Hindu-WOL with a view to understand rather than with an agenda to condemn.
Currently I have no expertise on Varna system, so I would refrain from commenting on that. Except that I would emphasize that I believe that "in principle" it must be a good and useful thing. However, whether all of the current practices formed the core of Hindu-WOL or Varna System is a question which needs to be properly, thoroughly, and professionally investigated.
We are concentrating on building our understanding from the basics. Bottom up!
Chaatra asks how we can have Hindu-WOL when the present is against Varna?
We need to investigate, inquire into truth and then live by the truth. Hindu-WOL will naturally emerge. We need have no fixed notion whether Varna by itself is "good" or "bad". Before we come to practical questions about Varna, our understanding of the basic skeleton of a truth based civilization has to be thorough.
In that sense, Chaatra is asking an important question, but he is jumping the gun.
SDN seems to be venting out gas. He agrees that observational evidence establishes that Congress is worthless, and yet he states that not-criticizing Congress gives it credence. Is calling Congress worthless not criticism enough?
ReplyDeleteCriticism of BJP or SP (Sangh Parivar) does not strengthen their claim that they are representing Hindus, rather it shows how HOLLOW their claim is.
I have consistently maintained that presently no political party is effectively protecting the Hindu interests. Hindus need to become aware of this, and not get fooled by the so called fake protectors. And then, the awareness must lead to the action of coming up or forming new party (parties) which work for Hindu interests.
More over, the status of any party is not fixed. For example, merely with a view to win elections, BJP may try to appease Muslims. and Congress may try to "pretend" to be pro-Hindu. In which case, BJP will have to be considered worthless, and Congress criticized.
Here, the more important point is that why have hindus been so complacent, indifferent and submissive about their own interests. Who are "we", and what are "our" interests? These are the important questions that we, as Hindus, need to address and answer truthfully and diligently. Further, we constantly need to awaken the Hindus to these follies of the political parties, and the dangers posed to them by their policies.
In particular SDN points out 4 mistakes and I address them:
SDN wrote:
1. Giving credence to BJP through crticism - indirectly approving its claim.
Sam replies:
Criticism shows the hollowness of its claim, and there is no "indirect" approval of its claim.
SDN wrote:
2. Giving credence to Congress by neglecting it - not denting its default Pro Hindu image.
Sam replies:
This point can easily be taken care of if the worthlessness of Congress is included in the introduction - headline of the blog. I guess it is SDN himself who has to facilitate this.
Congress has no default pro-Hindu image. It has always used Hindus for its defense, never as a group to be looked after.
SDN wrote:
3. Approaching the task of preserving Hindu interests through these skewed political considerations
Sam replies:
What is skewed in this? It is plain and simple. Those who are worthless are worthless, and those who claim are hollow. What is skewed in showing this fact?
SDN wrote:
4. Antagonsing both Congress and BJP in the process.
Sam replies:
Our job here is to emphasize and present facts. If it antagonizes some or many, we do not care. Those who are averse to considering truth can seek solace in sycophants, by the way, which is what most political parties in India are filled with.
@Samalochaka:
ReplyDelete1. How will I (Indian) be benefited by Hindu WOL?
2. The truth based civilization you are refering to is the civilization of what era?
- some cross points in the timeline of Indian civilization can be mentioned?
3. What aspects of Hindu WOL gives it an upper hand in India for the upliftment of the society?
@Samalochaka:
ReplyDelete1. Who do you mean by an Hindu?
2. Should he be the predecessor of a Hindu?
The questions are asked with a background:
1. why the so called leaders have to support Hindu WOL?
2. Do they really find any essence in todays' era for their practical purposes?
3. Instead of refering it as Hindu WOL why cant it be refered as Truth Based Living.
Chaatra asked:
ReplyDelete1. How will I (Indian) be benefited by Hindu WOL?
Sam replies:
You are continuing in the chicken and egg vicious circle. Please sort out the question as to who you are, and what your belief system is, and then the circle will be broken.
Chaatra asked:
2. The truth based civilization you are refering to is the civilization of what era?
- some cross points in the timeline of Indian civilization can be mentioned?
Sam replies:
Truth does not belong only to history. It belongs equally well to the present as well as the future.
At this stage, history of "Indian Civilization" is not known in any accurate, precise or comprehensive manner. Rather, it has, more often than not, been presented in a doctored, fuzzy, and fractured manner.
Chaatra asked:
3. What aspects of Hindu WOL gives it an upper hand in India for the upliftment of the society?
Sam replies:
Sir, which "society" are you talking about? And what do mean by upliftment?
If you consider that the more a society is Secular the more it has been uplifted, then I am afraid that we disagree on at least one aspect of what development means.
I have a suggestion for you. If you tried answering the questions which have posed by yourself, and share those answers here, you will be making a far more effective contribution to the discussion.
As I have repeatedly said, your questions are genuine and important, but they are premature.
XYZ asked:
ReplyDelete1. Who do you mean by an Hindu?
Sam replies:
Now you have come to the crux of the matter. "Who is a Hindu?" is the crucial question. The whole discussion on many posts in the blog is going on towards determining a correct, meaningful, and effective answer to this.
XYZ asked:
2. Should he be the predecessor of a Hindu?
Sam replies:
Did you want to say predecessor or successor? If you want to know if someone can "convert" to Hinduism, then the "practical" answer is yes. However, I have to make a clarification here using an example.
(a) Suppose we ask a question, can a person who has not been pursuing science in a conscious manner until now, start to pursue science consciously?
It is clear that the answer to the above question is YES.
(b) However, if someone asked, can a person who has not been accepting the law of Gravitation, accept it now?
Isn't it clear that the question is meaningless. For, there is no person who can "refuse" to accept the law of Gravitation. It is just that he can become "aware" or he can "understand" the law of Gravitation, and also realize that knowingly or unknowingly, whether he liked it or not, he has always been subject to law of Gravitation.
So my answer as YES to your question is in the sense of YES in (a).
XYZ asked:
The questions are asked with a background:
1. why the so called leaders have to support Hindu WOL?
Sam replies:
At a very practical level the answer is as follows. If Hindu-WOL are a group, they need their political representatives. And those undertake the responsibility of representing Hindu-WOL (the leaders) have to support those whose support they have sought in winning elections. This is what a healthy democracy is all about!
XYZ asked:
2. Do they really find any essence in todays' era for their practical purposes?
Sam replies:
Your question is ambiguous, please make its meaning clearer. Who are "they" and what are "their practical purposes"?
XYZ asked:
3. Instead of refering it as Hindu WOL why cant it be refered as Truth Based Living.
Sam replies:
This is a very good point. We are using Hindu-WOL, Sanatana Dharma, and Truth Based Civilization interchangeably. We earnestly believe that essentially they all mean the same. But if there ever were to be a conflict, in our opinion, Truth Based Civilization will eventually prevail.
The approximation runs as follows. Most people who call themselves Hindus in any meaningful way are leading (or trying to lead) a Hindu-Way-Of-Life (Hindu-WOL), which is based on, Sanatana Dharma, which in turn is the sustaining principle in Truth Based Civilization.
We have been using the terms Hindu, Hindu-WOL, Sanatana Dharma in that spirit.
1. How will I (Indian) be benefited by Hindu WOL?
ReplyDeleteSwami Vivekananda quotes about Hinduism:
"He does everything religiously;
He eats,sleeps, rises, does good things, bad things religiously
Religion is not about only following rituals, but realizing divinity within thro Adhyatmavidya"
Benefits For self:
1. To transgress the four desires of an average man:
- Dharma
- Artha
- Kama
- upto Moksha
2. To society: This is where the conflict comes, how do I define the Hindu WOL in current scenario of pseudo-secularism? How to fit in Varna system?
Varna is about labor division.
But today it is about religion based division.
If the Varna system be still existing irrespective of the religion based division,
then there are ample chances that the society will thrive in a much better way...
But for that we will have to come above pseudo-Religion, then the Varna(merit based) system is possible.
pseudo-religion: not a WOL, but groupism.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteThat Student=Chaatra both are same ;)
Sam writes:
ReplyDeleteStudent (= Chhatra?) has made a significant and genuine attempt at answering the question he had raised himself.
And Students' answers are worth mulling over and building upon.
@Student
Please elaborate your views and answer further. Thanks for this beginning.
Student wrote:
ReplyDelete"2. To society: This is where the conflict comes, how do I define the Hindu WOL in current scenario of pseudo-secularism? How to fit in Varna system?"
Sam replies:
0. Please do not worry about pseudo-seculars. Please present your perspectives candidly. If you are open to reasonable critical review, and if you can reasonably defend and articulate your views, should there be any questions, your views will be upheld.
1. It may also be necessary to adopt a litmus test to determine who a Hindu-WOL is. This is a nice point made by Student. I request you to present your answer as well.
[***General comment: here
ReplyDeleteHe implies he/she. (To avoid criticism of mentioning only he)]
I know the explaination may be very long, but anyhow I have tried to put it:
My previous post:
How to fit in Varna system?
Varna is about labor division...
Varna is a labor division.
It shows you the class in which you carry out your tasks based on merit.
The merit(for labor) that he has acquired is based on the type of knowledge he aspired and succeeded in acquiring the same.
This seems to be the best way and nobody can deny its approach.
But, in today's condition:
(Keep aside the so called pseudo religion)
We have to dwell over two basic parameters:
A> Good Merit status
B> Good Financial status of an individual.
Suppose we remove the minority, reservations etc...
Then,
An individual will be left with the above mentioned two params.
Various conditions will come based on these two params. Will post later...
Leaving to home right now ;)
@Chaatra
ReplyDeleteHow do you assign Varna to an individual? Is it based on birth, or something else?
@Chaatra
ReplyDeleteHow is a Varna assigned to a person? By birth? If it is by merit, who decides if the merit is good enough?
Q. How is a Varna assigned to a person? By birth?
ReplyDeleteA. Definitely not by Birth.
Q. If it is by merit, who decides if the merit is good enough?
B. It can be done only through rigorous selection procedures of ones' character.
- The root for the entire Varna system to be applied for an individual, the Education he/she recieves is one of the best way to judge.
Of course by discarding minorities based on religion etc...
But, as earlier mentioned:
We have to dwell over two basic parameters for evaluation:
A> Good Merit status
and
B> Good Financial status of an individual.
Whether the individual is from minority religion like Islam or from majority like Hindu (In India), only the above two aspects has to be seen...
How to formulate strategies for evaluation in Academics is another aspect and should be dealt separately.
The two factors mentioned in previous comment:
ReplyDeleteA, B
if A is true and B is true
Then surely he is able to acheive higher division
if A is false and B is true
Then he has to fall lower in division labor
if A is true and B is false
He has to be uplifted in division irrespective of his parents' class by providing ample opportunities
if A is false and B is false
Then lowest class...
This is what I meant by previous comment.
@Samalochaka:
ReplyDeletePlease atleast reply to comments...
Otherwise, we will be held up and the discussion will decay down...
I have been away from net for a while. I will resume my activities soon. Sorry about the inconvenience.
ReplyDelete