India's New Partitions
Published by Aakarsh under India on Wednesday, October 22, 2008Raj at play one more time, with the most malleable and wax-y instrument in our country - Indian Law. Do we have any country in which a political leader not only incites violence frequently, using provocative speeches, but also takes the credit for the vandalism. Raj Thackeray has a problem with everything that is non-Maharashtra. So, he and his people beat all the Non-Maharashtrians there, be it taxi-drivers or shop-keepers or vegetable-sellers. Damn the humanity and brotherhood, a self-respecting Maharashtrian should attack all the non-Maharashtrians and do whatever it takes, be it beating or flogging or killing, to drive them away from the state. And mind you, even film-stars should not be spared.
Divisive politics is something that is as old as Indian democracy (for records sake, lets assume that there is democracy) itself. Perhaps we are familiar with few sides of divisive politics, such as religion based or caste-based politics. For religion based politics, we have BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal who lead the pack, citing a reason - Hindutva. Their vision of paradise in India is not when we have adequate food with no poverty, flourishing economy and peace, but when every single Muslim/Christian etc are driven away from this country. Where to? They have no idea either. I just heard in the news that the VHP WANTS EVERY HINDU TO PERPETUATE HIS RELIGION BY BEGETTING 5 CHILDREN. Reason: The Muslim population is growing a lot and in 90 years, it would overtake Hindu population. So, the 20-30yr olds in VHP cherish the golden dream to seeing more Hindus after 90s, when they are 120yrs old. The Muslims and Christians (not all, but the fanatic sections) have a different view of paradise. They want every Indian to practice Islam/Christianity as God is only Allah/Christ and no one else. It is perfectly justified even if they realize their dream at the cost of few millions of human lives.
In Caste-based politics, i don't think i can take any specific examples as such. Because Indian political system has bred leaders..sorry, ministers and politicians solely by using caste. Apart from Money, Caste is the only backbone of Indian political system. Country's development can wait, after-all, it has been only 61years since we got independence.
A new dimension of disintegration of this country is manifested in the region related divisive politics. AP's telangana issue is an example. Raj Thackeray's issue is slightly different. He is a regional fanatic and He, with his army, don't mind playing with law. Or I should better put it as: Their mind is all about playing with Indian law openly. Where else can you see a politician who OPENLY challenges and threatens the Government, in public meetings and newspapers that Government and People will face dire consequences if they are arrested or stopped in their mission. And that, even after the High Court warns him harshly.
For the last 2 days, several parts of Bombay is burning. The riots and vandalism is against the arrest of Raj Thackeray. He was arrested after his MNS (Maharshtra NavaNirmaan Seva) army attacked/beat Non-Maharashtrians who arrived in Maharashtra to write some Railway recruitment exams. MNS rioters attacked them at the examination centres. The government immediately called for his arrest and Raj Thackeray threatened to set Bombay on fire, if he was arrested. Both happened. But amidst all this ruckus, it is the common man who seems to have suffered the most. A Non-Maharashtrian in Bombay today, shivers to step out of the house probably. He shivers even more to stay in the house, for he doesn't know who might suddenly lock the house and set it on fire. After-all it is indeed the NavaNirmaan of Maharashtra.
After sufficient damage is done (i sometimes wonder if all this is planned, i mean the 'Damage value', be it in money or count of human lives, is probably calculated and they halt the rioting once a certain 'value' is reached, something like a threshold. Indeed, we have lot of threshold), the rioting stops. The activists and supporters are given a break and are asked to attend to specific duties such as transferring bags of money from one house to another. Once that is done, the politician gets the bail and he is let out. It happens the same way with every politician, no matter what crime or in his words - 'cleansing' he commits and it happened the same to Raj Thackeray too. After he threatened the Government and showed a trailer to them, soon after his arrest, the court granted him bail, much to the joy and applause of his supporters, who will now get ready for the next command, next episode and next war. The pages are turned to fresh ones, in the lives of everyone. Politicians, Government, Law, Judiciary, Media and People, for new entertainment to be scripted.
All this game is just for the entertainment of the people in India. Like films. Political Leaders are the script-writers, film-makers and producers. their chamchas and activists are the actors. Innocent people are the villains. Journalists are the cameramen, who don't want to miss a single shot. And pages on which all these are scripted are Democracy, Law, Judiciary etc. All these are collectively entertaining us all, the people of India, by playing with the actors and villains, tearing and raping the pages. We watch the films, get moved by them, have opinions, write blogs and forget. It happens so often now, that it does not matter anymore, or we don't bother anymore, atleast with the same degree of seriousness as we did few years ago. That was new and had shock-value. Now, we Indians are shock-absorbers, of just anything.
Indians don't like anything cohesive. We claim to have fought 'divide and rule' policy and we attach a social stigma to it. But the harsh reality is that we LIKE the divide and rule concept. Indians like to be divided, by religion, then by caste, then by sub-caste, then by sect, then by sub-sect and the moment our brains fail to conceive further divisions beyond these, we pull out another discriminative ideology - Regional Self-Respect and pump up the divisive politics again. So we have a MNS. Then we will soon have a BNS (Bengal) or PNS (Punjab) or even a TNS (Telangaana) by one more power-hungry local politician. On religious politics front, taking the legacy from VHP and Bajrang Dal, India might soon have a HNS (Hindutva NavaNirmaan Seva) or INS (Islam) or CNS (Christian) forming more fire-spewing communities, which go on to contest elections and participate in vandalism simultaneously. But India will never have a BNS (Bharateeya NavaNirmaan Sena).
Now it is Maharashtra and Telangaana, later, India will disintegrate further into more localized groups characterized by region or language or religion or caste of sect or occupation...the list is endless. One partition is already a red blotch in our history. These partitions will script more. The only difference is that we were sensitive to 1947 partition and it might not be the same in future partitions that are to come. These new partitions would be viewed merely as disintegrations. But then, disintegration outside is just a manifestation of the disintegration inside... of an Indian mind, heart and soul.
12 comments:
:)mmm!!! yummy! But unfortunately, I would be travelling tonight. Perhaps I can feast on this one tomorrow...
Hopefully, I am still welcome on your blog.
My blog is open to all, as long as one gets the content or atleast the intent right.
Firstly, About Raj Thackeray and why whatever he is doing is not a new trend:
Raj Thackeray is a fraud. Nevertheless, the general trend is, any person who wants to be on the fasttrack to political stardom needs a genuine cause to attract the masses. Consider the following examples:
1)The LTTE--Tamizh discrimination is real in Sri Lanka, but the LTTE uses that cause and abuses human rights blatantly though suicide bombings and recruiting adolescents.
2)The Naxals--Extreme poverty is real in Telangana, and to an extent the Patwarigiri is responsible for the plight of the poor, but Naxalism is outright war against the State. Also, it ensures that private investment, and hence healthy competetion, never comes to the region so that the poor stay poor and the Naxal movement keeps going strong.
So RT has exploited the desperate situation of Marathis, regd. Rly recruitment board exams, etc etc and gave the anguish and frustration, his own violent twist.
------------------------------
About BJP being a religion-based party. This, for once, I agree, and proudly so.
Let me explain:
There are two ways for achieving equality in our country:
1) A secular state where the state has no religion and all religions are treated equally.
2) A Hindu Dharma-Rajya/Rama-Rajya.
Right now, we are following the first way. But given the Hinduism's inherent all-emcompassing nature and the Abrahamic religions' superiority complex (again, I am attacking the ideology, not the people), we are seeing a lopsided war where Hindus cant complain when others proselytise or occupy our places of worship (I just learned that the place where all these Muslim travel company busses stop near the Afzalgunj bus-stand actually belongs to a Temple nearby). Naturally, the frustration builds up. And when the bubble bursts, the media has already proven itself when it has been hammering about the "Hindu terrorists". The longer you suppress a population, the uglier it shows itself when the shit hits the fan.
On the other hand, the concept and even proven succesful history of Dharma-Rajya exists only in our Indic religion. And in such a Rajya, no one suffers, everyone prospers, no one covets, everyone is content-- all of this without any clause whatsoever regarding which religion the subjects of the state follow. Hence, I am convinced that the second way where all the world's religions find a common ground under the chhatra (Umbrella) of Dharma-Rajya is ideal for our country.
Now, I am not saying that BJP is all for such a Dharma-Rajya. It is also another political party with its own short comings. But its far far better than dynastic politics, communalisic policies, minority-appeasement, and lack of competence to tackle terrorism in any form. BJP also has a greater number of Hindu-thinking ideologues who can deliver on that promise. However, you must remember that I, along with many other Indians, will be with BJP only as long as it promises to deliver Dharma-Rajya. We cannot let some entity run away with a genuine issue like Raj in Maha!
Further:
An example of inter-faith conflict in Vaidhika dharma:
Buddhism was dead against Vedic culture. But, neither Buddists, nor Vaidhikas indulged in bloodshed. Instead, they held public debates (Yes! The USA style). And the defeated ones got converted to the other side. This was also true duing the debates between Meemaamsakaas and the Vedaantins. And thats how Sri Adi Sankara earned his foremost disciple Sureshwara, who was a Meemaasaka earlier.
We can do it even now. But there is a problem. Many of us call ourselves "agnostics" and never bother to study/investigate/enquire/understand why we do what we do, and whether whatever we follow today is correct. This is the way to learn more about ourselves, and find out whether we are right, and if you are convinced that we are, then debate with and defeat those who are out to discredit us using funded media campaigns, and establish a culture of peace and prosperity. If we do not take up this cause now using the peaceful means of open and public debate, some other violent organisation claiming to be Hindu will take it up, according to its own crude methods (and crude bombs-- The Malegoan blasts case), and not to mention the VHP comment that you mentioned.
It is unfortunate that just when our country needed vibrant open-minded Hindus who can clear off cobwebs in our most ancient cultural superstructure, we have this new breed of people who want to totally disown their very dwelling. Not cool!
So where do we go from here?
I agree with your thoughts on RT, Naxalism, LTTE etc.
Coming to the Two routes which you have envisioned, in order to achieve equality:
The 1st one - secular state - I am glad that you identified that one of the ways to achieve equality, is by having a non-religious state. After that, you said about what is happening, the lop-sided appeasement and all, which i completely agree. But kedar, the 1st statement is about "What it ought to be" and Lets call it X and subsequent views are about "what it is currently" - suppression of major population etc, Lets call it Y.I can see the gap between X & Y which is what we need to traverse.But I am not yet convinced that X is the cause of Y.I acknowledge the presence of Y,but i am not yet convinced that X is a cause of Y and that X needs to be discarded.
Point#2 You and me have a disagreement at the basic level - about BJP. You are proud about BJP, while i believe that religion is purely personal and societal (for letting things like art-forms flourish,Afterall,some of the monuments in art have borne out of humble interpretations of religion - like Carnatic Music) and Religion must not enter the political and administrative strata of a country.Well,thats my belief,we cannot proceed to argue on it since ur views are opposed.
Point#3 - Agnostics are not carefree people as you derogatorily accuse them to be.I claim to be agnostic, although I feel that I am on a constant spritual pursuit.My own spirit of enquiry has been always hyper-active(i dont even call it plain active,because for one,out of many examples: unlike many of my peers who feast on fiction,i always put Philosophy as my fav genre when it comes to reading - which makes me call me vintage/old/outdated. Nevermind :) )If a dictionary meaning of Agnostic is exactly what you wrote right after using that word there in that paragraph,please i am afraid i cant call myself agnostic too.Probably i am not-religious, despite having all the zeal and enthusiasm to read, probe and understand any doctrine,philosophy or epic.
Dharma Rajyam is what even i like india to see.But i dont trust BJP's degree of religious fanatism.
My post was about Divisive politics and i believe that all kind of divisive politics spring out of political interests.In case of BJP,their interest is Rama Rajyam instead of Dharma Rajyam (they are supposed to be synonymous,but BJP can make them antonyms).I dont trust dynasty backed parties either, because minority appeasement is again divisive politics on religious lines.For me,all belong to same breed.Just that nomenclatures vary.
Kedar! you know what baffles me.Some of the greatest manifestations or expressions of religious interpretations or faith, include dance, poetry, music, other art-forms.All such expressions of emotions such as pain, love,devotion etc have evolved into monuments in art, character, people, beauty etc. And now,today, we have religion interpreted/understood/preached/incited in such a way that it is breeding hatred and violence.This is causing a sense of disillusion.And i am not pointing at Hinduism, but at all religions.The blame of 'Who did it first' will always be there but it does not give me the solution i am seeking.Which is why i am happy seeking my religion in my privacy.And if it labels me as agnostic,so be it.
- Aakarsh
Let us start with what we agree on:
1)Subjects of a state should be governed equally
2)Religion should have no role in governance.
This is exactly what is called as Dharma-Rajya. It is for the whole world to imbibe, not just for a Hindu country.
The western brand of secularism came after centuries of hegemony of Pope and the church over every single imaginable aspect of life. The very basis of Xtianity is to grab political power. Read the history of church in Europe and you will understand why they are shit scared about bringing religion in political affairs. And the lesser said about Islam's thirst for power (not the believers, just the belief), the better.
Instead of dwelling on questions such as what is causing all these inter-faith tensions, I ask you to think about our end goal--peace and prosperity for all citizens. In this context, I invite you to meditate upon what works best with the given population of India. For this purpose, you will have to think from the standpoint of an average Indian, not someone in the infinitesimal minority like you who would keep his religion to himself. To flaunt religion and use it rally masses has been our characteristic since ages. Whether this is good or bad is not the question-- it is a given condition. The only thing you can do is to wonder about the link between this flaunting characteristic of ours and the miracle that Hinduism didnt go extinct even in the face of a thousand years of foreign imperialism.
And regarding BJP's "religious fanaticism" and "divisive politics", time will answer all questions.
"And now,today, we have religion interpreted/understood/preached/incited in such a way that it is breeding hatred and violence."
Hmm! Please refer to my earlier comment regarding public debates. If you think someone is spreading wrong information about Hinduism and inciting people to violence, confront him, atleast on your blog. And tell the world what was misquoted and what Hinduism actually preaches. I am always here to offer whatever help I can.
Agnosticism:
I still stand by what I said. However, I am extremely interested in knowing your spiritual journey.
I agree with you, on Dharma Rajyam and also about the Church and politics in Europe.My point is, So what?
and coming to:
"Instead of dwelling on questions such as what is causing all these inter-faith tensions, I ask you to think about our end goal--peace and prosperity for all citizens." - Yes, i dwell on what is the cause of the problem.Anything wrong?And end-goal has always been peace anyways. Also, my point is this: Like you said, You have always been finding fault with ideology, be it Islam or Xtianity and not the people. Fine.But my question to you is, are you harbouring a dream, like that of VHP or Bajrang Dal, to totally drive-out these religions from India? If No, then thanks for being practical. If Yes, then peace would not come even after that happens. The next level of divide will come soon (in few hundreds of years), on caste probably. So, where is the end-goal anyways?
"In this context, I invite you to meditate upon what works best with the given population of India." - Something which i already do.I dont say i have found my answers but i can atleast say that i am in quest.
"For this purpose, you will have to think from the standpoint of an average Indian, not someone in the infinitesimal minority like you who would keep his religion to himself." - You confuse me here.If i have to think (to question/analyze/probe and seek solutions) from the standpoint of average Indian,then i have to be neutral and not bring in my personal religion firstly.I dont see why i should not keep religion to myself,in order to think like an average Indian.I mean,why is MY religion coming into picture when i am looking at world.I dont believe it should. Does being Indian mean wearing religion up the sleeve? Please dont say "thats what it has been all these years", even if it is truth. Just bcoz it has been so, i dont have to subscribe to it.
"To flaunt religion and use it rally masses has been our characteristic since ages. Whether this is good or bad is not the question" - For me,it is a question,because i dont believe in flaunting my religion,particularly after it is being identified more as 'divisive element' rather than pure 'practice' or 'way of life'.
"The only thing you can do is to wonder about the link between this flaunting characteristic of ours and the miracle that Hinduism didnt go extinct even in the face of a thousand years of foreign imperialism." - Agreed.And thats because Hinduism is by far the best religion i have seen(from neutral standpoint) and i am completely proud to be associated with it.Yet,my belief is confined to only the finest elements of it and not the ones such as fanatism,mass-rallying,blaming other religions etc, which do not interest me.Now,why they dont interest me is something i cant answer.answer would be as simple as why i dont like bitter-gourd curry or why i do not like Most of current crop telugu films.
Abt BJP - i am waiting for the time to tell.I am not totally anti-BJP dude.I am fine with BJP-minus-Religion (if it transaltes into development).i want it to form govt. next time.Now the point is: Will there be anything left in that equation or will it be as simple as 10-minus-10=0.
and last para, please read my line carefully.My statement was abt religion and not about Hinduism alone.My point is about all religions. Tell me,didnt our history or mankind lose millions of lives, for religion, be it for supporting it to death or condemning it to death? The faults lie in all religions and infact a bit more when it comes to Non-Hindu religions in India,as they are attaining(or already have) fanatical tones.My only point is that i am not the one who believes that the only solution is in Hinduism also attaining fanatical tones.
And i dont know what you meant by 'Spiritual Journey'.Are you not engaged in the same? I think every person, who has the spirit of enquiry and reason, seeking answers to questions about himself,world,people,practices,nature,attachments,detachments,religion,faith,belief, and many other such elements is on such a journey.Dont u have such questions?
And i am surprised that you are so flippant about agnosticism.As i said,the religion i practice oscillates between Hindusim and agnosticism.Hinduism,when i need to take the finer elements of it and agnosticism when i have questions and more questions and when i am trying to know things.probaby my agnosticism is preserving my hinduism, preventing it from becoming fanatism.
Kedar,you and me have disagreements at the fundamental level, on the very nature of how we perceive religion and how much we consume it and for what, where do we place it in our lives, although our end-goals seem to be same, as you rightly said.and the difference is probably because of interests.Hinduism is probably your passion while it is a personal practice for me.Thats why we have different ways of looking at things.
Yet,with no offence,i find discomfort when you speak derogatorily,peppered with sarcasm,about everything that is not in sync with your thoughts,opinions and practices, be it when you quote 'agnosticism' or 'spiritual journey'. Everyone has their own code of practice my friend.They not following the practices/thoughts/beliefs that you follow,in same dimension and degree, doesnt necessarily mean that they are lesser hindus or lesser enlightened or that they are totally misguided or that they are not bothered, as you accuse them to be.i appreciate your knowledge in History and religions;but lack-of-knowledge or zeal or interest in those things (as much as you have) does not need to be condemned or even lamented or even labelled as 'unfortunate' as such.Not that you said it(because you will say 'I never said that') but just that any neutral reader can sense a sort of disrespect, in your own blog or your comments (spare me the trouble of digging them out for proof), there or here, whenever you sarcastically talk about 'agnosticism', 'secularism', etc. Disagreements are fine, but treating disagreement with disrespect is not. I, for one, wouldnt indulge in that. I am merely making an observation and not asking you to change that attitude, if it comes naturally to you.
As i said, it is all about personal interests.Nothing more, Nothing less. As you said, end goals remain same, our alignments are different. So relax,lets end here before Me and You, end up on beating around the bush :)
Well we can end it right here, except, I am compelled to point out a couple of, err how do I put it, "factual inaccuracies".
Firstly, you ask, "But my question to you is, are you harbouring a dream, like that of VHP or Bajrang Dal, to totally drive-out these religions from India?"
My answer is "42". Thats because the question has the inherent assumption that "VHP or Bajrang Dal, want to totally drive-out these religions from India."
I can only hope that just like you have a channel of communication open with the Mohammedan fraternity of our nation, you also have another channel of communication with grass-root level workers of BJ and VHP. I hope you do try to know what they are trying to say first hand, instead of applying the media filter. To spare you the trouble a little bit, let me quote what Mr.Prakash Sharma, the head of Bajrang Dal said during an interview to Tehelka:
"There is the Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath issue. There was a lot of discussion with the Muslims over this. They should have understood then that no Indian Muslims have come from outside of this soil. Several generations back, everybody’s ancestors were Hindu. So Ram cannot be compared with Babur; Krishna and Shiv cannot be compared with Aurangzeb. I think the Muslims squandered a big opportunity to create an atmosphere of goodwill at that time. If they had compromised over these three things, many issues today would have lost their teeth. Of course, we can still discuss things, but do any maulvis have the guts to come out and say vande mataram is not idol worship, merely an invocation to this land, Bharatmata? Do they have the guts to say, what is the need for Islamist jihad? Do they have the guts to say, everyone should respect the Indian flag unequivocally, especially Kashmir which enjoys special status under Article 370? We are ready to meet them halfway. I am ready to invite them to offer namaaz in the most holy temple of India. Our Ram or Krishna will not mind. But do they have the guts to invite us to read the Hanuman Chalisa alongside them reading the namaaz in any of their mosques? Where is the fight? Let them widen their hearts, our hearts are not small."
To read the full interview, just click (once) on the following link:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=hub081108Muslims_widen.asp
--------------------
Secondly, you said "My statement was abt religion and not about Hinduism alone.My point is about all religions."
A noble sentiment no doubt, but since I am highly protective about the prestige of Hinduism (which is apparently at stake), please point out if and when did someone misquote from any Hindu texts and we will expose this fraud and set an example. Just tell me who it is and what exactly did he/she say.
--------------
And finally about Agnosticism and Secularism(and the wondrous ability to vacillate between Hinduism and Agnosticism), well... how can I be against something that I dont even know?? Till now, you havent given me any clear idea about what you believe in, or what you dont. Dont mistake me, like the Linux concept, it is perfectly fine in Hinduism that you make-up your own Hinduism to your thinking pattern. I myself have a personal set of beliefs. But unless you publish some of your thoughts on your blog and make them known, it is almost certain that you would be mistaken.
On a serious note, you do know that I have a blog on Vedas. Please join me and let us hone our skills on debate and philosophy backed by solid facts and figures instead of heart-rending outpourings to emotionally blackmail the other person to stop being sarcastic or else threaten stop the discussion altogether.
Personally, I would prefer the discussion to continue as long as we dont make any personal attacks on each other. And dont mind the sarcasm, its all in the game.
You said:
"I agree with you, on Dharma Rajyam and also about the Church and politics in Europe.My point is, So what?"
So the intended conclusion was that western style secularism where religion is a taboo in governance is not applicable in Indian context.
Similar problem was faced by many of the first set of western Indologists when they tried to analyse Indian philosophy. They found that unless Greeco-Roman or the Christian worlds where philosophy was completely insulted from religion, and often, a means to counter the excesses of religion, Indic philosophy, called Darshana Sastra is completely fused with other religious texts and it is impossible to differentiate the two.
This is just an example to illustrate that nothing is outside the ambit of Dharma in India. Arthasastra, a secular text, quotes several people who, we regard as Rishis (a totally religious connotation). For that matter, Mahabharata, considered a religious text has 90% of Udyoga Parva and almost half of Shanti Parva devoted to Raaja Dharma-- the teachings there have no religious context. They can be applied even now.
That religion and politics should be separate is a purely western concept. When I say "religion should have no role in governance", I mean that people should not be differentiated on the basis of religion. But at the same time, I believe in not reinventing the wheel. If some person in the past has already laid down a set of rules to govern this very nation, it makes sense for me to look them up and see if and how we can implement them now. It doesnt matter if he belonged to Hindu religion. Bhrigu Samhita, Yagyavalka Smriti, Mahabharata, etc etc all talk about Raja Dharma.
At the same the authors were revered as Vedic Rishis. So where is this desperate need to separate religion and politics in Indian context?
Even if you are a die-hard secularist, I cannot understand this reluctance to try to dig up our old Sastras and see if what they are saying makes sense now.
Kedar,
Firstly, a mere quote from a VHP head doesnt attach nobility.I mean,there are in the business,so can we call it unbiased? Still,Mr.Prakash Sharma's words are highly noble,given his party has been in the news for the reasons you know.So,if he really said that,i will defnly clap.I also agree that Muslims will not accomodate many things such as Vande Mataram etc. I agree with you sir.and my original post is about that, about every religion. So, plz dont make me a anti-Hindu or anti-VHP. I am anti-Fanatic. Please understand that.
Thanks for agreeing for once,that i have a noble thought.regarding pointing out instances,I am sorry.If i point out something,you would come back saying that it was an 'off-shoot', a repurcussion, part of a million hour movie that has been playing all along our history.We wouldnt go anywhere from there kedar.
"how can I be against something that I dont even know?? Till now, you havent given me any clear idea about what you believe in, or what you dont." -- Point#1: Thanks for agreeing that you dont know. Point#2,your comments/posts definitely reflect that you have been against agnosticism or 'secularists'.if you deny,plz ask any neutral person to read them.As i said,one neednt look down another belief system,just because it is not inync with yours.
And regarding my 'wondrous ability',well..i dont know to what i should be attributing this wondrous ability,but as i said, it keeps me away from becoming a fanatic and from having biased views.But then,why should anyone mistake my personal set of beliefs,if they are not causing any harm to anyone?Like a criminal on whom,the onus lies to disprove his crime,i dont think i committed anything wrong so that i need to publish my belief system, in order to avoid being mistaken.
I direct you back to the last paragraph of my last comment.Please drop this attitude or notion that just because you have more interest (and indulgence) in Hindusim,Puraanas,Vedas and Shastras, it doesnt mean that other small mortals like me do not have even an inkling of knowledge or inclination or interest towards the same, or that we dont appreciate them or disrespect them.Ofcourse, i am not here to have a duel with you on the knowledge-levels.
Thanks for the notes on arthaShastra, including the religious connotation-Rishis,which i presume, you were referring to great masters such as Vishalaksha and Bharadwaja.You wrote what i already know.
"When I say "religion should have no role in governance", I mean that people should not be differentiated on the basis of religion." - My point exactly.
"But at the same time, I believe in not reinventing the wheel. If some person in the past has already laid down a set of rules to govern this very nation, it makes sense for me to look them up and see if and how we can implement them now." - What makes you believe that I am not open to that.However,my question is,in the current premise,what if this 'implementation of rules' conflicts with "people should not be differentiated".
"if you are a die-hard secularist, I cannot understand this reluctance to try to dig up our old Sastras and see if what they are saying makes sense now" - I need to harp this again.Just because i have the so-called 'wondrous ability' doesnt mean that i do not have any interest in Shastras(or all related elements), as you do.I cleared this before.The sense of 'question','probe','investigate,'reason' etc are the attributes which are freely imbibable,naturally that is,by anyone and people like me or rather i,to be more specific,have the same.They are not copyrighted by vedic-learners like you right.but then,just to prove it or to 'absolve' myself before you,i dont need to proclaim my interests and knowledge-levels and intentions.Will it do if i tell you that i have utmost respect for our treatises and texts? However,since you continue to think and misinterpret my 'wondrous ability' as reluctance,i would like to assure you that my current exposure and explorations include Arthashastra(yes,the same one which quotes religious connotations too) and few Upanishads.And if it may please you more,my current reading is precisely called Brad-aranyaka Upanishad.
Now, you are not inviting me for a duel right.Obviously you know more and know it all.
Thanks for inviting me to Vedas blog.I dont mind joining it,as long as i can learn something there,without deviating from agenda, into other religions etc, like we did in this post.
My only solace lies in knowing whether you got atleast the intent, of this current post of mine, right?
and btw,My readings which i mentioned above,do constitute, if not wholly,but atleast partially, in fragments may be,- My 'Spiritual Journey' i guess.You might deny it and say that 'spiritual journey' is something different,but then,thats the way i see it.And like i said,there are several other things which constitute it.
I hope that answers a part of your question about it.
"However,my question is,in the current premise,what if this 'implementation of rules' conflicts with "people should not be differentiated"."
I have 3 questions here:
1)Have you have found something in those texts that is against 'treating all citizens equally'?
2)Is it a consistent trend (of unfair treatment of citizens) or certain portions can be eschewed and others accepted?
3)And there is always the bigger question: Do you think that the concept of Dharma as propounded by our forefathers is relevant today?
-----------------------------
"regarding pointing out instances,I am sorry.If i point out something,you would come back saying that it was an 'off-shoot', a repurcussion, part of a million hour movie that has been playing all along our history."
Thats ok. I just want to know what instance and comments by which person made you feel that it was unhindu. If the statement is actually against Dharma, there is no need to pursue it further.
------------------------
Lastly, about the Vedic blog, the actual purpose is to post something on Veda/Vedanta there and then carry on the discussion. Quite peaceful and in fact a bit lonely there, with occasional visitors. It is not about duelling and debates per se.
Request: Please formulate your response so that I can easily separate the content into information, rebuttal (of my arguments), and the emotional part.
:-D
hehehe.
this one is sardonic though!
i yam loving it!
Post a Comment