Religious vows and observances

How should vows and observances be selected?

The objectives of vows and observances are self-purification, reaping the fruits of actions and obtaining blessings for the hereafter. All these objectives can be met by service to humankind. If one were to select those vows and observances which directly benefit humankind, our society and nation and which instead of reinforcing ignorance and superstition in man further his knowledge and happiness, one can obtain this-worldly fruit of benefiting our nation and humankind and at the same time obtain blessing for the hereafter by pleasing the gods. (Samaj Chitre or portraits of society, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.2, p. 702)

Service to man is service to God

…The righteousness of yagnas (*sacrificial fire), charity and penances stems from their ability to uphold society. Man (Nar) is the ultimate manifestation of the Divine (Narayan). Which yagna, which vow, which penance other than that of serving humankind can please the gods? (1935, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 338)

Advice to women

Oh women, Hinduism will live and become victorious only if this Hindu nation lives, survives and becomes victorious. Hinduism will surely die if this Hindu nation were to die, if this Hindusthan becomes ahindusthan (lit: land of the non-Hindus). If Hindu women truly wish to observe religious vows, under the present circumstances, these have to be necessarily those that directly benefit this Hindu nation. Do such service on a regular basis! Give away riches, labour, food and if need be your honour and your very lives for this most beloved Hindu nation! That is the dharma (* righteousness) for both this world and the hereafter. Vows and observances are to be judged on this touchstone! (Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.4, p. 307)

Reinvent those vows that are based on superstitious beliefs

…Those vows that have no material benefit and are solely popularized on the basis of Puranic fables should be reinvented and given a different form. (Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.4, p. 298)

Which vows need to be observed?

…In the present circumstances, vows should directly serve the Hindu nation or humanity. They should alleviate the sufferings of the wretched and the meek. Vows should involve physical or economic hardships and should result in direct service of the nation. These are the vows that should be observed by Hindu saints and commoners. (Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.3, p. 157)

Which vows need to be discarded?

Those vows whose presiding gods and their descriptions have been rendered totally false by today’s experimental science should be discarded. In ancient times, certain incidents and lifeless objects were considered as living gods purely due to the ignorance regarding the science of creation. Those vows which were popularized merely to appease such gods should be considered worthy of rejection in the present time. (Samaj chitre or portraits of society, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol.2, p. 703)

It is foolishness to say that I shall perform Satyanarayana puja if God blesses me

(*Satyanarayana puja is performed by devout Hindus on any auspicious occasion, usually in the Hindu month of shravan. It is usually performed as thanksgiving for blessings received; story of Satyanarayana narrated by Sri Vishnu to the rishi Narada in the Reva khand of Sri Skandapurana)

To hope that God will do what is good for me; to say that I shall perform satyanarayana puja if God blesses me is downright silly and utterly false. For if it is god whom we thank for saving us from a calamity, who brought that calamity upon us in the first place? The same satyanarayana, the same god! (1934, Vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.296)

http://www.savarkar.org/en/rationalism/religious-vows-and-observances

Veer Savarkar - A legend

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, commonly known as Swatantryaveer Savarkar was a fearless freedom fighter, social reformer, writer, dramatist, poet, historian, political leader and philosopher. He remains largely unknown to the masses because of the vicious propaganda against him and misunderstanding around him that has been created over several decades. This website attempts to bring the life, thought, actions and relevance of Savarkar before a global audience.

• The first political leader to daringly set Absolute Political Independence as India's goal (1900).
• The first Indian political leader to daringly perform a bonfire of foreign (English) clothes (1905).
• The first Indian to organize a revolutionary movement for India's Independence on an international level (1906).
• The first Indian law student who was not called to the English Bar despite having passed his examination and observed the necessary formalities, for his activities to seek India's freedom from the British (1909).
• The only Indian leader whose arrest in London caused legal difficulties for British Courts and whose case is still referred to in the interpretations of the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Habeas Corpus (Rex Vs Governor of Brixton Prison, ex-parte Savarkar)
• The first Indian historian whose book on the 1857 War of Independence was proscribed by British Authorities in India even before its publication. The Governor General had asked the Postmaster General to confiscate copies of the book six months before the book was officially banned (1909).
• The first political prisoner whose daring escape and arrest on French soil became a cause celebre in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. This case was mentioned in many International Treaties at that time (1910).
• The first graduate whose degree was withdrawn by an Indian University for striving for India's freedom (1911).
• The first poet in the world who, deprived of pen and paper, composed his poems and then wrote them on the prison walls with thorns and nails, memorized ten thousand lines of his poetry for years and later transmitted them to India through his fellow-prisoners who also memorized these lines.
• The first revolutionary leader who within less than 10 years gave a death-blow to the practice of untouchability in the remote district of Ratnagiri while being interned there.
• The first Indian leader who successfully started -
  • A Ganeshotsava open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (1930).
  • Interdining ceremonies of all Hindus including ex-untouchables (1931).
  • "Patitpavan Mandir", open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (22 February 1931).
  • A cafe open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (01 May 1933).
• The first political prisoner in the world who was sentenced to Transportation for Life twice, a sentence unparalleled in the history of the British Empire.
• The first political leader to embrace death voluntarily by way of Atma Samarpan in the highest tradition of Yoga (1966).

Source: http://www.savarkar.org/en/veer-savarkar

Proselytisation in India : A Pagan's Perspective

PROSELYTISATION IN INDIA: A PAGAN'S PERSPECTIVE

KRISHEN KAK

1) Background:

A correspondent recently sent me a print-copy of Mr C.Alex Alexander's "Proselytisation in India: An Indian Christian's Perspective" (sulekha.com May 22, 2003, http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=305819) describing it as "a fair and reasonable analysis". Indeed, Mr Alexander's careful and obviously well-intentioned analysis is a treat to read, forefronting a Christianity that is affable, benign and irenic, with recommendations by him to suit. Unfortunately, and I do not question Mr Alexander's own good faith, this version of Christianity he presents is a mukhota.

I think the problem is "in the nature of the beast" itself. That a dog has slavering fangs and a waggety tail makes no difference to a mouse. Both are ends of the same dog, and the dog is in its very nature hostile to the mouse - thousands of years of evolution hasn't changed that, and here we're talking just 1500 or 1600 years (to take figures given by Mr Alexander).

I write, therefore, from the perspective of a mouse (or rat, if you prefer! - the behaviour of the dog doesn't distinguish between them). I do not go into the wider aspects of proselytisation - its ethics, commerce, politics, and violence have been elaborated by David Frawley and others (and are available on the web), and Mr Alexander himself shows he is quite aware of them. I go primarily into the validity of the distinction Mr Alexander draws between what he calls, on the one hand, Western Christianity and, on the other, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, as antithetical forms of Christianity.

And as for my zoogenic reference, well, Mr Alexander identifies Revelations with Christian fundamentalism. But that is not necessarily so, Mr Alexander, not at all so. Even the legendary and vastly popular Pat Boone (whom Mr Alexander will no doubt remember from his younger days) in what became a bestseller sang of Revelations as "A Wonderful Time Up There"! Now, Rev 13.7-8 makes quite clear that all pagans are worshippers of "the beast" who represents the Devil (Rev 13.2; 20.2), and those who are not Christians are "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" (Rev 22.15). So if this damned pagan following Rev 13.10 returns a little of the compliment, a good Christian should not take offence but should recall Matt 5.39 and turn the other cheek!. As for the canine analogy, the label "Domini Canes" (Dogs of the Lord) used to be a popular one in Europe for Christian missionaries (SR Goel, "Papacy: Its Doctrine And History",1986:45)*.

So, let's take this a step at a time.

2) Christianity is an exclusivism:

What Mr Alexander calls Abrahamic faiths are also called prophetic monotheisms or, most accurately, exclusivisms (refer NS Rajaram's excellent little 1995 monograph "Secularism: The New Mask of Fundamentalism"* for the distinguishing characteristics of an exclusivism - though he repeats the common error, as we shall see, of believing the USA takes its secularism "very seriously", p.15). Over the last 1500 years, the exclusivisms that really mattered all over the world are the three proselytising ones: Christianity, Islam, and Communism. Since we're discussing mainly the first one, I shall say "Christianity" but request you to remember it is an exclusivism, and much of what is said about it applies as well to Islam (as Mr Alexander himself notes).

The defining/canonical/identifying text of Christianity is the Bible. There are no two opinions about this, and a good Christian must subscribe to the Bible as the text of Christianity. Then, whether it is divinely-worded or humans have worded it, and how different Christians interpret different bits of it, or how many different versions there are of it is a matter internal to Christianity. It is something like the Ramayana, of which there are two dozen and more versions, but the non-pagan clubs them all as one "Hindu epic".

Whether the dog itches on its nose or its toes makes little difference to the mouse. It is the same dog.

3) The essence of Christianity:

The Bible has two parts, the Old Testament and the New, and there are no two opinions that both are integral parts of the faith and of the defining text. The Old Testament is about the Christian God (that is, God with a capital G, sometimes "Jehovah"). The New Testament is about someone called Jesus who, most emphatically, by definition, cannot be God since there is only one God, his father.

The God of Christianity, like the God of Islam, is an angry God, a vengeful God, by his own description "a jealous God", a punishing God (Exodus 20.5). Qualitatively, there is little to choose between Jehovah and Allah. Both, according to their respective texts, thirst for the blood of their nonbelievers.

Now, Jesus is variously described in Christianity as a messiah, a prophet, a messenger, the son of God, even the son of Joseph (St John 1.45), and the Son of man (St John 1.51). A holy ghost in some mysterious way impregnated a human female and Jesus was in due course born (since Mr Alexander favours analogies, we may compare Agni carrying Shiva's seed to the human Krittikas. However, all Western authorities, including Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, describe this as a myth so, by analogy, we must assume Matt 1.18 is also a myth).

A plain reading of any Bible shows it ridden with contradictions. Common through all these contradictions is a jealous God and his agency called Jesus. Both the God and the agent are to be taken on blind faith. All humans should believe in them, and this becomes the justification for proselytisation which in turn reaps a "harvest of faith" necessary to feed very powerful, expansionist, strongly hierarchical, political and business patriarchies. Those who don't - or won't - believe are threatened with a dire fate.

4) The authority of Jesus:

It is not entirely clear whether Jesus was human, after his mother, or divine, after his putative father (St John 7.42 has "the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David", which could make David the ancestor of Jehovah). Both Jesus and his mother are worshipped, though the latter has not been elevated to godhood (there are no goddesses in Christianity). Nevertheless, whether human or divine, Jesus is still not God and can never be, because there is only one God who is his father Jehovah and who is eternal. If Jesus and his father are one (St John 10.30), and Jesus was a historical figure, then in some inscrutable way Mary was impregnated by her own son to give birth to him. I mention this merely to suggest that the creation stories of the Christians are no different from those of the pagans, and if ours they call myths and our beliefs mythology (as in "Hindu mythology") so are theirs myths in a Christian mythology. Yet proselytisation requires us to believe the latter as The Truth.

Therefore, the God of Christianity, the God of the Bible, is the God of the Old Testament. By definition - he is omnipotent, omniscient, and so on - he can never be "over-ruled" by his son or by anyone else. And a good Christian must believe in this God because, by Christian definition, there is no other. Whether or not Jesus is divine, he is not God and therefore in no way can he over-rule his father who is The Only God. The final authority in Christianity, by its own logic, cannot be Jesus but is Jehovah.

Whatever the version of the Bible (and Mr Alexander makes much of this), the incontrovertible essence of all versions is that of a jealous God, and a son eternally obedient to the father ("Then answered Jesus...Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" - St John 5.19).

Even a plain reading of St John shows that Jesus is essentially a rajdoot of Jehovah, though there is much laboured effort to identify the agent with the principal (the Nicene Creed "consubstantiates" the two). The rajdoot loyally tries to present his Chakravartin Samraat as a kind, caring, loving raja - whereas the raja by his own admission is quite the contrary. Mr Alexander realizes this and tries to gloss it by describing the God of the Old Testament as "Judaic" but, pray, what other God is there of the Christians?

5) The message of Christianity:

Now let us see what this God and his son say to humans.

The Old Testament is replete with instances of Jehovah's lust for the blood of nonbelievers.

I do not know whether Jehovah has genes but if he is the father of Jesus, then Jesus has Jehovah's genes. Mr Alexander quotes verses from the Gospel according to St John to reflect the "compassion and infinite love" preached by Jesus. These must be the genes from his mother, because there are sufficient instances everywhere in the New Testament to show he really remained his father's son:

He that is not with me is against me...- Luke 11.23, Matt 12.30

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division - Luke 12.51

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword - Matt 10.34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me - Luke 19.27

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned - Mark 16.16

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved - Acts 4.12

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son - 1 John 2.22

(And even in his views of women, he took after his father - see 1Tim 2.11-15 and Koenraad Elst, "The Psychology of Prophetism", 1993:98*).

No mincing of words - Jehovah and Jesus tell us pagans in no uncertain terms what they have in store for us.

Even in St John:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God - St John 3.18

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him - St John 3.36

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins - St John 8.24. And from St John 16.7-9, it is clear that "sin" is not to believe in Christ.

St John 4.13,14; 5.22-30; 8.44 are variations on the same theme. And there are numerous similar verses elsewhere in the New Testament.

Can there be any doubt that, in Christian theory, we pagans are sinners, condemned to the wrath of God, unless we believe exclusively in Jesus/Jehovah?

6) The practice of Christianity:

Now which words of the New Testament should Christians (or for that matter, pagans) believe? The ones quoted by Mr Alexander, or the ones quoted above? And what about the Old Testament? By definition, is not the Old Testament, that has God speaking, more authoritative than the New Testament, in which his son tries to present the faith as a berceuse?

So what do Christians like Mr Alexander do? They treat the text as a menu and pick and choose (this is best exemplified in the USA in what can be called "cafetaria Christianity").

And how has Christianity dealt historically with this apparent paradox? Very shrewdly, and in the same way. It picks from the New Testament for preaching, but the Old it practises. Mr Alexander's quote of Bishop Desmond Tutu sums this up. Here is another account: "It has been said of the missionaries that when they arrived they had only the Book and we had the land; now we have the Book and they have the land.....When the missionaries arrived they fell on their knees and prayed. Then they got up, fell on the Indians, and preyed" (Vine Deloria, "Custer Died For Your Sins", University of Oklahoma Press, 1988:101).

And what should pagans do?

That there are different interpretations of Christianity is of real moment only within Christianity. There are different breeds of dogs - some are bred for their slavering fangs, others for their waggety tails. But to the mouse they are all the same species and, no matter the breed, they share the distinguishing characteristics, the jatidharma, of dogness. Whether the canines are bared, or the tail is wagged, it is a given that the dog is the enemy of the mouse, and for its survival the mouse judges dogs as evolutionary experience has taught it. By the behaviour of dogs. By the practice of Christianity. Dogs may fight each other, but a mouse is their common prey. Christians may quarrel with each other, as Mr Alexander recognizes, but the overwhelming global pagan experience of Christianity is in our extermination.

Therefore, whatever the confusions within Christianity, pagans to survive must take a murine perspective, must view Christianity as mice view a dog. Nowhere, but nowhere, in the world where the exclusivisms have conquered have they allowed significant pagan populations to survive. Nowhere in the territories of these monotheisms is there a meaningful survival of any pre-monotheism, any paganism. India is the home of the world's last major paganism, and the Domini Canes war upon us.

7) An exclusivism is a fundamentalism:

Mr Alexander refers to the "fundamentalist varieties of both Christianity and Islam". There is, in fact, no other. The monotheisms, by their own definition, are fundamentalist, are exclusivist. Their God, whether Jehovah or Allah, demands exclusivity on pain of punishment or death - "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me..." (Exodus 20.3). Canis is carnivorous, as a species hostile to all Mus. Sure, in unique situations, a mouse may frolic between a dog's paws, as the lion may lie down with the lamb, but then neither the dog nor the lion are being true to their jatidharma. From the pagan perspective, a good monotheist would be one who in effect is a bad Christian or Muslim.

Mr Alexander argues only against "religious conversions attempted through physical coercion or material inducement". But why religious conversions at all? The right to convert is not a universal human right (Arvind Sharma, MLBD Newsletter, Sept 2003:16). If pagans wish to pray to Jesus/Jehovah, the paganism does not prevent them. They need only simply do so. Why is a "conversion" needed? Not because of the pluralism, but because of the exclusivism. It is the exclusivism that requires the rejection of pluralism. It requires the pagan subscribe only to Jesus/Jehovah (or Mohammad/Allah) to the exclusion of all others. A pluralism would add the new ones, the old ones perhaps just fading away, but an exclusivism requires the formal rejection of the old ones. The old gods must be denied by the new believer. The pagan "converts" exclusively to the belief stated in the Nicene Creed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm). The Islamic equivalent is the avval kalma. The pluralism is a palimpsest, the exclusivism is an eraser. That is why all conversions by these monotheisms are violent.

"Pluralistic Indians" cannot be of "all religious faiths" because the monotheisms in their very nature are not pluralistic. Monotheists must choose between being good Indians and poor Christians/Muslims, or good Christians/Muslims - and illiberal Indians. I'm told this was recognized as far back as 1918 in Maharam vs. Emperor (AIR 1918, Allahabad, 168) - a person worshipping a Hindu god couldn't be a Christian in law. To be a Christian requires adherence exclusively to Christianity, unlike for the Hindu who can claim to be both Hindu and Christian simultaneously (a concept clarified to USCIRF on Sept 18, 2000 by Arvind Sharma, see MLBD Newsletter, March 2003).

The tail cannot deny the teeth, and the teeth require something to chew on. Converts. Even Mr Alexander recognizes this - in the Indian Orthodox Church the breakaway CMS and later what became the Mar Thoma Church were teeth asserting themselves.

8) The reality of proselytism:

Mr Alexander then has "fundamentalists of all religions". Obviously he now includes us pagans. He needs to read his Shakespeare; Shylock's famous speech that points out "The villainy you teach me, I will execute". The so-called fundamentalism of the pagans has been learnt from and is in reaction to that of the monotheisms. This is implicit in Mr Alexander's absence of surprise at the emergence of "Hindu nationalism". After centuries of a generally "sordid history" of Christianity, the last pagans are learning to fight back.

Mr Alexander recognizes the politics, the commerce, the aggression and violence of Christianity but tries to extenuate the sordidness by calling it "Western" or "Judeo-Christian" Christianity. He is wrong. Mr Alexander recognises proselytisation is violence, but he prefers not to see that it is integral to Christianity. Not Western, not Judeo-Christian, nor any other breed; it is in the nature of the beast itself - and, Mr Alexander, the beast is inherently himsak. To survive, it needs to create a global imperium managed in the name of Jesus/Jehovah by a privileged clergy. It is this reality - ("They came with the Bible in one hand and the gun in the other. First they stole gold. Then they stole the land. Then they stole souls", http://www.indigenouspeople.net/navajo.htm) - that is masked by the evangelion, the good news: "And the gospel must first be published among all nations" - Mark 13.10.

Mr Alexander himself says the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches "did not develop the same degree of fixation about proselytisation as their Western counterparts did". Please note very carefully - that notwithstanding Acts 16.6 ("...and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia") - they never repudiated, never denied proselytisation. They only did not develop it to the same degree. Mr Alexander is open to Indians demanding we be "shielded from intrusive evangelical activities through the use of democratic means" [emphasis mine]. He criticises only the means adopted to proselytise, he never questions the need or the act itself. Yet he is critical of pagans trying to save themselves (he lumps "reverse conversions" with foreign-engineered Christian evangelism/Muslim fundamentalism, and all three are "destructive to India's time-tested culture of religious tolerance"). Note how he qualifies the proselytisation by the monotheisms, but he extends no such charitable explanation to the shuddhikaran. Read and understand him carefully. Jesus is still Jehovah's son.

Mr Alexander is critical of the "militant adherents" of the exclusivisms. But a plain reading of the identifying texts of the exclusivisms reveals that the exclusivisms in their essence are militant. Their God is militant. Their history is militant. Their practice is militant. Western or Eastern. Teeth or tail. What difference does it make to the mouse? The dog remains a carnivore.

And it is not true that "religious peace prevailed there [the southwest coast of India] only because of the non-proselytising nature of the early followers of Christianity". It prevailed there because the paganism is inclusivistic (early Christians were persecuted elsewhere in the world, weren't they?) and it prevailed only till the Christian teeth had been sharpened enough to be bared, till the jatidharma could be revealed, soon after 1836 AD. Mr Alexander makes much of Indian pluralism as if it is a kumbha in which the waters of all "religions" (including Hinduism, Christianity and Islam) can mingle freely. He treats the paganism as a "religion". But the paganism itself is the kumbha, is Indian pluralism. It is not distinct from it. It is the exclusivisms that are inherently, qualitatively, and violently distinct, and their poison is corroding the kumbha.

9) The extraterritorial loyalty of the evangelists:

Mr Alexander himself notes the grave political danger to the independence and integrity of India because of "off-shore proselytisation" (implicitly, he finds nothing wrong with the on-shore kind).

The lairs of the beast are not in India. The creature's primary loyalty is extraterritorial. His own example of the Indian Orthodox Church declares this (the other churches are all foreign-based and foreign-funded anyhow). After the Mar Thoma split, the Indian Orthodox Church split again to create the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church with its extraterritorial loyalty. What is clear, even from Mr Alexander's account, is that the extent that Indian Christians (like his parents) can consider India their home is not because they are good Christians first but because they are good Indians first.

10) Minorityism:

What is "generalized bashing of minorities"? From where has this kind of religious distinction come? The paganism doesn't teach it. And who defines a minority? Both Islam and Christianity in India are indivisible parts of huge extraterritorial violently world-conquering religions. Mr Alexander himself notes the enormous Christian threat to India, with Christian mercenaries, sorry, missionaries, already spread and active all over India. The subcontinent was partitioned because of the machinations of the monotheists. Now, within India, the northeast has already been conquered by the monotheisms. So has Kashmir. Yet these are "minorities". Read the scholarly "Religious Demography of India" by A.P.Joshi, M.D.Srinivas, J.K.Bajaj of the Centre for Policy Studies, Chennai.

Which refugees from religious persecution or otherwise who found sanctuary in India needed "minority" protection to survive? And which did not flourish? Jews, Syrian Christians, Zoroastrians, Dawoodi Bohras, Ismailis, Bahais - you name them, all prospered. Why? Indian pluralism, remember? Who poured the poison of minorityism into the kumbha? Whose, Mr Alexander, is "the continuing obsession" to exploit the so-called secular "guarantee of religious freedom"?

But when these "minorities" identify themselves as part of world-dominating movements, prevalent and spreading in lands across the globe, then it is the paganism in India that needs to be protected as a "minority" because paganism survives nowhere else in the world (it has been destroyed almost everywhere else by our "minority" religions, hasn't it?). If eradicated from India, where will pagans then find a home?

Paganism is now a minority in the world. The Kashmiri Pandit pagans who've been exiled from their homeland cannot be a "minority" because officially "minority" Islam that has destroyed the KP as a pagan community refuses to agree. And, as Mr Alexander notes, Christianity expresses not one word of concern for the pagans. Instead, it seeks to fill the vacated space with its missionaries (Tariq Mir, "It's conversion time in Valley", The Indian Express, April 6, 2003). Such is our lopsided guarantee of religious freedom to the monotheisms.

11) Secularism:

Does Mr Alexander seriously believe as practicable or even remotely acceptable to Christianity and Islam (and the countries they control) the limiting of United Nations rights to the "truly secular" (whatever that means)? He seems to think "Western democracies which advocate a strict separation of church and state" are truly secular. But consider the USA, Mr Alexander's own home for over four decades. The USA may have laws that separate Church and State, but its ethos, its polity is so permeated with Judeo-Christianity that this has become there what Robert Bellah and others call "a civil religion". Judeo-Christian images and symbols are widely prevalent and the President of the USA in his public persona repeatedly invokes the blessing and support of the ("So help me...") God of the Old Testament. Mr Alexander notes the Christian rhetoric and imagery used by the US President to justify the American invasion of Iraq, and he realizes the partisan nature of USCIRF. He believes "the UN may in fact be the last best hope for mankind" and yet the so-called secular USA had no difficulty imposing its aggressive Christian will on that world body. So is the USA "truly secular"? Mr Alexander wants "the practice of one's faith should be a personal affair and of no concern to others". He should teach this first to his proselytising co-religionists.

If the Bible can be widely distributed, even in hotel rooms, why not the trishul? Like the former, the latter is only a symbol, no? The National Commission for Minorities sees no objection to the trishul (http://outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=139692). Nor does the Rajasthan High Court (http://outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=140367). Mr Alexander suggests the trishul represents or can give rise to violence. But just look at the Bible's virulence for us pagans. Mr Alexander himself shows he is aware of the staggering degree of violence the Bible actually represents. It actually teaches violence against nonbelievers. Why is he not critical of the widespread distribution of Bibles? The Bible should be banned if we are to be "truly secular", no?

No, Mr Alexander, this whole business of "minorities" and "secularism" is very tricky indeed. As I repeatedly try and show in Vicharamala, Nehruvian secularism is a curse and sarvadharma sambhava a pernicious fallacy. "Secularism" arose as a reaction and antidote to Christianity. Bharatvarsha never suffered a comparable situation. The Supreme Court recently reminded Mr Narendra Modi of his rajdharma. Is the pagan dharma the same as a monotheistic religion? Is dharma only a private matter, as Mr Alexander states "religion" should be? The whole issue of "secularism" and "religion" and the procrustean chopping of dharma to fit "religion" is another matter altogether.

12) The historicity of Jesus:

As for the historicity of Jesus, this too is a matter internal to Christianity. SR Goel provides a fascinating discussion and notes Pope Leo X admitting "It has served us well, this myth of Christ" (SR Goel, "Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression",1994:32)*. NS Rajaram updates the discussion in his "Profiles in Deception" (2000)*. If Jesus was not the historical figure he is claimed to be, then the redemption, his miracles, crucifixion and resurrection could never have happened, so that rather knocks out the "truth" of the New Testament, indeed, of Christianity. If there was no Jesus, what happens to what Mr Alexander calls "the tenets" and "the spiritual dimension of Jesus' teachings"? Who said his sayings and of what worth become they? Of what "truth" are the claims for Jesus in the Nicene Creed? And if the New Testament is myth (consider again, Mr Alexander, the description of our pagan "religious" beliefs as "myth") and, therefore, imaginary, forefronted again becomes the Old Testament God in all his angry glory.

Anyhow, for the mouse, whether the dog is domesticated or feral, it still kills mice, doesn't it?

As an aside, while on myths and historicity, Mr Alexander as a former Indian Christian may find illuminating Ishwar Sharan's "The Myth of St Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple" (1991)*.

13) Physician, heal thyself first:

Mr Alexander is surprised by "the muteness of liberal Indian Christians". He notes the "outrage" of some Hindu religious leaders to the Pope's 1999 "EccIesia in Asia". He does not tell us whether any Indian Christian religious leaders expressed outrage too. If I recall correctly, none did.

Mr Alexander hopes "liberal Indians of all faiths will debate this issue with their fundamentalist counterparts". Since when has fundamentalism been open to reason? The fundamentalists have only one objective - conversions, towards world-domination. Towards this end, all means are fair. So, for example, as we see of Christianity, love is preached and war is practised. Mr Alexander may find educative Arun Shourie's "Missionaries in India" (HarperCollins, 1997) and "Harvesting our Souls" (ASA Publications, 2000) to decide whether such debates make the slightest alteration to the monotheistic mindset and missionizing agenda. As for debates between the two monotheisms, Mr Alexander may find edifying the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent experience of Islam (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_373744,00430005.htm)

In fairness to Mr Alexander himself, his is a sensitive account, presented plausibly and sweet- reasonably, conciliatory in approach and lulling in tone. His recommendations are anodynic. But their fundamental premise is false.

I agree entirely with Mr Alexander that if Christians (like him) are concerned about the violent pagan reaction to Christianity, they should set their own homes in order - first. If "Muslim and Christian clerics must learn to tone down their assertions of monotheistic superiority", who can make them do so except their co-religionists? Yet "25 million Christians who believe in India's pluralistic tradition" cannot produce even one spokesperson to counter Mr John Dayal. Cannot? - or will not? After all, Mr Dayal and Archbishop de Lastic in "sowing seeds of discord" are only being true to Christ's injunction - Luke 12.51 and Matt 10.34 - and, since Christ was obedient to his father, this is then what Mr Alexander's own God wants of them.

If, as Mr Alexander claims, Christianity is really about wagging tails and not slavering fangs, it is not enough to write about it in a site read (I guess) mainly by pagans. Why do monotheists remind pagans of love and peace and brotherhood, and not their own aggressive fellow-monotheists? We pagans always have and are quite willing to welcome wagging tails. But the globally dominant experience of the pagans has been, and Mr Alexander seems to realize this, of slavering fangs. If there is "generalized bashing", surely this is because all dogs snarl. All churches proselytise - the difference, as Mr Alexander points out, is only of degree. After centuries of a "sordid" experience of Christianity from which "liberal" Indian Christians and their churches still have not publicly and effectively dissociated themselves, they can hardly blame the pagans for lumping all Christianity as one

14) Conclusion:

If the mice are to stop fearing the dog, at least in India, then the dog needs to be domesticated (Indianised - its home and loyalty within India) and muzzled. Its tail will still wag freely but, as Mr Alexander wisely advises, its "voice will be stifled" and, importantly for us pagans, its teeth will not bite. Mr Alexander presents his Christianity as a cuddlesome pup. But it is clear he hasn't de-fanged it. Pups grow into dogs, and then they bite.

Thr quickest, most effective way of doing this is, as Mr Alexander suggests, a uniform civil code (the domestication) and, as Mr Alexander does not suggest, a complete ban on proselytisation (so it can't bite - Israel has just done so:

http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?rpr/ChristiansUnderAttack.htm). There's also the abrogation of Art. 370, in regard to Islam.

But Christianity and Islam will never agree. And why they will not is the issue that should really concern good human beings like Mr Alexander. Because the same "why" is also why a mouse, lulled to sleep by a dog, will never wake up.

Since Christian missionaries are the Lord's Dogs, let me conclude with a piece of ancient pagan wisdom that we forget to our peril:

"You may have a dog sweated, or rubbed with musk if you choose, his tail still remains curled" (VisnuSarma,"The Pancatantra", Penguin, 1993:96).

Source: http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=560&Itemid=103

Religion, Not Caste, Behind Reservations

I request the readers to understand the facts in this article and spread the same to all your friends and relatives. The ruling coalition UPA government in Center and the minority government in TN are working together to stay in power by way of appeasing Muslims and Christians. When you vote for these anti-Hindu parties you allow your children to face the consequences of your deeds. Thanks to the author of this article.

Umashankar. K

It is a measure of the success of the Christian propaganda machinery that idiot Hindus have no threat-perception of their own. How else can we explain that notwithstanding the barbaric Crusades, Atlantic slave trade, White Christian European colonialism, the near-total extermination of the native peoples of North and South America, and the total destruction of the faiths and cultures of Native Americans, Africans and growing sections of Asians, uni-polar or bi-polar world order, the poles are always located in the Christian world, Hindus see the sword of Islam clearly but do not see or sense the Christian cancer eating into the vitals of the Hindu nation?

Horrified senior advocates of the Madras High Court who read my Plain speak column ‘Madras High Court lawyers’ mutiny – the church’s first big step’ are pressing the panic button. The idea that the Bar and judiciary has been brought to its knees by a section of lawyers espousing Tamil Eelam and that Eelam will be a Tamil Christian state, has jolted their grey cells into feverish activity. While no immediate decisive result of the brain activity is expected, at least a beginning has been made towards kindling awareness within this self-absorbed community about the simmering Tamil chauvinist political cauldron.

In all government and government-aided institutions, including institutions of politics and administration and institutions of higher learning, elevation to top posts at any level or grade is simply a matter of emerging as the senior-most worker at the right time at the end of the assembly line; unless the post happens to be a political appointment – like the Rashtrapati Bhavan, NSA, Governor of a state, Vice-Chancellor of a university or Director of the CBI. For some posts like Chief Justices of High Courts and the Supreme Court, Commissioners and Directors-General of Police, Vice-Chancellors, Directors, and Deans, a person must not only be ready at the delivery point in the assembly line but must also be on the right side of the ruling dispensation. Needless to say, stakes are very high because these posts come with power, privilege and pelf. Needless to say again, what goes into the assembly line determines what comes out of it at the end and at the top.

The writer was present at the Judicial Academy last month to depose before Justice Srikrishna who was appointed to look into events leading to February 19 in the Madras High Court. The writer and her friends were intimidated by a menacing group of lawyers who demanded that we be evicted from the premises and that we should not be allowed to depose. It is besides the matter that we refused to be intimidated but the writer had been carefully observing the hordes of lawyers who had thronged the venue; the bulk comprised Christians and anti-Hindu Dravidian Tamil chauvinists (as distinct from Tamil Hindus). This triggered the question ‘why’? Why were RC Paul Kanagaraj and a Dravidian Tamil S Prabakaran heading the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association and the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association? How did they become Presidents of these organizations?

This question demanded an urgent response because these two individuals are credited with the dubious distinction of getting the Madras and Tamil Nadu Bar to espouse a foreign policy issue (which is not the domain of the judiciary), besides celebrating a notified Christian Tamil terrorist’s birthday in the High Court premises; they are singularly responsible for paralyzing the Tamil Nadu judiciary which has worked for only ten days in this calendar year. The answer to the ‘why and how’ the state’s advocates’ associations slipped into their control is rooted in the peculiar reservations policy of successive Dravidian Tamil Nadu governments, both DMK and AIADMK. Reservations which stand at 69%, is way above the national policy of 50% reservation quota for the socially and economic non-forward castes. So far, attempts to challenge this abnormality in the courts and bring it on par with the national numbers have met with ferocious opposition from all Dravidian Tamil parties.

The Brahmins and other non-Brahmin forward castes, even if the families live in penury, are kept out of the reservation quota in higher education and government jobs. Children of economically backward temple pujaris who earn a pittance, children of socially and economically backward Brahmins who carry the dead in their community to the cremation ground, children of poverty-stricken vaidikas who do not eat two full meals in a day, are also kept out of the reservation quota regime. If a section of the Hindu forward castes are kept out of the quota regime, it would be expected that those brought into the quota spectrum would belong to the socially and economically backward ‘castes’. But is that the case? How many of us know that the ‘c’ in the OBC and MBC is not caste but ‘class’ here and ‘community’ there. Economically backward Hindus are kept out of the empowering quota regime because of their ‘caste’ but Christians and Muslims are brought into the fold in the guise of ‘class’.

The hidden face of religion behind reservations

Muslims

• Let me cite the much-acclaimed Sachar Commission report, Table 10.3
• Around 40% of all Muslims are already enjoying the benefits of reservation under the OBC quota
• The percentage of Muslims and Christians who are cornering the benefits of reservation in the BC and OBC quota vary from state to state
• West Bengal – 2.4%
• Uttar Pradesh – 62%
• Kerala, where the Muslims constitute 25% of the total state population, 99% are classified as OBCs and are claiming reservation quota
• In Tamil Nadu 93.3% Muslims have been notified as OBC by the state government in 2004-2005 whereas in 1999-2000 83% of Muslims were notified as OBC – a steep increase of 10% in just five years!

Christians

• All-India population as per 2001 Census – 2.3% or 24.2 million
• 1/3 of all Christian population is tribal. Of the remaining 2/3, around 70% claim backward status
• North-east – 5.3 million tribal Christians which is 1/4 – 1/5 of the total Christian population. The North-east Christians are all tribal people
• Orissa – 8 lakh tribal Christians
• Bihar and Jharkhand – 1.1 million tribal Christians
• Of the remaining 16 million Christians, 60-70% of all Christians in the southern states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa are notified as OBCs with percentages varying from state to state as indicated earlier
• Only 10% of all Christians in the country are not availing of any kind of reservation and these would be largely the Goan and the Syrian Christians.

Now let us look at some hard facts about the politics and religion behind reservations.

• All-India reservation – total 50%. ST 7.5%, SC 15%, OBC 27.5%.
• All-India tribal population stands at 8.2% while all-India SC population is 16.2%
• Christians constitute only 10% of the total tribal population but they corner 90% of all ST reservation quotas in higher education and government employment.
• J&K has 11% tribal population but they probably get nothing.
• Around 70% of Christians and Muslims have been brought into the quota regime as backward communities or backward classes
• There is no category called Scheduled Caste Christians or Muslims. When the church demands reservation for so-called dalit Christians and God forbid, that it may ever happen, then the church will de-notify large segments of the OBC Christian population and re-classify them as Scheduled Castes so that they can corner all the benefits of SC reservation just as they are cornering all the benefits of the ST reservation quota.

This cornering is made possible only because of the constitutional right provided to minorities to start and run educational institutions. There is a move now afoot to equate degrees obtained from Muslim madarasas to the CBSE board so that the Muslims in the OBC spectrum may be enabled to corner another major chunk of the benefits of reservation just as the Christians are doing now.

Under the Gandhi-Nehru inspired secular political dispensation, Hindu OBCs and Hindu STs are being systematically disempowered economically just as the Hindus of the country are being disempowered politically. The economic and political disempowerment of the Hindus is directly proportional to the empowerment of the two most-well-organized so-called global Abrahamic minorities.

To get back to how the likes of Paul Kanagaraj and S Prabakaran have ascended to the powerful positions they now hold, we will have to look at the face of the religions behind the Tamil Nadu reservation quota regime. Paul Kanagaraj and S Prabakaran were elected Presidents by the advocates of the Madras High Court and Tamil Nadu courts respectively. These advocates have only to be registered in the Bar; it is of no consequence that they may not have made a single appearance in the court to argue a case. The bulk of these advocates enter the courts directly from law colleges where admission to the courses is governed by Tamil Nadu’s distinctively anti-Hindu reservation policy.

What is true of admission to law colleges is true of medical colleges, engineering colleges, IITs, IIMs, and admission to all under-graduate and post-graduate courses in the Sciences and Humanities. Let us now look at the reservation quota regime in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu total 69% reservation

• 50% BC + MBC – 30% BC, 20% MBC
• 18% SC – 15% + 3% exclusively for Arundhatiyar community
• 1% for ST
• About 90% of all Muslims and Christians have been included for reservation under the 30% BC category
• 70% of all Tamil Nadu population is considered BC, a very unusual and high percentage.
• 50% of the 70% BC population is qualified for reservation.

Now let us see how this works in real terms by taking admission to medical colleges as an example. There are altogether 3000 medical seats of which 30% or 900 seats are allotted to the BC. 600 seats or 20% of the total are allotted to the MBC.

Christians constitute 6.5% of the total Tamil Nadu population while Muslims constitute 5.5%. Of the total 6.5% of Christians, 6.1% or around 80% of the total Christian population have been classified as BC. This is 1/9 of the total population. BC Christians were cornering 300 seats out of the 900 medical seats every year; that is 1/9 of the population was claiming 1/3 of the share of seats. And that is why Christian politicians and the Christian clergy met the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister to ask him to rescind the order granting 3.5% reservation for Christians. The Tamil Nadu government promptly rescinded the order and allowed the Christians to come back into the 30% BC quota segment which was getting them phenomenal returns. Christians must be removed from the 30% BC quota unless we want a situation someday in the near future when they may rampage across the entire BC spectrum. Giving this super-forward religion even 3.5% quota is bad enough but allowing them to occupy the elephant’s space in the BC quota segment is willful betrayal of the cause of Hindu backward classes.

The same would be true of all professional colleges and in admissions to all under-graduate and post-graduate degrees too. We must not be beguiled into thinking that the remaining seats go to Hindu BCs and MBCs. If we consider the possibility that preference in reservation is given to anti-Hindu, irreligious Dravidian Tamils with marked political affiliations, then we begin to understand what is happening in the Madras High Court and in all other courts of Tamil Nadu. Reservation benefits are being hogged by the minorities and anti-Hindu Dravidian Tamils. Tamil Hindu SCs, BCs and MBCs are being increasingly marginalized and alienated from the mainstream.

Events of February 17 and February 19 in the Madras High Court are only a violent expression of what has been happening for more than a decade now in Tamil Nadu’s educational institutions of higher learning. The Tamil Nadu government had announced 3.5% exclusive reservation for Christians and Muslims. This 7% minority reservation quota was supposed to have been hived off the 30% BC reservation quota. In the beginning, the church welcomed the move but soon beat the retreat when it realized that under the 3.5% exclusive quota, Christian BCs were eligible only for 105 seats as against the 300 seats it was snatching from the mouths of Hindu BCs.

Now let us look at the last government deception which is proving fatal to Hindu Backward class and castes. According to the 2001 Census report which for the first time was collecting such data on the basis of religion, if we consider urbanization and literacy as indicators or indices of forwardness, then in Tamil Nadu –

• Male literacy is Christians 90%, Muslims also 90%, Hindus 81.5%
• Female literacy is Christians 82%, Muslims 76%, Hindus 62.5%
• Urbanized percentage – Christians 56%, Muslims 73%, Hindus 41%

If we have to avert a social bloody revolution, then Indian polity must begin to define forward and backward and also address the anomaly of the ‘c’ in FC and BC. Keeping Hindus out of reservation on the basis of caste but bringing in the Christians and Muslims into the quota regime with the fig-leaf of class is disempowering more and more socially and economically backward Hindus. Classifying Christians as backward is akin to classifying the Brahmin caste as backward class just to enable them to corner the empowering benefits of affirmative reservations in higher education and government employment.

This is perversion and anti-Hinduism of the most shameless kind. The Sachar Commission Report and the Tamil Nadu reservation policy rest on some fuzzy all-India misconceptions and deceptions whereas the truth of the backwardness of the Hindus, if one goes by the 2001 census indices of forwardness, is more acute and visible. Hindu caste, religious and political leaders must wake up to this appalling truth. The silence had to be broken yet again.

Source: http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Religion,-not-caste,-behind-reservations-1.aspx

Understand these anti-hindus

Anti-Brahminism, Atheism & Statues - Dravidian Madness!

I would like to share this article with the readers - it reflects the hearts of Hindus

Author: B. R. Haran

E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker was a non-entity as long as he was in Congress party and to achieve his ambition of becoming a leader and making it big in politics, he came out of Congress and started his own movement called Dravidar Kazhagam, after a short stint with the 'Justice' party. He became the epitome of Hindu hatred by his atheistic views and made out a strategy of 'Anti-Brahminism' to come to the limelight. He sowed the seeds of casteism & separatism in the minds of the innocent Tamils and very soon developed a big following. Later on, his own disciples like Anna & EVK Sampath left him purely for personal reasons and in due course the state witnessed the formations of DMK, AIADMK, etc. He has spoilt the society to such a great extent that even after 40 years, the state of Tamil Nadu is not able to regain its old glory. His so-called followers are still ruining the state by cheating & fooling the people in the name of a bogus policy called 'Dravidianism'.

The present Chief Minister has uttered some damaging remarks in the last few days, which need to be dealt with strongly.

A Dramatist 'Sudra' & A 'Namesake' Brahmin:

In Chennai, two days back, a book by name "Plain speaking - A Sudra's story" written by one Mr. A.N.Sattanathan was launched and the launch function was graced by the presence of our Chief Minister Karunanidhi & Union Minister Mani Shankar Aiyer.

Mr. A.N.Sattanathan was a retired bureaucrat from Tamil Nadu and he led the "Backward Class Commission" constituted by Karunanidhi in the early seventies. Ms. Uttara Rajan, the grand daughter of Sattanathan, who also happens to be the Editor of the book, organized the function.

While speaking at the function after the launch of the book, Karunanidhi said, "Tamil Nadu is a pioneer in uplift of the backward classes" and "Brahmin community considered itself as the custodian of education in those days". In his anxiety to praise E. V. Ramasamy Naicker, he went to the extent of ridiculing the great freedom fighter V.O.Chidambaranar by saying that even the schools run by VOC practiced untouchability by segregating upper castes from lower castes, (neither VOC is alive, nor his grand children are traceable to deny) because of which, EVR came out of Congress. In fact, EVR was the first & foremost in sowing the seeds of hatred, casteism & atheism in the otherwise peaceful & God loving state of Tamil Nadu. If Tamil Nadu has been the pioneer in the uplift of backward classes, why should he & other backward class champions cry for reservations & quotas in education & employment, even after 60 years of independence? Karunanidhi, who never looses an opportunity in ridiculing the Brahmin community, shamelessly takes the help of Brahmins for his medical, legal, personal & family problems, like how his mentor EVR took the help of Rajaji during crucial times in his life.

In the same function, our namesake Brahmin, Mani Shankar Aiyer, who boasts of drinking alcohol, eating beef & pork and not wearing the holy thread (poonal) in the name of 'secularism', released the above said book. After releasing the book, he has told that, "Sudra Rajyam established in 1967 in Tamil Nadu had succeeded in overthrowing the Brahmin Rajyam, which is a major milestone in the development of society". He has clearly exhibited his ignorance on TN politics. The state never had a Brahmin Rajyam, barring the short tenure under the Chief Ministership of Rajaji, which cannot be called as a Brahmin Rajyam due to the fact that many cabinet ministers were from different communities including Dhalits. Rajaji did a lot to the poor & downtrodden, like waiving farmers' loans, framing laws for the entry of Dhalits in Temples & ensuring admission & education to Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe students in schools, etc. Mani Shankar has conveniently forgotten the fact that, it is the impotency & inefficiency of his own party, the Congress, which had led to the capture of TN by the Dravidian parties and even for that, the Dravidians had to depend on the intelligence of the Brahmin Rajaji, who invented the new methodology called 'alliance' politics. The state Congressmen insulted & isolated Kamaraj and rallied behind the selfish Indhra Gandhi after the defeat in 1967 and had been riding piggy back with either of the two Dravidian parties since then, which has resulted in the waning of the party & loss of its cadres in Tamil Nadu.This secularist Aiyer, who claimed of turning his constituency Mayiladuthurai in to a Dubai, has done nothing for the uplift of Dhalits, Muslims & Brahmins, who form the major chunk of his constituency. A visit to Mayiladuthurai will give us a pathetic picture of his own constituency.

Last but not the least, I would like to know the services rendered by Uttara Rajan, who is now settled in London as a professor in London University, and her grand father A.N.Sattanathan (the author of the book) to the Sudhra & Dhalit communities, if any.

Dravidian Madness called 'statue culture':

The statements of our chief minister on EVR statues and the statues in our Temples were quite amusing. Karunanidhi has said that EVR is a Hindu atheist and that atheism has some space in Hinduism. He has compared the dress-clad statues of EVR with that of the nude statues on Temple towers. He has also denigrated Lord Ganapathy by saying that, the "Vallabha Ganapathy" of Chidambaram Temple & "Uchishta Ganapathy" of Thiruvarur Temple are nude and that, the priests cover them with pieces of clothe due to embarrassment. First of all, thanks to MK for accepting the fact that EVR is a Hindu, even though Hindus do not accept him as one. MK had tried to give a picture as if EVR was not against Christianity & Islam, while in fact, EVR had ridiculed the rituals & culture of Christianity & Islam at one or two instances. With regards to MK's statements on the nudity of Temple statues, we can only say that he has a 'jaundiced' vision and he has a mind & eyes, which are of the same colour (yellow) as his 'shawl'. What else can we expect from a man, who has created cheap sexual versions out of Thirukkural (Kaamathu paal) and Tholkaappiyam? The weekly magazine 'Thuglak' has been publishing a lot of important statements & opinions of EVR, in order to give tips & ideas for the producer & director of the movie on EVR. Why MK, Veeramani & other Dravidian cowards are keeping quiet? Why are they not talking about the statements of EVR on Kannagi, women, marriage & chastity?

If a leader had truly & sincerely worked for the uplift & betterment of the people, he would have automatically captured a permanent place in their hearts and history would keep them immortal forever. There is no need for erecting statues of those leaders to remind the people about their services. On the other hand, the erection of umpteen statues reveals the fact that they have done nothing worthwhile during their lifetime.

It seems the existing concrete & bronze clusters of 'Annas' & 'Thanthais' are not enough for these uncultured Dravidians. The DK has plans of erecting 128 more statues of EVR through out the state and the arrogant Chief Minister has committed to help the execution of the plans. In the process, the Dravidian thugs will denigrate maximum number of Hindu Shrines; attack maximum number of Mutts, assault maximum number of Brahmins and the government will put the 'victims' behind bars on National Security Act.

A few facts about 'Thanthai' & 'Magans':

Let the Dravidian world know that the so-called 'Thanthai' (EVR) never trusted his Dravidian 'Magans' (including Anna, Sampath, MK, Veeramani, et al) and married a very much younger Maniammai, in his seventies, on the clever advice of 'Brahmin' Rajaji, just to safeguard his huge wealth, with which he has done nothing for the welfare of the poor & downtrodden Tamils.

Let the Dravidian world know that Anna Durai came out of DK and launched his own DMK along with EVK Sampath, only because of the above-said reason.

Let the Dravidian world know that after the demise of Maniammai, K.Veeramani, who claims to be the only close & true disciple of EVR, is enjoying the wealth of EVR and also does nothing for the betterment of backward classes.

Let the Tamils know that the state government has funded the production of the worthless movie on EVR, despite the huge wealth of Dravidar Kazhagam, to the tune of Rs.95 lacs, which is the taxpayers' money.

Let the Tamils also know that, EVR remained as the 'trustee' of his Family's Pillayar Temple till his death.

Let the Tamils know the important advice of EVR to them: "What all I say and have said are my own views and I don't expect people to accept or follow them".

Every time when Karunanidhi is in power, anti-Brahminism takes the center stage of TN politics and it is a pity that he has still not realized the fact that, Brahmins are too good in self-empowerment & self-upliftment and no force on earth can stop it.

It is disgusting that a majority of God fearing & Temple visiting Hindus vote for the Dravidian Parties, without understanding the hypocrisy of Dravidian Leaders.

May God save Tamils & Tamil Nadu!

Vandemataram!

Source: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0107/46.html

Objectives of Hindu Munnani

Objective / Appeal / Request :

	The properties of Church are with Christians, the properties of mosque are with Muslims but Hindu temples are administered by the State. The Government should quit from Temples.
	All Temples should be handed over to an Independent board consisting of devout Hindus who have faith in our religion and traditions which will administer the temples .The Government should quit from administrating Hindu Temples.
	Common Civil Code for all citizens of India.
	Family Planning should be made compulsory to all religion.
	Anti-Conversion law should be enacted to contain forcible and induced conversion throughout India.
	Cow slaughter should be banned.
	Ayodhya, Kasi and Mathura temples should be liberated and handed over to Hindus completely.
	Article 370 giving special status to Kashmir should be abrogated.
	Moral science should be made compulsory for students to make them good citizens.
	Stop treating Hindus as second class citizens in our own land. http://hindumunnani.org/objective.asp

Vande Mataram: Meaning & Context

There is perhaps no other symbol that captures the imagination of a nation more than a national anthem. The two most famous songs which celebrate the Indian nation and which have vied with each other for the status of our national anthem are Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana.

Vande Mataram is, of course, the older of the two and takes the form of a worshipful hymn to Mother India. It was published in Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya’s novel Anand Math in 1882, but was perhaps written between 1872 and 1875. It was translated into Marathi and Kannada in 1897, Gujarati in 1901, Tamil in 1905, Hindi in 1906, Telugu in 1907 and Malayalam in 1909. By the 1920s, it had become widely known as the national song of India.

The first political occasion on which it was sung, was at the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress. It was set to music by none other than Rabindranath Tagore. It gathered mass appeal during the anti-partition movement in Bengal and was sung during the Bengal Provincial Conference held at Barisal in April, 1906 under the presidentship of a Muslim leader. It was, later, sung by Tagore himself on the opening day of the Congress session. In due course, the title of the song became the slogan of our nationalist movement although there were occasional protests from some sections of the Muslim community who protested that the song had communal overtones.

Thus, between the years 1915 and 1947, intermittent voices were raised by some sections that certain references in the song are offensive to Muslim sensibility. This inevitably led to widespread resentment and acrimony and polarised communal sentiments among several disparate groups. In order to understand the reasons why communal sensibility was roused in this manner, let us examine the hymn in its original:

Vande Mataram
Sujalam suphalam malayaja shitalam,
Shasyashyamalam Mataram!
Shubhra jyostna-pulakita yaminim,
Phullakusumita-drumadala shobhinim
Suhasinim sumadhura bhashinim,
Sukhadam varadam Mataram!

Trimshakotikantha-kalakala-ninada karale
Dvitrimshakoti bhujair dhrita-khara karavale
Abala kena ma eta bale!
Bahubaladharinim, namami tarinin,
Ripudalavarinim Mataram!

Tumi vidya, tumi dharma,
Tumi hridi, tumi marma,
Tvam hi pranah sharire!
Bahute tumi ma shakti,
Hridaye tume ma bhakti,
Tomari pratima gari mandire mandire !

Tvam he Durga dashapraharana dharini,
Kamala, kamala-dala-viharini,
Vani vidyadayini namami tvam
Namami Kamalam amalam atulam,
Sujalam suphalam Mataram,
Vande Mataram!

Shymalam, saralam, susmitam, bhushitam,
Dharinim, bharanim Mataram.

As translated by Sri Aurobindo, it reads:
I bow to thee, Mother,
richly-watered, richly-fruited, cool with the winds of the south,
dark with the crops of the harvests, the Mother !
Her nights rejoicing in the glory of the moonlight,
Her lands clothed beautifully with her trees in flowering bloom,
Sweet of laughter, sweet of speech,
The Mother, giver of boons, giver of bliss!
Terrible with the clamorous shout of seventy million throats,
And the sharpness of swords raised in twice seventy million hands,
Who sayeth to thee, Mother, that thou art weak?
Holder of multitudinous strength, I bow to her who saves,
To her who drives from her the armies of her foemen, the Mother!
Thou art knowledge, thou art conduct,
thou art heart, thou art soul,
for thou art the life in our body.
In the arm thou art might, O Mother,
In the heart, O Mother, thou art love and faith,
It is thy image we raise in every temple.
For thou art Durga holding her ten weapons of war,
Kamala at play in the lotuses
And speech, the goddess, giver of all lore, to thee I bow!
I bow to thee, goddess of wealth, pure and peerless,
Richly-watered, richly-fruited, the Mother!
I bow to thee, other, dark-hued, candid,
Sweetly smiling, jeweled and adorned,
The holder of wealth, the lady of plenty, the Mother!

It may be seen that the first two stanzas except for the reference to the country as Mother, the hymn does not contain any symbol or imagery which might affect communal sentiments.

However, the next stanza equates the motherland as a goddess to be worshipped in a temple, in fact, evoking Durga, the destroyer of enemies, holding her ten weapons of war. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in the time of Bankimchandra, Bengal was under the rule of a Mughal Governor and the novel Ananda Math, which is the vehicle used by the author to launch this hymn, is a story based on the militant revolutionary activities of a group of Hindus in the background of the Sanyasi rebellion. In this view of the matter, the hymn attacked the Muslim rule of the day and, in the larger context, it was a battle cry for a resurgent Hindu India while challenging the British imperialist rule.

In 1937, Sir Henry Craik, then Head of the Home Department and Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, wrote to Lord Baden-Powell that the song actually originated as a “hymn of hate” against Muslims. In April, 1938 at the All India Muslim League special session at Calcutta, Jinnah in his presidential address complained that the Congress endeavoured to impose the Vande Mataram song in the Legislatures causing much bitterness and opposition. There were many other similar instances of protest and opposition to the singing of this song.

During this period, a Muslim Legislator of Madras objected to its singing by calling it an insult to Islam. In 1939, a little known Muslim Congress member from Madras wrote privately to Rajendra Prasad: “Vande Mataram is a Bengali word. The reactionary groups say that the meaning for this word is, we adore to (sic) the Goddess of the Earth. Is it right? May I please know how Vande Mataram became a National slogan?............. Is the picture Bharata Matha with numberless hands and wings a religious symbol or political?”

With the emergence of the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha in the first two decades of the 20th century, communal sentiments became polarized. Between 1922 and 1927, there are official records of at least 112 incidents of riot and bloodshed which were precipitated by Hindu-Muslim conflicts in which Vande Mataram had some direct connection.

In 1937, the Congress Working Committee appointed a sub-committee consisting of Maulana Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose and Acharya Narendra Dev to examine, in consultation with Rabindranath Tagore, the suitability of the song as a national anthem. In a letter to Nehru, in response to the sub-committee’s request for advice, Tagore wrote, “To me the spirit of tenderness and devotion expressed in its first portion, the emphasis it gave to beautiful and beneficent aspects of our motherland made a special appeal, so much so that I found no difficulty in dissociating it from the rest of the poem and from those portions of the book which it is a part, with all the sentiments of which, brought up as I was in the monotheistic ideals of my father, I could have no sympathy.” This sub-committee adopted the following resolution: “Taking all things into consideration, therefore, the committee recommends that whenever Vande Mataram is sung at national gatherings, only the first two stanzas should be sung, with perfect freedom to the organisers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character, in addition to, or in place of, Vande Mataram"

Writing on this alleged communal aspect in the Harijan of 1st July, 1939, Gandhiji wrote, “. . . . No matter what its source was and how and when it was composed, it had become a most powerful battle cry among Hindus and Musalmans of Bengal during the partition days. It was an anti-imperialist cry. As a lad, when I knew nothing of Ananda Math or even Bankim, its immortal author, Vande Mataram had gripped me, and when I first heard it sung it had enthralled me. I associated the purest national spirit with it. It never occurred to me that it was a Hindu song or meant only for Hindus. Unfortunately now we have fallen on evil days. All that was pure gold before has become base metal today. In such times it is wisdom not to market pure gold and let it be sold as base metal. I would not risk a single quarrel over singing Vande Mataram at a mixed gathering. It will never suffer from disuse. It is enthroned in the hearts of millions. It stirs to its depth the patriotism of millions in and outside Bengal. Its chosen stanzas are Bengal’s gift among many others to the whole nation.”

In a statement made in Parliament on 25th August, 1948, Prime Minister Nehru said: ‘‘It is unfortunate that some kind of argument has arisen between Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana. Vande Mataram is obviously and indisputably the premier national song of India with a great historical tradition; it was intimately connected with our struggle for freedom. That position it is bound to retain and no other song can displace it. It represents the passion and poignancy of that struggle, but perhaps not so much the culmination of it.’’

Alluding to the event that led to the choice of Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem, Nehru has stated in Parliament, “The matter came to a head on the occasion of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947 in New York. Our delegation was asked for our national anthem to be played on a particular occasion. The delegation possessed a record of Jana Gana Mana and they gave this to the orchestra to practise. When they played it before a large gathering, it was greatly appreciated and representatives of many nations asked for the musical score of this new tune which struck them as distinctive and dignified.

In his illuminating study of the evolution of nationalist thought in India, Partha Chatterjee has alluded to what he describes as the three stages or moments in its development, the moment of departure in which context he has analysed the writings of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyaya, the moment of manoeuvre in which he has placed the contribution of Gandhiji and the moment of arrival, where he has positioned the work of Jawaharlal Nehru. He argues that for nationalist thought to reach its paradigmatic form, these three are necessary ideological moments. In the case of Bankim, he presents a dilemma in terms of its situation at the moment of departure. He avers that this is born out of the encounter of a patriotic consciousness with the framework of knowledge imposed by colonialism. To quote, “in Bankim’s time, this vision could not find any political means to actualise itself. Instead, it became a dream: a utopian political community in which the nation was the Mother, once resplendent in wealth and beauty, now in tatters. Relentlessly, she exhorts a small band of her sons, those of them who are brave and enlightened, to vanquish the enemy and win back her honour”.

In trying to understand the passion and fury over this captivating hymn, it is important to remember that its author Bankimchandra Chattopadhyaya (1834-1894) was a provincial civil servant imbued with nationalist and patriotic sentiment besides being a novelist, satirist and perhaps the most acclaimed man of letters of Calcutta of his time. He had a deep knowledge of European literature, 19th century sociology and political economy and was influenced by western positivism and utilitarian thought. To quote him in his own analysis of the reason why Hindu society has remained in a state of subjugation while European nations have triumphed: “Europeans are devotees of power. That is the key to their advancement. We are negligent towards power: that is the key to our downfall. Europeans pursue a goal which they must reach in this world: they are victorious on earth. We pursue a goal which lies in the world beyond, which is why we have failed to win on earth. Whether we will win in the life beyond is a question on which there are differences of opinion.”

While the above passage might serve as a pointer to Bankimchandra Chattopadhyaya’s understanding of his social context, his concern was the resurgence of national spirit and the novel as a literary form gave him a platform to launch it. The controversies over its acceptance, both, by the Colonial administration of the day and sections of Muslim community could not have been anticipated by him and in any case these developments took place long after the author’s life time.

Not all Muslim intellectuals adopted this line of thought, however. In Bengal, Rezaul Karim, wrote a critique of Vande Mataram and Ananda Math during this period titled ‘Bankimchandra O Muslim Samaj’ in which he argued that the main reason for this concerted move around 1937 was to draw the Muslims away from the freedom struggle. He goes on to say that in spite of all the reservations, the song gave language to the dumb and courage to the faint-hearted and this remains Bankim’s lasting gift to his country. Although many people have called him a communalist and anti-Muslim, he is of the view that “the part of Bankim that is portrayed as hostile to Muslims is not a self-portrait but a picture of his age and the times in which he lived. For this, a writer should be forgiven”.

He even went to the extent of arguing that “even if he was anti-Muslim, is his literary worth any less? Literature should be read as literature. If writers bring literature into the confusion of the political arena, then it is killed — robbed of its delight. Bankim should be seen, read and understood in literary terms. We have no other claim on him, and even if we do, he is not obliged to fulfil them.”

Looking beyond the political and communal issues that the hymn has been dragged into, it may be appropriate to conclude in the words of Sabyasachi Bhattacharya in what may be its essence and spirit:

“Vande Mataram is basically a series of evocations of the memory of a discourse that had been part of the world outlook of Bankim and his audience. The investment of a new meaning in an image remembered brings with it a shock of recognition. As distinct from the Derozians and other iconoclasts in the first half of the nineteenth century, Bankim’s was an effort to recover a part of something they had cut loose from, hence this piece of writing represented a recognition. But it was not merely an act of rediscovery of something that belonged to the past. It was also a revelation of something that was new, an old object of worship now reinvented as the motherland.”

Source: http://www.garhwalpost.com/index.php?mod=article&cat=Feature&article=461