Fwd: [HinduThought] Anwar Shaikh on nationalism

[Guest guest]

>"ganapa vijai"

>gvvijai_iaf (AT) hotmail (DOT) com >Fwd: Re: [HinduThought] Anwar Shaikh on

nationalism >Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:57:43 +0000 > Join the world’s largest

e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here

"ganapa vijai" gvvijai

gvvijai_iaf

Fwd: Re: [HinduThought] Anwar Shaikh on nationalism

Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:57:43 +0000

>"MR N S RAJARAM"

>HinduThought

>, ,

>CC: , "RAJNI CHANDRAN" ,, "Sumita Chakraborty" ,"udai" ,"Seshadri Chari"

,"Tarun Vijay" , ,"Shruti"

>Re: [HinduThought] Anwar Shaikh on nationalism

>Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:39:37 +0530

>

>Bharat Mata

>

>By: Anwar Shaikh

>

>http://www.hindutva.org/AnwarShaikh/Rgveda/BharatMata.html

>

>It is not easy to inculcate into the mind of a Hindu that Spiritual

>Nationalism, founded on the love of Bharat Mata, is the essence of the Vedic

>doctrine. This difficulty arises from the fact that the fertility of India

>brought tremendous prosperity to the Hindus for many centuries, making them

>oblivious of the secular problems, and they became dedicated to the next

>world. Thus nationalism ceased to have any appeal for them.

>

>A beauty of the Vedas is, that they strike a balance between secular and

>spiritual pursuits in such a way that the patriotic actions lead to the

>elevation of soul. In the Vedic language, patriotic action means the

>following:

>

>1. Love of Bharat Mata (the original India).

>

>2. Attainment of power for the glory of India, and

>

>3. Willingness to fight for self-defence and international brotherhood.

>

>First hymn, Book XII of the ATHARVA VEDA, comprising sixty-three verses,

>referred to as Bhumi-Sukta, describes the celestial reverence that the Vedas

>attach to India. As it is not possible to discuss all these verses, the

>reader ought to read the hymn for himself.

>

>Hinduism is an enriched form of humanism. It is a way of life, which does

>not admit narrow nationalism. Thus a Hindu has no wish to rule the world but

>seeks a position compatible with the dignity of a guide because he is

>destined to lead the world with the Vedic Light. Therefore, he is the first

>among equals. This hymn clarifies the fact with reference to other parts of

>the globe. Verse no. 1 declares

>

>"Truth, high and potent Law, the Consecrating Rite, Fervour, Brahma and

>Sacrifice uphold the Earth.

>

>May she the Queen of all that is and is to be, may Prithivi make ample space

>and room for us."

>

>Here, it should be noted that the hymn shows respect to the entire earth but

>refers to the land of Bharat as the "Queen or all ..." It is because Bharat

>is the land of the Vedas, meaning knowledge and true enlightenment. She is

>the fountain of human civilisation and superior cultural values, which

>adorned mankind with the sense of morality. Since I have discussed all these

>facts in my book, "The Wonders of the Rgveda," which is being serialised in

>"Liberty," I need not go into details here.

>

>That this hymn is about Bharat Mata (the undivided India), is borne out by

>the facts especially connected with this country. Verse no. 3 states:

>

>"In whom the sea, and Sindhu, and the waters, in whom our food and

>corn-lands had their being,

>

>In whom this all that breathes and moves is active, this Earth assign us

>foremost rank and station."

>

>It must be remembered that Bharat Mata is originally associated with the

>areas of the Indus river (Sindhu). One should also note love and respect of

>the Vedic man for Bharat Mata because he believed that the mere fact of

>belonging to this country brought him "the foremost rank and station" in the

>world.

>

>Again verse no. 50 mentions Gandharvas and Apsarases, Kimidins, Pisachas and

>Rakshasas, which are ingredients of the Indian mythology.

>

>Verse 4 addresses India as "Lady of the earth's four regions," and verse 7

>states:

>

>"May Earth, my Prithivi, always protected with ceaseless care by Gods who

>never slumber ..."

>

>Prithivi, as I understand, is the deified earth, when it refers to Bharat

>Mata. This hymn clearly states Defence of India as the first and most sacred

>duty of a Hindu, who earnestly prays that Gods should protect her with

>ceaseless care.

>

>Verse 12 expresses the total devotion of a Hindu to Bharat Mata:

>

>" ... I am the son of Earth, Earth is my Mother."

>

>Study of this hymn reveals that while the Vedic doctrine espects all gods,

>it attaches the greatest importance to the land ot Bharat because it is the

>Mother of all those who dwell in her bosom. However, the following two

>points ought to be noted in this respect:

>

>a. One can live in India and believe in any god he likes because so vast is

>the Vedic concept of Divinity that there is no jealousy among gods. This

>liberality is based on the advanced Vedic thinking, which realises that as

>the wheel of time moves forward, changes of all sorts must take place, thus

>religious doctrines may not form the cause of social discord.

>

>b. This Vedic liberality is, however, restricted by the Concept of Bharat

>Mata, that is, a dweller of this land must confess:

>

>"I am the son ol Bharat Mata, and Bharat is my Mother."

>

>It goes without saying that just confession or love is not a convincing

>proof of one's affection; it must be reinforced by sustained action.

>Therefore, a dweller of India does not acknowledge her as his Motherland if

>he hates Kaashi and loves Kaaba. All his civic rights depend on this point.

>

>further, as love of Bharat Mata is the basic Vedic demand, I believe, Bharat

>Mata is the Major Deity of the land. It is especially true when we realise

>that other gods have suffered from the effects of change but Bharat Mata has

>always remained the same. Therefore, she ought to be worshipped as the Deity

>of India. Therefore, worship of other gods is optional but the worship of

>Bharat Mata, the Chief Diety is a must for the simple reason that the people

>born on her soil are fed, clothed, educated and cremated or buried there.

>Thus, their dignity, destiny and dominion are directly dependent on their

>devotion to Bharat Mata; a free and prosperous Bharat Mata is a source of

>pleasure, pride and probity to her devotees but a betrayed, bedevilled and

>battered Bharat Mata is the source of decay, decline and disaster; other

>gods have come and gone but Bharat Mata shall always be there. This is the

>reason that the Hindu gods are different from the Semitic God, who is

>jealous and wants to be adored exclusively, but a Hindu can welcome them all

>at the same time (R.V. 1: LXXV-V).

>

>Again, a person's national identity is delermined by the land of his birth,

>and his greatness or smallness becomes directly associated with the

>reverence that he shows her in action. This is what makes a German, Engiish

>or French great and an Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi small. History

>testifies to the fact how the former have adored their motherlands with

>blood and worldly treasures and how the latter have dishonoured Bharat Mata

>by truncating her to worship foreign gods whose validity cannot be

>acknowledged rationally. Thus, one can establish the principle:

>

>The more powerful a country, the greater the stature of her people.

>

>2. This brings me to the discussion of the second point i.e. attainment of

>power for the glory of (India) Bharat Mata.

>

>With a view to achieving this end, a Vedic Hindu is the devotee of Indra,

>the Lord of Power;

>

>Praise be to Indra, the Lord of Pcwer, the holy synod's might. (R.V.I: LVI -

>2)

>

>The Rgveda inculcates into the minds of its devotees that a characteristic

>of power is that it seeks to vanquish the adversaries of the powerful:

>

>"Indra goes on from one fight to another intrepidly, destroying castles of

>the enemies." (R.V.I: LIII - 7)

>

>Again the purpose of power is to seek victory through battles:

>

>"Indra, the Victor is great; he shines in manly battles; his character

>remains unstained; his might sparkles like the peak of a mountain." (R.V.I:

>LVI - 3)

>

>The true treasure to a genuine Hindu is his mighty deed:

>

>"Indra, the most splendid and powerful, is rich in mighty deeds, which are

>Indra's treasures. O, Conqueror, give them to us." (R.V.I: LIII - 3)

>

>One must realise that miglhty deeds are the treasures of Indra, which a

>Hindu begs for. It means that he seeks to emulate his Lord to be like Him in

>practice. This is the source of the famous Hindu doctrine known as karma:

>"one reaps what one sows." Thus a Hindu must be a man of act on; he must

>seek power and use it bravely.

>

>The central point of this discussion is a Hindu's duty and desire to be

>God-like through attaining power. He knows God is God because He is

>powerful. Therefore, His devotee has to be like him, yet a true Hindu is

>humhle, humanitarian and honey-like, but as a practitioner of faith, he is

>proud, powerful and pragmatic.

>

>Power to a Hindu is not a fleeting affair. To be a Hindu, he has to

>perpetuate it:

>

>"Indra ... we make thy might perpetual." (R.GV.III: XXXVII - X)

>

>3. Having established the rapport between a Hindu and power, I must now

>state that he is forbidden by dharma to abuse it. This is what brings me to

>the discussion of the third point i.e. "Willingness to fight for

>self-defence and international brotherhood."

>

>In this connection, freedom is considered the greatest virtue: even the gods

>need it and attain it through might and battle:

>

>a. "Lord of the brave, Indra who rules the people, gave freedom to gods by

>might and battle: (R.V. III: XXXIV: VII) Here is a stunning verse:

>

>b. "When Indra's helpers fighting for the good of men, the Maruts, faithful

>to mankind, joyed in the light." ~R.V.I: Lll - IIX)

>

>Marut, originally means storm but has been deified as storm- god. This is

>the epithet of a Vedic warrior for being thunderously bold in a battle. To

>be a true Hindu, he has to acquire this trait of fearlessness. Thus, this

>verse means that a Hindu is faithful to mankind, and fights battles for

>their good.

>

>It imparts Hinduism an international character and appoints a Hindu the

>custodian of world affairs. This is what makes me proud of my Vedic

>ancestry. The Rgveda, which is at least 5500 years old could think and

>preach in terms of humanity and internationalism when the rest of the world

>was no more than cave-dwellers. This is a cogent proof of the fact that

>civilisation started in India.

>

>Freedom is justice. As my freedom is fragile unless I am willing to defend

>your right to be free as well, the verses "a" and "b", clearly demonstrate

>that a Hindu has teen commanded by Dharma to maintain international

>liberties through righteous use of power.

>

>The international character of Hinduism and the role of a Hindu becomes even

>clearer when we look at the following:

>

>Being the devotee of God, a Hindu is a divine warrior who "stirs up with his

>might, great battles for mankind." (R.V.I: IV - V)

>

>At this juncture, I ought to point out that a Hindu has the divine

>obligation to be powerful not for jingoistic reasons but because the Vedas

>appoint him as the custodian of the world order. This is obvious from the

>fact that there is no proselytisation in Hinduism as it is in Christianity

>or Islam. A person can have any faith he likes and he will not be persecuted

>or denied justice by a Hindu because all Indian doctrines even when they

>collide with the Vedic authority, originate from free thinking based on

>reason and observation. The superstitious element that we find in Hinduism,

>is an accretion introduced by the selfish interests over a long period of

>time.

>

>The liberality of Hindu thinking is so important a point in this context

>that a little digression seems justified: the Indian philosophy has been

>arranged into two categories i.e. Astika and Nastika systems; the former

>affirms but the latter denies. The Charvakas, the Buddhists and the Jains

>are Nastika (nihilist or heterodox) not because they do not acknowledge the

>existence of God but because they deny the authority of the Vedas. Though

>the revolts against the Vedas as mounted by the Charvakas and Buddhists were

>really serious, no violence was ever demonstrated by the Hindus or their

>antagonists because they were all Indians, bred in similar traditions of

>tolerance and free thinking. On the contrary, the European movement known as

>The Reformation was deeply steeped in murder and destruction, and the

>Islamic sectarianism denoted by Sunni-Shia division, exhibits the apex of

>mutual hatred and thirst for bloody carnage.

>

>Again, the six Astika system, of philosophy as believed in by the Hindus are

>considerably different from one another. Yet, all believers are proud Hindus

>and no one throws mud of blasphemy on another for having difference of

>opinion. Reverence for the Vedas is the root of their unity, which cannot be

>shaken by the difference of interpretation. The veracity of this statement

>can be judged by the liberal thinking of the Sankhya System, which is not

>only the most ancient mode of Hindu thinking but also older system than any

>other philosphical discipline known to mankind.

>

>The purpose of digression is to establish that Hinduism is based on reason

>and not a pretended divine dictation. Therefore, it is free from intrinsic

>aggression associated with a wolf or a hyena. This is what makes it a

>natural way of life, free from perversion, prejudice and passivity, raising

>it to a message of hope, hilarity and humanity.

>

>Hinduism is essentially humanism in action. This is what makes a Hindu the

>protector of humanity and he feels obliged:

>

>a. to be non-aggressive, and

>b. protect mankind against any aggressor in his capacity as the custodian of

>humanity.

>

>Having already discussed 'b,' now I may touch upon 'a' and must add

>emphatically that the Hindu dharma is non- aggression and not non-violence,

>usually described as ahimsa. As a Hindu is the guardian of humanity, he must

>be free from malice, and therefore cannot be aggressive. The same

>humanitarian obhgation makes it incumbent on him to be able to deter the

>aggressor with a superior power, courage and will-to-fight. Therefore,

>ahimsa means non-aggression and not non-violence as usually understood by

>the Hindus. As non-violence, ahimsa, is the contempt of the Rgveda, which

>describes Indra as the "Lord of Power," who "fights battles for mankind.

>(R.V. I: IV - 4.5)

>

>The Hindus have a proud past for being the pioneers of human civilisation.

>It is the law of nature that what is young today shall become old tomorrow,

>while youth represents the prime of life owing to its lofty aspirations

>requiring forward thrust, old age marks the decline of these adventurous

>virtues, giving rise to make-believe and hesitation. Of course, old age has

>its own merits but gripping with major issues of life does not appear as a

>priority. This is what has happened to the Hindus, who are the oldest nation

>on this earth. Their will to stand up and be counted has suffered further

>from the fact that they were the richest people on the planet for the

>longest period. Prosperity, though the most enjoyable thing, can also be

>debilitating, bringing moral weakness in its wake. The decline of rich

>nations is usually due to the fact that they become ahimsa-oriented i.e.

>they lose the virtue of fighting and thus fail to check advances of the

>aggressors determined to destroy their honour and cultural values. The Arab

>and Turkish raids of India are glaring examples of this fact.

>

>Not only historically is ahimsa, the national bane, but it is also

>despicable psychologically. All animals, including humans are endowed with

>antagonistic behaviour. It means that they defend themselves through the

>natural mechanism of flight and fight sometimes they run away to avoid self-

>destruction and sametime they fight for the sake of survival. Therefore,

>fighting is a natural virtue of humans but ahimsa means renunciation of

>fighting to make fight the way of life. Thus, ahimsa meaning non-violence is

>totally inhuman. In fact, it is cowardice dressed up as piety; it is a

>poison looked upon as an antidote; it is a whore thought of as an apsera.

>This is the biggest evil that the Hindus have come to suffer.

>

>Some thirty years ago, it was widely reported in the British Press that a

>wolf raided a sheep-pen. As he was about to rip her young ones, the mother

>became violent to protect them. She subjected the predator to repeated

>butting until he lay dead.

>

>May the memory of that great sheep live for ever. She is the true exponent

>of the word: "ahimsa, " which means protection. It clearly demonstrates that

>safety depends, not on running away from the aggressor but smashing his head

>off. The beauty of the Vedic message lies in the fact that it requires of

>the devotee to practise non-aggression towards others, and at the same time

>be ready to crush the aggressor. Thus, ahimsa means non-aggression and not

>non-violence because one needs violence to defeat the villain.

>

>Of course, sadhuism is a dedication to the search of God or Mukti.

>Meditation is a part of it but the true path for salvation remains karma: a

>person's quality of deeds. No divine, whether he be a Hindu or non-Hindu,

>can attain his goal just by a devoted JAP. One can recite the word: "sugar"

>one million times yet one's mouth will not become sweet unless one eats

>sugar. Recitation of "Ramnam" is great yet Mukti depends on becoming like

>Ram, and the only way to achieve this purpose is to act like him. He was a

>ruler, a husband, a father, a friend and above all a crusader - the

>destroyer of the aggressor. He was not an ascetic who had given up the

>world. He set a pattern of life to be followed by his followers.

>

>I do not wish to indulge in a divisive discussion but the truth has got to

>be told: Hinduism is a way of life based on the doctrine of karma.

>Asceticism or renunciation is its exact antithesis. Giving up the world is a

>revolt against the doctrine of karma because a Sanyasi or Sadhu turns his

>back on it. A true Yogi is a member of the society; he lives a full life,

>performs his duties, fights for his rights, he meditates and enjoys marital

>blessings. This is the Godly way. You do not have to take my word for it.

>Look at the examples set by Shiva, Rama and Krishna.

>

>Once a friend discussed this issue with me and claimed that the validity for

>asceticism is based on the following command from the Bhagavad Gita (2: 45):

>

>"Be thou indifferent to those enjoyments and their means, rising above pairs

>of opposites like pleasure and pain."

>

>Since the Bhagavad Gita represents higher philosophy, it is not always

>possible to understand its meaning without proper attention.

>

>This verse certainly dces not mean renunciation though it appears so. It

>becomes easy to understand this fact when we realise that none of the major

>goes is an ascetic; they all have female partners. Even Shiva is not totally

>given to meditation: he is a passionate lover. Rama is a ruler, and his

>example requires a true Hindu to live a life of might and grandeur, but it

>must be based on fairness and piety. Again Hinduism is totally different in

>its approach to salvation: the Semitic religions such as Islam advocate that

>the faithful shall be saved by the intercession of the Prophet Muhammad and

>Suti saints. Hindusim does not acknowledge this approach: salvation depends

>upon one's karma. Therefore, a sadhu cannot do much for you. All a true

>sadhu can do is to show you the way. You yourself have to walk all the way

>to reach your destination. This is what proves thte veracity of Hinduism. It

>is only the simpletons who are taken in by verbosity.

>

>Now, I may explain the complexity of the above quoted verse:

>

>The Rgveda is the first book ever to realise that, not only moral conscience

>depends on pairs of opposites but the physical make-up of the universe is

>also based on the principle of duality.

>

>This verse has furnished us with a wonderful example of this fact, that is,

>one cannot imagine pleasure without knowing what pain is. Can you feel sweet

>without realising what bitter is? Nor can dark have any sense withoul light,

>and so on. It demonstrates the truth that moral concepts exist in pairs.

>This is equally true about physical existence:

>

>Everything in this world is structured and held together by Shakti i.e. the

>overall combination of different forces. Without Shakti the particles that

>form any structure would move off in straight lines at random, instead of

>staying together. The point to remember is that forces in the universe come

>in equal and opposite pairs e.g., negative and positive electric charges. So

>great is the exactitude of these forces that when they are added, the

>positive cancels the negative, and the sum comes to zero.

>

>It should be borne in mind that existence is not possible without the

>reaction of the opposites. This is the reason that pain requires pleasure as

>its remedy and the sensation of pleasure is bound to be benumbed without a

>touch of pain. Therefore, the meaning of this verse is not giving up the

>opposites, which is an impossibility, but to, create a balance between them.

>This balanced state of karma equals zero like the actions and reactions of

>natural forces which create activity through this mechanism. It is not

>difficult to understand that zero is equated with nothingness which amounts

>to renunciation. Therefore, "rising above pairs of opposites like pain and

>pleasure, " means avoiding pain and pleasure for its own sake and pursuing a

>life of balanced action.

>

>Credibility of what I have said above can be judged by the facts that nobody

>can renounce this world while he lives; he needs food, water and shelter to

>keep his body and mind in a fairly healthy state to exercise meditation. It

>must be remembered that contemplation of a sickly mind is nothing but

>pursuit of madness.

>

>Again, this kind of asceticism is against the Hindu doctrine which

>prescribes a code of action and glory for its devotees. Just look at the

>following:

>

>Lord Krishna says:

>

>"Arjuna, it is only the lucky among the Ksatriya, who get such an

>unsolicited opportunity for war, which is an open door to heaven.

>

>Now if you will not wage such a righteous war, then abandoning your duty and

>losing your reputation, you will incur sin.

>

>Either slain in battle you will attain heaven, or gaining victory you will

>enjoy scvereignty of the earth; therefore, arise Arjuna, determined to

>fight." (Ch. 11 - 32, 33-37)

>

>These verses clearly state the Hindu way of life, that is, fighting for

>honour and glory, which also happens to be "an open door to heaven." And a

>Ksatriya is the man or woman who strives for national glory with sword and

>fire without turning his back on decency.

>

>Heaven lies not under the shade of asceticism or ahimsa but on the sharp

>edge of a sword. The nations, who follow this truth, have led a life of

>honour and glory but the people who concealed their cowardice under the

>impious doctrine of ahimsa, qualified for dishonour, disrespect and

>degradation. If you consult a dictionary, you will find "Hindu" means "an

>infidel, a negro, a slave, a coward, an inhabitant of India," and so on.

>

>Do I need add any more to this list of insults? These conditions have been

>created by those who advocate that the Gita is all about ahimsa. This is a

>deliberate misinterpretation of those who want to enjoy the priestly

>privileges and do not want to lead the nation through a personal example of

>boldness, hardship and sacrifice. The Bhagavad Gita is Lord Krishna's sermon

>to Arjuna in the battlefield and seeks to prepare him for a fight, but these

>hypocrites dedicated to a life of softness, insist that the message is all

>about controlling one's greed and anger. In an attempt to fool the devotees

>they also insult the Lord, who clearly emphasises the merit of battling with

>the evil. How could he lecture on greed and anger when the armies were

>poised in the battlefield to annihilate each other?

>

>Finally, I salute Sri Rangarajan, the hero of this article and stress that a

>patriotic sadhu dedicated to serve Bharat Mata is not an ascetic but a

>saint, who seeks Mukti through national glory. He represents Lord Shiva, who

>is both a warrior and lover. It is high time that the Hindus were taught the

>Vedic virtues of fightng evil to uphold the cause of righteousness. To a

>virtuous Hindu, nothing is more righteous than serving Bharat Mata. She is

>the fountain of life for all those who live on her soil. Therefore, her

>dignity and honour must be the priority of all her sons and daughters. It is

>essential that consciousness of the dignity of Bharat Mata is preached with

>utmost zeal and sincerity. This goal is best achieved if every sadhu learns

>to girdle himself with a sword to lead the way for Dharm Yudh. Let every

>Hindu temple be adorned with a statue of Bharat Mata and have facilities for

>training the devotees in martial arts and patriotism. This is a job for the

>great Sadhu Rangarajan, the creator of Vande Matram. Singing patriotic hymns

>is great but making people true patriots, eager to serve the cause of Bharat

>Mata, is immensely greater. In England, they say: "An ounce of practice is

>better than a tonne of theory."

>

>Let the Hindus understand clearly that ahimsa means cowardice and not

>protection unless it is accompanied by the will to fight. If someone attacks

>your children, how will you protect them? The only way of protecting them is

>to kill the killer. This is true ahimsa.

>

>When Tamburlaine invaded India, he murdered 100,000 Hindus and carried away

>20,000 screaming Hindu virgins. The Muslim historian, Farishta, made fun of

>the Hindus for not fighting Tamburlaine. I do not blame him for this

>attitude. Why? Because Manu Smriti, the code of the Hindu Law clearly states

>

>"The cowards are the food for the brave." (Ch. 5: 29)

>

>The people who flout their fundamental laws, yet call themselves Hindus,

>deserve this fate and will continue to do so until they lose their taste for

>cowardice under the guise of ahimsa, and start defending Bharat Mata with

>their blood, sweat and breath of life.

>

>A true sadhu is not an ascetic but a man of God. He cannot renounce this

>world which is full of God's children. He has a duty to guide them and

>participate in crushing evil. This is the crux of Dharma as expiained by the

>behavioural model of the Lord Rama, who was a virtuous son, a loving

>husband, a good father and a great ruler. Thus, a true devotee of Rama seeks

>perfection through serving his fellow-beings, and not by turning his back on

>them.

>

>May God bless Shriman Rangarajan with wisdom and courage to serve Bharat

>Mata, the only Deity that can exalt her children.

>

>

>

>

>===============================================

>"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their

>mission can alter the course of history"

>Mahatma Gandhi

>

>

>

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~-->

>Save on REALTOR Fees

>http://us.click./Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/0EHolB/TM

>---~->

>

>

>HinduThought

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to