May 19, 2009
ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः । तत् सवितुर्वरेण्यं ।
भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि । धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात् ॥
Om bhūr bhuvah svah; tat savitur varenyam
bhargo devasya dhīmahi; dhiyo yo nah pracodayāt
“We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds.”
Listen to the Mantra here
November 23, 2009
The Babri Masjid was demolished by an enraged Hindu mass on the 6th of December, 1992.
The Justice Liberhan Commission was instituted to go into the following :
To make an inquiry with respect to the following matters:
First indications – per the leak
Almost the entire (at the time in ‘92) top rung leadership of the BJP, the RSS and affiliates such as the VHP and the Bajrang Dal have been indicted. Interestingly Shri Vajpayee gets on the list whilst the late Shri PV Narasimha Rao is out.
First reactions from the BJP -
The party is fighting on technicalities of “who the hell leaked the report??!”. However what will continue to damn the party and the Hindu movement, if they are not street smart, is Shri Advani’s craven response of “Oh this was my saddest day..didn’t I tell you often enough??”
I’d like to see some spine on the BJP. Let the leadership stand up and be counted. Let them go to trial; not to prove their ‘innocence” but speak up for just Hindu nationalist rights.
- Namaste
November 23, 2009
On the 22nd of November 2009, Bengaluru witnessed a massive Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh meet. In excess of 60,000 people including Swayamsevaks and Swayamsevikas participated.
Here is a brief report.
We know that anti-Hindu Dalit ideologues marvel in their harangue that the RSS is a Brahmin(ical) organization. Well, here are my questions -
1. How many “Brahmins” were there amongst the Swayamsevaks and Swayamsevikas?
2. How many non-”Brahmins” including “Dalits”?
3. Do you think these Hindus forsook their Caste traditions?
4. Or do you think they came because they saw the Sangh did not threaten their traditions?
5. Do you think that the “Dalits” who attended were proud scavengers and sweepers?
6. Or do you think they had found a better calling?
My wife was on a bus near the venue and the meet had just finished. She called to say she might be late due to traffic. I somehow knew that her discomfort would not last long. I’m happy to say I was right.
Well done RSS!!
- Namaste
November 23, 2009
So he took courage in both his hands and said what needed to be said. Perhaps he could have done more and told us that the Prophet Mohammed himself would find nothing objectionable in what the Wahhabis preach, instead of informing us that Islam is different from Wahhabism. It is not.
Then he faded.
“I find that the Prophet is a man of peace. It (Quran) nowhere preaches hate and violence’’. Really? No need for me to discourse on such nonsense except to say Shri Jethmalani nullified his case even if it be against “Wahhabism”.
Shri Moily, that eternal pain, as usual cringed and scrounged.
The Saudi Ambassador walked out and reportedly came back when his pal Shri Moily oiled him and his.
Since in these times of liberalism induced coma any kind of movement is glorious – Here’s to Shri Jethmalani!! Thank you Sir!
- Namaste
November 23, 2009
How many times have we not heard this ridiculous but very cunning assertion? Even the Darul Uloom issued a much touted fatwa against terrorism based on it.
However what Muslims who spout such benign inanities will never reveal nor can their ulema tell us openly is who Islam considers innocent. This is a most uncomfortable question for those who defend such assertions and fatwas.
Nevertheless the point of this post is not what Muslims think of jihad. It is, if we are being fair to people like Kasab’s defence lawyers (whoever they might be) when we place them in indefensible situations in the name of upholding justice?
Would it not have been better if there had been a Military Tribunal to try this killer? He is after all one of the many who waged war against this country. He was not in uniform and carried and used his arms to kill combatants as well as non-combatants. He is not merely a murdering terrorist/saboteur, he is also a war criminal who purposefully targeted civilians.
Is it not time enough we seriously thought along these lines?
- Namaste
November 21, 2009
I am thankful to some of my Dalit friends for bringing about awareness of this terrible incident in our recent history. In particular, I am thankful to Shri Anoop Kumar and his Insight – Young Voices magazine for highlighting it’s anniversary. There is also a Bengali multi-part documentary on YouTube that one may watch.
If one must chart a chronology and from what I have read thus far, the following series of events reveal themselves -
1. The partition of Hindusthan which brought Muslim majority West and East Pakistan into existence proved to be extremely traumatic for Hindu residents of these alienated parts.
2. A series of riots that amounted to exercises in ejection of Hindus from East Pakistan (and of course West Pakistan) brought about the problem of refugees from East Pakistan. The problem involved their accommodation in the Hindu land.
3. The issue of accommodating Hindu refugees from the East in Hindusthan seems to have become a political football with the powers that be at the time – The Congress party and the Communists.
4. A good share of these refugees seem to have been accommodated within not just the new state of West Bengal (in Hindusthan) but also the neighboring states.
5. Under pressure from their local Bengali constituents, the Left Front – Communists seem to have devised a strategy to pressurize the then ruling Congress party to ensure that all (East) Bengali refugees are given land within the state of West Bengal.
6. Buckling under such pressure the Congress party appears to have earmarked certain areas including the Sundarbans forests for the refugees.
7. However, when the inflow of refugees into West Bengal, mainly from Dandakaranya started; a change in the ruling dispensation occurred with the Congress losing and the Communists forming the new Government.
8. Power already in their grasp, the Communists seem to have lost interest in the refugees - by now flowing into the state.
9. In quick succession that includes the Communists’ rejection of any settlement claims with regards to the refugees that they had a major hand in bringing into the state and the refugees refusal to comply with any ejection process – triggers the planned massacre.
A later twist – Referenced here and here
I mentioned earlier that this incident was referenced in a Dalit youth magazine. This is mainly because Dalit ideologues see the refugees as mainly Namasudras of the Ati-Shudra Castes of the Bengal province. This group is reported to have been quite assertive politically and this includes alliances with Muslims in undivided Bengal, against so-called upper Caste Hindu landlords.
The throwback in the narrative is to perceived commonalities between untouchable Castes and Muslims that allowed for such easy alliances. Then, as it is seen as self-evident, now.
(I have, in my discussions with Dalit ideologues rejected any such alliance as lasting and have asserted that these are in fact harmful to Dalits themselves)
Surprisingly whilst rightfully taking to task a Bengali bhadralok (mainly composed of Brahmana and Shudra – Kayasthas & Vaidyas) dominated Communist organization for the massacre, Dalit ideologues unforgivably forget to point even an accusing finger toward East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) Muslims for hounding out their “natural comrades-in-arms”, namely the Namasudras. On the other hand they have failed to acknowledge that the vast majority of refugees of all Castes including the Namasudras were accommodated in the Hindu country.
While we remember those killed by the Communists, it is important to remind anti-Hindu ideologues of inconvenient facts too.
- Namaste
November 20, 2009
I read this piece on Sandeep’s website; but came away unconvinced about Ilaiah’s “hate” for Hinduism.
It’s no surprise and can be easily proved from Shri Ilaiah’s own statements that he hates Hinduism. But I don’t believe him. I can believe he hates “Brahmin” Castes and various other “upper” Castes but Hinduism he simply cannot hate; not from where he stands. He accepts he’s one amongst the “Other Backward Castes/Classes” a post Mandal euphemism for Caste groups of the Shudra Varna.
Shri Ilaiah’s central thesis is that Hinduism = Brahmanism. Therefore anything other than Brahmanism supposedly vehicled by the “Brahmin” Castes and their fellow travellers within the so-called “upper” Castes, is not Hinduism. The cultures and traditions of the Shudra and Ati-Shudra (Dalit) Castes don’t seem to Shri Ilaiah, as parts of Hindu culture and tradition. This position of his is sharply at variance with the history of his own Caste group. Shri Ilaiah is from the Kuruma Caste.
If I were speaking with Shri Ilaiah, I would tell him that I would be happy to adopt to Kuruma ways. I should have no problem even though I’d still be of the Arvel Niyogi Caste adopting a Shudra/Vyshya trade that is traditional to the Kuruma people. Further, I would inform him that I have a number of Brahmanical (intellectual) pursuits much like himself. Lastly, I would advise him to revise the title of his best-selling book – Why I am Not a Hindu, because he obviously still is unless he’s reminiscing about his Hindu past and is now a Christian or Muslim. But if he says he belongs to the Kuruma Caste and has not given up their traditions and culture, then he’s a Hindu.
The following undated interview with Shri Ilaiah is revealing and such should ideally help Hindu nationalists engage ideologues in the mould of Shri Iliah without having to become defensive in any way.
- Namaste (more…)
November 20, 2009
I’d like to apologize for being away so long. I’ve been skirmishing with some Dalit ideologue friends about their pet hates and dubious stances. These vary according to the ideologue you read or encounter.
I feel Non-Dalit Hindus need to engage more with Dalit ideologues if only to show them that their unrestrained and false anti-Hindu propaganda will not go unchallenged. This should be accomplished with reasonable and logical arguments and not by any show of anger. Empathy will certainly help.
I have variously spoken of my views on Caste and Varna. It is quite common for ideologues on both sides of the divide to agree on the “evil” of Caste but on the question of Varna the Dalit ideologue will go with “Varna as forebear of Caste” and the Non-Dalit Hindu ideologue will say Varna proves that Caste was flexible, originally.
To my mind the issue is simple enough. Caste is much older than Varna. These two are not the same. Caste has everything to do with the endogamous nature of human groups. When groups tend toward endogamy then it’s natural that they develop cultures and traditions that are unique to their own groups. These norms mainly spring from the group’s occupation but is not limited by it.
One way of understanding the blight of untouchability is the stigma attached to traditional Caste groups that have occupied themselves in those trades that were seen as “beyond the pale” by the larger society. Now due to the endogamous nature of Caste groups it was quite impossible for such stigmatized groups to let-go of their “occupational legacy” even though they might have changed their occupations over time. For those folks that have moved out of their original living spaces, it has been easier to mingle but not that easy because they carry the stigma of their caste-name.
This is also the reason why untouchables have faced very tough situations even though they convert to other religions. They tend to carry the stigma with them. Here we must note a very important point – Caste has little to do with Hindu Dharma per se. However, it is various Caste groups that compose the Hindu people. The guiding principle within Hindu Dharma therefore is Varna as different from Caste but not opposed to Caste.
So what can Non-Dalit Hindus offer their fellows by way of an escape from their plight?
The answer does not lie in the ridiculous idea that Caste be abolished. Castes cannot be abolished. Nor can they be ignored to the point of irrelevance because our people’s traditions and culture is intertwined with their Castes. This is the reason why Non-Dalit Hindu Caste groups – those belonging to Shudra, Vyshya, Ksahtriya and Brahmana Varnas cannot countenance the idea of Castes being abolished or done away with. The other reason is that these latter Caste groups encapsulated by the four Varnas have no stigma attached to their groups. There is nothing for them to be “ashamed” of, no reason to hide.
The positive challenge is to “uplift” the untouchable Castes. Make their “low” trades economically viable through greater access to capital and machinery. However what is of utmost importance is for their Caste culture and traditions to gain acceptance within the larger Hindu framework. This is critical.
So I’m not talking about Sanskritization of untouchable Castes. I’m talking about acceptance of their traditions as part of our larger tradition. In other words we should help enlarge the scope of what Sanskritization means. It should mean not just the culture and tradition cherished by the so-called “upper” Caste groups, it should also mean those that are and should be; cherished by the so-called “lower” Caste groups. Once this starts to happen as indeed it is happening all around us today, the stigma attached to the Caste-name will be nullified and thence a change in occupation will be seen from the correct perspective of Varna rather than Caste. For illustration’s sake, Shri Ambedkar was one of Hindusthan’s greatest Brahmins of the Mahar Caste.
The main reason I want to share Shri Teltumbde’s article is because he provides some excellent rethink on a few very critical points of grouse that have always agitated the minds of Dalit ideologues (It’s not that I agree with his arguments entirely). Because ideologues of any hue are unable to change their positions and accept mistakes and errors in their arguments easily - I find Shri Teltumbde not an ideologue but a scholar who values the truth and is unafraid to face it.
- Namaste (more…)
November 16, 2009
I had the following observation to make on VFR’s post on the sight of President Obama bowing whilst holding the hand of his non-American counter-part.
Namaste Shri Auster,
With reference to just the deep bow accompanied with a handshake/hold, is it not an older Western tradition? I ask because I’ve observed this style of greeting in some visitors to Hindusthan as well as seen it in movies (old war – especially Germans).
However there is one crucial difference with Obama’s style. In what I otherwise witnessed, eye-contact was never lost. This is true of the Eastern traditions of bow-as-greeting too. Eye contact between the bower and the bowee ensures that self-respect of the bower is protected and the bowee never misunderstands the gesture.
The Hindus have the additional tradition of receiving blessings from teachers and respected elders in society and family by touching their feet. The categorisation of whose pada or feet may be touched ensures again that this gesture is never misunderstood or taken for granted.
So when Obama loses eye-contact with the bowee he effectively cedes a superior role or position to him and consequently denies himself equality or any kind of superiority.
Palahalli S
The reason I made my observation about touching the pada of elders and teachers was because of the false perception that Hindus and like, not Easterners in general – because Islam expressly forbids bowing to anybody expect Allah – are basically submissive to authority. In my opinion it is not firstly, submission and secondly to any authority. It is more in the form of a considered and respectful acknowledgement of greater wisdom.
Therefore not all elders and teachers are worthy of the same respect – they must earn it by their actions. In an earlier and more traditionally ordered society it was assumed that elders were repositories of greater wisdom and therefore were entitled to forms of respect without much ado.
I recently experienced this when my wife requested me to touch the feet of some elders in the family in order to receive their blessings and I hesitated. Immediately this hesitation was noticed and one of the elders advised my wife that one should not be forced. This clearly proves that the act of paying respect either with a bow or touching the pada should be a considered and respectful voluntary action, conducted without losing self-respect.
–Varta–
Palahalli S – Liberals are averse to any such reasoning or justification. They inform us that all human beings are equal and equally worthy of the same respect. In other words a student bowing to or touching the feet of his respected teacher or elder is an insult to the student’s sense of self-worth. The student’s inherent worth is the same as his teacher’s after all.
This line of reasoning is absolutely fool-hardy because if true, then there is no one the student will need to look up to for guidance and greater wisdom. All teachers and elders will be on the same plane as the youngster and will have no excercise of just authority over him.
This notion as we see all around us, leads to moral chaos.
November 13, 2009
There is only one thing this company must do now – wrap up their operations, demolish the building and let the land revert back to Muslim hands and Islāmic purposes. I’d love to see them instill a touch of Kshatriya pride in their cauldron of Vyshya acquisitiveness.
- Namaste
BANGALORE: Relate them: the city’s renowned and fancied ITC Windsor Manor Sheraton and Towers and Islāmic tenets.
In the long drawn battle with the occupant or lessee of its four-acre expanse in the heart of the city, the State Wakf Board is now pushing for a revised agreement whereby the hotel shall stay, provided it cares enough for Islāmic sentiments.
Thou shall not serve pork and alcohol and the like and thou shall also not allow or indulge in activities that clash with Islam’s precepts, says the Wakf Board.
Minister for for Wakf Mumtaz Ali Khan on Thursday told reporters that the Wakf Board’s stand will be made known to the High Court during the next hearing which is due next month.
The Wakf Board is also seeking the cancellation of the crux of their run-in with the ITC group – the 90-year lease agreement that the latter flaunts. An agreement on a monthly profit-sharing basis is what the board wants.
Presently, the hotel is depositing Rs 6 lakh as monthly rent, the Minister observed and said that under the new agreement they are seeking, the rent shall vary according to the profit of the month. The exact percentage may be worked out with the group, he said.
The lease on the Wakf property where the Windsor Manor Hotel stands was first inked in 1973.
The lease period was originally 30 years. In two revisions claimed to have been made over the latter part of the 1970s, the lease period was extended upto 90 years.
The Wakf Board subsequently contested these revisions as illegal, saying that its authorities were kept in the dark about these revisions.
November 12, 2009
Isn’t that question wrong? Rather, should hate be countered at all?
Let’s view it another way. Is it wrong to hate?
What would someone’s answer be?
If I were to answer the question I would first ask who or what the object of hate was. There is or rather should be nothing wrong in hating an evil human being, a group or ideology that does evil and inspires evil behavior in it’s adherents.
Please remember that what I would consider evil may not necessarily be evil for the person or group manifesting it. This is more culture specific. To me Islam is evil, period. However, to the Muslim it is just the reverse. Should I hate Islam/Muslims? To the extent that Islam manifests itself in Muslims and Muslims manifest themselves in my life – there is cause for me to hate Islam and Muslims. So now the obvious question that innocents and babes-in-woods would ask is – what is hateful in Islam?
So in this light it is simply not hateful to hate.
Liberals very often misinterpret fighting hate-fulness as a manifestation of hate itself. They see the means by which this hate-fulness is being fought. A means they, the liberals, find offensive. Interestingly liberals will never oppose similar means when used against their own pet hates. (for instance, maximum violence against Hindu nationalists will never bring protesting liberals onto the streets) So liberals too can hate; only they do not call it that. They call it a fight against hate.
Now, what distinguishes the hate of the liberal and the hate of the conservative-traditionalist? Values.
If the liberal value be that all cultures and religions are equal then his hate will be focused on those that do not subscribe to his creed of equality.
When evil manifests itself as a consequence of such a liberal creed and this cause and consequence is recognized and hated by the conservative-traditionalist; that is the hate displayed by the conservative-traditionalist.
Ultimately it is not hate that should be countered but evil – it’s cause and it’s manifestations.
How do we recognize evil and it’s effects?
To me anything that is subversive of the well-being of Hindusthan’s society, culture and civilization is evil. I cannot feel compassion towards this and such subversive elements.
So when readers read this article, they will know how much of the facts have been air-brushed to meet liberal requirements.
- Namaste
November 10, 2009
Let me admit that my first impulse to write this post was the incident at Fort Hood, Texas. We all know that this incident involved an American Muslim psychiatrist in the US Army – and the disgruntlement he reportedly felt about America’s wars with Muslim countries etc. Naturally questions are being raised about the wisdom of forced mirroring of society in the armed forces. I have used the word forced more in the sense of implications of political correctness and it’s demands on society’s obliging liberal leaders.
In Hindusthan our armed forces have off and on faced questions that settle on concern about a lack of “fair representation” of all sections of society. Meaning, does the Hindusthan Army, Navy, Air Force and other special forces have a representative sprinkling of civil societal diversities? The answer is no.
From my reading the following can be cited as reasons for the “non-representative” quality of our armed forces with particular reference to Muslims :
1. Historical reasons
- The concept of martial races introduced by the British. The British seemed to favor those groups in Hindusthan that were least susceptible to sedition, especially after 1857.
- The fight for and formation of Pakistan. This phase denuded the British-Hindusthan armed forces of close to 30% of it’s Muslim soldiery, especially in the Officer Corp.
2. Post – Partition reasons
- Wars and unrest with neighboring Islamic countries
- Even though there have been instances of individual Muslim gallantry in the Hindusthan army’s field operations, the willingness to trust Muslim soldiers or even Muslim civilians at the borders, do not seem to be at the same levels as with non-Muslims
3. Economic and Social reasons
- Typically, a lack of adequate education amongst Muslims
So there is a real “trust deficit” when it comes to Muslims. Some people compare this with the position of Sikhs and the fact that there was Khalistani terrorism against Hindus and dissenting fellow Sikhs; and ask how come the Sikhs are more than represented in the forces.
These people miss the entire point of historical processes and how societies bind themselves with each other. In fact the case of Sikh over-representation in the Hindusthan armed forces is the strongest case in favor of my proposed argument. Additionally the fact that no Hindu objects or has objected (except in the short phase right after Smt Gandhi’s assassination) to such a demographic ”imbalance” in the forces proves beyond doubt that not-withstanding flux, some societies are meant to live with and protect each other. The Sikhs btw have also been in the fore-front of wars against various Muslim invaders and conquerors. Their conferred role as the “sword-arm” of Hindudom may seem a bit exaggerated but this is more indicative of the trust this community retains in this country and with Hindus. A similar role can never be played by the Muslims, no matter how gallant individuals amongst them are.
My basic argument is that societies and it’s protectors have intrinsic and emotional linkages with each other. It is not possible, otherwise, for the protector to protect his society. This reasoning may seem to be at variance with the liberal idea of a “professional” armed force, where soldiers are expected to do their duty, period, without any emotional investment toward the society they protect; but there are reasons why liberals assume ”professionalism” implies a lack of “emotional attachment”. These reasons, academically dry in nature and thoroughly devoid of the processes of natural social bonding are akin to liberal reductionism. An illustration might suffice to make my point clearer:
In any article about Hindusthan’s army, it’s professionalism comes in for most admiration. It is contrasted sharply and favorably too, against the record of armed forces in our neighborhood – Bangladesh and Pakistan in particular. However there is one other comparison that stands out – behavior during religious conflict. It is said and perhaps this opinion is consensual; that Hindusthan’s armed forces act in a highly professional and impartial manner whilst dealing with rioters and therefore command greater credibility amongst Muslims, the assumed under-dog in any such conflict.
Some possibly mischievous implications may be borne in mind -
1. That Hindus do not see our armed forces as impartial during religious conflict.
2. That the armed forces who act more impartially when contrasted with police and paramilitary forces (the two are normally deployed first in cases of riots) do so because they (armed forces) are not communalized or religiously *influenced* to the extent the police and paramilitary forces are.
Now let us assume the argument that the armed forces are indeed impartial and that the police and paramilitary forces are partial towards Hindus – why then have we never witnessed Hindu resentment against armed forces when they intervene in riots? (Bear in mind “impartiality” implies proportionate Hindu dead bodies to Muslims killed). This is in sharp contrast to Muslim resentment against any police or paramilitary intervention.
The only sensible and rational deduction that can be made is that Hindus trust their forces – be they the army or the police and paramilitary personnel, to do the right thing. The Muslims seem only to trust those who cannot have known them closely. Army soldiers live in secluded barracks quite unlike the police etc. who go home daily to families and normal social lives.
The intrinsic and natural link between the Hindus and Hindusthan’s armed forces is clear.
Please consider the fact that in most historical societies, soldiery has been a tradition. This means that there have been families of soldiers. Members of such families choose to join the forces out of a sense of tradition and therefore are prepared likewise from an early age. In the case of Hindu society, such a tradition was carried on by various Kshatriya or like groups. I’m not here referring only to purely traditional warrior castes, even though that is how they developed but to people who knew they had it in them to take up the role of protectors. The Kodavas for instance have not been nominally seen as Kshatriyas and there is no reason why they should not rightfully claim that title, but they are Hindu and are largely and traditionally dedicated to soldiery. This was how the warrior classes developed largely until the advent of the British and their acts of omission and commission wrt Empire inspired “Martial Races”. Still even the British limited themselves to those classes that were traditional warriors.
Now the reason why some groups and classes of Hindu society developed themselves as protectors was simple. The larger society trusted them to take up that role. A case of natural selection if you please. Why should such selection be natural and not be made a matter of academics and mere physical prowess – as is being suggested these days to “correct” the representational imbalance wrt Muslims? The reason is that “trust” cannot be academically manufactured. Nor can trust be generated by a show of strength. If the latter were the case, the Muslims would have been accepted quite easily given the fact of their military dominance the last 600 odd years in our history. This very fact, ironically, is working against them now.
- Namaste
–Varta–
Palahalli S – So a proportional representation in our armed forces – in order to better mirror the “diversity” in society should never be attempted. This of course flies in the face of any liberal agenda that would take my proposed inaction as somehow repressive of the Muslim minority.
So be it.
There are two sources I reviewed to write this article.
2. Ongoing discussion of the Fort Hood massacre at VFR.
I will strongly recommend Hindu readers follow the VFR discussions because they constantly refer to arguments in the US media, that Hindusthan’s liberals and communists use to bolster their case for proportionate representation. In many many cases, we are on the same plane.
Ku. Kavitha writes –
Palahalli,
Isn’t it ironic that even the Pakistani army are distrusting the devout, beard sporting Muslims to be their soldiers these days…LOL so also the Bangladesh Army after the failed coup attempt against Begum Khaleed Zia’s fledgeling government.
It is just a matter of time, before you see a backlash against the Muslims in the US army if the trend continues.
Palahalli S replies –
Your information may well be accurate Kavitha but what can this change in attitude to Islamic beards really change? The Fort Hood killer Nidal for instance never sported a beard.
It is excellent that Hindusthan keeps Muslim representation in the forces at round 2%. It must never get higher. Lower it can, but not higher.
In fact I’m finding that Hindus are mighty more realistic about Muslims than when compared with White Westerners.
November 9, 2009
This Islamic institution is not just *popular* for it’s fatwa against the singing of Vande Mataram by Muslims, but for various other fatwas including the one purportedly against terrorism.
On the sidebar of this site (under I’m reading) is linked the database that holds all the fatwas issued by the school. It’s a useful read.
- Namaste
November 9, 2009
There are several reasons why silly liberal views must not be ignored but analysed. Amongst them;
1. Because they are the prevailing viewpoint of our times
2. By prevailing I mean the view largely held by the elite
3. That when not challenged and ignored such views gain even more legitimacy
4. Because they win newsprint space
But first, this man’s liberal credentials from Wikipedia;
Anil Dharker is an Indian columnist. His articles appear in several Indian newspapers such as the Times of India, Mid-Day, The Hindu, Gulf News, and other similar publications. He has been editor of The Illustrated Weekly of India, The Independent, MidDay, Sunday MidDay. He has also been a producer, anchor and interviewer, head of a TV Channel and critic on The Sunday Times of India and The Sunday Observer. In addition, he has also written a book on state television broadcaster Doordarshan — “Sorry, Not Ready”, published by Harper Collins. He is the father of actress Ayesha Dharker.
Next, his article in DNA;
Who are Islam’s worst enemies? Not the west, not the United States of America, not Jews, not extremist Hindus…. Islam’s worst enemies are Muslims. (Pala S – It is important to remember that for Shri Dharker (D), the Muslim is completely innocent. He (the Muslim) cannot have any legitimate enemy. He can have only aggressors. So this question is actually rhetorical, not factual. Let’s move on)I am not a religious scholar, but people whose opinions I respect and who have studied the Koran and Islam, talk of it being an enlightened religion, and also speak highly of its reiteration of universal human values. (Pala S – Unfortunately for Shri D the unanimity amongst Muslim scholars about Islam’s innocence is well-known. Unless he starts to reveal the identity of his “opinion formers”, there is little value in dissecting this point)
Yet Islam is constantly being misinterpreted in the most grotesque way. First, there are the extremists who themselves are safely ensconced in hiding places in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq but brainwash poor young men into ‘martyring’ themselves in the cause of Islam and while doing so take a huge toll of innocent lives (many of them Muslim). (Pala S – Misinterpreted how? Shri D never says. This worthy cares to remind us that there are extremists ensconced in amongst other places, Saudi Arabia too. But of course the rest of Saudi Arabia is liberal to the bone! This apart, what one encounters whilst dealing with non-Muslim liberals, about Islam, is this constant and consistent contradiction in their stances – there is always a minority of majority Muslim extremists)
Read the chilling conversations between Kasab and his fellow terrorists with their Pakistani handlers: “Allah ke pyare ho jao” the handlers cynically tell the young terrorists sending them to their doom. (Pala S – That this should surprise Shri D and make him speechless is understandable given the quality of his liberal conscience. However my bewilderment is with the fact that he calls Kasab’s “handlers” cynical. Does he not think that they actually believed these “martyrs” will be Allah’s favorites? There is only one reason why Islamists have never run out of Muslim jihadis – that’s because they (the various handlers) have retained their credibility and commitment to their “cause”)
Their terrorism has reached such a scale worldwide that the ordinary non-political Muslim has felt compelled to come out in the open to voice their protests. This was particularly evident after 26/11, when every march denouncing the atrocities always contained a sizeable number of Muslims, and every television discussion featured prominent Muslims expressing their denunciations as angrily and vehemently as everyone else. (Pala S – Who is this “ordinary non-political Muslim”? Did such a Muslim keep quite when the Babri Masjid was destroyed? Or did he scream bloody murder when lakhs of truly innocent Kashmiri Hindus were ethnically cleansed by Muslims, and driven from their own homeland in Hindusthan? Why was the occasion of the uber-recent slaughter of Hindus in Mumbai “particularly evident” in terms of Muslim reactions against Islamic terror?
Someone recently pointed out to me that Muslims in Mumbai never agreed to bury Kasab’s dead jihadi comrades in their local cemeteries. I asked this friend what had happened to the thousands of dead jihadis killed before and since, Mumbai? Where were they all buried or were they not buried at all?!)
A very important voice that was added to these was the voice of the cleric culminating in the Darul Uloom at Deoband, issuing a fatwa against terrorism on February 25, 2008. (“Islam rejects all kinds of unwarranted violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing and plunder and does not allow it in any form”). (Pala S – I will advise readers to dwell upon this fatwa. “(Islam rejects all kinds of unwarranted violence..)”. Now, what is “unwarranted” violence can be decided only by Muslims and not non-Muslims. For instances the ongoing killings of Israelis is not “unwarranted violence”. Islamic terror in Kashmir and the rest of Hindusthan is not “unwarranted violence”, Xinjiang is not “unwarranted violence” and so is not Chechnya - this is why we cannot find fatwas against such violence. This Deoband fatwa serves a political purpose like all others. It helps put liberals like Shri D to sleep)
Then comes the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind’s 30th General Assembly at Deoband last week held to usher in social and educational reforms. But for some reason, the conference reiterated a resolution it had passed in 2006, saying that Muslims should not recite Vande Mataram as “parts of the song are against the tenets of Islam”. (Pala S – It should be remembered that the secular State of Hindusthan recognized only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram. The remainder were deemed unfit for Muslim tongues. Now Islamic gangsters, true to their calling, push the envelope further and say the entire song is blasphemy – and this surprises Shri D. Liberals are constantly surprised with the obvious)
Why did they do it? Three years ago the resolution had caused a furore and given the Hindutva brigade something to shout about. Was there a compelling reason to bring up the question again? Or are the Deobandis deliberately making life difficult for the ordinary Muslim by bringing up provocative resolutions? As it happens, the 10,000 clerics gathered there, gave even more evidence to the rest of the nation that they are determined to keep India’s Muslim population as backward as possible. They opposed the women’s reservation bill, advocated a special syllabus for girl students, made it compulsory for even young girls to wear the purdah, opposed the government’s effort to reform the madrasa system of education, etcetera, etcetera. (Pala S – A sleight of hand should be recognized here. There would have been no furore if the “Hindutva brigade” had not shouted about it. It was/is beneath liberal conscience to fight for National honor. As for the rest, my position is that if Muslims want to live in Islamic splendor, let them. Inspite of all the liberal angst Shri D displays here, no Muslim will really oppose the Deoband school)
In short, they made it clear that they want to ghettoise Muslims and make it impossible for them to join the mainstream life of a modern vibrant India. (Pala S – The mainstream is non-Islamic. How can Muslims join it?)
What are the credentials of these clerics? What gives them the authority to speak for all Muslims? They have been described as ‘scholars’ but have they studied any of the subjects that a 21st century citizen of the world must know? How many women are there in that 10,000 strong gathering? If none, what empowers these men to speak about what women should do? (Pala S – Fool! Bloody fool! Sorry, couldn’t resist. The Deoband school is an Islamic school. Their scholars are scholars of Islam. No wonder liberals carry zilch credibility amongst Islamists even though they are such useful idiots (for them))
The Muslim community which came out in such strength against terrorism must now publicly distance itself from the reactionary fatwas of the Deoband conclave. They have already made it amply clear that they belong to India, something they did not have to do. Now they must make it equally clear that they want to belong to a modern India. (Pala S – A word about the Muslim “protest” against Islamists. The massacre at Mumbai was the most televised and prolonged event in Hindusthan’s modern history. The killers employed, were Muslims. They were killing for a Muslim cause. Their targets were non-Islamic.
To cite Muslim victims of these killers and say the killers were against “Indians” as a whole, is a liberal spin and perversity. But such is the use of the *useful liberal idiots* that Muslim organizations dramatized their “strong protests” against Muslim killers and additionally, refused to bury their dead bodies.
This now is bandied about as “proof of patriotism” and other assorted unknown Muslim virtues)
–Varta–
Palahalli S - Why do liberals indulge in such subterfuge? It’s because they are given the space to do it. More, much of their propaganda is ignored by Hindu nationalists as “ever flowing water” they cannot be expected to waste their time with.
However, it is necessary that each such instance is challenged as best as one can – and spoken about.
November 6, 2009
Many many years ago someone narrated to me this simple tale but I forget where he stopped :
A great Rishi was meditating along the banks of a river,
When a slight splash in the water disturbed his deep sense.
He opened his eyes and looked just beyond the bank,
And found the cause, a scorpion had dropped off a tree.
Deeply imbued as he was, this Rishi, with a sense of Dharma,
Stretching out his hand reached the witless struggling scorpion and picked it up.
Ah! The pain! Perhaps missed by the blessed one..immersed in his Dharmic duty,
He nevertheless places the innocent scorpion on safe land and returns to his state.
Many minutes pass and the great one hears the little splash again,
Without a thought adverse, he does his good deed …Ahh! Pain!
Ignored and returned to his inner self.
A curious passersby, also a keen observer quickly goes up to the Rishi and asks,
Tell me Sire, I have been watching what you do to help the scorpion.
It stung you twice and I think you will bring it out of the river again, if it fell,
Why?
The great one looks up from his mat and smiles a slight smile.
“The scorpion is not at fault my good friend, it is after-all it’s Dharma to sting when touched by strange hands. And,
It is my Dharma to bring it out of the water and save it.”
The observer, who is listening intently and watching the scorpion climb up the tree again,
Asks a simple question.
Is it?
- Namaste
November 6, 2009
I think this is a question, an issue, that is larger than it’s creators. It speaks about what Hindus think of who they are. Its speaks of a confusion that persists about our own National Identity and who might share in it. It speaks also of a lack of recognition of those that do not share in this National Identity and the reasons thereof and what we should do about it, if at all.
On Tuesday, Deobandi organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind asked members of the community not to sing Vande Mataram and supported the Darul Uloom opposing any recitation involving the song.
“The fatwa of Darul Uloom [opposing the recitation of Vande Mataram] is correct,” said one of the 25 resolutions passed at its 30th general session, in the presence of Union home minister P Chidambaram. Darul Uloom issued the edict in 2006, describing the recitation of Vande Mataram as anti-Islamic.
The BJP was quick to attack the home minister, with party vice-president Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi accusing Chidambaram of providing legitimacy to the fatwa. The minister, however, claimed innocence. A statement issued by his office said he was not present in Deoband when the resolution was adopted.
Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray also hit out against the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind for issuing the fatwa, saying those who oppose the national song should go to Pakistan.
The fatwa drew mixed reactions from Muslim leaders, with one section voicing disapproval against the raising of a “dead issue” at a time when the community has more serious matters to address, and another noting that singing the Vande Mataram (or not) should not be the criteria to define patriotism.
Are people who choose not to sing India’s national song unpatriotic? Or is it against the nature of democracy for leaders to lash out at those who peacefully express their opinion?
–Varta–
Palahalli S - This is what Shri Gandhi said, at various times:
On 2 December, 1905, in Indian Opinion, he wrote:
“The song, it is said, has proved so popular that it has come to be our National Anthem… Just as we worship our mother, so is this song a passionate prayer to India.”
On 27 April, 1915, at a meeting in Madras, which began with the song, he said:
“You have sung that beautiful song, on hearing which all of us sprang to our feet. The poet has lavished all the adjectives we possibly could to describe Mother India … it is for you and me to make good the claim that the poet has advanced on behalf of his Motherland.”
In January 1939, after the continuing criticism of the stance adopted by Congress in its 1937 CWC statement, Gandhi placed before the CWC at its meeting in Wardha, a draft statement which was marked ‘Strictly Confidential. Not for publication’:
“As for the singing of the long-established national song, Vande Mataram, the Congress, anticipating objections, has retained as national song only those stanzas to which no possible objection could be taken on religious or other grounds. But except at purely Congress gatherings it should be left open to individuals whether they will stand up when the stanzas are sung. In the present state of things, in local Board and Assembly meetings which their members [are] obliged to attend, the singing of Vande Mataram should be discontinued.”
On 1 July 1939, in Harijan, he published an essay in which he said that “Vande Mataram was a powerful battle cry” and that he himself “as a lad” was enthralled by 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 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.”
On 23 August, 1947, at a prayer meeting in Alipore, Calcutta, he said, “That was no religious cry. It was a political cry … It should never be a chant to insult or offend the Muslims” and asked Muslims to appreciate the historic association of Vande Matram with the freedom movement. But, needless to say, he counselled against any imposition. Every act, he characteristically said, must be purely voluntary.
And here is the one mistake we Hindus continue to make -
Nathuram Godse :
“It is notorious that some Muslims disliked the celebrated song of Vande Mataram and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could… It continued to be sung at all Congress and other national gatherings but as soon as one Muslim objected to it, Gandhiji utterly disregarded the national sentiment behind it and persuaded the Congress also not to insist upon the singing as the national song. We are now asked to adopt Rabindranath Tagore’s Jana Gana Mana as a substitute of Vande Mataram. Could anything be more demoralising or pitiful…?”
I continue - Without making it an academic discourse, what I would like to ask is who are the people in Hindusthan who might take no offense to Vande Mataram and what it means? What if we call them Nationals of Hindusthan?
Would it be far from the truth?
Now, who are those people who will take offense? Shall we call them Muslims? I know of no other minority that resists, if at all, Vande Mataram as much as the Muslims do. So let’s call the dissenters Muslims – the Minority.
Is a Minority expected to share in the National life? If yes, on what grounds? If no, then is that a problem?
If Hindus expect Muslims to share in their National life, then will the Muslim remain one? Especially since he knows that a Hindu oriented National life is not his; cannot be his? Isn’t that what this entire issue about?
I believe Hindu organizations like the VHP make the fundamental mistake that was made by Shriman Godse in his statement – To protest righteous Muslim intransigence while not protesting their (Muslim)*involvement* in our national life. If we do the latter, the former becomes redundant.
Why do Hindus forget that Muslims as minority, need not be part of this country’s National life? There is no reason for Hindus to be surprised with Muslims protesting Vande Mataram when they, the Muslims, are asked to sing it. What else is expected of them?
But when we do protest such dissent against our Hindu National life, we tend to otherwise crave for Muslim acceptance of it. So much like wooing a lover who is simply not interested.
The perfect thing to do is to ignore the bitch and get on with our National life.
There is always the matter of dalals like Shri Chidambaram who try their filthy hands at match-making. They should be told in no uncertain terms that Hindus can find their own companions in life. To that extent, Hindu anger is justified.
Hindu nationalists who protest Muslim isolationism must never forget Veer Savarkar’s mantra -
“If you come, with you – if you don’t, without you – if you oppose, inspite of you!”
November 6, 2009
Who is shocked by this report? Anyone? Is there anybody perceptive enough, who has missed these signals? I mean, is even the constituency as limited as “teens” or has the trap spread wider?
Before reading further let us recall the theme of our times : Liberalism that incubates Individual Rights and Equality of the Sexes. Are we as a society that is slowly slipping down the slippery slope, willing to touch these two major causes of our society’s impending decay? I say impending because the decay can be arrested today.
However, it can only be arrested if we start to recognize that with Individual Rights come responsibility toward the wellbeing of our society. If such wellbeing is threatened, then society and it’s institutions must overrule Individual Rights.
That Equality of the Sexes is a modern myth that has led societies elsewhere and will lead us, toward untold suffering and pain. That women and men have their own special roles and responsibilities toward each other and toward their families. That nothing that endangers family and society is really worth keeping and nurturing.
Are we urban folks in Hindusthan prepared to recognize the issues involved? I have my doubts.
- Namaste
Bangalore’s weakest underbelly is its vulnerable teen population. Alcohol and drugs are breaking the age barrier as young students turn into addicts.
Just 16 years old, Rajesh is being treated for alcohol addiction. He still goes to a PU college and attends classes regularly. He joined a recovery programme when Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) began its formalised campus awareness modules for the first time on a large scale this academic year.
AA campus programmes are aimed at young adults, students from standards 8-10 and PUC students in the age group 15-18. The programmes are being offered as part of value-education classes.
While this was just an informal exercise on a few campuses earlier, this year five institutions have been covered under the programme. Earlier, the programme covered only one hour per college. This year the programme has taken a new avatar with one-hour programmes for each PU class in the campus.
Some colleges have covered up to 22 hours. Experts warn that teen alcoholism and substance abuse is a growing and worrying trend. As part of the programme, former alcoholics and family members of alcoholics interact with students talking to them about their experiences and AA’s role in their recovery. Programmes like Alateen (for teens) and Al-anon (for family members of alcoholics) are also held.
“Students are into substance abuse at a younger age now due to problems they face at home: Stress is high, parent-child interaction is low and peer pressure is immense,” says Nisha Mehta, a value education teacher from a PU college that has completed the programme. “Parents often use money to make up for their absence; children misuse the money.” (Pala S – With more fathers and mothers working, there seems to be no support for the child. “Nuclear” families have already distanced the caring hands of grandparents)
AA members say city teenagers are extremely vulnerable to substance and alcohol abuse. “I started drinking when I was 13 years old. I went into recovery at 18. Peer pressure is high during early college years. Awareness is vital to let them know that recovery is available and possible at any age,” says Pradeep, public information officer, AA.
“Awareness is important to differentiate between (alcohol) addiction and substance abuse. Addiction is a brain disease that is caused with anything, not just alcohol and drugs. Only 5% of the male population and an even smaller percentage of female population are addicts. Several problems arise as byproducts of substance abuse like drink-driving and unsafe sex,” says Vivek Benegal, associate professor of psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bangalore. (Pala S – So here’s the catch. This doctor cannot recognize a fish when he catches one. Why is it important to differentiate between addiction and abuse? Let the doctors do that.
Is casual sex fine as long as you are “protected”? Our unearning youngsters drinking is fine as long as they “know their limits”?
Some Hindu nationalists believe speaking about such dangers is being prudish and “Victorian”. I don’t think so. I believe Hindu tradition speaks of responsibilities of the individual. The individual exercises Rights in proportion to the Responsibility he accepts toward himself and society.
Students’ names changed to protect identities.
November 4, 2009
The issue of the rejection of Vande Mataram by Hindusthan’s Muslim minority is an old one; almost as old as the composition of the song itself. I think that to express surprise and disgust over the summary rejection of Hindusthan’s national song par excellence is a waste of time and a display of Hindu naivety.
The big point is not the Muslim attitude to Vande Mataram but Shri Chidambaram and his ilk, the attitude of Hindusthan’s elite who will accept invitations from organizations like the Jamiat and make supplicant speeches in their gatherings.
The passing of provocative and in many cases anti-national resolutions was the third item on the program and Shri Chidambaram’s speech was the eighth. There was no way this minister could have been ignorant of what had already transpired. And yet he went ahead and made a wholly unnecessary and idiotic speech praising to high heavens his guests for the day. Perhaps it is too much to expect any assertion of self-respect from our politicians – be they of the Congress or the BJP – he could have cited the resolutions and made a graceful exit on point of order.
Shri Chidambaram unfailingly insists he is an intelligent man who should be taken seriously. Yet his stances on the Ishrat Jahan & Co. affidavit, anti-Naxalite flip-flops and now this episode seem to put paid to any such claim to high IQ, let alone prioritising national security, which as Home Minister, is his prime and sacred duty.
- Namaste
–Varta–
A reader, Pharoah, observes -
Pala,
This is the same guy who ridicules Arun Shourie as the only person with a above 60 IQ in the BJP and is always drafted to do any work that requires an IQ more than 60
Be that as it may, PC’s chicanery and flipflops are legendary. He ran down the gains made by NDA in the economic/finance arena, after he took over as the FM. Now he is the Home Minister after 26/11 bombay mayhem. Luckily there is nothing left by his predecessor (either LKA or Shivraj Patil) to run down by PC. That is a saving grace for us.
Palahalli S responds -
Well, always in a tragic replay just when we think a depth cannot be reached it gets crossed by these worthies. Is real defeat the only medicine that can cure such behavior?
November 3, 2009
I’d like to present, unmolested by my annoying asides, Shri Kedar’s passionate summation of his case as we approach the final stages of this debate -
He writes -
About sushruta samhita, Bhandarkar says that it recommends beef for certain patients and pregnant women. Let us see if that is the case.
Here are the relevant verses:
sutra sthaanam, adhyaya 46, verse 89:
svaasa-kaasa pratishyaaya vishamajvara-naashanam |
shrama-atyaagni-hitam gavyam pavitram-anilaapaham ||
The translation that is found here is correct:
“Beef is holy and refrigerant, proves curative in dyspnoea, catarrh, cough, chronic fever and in cases of a morbid craving for food (Atyagni), and destroys the deranged Vayu.
My observations:
1) Sushruta was not just a doctor, he was more importantly, a rishi.
2) This verse merely states the medicinal properties of the flesh of cow.
3) Also, there is no recommendation here. Just plain simple fact, in a long line of medicinal properties of other animals’ flesh. A hindu like me cannot imagine that vedic people who inspired people like Aurobindo were busy treating themselves with cats, dogs, mice, birds, etc. for common ailments.
4) At the beginning of every chapter, Sushruta states “athovaacha bhagavaan dhanvantarih”. Dhanvantari Himself dictated the entire text to him. Now whether it is taken to mean that Lord Dhanvantari himself wants us to eat beef, or that he has simply told the characteristics of the flesh of every single animal to sushruta to be used when necessary depends on the sabhyata (civility) of the reader.
sharira sthaanam, adhyaya 3, verse 25, line-ii:
gavaam maamse tu balinam sarvakleshsaham tathaa ||
This line translates to: “A pregnant woman who craves to eat the flesh of a cow shall have a son who is strong and capable of withstanding all difficulties”.
1) Again, this is an observation, in a list of what sort of craving on the part of a pregnant woman produces what sort of result.
2) This is not a recommendation as stated by bhandarkar.
3) One cannot give any logical reasoning why a pregnant woman would want to eat the flesh of a cow. This topic is extremely subjective and I would just bow down to Dhanvatari and sushruta and accept it as it is.
Conclusion:
My effort in this debate, though begun as an impulsive and emotional response, has later been thoroughly guided by the learned in the process. No amount of thanks would suffice in this regard. My head is at their feet for their help.
I realise that a lot more work needs to be done in this regard to rid the commonly circulated myths about Indic texts supporting beef consumption of the German “Aryan” and “Eurocentrist” malignant tumours. Most of the english translations have been done by people who had no idea about our past. These translations are being eagerly lapped up by India’s internet savvy citizens. The explanations of the learned are being viewed with suspicion and openly denied. Instead, people are preferring peer-reviewed books and articles, though they are reviewed by the same kind of people who translated them. There is a complete disconnect between the kind of people who wrote our texts, and the kind of people who peer-review the books. The assumption is that there are no direct descendants of the vedic seers currently. The learned are being denied their rightful status as the direct heirs of the vedic seers by our own people.
But I have indeed shown that with a little help from these few resplendent gems who still live in the vedic age unaffected by the advent and passing of jina, buddha, christ, and muhammad, we can go a long way in countering these myths with the light of reality. Another important aspect of why I took up this debate even in the light of overwhelming body of evidence stacked up since the past 25 years against me on the internet is that I would like any readers who stumble on this page to know what exactly do our ancient texts say in this regard, and to advise them to learn samskrtam so that they can lend their hand in this struggle to become ourselves again.
A word of grudging thanks:
A Ravana was needed for Rama to take birth on this earth;
A Kamsa was needed for Krishna to be born.
A Palahalli was required for me to know what Asvalayana Gruhya Sutra says.
I end with a shloka from Bhartruhari’s Neeti shatakam:
अज्ञः सुखामाराध्यः सुखतरमाराध्यते विशेषज्ञः |
ज्ञानलवदुर्विदाग्धम् ब्रह्मापि नरम् न रंजयति ||
“It is easy to convince an ignorant person. It is even easier to convince a learned person. But a person with half knowledge cannot be convinced by even Brahma himself”
srirastu. subhamastu. kalyanamastu.
November 3, 2009
In my last post in the ongoing Beef and the Hindus debate, I had referred to the Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham’s observations on the subject -
I have taken two excerpts from his published work Hindu Dharma - these excerpts refer to his views on animal sacrifice in Vedic Dharma.
As asserted many times before, I concur with these views with pride in respect to the unambiguous assertion of the fact of animal sacrifice, including the sacrifice of the Cow in the Vedas.
- Namaste (more…)
November 3, 2009
The debate so far – here
This continuing debate has been the longest on this website. I’m deeply thankful to all who have participated and continue to participate in the discussions.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that no comment has been moderated and if at all I have thought a comment unworthy of the participant’s stature; due to it’s flippancy – I have merely struck it out, not deleted it.
I am under no false illusion about this website’s popularity and so have avoided any airs about my own supposed debating skills and other such prowess. I’m humbly thankful that knowledgeable readers have thought it worthwhile to debate on this forum. It is my hope that they will share their insights on other topics that are published here from time to time.
Let us now continue :
Since I was travelling today, I could not help but respond to some comments via email. I will treat these comments and the responses they have elicited as part of the ongoing discussions.
Post my last comment on the 2nd Nov, Shri Kedar responded – (The interjections in my name are the ones I responded by email)
1) “There is also the stipulation that there should be no copulation with a woman until the sacrifice ends. This does not mean the yajamana and his priest were bachelors. More likely this was the discipline.”
If it means there should be no copulation until the sacrifice ends, it means exactly that. People can hold their urge for a few hours (or even a few days), you know. In the same manner, if it says na maamsam ashneeyuh, it means exactly that– No meat until the ritual ends.
(Pala S – Precisely. It does NOT mean no meat at all. No one has heard of prasada being received during a sacrifice. It is only after)
2) Regarding madhuparka, I proved that there is no word in either Asvalayana Asvalayana gruhya sutra or its very first bhashya that says kill/immolate the cow. If Asvalayana wanted to say immolate/kill, he would have said it directly as in other instances. If cow sacrifice was so common in those days, where was the need to hide it using another word?
(Pala S – I think you are making an untenable assumption here. Please show me which other pashu was employed in sacrifices? Where else has Asvalayana spoken about sacrificing some other animal? Or are you saying no animal was sacrificed?)
2) “however, it is more likely that the term utsarga can mean “gifting” in many ways.” utsarga = setting free, causing to go, liberate, presenting, giving daana to a brahmana.
I will say this: Our vedic rishis have never lied or hid behind euphemisms.
(Pala S – I at least am not saying they have lied or hidden behind euphemisms. However they seem to have employed styles of language to get across their intent. Therefore “utsarga” can be said to mean liberating through sacrifice?)
3) “That’s the ritual. It does not necessarily mean the pashu had to agree to being sacrificed”
I am a Hindu. To me, the vedas are apourusheyas–eternal truths revealved to tapasvi rishis after ardent japa, tapa, yama, niyama, indriya parigraha, etc. When they say that a samjnaapana is made with an animal, to me, it suggests more than just a euphemism by dishonest priests wanting to sink their teeth into the animal’s innards.
(Pala S – I cannot understand why your bent on assuming the worst of intentions. Why should the priests have cooked up something like this? It is perfectly possible that they were convinced of the pact. This does not however, change the fact of the act)
You are questioning a core belief of my faith. If you do not believe that there was an agreement between the pashu and the priest, then please end this debate and claim victory. It is your blog and you have your compulsions of not daring to lose ever. I understand that. I am happy in believing that the rishis that gave our country the vedas were capable of certain siddhis. On any given day, shraddha, aasthaa, and bhakti carry more importance for a Hindu like me.
(Pala S - This is no argument. Anything can become possible with such “truths”.
Moreover you have not explained how less of a Hindu were Shri Shastri and Shri Sharma. Why should I not trust their proven scholarship the same way you seem to insist on yours? Surely you do not suggest that they were incompetent or malicious?
It’s like I said earlier, why would a (non-beef eating)traditional Hindu consciously place a Cow where it simply is not, in the original?
We have indeed travelled far from MUM accepting Shri Sharma’s thesis as one of three main reference points. Were they also non-Hindu in their impulse?
I wonder what you would say against the Paramacharya of Kanchi’s “blunders” with Sanskrit grammar and interpretation?)
Swayamsevak writes – (My interjections as detailed, were on email)
Hi Palahalli
With all due regards to your vast knowledge and references, if you do not understand samskrit or cannot yourself translate the verses yourself, then at least be open to listen to what Shri Kedar is saying.
(Pala S - I’m a lay Hindu trying to understand better this phenomenon of sacred Cow leading to non-slaughter of the animal. The Cow protectors often claim that our scriptures have been mis-understood or have been mis-interpreted in a malicious manner, to prove that Cow sacrifice took place, where there was none. This seems to be Shri Kedar’s position and his is not a unique instance.
Now, I don’t have anything against Shri Kedar’s grasp of Sanskrit and his manner of textual interpretations. I’m sure they are excellent. However what should be done when Shri Kedar’s opinion is pitted against traditional scholars of Sanskrit? Even against his own references (MUM)? What side should I take?
Therefore I use my common sense and logic)
In the Devaswamin bhashya I have provided, which is the basis for the Narayana Vritti bhashya, it explicitly states in simple samskrit (as Shri Kedar has clearly put it) above – “na ityuchyatE”.
Do you think there is any specific reason that a commentator should emphatically deny any ‘misinterpretation’? Yes, when there is a ‘possibility’ of misinterpretation. This is exactly what has happened when “nAmAmsa” was conveniently substituted with “namAmsa” omitting one negation out of a double negation!
(Pala S – On your query I believe I have already made my reasoning clear in my response to Shri Kedar)
—-
Also, if you could explain your thought train that took you from:
“reference of meat is present in this text (Grhya Sutra) and its properties are discussed (like in the Susruta Samhita reference)”
to
“cow meat was surely a part of hindu DAILY DIET”
(Pala S – If you could kindly point me to where I have said this, I might be able to show context and reason)
Shri Kedar summarises via email – (My interjections are made along-side)
Regarding Madhuparka, I have provided all the information that I have. I have nothing to add and all I can do now is summarise my observations:
1) I have shown that there is no word that says kill/slaughter the cow in the Madhuparka context of either Asvalayana Gruhya Sutra, or its very first bhashya.
(Pala S – And yet there are references to pashu bali during yagnas. It is not my argument that all yagnas involved pashu bali, however those that did, involved the sacrifice of animals. Wrt animals, there is no mention of the types or kinds of animals that may be sacrified. Perhaps we need to look more closely; but what is glaring is the constant mention of cattle including the Cow. The stipulation that madhuparka may be taken with or without meat is besides the point and procedural. The point is the meat that is eaten)
2) I have shown that meat was not to be consumed during Madhuparka ritual. Prasadam is an integral part of any Hindu ritual.
(Pala S – Absolutely. Prasada is certainly integral to sacrifice and ritual. However, my point was that prasada is a ritual end-product and not given or accepted during or at the beginning of a ritual or sacrifice. Therefore the fact that prasada meat was not consumed *during* madhuparka ritual is only proper)
3) Not every yajna needs pashu-bali. I have already provided previously two other instances where Asvalayana talks about pashu-bali.
(Pala S – I agree)
4) You have not presented a single evidence that either my translation or my grammatical analysis of original samskrta texts is wrong.
(Pala S – I don’t need to disagree with your Sanskrit translation or grammar. I have shown my case stands even with your interpretations)
5) Regarding my analysis disagreeing with those of N.N.Sharma’s and Satya Vrat Shastri’s, it doesnt matter at all. Bhashya-karas often disagree too. Dharmasastras often disagree with one another. Simply disagreeing doesnt make anybody a communist. Just to make it clear: I have the highest regard for N.N.Sharma and Satya Vrat Shastri.
(Pala S – That’s good to know. What is more difficult to understand is that a Mahapataka, as you called Cow slaughter, can be referred to by traditional Hindus without more search and an observation that this was indeed aDharmic. Why did they not do this? I cannot believe it was a slip. So, was it a Mahapataka at all?)
6) Talking of disagreements, you would find yourself in perfect disagreement with everyone among Asvalayana, Devasvami, Naidhruva Narayana, Oldenberg, Satya Vrat Shastri, N.N.Sharma, and myself in one context: All of us assign the meaning of utsarga in this context as giving away the cow in daana “alive”.
(Pala S - That’s not a problem to the well being of my main argument)
7) Finally, like crores of other Indians, my belief in the capabilities and siddhis of my nation’s munis, rishis, raja-rishis, maharshis and brahma-rshis in unshakeable. Every country in this world has had some great kings and emperors. But no other country in this world has equivalents of my nation’s great tapasvi, mantra-drashta, vishva-kalyaana-kaami rishis. If you do not have faith in this one unique aspect about our country, I do not want to say anything about it.
(Pala S – I mentioned to you another great seer. You seem to have missed my reference to the the Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham. I shall post his speech on the subject right after this)
Since I have presented my closing arguments on Madhuparka, I will not talk about it anymore. The blog is yours, the debate is unmoderated, the conclusions will obviously be yours, and so it will not be surprising if you have the last laugh in this matter.
(Pala S – What will always matter is how the debate was conducted and the quality of argumentation. When anybody will laugh seems less important)
I will now move on to sushruta samhita to summarise my observations on that as well.
(Pala S – I shall wait eagerly. Thank you Shri Kedar)
.
.
.