Listened to this wonderful C Ramachandra composition. Radha Na Bhole Re(song link). Set me thinking on a key difference
between Hinduism and other beliefs, how to preserve our native Indian heritage.
In Hinduism, God can manifest in myriad ways. God can be an intimate lover as in Radha-Kishan’s Ras Leela. God can be a child
as He was to Yashoda to be punished and beaten up if He Misbehaved. God can be a Friend as He was to Arjun. God can be a
Servant too. Pundalik made God to permanently remain in a standing position at one place. God can be Mother to be respected,
adored and loved.
On the contrary,in Biblical/koranic theology God is a totalitarian rogue, who knows nothing better than punishing those that
disagree with HIM. Which is why musalmaans and xians have no answers when simple questions(roma girl) are asked and prefer to
deal with inconvenient questions that undermine their false dogma by beheading/abusing those that seek to critically examine
the dogma – classic shoot the messenger behavior.
I wish to point out, the reason Buddha was rejected in India was on account of its agnostic position, lack of emotional
bonding (Bhakthi) in which native Indians saw merit. The way Buddha was pushed in India by the likes of Ashoka too was
unholy, top down, aggressively proselytising, mixing politics & religion.
Sections of muslim elite understood the superiority of native Indian position and took to it, resulting in the emergence of
syncretic culture (dominant islamic culture in the Ganga/Jamuna Doab area, pakistan, a culture now under retreat) but
eventually ended up being furthering islam’s agenda. Forces of islamic dogma engineered a turnaround citing koranic dogma,
something which, with the exception of kemalist turkey, muslim elite have never succeeded in taming.
Now how can Hinduism, an essentially decentralised faith, where experience is central and dogma if present is subsurvient,
deal with totalitarian imperial predatory global beliefs backed by dogma and threat of coercive violence?
Gandhi never effectively answered this question. Jawahar Nehru was a low IQ man whose perspectives essentially were
predicated by self aggrandisment. While Gandhi’s worldview was essentially Indian, Gandhi’s knowledge of native Indian
tradition was significantly colored by foreign islamic/xian perspectives. He attempted to understand Hinduism on an Islamic
template, the reason why Gandhi spectacularly failed with islamists. Gandhi was done in by islam the day he perceived moral
equivalence between a totalitarian imperial dogma centric ideology like islam and a spiritual belief system like Hinduism are
willfully distorting facts. Low IQ man Nehru picked on a rejected, Ashokan legacy, as it was perhaps closest to
communist/islamic/xian construct and his bias for towards such constructs.
Superior minds such as Chanakya, Guru Gobind Singh and Historian Will Durant did effectively address this question. Essence
of their insight was that Eternal Vigilance is the Cost of Civilisation.
In History of Civilisation Part 1, Professor Durant Wrote on the fall of India to barbarian islam, “The bitter lesson that
may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its
powder dry.” (p.463)
What does Eternal Vigilance mean in practical terms?
Historically unorganized native belief systems if they have to survive, require support to prevent their being extinguished
by predatory totalitarian organised ideologies. Lamb indeed require support from the tyranny of rampaging foxes. Otherwise
Lamb will go the Dodo way. Painful Lessons in Americas, Africa, Australia and before that in Iran, Egypt, India substantiate
the above hypothesis. As Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta succintly put it “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the
Bible and we had the land. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, we had the Bible in our hand,
and they had the land.” This holds good as much for islam as for xianity.(As an aside, I wish to point out, church controls
the largest amount of real estate in India as well. Wakf(mosque) is the second largest land owner)
To protect Native Indian heritage, there have to be institutionalised mechanisms. Native Indian beliefs being declared in
India as Primus Inter Pares, existence of organisations like Native Identities Commission designed to keep totalitarian
dogmatic imperial predatory proselytising cults out, are among others options worth pondering on.
Especially Important to vigilance is the criticality of free speech and understanding of what makes free speech.
Not many understand why far sighted xians, muslims have historically targeted free speech.
Hitchens hits the bulls eye when he points out why xianity, islam are authoritarian. He says “The urge to ban and censor
books, silence dissenters, condemn outsiders, invade the private sphere, and invoke an exclusive salvation is the very
essence of the totalitarian”.
Recently muslim nations led by pakistan, influenced UN to pass a resolution that makes possible curtailment of free speech
when it concerns islam and mohummad. Islamists and Xiansts of course dont care that this undermines universal declaration on
human rights. Muslim/xian protests against free speech is underwritten usually by calls for and execution of violence.
Essence of free speech right, is the right to offend, right to blasphemy, not mouthing platitudes, goodie goodie stuff like
Mohummad/Jesus was a great man, all religions are same. The right to assert mohummad, a pedophile or jesus a bastard is the
crux of the free speech issue. (As an aside, these, by the way, are factual positions of these worthies based on what
mainstream islamic/xian texts assert.
What then are the limits of free speech. As long as someone does not make calls for violence, curbing free speech is criminal
totalitarian behavior and remains a tool authoritarians have long (ab)used. Limit on free speech can only be open incitement
of violence towards someone – another human being, not critique of dogma/doctrine.
To summarise (i) unwavering commitment on preserving native heritage that are among our treasured human legacy, (ii)
commitment to free speech are the 2 legs on which survival of our civilisational heritage and our cherished freedoms stand
and should be non negotiable.
Thanks to the pathetic levels of public discourse in India, Indian state indeed has compromised on the above issues. It has
undermined native cultures while facilitating the proliferation of totalitarian creeds and ideologies. Failure to address
this issue will have serious costs including loss of civilisation heritage, gradual islamisation/xianisation of India
In a comment about the similarity of religion to totalitarianism Christopher Hitchens has said “the urge to ban and censor
books, silence dissenters, condemn outsiders, invade the private sphere, and invoke an exclusive salvation is the very
essence of the totalitarian”Listened to this wonderful C Ramachandra composition. Radha Na Bhole Re(song link). Set me thinking on a keyListened to this wonderful C Ramachandra composition. Radha Na Bhole Re(song link). Set me thinking on a key difference
between Hinduism and other beliefs, how to preserve our native Indian heritage.
In Hinduism, God can manifest in myriad ways. God can be an intimate lover as in Radha-Kishan’s Ras Leela. God can be a child
as He was to Yashoda to be punished and beaten up if He Misbehaved. God can be a Friend as He was to Arjun. God can be a
Servant too. Pundalik made God to permanently remain in a standing position at one place. God can be Mother to be respected,
adored and loved.
On the contrary,in Biblical/koranic theology God is a totalitarian rogue, who knows nothing better than punishing those that
disagree with HIM. Which is why musalmaans and xians have no answers when simple questions(roma girl) are asked and prefer to
deal with inconvenient questions that undermine their false dogma by beheading/abusing those that seek to critically examine
the dogma – classic shoot the messenger behavior.
I wish to point out, the reason Buddha was rejected in India was on account of its agnostic position, lack of emotional
bonding (Bhakthi) in which native Indians saw merit. The way Buddha was pushed in India by the likes of Ashoka too was
unholy, top down, aggressively proselytising, mixing politics & religion.
Sections of muslim elite understood the superiority of native Indian position and took to it, resulting in the emergence of
syncretic culture (dominant islamic culture in the Ganga/Jamuna Doab area, pakistan, a culture now under retreat) but
eventually ended up being furthering islam’s agenda. Forces of islamic dogma engineered a turnaround citing koranic dogma,
something which, with the exception of kemalist turkey, muslim elite have never succeeded in taming.
Now how can Hinduism, an essentially decentralised faith, where experience is central and dogma if present is subsurvient,
deal with totalitarian imperial predatory global beliefs backed by dogma and threat of coercive violence?
Gandhi never effectively answered this question. Jawahar Nehru was a low IQ man whose perspectives essentially were
predicated by self aggrandisment. While Gandhi’s worldview was essentially Indian, Gandhi’s knowledge of native Indian
tradition was significantly colored by foreign islamic/xian perspectives. He attempted to understand Hinduism on an Islamic
template, the reason why Gandhi spectacularly failed with islamists. Gandhi was done in by islam the day he perceived moral
equivalence between a totalitarian imperial dogma centric ideology like islam and a spiritual belief system like Hinduism are
willfully distorting facts. Low IQ man Nehru picked on a rejected, Ashokan legacy, as it was perhaps closest to
communist/islamic/xian construct and his bias for towards such constructs.
Superior minds such as Chanakya, Guru Gobind Singh and Historian Will Durant did effectively address this question. Essence
of their insight was that Eternal Vigilance is the Cost of Civilisation.
In History of Civilisation Part 1, Professor Durant Wrote on the fall of India to barbarian islam, “The bitter lesson that
may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its
powder dry.” (p.463)
What does Eternal Vigilance mean in practical terms?
Historically unorganized native belief systems if they have to survive, require support to prevent their being extinguished
by predatory totalitarian organised ideologies. Lamb indeed require support from the tyranny of rampaging foxes. Otherwise
Lamb will go the Dodo way. Painful Lessons in Americas, Africa, Australia and before that in Iran, Egypt, India substantiate
the above hypothesis. As Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta succintly put it “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the
Bible and we had the land. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, we had the Bible in our hand,
and they had the land.” This holds good as much for islam as for xianity.(As an aside, I wish to point out, church controls
the largest amount of real estate in India as well. Wakf(mosque) is the second largest land owner)
To protect Native Indian heritage, there have to be institutionalised mechanisms. Native Indian beliefs being declared in
India as Primus Inter Pares, existence of organisations like Native Identities Commission designed to keep totalitarian
dogmatic imperial predatory proselytising cults out, are among others options worth pondering on.
Especially Important to vigilance is the criticality of free speech and understanding of what makes free speech.
Not many understand why far sighted xians, muslims have historically targeted free speech.
Hitchens hits the bulls eye when he points out why xianity, islam are authoritarian. He says “The urge to ban and censor
books, silence dissenters, condemn outsiders, invade the private sphere, and invoke an exclusive salvation is the very
essence of the totalitarian”.
Recently muslim nations led by pakistan, influenced UN to pass a resolution that makes possible curtailment of free speech
when it concerns islam and mohummad. Islamists and Xiansts of course dont care that this undermines universal declaration on
human rights. Muslim/xian protests against free speech is underwritten usually by calls for and execution of violence.
Essence of free speech right, is the right to offend, right to blasphemy, not mouthing platitudes, goodie goodie stuff like
Mohummad/Jesus was a great man, all religions are same. The right to assert mohummad, a pedophile or jesus a bastard is the
crux of the free speech issue. (As an aside, these, by the way, are factual positions of these worthies based on what
mainstream islamic/xian texts assert.
What then are the limits of free speech. As long as someone does not make calls for violence, curbing free speech is criminal
totalitarian behavior and remains a tool authoritarians have long (ab)used. Limit on free speech can only be open incitement
of violence towards someone – another human being, not critique of dogma/doctrine.
To summarise (i) unwavering commitment on preserving native heritage that are among our treasured human legacy, (ii)
commitment to free speech are the 2 legs on which survival of our civilisational heritage and our cherished freedoms stand
and should be non negotiable.
Thanks to the pathetic levels of public discourse in India, Indian state indeed has compromised on the above issues. It has
undermined native cultures while facilitating the proliferation of totalitarian creeds and ideologies. Failure to address
this issue will have serious costs including loss of civilisation heritage, gradual islamisation/xianisation of India
In a comment about the similarity of religion to totalitarianism Christopher Hitchens has said “the urge to ban and censor
books, silence dissenters, condemn outsiders, invade the private sphere, and invoke an exclusive salvation is the very
essence of the totalitarian”
difference
Radha Krishna
Listened to this wonderful C Ramachandra composition – Radha Na Bhole Re. Set me thinking on a key difference between Hinduism & other belief systems, and on how to preserve our native Indian heritage.
In Hinduism, God can manifest in myriad ways. God can be an intimate lover as in Radha-Kishan Ras Leela. God can be a child as He was to Yashoda to be adored and even be critiqued & punished if He Misbehaved. God can be a Friend as He was to Arjun. God can be a Servant too to be ordered around. Pundalik ordered God to remain in a standing position at one place in Pandarpur. God can be Mother to be respected, adored and loved.
On the contrary,in Biblical/koranic theology God is a totalitarian rogue, who knows nothing better than punishing those that disagree with HIM (his dogma). Which is why musalmaans and xians have no answers when simple questions are asked and prefer to deal with inconvenient questions that undermine their false dogma by beheading/abusing those that seek to critically examine the dogma – classic shoot the messenger behavior.
Buddhism is a belief with metaphysics similar to Hindu. The boundaries between Hinduism and Buddhism were largely seamless. Despite this, the reason Buddhism’s progress in India was limited was on account of Buddha’s agnostic position, lack of emotional bonding with God (Bhakthi), a position in which native Indians saw little merit. The way Buddhism was pushed by the likes of Ashoka too was questionable, top down, aggresive proselytising, mixing politics and religion. Islam dealt a body blow to Buddhism by ransacking key Buddhist monasteries – Nalanda etc. And an interesting twist is that the devious colonial christian imperialists invested effort nurturing, accentuating the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. Chrisitians do censor the fact that through out his life Gautama Buddha operated within the Hindu canvass – he was born a Hindu & died a Hindu.
Now how can Hinduism, an essentially decentralised faith, where experience is central, skepticism is integral, belief voluntary and text is subservient, deal with totalitarian imperial predatory organized global belief systems backed by dogma and threats of coercive violence?
Gandhi never effectively answered this question. Jawahar Nehru was a low IQ man whose perspectives essentially were predicated by self aggrandisment. While Gandhi’s worldview was to an extent Indian, Gandhi’s knowledge of native Indian tradition was significantly colored by foreign islamic/xian perspectives.
Gandhi attempted to understand Hinduism on an Islamic template, the reason why Gandhi spectacularly failed with islamists. Gandhi was done in by islam the day he perceived moral equivalence between a totalitarian imperial dogma centric ideology like islam and a Dharmic belief system like Hinduism. Nehru surrounded by toadies picked on a reject, Ashokan legacy to be worthy of propagation, as he perhaps thought Ashokan worldview to be closest to totalitarian communist/islamic/xian constructs towards which he had bias. So this key question, on how native Indian beliefs should deal with totalitarian foreign creeds, was never satisfactorily addressed either by Gandhi or by recent Indian leaders.
There seems to be a clue in what superior minds such as Chanakya, Guru Gobind Singh and Historian Will Durant highlighted. They did effectively address this question on defending liberal civilization from totalitarian assault. Essence of their insight was that Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Civilisation.
In History of Civilisation Part 1, Professor Durant Wrote on the fall of India to islam,”Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in History. It is a discouraging tale for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate freedom and complex order can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within. The bitter lesson that from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.”
Now, what does Eternal Vigilance mean in practical terms?
Historically unorganized native belief systems if they have to survive, require strong support to prevent their being extinguished by organised predatory totalitarian ideologies. Lamb indeed require support to face the tyranny of rampaging foxes. Otherwise Lamb will go the Dodo way. Painful Lessons in Americas, Africa, Australia and before that in Iran, Egypt, India substantiate the above hypothesis.
Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta succintly put it “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, we had the Bible in our hand, and they had the land.” This holds good as much for islam as for xianity. (As a relevant aside, we should note, church controls the largest amount of real estate in India as well acquired through questionable means. Wakf (mosque) is the second largest land owner. These are outcomes of a millenium of slavery (both physical/mental), that continues to this day).
Further, global networks connect to the supposedly minority groups – islamic and christian, and support their co-religionists with the cash and kind. Apart from subverting social harmony in India, many of the global networks fester hate towards native ethos.
To protect Native Indian heritage, there have to be institutionalised mechanisms. Native Indian beliefs being declared in India as Primus Inter Pares, existence of organisations like Native Identities Commission designed to keep totalitarian dogmatic imperial predatory proselytising cults out, ban on evangelical/tableeghi activities, special socio-economic benefits for followers of native beliefs are among options worth pondering.
Especially Important to vigilance is the criticality of free speech and understanding of what makes free speech.
Not many understand why far sighted xians, muslims have historically targeted free speech and First Amendment (Right to Free Speech) in United States. Hitchens answers this when he points out why xianity, islam are authoritarian. He says “The urge to ban and censor books, silence dissenters, condemn outsiders, invade the private sphere, and invoke an exclusive salvation is the very essence of the totalitarian“.
Recently muslim nations led by pakistan, influenced UN to pass a resolution that makes possible curtailment of free speech when it concerns koran, islam and mohummad. Islamists and Xiansts of course dont care that this undermines universal declaration on human rights. Muslim/xian protests against free speech is underwritten usually by calls for and execution of violence.
Muslims preferred slitting the throat of Lala Rajpal Malhotra for publishing Rangeela Rasul (colorful prophet) rather than learning to live with disagreements. And the “secular” mohummad ali jinnah defended the murderer. Koran, Seerah of course contain much that is violent and insulting towards its non believers, women.
And Church is far cleverer. It goes to extra ordinary lengths to censor Jesme’s book “Amen Autobiography of a Nun“. Church ensures through its influence of Indian Govt/Media, that a lid is kept on its rogue behavior. In India church tends to be one of those groups that stands for free speech as long as it controls the tools of mass communication and academia.
Essence of free speech right, is the right to offend, right to blasphemy, not mouthing platitudes, goodie goodie stuff like Mohummad/Jesus was a great man, all religions are same. The right to refer to mohummad’s child spouse or jesus’s parentage form the crux of the free speech issue. In India’s sickular perversion, where native beliefs, icons are targeted for abuse while totalitarian dogmas nurturing schisms are certified kosher. It is important to remember that koranic/biblical dogma are truth claims (assertive opinions demonstrably false often backed by violence, coercive threats of violence, fear-mongering) and not truth per se.
By resorting to violence, and mass media/academia control, Totalitarians (isai/islami/red fascists) have ensured an environment where even fact based critique of jesus/bible/koran/mohammad get discouraged and censored. At the same time, these totalitarians have ensured through selective quote mongering, smears jobs, where not only do the Hindu law givers like Manu get viciously abused at but also Hindu Devatas like Ganesh, Ram, Krishna, Shiva, Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati get maliciously targeted. The lack of level playing field seriously distorts free speech and the narrative in India; it also enables motivated evangelism efforts.
What then are the limits of free speech? As long as someone does not make calls for violence, curbing free speech is criminal totalitarian behavior and remains a tool authoritarians have long (ab)used. Limit on free speech can only be restraint of open incitement of violence towards someone – another human being resulting in immediate real violence, not critique of dogma/doctrine/person.
In civilized societies, it is those that stand for totalitarian frameworks and who use the threat of violence against free speech, that deserve to be sternly dealt with.
To summarise (i) unwavering commitment on preserving native heritage that are among our treasured human legacy, (ii) commitment to free speech are the 2 legs on which survival of our civilisational heritage and our cherished freedoms stand and should be non negotiable. It must be remembered though that Free speech has meaning only when there is a level playing field and not when one section has monopoly on mass media, content filter and content propagation.
Conclusion: Thanks to the low levels of public discourse in India, and India’s bad luck in executive selections, Indian state has seriously compromised native Indian heritage. It has undermined native cultures while facilitating the proliferation of totalitarian creeds and ideologies. Failure to address this issue will have serious costs including loss of civilization heritage, gradual islamisation/xianisation of India.
Related:
Posted by zoomindianmedia 
Zoom Indian Media 