A response to Brinda Karat - part 1

This is in response to this article by Brinda Karat in the NDTV website. In the interest of brevity I am putting this post in two parts. The second part is definitely, in my opinion more interesting.

 

At the outset let me declare that I have no issue with any religion as long as it does not interfere with mine. Let each person worship God the way s/he wants. In principle and personally, I am against conversions of any kind - voluntary, forced and more importantly in today's India, induced - and to any religion. Conversion means the converted has lost faith in "his" religion or God. Today, when PK is the flavour of the day, this is all the more abnormal. The Indian saying goes, eko sat, vipraah bahudhaa vadanti - the truth is one, the learned call it by many names. However every person has the freedom to worship God the way he wants. Krishna says in the Gita

yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktah shradhdhayaarchitumichchati

tasya tasyaachalaam sradhdhaamtaameva vidadhaamyaham

 

यो  यो याम याम तनुम्  भक्तः श्रद्धयार्चितुमिच्छति 

तस्य तस्याचलाम् श्रध्द्धाम् तामेव विदधाम्यहम्

 

Paraphrasing, however one wishes to worship I make that path steady.

 

Also as Vivekananda said a Hindu does not ask anyone to convert. If that were the case the Jews and Parsis who came to India and took refuge would either have become Hindus or would have been wiped out by now.

This is how Hinduism works.

As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. Today the aspect which is creating headlines is the smoke - "reconversion" to Hinduism. While this is certainly illegal and deplorable if forced, nobody seems to be talking about the fire behind the smoke - forced and induced conversions, especially to Christianity. Via twitter, Gul Panag and Amrita Bhinder I found this article which highlights the issue well.

We have people like Rajiv Malhotra who are highlighting the activities of proselytizers in their works. Refer to this article in the Times of India. Creation of stotras glorifying Jesus and putting up dhwajastambhas in front of church are ways of "acclimatizing" people to Christianity before striking the final blow and converting them completely to Christianity, when all such pretenses are dropped.

I can personally attest to a few of these practices, the most blatant of which I have reserved for the next part:

1. I have seen major churches in Chennai where there is a prominent pillar in front of the church which resembles a Hindu dhwaja except that it has a cross on top of it - San Thome, St. Thomas Mount for example.

2. The church is referred to as a koil which is the Tamil word for temple.

3. I was in Rajamundry recently for my grandmother's final rites. On the ghats along the Godavari there are painted signs which talk about traita siddhaanta bhagavad geeta. Though it sounds like the Bhagavad Gita this is actually referring to the Gospels and Bible of Christianity. The term actually talks about the concept of the Christian Trinity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

4. Spreading canards about Hinduism - Refer to this Wikipedia post on Thomas, the apostle of Jesus Christ.

In my next post I will share a personal experience along with some translations, as I can manage.

Throwing out the God child along with the caste bathwater

This post is in response to an article I read on the NDTV website, originally by Subhashini Ali. A little search on Google lead me to a Wikipedia article on the lady which suggests that she is an atheist. Now I strongly believe in individual freedoms and hence her being an  atheist or theist is none of my concern. However as an atheist or as a rationalist, as many an atheist would like to call himself or herself one wishes there was a little more research that went in before condemning the Bhagavad Gita.

The caste system today is an evil which needs to be eradicated, no doubt in that. It is frequently and well-said that we do not cast our vote but vote our caste. Further it is a well-known fact that politicians of all religions often subscribe to narrow religious views to pander to their constituencies, or who they think are their constituents. However what is to be understood is that there is a difference between morality, spiritualism and religiosity. We do not need to deride divinity at every available opportunity.

The article in essence says that the Bhagavad Gita was blatantly casteist. By extension Hinduism is blatantly casteist. I would like to strongly contest this. My sources are given at the bottom of the page. I hope that this serves as a beginning of my readers' own research into the realities of Indian culture, religion and spirituality. In a later post I will show from personal experience how differences/similarities are exploited by certain agents in our society today.

A confession - the quoted sources are quite exhaustive and I myself have not gone through all of them. A lot of the material below has been copied from the sources referenced below.

1. First of all sloka I am not sure what Ms Ali is referring to when she talks about 1.44 in the Gita. The sloka referenced here is completely different!

2. ChaaturvarNyam mayaa srushTam guNa karma vibhaagashah (Gita 4:13) - the four castes have been created on the basis of qualities and deeds. Mind you, not by birth.

3. Who is a so-called Brahmin? - Brahma jaanaati iti braahmanah - he who knows Brahman (Supreme Godhead, NOT a personal God) is a so-called Brahmin.

4. janmana jayate sudrah
    samskarad bhaved dvijah
    veda-pathad bhaved vipro

    brahma janati brahmanah

 

This is a little more contentious. By birth one is born a sudra, by samskaara one becomes a twice-born. Here samskaara may mean ceremony also. One can generalize it to mean culture also. By chanting Vedas one can become a learned one. Some of the greatest exponents, for example Suta muni, were so-called Sudras.

5. sudre tu yad bhavel laksma
dvije tac ca na vidyate
na vai sudro bhavec chudro
brahmano na ca brahmanah

 

"If the characteristics of a brahmana are found in a sudra and not in a brahmana, that sudra should not be known as a sudra, and that brahmana should not be known as a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva, Chapter 180)

6. sudra-yonau hi jatasya
sad-gunanupatisthatah
arjave vartamanasya
brahmanyam abhijayate

"If a person born in a sudra family has developed the qualities of a brahmana, such as satya [truthfulness], sama [peacefulness], dama [self-control] and arjava [simplicity], he attains the exalted position of a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Vana Parva, Chapter 211)

 

7. sthito brahmana-dharmena
brahman yam upajiva ti
ksatriyo vatha vaisyo va
brahma-bhuyah sa gacchati
ebhis tu karmabhir devi
subhair acaritais tatha
sudro brahmanatam yati
vaisyah ksatriyatam vrajet
na yonir napi samskaro
na srutam na ca santatih
karanani dvijatvasya
vrttam eva tu karanam

"If one is factually situated in the occupation of a brahmana, he must be considered a brahmana, even if born of a ksatriya or vaisya family.
"O Devi, if even a sudra is actually engaged in the occupation and pure behavior of a brahmana, he becomes a brahmana. Moreover, a vaisya can become a ksatriya.
"Therefore, neither the source of one's birth, nor his reformation, nor his education is the criterion of a brahmana. The vrtta, or occupation, is the real standard by which one is known as a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, Chapter 163) 

 

 

Sources:

http://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1240895-reference-for-a-shloka/

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System6.htm

Is it a muffler or a Hermes scarf?

This article was prompted by the recent news article where Arvind Kejriwal and his supporters have stoutly defended his flying first class as it was sponsored by his hosts.

Now all of us know that fortunately or unfortunately AAP seems to be the only party openly displaying funding details to the citizens of our country. However as this consistently leads to a holier-than-thou attitude among their supporters there are a few points to be made here.

1. AAP of all parties seems to be aware of the importance of self-promotion and branding, especially via new media. Today, for good or bad, perception is extremely important, if not everything. When one claims to be an ardent supporter of the common man it is also important to maintain perceptions. Remember Sarojini Naidu's famous statement that it was very expensive to maintain Mahatma Gandhi in poverty?

2. For a person who made a media spectacle by traveling in a crowded local train in Mumbai, this is in a way inexcusable. Even if the sponsors were willing to pay for business class a true espouser could have asked for an economy ticket and then asked the differential to be given as contribution to the party. Here Kejriwal seems to have kept personal comfort ahead of the larger picture. Deja vu? When he decided to quit the Delhi government?

3. Our leadership often comes up with lame excuses to cover up embarrassing disclosures. The claim that the dream is for every middle class Indian to be able to afford business class flying is as lame as the best our leadership have come up with. I am reminded of Swami Vivekananda talking about social reformation. To paraphrase him we should not pull down the upper classes to maintain societal equity, rather we should try to uplift the downtrodden. Kejriwal's justification seems to be a much lamer version of that.

All of this being said, especially today when black money is a hot topic, I truly wish our political class will open their books to outside scrutiny. It is true to an extent that there can be victimization of donors by political opponents. However I am sure most of us believe that more harm is done by not revealing who the donors are. Today we have two foreigners who have come forward to help us tackle the foreign-stashed black money issue. But are we ready to address the domestic black economy? How can we expect cleanliness outside if we do not put our own house in order?