There has been a recent article in leftist website "The Wire" on an angry Hanuman. This post is based on that.
According to the author Nilanjana Bhowmick, "Hanuman 2.0" is no longer benign but is threatening. She has a problem because people are putting up saffron flags, putting up stickers of Hanuman and are treating Hanuman as a symbol of manhood/machosim.
I have a few queries for this lady.
1. Does she have anything to say about fans of our film heroes (particularly relevant today, of Salman Khan) who treat them as heroes and idols? There is a moron who posted a picture on social media of himself with a tied up (killed?) deer saying he supports Salman Khan. Does anyone in our media have the guts to speak out against this kind of blind, stupid idol worship?
2. Do they have anything to say about overt displays in any other religion? There are places in India where till recently (even now?) police feared to tread because they were dominated by people of a certain faith. Touching them would invite political wrath. Do our "journalists" have the guts to talk about situations like these?
I normally do not support use of derogatory terms like aaptard or presstitute. But, seeing people of late, I am beginning to tilt more and more in favour of using these.
I respect all religions. As a Hindu I have the broadmindedness to accept that there are multiple ways to reach God. I do however have a problem with those that denigrate my religion, and with those who try to convert people. These two activities clearly show the hypocrisy of people who say they respect all religions. As per our seculars, any other religion is free to have overt displays of faith. Hinduism cannot. A few examples of our journalistic hypocrisy:
1. Nobody has a problem if kids carry sharp weapons and hurt themselves in a Muharram procession. They however, have a problem, even if adults carry weapons in a Hindu procession.
2. Nobody, even PETA or our film stars talk against mass animal slaughter during Id/Christmas celebrations. They however pity dogs during Deepavali. They are against Jallikattu, though this sport does not end with the animal being killed. The animal is in fact worshipped after the event.
3. Income of temples is appropriated by the government. No one has the guts to touch or administer non-Hindu places of worship. Recently, a priest in Kerala who is being investigated for some illegal land transactions had the guts to say that he is behind the purview of Indian law. I am not sure how many secular journalists spoke up against this.
4. Shekhar Gupta has reached the conclusion that Hindus are more likely to defecate in the open. Sagarika Ghose has the ability to tell the faith of a man by seeing his semen.
5. The Supreme Court recently was talking about how flowers in certain temples must be used. Do they have the guts to say the same about other faiths?
6. Under the Right to Education Act drafted by the earlier UPA government, minority institutions are not needed to take in poor students. Why is that so? No wonder, some Lingayats are supporting they being recognised as a minority religion because that will offer them many benefits not available to mainstream Hindus.
7. Manmohan Singh went so far as to say that minorities have the first claim to resources. Did he have the guts to designate Hindus in Kashmir and some parts of the north-east as minorities (they are) and offer them benefits?
The list goes on and on. Let me reiterate that I have no issue, and I should have no issue, with how people of any other faith follow their religion. However, this should not affect people of other faiths. Also, I should not be told by these journalists how to follow my own faith.
Now let me come to Hanuman. Hanuman is not just a bhakta/daasa (I prefer these to servant) of Lord Rama. An analysis of Hanuman's personality, words and actions will offer multiple things we can learn from him. How to speak, self-control, single-mindedness in his quest etc. are all qualities we find in him. He is not a docile, quiet character in the Ramayana. While he does exhibit these qualities, he is terrible against his enemies (not random enmity, but with those who work against Dharma) when roused to action. It is beyond my ability to encapsulate the qualities attributed to Hanuman. However, let me share one sloka from the Sundarakaanda in the Ramayana which encapsulates multiple meanings beautifully.
yathaa raaghavanirmuktah sharah shvasanavikramah
gachchhet tadvad gamiShyaami lankaam raavana paalitaam
I shall go to Ravana-ruled Lanka, like an arrow released by Rama, with wind-like power.
RamabaaNam, the arrow of Lord Rama, is said to be invincible. Once released it will hit the target without fail. It has the ability to return to Rama once its task is achieved. Also, the power of the arrow is not its own, but is that of Rama. Thus Hanuman beautifully says that he will achieve his task and return without fail. He conveys confidence in his strength and ability. At the same time, he attributes this power not to himself, but to Rama. Thus he shows confidence while being humble and without being arrogant. This, you ignorant Nilanjana, is Hanuman.
Many (most?) journalists today have agendas. They want to curry favour with the powers that be. These people in all probability have no clue, and most definitely have not read our holy books. They simply write whatever comes to their mind and suits their agenda without giving any thought to the truth. Today's news is no longer about reporting and letting the audience form their opinions. It is about moulding and conveying the journalists' opinion. Who gave these rights to the journalists? How dare one ask this question! How dare one ask journalists to be informed? How dare one ask journalists to be neutral!
References:
1. Ramayana discourse by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma
2. https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/sundara/sarga1/sundara_1_frame.htm
