Joey Tribbiani the philosopher?

Ok, I am guilty. The headline was click-bait. However, this post does build on what the character Joey says in an episode of the massively famous sitcom, Friends. I am not sure who was the writer of those lines. But s/he unveiled a profound philosophical thought.

I am adding Telugu transliteration in deference to a request I received in a comment earlier. I apologize for having missed seeing that.

Paraphrasing, in an episode, Joey tells Phoebe, another character that there is no selfless action in this world as ultimately anything one thinks is selfless actually makes one happy. This may seem a very simple thing to say. But reflect on it. It is true.This is not to say that altruism is bad or useless. No, that is not the intention of this post.

Normally people think of rishis as men. Yes, true. However, Hinduism mentions numerous women as well who were of that stature. Hinduism does not deny liberation or for that matter knowledge to anybody based on gender, class etc. All are capable of attaining liberation, mukti (mind you, I am not talking about being saved and going to heaven), if they prove themselves worthy of it. There was one such lady named Gargi (गार्गी గార్గి). There was a debate between her and Yaagnyavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य  యాజ్ఞవల్క్య) on what it is, that is dearest to us.Yaagnyavalkya says it is the Self. Please note that Self here does not refer to the body, or to the I-ness (identification). It refers to the soul that is within all of us.

Say, you disagree. No, you love your husband or wife the most. Let us restate that. Your spouse is the one that is most dear TO YOU. Hence, says Yaagnyavalkya, the self is that which is dearest to us in the entire creation. Hence, self-realization is the ultimate aim of a Hindu, not heaven. You can apply this logic to anything in this wide world. Everything boils down to you liking that.

Now, does this mean we should stop doing "selfless" acts? An emphatic no! We should always be available to serve as needed. However, what must go is the ego, that I helped someone. This is what Lord Krishna refers to as nishkaama karma. Action without the anticipation of result. Action that is submitted to the Lord. Action where the doer is identified as the Lord, and where the own self is only seen as an instrument. The self is the flute through which the divine wind must flow to produce beautiful music. Hindu rituals also end with the phrase "om tat sat, sarvam sree parabrahmaarpaNam astu" (ॐ तत् सत् सर्वं श्रीपरब्रह्मार्पणं अस्तु ఓం తత్ సత్ సర్వం శ్రీపరబ్రహ్మార్పణం అస్తు). Everything done as part of the ritual, including the result/merit gained via it is offered to the Lord.

Let me close this post with the famous sloka from the Gita

karmaNyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleShu kadaachana

maa karmaphalaheturbhooh maa te sangostvakarmaNi

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन​
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूः मा ते सनगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि

కర్మణ్యేవాధికారస్తే మా ఫలేషు కదాచన 

మా కర్మఫలహేతుర్భూర్మా  తే సంగోऽస్త్వకర్మణి

Your right is only to act, not attaining the result. Do not be motivated by the results of your action. (But) do not find interest in not acting at all.

The last portion is a warning that being idle is also an action, and not a good one.

References: 

1. Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma's discourses

2. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-46.html

The hubris of an atheist

This post was prompted by a show I saw on the Discovery Science Channel - How the Universe Works. This was around the so-called dark matter. What struck me was how much of what we call "science" is conjecture, without proof (a scientist would claim it is proof that has not yet been discovered). Further, where physics is concerned, specifically particle/theoretical physics, nothing is intuitive. There is nothing which can be grasped by traditional human senses. The physicist/mathematician comes up with all kinds of mathematics and the rest are asked to just believe.

Now, at the risk of being accused of committing blasphemy against science, I argue that this is not so different from a spiritual seeker. Mind you, I am not using the term religious, but spiritual. The western world is mostly familiar with Abrahamic religions, which are highly anthropomorphic in their concept of God, or are at least highly centred around humans. This may be among the points (apart from God being jealous, or favouring a certain sect over others) that turn a westerner towards atheism. If an Indian becomes an atheist it possibly means he has not explored the land's spiritual principles fully. 

The Vedas say parabrahman is indescribable, without form, shape or qualities. This parabrahman is said to take form (any God) for the sake of the spiritual seeker's convenience. A child cannot reach its mother. The mother has to bend down and pick up the child in her arms. The Hindu believes it is the same with God. I am using God and parabrahman interchangeably in this post, and I do not mean a personal God in the Abrahamic sense. The Abrahamic God is what a Hindu would consider saguna brahma, or saakaara, with form. The Islamic concept of Allah is closer to that of nirguna brahma, (without attributes) or niraakara (without form). However, Islam insists God is male. The Hindu says parabrahma has no gender, as that is also an attribute.

Now, a spiritual person seeks God. A scientist seeks truth behind/underlying creation/existence. By definition, God is beyond the senses. So it is deemed futile to prove the existence of God by any material means. Science by definition is within the parameters of this universe. Hence, science can never prove the existence of God. The atheist takes the easy way out and says there is no God. Now, as the common saying goes, absence of proof is not proof of absence. The physicist/atheist does not understand the physical world itself. Nobody knows why something as fundamental as light/radiation behaves as both a wave and a particle. However, the same physicist atheist wants to have proof that God exists. The atheist, who cannot understand the known universe itself wants proof of the energy behind the universe. That is what makes me laugh at the hubris of an atheist. Now an atheist is entitled to his views. But so am I!

The seeker embarks on a long process to realise God. Please note that Hinduism does not talk only about reaching God, but realising God. It says that each and everything in creation has the spark of the divine. Moksha is simply realising this fact. That is all there is to it, nothing else. One must note that realising and knowing are two entirely different things. What separates knowing from realising is avidyaa or maayaa. I say an atheist is lazy. He does not have the patience to embark on the spiritual path to realise God. He takes the easy way out. Now the counter claim would be that he would waste time on embarking on a process which he knows is doomed to fail as there is no God. This is where one laughs again at the hubris.

Let me end with a few poems from the Telugu version of the bhaagavata puraana (apologies upfront for mistakes). This is a translation (with some differences from the Sanskrit original) bt Sri Bammera Potana (पोतना - Hindi transliteration is very painful, does not do justice to Sanskrit or Telugu). Many think that the bhaagavata puraana is a vaishnava purana. It is. However, there is a huge amount of vedaanta and (advaita contained therein) in the puraana (like any Hindu literature).

evvaniche janinchu jagamevvani lOpalanundu leenamai

yevvaniyanduDindu paramESwaruDevvaDu moolakaaraNambevvaDu

anaadimadhyalayuDevvaDu sarvamu taanainavaaDevvadu

vaaninaatmabhavu neeSwarunE SaraNambu vEDedan

I seek refuge in him, from whom the world arises, in whom it exists, in whom it merges and rests, he who is the supreme lord, he who is the primordial cause (behind creation), he who is without beginning, middle or end, he who is everything (creation is his form), he who is self-existent, he who is the lord.

lOkambulu lOkESulu lOkasthulu tegina tudi

alOkambagu penjeekatikavvala evvanDEkaakruti velugu

atani nE sEvintun

I serve him, who shines as One (even) in the unworldly immense darkness after the worlds, their rulers and their denizens cease to exist.

Do these verses call upon a personal God? No. Do they call upon a God with form? No. They talk about the essence and energy that is behind everything that we know as the universe, and is beyond it. Hinduism says, as is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. Is everything, from me to the universe not made of the same particles? And can a physicist deny the universe is conscious? The physicist is himself part of the universe and is conscious. Human life (without considering others) is conscious. Thus, is the universe not conscious of itself? Hinduism asks the seeker to realise the greater consciousness behind everything. Simple.

I seriously request physicists and atheists to explore vedaanta and then see whether they still retain their concept of atheism.

Originally published on 22 December, 2018. Modified on 23 December.

On the Sandhyavandanam, part 2

This is in continuation with the earlier post.

In this post I want to share the broad meaning of the gaayatri mantra. I will not even attempt to go into the multiple meanings. I am not aware of them, and I am sure there are many. An interesting thing about Vedic mantras is the layers of meanings that come with most if not all of them. Vedic knowledge is also referred to as trayee vidya (त्रयी विद्या). One reason for this is the three layers of meanings present in these slokas. These are referred to as adhibhautika (अधिभौतिक​), adhidaivika (अधिदैविक​) and aadhyaatmika (आध्यात्मिक​). These correspond to aspects pertaining to living beings, cosmic forces and our own body.

Also related to this is why shaanti mantras end with shaantih, shaantih, shaantih (शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः). We are said to have three types of troubles - taapatraya (तापत्रय​), pertaining to the points mentioned above - those caused due to living beings (infections, bites etc.), due to cosmic/natural forces (earthquakes, floods etc.) and those that generate in our body itself (allergies, diseases etc.).

Now coming to the gaayatri. One meaning of the mantra which is commonly referred to as the gaayatri is the following:

We meditate upon that ultimate/superior radiance of Lord Savita, which energises our intelligence.

Now coming to the gaayatri that I mentioned everybody can chant (sarva chaitanyaroopaam...)

We meditate upon that primordial knowledge, she who is the embodiment of all consciousness/energy, she who energises our intellect.

If you notice, both have a similar meaning. It is not, "I pray", but "we pray". I had mentioned earlier, that a person who has had the upanayana samskaara (sacred thread ceremony) must perform sandhyavandanam for the sake of all creation. This is an illustration of that. Further, if we notice both the public gaayatri (sarva chaitanyaroopaam..) and the received (from a guru, today the purohita performing the ceremony) gaayatri  carry similar meanings. Let me reiterate that the received gaayatri must NOT be chanted by all, but by only those who wear the sacred thread. The public version is literally free-for-all.

Now what does it actually mean? We will analyse it in phases. I will talk about the general version.

1. The mantra extols the intelligence/consciousness/energy behind ALL creation. In this mantra we refer to the deity in the feminine gender. A sidenote for all the feminists out there. This is an example of the exalted position actually given to women in Hinduism. This deity is also referred to as vidyaa (विद्या), which is the opposite of avidyaa (ignorance). Now these two terms are related to maayaa, which I will talk about later. For now, let us simply say that we are referring to the deity as the ultimate knowledge. The mantra also refers to the deity as aadhyaa (आद्या). This is because the deity is the origin of all that was, is and will ever be in the entire creation.
2. Now, why should this ultimate consciousness energise our intellect? It actually means to energise the intellect to move in the right direction. To guide us onto the right path. It is only by our intellect/mind that we decide which path we take. Unless one is a psycopath or someone like that, an average human being has a well-functioning conscience which points out what is felt to be right or wrong. This is irrespective of what we ultimately end up doing. Via the mantra the practitioner or upaasaka (उपासक​) asks for his intellect to be guided such that he always chooses what is morally right and beneficial to him.

I will end this post here. In the coming posts, I will share my thoughts around concepts like karma and maayaa.

References: 

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Adhibhautika,_adhidaivika,_%C4%81dhy%C4%81tmika
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Mantra

On the Sandhyavandanam

In an earlier post, I had talked about how Hinduism is actually a monotheistic religion, as it considers all Gods representations of the One Truth, Parabrahma. The basic end objective of a follower of sanaatana dharma is not heaven, but moksha or liberation. I will talk about this in another blog post.

Now, as part of life man is supposed to have broadly three kinds of devotional activities - nitya (नित्य), naimittika (नैमित्तिक) and kaamya (काम्य) - those which are to be followed daily, on special occasions (festivals for example) and for fulfillment of desires respectively.

Of these the nitya karma component includes basic pooja, the sandhyaavandanam and many other activities, which are today followed as an exception rather than as the rule (I know a few names - agnihotram, brahmayagnyam, vaiswadevam et al).

The most basic practice of a Hindu's life is the sandhyaavandanam. I want to focus on this in this post. Everbody knows about namaaz, and how Muslims religiously follow it. Many Christians compulsorily go to church every Sunday. Many, if not most are not even aware of the Vedic sandhyaavandanam, or have major misconceptions around it. And I am talking about Hindus themselves.

This practice takes primacy over any other ritual activity. According to the Vedic scriptures, a person that does not do the sandhyaavandanam becomes unclean and unfit to do any other pooja or ritual or vratam. Thus, without doing this basic practice no benefits will accrue via going on pilgrimages or doing any other ritual - vratam, yagnyam or abhishekam. 

Another important point to be noted is that one's varna does not matter. There is a misconception that only Brahmins, or maybe those who wear the sacred thread can do the sandhyaavandanam. Wrong, EVERY Hindu MUST do the sandhyaavandanam ideally thrice a day. The difference is in the methodology. Those who wear the sacred thread have a prescribed format in which they must do it. Those who do not can actually chant a specific mantra at least thrice, or for that matter recite anything of their choice at the prescribed times. Further, it is said that those who wear the sacred thread must do it not only for their sake, but for the sake of everyone's welfare. The Vedas constantly talk not just about personal welfare. They go beyond that, and talk about humanity's welfare and that of all living creatures and the universe itself. Various shaanti mantraas talk about peace across the universe, and not for just the person chanting the mantra.

Another example of this is borne out by the plural (not singular, as in for the worshipper) term used in the gaayatri mantra. This is the core/heart of sandhyaavandanam. Again, there are many misconceptions and erroneous practices around this. 

1. What does gaayatri actually mean? Crudely, it means that which protects the praanas in us (गयान् त्रायते इति गायत्री). It also means that which protects the person that chants it, in the prescribed method (गातारम् त्रायते इति गायत्री).
2. Mantra means that which protects by continuous contemplation/chanting (मननात् त्रायते इति मन्त्रः).
3. So, one thing that must be followed, is that a mantra must NOT be said out aloud. So there is no way, it should be recorded and broadcast on loudspeakers.
4. What is commonly referred to as the gaayatri is not meant for everyone. Each varna can have its own gaayatri. What people commonly think of as the gaayatri is actually to be chanted only by Brahmins (and maybe by those who wear the sacred thread). Those who do not wear it can chant the following mantra thrice. The meaning is the same as that of any gaayatri. They can also recite anything of their choice at the prescribed times.

sarvachaitanyaroopaam taam

aadhyaam vidhyaam cha dheemahi

buddhim yaa nah prachodayaat

सर्वचैतन्यरूपाम् ताम्
आद्याम् विद्याम् च धीमहि
बुद्धिम् या नः प्रचोदयात्

It is the chanting of the gaayatri that is heart of the ritual. Parabrahma is invoked in the form of gaayatri. This is an example of how the feminine aspect is given the highest respect in Hinduism. Gaayatri is called the veda maata (वेदमाता). 

For those who wear the sacred thread, the ritual, when done in entirety has three components. 

1. Purification of oneself and invitation to gaayatri to enter the practitioner - shuddhi and aavaahanam (शुद्धिक्रिया, आवाहनम्​)

2. Chanting of the gaayatri mantra - mantra japam (मन्त्रजपम्)

3. Bidding farewell to gaayatri - upasthaanam (उपस्थानम्)

The broad meaning of the gaayatri (any version) and other topics will be covered in the next post.

Reference: Speech by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma (Telugu video): Link here.

Sanskrit keyboard from: https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm

How Rahul Gandhi can help the BJP increase its membership

The readers of my posts would have gathered by now that I have a distinct right wing tilt. Some of my family members have been associated with the RSS for decades. My studies till class 10 were in a school run by an organization which is part of the overall RSS umbrella.

However, till date, I have never been a member of the RSS or the BJP. I attended a few shakhas, but always because someone took me there, and not out of my own volition. However, today I took the decision to become a formal member of the BJP. I in fact paid money to become a formal member. Not that I will become politically active or participate in dharnas etc. It was a knee-jerk reaction, my personal way of protest when I saw Rahul Gandhi's press conference today.

I do not want to go into the morality or legality of whatever has transpired after the latest assembly elections in Karnataka. I do confess that I wanted a BJP government to come to power, though in retrospect, it looks as if the BJP would have been better off sitting on the sidelines, and let the drama play out.

What pushed me towards my symbolic protest was the sheer entitlement that was oozing from Rahul Gandhi. According to him, the Congress would have "let" the BJP come to power had they won the majority on their own. Let? Does this guy think he owns the country, its Constitution, its institutions (which he claims are being decimated and/or hijacked by Modi and team) and its citizens? Does he think all of them exist to serve at his pleasure? Let us look at what all he did during these elections. He campaigned, in multiple constituencies. I understand that the Congress lost most if not all the seats where he campaigned. He in fact queered the pitch for an INC-JD(S) tie-up by calling the JD(S) a B-team of the BJP (he apparently apologised later to Deve Gowda). Imagine, the party president apologised due to his goof-up. The team which ran to the Supreme Court, and also handled the situation on the ground in Karnataka was not his team. It was managed by Sonia Gandhi, who seems to have been forced to enter the arena.

As soon as it became apparent the Congress was losing, there were obvious attempts to shield him. He was in hiding all the time, from counting till recently. Suddenly, one saw him with a smug smile, delivering a sanctimonious lecture after the events of today. And my God, the sense of entitlement! The way he seemed to insist that the RSS and BJP were destroying "institutions" without any regard. If one were to point out the falsehoods that were peddled by the Congress about the "murder of democracy", the text would possibly run into pages. On top of that were congratulations pouring in from various quarters. The AP CM, who till recently, was part of the NDA, and suddenly started claiming that nothing was being done for the state was one. Another was Mamata. In the recently concluded Panchayat elections in Bengal there have been multiple reports of booth capturing, rigging, rapes, murders etc. which were not even covered in the mainstream media. I understand that in many seats, the election was unanimous as there was no competition to the TMC candidate. After all this, the lady has the gall to lecture about how she believes in democracy.

As many people pointed out, the coming elections in 2019 seem to be clearly demarcated as competition between Modi and the rest of the media and political parties, who seem to be unanimously against him. The BJP has various points in its favour due to whatever it has done till date. Possibly, for the first time, a bankruptcy case has been successfully settled via the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). There are scores of Modi supporters on social media who provide points against the competition. In parallel with whatever populist/welfare schemes are being taken up by the central government, the success of the BJP will also depend upon how Modi and team explain to the population, what they see as injustice being meted out to the country because of the current opposition. Modi and team, do not have a strong ecosystem to convey their view. The Congress does. Hence, if Modi wants to retain power, it all depends on how effectively his work is conveyed to the people, and also on how effectively the opposition's version is countered. This is one reason I titled the post the way I did.

Also, interestingly, there were howls of protests when Yeddyurappa was given two weeks to prove his strength. Now Kumaraswamy has been given the same time. Everything is silent, no protests any more. 

As for Bengaluru and Karnataka, assuming the INC-JD(S) government lasts for some time, one must hope that lakes continue to be rejuvenated, something is done to reduce the traffic congestion, and the white-topping of roads, which I believe was halted before the elections, restarts and finishes. It would also be interesting to see how long the government would last.

Why I think people like Kamal Haasan are wrong

There has been a controversy over a Sanskrit song sung during an event at IIT Madras some time back. The criticism ranged from why a Tamil song that was sung "routinely" was not sung, to "imposition" of Sanskrit and Hindi. I actually wanted to have a stronger headline, then I toned it down.

Let me say that I have nothing against the Tamil song, which personifies the language as a mother. I admire Tamilians for the love they have for their language and always hope Telugu people learn this from them. Now, onto my points.

First of all, for those talking about an insult to Tamil. The Tamil song is sung at state government functions. However, as far as I know the IITs come under the Ministry of HRD, GoI and is not a state government body. So, this argument does not hold.

Next, for those talking about imposition of Hinduism and Sanskrit, I have a longer response. People who still believe Tamil is completely unrelated to Sanskrit or Hinduism are fooling themselves. These are the characters who still stand by the discredited Aryan Invasion Theory. Sanskrit and Hinduism are irrevocably intertwined with India. This guy, Kamal Haasan, who is espousing "Dravidian identity", himself is an Iyengar Brahmin by birth, and get this, has a Sanskrit name. Thus, in both ways he is part of the "ecosystem" from which he is so desperately trying to dissociate himself.

Next, Hinduism is the only major religion that believes in a Mother Goddess. What exactly one names the Goddess is up to one's choice. However, going by the Tamil belief that Tamil was handed down by Murugan (Skanda, Subrahmanya, Kartikeya, whatever you wish to call him, and given that his mother is Parvati, one can safely assume Tamil is a personification of her. Also, Lord Siva is called vAgeesha. So this also supports my theory. The only other name I can think of is of Saraswati, the Goddess of Learning. If anyone believes otherwise I believe he is being delusional. 

All the so-called Dravidian parties and now Kamal Haasan, are basically Tamilian. To my knowledge no other state of south India espouses "dravidianism" as much as some Tamils. They treat Tamil as a pure language that was completely independent of Sanskrit and "Brahmanism". Obviously all these people can be assumed to be extremely proud of the language. I have news for these delusional people. The five great epics of Tamils are (forgive me for the transliteration errors)  silappadikAram, sivaka chintAmani, maNimekhalai, valayapathi and kunDalakesi. Without even getting into the contents of these (I am unaware of these) and names of characters, four out of these five epics have Sanskrit names. One can also refer to videos available of Dr Nagaswamy, a renowned Tamil scholar who again and again debunks the arguments of these dravidian opportunists.

Now, one explanation for the popularity of the dravidian hypothesis is provided by Rajiv Malhotra in his writings. This is one of the many tools employed by the British and missionaries - to subjugate India, and to convert more people to Christianity. Tamil, from outside seems different in some ways. These differences were played up historically to whip up sentiments of Tamils that they were dominated by the so-called Aryans. There are schools of thought that have claimed the Tamil philiosopher Thiruvalluvar to be a disciple of Saint Thomas (whether he ever came to India is a separate debate).

On top of that, broadly speaking, major Indian languages have the same alphabets. I am leaving out certain tribal and north-eastern languages which may have a different origin.

This list can go on and on. So, those Tamil chauvinists who claim Tamilakam (do look that up) is separate from the rest of India, need to get their agendas or sources checked.

References: Works of Rajiv Malhotra - Being Different, Breaking India.

On an angry Hanuman

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