Role of mandir in Indian society

Indian society had unique value based system which was evolved through family-gurukul-mandir over the time. Destruction of all of these axes in modern life due to various reasons leads to demoralization of Indian society on each step. Mandir was very active in maintaining live communication and played a pivotal role in continuation of idea called India over the period. Hence we still exist in spite of Semitic onslaught all over the world.

Political system was never a backbone of our society and today we seek solution to each and every problem through political system where it is easy to play blame game and our social responsibility is limited only for casting a vote. Systematically common man is kept away from the governance and only few inspired are following the path of social work in their capacity. There are innumerable NGOs and other religious/cultural organizations which are working along with governmental system but the fact remains that average citizen is indifferent towards the situation. He expects someone else should take care of his social/cultural problems. By and large our education and modern social system has failed miserably to involve each and every citizen in the nation building.

Our educational system is the mix of worst from the both the worlds. It is only utilitarian and does not inculcate any social responsibility. Compulsory social or military service in western world after schooling ensures more responsible citizens. Even though the system was applied due to complex family and political problems, it is proved beneficial for disciplined and organized urban society. Indian society never faced a need for such system due to its healthy family structure. But rapid westernization and urbanization of India is making things beyond control of any governmental set up, especially if one considers the size of the population it has to deal with.

Population is our strength if we would able to channelize the resources. We need energetic youth as well as experienced citizens to participate for social well being without political or cultural prejudices. A society can flourish only when the basic needs of all the people are addressed and not when a certain section is exploiting the rest. By and large a common Indian is attached to a place of worship irrespective of his faith. Mandir could play very effective role in organizing the society. There is hardly any possibility that mandir will turn in to power center due to hindu mindset. But we cannot keep this experiment restricted to it. We have to involve worship places of other faiths as well to ensure effective internal security. Assertive and caring majority will help so called minorities to get internalized in to mainstream and not the politics of appeasement.

At educational level, we should make one year compulsory social work for everyone anytime before getting degree with his/her convenience in his/her area of interest. Taxpayers should pay for that service. We can easily devise mechanism to make this functional.
At social level each citizen should be attached to local mandir/ gurudwara /vihar mosque/church. Each one should get registered at the nearest place of worship and should spend at least one hour per week for social cause in his/her area of expertise.

We have to solve our problems necessarily with Indian perspective. Existence of Indian society since time immemorial proved that we have this inherent capacity to mould ourselves as per the situation. We should believe in our values and stop copying western model of development but at the same time we should be open to all beneficial aspects of other cultures. But it cannot be a one way process. We too have something to offer to mankind.
Mandir revolution will help Indian society to come out of the inferiority complex which is systematically inculcated by the British education system over the years.

Let Swami Vivekananda’s inspiring words guide us in our endeavor
Arise! Awake! And stop not till the goal reached

Indian connection behind big bang experiment

IBNLive, 10-09-08
Of the three main past and present physicists behind the landmark proton-smashing experiment in Geneva on Wednesday 10th sept 08, one has a Nobel Prize, the other is waiting to find out if he has one, and the third never got one.

The third man is the Bose of the Higgs-boson experiment - Satyendra Nath Bose.

It is Bose after whom the sub-atomic particle ‘boson’ is named - probably the only noun in the English language named after an Indian (and therefore never capitalised).The $10 billion Large Hadron Collider experiment in Switzerland on Wednesday could not have happened without Bose and Albert Einstein. In 1924, Bose sent a paper to Einstein describing a statistical model that eventually led to the discovery of the Bose-Einstein condensate phenomenon.
The paper laid the basis for describing one of the two categories of the elementary particles that make up an atom - one was boson, and the other came to be known as fermion, after the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi. Einstein had already won the Nobel in 1921 for services to theoretical physics and the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, and Fermi won it in 1938. Decades later, in 1964, the British scientist Peter Higgs returned from a walk in the Scottish mountains to tell his colleagues that he had just experienced his “one big idea,” which could hold a clue to how matter in the universe got its mass in the billionth of a second after the Big Bang. Higgs eventually came up with his theory of the Higgs boson, a boson that gives mass to all other subatomic particles that happen to interact with it in a ‘Higgs field’.The more they interact, the heavier they become. And the ones that don’t interact don’t gather mass.The theory could not only throw further light on the creation of the universe, but also help explain the shape of it.

Wednesday’s experiment at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland, where protons will be smashed against each other at great speed, will be the first attempt to actually observe the Higgs boson - nicknamed the ‘God particle.’ So far, it is the last undetected elementary particle, also called a fundamental particle, going by the standard theory of particle physics.

Higgs, who is professor emeritus at Edinburgh University, is now widely tipped to win the Nobel, particularly if the Higgs boson is detected. The first Nobels for physics in the 21st century went jointly to three Americans - Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle. The won it for creating the ‘condensate’ - a new type of matter - that Bose and Einstein had postulated. According to Bose’s grandson Falguni Sarkar, six other physicists have won the Nobel for work in the area of Bose statistics.

However, for some reason, Satyendra Nath Bose himself never won the Nobel.

Sharon Ann Holgate, a British science writer and broadcaster who made an acclaimed radio documentary on Bose for the BBC some years ago, said she had no doubt the Indian deserved a Nobel. “I certainly do think he deserved the Nobel. When I was researching my documentary I was outraged that this man was so brilliant, yet so overlooked, perhaps because of institutionalised racism. No one gave a damn because he was an Indian,” she said.

Development model for India

R K Pachauri, Ph.D
Director-General, TERI

India is at a stage when it must make some critical choices. The easiest choice would be to follow the example of the developed world and to proceed on a path of increasing consumerism without due regard to impacts on the environment and the good health and conservation of the country’s natural resources. This would prove disastrous in the long run and would lead to major inequities in income and wealth distribution. It would also lead to degradation of the country’s ecosystem and natural resources with harmful consequences for the economy and for Indian society as a whole. Such a path would also add to the problem of climate change that the world has now to deal with on an urgent and serious basis.

The other choice, which is undoubtedly superior and would have major consequences for the world and all of humanity, is to ensure that our laws, regulatory institutions and practices as well as human behaviour uphold the primacy of nature as an important determinant of human welfare. The world is in urgent need for a different model of development that is truly sustainable. It is for a country like India to establish a path that creates such a model. We have to use our intrinsic belief, traditions and values to move towards such a model. Then only would the world see the merit of such action and emulate us for the benefit of all mankind and other living species on this planet."

British Caste-System

Edward Hamala
http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/militants-set-france-ablaze/

In response to the letter by Roger Williams captioned "The Rig Veda does refer to caste" (07.07.23) I thought I might share a few points with your readers. The Indian "caste system" that has so outraged Mr. Roger Williams, makes me wonder if he is equally outraged by the British "caste system" that is even more prevalent, although it is well hidden and "invisible" in the British and some European societies, where the nobility still exist, than it is in India today, where all noble titles have been abolished.

I would like to ask Mr. Williams when objecting to birthrights why has he failed to raise the same objection to the British Nobility and the Landed Gentry's birthright, inheriting their title, social status while they are also guaranteed perpetual political power by inheriting a peer-ship and a seat in the British House of Lords, the highest legislative body of the land?

Few of us believe the existence of a truly egalitarian society in the west today or anywhere for that matter!When was the last time that Mr. Williams had a drink at the local pub with Lord Spencer? Or had tea with Prince Phillip?

Did you know that the English nobility are distinctly noticeable by their education and grooming in institutions such as Wetherby, Ludgrove, and Eton or the Royal Academy at Sandhurst? They even speak a different language, the King's English, free from colloquialism and dialects distinctly separating them, and distinguishing them from ordinary commoners, as soon as they open their mouths. May I also remind you that the Indian Social Structure as it was depicted in the Vedas Millenniums ago, made it an edict to leave Tribals and Adivasis alone and not to impose Hindu religion, culture or values on them.The word "caste" my friend is an English word! The Sanskrit word for "caste" is "Varna" and it means vocation or occupation and does not mean "caste" as it does in the English interpretation or translation of the term!Likewise, "untouchable" meant not to go near them, don't touch them, don't intermarry with them and don't corrupt their culture don't try to conform them. Leave them alone!The unfortunate thing was that Mahatma Gandhi was also British educated, trained as a lawyer and had little or no knowledge about the ancient Vedic philosophy, history or culture. What little Gandhi knew about Vedic philosophy was mostly thought to him by Vinoba Bhave, an avid freedom fighter, a devoted supporter of the Mahatma who was a Hindu monk and a highly educated Brahman who among other things spoke 14 languages.It was Vinoba Bhave who connected Gandhi's political views with Vedic values and philosophy that gained such a wide appeal and the support of the Indian masses. If Gandhi would have had a better grasp of Vedic Philosophy he would have been able to counter many of these British myths and instead of being an apologist he could have challenged and defeated the British, the most classist society, at their own game.Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what modern country that you know of today still have primitive tribals living undisturbed, "uncivilized" and untouched by their society living around them? As they do in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India? Did you know that these islands are off limits to all Indian citizens, to protect these tribals?Is it done to discriminate against the tribals as "untouchables" or is it done to protect them?The State of Assam, was a similar tribal area until it got overran by zealous Christian Missionaries that have destroyed their social fibre and their culture.

Westerners can't seem to resist the temptation of trying to impose their political and social values and religions on other cultures!How many societies does Mr. Williams know, where a group of refugees arrived and sought refuge as the Jews did in Kerala, India in 70 AD and were given sanctuary and freedom to practice their religion. This community lived and prospered in India without anyone trying to convert them and many returned to their homeland when the State of Israel was created!The same holds true for the Parsi refugees arriving from Persia when the forceful Muslim conversion was taking place there and they are still practicing their own ancient religion as Zoroastrians and no one tried to convert them.Recently, a large number of Tibetians arrived in India along with the Dalai Lama and they were all received graciously and were given sanctuary.I suggest Mr. Williams should ask the Australian aboriginals or the American Indians if they would prefer to be untouched by their foreign invaders or if they preferred to be forced to conform to an alien culture that was imposed on them, by forcefully removing their children to place them into Christian institutions where violence and sexual abuse was rampant.It has destroyed their self esteem, traditions and culture. The Eastern Indian social structure was designed that different castes served each other, each with a distinct duty to perform for the benefit of the whole of society.It was a farmer's duty to teach his son to be a good farmer and the merchant's to teach his son his craft, while the warrior was trained to be the protector and defender of all………..It is also noteworthy that governance was the duty of the Kshatryas not to rule by whims and despotism as it was the rulers privilege in the "civilized west" but to rule in accordance with the Vedic principles.

Yet the highest caste, above them all was not the Kings who were given the highest social position. It was the Brahmans who were the custodians of all the Vedic Sciences and knowledge and their duty was to teach and to preserve the knowledge of Vedas.The teachers, the priests, the doctors, the scientists and philosophers the poets and the writers were all Brahmans whose duty also included giving moral guidance to the Kings! It is simplistic to believe that a farmer or a potter would be capable to teach their children nuclear science or medicine or the Vedas!This educational system assured the proper training and apprenticeship of all with a life time of gainful employment for all the participants.

This, Mr. Williams, has established an interesting value system in India, alien to the west! The most valuable asset was not money or power as it is today in the western value system! It was knowledge and wisdom that took decades to learn and a life time to acquire! And it was the society's duty to support the Brahmans to afford their study providing food, clothing and shelter to them.

I am sure Mr. Williams is familiar with the existence of the "unwashed" wretched underclass in Dickens's Britain or Victor Hugo's France as it did exist in most of Europe……… Well, such a thing did not exist in India and these facts are well documented by historians all the way back to Alexander the Great's visit to India and was minutely recorded by Greek Historians such as Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Strabo, accompanying Alexander. One thing these historians also commented on, was the absence of slavery that was an integral part of Hellenic culture!

Today, most Indians are alienated and mostly ignorant about their culture, the Vedas and their history, and few understand the Vedic philosophy or its teachings or the highly advanced science it encompasses. They know little else about Hinduism, besides the ritualistic traditions. This Vedic social structure was put in place at the time when in the rest of the world slavery was rampant and pivotal to every European Empire!Don't forget slavery was widely practiced in the United States until the Civil War to the 1860's and desegregation only started in the 1960's and the prejudices still exist until today.

Hindu-Hindutva-Hinduism

Original text can be found at http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-am-proud-to-be-hindu.html

I am proud to be a Hindu not because Hinduism claims that it is in any way better than any other religion. Nor does this pride I feel in being a Hindu arise from a feeling of being ‘holier’ than a non-believer. I am proud to be a Hindu because it is characteristically inclusive, liberal, pragmatic, egalitarian and individualistic. In a way it is not even a ‘religion’ in a stricter-sense, since it does not have a hierarchical structure of command-and-control. Neither does it have an office of the Pope, nor does it have a single Pan-Hindu scripture. It is rather an age-defying “way of life”—the ‘sanatana dharma’—which has been readily and generously welcoming, like an ocean, every stream of thought, into its organic whole, over several millennia.Hindutva never talks of kafirs and ‘infidels’ to inject xenophobic fervour, or missionary zeal into its believers. Hindutva is rather a spiritual and socio-cultural umbrella which accepts, and happily so, even its staunchest critics as part of its larger whole. So inclusive is this way of life that Buddha who used to be an ardent critic of prevalent Hinduism of his times, instead of being silenced, or being targeted by any fatwa or being burnt at stake, was Himself embraced as an avatara i.e. incarnation of Vishnu. Consequently Buddhist along with Jain teachings got assimilated into the then prevalent Brahmanical and Vedic Hinduism to bring out the later version of Vedantic Hinduism comprising of Upanishads, Puranas and the great Bhagwad Gita.This pragmatic and liberalistic attitude of Hindutva, is seen at its best in the Bhagwad Gita, where in the final Eighteenth Chapter, after all the prolonged and persuasive discourse, Krishna tells to Arjuna:
“Iti te jnanamakhyatam guhyaatguhyataram mayaVimrishyaitadasheshena yathaichhasi tathaa kuru.”(Hereby I have imparted to you the most secret and sacred of wisdom. Nevertheless you can apply your judiciousness of mind and then do whatever you wish to.)
Perhaps this degree of individualism, through openness and freedom given to the individual to choose his manner of living cannot be seen in any other religion, and for this very reason

Hinduism is more of a “way of life” than a mere institutionalised religious entity. Bhagwad Gita amply professes this concept of individualism as opposed to a codified and institutionalised religious system.
“Uddharedatmanaatmanamaatmanam avasadhayetAatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuaatmaiva ripuraatmana.”(It is the Self that could elevate the Self, and it is the Self that could denigrate the Self. The Self itself is its own greatest friend; the Self itself is its own greatest enemy)
When Swami Vivekananda quoted the great Sanskrit shloka in the World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, he underlined this great appreciation of Hindutva that all paths ultimately lead to the ‘One’.
“Aakashaat patitam toyam yathagacchati sagaramSarva deva namaskaaramkeshavam prati gachhatii.”(Just as rainwater falling from the sky takes different routes and channels but ultimately end up in the one same ocean, prayers directed at any god ultimately reaches that ‘One’ god.)
When Dr K.M. Munshi selected the great Vedic aphorism as motto of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan he wanted to specifically highlight this inclusivism of Hindutva.
“Aa no bhadra kritavo yantuvishwata.”(Let noble thoughts come from all corners of this universe and fill my mind.)
And no religious discourse on Hindutva is complete without the much talked about shloka which hails the whole world as one single family.
“Ayam nijah paro vetti gananalaghu chetasaamUdaara charitanam tuvasudhaivakutumbakam.”(‘This is ours’; ‘that is other’s’ is being perceived by the narrow-minded. The magnanimous always sees this whole universe as one single family.)

We should now conjoin this lofty vision of ‘sanatana dharma’ into the geographical concept of Bharatvarsha as elucidated in Vishnu Purana.
“Uttaram yad samudrasyaHimadrischaiva dakshinamVarshtad Bharatam namaBharati yatra santati.”(That which is north of ocean and south of Himalayan ranges is the Bharatvarsha, and the progeny of this place are Bharatiya.)Here is a text that tells us of a geographical-identity devoid of any sectarian or religious differentiation. All people born and brought up in this Bharatvarsha are Bharatiya. We have to emphasise this identity of ‘Bharatiya’ as paramount to all others; and that the pronounced silence over any other religious or sectarian references is singularly because of Hindutva influence on the concept of Bharatiyata.‘Bharatiyata’ can be a more acceptable euphemism for ‘Hindutva’. Even while emphatically stating that one need not be least apologetic of calling oneself a Hindutva ideologist. But each time we try to point out that Hindutva is not just a religion or an exclusive sect but rather a “way of life”, the loud cries of “secular” brigade silences this point and prevents it from penetrating the masses. To get across to the larger public who hardly bothers to go deep into the semantics of this dialectic, and to bring to our fold the fence-sitters who wish to ‘appear’ more ‘secular’ than they actually are, we should propagate the concept of Bharatiyata as a Pan-Indian ideological furtherance of Hindutva.

The Hindu ideology of universal egalitarianism i.e. belief in inherent equality of all creations, leave aside merely amongst human beings, is put at its best in ‘Gita’.
“Vidya vinaya sampanne brahmanegavi hastiniiShuni chaiva shwa-pakechapanditaan sama-darshina.”(One who is ennobled by humility of real knowledge would see inherent one-ness in a Brahmin, cow, elephant, dog and a dog-eater.)There is a famous anecdote centering around Shankara’s life. Once when Shankara was going along the street with his pupils to take bath in the Ganga, he met a Chandala who was also passing along the street with his dogs by his side. The disciples of Shankara shouted and asked the Chandala to clear off the road. The Chandala asked Shankara: “O, Venerable Guru! You are a preacher of Advaita Vedanta and yet you make a great difference between man and man. How can this be consistent with your teaching of Advaitism? Is Advaita only a theory?” Shankara was very much struck by the intelligent query of the Chandala. He thought within himself, “Lord Shiva has assumed this form just to teach me a lesson”. He composed then and there five shlokas called the ‘Manisha Panchaka’. Every shloka ends thus: “He who learnt to look on the phenomena in the light of Advaita is my true Guru, be he a Chandala or be he a Brahmin”.

A major perversion of Hinduism owing to historical or socio-religious interpretations of scriptures, and deviant behaviour of certain followers, led to intra-Hindu classifications and discrimination on the basis of caste. Attempts were made to establish Brahmanical hegemony claiming scriptural legitimacy. It has to be clearly stated that scriptural concepts on varna and jati were more as mobilisation of cadre of common-professions based on inherent skills, inclinations and activities. Bhagwad Gita talks about ‘varna’ differentiation based on guna (inherent inclinations) and karma (activities).
“Chatur varnam maya sristumguna-karma vibhagasha.”(The four varnas are made by Me, differentiated on guna and karma.)
It should be clearly noted that it begins with guna and ends with karma and never was it envisaged based on janma. In other words, varna was not supposed to be acquired hereditarily.Equally important to state is that varna was a horizontal cadre-differentiation and not vertical classification, as it is often made to be shown. Inter-varna marriages were very common but its differentiation as anuloma and pratiloma was a later interpolation which wrongfully picturised varna as vertical classification. A sizeable number of Deities and heroes of ‘puranas’ and ‘itihasas’ are products of inter-varna marriage, or from non-Brahmin-Kshatriya varnas.
Purusa Sukta in the Rig Veda talks of Brahmins emerging from the face and Shudras emerging out of the feet of the Almighty and this is used by many as a scriptural justification of vertical classification. But this theory innocuously presumes that ‘head is holier than the feet’, which is a very misleading and incorrect premise. Perhaps the contrary can be argued more convincingly. And what is more important to note is that all are shown to be originating out of the same Almighty. I feel very ashamed and sad to see how the lofty Hindu ideal of universal equality has been misrepresented to legitimise and perpetuate caste-discrimination amongst the Hindus.For those ships lost in the turmoil of life, Hindutva acts as a spiritual light-house, the light-house that guides and offers direction, silently and ceaselessly, without the least expecting any ship to come over and anchor at the light-house. It rather assists them in reaching their own destinations.

Interestingly the very term ‘Bharat’ means “one which is seized with and immersed in light”.Hindutva does not talk of its followers as superior in any way compared to its non-followers. What it stands for is according to Vivekananda “to make Hindu a better Hindu, Christian a better Christian and Muslim a better Muslim”. Religious bigotry, parochialism and xenophobia can never be part of Hindutva. And the very idea of ‘Hindu fundamentalism’ is a crude misnomer and inherently self-contradictory since a true Hindu cannot be a fundamentalist and a fundamentalist can never claim to be a true Hindu. And Bharatiyata is the carrier of this message, a living and vibrant Pan-Indian embodiment of Hindutva openness and reverence for the other.

Some people naively observe that Hindus are very tolerant. This is wrong. Tolerance means accepting the other person though you believe that he is wrong. Hindus believe that the ‘other’ is as much right as you are, and hence they are ‘understanding’, and not just ‘tolerant’. And the perversions and anomalies of other religions manifested at the social level are more out of misinterpretations of, and deviations from the core philosophy. At the foundation of Bharatiyata is this underlying respect for the ‘other’, the ideal of sarvadharmasamabhava. Bharatiyata that talks of vasudhaivakutumbakam—the whole world as one single family. Bharatiyata that prays for loka samasta sukhino bhavantu—welfare of the entire world.To respect others one has to learn to respect oneself first. Any feeling of mutual respect cannot be true and sustainable until that feeling sprout out of abundant self-respect. Otherwise a sense of insecurity would hinder true and boundless respect for the ‘other’.
While Hindutva should always be open to any criticism or correction or reformation, it should not end up being apologetic or defeatist, in front of its detractors. India is a secular country only, and only, because Hinduism is essentially secular. If ‘secularism’ is interpreted and practised as Anti-Hinduism, or forcefully pro-active minorityism to the extent of repeated Hindu-bashing, any self-respecting Hindu should stand up,and uphold his swaabhiman and Atma-gaurav.And that is why I wish to stand up and proclaim to the whole world: I am proud to be a Hindu!!!

Terrorism in India

Dr Anil A Athale (Rediff News, 12.06.08)

After the Jaipur terror attacks on May 13, we saw the routine that happens after every attack. There were VIP visits, compensation announced to the victims, politicians spoke of 'zero tolerance', television channels held the usual debates, the police announced imminent breakthroughs. Soon everything is forgotten, till the next terror attack. At which time, I am sure the same sequence will be repeated. Here is my attempt to answer some of frequently asked questions.

Why are attacks by Islamic groups called Islamist terrorism? Other terror groups like the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) or the IRA (Irish Republican Army) have Hindus or Christians but are not called Hindu or Christian terrorists?

It is undoubtedly true that there are other terrorists as well, for instance the Naxalites or Maoists. The reason why the adjective 'Islamists' is used is that no other terror group invokes religious sanction or quotes religious texts to justify their acts. In fact, the Tamil Tigers has Hindus as well as Christians (their spokesperson for many years was Anton Balasingham, a Christian). Neither has the IRA nor Tamil Tigers ever quoted any religious scriptures to justify their actions, the Islamists have and continue to do so. The link between religious places and schools to these acts, is also well established. Finally, the Islamist terrorists themselves have time and again openly admitted the religious nature of their ultimate goal -- Islamisation. It would be dishonest if this reality is ignored.



What about State terrorism?

It is true that the State also uses force to deal with revolts and violence and against criminals. But in a democracy with a judiciary and rule of law, the use of force by the State is accountable and has to be within the bounds of law. At times individuals do transgress those limits, but those are aberrations. Use of force by a State to enforce law cannot be equated with State terrorism, unless that State has a policy of genocide or is dictatorial like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union.Unfortunately social activists and champions of human rights forget that it is the legitimate function of the State to use force. If the State abdicates this responsibility then we are inviting anarchy and in words of Hobbes, a 16th century English philosopher, a situation of war of every one against every one and human life 'nasty, brutish and short.



'You are biased, what about the terrorism of the Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc?

These are indeed organisations that believe in violent means and must be dealt under the law. But at worst, these are extremists and militants, like militant trade unions for example. The shallow coverage by the media has created the confusion about definition of terrorism and who is a terrorist. There is tendency to lump together terms like militants, insurgents, extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists. While all the variety of people fighting for some cause or other may at times indulge in terrorism, a terrorist is one whose primary aim is to cause maximum destruction. In that sense strictly speaking, when a Kashmiri extremist attacks a soldier, it is wrong to call it a terrorist attack, it is part of an insurgency. We must be clear about this difference. A terrorist is an individual who carries out a terrorist act. A terrorist act is one in which totally unconnected persons are targeted and killed. Terrorism is random violence that makes no distinction between people and promotes fear. It is no accident that in the Jaipur attack as well as elsewhere, many Muslims lost their lives.It is a fallacy to claim that everything is fair in love and war. Even in war there are written and unwritten rules. The terrorists do not follow them. For instance in war, civilians are not deliberately targeted (they still die as collateral damage) while terrorists, for instance in Beslan in Russia chose a school or local trains in Mumbai.While there are groups and organisations that are militant, fundamentalist and violence prone, they have not yet graduated to earn the 'terrorist' tag. If the State fails to curb minority terrorism then the majority may well begin to have its own terrorist organisations.



If we use violence against terrorists then are we not betraying our Gandhian legacy?

Gandhian methods of non-violent struggle were successful against the British colonialists. But the British were a civilised people. British liberals like Edmund Burke were in favour of Indian independence as early as in 1773 (Burke's speeches in the British parliament on the Regulating Act). To assume universality of success of these methods for all times to come is false. Did the non-violent Jews survive Hitler? Closer home, in Gandhi's lifetime itself, in October 1947, it was force that saved the Kashmir valley from Pakistani-backed raiders. Even more telling, the same non-violent movement in the Portuguese colony of Goa, failed in 1956-1957. Goa was liberated by force in 1961.

An oft quoted Gandhian phrase is that if all were to follow an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, then the world would go blind. The counter to that is that if only some follow this and others don't then it is the non-violent who would go blind while the rogues will rule the world.

125th Birth anniversary of V.D. Savarkar

India's debt to Savarkar
Priyadarsi Dutta (pioneer, 29.5.08)
His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as 'Sawarkar', and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that "why the paper did not burn". In those days, India's freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal's partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement. India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength. Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi's policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru's dream of "talking his way to leadership of the world", and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was -- a meek leader of a Third World country. Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.