Hindu Survival: What is to be done – Koenraad Elst

Dr. Koenraad Elst“Some Hindus ask me, as a sympathetic outsider, if I have any advice for them when they want to revive their fortunes. In principle, I have no advice; it would be arrogant to pretend to know something that the people concerned are not so sure about. But then again, Hindus are no different from others, they are subject to the same laws, so an approximative knowledge of their condition is enough to predict where they are moving and to say what they have to do to make the best of it. So, here goes.” – Dr. Koenraad Elst

Sri Krishna1. Self-knowledge

The first thing Hindus have to do, is to know themselves. The great problem of Hindus today is that they have become sleep-walkers, forgetful of their civilization. It gets worse with every passing year, as the ever-larger Hindu middle-class is becoming Americanised both in consumer patterns and in values. Their knowledge of Western films and music is becoming bigger as their knowledge of Hindu tradition is lessening. And the worst is that increasing numbers take pride in their ignorance.

In the past, it didn’t matter if you skipped religion classes. You would just breathe Hinduism. You would know the tales from the Mahabharata and the Puranas through songs and theatre plays performed in your village square. Girls would learn Hindu traditions from their mothers and pass them on to their own children. But that can no longer be taken for granted.

In a way, the world has become more conducive to Christian-style religion. NRI-PIOs congregate in their temples the way Christians gather in their churches. They organise Sunday school for their children the way they learnt from their Protestant neighbours. India itself is becoming similar, if only because the same family pattern with two wage-earners is being transplanted. You can study religion on your own, the way the first Christians practised their religion (even in secret), against or at least without support from your surroundings. At any rate, unlike in the past, if you don’t make a deliberate choice to do something about your religion, chances are that you won’t.

To Hindus, this is a new situation. In days gone by, religion was just there, you fell in line with your surroundings, you did as everyone did. Now, to an increasing extent, you have to make a choice for it. The law of inertia is no longer working for Hinduism; it starts to work against it. The missionaries know this; the Hindus, I am not so sure.

But they can save their Hinduism by practising it. The very first result is that they themselves will realize again what Hinduism is all about. Not otherworldly Hinduism but the kind that Krishna preached, on the Kurukshetra, with the real enemies and opportunities and the real world.

Om2. Language

For Hindus abroad, depending on circumstances, knowledge of Indian languages is probably lost. In a few places, native languages are perhaps viable, like Hindi in Suriname or Tamil in Singapore. If Hindu families can speak their Indian language inside the home and transmit it to the children, so much the better. But in mixed families and in oceans of powerful languages like the Anglosphere, children or grandchildren are bound to take to the language of their surroundings, so it is a waste to still your guilt feelings as an immigrant by forcing your children to learn a smattering of Bengali or Kannada. It is better to teach your children Hindu values, and if this has to take the form of a language, let it be Sankrit, the key to the main Hindu scriptures. For the rest, let them acquire a thorough grounding in Hindu stories and ritual, in English or whatever vernacular they take to, rather than investing your and their precious time in a language that is bound to die.

In India itself, English should be shown its place as first foreign language. Mind you, mine is a position against self-interest, for I will never have more fluency in an Indian language than in English; by contrast, all Indians and Westerners pleading for English happen to be self-serving. At any rate, an anti-English stand is not voguish, now that Indian politicians are not just sending their own children to English-medium schools while promoting vernacular-medium education for the common man, but openly replace vernacular with English schooling. This is a political choice: either Panjabis and Malayalis will speak English with each other, like Danes with Koreans or Congolese with Pakistanis; or they will speak an Indian language. If you want Indian unity, you’d better aim for an Indian language that will set India apart from the Anglosphere.

That Indian language can only be Sanskrit. At this distance, we can say that it was a fateful day when the first President of India, Rajendra Prasad, cast the deciding vote in the Constituent Assembly in favour of Hindi as link language, to the detriment of the other candidate, Sanskrit. Hindi was not accepted by the chauvinist speakers of the other vernaculars. One of the good reasons was that it was but a recent language, a common denominator between old literary languages like Braj Bhasha, Awadhi, Rajasthani and others. Hindi as it is, was deemed vulgar by speakers of highly civilised non-Hindi languages like Bengali or Telugu. It didn’t have the kind of prestige that could overrule such objections.

By contrast, Sanskrit if chosen as the link language would have sent a cry of admiration through countries like China and Japan, Russia and Germany, France and America. The state of Israel, that chose to make Biblical Hebrew its first language, would have understood very well that India made its main Scriptural medium into its second language. The Flemish, who waged a struggle against French-language masses all while accepting Latin masses as a matter of course, would have understood it if the Indians had preferred their common sacred language over a vernacular. Even the Muslim world would have understood it. Most importantly, it would have been accepted by the Indian people. Speakers of the constituent members of the Hindi commonwealth would have had no objection, and speakers of non-Hindi languages (even Tamil chauvinists) would have had fewer objections than against Hindi. As for the English-speaking elite, it would militate no harder against one Indian language than against another.

The vote in the Constituent Assembly, fifty-fifty between Sanskrit and shuddh Hindi, shows how far India has slipped, and what an outrageous failure the so-called Hindu Nationalist movement has been. If the vote were held today, it would rather be fifty-fifty between English and Bollywood Hindi, i.e. Urdu. The secularists were then a small coterie around Nehru, now the same stream of opinion controls all the cultural and other institutions. Back then, a vote for English would be unthinkable, now the same taboo counts almost for a vote against English. The Muslims were only 10% and smarting under their guilt for the Partition, not in a position to make demands; now they are 15% and growing fast, and in active opposition to every language policy that smells of either Hinduism or nationalism. Sanskrit has been borrowed heavily by the South-Indian languages and would be welcomed by their speakers (so would shuddh Hindi, for that matter, and for the same reason), whereas “Hindustani” or Urdu brings Hindi a lot closer to the official language of Pakistan but at a greater distance from the Southern languages of India itself.

So, you have a choice. Supporting Bollywood Hindi will make Indian unity weaker and the Muslim factor stronger. But more importantly, supporting English will make Indian unity and democracy weaker, and the hold of the secularist elite stronger. By contrast, supporting Sanskrit will make Indian unity stronger, along with popular access to the Hindu tradition. Whether India as a unified state survives, depends on many things, but English will certainly not be a factor of unity. A Kannadiga may speak English with a native of Karachi or Chittagong, as he would with a native of Hong Kong or Cairo or anywhere, without sharing a national state with them; and the same counts for a native of Mumbai or Delhi.

Admittedly, Sanskrit is a difficult language, but then it is equally difficult for everyone. And if one positive development can be mentioned since 1947, it is the decreased importance of caste pride, which led many upper-caste people to have a sneaking sympathy for the Nehruvian anti-Sanskrit policy, which at least kept Sanskrit out of the hands of the lower castes. One of the formative episodes in Dr. Ambedkar’s life was when he was denied the right to study Sanskrit in school because of his low caste. It helped make him a partisan of Sanskrit as national link language, a choice not followed by his so-called followers in the Dalit movement. They favour English, a choice unthinkable to the freedom struggle generation.

So, the anti-Sanskrit forces are a lot stronger than in the late forties, when they very narrowly won the day. Still Sanskrit is the only chance the lovers of India have. Hindi failed, and English will only weaken Indian unity, apart from being an utterly undignified choice of link language. Brace yourselves for a difficult struggle – or for national disintegration.

Govinda Pathaks3. Build your own Hindu organization

It is counter-productive to hope for tangible results from the Sangh Parivar. In most respects, they achieved nothing for the Hindus. A few merits go to their credit, viz. relief work and, in some areas, security for Hindus threatened by aggressive “minorities” (i.e. the local branches of international religions with a lot of support from abroad). Important as these merits undoubtedly are, they do not justify the Sangh Parivar’s national claims for the “awakening of the Hindus”. On the contrary, the Sangh Parivar has done its bit for keeping the Hindus asleep. They have misdirected their flock and neglected a number of concerns of those Hindus who were awake.

One good thing the Sangh did, was to organise. I call upon you to do the same. Unfortunately, the Sangh saw this as a goal in itself. It forgot to make self-organization subservient to a Hindu vision, because it had none.

However, that criticism of the Sangh has been expressed enough times and on enough forums. Repeating it is only one form of what Rajiv Malhotra calls “mouse-clicking Hindu activism”, a useless activity that may be ego-flattering but otherwise makes no difference. It may be necessary to keep Hindus from a mistaken line of involvement, but it has mostly outlived its use now. The thing to do is simply to set up your own Hindu centre of activity and ignore the ideological line of the Sangh.

The focus may be very different depending on local needs. Physical security is an important concern in areas where the so-called minorities are strong and growing, like West Bengal and Kerala. That is why the Hindu Samhati in West Bengal is so important: it promises to be more effective than the RSS, and has so far also lived up to its promise. It channels the natural Hindu capacity for self-defence. In opulent areas where Hindu self-forgetfulness due to the invasion of American consumerism is a greater menace, by contrast, the focus may be more on Hindu identity and the revival of Hindu knowledge.

The national and international dimension can be taken care of far more easily that in the past, thanks to the Internet. The pure communication dimension of this transregional cooperation will take care of itself. But is there a need of some more formal way of grouping along national and international lines? In particular, shouldn’t there be a party like the BJP?

If there were an effective lobby group, like the Jewish lobby in the US, there would be no need of a Hindu political party. There is no Jewish political party, but both the Democrats and the Republicans do their best to curry the favour of the Jewish lobby. For the bipartisan form, the VHP (World Hindu Council) has in the past approached all political parties with its “Hindu agenda”, but in practice it only counted on the BJP. And even this party did not do the Hindu lobby’s bidding, e.g. whereas the VHP’s Hindu agenda of 1996 contained an anti-abortion item, in keeping with the Brahmanic-Shastric interdiction of abortion, the BJP programme (in keeping with most other parties’ and governments’) was all for birth-control by any means necessary, including legal abortion. So Hindus don’t consist of the right human material to form an effective lobby-group pressurising political parties.

A party like the BJP is better than nothing, according to many Hindus. While it fails to do anything for Hindu causes, at least when it is in power nothing will be done against the Hindus, unlike the other parties; or so they say. The opening of Indian media ownership under the NDA regime can be given as a counterexample, a BJP-engineered disaster for Hindu society; but we don’t want to be difficult. Well, let the BJP exist, it will do so anyway, but let that not stop you from doing anything on your own.

Once you’ve built up something, it will automatically become the lobby that some were dreaming of. The BJP, and perhaps other parties, will seek your approval when making its programme, your support during the campaign. It always does so when it sees people who know what they want; it did so with the secularists, and it will do so again with Hindus. This will put you in a position to make demands. The BJP will make some of your programme its own if it has the impression that you are consistent and credible. All this and more will accrue to those who really do something and get started.

Nathuram Godse4. Let the facts speak for themselves

According to Rajiv Malhotra, Hindus are “under-informed and over-opinionated”. I already had that impression, but being a foreigner, I had no business saying it. However, if an Indian says it, it deserves to be quoted. They haven’t done their “Purva-Paksha”, their study of the opponent’s viewpoint, and — now I quote Sita Ram Goel — yet “they think they know everything about everything”. I have, for instance, made many an argument with Hindus who claimed to know more of my home religion, Christianity, than I myself did. Perhaps it is an atavistic behaviour pattern dating back to the time when India was on top of the world, and when Indians had a superiority rather than their present inferiority complex.

On the Internet, I have come across many Hindus who were ill-mannered and unwilling to abide by the general rules of good conduct. That will not influence my opinions too seriously, because my mind has by now been made up, but it will affect those of many others. What they prove is that a good cause can be spoilt by bad servants. They give a good message a bad name by their lack of self-control.

They feel good about themselves because they had their say. They think it is impressive if they shove it into the other side’s face. But what they never do, is listen to feedback. Am I achieving what I set out to achieve? Well, the problem with most of these folks is that they don’t really want to achieve anything. The thought of getting somewhere just doesn’t cross their minds. They merely want an emotional kick, a feeling of having said it in a way that the other side, or more likely the sympathising reader (they are not aware of another side), is unlikely to forget. They want to live out what is inside of them, and the result be damned.

The fact that they are participating in discussions on Hinduism and its plight at least proves they feel that something is not right. Let that be a start. For the rest, you have your own teachers to go to. You don’t need me to tell you that self-control (in Sanskrit: yoga) is better for you and for everyone than self-indulgence. You have Hindu civilization for that.

Hindu tradition teaches you all about Purva-Paksha, the “earlier wing” against which your own viewpoint is the counter-wing. It teaches you that you first have to acquaint yourself with what the others are saying before you can answer them. Short, it doesn’t want you to be lazy. It doesn’t want you to take the laughable posture of pretending you know it all without studying. By extension, it teaches you to take into account what the others say in answering you. It wants you to learn from their feedback. Thus, there has never been a Hindu who has convinced an outsider by means of a false (P.N. Oak-ian) etymology, it has solely earned them ridicule; only Hindus fall for this kind of “argument”, and that should tell you something.

How does this work out in practice? Instead of letting your emotions take centre-stage, you should let the facts speak for themselves. That works best. Isn’t it funny, Hindus who have the facts as their best friends yet want to hide these behind their own anger? In making your point, you should first of all let reality do the talking. Nothing convinces as much as reality does.

And yet, reality is not enough. Some Hindus know how to let reality speak and how to make their own emotions shut up, yet their performance is insufficient. For instance, so many times already I have received copies of Nathuram Godse’s speech about Mahatma Gandhi. Hindus think they are meritorious by spreading the word and propagating Godse’s speech, because it stays close to the facts, and because it is itself a historical fact. But except for a secularist of sorts (Ashis Nandy), I am the only author of an analysis of Godse’s speech. Many Hindus admire Godse, but they don’t bother to stop and think about his speech. They merely repeat it, mantra-like, without adding anything to it.

So, once in a while it is necessary to think things over. Was Nathuram Godse right? Was he more right in his words than in his act? What was the result of his act? Discussion forums are an excellent place to make a start. The “wisdom of crowds” is represented there, and I have already learnt a lot from it, even from the most ordinary people who have their moments of brilliance too, and their area of expertise. Hindus could learn a lot too, and train themselves in making up their own minds and influencing other people’s.

Catholic Mass5. Don’t create false problems

According to textbooks, Hindus and especially low-castes (who were only induced into Hinduism by the evil Aryan invaders) are fed up with “empty ritual”. That is, according to the secularists, why they want to leave Hinduism. If you see Christians eat the flesh of Christ, just remember that they would never want to be Hindus and condemned to doing “empty rituals”.

In reality, there may be some things in Hinduism that trouble them, but “empty ritual” is not it. Take it from an eyewitness to the slow death of a religious culture, Christianity in Europe, who has seen numerous contemporaries sigh: “Yes, Christianity is a pack of fairy-tales, but where will I find such a good ritual setting for my funeral as a mass in church, conducted by a real priest?” Religion may be nonsense, but ritual is very important. So, when I see Hindus on Internet lists complain about “empty ritual”, I know they are just rattling off what they learned in their Jesuit school. Of course, the Jesuits know the value of ritual and also practice it, but to Hindu pupils they teach about its emptiness.

Ritual will take care of itself, it gets reborn easily, but some matters are more serious when they are made into problems. One perfectly false issue that has been keeping Hindus busy for a century and a half (if not for a thousand years) is polytheism vs. monotheism. Pharaoh Akhenaten, Moses and Mohammed thought they stumbled upon some important realisation when they declared monotheism true and polytheism false. Against them, some Hindus defend their ancestral polytheism, which nowadays is a brave thing to do. Others, whom the Buddha called lickspittles, try to curry favour with their enemies by espousing monotheism. To have an edge over other Hindus, they declare that the others have not understood how a single God is hiding behind the seeming multiplicity of Vedic gods.

But the truth of the matter is that the Vedic seers didn’t cared two hoots for this quarrel between monotheists and polytheists. The divine manifests itself as one or as many, and both could be lived with. You should not import into Hinduism a problem that only your enemies created, and in the name of which they have destroyed your idols and temples.

A related “problem” is that of idolatry. For thousands of years, Hindus have depicted the divine through paintings and sculptures. To be sure, they also worshipped in the open air, with the wind as the natural idol of Vayu, the thunder as the natural idol of Indra, and so on. But surely the culture of artificial idols has so long and so intimately been interwoven with living Hinduism that we can call idolatry Hindu par excellence. So, it is safe to ignore those Hindus who, wanting to cozy up to their self-described enemies, suddenly “discover” that the Hindus have always been oppressed by false and evil idolatry.

The so-called problems of polytheism and idolatry are false problems floated by those Hindus who want to feel superior to other Hindus, viz. by bathing in the reflected glory of Christianity and Islam. Hindus had better concentrate on real issues, like how to maintain their Hinduism in a sea of hostile forces, or how to save girl babies.

Naked brahmin6. Creativity

One very good thing by which Hinduism stood out, both in its Vedic and its Puranic phase, was its unbridled creativity. Today, this is what is sorely lacking. Sita Ram Goel diagnosed the Hindu activists among his fellow students ca. 1940 as the most mediocre of the lot. Those who had nothing to offer individually gravitated towards causes which tilted them above themselves but to which they themselves had indeed little to offer. They gave their time and energy, nobody can deny them this dedication, but a winning movement cannot be built exclusively of such grey people.

The creative people are on the other side. Most Bollywood actors and directors are either on the anti-Hindu or, at best, on the mindlessly Hindu side. They have named their industry after its American counterpart and some say their product is lousy, but at least they know how to attract money and they certainly have a good time. Hindus ought to feel jealous, if at all they have the ambition to do as well as Bollywood.

Creativity was to be found in the late M.F. Husain, hated by the Hindus and disliked by a great many Muslims too. He was driven by hate, old and uninspired hate, but undeniably he created things in painting. Hindus could do nothing but demand a ban, the most humourless and uncreative solution. No Hindu came forward to be the anti-Husain, let alone some original way to silence him.

It was different once. Every art form was steered to new heights by Hindu artists. Every province of India had its own variation of the performing arts. In the visual arts, no tradition was a match for the richness in characters that the fable collections, epics and Puranas had to offer. Whereas Chinese and Japanese classical music are museum pieces next to omnipresent Western classical music (at performing which the East-Asians excel), Indian classical music remains as the only rival. More individualistic yet more complex, it differs from European classical music the way adult music differs from children’s songs. Hindus are fairly good at maintaining what was great among the inventions of their ancestors, but not so good at giving a creative answer to today’s challenges.

So, gird up your loins to start anew. Create Hindu art. Let it not be an imitation of Western “modern art”, the West is fed up with it and you have no need of Indians pretending to like it. Forget about trying to be original, just be Hindu and your originality will take care of itself. Except for calendar artists, no artist wants to be known as a Hindu, so by doing Hindu art you automatically stand out.

Dancers7. Celebrate

The greatest thing about Hinduism for all its adherents are its festivals. As long as people celebrate these, the religion will exist. Just apply the Americans proverb: “If it’s fun, it gets done.” The same counts for the more serious Hindu business, like meditation. It is not airy-fairy, as Westerners imagine, but very down-to-earth, the most realistic thing in the world. But it is also the happiest thing, the source of joy.

And judging by this criterion, Hinduism is alive and kicking. So, I am not all that pessimistic about the future. You simply have to do what it takes. – Hindu Human Rights, 17 May 2012


Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Ravi
    This ebook gives all details.

    IS, in case you do not have this .

  2. Under the mask of Maoism attack of Imperialist over the Democracy in India by Evangelicalism sponsored by U.S. Imperialism:

    In Odisha: In February 2012, the Maoist leader Sabyasachi Panda confessed that it was the Maoists (Evngelaical Christians) who indeed killed Odisha MLA Jagbandhu Majhi in September 2011 and Swami Laxmananda Saraswati in 2007. The killing of the latter was motivated by the religious discourse in Maoist terror that has pervaded Kandhamal district.

    As per a member of parliament of the Congress party from Odisha, India about 70 MLAs and 10 MPs are under constant Maoist threats. This constitutes half the elected members from the state, the total number of MPs being 21 and MLAs 149.

    In Chhattisgarh: Maoist rebels extort up to Rs 300 crore every year in Chhattisgarh from traders of forest products, transporters and iron ore mining firms, Maoists extort at least Rs.250-300 crore annually and their extortion business runs from the state’s southern tip of Bastar to the northern Surguja district.They mainly extort money from traders of ‘tendu’ leaves, iron ore mining firms, small and big contractors and transporters, Tendu leaves, which are used to make bidis (leaf-rolled cigarettes), are one of the most important forest products of the Bastar region that has been considered the centre of Maoist terrorism in India since the late 1980s.

    The restive region spread across 40,000 sq km has deposits of about 20 percent of the country’s total iron ore stocks and owners of the mines regularly face extortion demands from Maoists. The traders, businessmen, contractors and others who pay extortion money hardly have the courage to report it to the police because of the fear of Maoists and their own business interests in the region.

    Of the 1,500 casualties in Maoist violence since the state came into existence in November 2000 after splitting from Madhya Pradesh, 90 percent have been from Bastar.
    In Tripura:

    For decades Tripura’s indigenous tribal population has been dragged out of their homes and forced to convert to Christianity under threat of violence. Whenever any of the tribals organize Hindu festivals or rituals, the terrorist groups attack to desecrate and kill the participants. There have been incidents of issuing a ban on the Hindu festivals of Durga Pooja and Saraswati Pooja. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. The hill tribe Jamatiya worship in the month of March their traditional god Gadiya, who is supposed to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. The terrorists have issued an order that the Gadiya be prayed on the Christmas day instead.

    Another church official, Jatna Koloi, who was also arrested, admitted that he received training in guerrilla warfare at an NLFT base. It is now apparent that the pattern of forced conversions at gunpoint are irrefutably linked to the Baptist Church in Tripura. The NLFT is accused of forcing Tripura?s indigenous tribes to become Christians and give up Hindu forms of worship in areas under their control.

    In Tripura, there were no Christians at independence; there are 120.000 today, a 90% increase since 1991.

    In Arunachal Pradesh: The figures are even more striking in Arunachal Pradesh, where there were only 1710 Christians in 1961, but 1,2 million today, as well as 780 churches!

    In Nagaland: Christian Naga terrorists have been killing non-Christians for decades on end, and this has never been an issue with the world media.

    In Andhra Pradesh: In Andhra Pradesh, churches are coming-up every day in far flung villages and there was even an attempt to set-up one near Tirupati.

    In Maharashtra: Many Christian action group cadres have also been inducted into prominent naxalite groups under the garb of liberation theology activists. For instance Vernon Gonsalves @ Vikram, a state committee member of Maharashtra unit of CPI (Maoist) who was arrested by the ATS, Maharashtra, in August,2007 and another top Maoist leader Arun Ferreira, r/o Bandra, who was arrested by Nagpur police have both confessed to the police that they are activists of liberation theology movement. A number of human rights activists including Dr.Binayak Sen,Vice President of PUCL, have also been arrested in the recent past for their close links with the Maoist movement in the country confirming the close links between the Maoist movement and NGO and human rights net-work. Since the Christian action groups in the country are all controlled by various church agencies, many church leaders in India are also now directly linked with the naxalite movement.

    Today, with the full support and all possible assistance from the networking NGOs and also with the systematic induction of a large number of NGO activists into major naxalite groups, the naxal movement in the country has now become very powerful and it continues to make inroads into more and more new areas, especially in the remote and tribal regions.

    About 170 districts in 15 states in the country are now reportedly considered as naxal-infested. This unprecedented growth of naxalite movement in the country can be attributed to the support and encouragement it receives from the action group movement of networking NGOs which has got a strong and wide network all over the country.

    The irony of the situation is that the naxalite movement which proclaims to be the greatest crusader against the imperialist lobby is presently controlled by the action group movement which in turn is promoted, financed and controlled by the same imperialist lobby.

    NATO,CIA and Evngelaical Christians (Maoist) are same. They are doing everything against democracy and human liberty. To control over the resources by destabilize the region is their geopolitical goal.

    For them Jesus is nothing but an ‘artifice of aggression’.

    Villages are being terrorised to ‘donate’ at least one child from each family to the cause of Maoist terror.

    One of the Italians, Paolo Bosusco, had visited the area several times before and enjoyed the hospitality of the Maoists. His being taken hostage was a staged drama to humble the Indian state. Paolo is a member of an Italy based Ultra-Leftist organisation, Party of Committees to Support Resistance for Communism (CARC). In December 2011, the Maoist Communist Party of Manipur in a press release had acknowledged its association and support of some foreign based ultra-leftist outfits. They are: Communist Party of Philippines, Association for Proletarian Solidarity, Italy (ASP), Maoist Communist Party of France, Revolutionary Communist Party Canada (PCR – RCP), and Party of the Committees to Support Resistance for Communism (CARC), Italy. Some of the western countries had played a very dubious role in fanning Left Wing Extremism (LWE) in Nepal to facilitate religious conversion. Kandhamal district of Odisha suffers from the same paradigm. Nepal’s example should not be lost out on India.

    As far as military prowess of the Maoists goes, there is evidence of AK-47s being supplied by the United Wa Army in Myanmar. The AK-47 manufacturing facility has been provided by China to the said insurgent outfit. The Maoist-ISI-LeT-militant groups nexus in Kashmir and the North-East is fairly well established. The Chinese, according to a national television channel, have also begun to supply sophisticated signal equipment with encryption capabilities to the Maoists.

    The top two non-governmental donors to India were U.S.-based missionary organizations, World Vision International at ~$155 million and Gospel for Asia ~$99.5 million — together that’s $255 million into India in just one year. Overall, an astonishing 18,996 organizations in India, a disproportionate number linked to Christian missionaries, received donations totaling $2.4 billion in 2007 alone. And the inflow has been growing rapidly. 2007 showed contributions more than double of 2002. With these numbers, how can we say the concerns are unfounded?

    The war is on. In this war the adversary has a deadly cocktail of ideology, foreign support, religious agenda, armed cadres, criminal financing and terror. It would be anti-national to treat it as a law and order problem. The assault is now on Indian democracy and the unity of India. Let us unite and fight because now in question is the very air-of-freedom that we are breathing.

  3. Thanks for publishing this message. It is already a well known fact that we only believe things when told to us by foreigners. So Thanks to Mr Koenraad Elst too.

  4. Both Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup were for Sanskrit as a national language. In 1992 Sitaramji told me that when he toured South India, Sanskrit was the language he conversed in with Brahmins and many others as they didn’t know English and he didn’t know Tamil or Malayalam. Sitaramji was a linguist and knew half a dozen languages including some Arabic and Greek. He was able to read the Muslim histories in their original Persian and Urdu versions. If I remember correctly, he had even written a novel in Sanskrit.

    It should be remembered that the argument made against Brahmins for not allowing non-Brahmins to learn Sanskrit is outdated and redundant. Both Sanskrit and the Scriptures written in Sanskrit are today freely available to anybody who wants to study them. I have known Brahmin sadhu-pundits who would teach Sanskrit to any sincere student regardless of their caste or station in life.

  5. One of the formative episodes in Dr. Ambedkar’s life was when he was denied the right to study Sanskrit in school because of his low caste. It helped make him a partisan of Sanskrit as national link language, a choice not followed by his so-called followers in the Dalit movement.

    If the Indians had preferred their common sacred language over a vernacular. Even the Muslim world would have understood it.

    Yes Dr K Elst you are right.

    BR Ambedkar a visionary for Sanskrit.( THE REFERENCE TO THIS IS MISSING AS A WEB SITE)

    A dispatch of the Press Trust of India (PTI) dated September 10, 1949 states that Ambedkar was among those who sponsored an amendment making Sanskrit as the official language of the Indian Union in place of Hindi. Most newspapers carried the news the next day, i.e., on September 11, 1949 (see the issue of Sambhashan Sandeshah, a Sanskrit monthly published from Delhi, June 2003: 4-6).

    Other dignitaries who supported Dr Ambedkar’s initiative included Dr B.V. Keskar, then the Deputy Minister for External Affairs and Professor Naziruddin Ahmed. The amendment dealt with Article 310 and read: 1. The official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1 of this article, for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for the official purposes of the union for which it was being used at such commencement: provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise for any of the official purposes of the union the use of Sanskrit in addition to the English language. But the amendment was defeated in the Constituent Assembly DUE TO THE OPPOSITION OF THE RULING CONGRESS PARTY AND OTHER LOBBYISTS.

    If Ambedkar had succeeded, the renewed interaction between Sanskrit as the national language and speakers of other languages would have initiated a sociological process of upward and downward mobility. While rulers, pilgrim centres, and temple complexes used to be the traditional agents of such interaction, the state operated broadcasting agencies, school textbooks, and the film and music industry would have emerged as new agents facilitating that interaction.

    Here is another reference from AN Haksar in his review of ” The Modernity of Sanskrit ” by Simone Sawhney (who is an academic in USA and has written that Sanskirt has been hijacked by Hindu Nationalists). She misses the point that Dr BR Ambedkar wanted Sanskrit as a national language. Mr AN Haksar has rightly pointed this out. Here is the reference.

    Extracts below in “For example … India’s modernity” from the review of AN Haksar of the book Modernity of Sanskrit in the web site above.

    “For example, while the author dwells on the exchanges between Gandhi and Ambedkar on caste and reservation, she omits any notice of Ambedkar’s proposal in the Constituent Assembly to make Sanskrit the official language of the Indian Union. Nor does she note the rich tribute to Sanskrit paid by Nehru, the acclaimed symbol of India’s modernity”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: