At the Closing of 2019 and Dawning of 2020 – We Invoke You O Lord, O Universal Lord


O Lord, With the closing of 2019 and dawning of 2020, we offer OUR HEART to you; please guide us all – humanity without any religious or other discrimination – towards you in 2020. We all belong to you. O Lord, you have infinite names, O Govinda …..

Vivekananda Castigates the Disciples of Christ


By: Puneetchandra Sharma

It was 1830. The 1st anglicist missionary Alexander Duff arrived in Calcutta, India. He was a great proponent of English language in India, for, he believed that English would bring the native Indians closer to the religion and culture of the ruling race, exactly like the muslims, who initially introduced Persian and then Urdu.

  • Alexander Duff

Hindu college and other educational institutions were already established about a decade earlier by the British, controlled by the missionaries and after observing the Indian students, Alexander was convinced that he would be able to demolish Hinduism completely.

In an address delivered in 1835 to a General Church Assembly he proclaimed that knowledge of Western literature and science would “demolish the huge and hideous fabric of Hinduism” brick by brick till “the whole will be found to have crumbled into fragments.”

Then came Thomas Babington Macaulay and his famous “Macaulay Minute” in 1835 and the Western system of Education was officially adopted.

  • Thomas Babington Macaulay

In 1836, in a letter written to his father, Macaulay wrote,

“My dear Father….It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reglection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect….”

[The Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay, ed. by Thomas Pinney, vol. 3 (January 1834-August 1841). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.]

Friedrich Max Müller had already introduced the “Aryan Theory” in 1881 and was busy mistranslating Vedic texts along with his friend Horace Hayman Wilson.

Left: Friedrich Max Müller
Right: Horace Hayman Wilson

How do we know they mistranslated the sacred Hindu texts?

The real intention of Max Mueller is revealed through the letters he wrote to and received from his friends, mother, father, wife, mentors and other important people. Some of these letters were published in 1976 and some of them were published by his wife ‘Georgina Adelaide Müller’ in 1902.

On April 17, 1855, Bunsen to thank Max Müller for an article on his Outlines (Chapter IX), wrote :

“You have so thoroughly adopted the English disguise that it will not be easy for anyone to suspect you of having written this ‘curious article.’ It especially delights me to see how ingeniously you contrive to say what you announce you do not wish to discuss, i.e. the purport of the theology. In short, we are all of opinion that your cousin was right when she said of you in Paris to Neukomm, that you ought to be in the diplomatic service!”

Bishop of Calcutta Dr. E.B. Pusey to Max Mueller (Chapter XII, Ravenwood, Shimla, July, 13, 1860), wrote :

“I feel considerable interest in the matter, because I am sure that it is of the greatest importance for our missionaries to understand Sanskrit, to study the philosophy and sacred books of the Hindus, and to be able to meet the pundits on their own ground.

Among the means to this great end, none can be more important than your edition and Professor Wilson’s translation of the Rigveda. It would be most fitting in my opinion for a great Christian university to place in its Sanskrit chair the scholar who has made the Sanskrit scriptures accessible to the Christian missionary.”

When all these heavy artillery attacks on Hinduism were underway, unknown to everyone, a child was born in 1863. He was named Narendranath Datta. He would grow up into one of the greatest Hindu sages of modern times – Swami Vivekananda, who would undo everything the missionaries did and more.

Narendranath would soon meet his Guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who himself was a celebrated sage. Missionaries tried their best to get him under the Jesus umbrella and once gave him a Bible and his reaction on knowing the details were of utter repugnance.

“Once someone gave me,” he said on October 27, 1882, “a book of the Christians. I asked him to read it to me. It talked about nothing but sin.” Turning to Keshub Chunder Sen, who was present, he continued, “Sin is the only thing one hears at your Brahmo Samaj too… He who says day and night, ‘I am a sinner, I am a sinner’, verily becomes a sinner…

Why should one only talk about sin and hell, and such things?” Thus he knocked the bottom out of Christianity. Without sin, there was no need for the atoning death of a historical saviour.”

And in this scenario, enters the giant – Swami Vivekananda.

His views on Christianity were similar to his Guru but more detailed. He completely rejected Christianity as Avidya.

“The greatest error,” he said, “is to call a man a weak and miserable sinner. Every time a person thinks in this mistaken manner, he rivets one more link in the chain of avidyA that binds him, adds one more layer to the “self-hypnotism” that lies heavy over his mind.” He compared the Hindu and Christian concepts of the soul. “One of the chief distinctions,” he said, “between the Vedic and the Christian religion is that the Christian religion teaches that each human soul had its beginning at its birth into this world, whereas the Vedic religion asserts that the spirit of man is an emanation of the Eternal Being and has no more a beginning than God Himself.”

He hailed humans as Children of Immortal Bliss – amritasya putrAH – in the language of the Upanishads. “Ye are the children of God,” he proclaimed while addressing the Parliament of Religions, “the sharers of immortal bliss, holy and perfect beings. Ye divinities on earth – sinners! It is a sin to call man so; it is a standing libel on human nature. Come up, lions! and shake off the delusion that you are sheep; you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal.”

Vivekananda repudiated the idea of vicarious saving also. He proclaimed the Hindu doctrine that everyone has to work out his own salvation. “The Christians believe,” he said, “that Jesus Christ died to save man. With you it is belief in a doctrine, and this belief constitutes your salvation. With us doctrine has nothing whatever to do with salvation.

Each one may believe in whatever doctrine he likes; or in no doctrine. What difference does it make to you whether Jesus Christ lived at a certain time or not? What has it to do with you that Moses saw God in the burning bush? The fact that Moses saw God in the burning bush does not constitute your seeing him, does it?… Records of great spiritual men in the past do us no good whatever except that they urge us onward to do the same, to experience religion ourselves. Whatever Christ or Moses or anybody else did, does not help us in the least, except to urge us on.”

He was aware that the historicity of Christ had become highly controversial among scholars of the subject. “There is a great dispute,” he wrote, “as to whether there ever was born a man with the name of Jesus. Of the four books comprising the New Testament, the Book of St. John has been rejected by some as spurious. As to the remaining three, the verdict is that they have been copied from ancient books; and that, too, long after the date ascribed to Jesus Christ.

Moreover, about the time that Jesus is believed to have been born, among the Jews themselves there were born two historians, Josephus and Philo. They have mentioned even petty sects among the Jews but not made the least reference to Jesus or the Christians or that the Roman judge sentenced him to death on the cross. Josephus’ book had a single line about it, which has now been proved to be an interpolation. The Romans used to rule over the Jews at that time, and the Greeks taught them all arts and Sciences.

They have all written a good many things about the Jews but made no mention of either Jesus or the Christians.” He also knew that doubts had been raised whether Jesus had himself said what was attributed to him in the gospels. “Another difficulty,” he continued, “is that the sayings, precepts, or doctrines which the New Testament preaches were already in existence among the Jews before the Christian era, having come from different quarters, and were being preached by Rabbis like Hillel and others.”

The miracles of Christ also failed to impress Vivekananda. In fact, they repelled him strongly. “What were the great powers of Christ,” he asked, “in miracles and healing, in one of his characters? They were low, vulgar things because he was among vulgar beings… Any fool could do those things. Fools heal others, devils can heal others. I have seen horrible demoniacal men do wonderful miracles. They seem to manufacture fruits out of the earth. I have known fools and diabolical men tell the past, present and future. I have seen fools heal at a glance, by the will, the most horrible diseases. These are powers, truly, but often demoniacal powers.” And he was not at all interested in the historical Jesus. “One gets sick at heart,” he said, “at the different accounts of the life of the Christ that Western people give. One would make him a great politician; another, perhaps, would make of him a great military general, another a great patriotic Jew; and so on.”

Vivekananda was aghast at the mushrooming of so many churches and all of them filled with hate for each other and wanting to kill the other, it made him wonder if there was any Christ left in them or were the teachings of Christ were as peaceful as they were made out to be.

Most men remained the same after baptism as they were before it. What was worse, the mere sprinkling of water over them and muttering of formulas by a priest made them believe that they were better than other people. He quoted the Kenopanishad in this context:

“Ever steeped in the darkness of ignorance, yet considering themselves wise and learned, the fools go round and round, staggering to and fro like the blind led by the blind.”

His opinion about the ritual of symbolic cannibalism, the Eucharist was one of disgust.

The Eucharist was nothing more than the survival of a savage custom.

“They sometimes killed their great chiefs,” said Vivekananda, “and ate their flesh in order to obtain in themselves the qualities which made their leaders great.” Human sacrifice was a Jewish idea which was borrowed by Christianity “in the form of atonement.” This seeking for a “scapegoat” had made Christianity “develop a spirit of persecution and bloodshed.”

Christian missionaries would single out some passages from the Puranas which were somewhat obscene according to the Victorian morality and would try to target Hinduism.

Vivekananda had studied the Bible and knew that it contained a lot which was downright pornography. But he had his own method of exposing the Bible. “The Chinese,” he wrote, “are the disciples of Confucius, are the disciples of Buddha, and their morality is quite strict and refined. Obscene language, obscene books, pictures, any conduct the least obscene – and the offender is punished then and there.

The Christian missionaries translated the Bible into Chinese tongue. Now in the Bible there are some passages so obscene as to put to shame some of the Puranas of the Hindus. Reading those indecorous passages, the Chinamen were so exasperated against Christianity that they made a point of never allowing the Bible to be circulated in their country… The simple minded Chinese were disgusted, and raised a cry, saying: Oh, horror! This religion has come to us to ruin our young boys, by giving them this Bible to read… This is why the Chinese are very indignant with Christianity. Otherwise the Chinese are very tolerant towards other religions. I hear that the missionaries have printed an edition, leaving out the objectionable parts; but this step has made the Chinese more suspicious than before.”

Then there was the history of Christianity -bloody, rapacious and genocidal. And this horrified the Swami. He wrote,

“The ancient Greeks, who were the first teachers of European civilization attained the zenith of their culture long before the Christians.

Ever since they became Christians, all their learning and culture was extinguished.”

When he was passing by Egypt on his way to Europe, a missionary mentioned to him the miracles which, according to the Bible, Moses had performed in that country. But Vivekananda had read history. He knew the record of Christianity in Egypt.

“Here was the city of Alexandria,” he said, “famous all over the world for its university, its library, and its literati – that Alexandria which, falling into the hands of illiterate, bigoted and vulgar Christians suffered destruction, with its library burnt to ashes and learning stamped out. Finally, the Christians killed the lady savant, Hypatia, subjected her dead body to all sorts of abominable insult, and dragged it through the streets, till every bit of flesh was removed from her bones.”

Christianity had spread with the help of the sword since the days of Constantine and tried to suppress science and philosophy. He asked,

“What support has Christianity ever lent to the spread of civilisation, either spiritual or secular? What reward did the Christian religion offer to the European Pandit who sought to prove for the first time that the Earth is a revolving planet? What scientist has ever been hailed with approval and enthusiasm by the Christian Church?”

Coming to modem times, Vivekananda found Christianity very vindictive:

“The great thinkers of Europe Voltaire, Darwin, Buchner, Flammarion, Victor Hugo and a host of others like him – are in the present time denounced by Christianity and are victims of vituperative tongues of its orthodox community.”

Christian missionaries in India were crediting to Christianity the rise and progress of modern Europe. This was a great falsehood.

“Whatever heights of progress Europe has attained,” continued Vivekananda, “every one of them has been gained by its revolt against Christianity – by its rising against the Gospel. If Christianity had its old paramount sway in Europe today, it would have lighted the fire of the Inquisition against such modern scientists as Pasteur and Koch, and burnt Darwin and others of his school at the stake.

In modern Europe Christianity and civilization are two different things. Civilization has now girded up her loins to destroy her old enemy, Christianity, to overthrow the clergy and to wring educational and charitable institutions from their hands. But for the ignorance-ridden rustic masses, Christianity would never have been able for a moment to support its present despised existence, and would have been pulled out by its roots; for the urban poor are, even now, enemies of the Christian Church!”

Christian missionaries were citing the prosperity of the modern West as an example of the superiority of Christianity. Much of that prosperity, however, was derived from the plunder of other peoples.

“We who have come from the East,” he said in an interview to a U.S. newspaper on September 29, 1893, “have sat here day after day and have been told to accept Christianity because Christian nations are the most prosperous. We look about us and see England, the most prosperous Christian nation in the world, with her foot on the neck of 250,000,000 Asiatics.

We look back into history and see that the prosperity of Christian Europe began with Spain. Spain’s prosperity began with the invasion of Mexico. Christianity wins its prosperity by cutting the throats of its fellow men. At such a price the Hindu will not have prosperity. I have sat here and heard the height of intolerance. I have heard the creed of Moslems applauded, when the Moslem sword is carrying destruction into India. Blood and sword are not for the Hindu, whose religion is based on the laws of love.”

The newspaper described it as a “savage attack on Christian nations.” Vivekananda had a lot to say on Western colonialism and the massacre of natives in America, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. But that is not the subject at present.

What really amazed him was the utter lack of logic in Christian propaganda.

“On metaphysical lines,” he wrote on his return to India in 1897, “no nation on earth can hold a candle to the Hindus; and curiously all the fellows that come over here from Christian lands have that one antiquated foolishness of an argument that because the Christians are powerful and rich and Hindus are not, so Christianity must be better than Hinduism. To which the Hindus very aptly retort that, that is the very reason why Hinduism is a religion and Christianity is not; because in this beastly world, it is blackguardism and that alone which prospers, virtue always suffers.”

Hindus have nothing to gain from Christianity as it is only a system of superstitions. Hindus should not get frightened when the missionaries threaten them with hell; in fact, hell is better than the company of a Christian missionary. “There came a Christian to me once,” recalled Vivekananda, “and said, ‘You are a terrible sinner.’ I said, ‘Yes, I am. Go on.’ He was a Christian missionary.

That man would not give me any rest. When I see him I fly. He said, ‘I have very good things for you. You are a sinner and you will go to hell.’ I said, ‘Very good, what else?’ I asked him, ‘Where are you going?’ ‘I am going to heaven,’ he answered. I said, ‘I will go to hell.’ “That day he gave me up.” If Christ could help people become good, why has he failed in the Christian countries where he has been worshipped for so long? “Here comes a Christian man,” continued Vivekananda, “and he says, ‘You are all doomed; but if you believe in this doctrine, Christ will help you out.’ If this were true – but of course it is nothing but superstition – there would be no wickedness in Christian countries. Let us believe in it – belief costs nothing – but why is there no result? If I ask, ‘Why is it that there are so many wicked people?’ They say, ‘We have to work more.’ Trust in God but keep your power dry!”

Swami Vivekananda saw through the hypocrisy of the Church to gain members in the name of Jesus while caring 2 hoots for the poor and starving. He spoke in the Parliament of Religions on September 29, 1893.

“You Christians, who are so fond of sending out missionaries to save the soul of the heathen why do you not try to save their bodies from starvation?… You erect Churches all through India but – the crying evil in the East is not religion – they have religion enough – but it is bread that the suffering millions of burning India cry out for with parched throats… It is an insult to a starving people to offer them religion; it is an insult to a starving man to teach him metaphysics.”

When Vivekananda found out that all priests were paid for their missionary work, he was horrified.

“In India,” he said, “a priest who preached for money would lose caste and be spat upon by the people.” He spoke in the same vein when he addressed the Parliament of Religions on October 11, 1893. “Christian missionaries,” he said, “come to offer life but only on condition that the Hindus became Christians, abandoning the faith of their fathers and forefathers. Is it right?… If you wish to illustrate the meaning of ‘brotherhood’, treat Hindus more kindly even though he be a Hindu and is faithful to his religion. Send missionaries to teach them how better to earn a piece of bread, and not teach them metaphysical nonsense.”

The Detroit Free Press dated February 21, 1894 reported a lecture which he had delivered on ‘Hindus and Christians’. Coming to Christian missionaries he said,

“You train and educate and pay men to do what? To come over to my country to curse and abuse all my forefathers, my religion, and everything.

They walk near a temple and say, ‘You idolators, you will go to hell.’ But they dare not do that to the Mohammedans of India; the sword would be out. But the Hindu is too mild… And then you who train men to abuse and criticise, if I just touch you with the least bit of criticism, with the kindest purpose, you shrink and cry: ‘Don’t touch us; we are Americans. We criticise all the people in the world, curse them and abuse them, say anything, but do not touch us, we are sensitive plants?’… And whenever your ministers criticise us let them remember this:

If all India stands up and takes all the mud that is at the bottom of the Indian ocean and throws it up against the Western countries, it will not be doing an infinitesimal part of that which you are doing to us. And what for? Did we ever send one missionary to convert anybody in the world? We say to you: ‘Welcome to your religion, but allow me to have mine?’… With all your brags and boastings, where has Christianity succeeded without the sword? Show me one place in the whole world. One I say, throughout the history of the Christian religion – one; I do not want two. I know how your forefathers were converted. They had to be converted or killed; that was all. What can you do better than Mohammedanism, with all your bragging?”

The Atrocity Literature and the spin on narratives was in full swing even during his time.

As he heard the malicious propaganda against Hinduism which missionaries were mounting in America and saw ‘their methods of raising money’, he hit them hard. “What is meant,” he asked, “by those pictures in the school-books for children where the Hindu mother is painted as throwing her children to the crocodiles in the Ganga? The mother is black but the baby is painted white to arouse more sympathy, and get more money. What is meant by those pictures which paint a man burning his wife at a stake with his own hands, so that she becomes a ghost and torments the husband’s enemy?

What is meant by the pictures of huge cars crushing over human beings? The other day a book was published for children in this country, where one of these gentlemen tells a narrative of his visit to Calcutta. He says he saw a car running over fanatics in the streets of Calcutta. I have heard one gentleman preach in Memphis that in every village of India there is a pond full of the bones of little children. What have the Hindus done to these disciples of Christ that every Christian child is taught to call the Hindus vile, and ‘wretches’ and the most horrible devils on earth? Part of the Sunday School education for children here consists in teaching them to hate everybody who is not a Christian, and the Hindu especially, so that from their very childhood they may subscribe their pennies to the missions.”

His bristling attacks infuriated the missionaries.

“The Christian missionaries,” wrote The Indian Mirror on June 23, 1897, “rage and fume over the success of Swami Vivekananda’s mission in America. In its impotent fury, the ‘Missionary Review of the World’ says that ‘Swami Vivekananda is simply a specimen of the elation and inflation of a weak man over the adulation of some silly people. If America ever gives up Christ, it will be for the devil, not Buddha or Brahma or Confucius. It will be lapse into utter apostasy, unbelief and infidelity.’ The writer, when penning these lines, was evidently under a fit of insanity brought on by the unlooked for spectacle of a Hindu preacher making disciples among American members of the Christian Church.”

The missionaries then raged a full frontal attack of Swami ji and his Guru Paramahansa by calling him a shudra who is not qualified to teach Vedanta.

The Christian Literature Society which had its headquarters in London and a branch in Madras published a book, Swami Vivekananda and his Guru with letters from prominent Americans on the alleged programme of Vedantism in United States, in 1897.

The book was reviewed by The Indian Mirror which wrote,

“The object of the first part of this book is to show that, on account of his Shudra birth and for his want of knowledge as well as on the part of his Guru, Vivekananda is not qualified for teaching the Vedanta; that he, in consequence of his doings, is not entitled to be called a ‘Swami’; that Schopenhauer, the admirer of the Upanishads, was a bad man, and that Professor Max Muller (in connection with his opinion of Vedantic books) is a ‘man having two voices’.”

Some of the writers say, that the Swami made no impression on the people, while some others asserted that the Swami may have made a few converts, but such converts were vaccilators and seekers of novelty. All of them consoled the enquirers with the assurance that Christianity had made a firm footing in America and there was no fear of its being Supplanted by any other religion.”

Swami ji made it clear that he was not interested in converting anyone to Hinduism, but he firmly advocated the return of the converted back in to Hindu fold.

His thoughts on the subject were expressed in an interview he gave to the representative of the Prabuddha Bharata, a monthly magazine started by his disciples in Madras. The interview, published in the April 1899 issue of the monthly, deserves to be reproduced at some length:

“I want to see you, Swami,” I began, “on this matter of receiving back into Hinduism those who have been converted from it. Is it your opinion that they should be received?”

“Certainly,” said the Swami, “they can and ought to be taken.” He sat gravely for a moment, thinking, and then resumed. “Besides,” he said, “we shall otherwise decrease in numbers. When the Mohammedans first came, we are said – I think on the authority of Ferishta, oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. And then every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more.

“Again, the vast majority of Hindu converts to Islam and Christianity are converts by the sword, or the descendants of these. It would be obviously unfair to subject these to disabilities of any kind. As to the case of born aliens, did you say? Why, born aliens have been converted in the past by crowds, and the process is still going on.

“In my own opinion, this statement not only applies to aboriginal tribes, to outlying nations, and to almost all our conquerors before the Mohammedan conquest, but also to all those castes who find a special origin in the Puranas. I hold that they have been aliens thus adopted.

“Ceremonies of expiation are no doubt suitable in the case of willing converts returning to their Mother-Church, as it were; but on those who were alienated by conquest – as in Kashmir and Nepal – or on strangers wishing to join us, no penance should be imposed.”

“But of what caste would these people be, Swamiji?” I ventured to ask. “They must have some, or they can never be assimilated into the great body of Hindus. Where shall we look for their rightful place?”“Returning converts,” said the Swami quietly, “will gain their own castes, of course. And new people will make theirs. You will remember,” he added, “that this has already been done in the case of Vaishnavism. Converts from different castes and aliens were all able to combine under that flag and form a caste by themselves,- and a very respectful one too.

From Ramanuja down to Chaitanya of Bengal, all great Vaishnava teachers have done the same.”

“And where should these new people expect to marry?” I asked. “Amongst themselves as they do now,” said the Swami quietly.

“Then as to names,” I enquired, “I suppose aliens and converts who have adopted non-Hindu names should be named newly. Would you give them caste-names, or what?” “Certainly,” said the Swami, thoughtfully, “there is a great deal in a name” and on this question he would say no more.

“But my next enquiry drew blood. ‘Would you leave these newcomers, Swamiji, to choose their own forms of religious belief out of many visaged Hinduism, or would chalk out a religion for them?’ “Can you ask that?” he said. “They will choose for themselves. For unless a man chooses for himself, the very spirit of Hinduism is destroyed. The essence of our Faith consists simply in this freedom of the Ishta.”

Swami Vivekananda had not just stemmed the tide of the missionaries, he had taken the war to their stronghold and gave them a hiding of their lives.

The spark that Bankim Chandra had lit was turned into a massive blaze by the Swami which engulfed the whole of India. The steady stream of illustrious men who took the cudgels against Christianity never dimmed from there on. And those who thought of converting the Hindus were in turn being converted into Hinduism by the magic of Vedanta.

Recently, the war of conversion has mutated into a monstrous octopus with many tentacles. Today we need political intervention along with an army of dedicated local intellectual warriors who would stop the menace of making men believe they are sinners.

We’re after all, divine beings!

Sweet Chinese Melodies !


Chinese sweet melody ! Yes, music knows no boundaries. Melody straight from China.

We have received a request from a Chinese visiter to Indian People’s Congress website to provide a link from our site to his music site. Here we are producing a link to his site.

Now technology has advanced to a stage where language is no more a barrier in communicating with foreign tongue. Just tap in your mobile phone – when you are on that Chinese website – to translate the material there from Chinese to Hindi or English, or to any other language of your choice. It is the power of technology. Here is the link and enjoy the music.

Link:

http://www.guqinz.com/

What India can Learn from Bali, Indonesia?


By: Madhumati

(Facts compiled according to Swami Veda Bharati, a great master of meditation from the Himalayan Tradition)

Bali is a state of Indonesia, a secular country with the biggest Muslim population in the world. But the majority in the state of Bali, over 93 %, are Hindus. Bali is home to 4.22 million Hindus whose ancestors had to flee from other islands of Indonesia, after the great Indonesian Hindu Empire Majapahit was defeated and most of Indonesia was converted to Islam. Here are some interesting facts about Bali that every Indian Hindu must know.

  1. Nyepi day, a day of total silence (mauna) once a year, when even the Ngurah Rai International Airport of Denpasar is closed from 6 am to 6 am. No cars, no traffic, no entertainment, no TV. Sit in the house, do contemplation, do prayers. Can we introduce that Nyepi Day in our noisy country?
  2. The culture of Bali was begun by the Rishis of India, whose names are no longer taught in the schools of India but which are common in the schools of Bali. Markandeya, Bharadwaja, Agastya – the names we hear in the Puranas – are part of the way the history of Bali is taught in the schools of Bali. How many Rishis can you name? Do you remember any one of the 402 names of the Rishis and Rishikas (female Rishis) from the Rig Veda (the most ancient and most sacred text of Hinduism), which are our ancestors and the forming fathers of our religion – Vaidika Sanatana Dharma? None.

  3. The national Balinese dress for both, men and women, girls and boys, is Dhoti. No one can enter a temple without wearing a Dhoti. Except in some parts of South India, Dhoti is laughed at in India today. Why are we so ashamed of our heritage? Even most Indian priests change their dress after they are finished with the worship because they feel ashamed in a Dhoti !

  4. The social, economic and political system of Bali is based on the principle of tri-hita-karan – three benevolent, beneficent principles— that every human being has three aspects : the duty, the relationship that we have with God [Parahyangan]; the relationship that we have with human beings [Pawongan]; and the relationship that we have with nature [Palemahan]; and these are the three principles on which the entire culture of Bali is built. This was all established by the Rishis whose names are just about forgotten in India which are taught in the schools of Bali.

  5. Trikala Sandhya (Sun worship three times a day) is practiced in every Balinese school. The Gayatri Mantra is recited by every Balinese school child three times a day. Many of the local radio stations also relay Trikala Sandhya three times a day. Can we even think of introducing something like this to our schools in India? How many Indian Hindus are aware of their duty of Trikala Sandhya? It is as central to our religion as the 5 times Namaz is to Islam.

  6. In the year 1011 AD, at a place which is now known as Purasamantiga, there was the first inter-religious conference of three religions: Shaiva Agama, Bauddha Agama and Baliyaga, the traditional pre-Buddhist, pre-Hindu, Balinese religion. The scholars and the leaders sat down and worked out a system by which the three religions should work together and exchange forms with each other and that is the religion of Bali today.

  7. In Bali every priest is paid by the government. Despite the fact that Indonesia is a secular country with the biggest Muslim population in the world, the priest of every religion is paid by the government so every religion is supported by the government. That is the Indonesian form of secularism. Can we even think of this in India?

  8. The national motto of Indonesia “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (One is many, many is one)” is inspired by an Indonesian Hindu scripture Sutasoma Kakavin. The complete quotation is as follows – “It is said that the well known Buddha and Shiva are two different substances; they are indeed different, yet how is it possible to recognize their difference in a glance, since the truth of Buddha and the truth of Shiva are one? They may be different, but they are of the same kind, as there is no duality in truth.” Why can’t we have “Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” (The truth is one, but the wise express it in various ways – Rig Veda) as our national motto?

  9. Bali is one of the world’s most prominent rice growers. Every farm has a temple dedicated to Shri Devi and Bhu Devi (Lakmi the Goddess of wealth and mother earth – the two divinities that stand on the either of side of Tirupati Balaji in India). No farmer will perform his agricultural duties without first making offerings to Shri Devi and Bhu Devi. That is called culture, that Subak System. The agricultural and water irrigation plan for the entire country was charted in the 9th Century. The priests of a particular water temple still control this irrigation plan. Some World Bank or United Nations scientists did a computer model to work out a solution that would be ideal for Bali. And when they brought the model the Balinese said ‘we have been practicing this since the 9th century. What are you bringing here?’ And I don’t know how many million dollars these WTO, these World Bank people, United Nations people, spent on creating that chart which was already created in the 9th century without any computers; and that Subak System still continues. Such systems were in place in various parts of the country. Its remnants are still visible here in India. I have visited areas where there is no water for miles due to drought, yet the well at the local temple still provides fresh water.

  10. In Bali Hindus still don’t read a printed book when they perform Puja (worship). They read from a Lontar, which have traditionally been scripted by hand on palm leaf. When they recite the Ramayana Kakavin, where the book is kept, worship will be performed. There is a special ritual of lifting the sacred book, carrying it in a procession, bringing [it] to a special place, doing the bhumi puja, worshipping the ground there and consecrating the ground, then placing the book there. Then the priest will sit and recite the Ramayana.

When I was called to Bali it was to teach and preach the Vedic teachings. But I came back with a humble realization that I have to learn more from Bali than I can actually teach them.

Bidding Adieu to Pt. Parmanand Katara (Senior Advocate Supreme Court)


Parmanand Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court (Secretary General IPC)

1 of 2:

The death of Pandit Parmanand Katara, a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court of India, a few days ago, left me deeply shocked and disturbed eme. I had no close contacts with him. It was, what they say, my only a nodding acquaintance with him. He used to sit on a particular chair in the Library 1 of the Supreme Court of India.
Way back in 1993, we had called meeting in the Press Club of India to discuss the implementation of the Bhachawat Wage Board recommendations for the newspaper employees. We invited Justice K N Singh, who after his retirement as the Chief Justice of India, had assumed the charge of the Chairman of the Law Commission of India and also to Justice Bhachawat, who was then practising in the Supreme Court. Our friend Rakesh Sood suggested that we should also invite an Advocate Parmanand Katara to speak on the occasion. It was then a common friend of ours working with the Indian Express said that ‘don’t mention Katara ji as the Supreme Court lawyer because he travels in the city buses like many of us.’ I then put my foot down to mention his name as the Supreme Court Advocate in the invitation card. In my opening speech also I introduced him like that. It was a misconception, that those who practice in the Supreme Court move only in chauffeur driven cars. I told them a commoner like Pandit Katara can better understand the difficulties of the working class.
He was an egalitarian by nature and practice both. He had filed a PIL for helping the road accident victims and the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that anybody who gets the injured or wounded person admitted in the Hospital would not be obliged to appear in the court as the witness and no hospital would refuse to admit the accident victim for treatment. This ruling has saved the lives of thousands of persons across the country. Before this judgement private hospitals used to invariably refuse to admit the accident victims and by the time they were taken to the government hospitals, many of them were declared to be brought dead.
Of late, Pandit ji was not keeping good health. Two days before his death he was seen in the Library 1. Many of us had suggested him to take rest at his home. I don’t have any personal evidence though I was told that he was so proficient in Sanskrit that he could even argue his cases in that language, besides English, which, unfortunately, is the language of not only the Supreme Court but almost all courts of Delhi.
We sadly bid adieu to you Pandit ji and pray to God to give you peace and place in His abode.

2 of 2: Shreepal Singh

I had opportunity to know him intimately. He was a thoroughly nice person but had the guts to try to raise himself from an ordinary lawyer to an elite club of snobish senior lawyers of Supreme Court. He was much pooh-poohed by many for his this audacity. He came from an ordinary place – Mathura – of Uttar Pradesh and studied there at ordinary educational institutions. I can say with authority that pandit Parmanand Katara had an understanding of deep philosophical issues (it is not the monopoly reserved for only those who had studied at Oxford university) that only an accomplished intellectual can understand. My this appreciation of his intellectual calibre is based on an incident. I had written a book – The Story of True India – and it was then only in manustript form (this book was later on published and is now available on this website as “Vision Document”). I shared that MS with him and had an enlightening discussion with him. He was able to share his meaningful thoughts with me.

He deserved a salute for his wisdom and courage.

Why ‘Citizenship Law Change’ is Just and Fair?


R. Veera Raghavan, Advocate, Chennai

India has amended its citizenship law. Now it helps some non-Muslims, viz., Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians of three nations to become citizens of India. The three countries are India’s Muslim-majority neighbours: Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Beneficiaries under the changed law should have come into India by 31st December 2014 and been here for five years to apply for citizenship.

Renowned lawyers say the amendment is Constitutionally sound. But leaving legal issues to the Supreme Court, why is the new law just and fair, and why do the Congress and some other parties oppose it?

First, some basics. All nations have to make some key laws and regulations in tune with the psyche and aspirations of its people – in a democracy, according to the wishes of a majority of its voters, as reasonably gauged by a government or as found in a referendum where it works. Like, the UK may make a law or regulation for exiting from EEC, though a minority of voters may prefer their country remaining within EEC.

Hindus make nearly 80% of India’s population, Muslims about 14%, and others 6% as per the 2011 census. India is the land of origin of Hinduism, and this emotionally and eternally means a lot for Indian Hindus – and for Hindus elsewhere too – though the Indian Constitution may be silent about it. Indian laws do not just treat non-Hindus equally with the Hindu majority. They give minorities some privileges which the 80% Hindus don’t get. Legally, Hindus are treated somewhat unequally in the land of their origin and culture. When that inequality is worked on the ground, abused and also maladministered, it hurts the Hindus more, though that was unforeseen by the law.

Now, look at citizens of minority religions in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, mainly Hindus who have ethnic links with Indian Hindus. They have been persecuted over there for years and have vastly shrunk in their numbers in those countries. Many among them have taken refuge in India. Where else will the Hindus among them go or gain sympathy and acceptance?

Hindus of India will naturally feel for the tormented members of their religion in other nations – especially Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan – and would welcome India giving relief to those distressed men and women. That is natural. But something more is needed for action to help. It needs an extraordinary daring to espouse and do the right thing while governing a nation, more so when faced with opposition and protests stoked by rival political parties. This is what the BJP-led government has done through changes in the citizenship law.  While doing this right thing, the BJP will also be appreciated by large sections of Indian voters, which the Congress party and many other Opposition parties are worried about. So, the Congress and other parties oppose this measure as discriminatory – in an attempt to embrace imagined Muslim victims of the new law, and unaware that their stance distances them from a large number of voters even further.

Look at this. Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan tweets his condemnation of our changed citizenship law. The Congress party and its leader Rahul Gandhi too issue statements opposing the new law. Would you believe that Pakistan never wishes India well and so opposes India’s citizenship amendment – and that the Congress party too reflects Pakistan’s views against India? Or would you imagine that the Congress party always does things right for India and so opposes the new law – and that Pakistan too allies with Congress sentiments for the good of India? Pakistan and the Congress party together faulting the present Indian government on our domestic issue shows their desperation against the Modi government.  After all, Modi is a hurdle to both of them on their plans for India and for themselves.

Critiques in the media question why Muslims who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan as refugees are not offered Indian citizenship on par with other refugees.  This is also the voice of some Opposition political parties.  First, Muslim nations have to take care of their Muslim citizens, and there can be no religious persecution of Muslims by Muslims. Second, this criticism is adding insult to injury for the Indian Hindus who are already being outgrown in their land by privileged minorities, especially Muslims. Accelerating the fall in the strength of the native Hindu population in any way is against the interests and well-being of Indian Hindus. You don’t need big brains to sense this. If you have doubts, ask people forming the majority religion in any other country if they would be at peace when minorities on their land steadily grow fast to outnumber the majority. India’s Hindus are beginning to realise that their tolerance, goodness and hospitality have been abused by some rulers and political parties who overly appease India’s vociferous minorities and neglect genuine Hindu concerns and anxieties.

The average Indian Muslim, whose ancestors were Hindus, is harmless and could peacefully co-exist with Indian Hindus. But he is in the grip of his religious and political exploiters and is misled by them in harbouring a needless antipathy to Hindus or imagined insecurity in India, though enjoying privileges he cannot get in any other country, even in a Muslim-majority nation.

The political and religious exploitation of Indian Muslims for the selfish gains of a few leaders plays a part in the protests stirred up against the amended citizenship law in parts of India. Concerns expressed by citizens in India’s north-eastern states are on a different footing, and the government must listen to them and resolve those issues separately. Otherwise, it is a test of strength for India’s political leadership to do the right thing, and stand by it with tact, diplomacy and resolve. Who else is our best bet on this except Narendra Modi, with Amit Shah by his side?

Copyright: R. Veera Raghavan. Article borrowed with thanks from HERE.

Unfounded Opposition to “CAA”


By: Legisperitus Law

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (CAB) is a bill to further amend the Citizenship Act, 1955. It is not a full fledged bill but a narrow-tailored law specifically meant for religiously persecuted minorities in the three specified countries, namely Pakistan, Bangaladesh and Afghanisthan. Now this bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, assented by the President of India and has become a law (CAA). A law made by Parliament has to be enforced in India. It is a democratic process of governance according to law.

The top lawyer of India Mr. Harish Salve has explained the implications of this law, which are sufficient to dispel any misgivings about this law. In view of his explaination there is no logical foundation or any justification for anybody to oppose this law or to agitate against it on the streets, unless this agitation is done with some ulterior motive. Moreover, India is a democratic country where there is an elected Parliament, which has passed this law, and there is judiciary in India where anyone having grievance against this law can challage its constitutional validity. It is the democratic way to live peacefully in a country and be governed democratically by the will of people. Adopting any other way tainted with violence on the streets is nothing but hooliganism and a crime. Any hooliganism or crime by anybody – whosoever he may be – must be put to an end with the stiff hands of force.

This write-up based on the views of Mr. Salve is for those who may be having some innocent misgivings about this law. Those who have some other motives in launching a violent agitation against this law – whatever be their pretext for the same – should be (and will be) dealt with by the law and order machinary. Now about this law.

It says that “Any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan and who has entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and staying here to safeguard their lives, shall not be treated as illegal migrant.”

Misgiving No. 1: Citizenship Amendment Bill is against Indian Muslims, they need to get their papers ready to continue living in the country.

One of the worst lies being spread is that Indian Muslims need to worry about the bill. The Citizenship Amendment Bill has nothing to do with Indian citizens, Muslim or otherwise, as it seeks to grant citizenship to religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. People belonging to Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikhs, Parsi or Christian communities from these three countries who have come to India before 31/12/2014 for religious persecution and already living in India will be able to apply for citizenship after the amendment is passed. No Indian citizen will be asked to produce any document to prove citizenship after the CAB is passed, it is just false propaganda being spread by some people.

Misgiving No. 2: Muslims from other countries can’t become Indian citizens after CAB is passed.

CAB is a special one-time measure for the religious minorities who have already come to India after facing persecution in the three specified countries. The amendment does not cancel the existing naturalisation laws. Any person from any foreign country seeking to be Indian citizen can apply for the same under the existing laws. There is no bar on Muslims from anywhere in the world to seek Indian citizenship under existing laws, CAB does not prohibit that. They can apply for Indian citizenship under section 6 of the Citizenship Act, which deals with citizenship by naturalization.

Misgiving No. 3: Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan can’t apply for citizenship or refuge in India.

Although Muslims from these countries have been excluded from the CAB, it does not mean the door is shut forever for becoming Indian citizens. Although they are not given blanket relaxation to apply for citizenship under CAB, the usual naturalisation law remains available to them. Harish Salve asserted that the CAB does not undermine or interfere with the existing rules of asylum and Muslims can continue to seek asylum or apply for citizenship under the existing rules.

Misgiving No. 4: Illegal Muslim immigrants living in India will be deported after CAB is passed.

CAB gives citizenship to people of six communities from three countries living in India, but it does not deal with the deportation of illegal immigrants. Although it protects Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis or Christians who had entered India illegally from deportation by giving an opportunity to apply for citizenship, it does not say anything about deportation as that is the subject matter of another law, the Foreigners Act, not the Citizenship Act which the bill seeks to amend. The process of deporting anyone entering and living illegally in India is an ongoing process, and the CAB does not change that.

Misgiving No. 5: Any Hindu can become Indian citizen after CAB is passed.

Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis or Christians from only from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who are already living in India for at least five years can apply for citizenship. It does not give automatic citizenship to Hindus, they must have lived in India for at least five years, and after that, they have to apply for citizenship. It is not particularly biased in favour of Hindus as many are arguing. Six communities from three countries have been given relaxation, for everyone else the normal naturalisation law remains applicable. For example, there are lots of Sri Lankan Tamil Hindus living in camps in Tamil Nadu, but they have not been included in CAB. These Sri Lankans had fled the country during the war with LTTE in 1990s and are living in several camps.

Misgiving No. 6: If CAB is about religious persecution, why Shias, Ahmediyyas, Hazaras, Balochs and Rohingyas are not included.

Shias, Ahmediyyas, Hazaras all these groups are Muslims ethnic groups , they are not recognised as separate religions anywhere in the world. As Muslims, they are not minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, which are either officially Islamic countries or have a very high Muslim majority. Therefore, it is not possible to include these Muslim groups in the bill as it is specifically made for religious minorities in those countries. Harish Salve stated on this doubt that the countries specified in the CAB have their own state religion and Islamic rules. He added that Islamic majority nations identify their people as per who follows Islam and who does not. Addressing governance problems in neighboring countries is not the purpose of the CAB.Still, if any Muslims are being persecuted in these Islamic countries for practising their version of Islam, they can apply for asylum in India. India has already provided asylum to Tibetans, and a large number of people from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Uganda etc.

Moreover, Balochs and Rohingyas are not religious groups, they are ethnic groups. Baloch people are not wanting to migrate to India or any other country, they are demanding an independent nation in the Baloch region. Therefore, it does not make sense to include in CAB. In the case of Rohingyas, although they fled Myanmar after they were allegedly targeted by the military, their situation was not the same what minorities are facing in the three Islamic countries. Rohingyas were targeted in retaliation after they had attacked people from other communities, including Hindus, in Myanmar. Rohingya groups are conducting terror activities in Myanmar for a long time. Many such terrorists entered other countries along with ordinary Rohingyas, and they remain undetected. Therefore, the Rohingya groups remain a security threat to India, and they can’t be given any blanket relaxation for citizenship.
Replying to the question of why the CAB does not include Tamils in Sri Lanka, Salve stated that Tamils in Sri Lanka are not religiously persecuted. Over the issue of Rohingyas, Salve stated that a law that addresses one evil does not need to address all the evils in all countries. It is notable here that Myanmar, though a Buddhist majority nation, does not have a state religion and Myanmar does not feature in CAB.
For argument’s sake, Salve stated, if immigration or naturalisation facility is provided to the Rohingyas, it can also be argued that why people from African nations are not being included. “CAB is for the religiously persecuted minorities of the three specified neighboring nations and it does not need to be applicable to all nations or all people in the world who have problems,” he added.

Misgiving No. 7: CAB is against the Indian Constitution as the constitution prohibits discrimination in the name of religion.

Harish Salve, one of India’s biggest names in national and international law explained further that the CAB aims to provide the persecuted minorities in these 3 countries a special status in the naturalisation process and it does not mean in any way that other communities or people will not be naturalised at all, for other communities the rules of general asylum process will be followed. So there is no violation of Article 14 here.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is concerned with the right to life. Salve stated that it provides a right to life for those who live in India, not those who want to enter India.

On the question on whether specifying Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians is discriminatory against Muslims, Salve explained that on the laws of equality does not mean having the same law for lions and lambs. He added that since the CAB has ‘religious persecution’ as the basis and is aiding those who are being religiously persecuted (tortured, victimized, oppressed especially on the basis of religion and the minorities in the specified Islamic countries) then the community which belongs to the majority religion in these countries cannot claim ‘religious persecution’. And since the CAB is not about political or economic asylum seekers, Muslims do not feature there.

Another argument is that the constitution of India is for citizens of India, and the CAB is a special provision for people who are not citizens of India. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that CAB violates the constitution. Moreover, our constitution and laws already have several discriminatory provisions. We do not have equal law for every citizen, the constitution allows different laws for different religions in several matters. We have Hindu Temples under government control but not Mosques or Churches. We have different laws for schools run by Hindus and non-Hindus. Haj subsidies and salaries for Imams but no such facility for Hindus, the list goes on. As the constitution already allows discrimination among even the citizens, it can’t be said that excluding Muslim citizens from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan violates the Constitution of India.

Salve also expressed confidence that if the CAB comes under judicial scrutiny, India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General KC Venugopal will defend it well.

Misgiving No. 8: People in North East are opposing CAB because it is discriminatory.

Although it is true that some people in north-eastern states, particularly in Assam, are protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Bill, their reason is completely different from the left-liberals and opposition parties. People in north-east are against giving citizenship to illegal immigrants from Bangladesh or anywhere, regardless of religion, and that’s why they are opposing it. People in the northeast don’t want any foreigners to be given citizenship, while outside northeast the opposition to the bill is over the exclusion of Muslims. Both the groups are actually on completely opposite stands in their opposition to the bill.

Secularism: State and Hinduism (3)


India had historical conditions that were totally different from conditions of England. Even in 326 BC when Alexander the great invaded India, he found that in India Hindu Yogis and Buddhist Shramans were living in austerity in meadows near a river. They were living naked but were revered by the king and the common people alike. They did not hold any political authority over the king of Taxila kingdom. Thereafter we find, a Yavan (Greek) king named Maharajadhiraj Milind (Greek name Minendra) who was ruling from Mathura (in India) to Bactria (in modern day Iran). This Bactria was conquered by Alexander and on his death was first inherited by his successor king Seleucus Nikator (who was bound in friendship with India under a treaty concluded between him and Chandragupt Maurya) and after Seleucus Nikator by king Milind. Milind’s coins have been found in India, on one side of which is written in Sanskrit ‘Maharajadhiraj Milind and on the other side in Greek ‘Maharajadhiraj Minandrau’. This king Milind came with a royal retinue of soldiers to an Indian Buddhist Yogi Nagasena to learn from him the teachings of Buddha. Here too, we find that the political power of State did not vest in the religious authorities.

It was for the first time in India that the emperor Asoka the great declared Buddhism a State religion (268 BC) and the State power vested in religion. Still, Asoka too, in accordance with the Buddhist tenets, did not outlaw the religious dissent or punish those who held a contrary views on religion or secular matter. Far from persecution of his opponents, he forbade his citizens to kill any human and even animals. Buddhist religion, even when it had the State power in its hand, did not forbid any person to believe in a religion or ideas that were contrary to Buddhism. We find that in India this harmonious relation of state with the multitude of religions passed through ages and continued till the times of King Harshvardhan, who ruled Kannauj in 628 AD. We find that in India there was never a communal clash between competing religious beliefs or between religion and new ideas. India has encouraged free thinking and competition of dissenting philosophies, be they religious or secular ones in nature. This mindset was not deviated in India throughout its long history, irrespective of the fact whether the State power was vested in the hands of religion or not.

For Indian faiths – like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shikhism etc. – secularism has been an alien concept. None of them had history of clash between their beliefs and new ideas, which challanged those beliefs. On the contrary, India had a history where the State power – ruling kings and monarchs – encouraged and sponsored public debates between the rival claimants of truth. Intellectual contest between Adi Shankaracharya and Mandan Mishra is well known in Indian history. The visit of king Milind (Minendra) to the Buddhist master Nagasena to learn new knowledge at his feet is also well known. Huen Tsiang – the Chinese traveler to India in 628 AD – writes that in India there is a tradition of holding of intellectual debates between renowned rival men of knowledge; that such intellectual contests were patronized by kings and society alike; and that the one who was defeated in the contest used to leave the company of society in ignominy and depart to forests, away from human presence. With such a background of amicable intellectual atmosphere, there was no scope in India for the germination of an idea of the separation of religion from the State authority. India historically had nothing to do with the concept of secularism. Thus, India had a reason why – despite having a long history of fertile imagination of its people – did not have an inkling of the idea of secularism or separation of State from religion.  It did not have its utility in India.

Indic faiths are such that they can live in harmony with all other religions. Indian secularism creates an environment in polity where it is not only made possible for these two religions – Islam and Christianity – to infect the State with their poisonous virus but also its process is made smooth. In Indian secularism they are guaranteed a freedom to carry on their preying and devouring activities. In India this secularism, instead of fulfilling its historical aim of isolating the State from the short-sighted religious institutions and shielding it against their unwanted interference, infests the State with the virus of these predatory religions and, thus, serves the cause of an indirect take-over of the State by them. The secularism of India is a sick secularism.

The idea of secularism is strange in Indian conditions and an ill-fitting constitutional device for a forward-looking India. It drives a wedge into her social cohesiveness and is a poison for its social fabric. It ruffles social poise and equilibrium and disturbs its peace. It destroys its communal harmony. It is strange because it is not needed in a country where overwhelming majority of people do not believe in presecuting and killing those who do not agree with their beliefs. It is ill-fitting constitutional device because the majority population of this country do not take offence to ideas that are new or against their own; they do not seek to convert those who hold ideas contrary to their own.

India has been home to vast number of people who follow numerous Indic faiths, like Hinduism, Buddhism Jainism, Sikhism and their many branches for thousands of years. This India had followed a principle where religion tamed and mollified the arrogant authority of State. Religion showed the path of compassion to State; Asoka the great who was an emperor was called by his people ‘Prya-Darshi’ or ‘the loved one’. This India never had the need or utility of an idea of secularism – the idea of separation of religion from State. This ideas was for the first time incorporated in its constitution after its liberation from the British colonial power.

Suppose for a moment, there is no noticeable presence of the followers of Islam and Christianity in India? What would be the fate of secularism in India? It would then be redundant and irrelevant here. It is so because there would be no occasion for Hindus in India to suppress any new ideas – religious or others in nature – on the ground that they were against Hinduism. Then, there would be no need of secularism, that is, need to separate State power from the religious institutions. Because of the tolerating nature of Hinduism, there would never be its antagonism to any new ideas; because of this lack of antagonism, there would be no need to separate State from religious institutions of Hindus. But it is only a supposition because there is a substantial number of people in India who are governed by the teachings of Islam and Christianity, which teachings are extremely intolerant in their thoughts and predatory in their actions.

Secularism is a poison for Indian social fabric because it provides state protection to those activities of religions that are predatory. It prevents state from taking action against those who believe in converting and killing those who hold beliefs contrary to their own. It directs state to give protection to those whose beliefs cast a duty on them to prey upon, convert or even kill those who hold contrary beliefs. It is a reality of secular India. It is a dangerous reality.    Though the context of secularism is absent in India, it has become here a virtuous political cult and a smoke screen for its defenders. It has  become a fashionable political correctness for them. In the face of the preying and predatory nature of these two religions – Islam and Christianity – the adoptition of secularism as a constitutional guiding principle is suicidal one for India. No amount of lies can hide this truth. No strategy can succeed in camouflaging this truth today in this age of information revolution

Secularism in its working here has been destructive to India. It has brought about a situation where this ancient nation with a spiritually enlightened culture, which produced Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Mira Bai, Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and thousands like them, has been reduced to an artificial “idea of India”. This secularism in the western democracies has played a positive role by separating State from a fundamentalist religion and thus protected people from the onslaught of the brute power of a religion that was against common-sense. There it put in place this device of secularism and isolated the State from that religion and protected people against its illogical dictates. In India secularism has  played a negative role. It has generated here an antagonism – that would not have been here otherwise – between people following Islam and Christianity on the one side and those following Hinduism on the other. The net effect of this secularism has been of polarizing people along communal lines. While Islam and Christianity have been left free to practice conversion and propagate eternal hellfire for Hindus, Hindus have been made a sitting duck for these hunters.

Though Islam and Christianity claim that their God – to the exclusion of each other’s God – is the only true God and that God’s words are the final truth, which two Gods and their words do not agree with each other, this secularism has made them strange bed-fellows in India. They for the time being have kept aside their differences – and deadly clash to the bitter end of one of the two – to be decided between them at some later day and have united as one force today to destroy their common enemy – Hinduism. Secularism in India has become deaf to hear their warring words against each other and blind to see their unholy union to destroy Hinduism in India.

Secularism calls upon Indian State to protect the right of the hunters against any objection of their victim and protect their right to kill their prey. In the exercise of this right, these hunters have been guaranteed the State protection, which is reinforced with the powers of judicial courts, police, military and legislation by Parliament. One can see a strange anomaly of law present in India wherein, on the one hand, the right of Islam to propagate the Koranic mandate of converting or killing the Kafirs is guaranteed under Constitution and, on the other hand, India’s Penal Code forbids the propagation of human killing, which is called murder. When dealing with a fundamental issue like the implication of secularism in India, one cannot side step this truth – preaching, inciting and committing murders – that this holy book teaches as a matter of constitutional right. This is one out of many anomalies created by secularism in India.

Indian faiths (like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc.) do not propagate and practice conversion but Islam and Christianity both propagate and practice conversion. In fact, their entire effort is focused on conversion (leaving aside for the time being the issue of their employing of the unfair means like deception, luring, threat and violence for conversion). This religious conversion is the command of their holy books and their this right to convert is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. This right is protected by the power of state. It is so because the State is mandated by the Constitution to be secular. The State in India has nothing to do with religion but it leaves these two religions free to convert and carry their mission. This is Indian version of secularism.

In such a situation, where Indian faiths are not inclined to convert others, Muslims and Christians do everything to convert. This secularism is a confirmed death warrant of the Indian faiths in India. This death warrant has been imposed in India none other but by Indian themselves. They have invited this calamity to their religions by thoughtlessly  copying a clone – a sick – secularism in India where they still constitute 80% of the population and rule by the democratic majority. Certainly Hindus in India are slowly walking towards their extinction only because of this secularism. The danger to its life in India emanates from this Indian version of secularism. For its survival in the face of competition from rival religions, like Islam or Christianity, Hinduism does not need any mission for its propagation. It is a rational religion and appeals to human intellect. It may look strange but is true that Hindus in India do not need any fundamental right to propagate their religion but they need a fundamental right of their protection against the religious propagation by Islam and Christianity – and their conversion by these religions. It is their human right to be so protected. They need this constitutional protection to save their religious identity. Grant of such protection is their right in India and this is the true meaning of secularism in Indian context.

Secularism: State and Islam (2)


Historically the concept of secularism is confined to those countries only where the majority of people follow Christian religion. It is conspicuously absent in the Islamic world. Islamic world – since the origin of Islam in Arab in 622 AD – did neither believe in this principle of the separation of state from the religious institutions nor follow it in any country where Islam is in power. Why is it so? The reason is that Islam did not experience the mental awakening till now, which could evoke scientific queries and produce discoveries. Islam prohibits such queries if they go against its holy book and punishes them under blasphemy law. It has no space for people to freely speak their mind. Why Islam is unable to follow secularism? It is so because, while Christianity had abolished long ago the law of blasphemy, Islam has been unable to do so till today. While the non-Muslim world is moving at breakneck speed to uncover the scientific secrets of Nature, the Muslim world is mired in blasphemy, terrorism and violent Jihad.

The inner and outer structure of Islam and Christianity, both, is such that they cannot survive without preying upon other religions, which are incompatible with them. They say they are the only true ones and the final words of God (strangely, they both claim an exclusive God and His final word in their holy books, but do not agree with each other on that God and His words). Being the exclusive claimants for (their) God, they cannot allow a rival similar claim and, as of necessity, must devour any rival claimants, and assimilate their body within their own self. To translate the words of their God into reality, Islam integrated religion with state and vested this dual authority in its Caliph. It teaches in its holy book that this world an open field for waging a war to establish its rule. It is a war to establish the world wide empire of Islam and its rule. In this imperial war Islam in its holy book commands its  followers to practice a morality of telling intentional lies (Taqia) to their enemies – to deceive them – in the style of “a smile on your face and hate in the heart when you are weak and when you are in power not to relent at all until your enemy has surrendered to you in terror.” It is a religious morality of breaking your solemn promises and terrorism. The build of their thinking and their organization is solely directed at killing all those who are foreign to them in thinking. They feed on their corpse. These two religions cannot coexist with other religions. With the invasion of India by Islam under Mohammad bin Kasim in 718 AD, for the first time a very strange situation arose in India. India had not witnessed such a situation during its long past. The Islamic State, which was integrated with that religion, disallowed Indians any kind of religious dissent. Even an attempted dissent of any kind against Islam was labeled as blasphemy and this blasphemy was declared a crime. This crime was punishable with death by the Islamic State. The medieval Indian history of Islamic rule is soaked with the blood of Indian people who were following faiths different from Islam – like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and many more like them. These hapless Indian people were declared by Islam as living in the ‘Age of Ignorance’ (Jahilya) and forced to convert to Islam under the threat of murder. Those who refused or resisted, were put to death mercilessly and their women and children were enslaved for sex (Gilmas). Their property was looted as war booty (Mal-e-Ganimat). Those of them who somehow escaped death and still survived, were imposed an exorbitant heretic tax named Zazia. A vast collection of their books – the treasure of precious knowledge – kept in libraries were burnt. In one such unfortunate incident of burning of books kept in the library of Nalanda University, a Muslim religious zealot named Bakhtiar Khilj gave an astonishing logic in justification of his act (of burning). He said, “If these books in library say what Koran has said, they are superfluous and deserve to be burnt. If they say against Koran, they are dangerous and deserve to be burnt. They say either what Koran has said or against Koran. In both cases, they need to be destroyed.” Millions of people following Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and their other sects and sub-sects were killed by Muslims simply because they believed in something that was not Islam and they refused to convert to Islam. It is estimated by some scholars that Islam committed in India the greatest genocide in the human history. This crime was committed against the Indian people because of their religious dissent.

The first attempt to carry the victorious banner of Islam into India was made by Mohammad bin Kasim in 718 AD, who came to Sindh and assaulted there the reigning Hindu king Dahir Deshpati. In the contest after numerous conflicts king Dahir was defeated by Kasim and killed, his wife was converted to Islam and given away to some soldier of Muslim army, and his two daughters sent away as gift to Caliph Omar II (13th Caliph) in Baghdad.  It was a new and unexpected experience for Hindu India. Still, it was only a probing exercise and Sindh was again attacked around 775 AD during the reign of Caliph Al Mansoor (21st Caliph) and finally conquered, and the name of the Shindh capital ‘Arore’ was changed  into ‘Mansoora’. An attack was made around 833 AD on Chittore by one Mahmood, where the Chittore’s Hindu king Khomman defeated him and made prisoner. But nothing more was done by India to safeguard itself against the future Islamic incursions into this country. For twenty years or so this India did not see any serious attempt of its violation by Islam, until 975 AD when Soobektegin of Gazni accompanied by his son Mahmood Gazni made incessant military incursions into India (some say, 16 times in number) to destroy alleged ‘Kufr’ (Hinduism) convert people to Islam and was defeated in his attempts every time. But still nothing was done by India to safeguard its future. This Mahmood Gazni, the son of Soobektegin, continued the legacy of his father, attacked the Hindu king of Delhi Prithvi Raj Chauhan in 1192 AD but was defeated and made prisoner by Prithvi Raj. On his making a promise never to attack India again and praying for saving his life, he was granted clemency by Prithvi Raj and allowed to go back to Gazani. But true to his fanatic religious belief, this Mahmood Gazni broke his solemn promise, attacked Prithvi Raj in 1193 AD (called the Second War of Tarain), defeated him, carried him as prisoner to Gazani and killed him there.

Since that time of Islamic victory in 1193 AD, Hindu India has undergone untold miseries, which cannot be fathomed by those who are unaware of its history of Islamic rule. Hindu India is the only country – the single country – in the entire world that did not surrender to Islam and convert to Muslim religion. Iran, Afghanistan and many more countries in Europe, Africa and Asia completely surrendered to this religion and today are Islamic countries with misconceived pride. But this Hindu India relentlessly fought the ferocious wars against the long chain of India’s Islamic rulers. This India was never – ever – completely under the sovereignty of Islam. There were relentless pitched battles in dreaded wars by Hindu kings against the enemy of their faith. It was a routine feature of these dreaded wars that the entire Hindu population to the last of their able-bodied person had gone to the battle field – while knowing fully well that they would not return back alive from that war – to fight the enemy of their faith and that their women prepared funeral pyre and jumped into the fire to perish, so that their female chastity  was not violated by the victorious Islam. No country in the world had such courage, conviction and determination in the face of a dreaded enemy like Islam. In 1533 AD in the so called “Second Saka or Jauhar” (self immolation by females) alone 13, 000 Hindu women of Chittore jumped into fire and perished. It is said that there were seven similar Hindu “Sakas” in Rajasthan alone. It is only because of such courage and dedication of Hindus of India to their faith that, while none of the countries that was invaded by the sword of Islam could retain its native faith, India is still 80% Hindu today.

This unflinching courage of Hindus amid the moments of great calamity that had befallen on their ancestors, their steadfastness in keeping to their native faith in the face of such barbarism and the fact that this India is still a Hindu country, should be a matter of pride for all those who are Hindus today and whose ancestors were once Hindus. It is most humane and justified for all those who are converted ones today but whose ancestors were once Hindus to feel pity for their ancestors for all that pain which they had undergone and and honor them. There are millions and millions of people – in India and in Pakistan both – who still bear the Hindu surnames – like Rana, Chauhan, Bajwa, Khokhar, Tomar, Sindhu etc. – with their personal names as medals. It is a matter of pride, and it should be a matter of pride, to them. It shows their Hindu roots and it should not be a matter of shame. Hindus are as good as any other religious group of people and Hindu religion is not an ignorance. The persecution of Hindus by Islam was wrong. The medieval history of India is the dark history of religious persecution of Hindus by its Islamic rulers.

Since the times of Mohammad bin Kasim (718 AD) the pathetic conditions of the religious persecution  of Hindus continued till the British took over the rule of India. The intolerance of Hindu religious ideas by the Islamic religion, which was integrated with its State and vested in its religious head called Caliph, continued till 1858 AD, when the British took over the State power from the last Indian Islamic ruler, king Bahadur Shah Jafar. With the British in command, the relation of State in India with religion(s) followed their peculiar imperialist strategy, of which legacy the free India’s secularism is still following without putting any thought into it. The British imperialist policy in dealing with Muslims and Hindus both was, “We are Christians. You are Hindus; and you are Muslims. Each one of you are free to do what your respective religion teaches you. But we are the State and as ruler have the power to arbitrate in disputes between both of you”. During the Indian freedom struggle, for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity against the British imperialism, it was propagated by the Indian political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawahar Lal Nehru that the imperialists adopted a policy to “divide Hindus and Muslims and rule over them”. This statement was factually wrong. Hindus and Muslims were already divided for centuries when the British came to India. This painful fact is testified by the occurrence of Hindu-Muslim riots on almost regular basis in united India from 1858 to 1947.  What the British imperialists did was only to utilize this communal chasm between them to their advantage. They nurtured this divide further by taking sides, when and which way it suited them. By this strategy they often sided with the weak and vanquished the strong. It was only because of this strategy that they were able to rule this vast country despite having at their disposal in India a very small contingent of English military force.

This British policy continued till 1947 when India was partitioned on religious lines into two countries – one part called Pakistan for Muslims, where they were free to lead their life according to Islam; and another remaining part of the once united India for Hindus, where they were free to lead their life according to Hinduism or whatever they liked. The British rulers partitioned India and made Hindus and Muslims both free and choose their own path and future. The first part – Pakistan – chose Islam, which was well in accord with the Islamic philosophy as advocated by its founding father Mohammad Ali Jinnah and sung by famed Islamic poet Mohd. Iqbal. Both of them – the leader and the poet – had a mindset of the bygone era of Mohd. bin Kasim. In fact, Pakistan was the fulfillment of what Muslims had sought to achieve in united India since 718 AD but could not achieve. Once they got their feet on the ground of their own country – Pakistan – they immediately engaged with more vigor with their incomplete Islamic agenda of destroying Hindu-India. For Muslims of Pakistan, from the day one, India was a Hindu-India, whether it professed secularism or not. In their heart of hearts, they cared a hoot for secularism of India. This is the reason why the left-over part of this new India – or supposedly a Hindu-India – did not see from the day Pakistan was created a moment of peace. And this India is not likely to have that peace any day soon.

Now, what did the remaining part of this once united India do in choosing its path and future? The first thing it did was to declare in its Constitution that India is not a Hindu country; that it equally belongs to Muslims; that it will be a secular country; that Hindus and Muslims (and all other religions) will have equal right to carry on the objectives – aims – of their respective religions; that they all will have the constitutional right to not only practice but also propagate what their respective religion teaches them. It was not an ordinary legal right but a fundamental right, which was guaranteed to them and could not be taken away even by the Parliament of India till eternity. The great leaders of free India who drafted the Indian Constitution did not realize the serious dangers to the very existence of this remaining India, which were inherent in such a constitutional approach.

Firstly, they did not realize that if it was possible for Muslims to carry forward their religious objectives in the united India, there was no need at all for them to demand and create their own country separate from the Hindus. Secondly, they did not realize that it was wrong to think that all those Muslims who were religiously bigots and wanted to live in their own separate country according to Islamic religion had migrated to Pakistan; and that other remaining Muslims who chose to stay back in India were not so religious bigots as to once again demand second Pakistan like their their brothers going to Pakistan had done. Moreover, there was no reason for these Indian leaders to suppose that the future generations of these Indian Muslims would always find it suitable to live along with Hindus of this remaining India. Such supposition – or expectation – of these Indian leaders was unreasonable; it was like hoping that the Indian Muslims would be unlike their forefathers who had gone to Pakistan; it was hoping that that these left-over Indian Muslims would never demand their separate country once again. Such supposition, expectation or hope was against reason and without any foundation. Generations of people succeed generations and each new generation of people think as it best suits them in their times and circumstances. There is no justification to suppose that once a generation of Muslims had demanded the creation of Pakistan out of India, another succeeding generations of Indian Muslims would not so demand again. This rational conclusion is testified by the fact that since 1947 nothing drastic has changed on their religious front in India that may give this India a hope in the change of their attitude. This assumption or expectation of those Indian leaders was vain is proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the fact that in ‘India of 2019’ an Owaisi, an Azam Khan and many more like them can openly threaten Hindus in India with violence against the established Indian law. It is also proved by the fact that sectarian Muslim organizations like Indian Muslim League and similar other organizations (which openly uphold Islamic agenda and once had spearheaded the creation of Pakistan) are still popular among Indian Muslims. Such people still harbor the sentiments of their forefathers who had once demanded the creation of Pakistan. It is not a secret and anyone with open mind and eyes can see this reality of the remaining India.

Secularism: State and Christianity (1)


India proudly proclaims in its Constitution it is a secular country. Let us examine the substance of this Indian secularism and what it has returned back to India during the period of over half a century.

Let us be honest and examine the facts first.

India is a country that is home to millions of people who are devoutly religious by nature. These people profess different religions – Hindus, Muslims, Shikhs, Christians, Parsees and many more. Almost all religions of the world and their vast number of sects and sub-sects find a place for their profession in this country. Out of all these religions, Hindus account the most – they are more than 80% of the population. These Hindus here engage their whole life dedicated to achieve the fruits that are declared by their religion to be the highest desirable thing in this world, which they call ‘Mukti’ or emancipation from the bond of life, death and rebirth – again and again.

Then, there are millions of Muslims living in India whose whole life is entirely devoted to fulfill the mandates of their Holy book ‘Koran’. There are likewise a great multitude of people in India who are Christians and they are completely devoted to accomplish the mandates of their Holy book ‘Bible’. There are also considerable number of Sikhs, Jain, Parsi and similar other religious groups of people in India who are devoutly religious by temperament.

For all these highly religious people, this world and this world’s institutions – whether these institutions are political or social in nature – are only secondary in importance to their religious objectives.

But the paradox of the situation is that these very people are expected to elect and man their government, which government is supposed to have nothing to do with (their) religion. They themselves become the part and parcel of this government. But they have their varying religious allegiances. They are mandated by their particular religions – Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. – to carry forward their religious duties and mission in their private and public life. And, these religious duties and missions are mostly clashing in their nature with each other. While electing their government or becoming part of the Indian State, these people who mentally submerged in their clashing religious fervor do not and cannot divorce their personal allegiance to the objectives of their religion. In fact, they advance the agenda of their particular religion.

It is but natural. It cannot be otherwise. It is normal human nature to advance the cause of a thing that one cherishes the most. This paradox becomes clear when one finds that historically there is an incompatibility among these diverse religions and their followers.

It becomes an ironic thing when such people with their diverse religion and with their clashing missions are called upon to elect and run their government in the secular manner.

What is a religion? Materialist philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx famously described religion as the opium of people. He is wrong there; it is not so. Humans are not animals because they have evolved themselves above animals. Humans are motivated like animals in their daily activities by the basic necessities for their survival, like food, shelter, cloths and amenities. But in these activities, humans unlike animals are guided by their emotions, like love, hate, revenge etc., and their mental thoughts and ideas. Only these mental thoughts and ideas make humans separate from animals.

Religion – and everyone of them – is a bundle of peculiar ideas, with which most part of the humanity is afflicted. Religion divides people on the basis of their different ideas. Religion puts them into separate groups, which are bound by their common interests. Religion is a reality for humans.  Animals are immune to religion because they are animals. And in this way religion is an indicator too of human evolution. But it splits them; it divides them. And these divisions are real. All religious groups are bound together with their common interests.

Most often, these religious groups are so vast that they populate the entire country or even a number of countries. Religious ideas firmly grip the mind of common people, make them separate in identity, commit them to their peculiar certain ideals and almost always put them against each other. It is the reality of human society. One cannot overlook this reality of human society.

What is secularism? The essence of secularism is, ‘State has no institutional connection with religion; State is independent of religion’. It is defined by the Oxford dictionary as the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. The origin of this principle lies in the Christian history. The invention of this social device was made in the context of Christianity. Apart from this context with Christianity, secularism has no connection with any major religions of the world.

It is a fact that secularism is the invention of western Christian democracies. It originated in England of the sixteenth century. It was invented there to tide over a peculiar difficulty that was being faced by the rationally awakened common masses of Europe. This difficulty arose out of a clash between the Christian religious dogmas, which had behind them the power of State controlled by the Christian religion, and the new scientific ideas, which were being discovered then by the mentally enlightened scientists. Christian dogmas and the newly discovered scientific ideas were incompatible with each other. Only one out of the two could be true and accepted as such. But there was the Christian State power behind the Christian dogmas. This State power was legally bound to punish the new incompatible scientific ideas. It was a horrific situation for those who were mentally awakened and dared to put new scientific ideas before the public. Christian dogmas pricked the common sense of these awakened people but they could not do anything against the Christian State.

The seventeenth century Europe was witnessing a renaissance of mind. It was making new scientific discoveries, which were showing the utter falsity of the views held by Christian Cardinals but were enforced by the might of Christian state power. For example, a new scientific discovery was made by an Italian scientist Galileo Galilei that Sun is the center – the point – around which Earth revolves and, therefore, it was false on the part of Christianity to claim that Earth is the center around which this universe and Sun revolve. And, he demonstrated this truth with the help of his newly invented telescope. This scientific discovery was making an unwelcome impact on the mind of ordinary masses following Christianity. As this scientific fact went against the Christian holy book – Bible, which stated Earth is the center of universe and Sun – there was a fundamental clash between the two. It was pricking the common sense of people and eroding their faith in Christianity. While it was a serious thing for the Christian State authorities, it was  a dangerous one for the people to speak their disagreement with what Bible said. They could not believe in such new ideas openly because it went against Christianity and the Christian State had a power over their life.  They could be made to pay a price with their life for this heretic blasphemy. They believed in the new scientific truth but they also saw with their own eyes that Galileo had to pay a heavy price for telling a truth. Galileo was first accused of challenging Church in 1616 and then imprisoned in 1633 for life by the Christian State for telling this truth. He died in prison. It was his crime of blasphemy against Christianity. Before him, Giordano Bruno, another Italian scientist and philosopher, was burned at stake in Rome in 1600 AD by Christian Church. His crime was that he proposed that stars in sky are just like our sun and that they may be having planets – like Earth – revolving around them, where possibly life might be existing. He also held that there is soul and incarnation of that soul. He was tried for heresy in 1593 and burned to death on 17 February 1600.

What was the way out from this horrific situation? It was solved by inventing the principle of separation of State from the religious institutions. It was called secularism. Secularism owes its genesis to these difficult conditions prevailing in the seventeenth century Europe. It was a solution invented by the political thinkers of the time and endorsed by the popular will. This popular will forced the Christian State to accept it. This is the story of the birth of secularism. Its worth lay in tiding over the difficulty cteated by the Christianity’s dogmatic adamency. Beyond this it had no worth.

“Cow a Celestial Being” – Book Review


Parmanand Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court (Secretary General IPC)

There are three inanimate and most revered ingredients of Hinduism and they are the Gai (Cow), the Ganga, and Gayatri. The importance of all three has been described in the Hindu scriptures. While the Gai and Ganga are worshipped in the mundane form, Gayatri mantra serves as the means of spiritual exaltation. Hinduism is a pantheistic religion but these three are kept at the highest pedestal.

Two advocates: K.M. Shukla and the Senior S. Balakrishnan, who mainly practice in the Supreme Court, have jointly written a remarkable book titled ‘Cow a Celestial Being’, which takes one’s breath away by their knowledge and research soaked with sincerity and devotion. In their well-informed book, the writers have championed the cause of ban on the cow slaughter in the most spirited manner. They demonstrated with their sound logic that Cow is not a mere animal but it is a ‘being’, which has virtually been brought on the surface of the earth from heaven to bestow worldly as well as a divine pleasure to all who seek and serve her.

They have profusely quoted the religious books like Vedas, Puranas and the Bhagwad Geeta, and also the well-documented theses, which prove cow’s enormous utility in the worldly life. The Hindu mind is accustomed to referring to the supreme divine as a Goddess and as the Universal Mother. Out of the infinite attributes by and through which the universal mother manifests herself, the Cow is one of them.  The Cow has been named in the Vedas as ‘Aghyna’, which means ‘inviolable’ and her other name is ‘Ahi’, which means ‘not to be killed’ and another one is ‘Aditi’, which means ‘never to be cut into pieces’. Thus, the most sacred book of Hindus i.e. Vedas unequivocally prohibits the killing of Cows.

   The advantages of having the Cow are innumerable and beyond description. The ‘Panchgavya’ i.e. the five materials made from the Cows by-products have the immense economic and medical use. It must be mentioned here that ‘Panchgavya’ is made from a mixture of five products from the Cow, which are milk, curd, ghee, urine and dung, which are scientifically proved to be immunity- booster and disease-healer. Many judgments of the Apex Court have also been discussed in the book which has upheld the legality of total ban on the slaughter of the cows. The Constitution of India, in deference to the feelings and sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Indians, has included in the directive principles for the prohibition of the cow slaughter. All native Indian religions like; Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism valiantly defend the ban on the cow slaughter, even Islam and Christianity too do not encourage it. The Bible is very clear, which says ‘He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man’. Many Muslim rulers in India had banned the killings of the cows.

   While the opposition to the slaughter of cows has extensive and ancient roots in the Indian history, the earliest known such protests against Cow slaughter are traceable to Sikhs of Punjab, who opposed the cow slaughter in the 1860s. Thereafter, the founder of the Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati made it a massive movement in the late 19th century, which was carried forward by Mahatma Gandhi in the early 20th century, though not with the same zeal and vigour that was found in the movements of Sikhs and Arya Samaj. Although, the cow protection movement is mostly connected with India, yet it is applicable in Sri Lanka and Myanmar also. In India the cow slaughter ban is in place throughout the country except for Kerala, West Bengal and part of the North-East States; even in the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir nobody can kill a Cow.

   The writers have discussed the issue of cow protection by juxtaposing it with cow slaughter. They have used all the weapons of the armoury of their logic from different angles and have succeeded in bringing their points home that the article 51A (h) of Indian Constitution should be adhered to by every citizen of the country to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.  The word humanism has been supplied emphasis by them and therefore, the cow protection is perfectly in consonance with the constitutional spirit.

The writers have also laid more emphasis on a point that it is the majority community which has the greater responsibility for protecting the cows by providing theme care in their old age or when they stop yielding milk. Another startling fact, which has been given by them is that ‘Meat is a second-hand food which is responsible for global warming and hunger.’  The book is written in simple language and convincing style.  It is not only worth reading but for preserving it as well.

बथुआ: यह शाकाहार गुणों की खान


मोहम्मद मन्नान, एडवोकेट, उच्चतम न्यायालय

बथुआ सबसे अच्छा आहार है जिसे अँग्रेजी में Lambs Quarter कहा जाता है और जिसका वैज्ञानिक नाम Chenopodium Elbum है।

बथुआ का साग और रायता बना कर अनादि काल से खाया जाता जा रहा है। लेकिन बहुत कम ही लोगों को यह बात मालूम होगा कि विश्व की सबसे पुरानी महल बनाने की पुस्तक, शिल्प शास्त्र में लिखा है कि हमारे बुजुर्ग अपने घरों को हरा रंग करने के लिए प्लस्तर में बथुआ मिलाते थे। स्त्रियां सिर से जूँ व रूसी (डैंड्रफ) साफ करने के लिए बथुआ के पानी से बाल धोया करती थीं। बथुआ गुणों की खान है।

बथुआ में कौन-कौन से विटामिन और मिनरल्स हैं?

बथुवा विटामिन B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9 और विटामिन C से भरपूर है तथा बथुवे में कैल्शियम, लोहा, मैग्नीशियम, मैगनीज, फास्फोरस, पोटाशियम, सोडियम व जिंक आदि मिनरल्स हैं। 100 ग्राम कच्चे बथुवे यानि पत्तों में 7.3 ग्राम कार्बोहाइड्रेट, 4.2 ग्राम प्रोटीन व 4 ग्राम पोषक रेशे होते हैं। कुल मिलाकर 43 Kcal होती है।

जब बथुआ मट्ठा, लस्सी या दही में मिला दिया जाता है तो यह किसी भी मांसाहार से ज्यादा प्रोटीन वाला व किसी भी अन्य खाद्य पदार्थ से ज्यादा सुपाच्य व पौष्टिक आहार बन जाता है। साथ में बाजरे या मक्के की रोटी, मक्खन व गुड़ की डली हो तो इसकी तुलना नहीं हो सकती किसी भोजन से।

जब हम बीमार होते हैं तो आजकल डॉक्टर सबसे पहले विटामिन की गोली ही खाने की सलाह देते हैं। गर्भवती महिलाओं को खासतौर पर विटामिन बी, सी व लौह तत्व के लिए गोली बताई जाती है। लेकिन बथुआ में वो सब कुछ है। बथुआ पहलवानों से लेकर गर्भवती महिलाओं तक और बच्चों से लेकर बूढ़ों तक केलिए अमृत समान है।इसका साग प्रतिदिन खाने से गुर्दों में पथरी नहीं होती। बथुआ आमाशय को बलवान बनाता है। गर्मी से बढ़े हुए यकृत को ठीक करता है।

बथुआ के साग का सही मात्रा में सेवन किया जाए तो निरोग रहने के लिए उत्तम औषधि है। बथुआ का सेवन कम से कम मसाले डालकर करना चाहिए। नमक नहीं मिलाया जाए तो ज्यादा अच्छा है। स्वाद के लिए मिलाना पड़े तो काला नमक ठीक होता है और देशी गाय के घी से छौंक लगाना चाहिए। बथुआ का उबाला हुआ पानी पीना अच्छा लगता है तथा इसका दही में बनाया हुआ रायता स्वादिष्ट होता है। किसी भी तरह से बथुआ नित्य सेवन करना बहुत ही फायदेमंद होता है। बथुआ में जिंक होता है जो कि शुक्राणुवर्धक होता है और जिस्मानी कमजोरी को भी दूर कर देता है। बथुआ कब्ज दूर करता है। पेट साफ रहने पर तो कोइ भी बीमारी शरीर में लगेगी ही नहीं जिससे ताकत और स्फूर्ति बनी रहती है।

इस मौसम में नित्य इसकी सब्जी खाना चाहिए। बथुआ का रस या इसका उबाला हुआ पानी पीएँ तो और यह खराब लीवर को भी ठीक कर देता है। पथरी हो तो एक गिलास कच्चे बथुआ के रस में शक्कर, चीनी नहीं, मिलाकर नित्य पिया जाए तो पथरी टूटकर बाहर निकल आती है।

स्त्रियों के मासिक चक्र रुका हुआ हो तो दो चम्मच बथुआ के बीज को एक गिलास पानी में उबाला जाए और आधा रहने पर छानकर पी जाने पर खुलकर साफ हो जाता है। आँखों में सूजन या लाली हो तो प्रतिदिन बथुआ की सब्जी खाना चाहिए। पेशाब के रोगी को चाहिए कि आधा किलो बथुआ को तीन ग्लास पानी में उबाले और फिर पानी को छान कर और फिर उबले हुए बथुआ को निचोड़कर, उससे भी पानी को निकालकर, छाने हुए पानी में मिला लें। स्वाद के लिए नींबू, जीरा, थोड़ी सी काली मिर्च और काला नमक मिला कर पीए।

हमारे पूर्वज कहा करते थे कि हमने तो सारी उम्र अंग्रेजी दवा की एक गोली भी नहीं ली। उनके स्वास्थ्य व ताकत का राज बथुआ भी रहा होगा। घरों की रंगाई से लेकर खाना व दवा बनाने तक में बथुआ काम आता है। यह सिर के बालों के लिए प्राकृतिक शम्पू भी है।

लेकिन अफसोस है कि हम ये बातें भूलते जा रहे हैं और इस दिव्य पौधे को नष्ट करने के लिए अपने अपने खेतों में जहर डालते जा रहे हैं। तथाकथित कृषि वैज्ञानिकों (अंग्रेज व काले अंग्रेज) ने बथुआ को भी कोंधरा, चौलाई, सांठी, भाँखड़ी आदि जैसे सैकड़ों आयुर्वेदिक औषधियों को खरपतवार की श्रेणी में डाल दिया है और हम समझ भी नहीं पाये।

ईसाई पादरी की उलझन: सवाल और जवाब


अमिताभ गुप्त आर्य

सवाल:- भगवान (God) कौन है ?
ईसाई:- जीसस है।

सवाल:- क्या जीसस, मैरी का बेटा है ?
ईसाई:- हां।
सवाल:- तो फिर मैरी को किसने बनाया ?
ईसाई:- भगवान ने बनाया।
सवाल:- OK, तो फिर भगवान कौन है ?
ईसाई:- जीसस है।

सवाल:- क्या जीसस का जन्म हुआ था ?
ईसाई:- हां, हुआ था।
सवाल:- तो जीसस के पिता कोन हैं ?
ईसाई:- जीसस के पिता भगवान है।
सवाल:- तो फिर भगवान कोन है ?
ईसाई:- जीसस है।

सवाल:- क्या जीसस भगवान का सेवक है ?
ईसाई:- हाँ है।
सवाल:- क्या जीसस सूली पर मरे थे ?
ईसाई:- हाँ, मरे थे।
सवाल:- जीसस को पुनर्जीवित किसने किया ?
ईसाई:- भगवान ने किया।

सवाल:- क्या जीसस दूत (संदेशवाहक) थे?
ईसाई:- हाँ, थे।
सवाल:- तो उनको पृथ्वी पर किसने भेजा था ?
ईसाई:- भगवान ने भेजा।
सवाल:- तो भगवान कौन है ?
ईसाई:- जीसस है।

सवाल:- क्या जीसस ने धरती पर किसी की पूजा की थी?
ईसाई:- हाँ।
सवाल:- किसकी पूजा की थी ?
ईसाई:- भगवान की।
सवाल:- तो भगवान कौन है ?
ईसाई:- जीसस है।

सवाल:- क्या भगवान का कोई प्रारम्भ है ?
ईसाई:- नही है।
सवाल:- तो 25 दिसम्बर को कौन जन्मा था ?
ईसाई:- जीसस जन्मे थे ।
सवाल:- क्या जीसस ही भगवान है ?
ईसाई:- हाँ, जीसस ही भगवान है।

सवाल:- भगवान कहाँ है ?
ईसाई:- स्वर्ग में है।
सवाल:- स्वर्ग में कितने भगवान हैं ?
ईसाई:- वहां सिर्फ एक ही भगवान है।
सवाल:- जीसस कहाँ है ?
ईसाई:- वो अपने पिता (भगवान) के दायीं तरफ विराजमान है।

सवाल:- तो स्वर्ग में कितने भगवान हैं ?
ईसाई:- वहां सिर्फ एक ही भगवान है।

सवाल:- वहां पर कितनी कुर्सियां हैं ?
ईसाई:- वहां सिर्फ एक कुर्सी है।
सवाल:- जीसस कहाँ है ?
ईसाई:- वे भगवान के पास बैठे हैं।
सवाल:- तो वे दोनों एक कुर्सी पर कैसे बैठ सकते हैं ?

ईसाई:- भगवान पर इतने सवाल ? आपको शैतान ने गुमराह कर रखा है। भगवान के बारे में इतना गलत सिर्फ शैतान ही सोच सकता है । आप शैतान के जाल में फंसे हुए हैं।

अब जवाब हमारा:- ईसाई मत को समझने और जानने के लिए महर्षि दयानन्द जी द्वारा लिखे गये सत्यार्थप्रकाश ग्रन्थ का 13वाँ समुल्लास पढ़िये।

विज्ञान की रोशनी में विभिन्न धर्मो की स्तिथी


इस धरती पर अधिकांश लोग बुद्धि का इस्तेमाल करते हैं। फिर भी कुछ लोग ऐसे हैं जो अपनी बुद्धि का इस्तेमाल नहीं करना चाहते, खास तौर पर गंभीर मामलों में। वे अपनी रोज मर्रा की जिंदगी में – फायदे और नुक्सान के मामलों में – तो बुद्धि का इस्तेमाल करते हैं पर गंभीर मामलों में अपनी बुद्धि के इस्तेमाल करने में दूर दूर तक वास्ता नहीं रखते। जो बुद्धी का इस्तेमाल नही करना चाहते उन्हें इससे आगे पढने की जरूरत नही है और जो बुद्धि से तनिक भी वास्ता रखते हैं, वे आगे पढें।

जो लोग बुद्धिमान हैं और जिन्होंने अपना जीवन इस खोज में लगाया है कि इस दुनिया का रहस्य क्या है वे इस नतीजे पर पहुंचे हैं कि इस दुनिया को चलाने वाला कोई तो है।  वे सभी मानते हैं कि इस ब्रह्माण्ड में सब कुछ इतने सुनियोजित ढंग से चल रहा है कि कोई बहुत बड़ी ताकत तो है जो इसे चला रही है। और वह ताकत सोचती – समझती है यानि जिन्दा है, वह सचेतन है, वह सब कुछ जानती है और सब कुछ समझती है। वह ताकत सर्व शक्तिमान भी है, वह हम इंसानों से कहीं अधिक जानने वाली और ताकतवर है। उसे इस दुनिया के सभी समझदार लोग भगवान कहते हैं, गॉड कहते है, अल्लाह कहते हैं।  उस सर्व शक्तीमान ताकत के अलग अलग धर्मों में,  अलग अलग भाषाओँ में, देशों में अलग अलग नाम हैं। पर इस बात पर सब एकमत हैं कि वह ताकत सर्व शक्तिमान है।  कुछ धर्म – जैसे कि बौद्ध धर्म – भगवान को इस रूप में नहीं मानते पर वे भी मानते है कि यह दुनिया एक नियम में बंध कर चल रही है; जब महात्मा बुद्ध से यह पूछा गया कि क्या भगवान् हैं तो वह मौन हो गए; जब पूछा कि क्या भगवान नहीं हैं तो भी वे मौन रहे। उनका यह आचरण यही बताता है कि इस सवाल का जवाब बहुत गम्भीर है, इन्सान की समझ से परे है, आम इन्सान को इस पचडे मे नही पडना चाहिये। आम आदमी तो केवल इतना भर समझ लें कि यह स॔सार नियमो से बन्धा है, नियमो सै चल रहा है।  इस संसार का नियम बद्ध होना ही एक सर्व शक्तिमान ताकत – या सर्व शक्तिमान नियम –  को मानना है। उस रहस्य को जानना ही बोध्तव (Enlightenment) को प्राप्त करना है या भगवान को प्राप्त करना है। कुछ लोग – नास्तिक लोग – सर्व शक्तिमान ताकत का वजूद नहीं मानते, वे भी मानते हैं कि स॔सार नियमो से बन्धा है। पर उसकी संख्या दुनिया में कम ही है।

एक तरफ एक भगवान् हैं जोकि सर्व शक्तिमान हैं और दूसरी तरफ इंसान हैं। लेकिन इंसान भगवान को नहीं जानते। उसे कैसे जाना जाये ?

इस बारे में दो तरह के मत हैं – दो तरह के विचार हैं।

एक मत कहता है कि अगर भगवान् है तो उसे जाना भी जा सकता है, उसे कोई भी इंसान जान सकता है, जानने का रास्ता चाहे कैसा भी हो, कोई भी हो। दूसरा मत कहता है कि उसे – यानि भगवान को – कोई भी नहीं जान सकता, चाहे कोई कुछ भी करे। इन्सानों की इस परेशानी को हल करने के लिये भगवान अपने एक “प्रतिनिधी” की चुनता है और उसके द्वारा अपना “पैगाम” भेजता है। वह भगवान एक इंसान को चुनता है यह बताने के लिए कि वह क्या है। वह भगवान केवल उसी एक इंसान को बताता है कि वह क्या है, कैसा है, क्या चाहता है, क्या कहता है, वगैरा। यह कुछ ऐसा ही है, जैसे भगवान ने अपना एक “प्रतिनिधि” नियुक्त कर दिया हो, जो भगवान के स्थान पर खुद ही इन्सानों से बात करने का अधिकार रखता हो।  वह भगवान  क्या कहता है, क्या चाहता है, केवल उसके उस प्रतिनिधि की ही बात मानी जाएगी। उसी एक इंसान का नाम पैगम्बर है। ईसाई और मुस्लिम धर्म के अपने अपने पैगम्बर हैं।

एक मामूली सी भी बुद्धी रखने वाले इन्सान को इस मत को सही स्वीकार करने में दो बडी दिक्कतें हैं।

पहली समस्या:

भगवान का “एकमात्र प्रतिनिधी” बनने  का पूरा मामला केवल उस प्रतिनिधी और भगवान के बीच का है। संसार के बाकि इंसानो के लिये यह गुप्त है। वे प्रतिनिधी के इस दावे की सच्चाई नही जान सकते। वे भगवान से नही मिल सकते और पूछ सकते कि क्या उस प्रतिनिधी का दावा सही है। यदि कोई झूठे ही ऐसा दावा कर दे तो उसकी सच्चाई कैसे परखी जाये? आखिर इन्सान झूठ भी तो बोल देते हैं। इसक क्या ईलाज है? फिर, बात यहीं खतम नही हो जाती। यदि वह “प्रतिनिधि” यह दावा करने लगे कि क्योंकि वह जो कह रहा है वह उसके शब्द नहीं हैं बल्कि खुद भगवान ही उसके मुख से बोल रहे हैं तो सच्चाई पता करना और भी मुश्किल हो जाता है।  यदि वह “प्रतिनिधि” उससे भी आगे बढ़ कर यह कहने लगे कि उसके मुख से जो भगवान कह रहा है उसे यदि स्वीकार नही जाएगा – उस पर अविश्वास किया जाएगा – तो यह भयंकर अपराध होगा और उस अपराधी को मार दिया जाएगा – और ऐसा वह नहीं कह रहा बल्कि भगवान ही कह रहें हैं – तो उस दावे की सच्चाई पता करने के सभी रास्ते बंद हो जाते हैं। एक तरफ सर्व शक्तिमान भगवान है और दूसरी तरफ इंसान हैं, जो उस भगवान् को नहीं जानते और – दावा किया जाता है – ना ही वे (इंसान) उस भगवान् को जान सकते हैं। बीच में एक “प्रतिनिधि” आ जाता है और कहता है कि वह भगवान् को जानता है और इंसानों को बताएगा कि वह भगवान् कैसा है और क्या कहता है। यह सब एक तरह से इस दुनिया में ऐसा रास्ता खोल देता है जहाँ कोई भी व्यक्ति ताकत के बल पर ऐसा दावा कर सकता है और दुनिया में मार काट मचा सकता है। ऐसे में वे सभी लोग – सामान्य इंसान – जिनके पास बुद्धि है और समझ बूझ है बेबस हो जायेंगे और उनके पास कोई तरीका नहीं बचेगा कि वे इस तरह के दावों की सच्चाई जान सकें।

दूसरी समस्या:

यदि भगवान् का स्वयं “प्रतिनिधि ” होने का दावा करने वाले दो अलग – अलग लोग खड़े हो जाएँ और उन दोनों की बातें आपस में मेल ना खाती हों – एक दूसरे के उलट हों – तो किस की बात सही मानी जाए? एक सामान्य आदमी तो यही समझेगा कि पहला “प्रतिनिधि” दूसरे “प्रतिनिधि ” को झूठा बता रहा है और दूसरा “प्रतिनिधि” पहले “प्रतिनिधि” को झूठा बता रहा है। कम से कम, एक सामान्य आदमी यह तो कहेगा ही कि दोनों “प्रतिनिधीयो” में से एक तो अवश्य ही झूठा है। फिर यह कैसे पता चले कि दोनों में से कौन सा झूठ बोल रहा है? पैगम्बरवाद के दावों के अनुसार (कि उसकी कही गयी बातों पर अविश्वास नही किया जा सकता) तो यह बंदूकों से लड़ कर ही तय होगा कि किसका दावा सही है। इस तरह की बातें और दावे इंसानों को गुमराह करने और आपस में मार काट मचाने का काम नहीं तो और क्या हैं ? पैगम्बरवाद के इस तरह के दावो के कारण ही इस धरती पर पिछले २००० सालों से मार काट मची है और खून खराबा होता आया है।

तो क्या सर्व शक्तिमान भगवान् नहीं है? बहुत ही समझदार – बुद्धीमान – लोग और सामान्य बुद्धी (common sense)  रखने वाले लोग सभी इस नतीजे पर पहुंचते हैं कि कोई तो ताकत है जो इस ब्रहमान्ड को नियमो मे बान्ध कर चला रही है।

इस बारे में सनातन धर्म का द्रष्टिकोण आम आदमी की समझ मे आने वाला और कही अधिक तर्क संगत है।

बुद्धिमान और सामान्य बुद्धि वाले  लोग इसी नतीजे पर पहुँचते हैं कि कोई सर्व शक्तिमान ताकत तो जरूर है, जो इस ब्रह्माण्ड को कायदे से नियमों में बांध कर चला रही है। उस ताकत को कोई भी नाम दिया जा सकता है और उसके अलग अलग नाम होने से कोई फर्क नही पडता।

वह परम शक्ति केवल एक है।

और यदि वह वजूद में है तो उसे जाना भी जा सकता है।  यदि उसे एक इन्सान जान सकता है तो उसे सभी इंसान जान सकते हैं। उसे जानने का “विशेषाधिकार” केवल किसी एक ही आदमी के पास नही हो सकता। विशेषाधिकार के इस तरह के दावे मुर्खतापूर्ण और स्वार्थो से भरे हैं।

भगवान को जानने के लिये इंसान को किसी बिचोलिये की जरूरत नही है।

उसे कोई भी इंसान जान सकता है, हालाँकि उसको जानने की कुछ शर्तें, कायदे या नियम तो हो सकते है। पर उस भगवान को जानने के लिए किसी भी बिचोलिये पर विश्वास करने या निर्भर रहने की जरूरत नहीं है।

कोई भी इंसान उन शर्तों को पूरा कर के खुद भगवान से मिल सकता है, उसे देख सकता है, उसे जान सकता है, उस अतिभोतिक स्तिथी को प्राप्त कर सकता है। भगवान महावीर ने यही समझाया है। भगवान बुद्ध ने यही समझाया है। भगवान कृष्ण ने यही समझाया है। भारतवर्ष में उपजे हुए सभी धर्म यही समझाते हैं।

यही सिद्धान्त आधुनिक विज्ञान भी हमे समझाता है। सत्य को जानने के लिये “प्रयोग” करना होता है; उस “प्रयोग” को कोई भी और कहीं भी कर सकता है और हर बार सत्य वही निकलेगा। कोई एक आदमी – अकेला आदमी – सत्य जानने का दावा नही कर सकता। ऐसा दावा कुदरत के नियम के खिलाफ है। कुदरत सबके साथ एक जैसा बर्ताव करती है। कुदरत कभी भी ऐसा नही करती कि केवल एक आदमी ही उसको जाने। जिसने भगवान को देख लिया है, उसके दर्शन कर लिये हैं, वह बाकी आम आदमियों के लिये एक शिक्षक तो हो सकता है, एक मार्ग दर्शक तो हो सकता है पर इससे अधिक और कुछ भी नही, फिर चाहे वह पैगम्बर हो या कोई महान सन्त महात्मा हो। भगवान बुद्ध ने तो इस बारे में यहां तक कहा है कि “अप्प दीपक भव” यानि व्यक्ति को खुद ही उस “अन्तिम सत्य” को पाना होगा, दूसरा आदमी – पैगम्बर समेत – केवल मदद कर सकता है, मार्ग दिखा सकता है।

%d bloggers like this: