“Hindu Pakistan” Can Never be Like Pakistan

Today in India there is a whole hoard of so-called eminent persons – writers, artiests, cinema celebrities etc – who criticize the present government led by Modi by flinging an accusation that India is on the way to become a “Hindu Pakistan”. They have become particularly more ferocious and vocal in this accusation, while they support the agitation cooked by opposition political parties against the CAA – Citizens Amendment Act, a law that grants right to the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains of Pakistan who were persecuted there to obtain Indian citizenship. These “eminent” persons try to make it believed that they “do not like” what Pakistan is and what that country stands for. No body can peep into their hearts to find out what in fact is stored there about Pakistan. Their hearts – like the heart of anybody else – are their private chambers holding there their private secrets about their love or hate for that country.

But it is very strange on their part that they have never spoken a single word protesting against the persecution of these minority communities of Pakistan.

It is rightly said, acts of a person speak louder than his words. Do they hold these communities are not persecuted in Pakistan? They cannot be supposed to be that ignorant or innocent in this age of internet, when the YouTube, Twitter, Blogs etc are full of real time details of the heart wrenching facts of murders, rapes and inhuman treatment of these communities in Pakistan – simply on the ground that they are “Kafirs” in the eyes of Muslims of Pakistan. Do persons like Javed Akhtar not watch YouTube? Nobody can believe that. Does YouTube not have real stories narrated and uploaded on YouTube in Pakistan by the persecuted people of these communities? Today anybody having a smart phone can shoot and upload on internet the events of his life. Any doubt? YouTube is full of these stories and nobody – except the one who loves Pakistan and wishes to gloss over these crimes of Pakistan – can doubt their authenticity. Why Pakistan is full of such inhuman crimes against their minority communities? Pakistan was created and founded on a thinking – the Islamic pure land. What is this “Islamic pure land” like? Here we are re-producing the material bearing on this aspect. If India ever becomes a “Hindu Pakistan”, it can not become like Pakistan. “Hindu Pakistan” can never be like Pakistan. Why it is so? Here we are again re-producing an article having a bearing on this fact. There are two parts of this article. The first part deals about the mentality of Pakistan. And the second part deals with “Hindu Pakistan”, that is, India dominated by the Hindu thinking.


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 Muslims 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 Muslims – 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.


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.

Conscience: Let it Be Beacon to Humanity in 2020

By: Shreepal Singh

(Message to humanity for New year 2020)

Do we know what is brain? Of course yes; and it is located in our head. Do we know our mind? Not sure; perhaps it is a property – or an output – of our brain. But we are well aware of our mind; we have mind. Do we know our thoughts? Yes, we are well aware of our thoughts too. Where are they located in our body? Perhaps, they are the output of our mind; and in turn, they are an output of our brain. But thoughts are there; there is no doubt that we have our thoughts. Our science – the dominant branch of our knowledge – is nothing but a bundle of our thoughts – complex thoughts. All scientific laws, principles and hypothesis are our thoughts, which we have found – or are trying to find – this Nature always follows. Does this Nature know these thoughts? Of course not; Nature is not living; it is dead; there is no possibility of Nature having any thoughts, which we call this Nature’s laws (like  laws of gravity, electro-magnetic force etc.). This is our knowledge. This is the limit of our knowledge of Nature today. These are nothing but thoughts. We have thoughts and we are conscious of them.

Do we know our heart? Yes, it is located in our body in our chest. What is love or hate? Where are they located in our body? Not sure, they may be an output of our organic heart. We cannot see or located our emotions like love and hate. But we are sure love and hate exist; we are well aware of them. When we feel emotions like love, hate, anger, fear, empathy etc. there are some signature tunes in our body – then there are secretions of some specific chemicals in our body, which are associated with those emotions and testify to the existence of love, hate, anger etc.

We are not aware today of the fact that such love and hate too, just like thoughts, are integral parts of this Nature, albeit in altogether a different form. It is difficult to believe such claim at the stage of our today’s knowledge of Nature. There are many things in Nature, which we do not believe – we cannot believe. It is not the fault of Nature; it is our fault.

Is it possible for us to combine together our particular thought, like say humanism, with our particular emotion, say love? It is not easy; but sometimes we find them combined together – overlapping each other. If we go back to the organic foundation of these two diverse things – thought and love – we reach brain and heart. It is not always easy to bring thoughts and emotions in harmony. Most often, we find our emotions are illogical and our reason stands against our emotions. This is where we find our civilization is standing at present. Our civilization finds mind and emotions contradictory to each other. This civilization has to give precedence to one over another. And, our civilization has given the precedence to mind over the other one.

We say, we are humans only because we are reasonable. We push emotions to lower grade; we declare them belonging to fools – almost like children. We are better because we are not children.

What is conscience? Do we have conscience? We say, it is nonsense! We push its status even below emotions. We are wrong in dismissing – or even degrading – it; we are completely wrong. We have a faint – a very faint – feeling of the existence of our conscience. We do not know where it is located in our body but sometime this conscience becomes so loud to make itself heard by us and paid attention to that we cannot but have to hear its voice. Have you ever heard of persons who had committed some serious crime like murder, but were not caught by the authorities, to have come forward, confess to the crime and beg to the police to be punished for that crime? This is one example of hearing the voice of conscience. There are many – innumerable – such instances; and they happen in all countries and among all kinds of people – religions, ideologies, way of life etc.

Such persons know what is conscience. To them, it is crystal clear like a day light. They have no doubt. No amount of logic, reason or arguments is able to dislodge their belief in the voice of their conscience. To them, at such critical moment in their life, their conscience becomes more vocal than the logic of their mind and all its arsenal.

Our conscience lies buried deep under the weight of our limitless thoughts, emotions and prejudices. We are oblivious of its existence and deaf to its voice. We have been taught since our childhood to ignore its beacon, if it still comes to the surface of our consciousness, then to suppress it. Our civilization is founded on the principle of the suppression of its existence and its voice. Though of and on we – each one of us – become aware of its existence and its powerful – in fact, overriding – voice but our society, our civilization, does not encourage us to pay attention to its voice – to even recognize its existence.

Conscience does exist as a hard fact, as hard as our thoughts; it twinkles like a distant star – far away from us – deep within our existence. It beacons us to listen to it but in vain. It is not in a hurry to be heard; it patiently awaits its hour to be recognized, much like our thoughts and emotions. It awaits the time when it would be given by our society a place above our mind and mind’s indecisive thoughts, which remain in perpetual doubts and confusion and a place above our emotions, which much distort the benevolent light of this conscience.

Conscience twinkles within us like a distant star. It is more accurate and advantageous in its yield to us than our mind and this mind’s thoughts. It never fails in its judgment. It is the fountainhead of morality – the morality of a theist and an atheist both. It never fails in righteousness.

How can one become aware of its existence in one’s daily routine life? What is its utility in one’s private life? What is its place in our society? Look at a star in the sky;  it twinkles – though faintly – up above in the sky, as we are told in the well known children’s jingle; it is just like that. How do we find that twinkling star? We look at it; we try to locate it; we concentrate on it.

Our conscience is like the twinkling light deep within us – at a very distant location, a very deep location within us. It is difficult to locate it but it is not very difficult to trace its twinkling light. It is a light – as clear as our thoughts. It is there in everybody. It is your true guide. It is you. It has a voice. It speaks. It speaks to you. The only difficulty is that we do not like to hear its voice – a faint voice, a distant voice – because it looks to us absurd in its suggestions. It is not very difficult to locate, because it is you – you yourself. In the tranquility of your mind – in the leisure of your time, when there is nobody between you and its voice – the voice of your conscience speaks to you. If you pay a little attention to it, it calls you; its voice becomes louder to be clear to you and unmistakable in its bidding. Then, there is nothing strong enough to challenge its authority – your religion, your faith, your ideas, your precious concerns of this life. Then, nothing stands as an obstacle between you and this voice. It guides you to the best way – out of all the possible ways – in the given circumstances for you, though that way may look an absurd one to you at that moment. But if you obey it, later on it comes out to be the best one for you. If you obey its voice and call, it does so always and unfailingly. This voice becomes you yourself. If you hear it and obey its commands as a habit, then you are not an ordinary human being; you are much above ordinary people – and without an inflated ego. You come out of this psychological exercise back to this world as a totally transformed – different – person. Then, people around you would find that you have become a model of morality, which should be an ideal for humanity. Then, people would find in you, in your words and your conduct qualities that are nothing less than miracles to ordinary people. This is the power of conscience. Conscience is better and higher than mind and emotions, both.

The world is moving in the direction of making this element of conscience as the foundation of our civilization. Universal respect for humans rights and protection of animals’ rights are some of the outer signs of the reflection of this inner conscience. It is an unfolding of a better civilization. Let us all – humanity at large – look inside us, hear our conscience and craft a better civilization for all of us and for our posterity. Let this be the message from a feeble voice from India to the world for the new year 2020.

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.

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.

Impact of History on Future: Cult of Non-violence

By: Shreepal Singh

India’s official history of her freedom struggle asserts that this country won her freedom from the foreign power – the British imperialists – by non-violent means. Songs were compiled and sung in melodious tones to highlight this “unique” achievement of India.

Non-violence looks like a saintly courage in the face of a brutal force and the word “violence” evokes a deep indignation in our mind and an abhorrence to our conscience. But the reality is that “violence” is the integral part of life of ordinary humanity, whether one likes it or not.

Violence cannot be wished away in this world. It has to be faced as a reality here. Violence belongs to the world and non violence belongs to saints, and this world is not full of saints. It has its full quota of crooked persons who are violent in their thoughts and deeds. One cannot help it.

We are real people and we live in the real world.

Indians must be objective in finding the truth and honest in accepting the truth, because a fanciful approach in this matter has serious consequences for a country. Such a fanciful approach in this matter has implications affecting the correct assessment of the past, facing the present and getting ready to meet the future properly.

Nothing can be more far from truth than the assertion that India got freedom by waging a non-violent struggle.

Flaunting the power of non-violence in getting India free is a slap on the face of those who fought pitched battles with the British power in India and lost their lives at their hands. It is an insult to the sacred memory of those great sons and daughters of Mother India – in thousands, if not more – who suffered torture, agony and misfortune in the service of their Motherland. It is an insult to the supreme sacrifices made by  Jatin Bagha, Master Da Surya Sen, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Subhash Chandra Bose and countless others like them.

Non-violence is a great virtue but it has very serious limitations. It has these limitations not because non violence is unworthy but because the people against whom this non-violence is practiced are more often than not unworthy of this virtuous treatment.

Non violence is founded on moral superiority and – in turn – morality is founded on religious teachings. But the fact is that all religions are not alike in the matter of their foundational morality. Some religions preach and follow the moral standrads, which are immoral ones in the eyes of other religions. Even in some of them, the resort to violence is not only an established morality but a sacred duty to do it in certain circumstances. Most of humanity today follow these diverse religions and practice such diverse concepts of marality. One has to live in this world and face the material acts – including violent acts – based on the morality of one’s religion. Let us deal with the reality of this real world around us and find the just place for ‘non-violence’ – the cult of non-violence – in this world full of people believing in diverse concepts of morality.

Here is an excerpt from Sri Aurobindo – The Morality of Boycott, an unpublished writing of Sri Aurobindo, seized by the Police and made an exhibit in the Alipore Conspiracy Case (May, 1908):

“When tamas, inertia, torpor have benumbed a nation, the strongest forms of rajas are necessary to break the spell; there is no form of rajas so strong as hatred. Through rajas we rise to sattwa, and for the Indian temperament the transition does not take long. Already the element of hatred is giving place to the clear conception of love for the Mother as the spring of our political actions.”

“A certain class of mind shrinks from aggressiveness as if it were a sin. Their temperament forbids them to feel the delight of battle and they look on what they cannot understand as something monstrous and sinful.

” ‘Heal hate by love’, ‘drive out injustice by justice’, ‘slay sin by righteousness’ is their cry.

“Love is a sacred name, but it is easier to speak of love than to love. The love which drives out hate is a divine quality of which one man in a thousand is capable. A saint full of love for all mankind possesses it, a philanthropist consumed with a desire to heal the miseries of the race possesses it, but the mass of mankind does not and cannot rise to the height.

“Politics is concerned with masses of mankind and not with individuals.[10] To ask masses of mankind to act as saints, to rise to the height of divine love and practise it in relation to their adversaries or oppressors is to ignore human nature.

“It is to set a premimum on injustice and violence by paralysing the hand of the deliverer when raised to strike. The Gita is the best answer to those who shrink from battle as a sin, and aggression as a lowering of morality.” — The Morality of Boycott, an unpublished writing of Sri Aurobindo seized by the Police and made an exhibit in the Alipore Conspiracy Case 1908.

“Hinduism recognises human nature and makes no such impossible demand. It sets one ideal for the saint, another for the man of action, a third for the trader, a fourth for the serf.

“To prescribe the same ideal for all is to bring about varṇasaṅkara, the confusion of duties…. Politics is the ideal of the Kshatriya, and the morality of the Kshatriya ought to govern our political actions.

“To impose in politics the Brahmanical duty of saintly sufferance is to preach varṇasaṅkara. (ibid.)

“The sword of the warrior is as necessary to the fulfilment of justice and righteousness as the holiness of the saint. Ramdas is not complete without Shivaji.

“To maintain justice and prevent the strong from despoiling and the weak from being oppressed is the function for which the Kshatriya was created.[11] ‘Therefore’, says Sri Krishna in the Mahabharata, ‘God created battle and armour, the sword, the bow and the dagger.’” (ibid.)

Referring to the circumstances in which passive or nonviolent resistance fails, Sri Aurobindo says: “To shrink from bloodshed and violence under such circumstances is a weakness deserving as severe a rebuke as Sri Krishna addressed to Arjuna on the field of Kurukshetra.

“Liberty is the life-breath of a nation; and when the life is attacked, when it is sought to suppress all chance of breathing by violent pressure, any and every means of self-preservation becomes right and justifiable[12]

” … just as it is lawful for a man who is being strangled to rid himself of the pressure on his throat by any means in his power. It is the nature of the pressure which determines the nature of the resistance.[13]

Enlarging upon the necessary evil of war and aggression, ,[14] so long as man in the mass is what he is, Sri Aurobindo writes in his Essays on the Gita:

“War and destruction are not only a universal principle of our life here in its purely material aspects, but also of our mental and moral existence.

“It is self-evident that in the actual life of man intellectual, social, political, moral, we can make no real step forward without a struggle, a battle between what exists and lives and what seeks to exist and live, and between all that stands behind either.

“It is impossible, at least as men and things are, to advance, to grow, to fulfil and still to observe really and utterly that principle of harmlessness which is yet placed before us as the highest and best law of conduct. We will use only soul-force and never destroy by war or any even defensive employment of physical violence?

“Good, though until soul-force is effective, the Asuric force in man and nations tramples down, breaks, slaughters, burns, pollutes, as we see it doing today, but then at its ease and unhindered, and you have perhaps caused as much destruction of life by your abstinence as others by resort to violence; still you have set up an ideal which may some day and at any rate ought to lead up to better things.

“But even soul-force, when it is effective, destroys. Only those who have used it with eyes open, know how much more terrible and destructive it is than the sword and the cannon; and only those who do not limit their view to the act and its immediate results, can see how tremendous are its after-effects, how much is eventually destroyed and with that much all the life that depended on it and fed upon it.

“Evil cannot perish without the destruction of much that lives by the evil, and it is no less destruction even if we personally are saved the pain of a sensational act of violence.

“Moreover, every time we use soul-force we raise a great force of Karma against our adversary, the after-movements of which we have no power to control. Vasishtha uses soul-force against the military violence of Vishwamitra and armies of Huns and Shakas and Pallavas hurl themselves on the aggressor.

“The very quiescence and passivity of the spiritual man under violence and aggression awakens the tremendous forces of the world to a retributive action; and it may even be more merciful to stay in their path, though by force, those who represent evil than to allow them to trample on until they call down on themselves a worse destruction than we would ever think of inflicting.

“It is not enough that our own hands should remain clean and our souls unstained for the law of strife and destruction to die out of the world; that which is its root must first disappear out of humanity…. So far as the problem of the individual’s action goes, his abstention from strife and its inevitable concomitant destruction in their more gross and physical form may help his own moral being, but it leaves the Slayer of creatures unabolished.”[15]

“A day may come, must surely come, we will say, when humanity will be ready spiritually, morally, socially for the reign of universal peace; meanwhile the aspect of battle and the nature and function of man as a fighter have to be accepted and accounted for by any practical philosophy and religion.”[16]

An Evaluation of Mahatma Gandhi

By: Shreepal Singh

Mahatma Gandhi, as he is affectionately called in India, is an official “Father of Nation” for India. He is revered throughout the civilized world. He is a pride of India. He is like a Buddha or Christ for much of the democratic world. These are his virtues; but they stand in the way of his realistic evaluation in the world, in which we live. He is taller after his death in assassination than when he was alive. India is known by his name. But nothing is static in Nature; the world marches on with time. Sometimes an evaluation becomes necessary for a nation to reconcile with itself, with the reality in which it lives. Such evaluation of a great man like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is not palatable, particularly after 70 years, but it becomes necessary to reconcile India with truth. Here is one such evaluation:

  1. Initial life of Gandhi (for example, at the time when he sided with the British imperialism in Boar War in South Africa and became their military’s Major Sargent for its ambulance corp) was bad. But everybody may commit mistakes in one’s initial immature life. This bad point has not much value when compared to what he did later on in his life.

  2. He grew up when he got the idea of passive resistance, which was an idea got by trial and error method, in South Africa. He was honest to that idea to the core of his heart, he stuck to that philosophy through out his life and practiced it in India.

  3. He was honest to that philosophy beyond reasonable limits – even destroying his family (his son and wife) because of this obstinacy. In his inner private life, he was somewhat above religion (having a mental idea of universality of all religions) but below the accomplishments of a spiritual Yogi. He did not rise above mind and emotions (in spiritual terminology, vital forces) and their limitations, which every Yogi knows and crosses over in Sadhna. Even Sri Aurobindo hinted at his inflated ego.

  4. He was not much aware of Indian history – how India fought valiantly for one thousand years against religious bigotry, how India sacrificed millions of innocent life (for example, killings made by Babar, Mughals, Jauhars – called Saka – committed by Hindu women in the face of attempted violation of their honor, conversion by violence like beheading of Guru Teg Bahadur, imposing Zazia on Hindus etc.) and how non-violence is not a virtue before a brute.

  5. Because of his ignorance of history he committed many political blunders – like supporting Khilafat movement, trusting the British good sense (over confidence of an innocent bafoon) for Indians but had a misplaced distrust against Subhash Chandra Bose; trusted Jawahar Lal Nehru more as against Sardar Patel. Because of this ignorace he trusted Zinnah, Sohrab Vardy and Pakistan – though Pakistan’s political leaders openly declared him an average person, a detastable Hindu – as against Sardar Patel (for example, financially helping Pak despite its attack on Kashmir.

  6. His ideal of non-violence is the highest ideal of humanity … but …. a big but. But till humans are what they are – bigotted, religiously blind, with animal instincts like dominating the competitors by any and every means – non-violence is NOT A VIRTUE. It is a vice. It is a truth that must be admitted. It cannot be an ideal. It is a suicide formula. The proof of this truth can be found in the fate of minorities in Pak, Bangladesh, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc. Committing suicide is not a virtue. Plunging into well is not a virtue. Calling death and embracing it heartily is not a virtue. India has been following “Varnas” system – it is against Kshtriya Dharma. It is against Geeta. Here one has to chose: Gandhi versus Geeta. Let us test its truth. Just imagine we believe in non-violence and we disband Indian army! Why army, even if we disband police, what will be shape of India? A falsehood has to be rejected. Rejecting falsehood is following the truth. You ask any country – USA, England, you name any – to disband their military and see their answer! Let us not make a fool of ourselves. No authority – even a Father of Nation – is greater than the truth. We can neglect the truth at our own peril

  7. It is an analysis of MKG what he stood for till his death in 1948. But India has suffered much more after 1948 because of this idealistic – non-practical – philosophy. Appeasement politics is the direct outcome of this vision – love to all ignoring the bad points of the appeased ones. India has not surpassed Japan, China, even Singapore, Malaysia etc. only because this country has rejected the theory that we should see the stark reality – the truth. We have become a sleeping country ridden with corrupt politicians only because of this passive and false vision of life.

  8. Truth, non-violence, love ARE NOT STATIC formula. They cannot be applied to all regardless of who they are. You cannot love electric current, it will kill you; you cannot love a rabid animal, it will kill you; you confront a habitual offender – a serial killer – to tell him to spare you, he will most likely harm you; you befriend and lovingly trust a person who is religiously obsessed to convert or kill a Kafir, he will kill you if you don’t comply his dictate (do you need an example? Indian history is full of good people who were so killed). Did MKG think for a moment why Sikh Guru Govind Singh had to divert the entire energy of Sikh Panth away from the peaceful path of devoting to Akal-Purush (God) towards the path of fighting the wicked, while devoting to God? If you strike your head against stone, your head will be broken. Obstinacy – persistence without applying reason – does not pay in this world, which has its plentiful quota of wicked persons. Your such obstinacy may harm you, and harm all those who follow you, who have faith in you. If you are held high – a great man – in the estimation of your followers, it becomes all the more important for you to apply reason, to think as a reasonable person; it leaves no scope for you to be obstinate, to be obsessed. Of course, an accomplished Yogi can do it without harm (Buddha chaged Angulimal) but all people – billions of Indians – are not Buddha. Even Pak is not a Buddha. A Yogi – an accomplished spiritual person – has to rise above “thoughts and its world” – called by Patanjali “Chitta Vritti Nirodh”. One who so rises above thoughts, has the power of changing the thoughts of others too – like Buddha did to Angulimaal. Thoughts make people different from each other; thoughts can make them a loving and kind person or, alternatively, a cruel murderer and rapist. The proof of the truth – and the example of following the untruth by MKG on this aspect – is that Gandhi could not change the thought of those Muslims who went to Pakistan, the thought that they and Hindus were one in essence; despite Gandhi’s sainthood, these Muslims thought that they were a separate people, that their religion and culture were separate. They created Pakistan despite MKG’s opposition to it. We are not concerned here with the “craftiness” of the British imperialists in intentionally creating Pakistan but the efficacy of the Gandhi’s way. Gandhi still persisted that Pakistan’s Muslims should be treated as if they are one with India. It was not so; they attacked Kashmir and supplied arms to Nizam of Hyderabad for fighting against India. Truth is to see and accept the reality. Non-violence is: Do not kill the weak but kill the brute to save the weak. Love is: All are having a Divine soul (Atma) in them, even if they do not know it; so love them, take care of them, save them from harm, bring them on to a good path. Bring the wrong-doer on to the good path; it is loving him; it would be beneficial to the wrong-doer too.

  9. MKG was an innocent and honest human being. But he was ignorant. He also had an inflated ego, which is normal thing for one who might be a religious person but not an accomplished in spiritual achievements. He must be given his due place, without any doubt. MKG should be accorded his due respectful place in India because he made effort in the right direction. He tried to attain the level of Buddha or Christ by rising above the level of ordinary people, though he could not attain that level. He was a great human being because he walked on the path of Buddha and Christ in an age dominated by materialism. It is unbelievable thing in the modern age to have been done by any person, an age in which we live.

  10. He is the pride of India and a symbol of India for peace and non-violence. But India must not be allowed to suffer because of the weakness of his philosophy, or vision – if one wants to call it a vision. The truth is that this world is full of good and wicked people. Let the good unite to destroy the wicked – without any ill-will or affection. India should not harbor an enmity against the wicked but must do its duty to destroy the wicked to save the peace loving good people from them. So far as the need for India to follow the path of MKG is concerned, let first Indians rise in their character like Buddha before hoping to change criminal Angulimals of this world by non-violence. Till then, India must be guided by Geeta where the wicked has to be vanquished by the Kshtriya so that the wicked is punished, the good is saved and the peace for the good is ensured in this world. According to Geeta, it is the duty of a Kshtriya. Let India be guided by this teaching.

Climate Change and a Cry to Save Humanity

By: Shreepal Singh

“How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and childhood with your empty words. We will not let you get away with this. Right now is where we draw the line”, cried a 16 year old climate activist in New York outside the “Climate Summit” venue where the world leaders had gathered to deliberate the danger of climate change.  This child gave the voice, the words, to the anguish of humanity at large. The leaders of our civilization have sold us dreams – the dreams of prosperity, happiness in our life and paradise on earth. Instead what they gave us are our lost childhood and gloom in life. What we have today on our hands are not only violence all around us and our disturbed mental peace but also a hanging sword on the very existence of our life on earth. Earth is inching towards an unbearable scorching heat. During the period from 1850  to 2018, the global mean temprature  on earth has risen to 1.01 degree celcious. This trend and what we already have on our hands is deadful.

At the climate summit many leaders spoke many things. Some showed the need to act urgently to avert the coming catastrophe and some looked to the whole issue of climate change almost a non-existant one, a hoax.

The world leaders fell in a spectrum ranging from those who held “climate change” a hoax to those who undelined the need to act urgently to avert the oncoming climate change catastrophe. While the US President Donald Trump chose not to be part of this global effort, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reminded the world that now the time was not to talk but to act.

Suprisingly, even those who spoke of the need to act fast did not go beyond suggesting the need to cut global carbon emission by simply substituting the traditional sources of energy (carbon emmitting fosil fuel) with the renewable sources of energy (like solar energy and bio-fuel). Not even one of those who were present there dared to raise his accusing fingar at the root cause of the problem: The un-quenchable human appetite for consumption of goodies and limitless exploitation of natural resources and unbriddled production of those goodies.

What was missing from the deliberations of this gathering of humanity in New York was the absence of any suggestion of conctete and viable roadmap to address the real culprit of this problem: Our endorsement of the culture of excessive consumption.

In the face of this dreadful reality, our unwillingness to address the root cause of the problem and to persist with continuing a greedy economics is nothing but selling the empty dreams. Our wisdom lays in fabricating an alternative world civilization. We have invited the existantial threat of climate change ourselves. What we do today is this.

Remaining oblivious to our commonality of ideal, goal and fate, we pursue our petty selfish interests and mutually inimical agendas; we act in unjustified ways. We go ahead in these perilous pursuits doggedly and pretend otherwise hypocritically. Because of our unreasonable conduct we bring on Earth uncomfortable conditions and perilous circumstances for life. Because of these antagonistic stands, we have disputes – serious disputes – among us that can destroy us. With all this knowledge, how come we do not mend our ways? It is because of our greed for more wealth. Our education, our mission of life, our whole civilization is geared to amass more and more wealth. We have been taught wealth gives us happiness and more wealth gives us more hapiness. We have been fooled into believing that the limitless wealth gives us the limitless happiness. It is factually wrong. We have been sold this dream to become wealthy in whatever way possible – merciless competition, unethical violence and what not – and become happy. The pursuit of this dream has brought this dreadful climate change. If we do not check our way of life soon – notwithstanding solar energy or other inexhaustable sources of energy – we will be putting an end to our existence as happy life thriving on earth. What is the way out of this predicament for us? It is to become wise. It is to turn to reality. It is to turn ourselves towards an internal peace of mind and heart. There is an ancient discipline of this knowledge, which is called Yoga. Yoga is not to be confused with the physical exercise that people take to keep them fit in their body. Yoga is deeper and involves the voluntary transformation of one’s body, emotitions, mind and beyond them into subtle dimensions of human consciousnessness. And, it is not religion.

Yoga in its impact on human mind is so powerful that its education in our academic institutions can bring a fundamental shift in human behavior and in economic institutions of our civilization. Economics is founded on the demand (of consumers) and the supply (of commodities). The knowledge of Yoga has the power to change the priorities of our life. As economic activities of production, distribution and consumption of commodities are dependent on normal human behavior, a change in this behavior is sure to bring a tectonic change in the economic model that we follow today.

The academic education of Yoga is sure to create a new perception of life and awareness to cater to the needs of that perception. And, in turn, such spiritual awareness will kick-start a chain reaction: Change in normal human behavior would result in lesser demands; lesser industrial activities; lesser production; lesser global warming; lesser crimes (born out of the decreasing resources and increasing competition to possess them); and lesser social immorality.

We already know that economic prosperity and wealth, beyond a certain limit, do not necessarily bring more happiness in our life. This wisdom coupled with the education of Yoga can usher us into a new age of a simpler and enlightened life. History teaches us that knowledge, education and awareness have great impact on our way of life, personal and social both.

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: