Polyamory is Not Polygamy

Recently a particular post courtesy the degenerate left caused something of a hullaballo in yon hallowed digital halls of Internet Hindus. While  Sringara topics are nothing new on ICP, perhaps nothing heralds the Death of Romance more than polyamory.

Many of challenges facing Indic society (and indeed World Society) today are being attributed to irresponsible or unromantic or “unperforming” men. But the reality is it takes two hands to clap. Although we have been very empathetic to the plight of the modern woman, as seen in this article explaining Why Gentlemen Matter (useful for redpill champions), both modern men AND modern women are responsible for the current state of things. Whether modernity (or post-modernity) is itself the issue is another matter, but at the root of this is Selfishness.

It is this selfishness that is preyed upon by marketers the world over. Contrary to the “performance” theory causing certain phenomena, it is the role of marketing and image-shaping. This too is a type of psywar. After all, what better way to break morale than from within. But defeatism achieves nothing. Even fighting only the enemy you wish, achieves nothing. It’s only when you understand that what faces your civilization in fact faces the entire world, that you begin to understand why degeneracy such as polyamory (or bollywood amory) is promoted to begin with. A polygamous past (polygyny and polandry) is reinterpreted to suit exigencies of the present. No society better represented the cesspool of social engineering than the Soviet Union.

It is also why Post-Modern Society is a Bastard Society. But the response to this cannot be promotion of adharmic Nazi eugenics. As we’ve adduced evidence here, Fascism is just Socialism for Nationalists, resulting in social engineering again. Therefore, the true traditionalist rejects these Western constructs and paradigms, and studies his own tradition through its own lens. This means understanding exactly why the Puranas had such gender-bending stories (but don’t promote transgenderism) and why Polyandry and Polygamy could be practiced without promoting Polyamory.

Readers, please note: None of this is to encourage polyandry or polygyny, but to explain why they existed and were accepted in previous eras—but are not necessarily the ideal, and were certainly not polyamory. The simple reason why polygamy or even remarriage existed in previous times is not all souls are at the level of selflessness of Sita & Rama. Most “modern” people—whatever they may protest— do not even have control over their loins let alone their hearts. Not all individuals are spiritually evolved enough to only take one spouse in a life. Rather than feeling a need to serve a spouse (yes, this applies to both spouses…), most take a spouse to serve a need…and especially a feeling. But that isn’t a basis to change the definitions of Dharma, based on devas (lower case d) or even Draupadi. We must consider the Devas (capital D, i.e. the Trimurthi).

Brahma married only Sarasvati, Vishnu only Lakshmi, & even Shiva only married Parvati upon realizing she was the reincarnated form of his first wife Sati. Brahma did not “marry his daughter” Sarasvati, but married his other half. Being the Creator, he had the dilemma of having to create her physical form from his mind. But his story is echoed by the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad where the Supreme Being has to divide itself into halves—resulting in a man and women in eternal embrace.

Comparisons to Krishna or Rajas or rich merchants of previous eras ignores the fact that the vast majority of Hindu men were permitted to take only 1 wife (with a second only permitted if the first were barren). Kings and rich merchants are not always spiritual beings, and as for the case of Krishna, he had to marry all the women who did tapas to gain a husband “like Rama”. Hence Vishnu had to marry them in a future avatar to fulfill their boons. Other cases only saw multiple wives only when some unfortunate girl could not find a husband. Maharana Pratap married many wives, not a few of whom wished to be rescued from the clutches of Mughals. Through him, they had the protection of a valiant King.

maharanapratap

As for the Pandavas, they are neither here nor there, because these cases of polyandry exist/existed for a specific necessity. In the case of the Pandavas, it was because of Draupadi’s previous request for the boon of the perfect husband (no such man exists) and her desire for her husband in a previous life to make love to her in 5 different physical forms (resulting in a curse). Finally, there is the additional fact that the Pandavas themselves were so loyal to each other (with none of the younger 4 desiring his own kingdom) because all were amsa-avataras of Indra himself. Though born to different Devas, they were all the same soul (which is why they acted in such unison). Draupadi herself was Indra’s wife Sachi—and there is even a tradition showing the spiritual granularity of it all that states that when each husband sired a son on Draupadi, it was only that corresponding portion of Sachi’s soul which was activated in Draupadi at that time.

Even the case of the sons of Dasaratha is instructive. While traditionally we hear that Rama was Vishnu, Lakshmana was Adi Sesha, and Bharat and Shatrughna Sudarsana and Panchajanya respectively, Valmiki simply states that Mahavishnu divided himself into four portions, with Lakshmi ostensibly doing the same. Rama was naturally the largest portion (1/2), Lakshmana (1/4) and Bharata and Shatrughna (1/8 each), and marrying their corresponding portions of Lakshmi (i.e. Sita, Urmila, Mandavi, & Shrutakeerthi).

Simple minded arguments from simple minds such as this one don’t give license to deprecate or destroy traditional morality. If you do not want to live a certain traditional way in ‘modern society’—that is fine. But do not call it “dharmic” saying “traditional morality is Victorian”. Nor should the shameless pedants justifying “alternative lifestyles” as ok’d by dharmasastra be taken for “acharyas” when they are merely sellout poets lusting for lucre. Could all these live under the auspices of a “Dharmic society”—sure. But also remember, with the freedom of expression also comes the freedom of association…

Regardless, rather than gender defining the relationship—it is the relationship which necessitates the defining of gender. It is why we often find male gods with a female form (Vishnu as Mohini) and female gods with a male form. The soul itself carries no gender. When the soul divides into halves, gender becomes necessary for a romantic relationship to take place—real romance reaches its peak with the physical potential for a couple to conceive a child. But gender alone can’t become the basis for limiting someone or her freedom. Trust doesn’t mean putting someone in a box or cage (or in chains or chastity belts). Trust means setting someone free—because you know no matter where they are, what they’re doing, or whom they’re interacting with, that person will never betray you—physically or emotionally or spiritually. Rather than freedom being equated to polyamory, it is in monogamy that there is true freedom (the freedom to love as deeply as you please in perfect security, rather than the conditions placed on single serving “love” of constant insecurity—seen in polyamory).

Leave aside monogamy for a second, mono-amory (when genuine) doesn’t ask the question “did he love his first wife more?” let alone “first girlfriend or current mistress”.  Polyamory doesn’t solve the problem of someone you romantically love dearly, loving someone else more than you. After all, if someone has to be rescued or someone needs a kidney—whom will it be? This is the question polyamory proponents never cover…That this concept of “modern romance” could even be considered “real romance” only shows just how far the language and the culture has fallen. When definitions change, society approaches its downfall. Real freedom is not experiencing every fleeting desire…

That is why Acharya Chanakya writes

Sukhasya moolam dharmah Dharmasya moolamarthah |

Arthasya moolam rajyam Rajasya moolam indriyavijayam ||

The Root of Happiness is Dharma. The root of Dharma is Artha. The Root of Artha is Rajyam [Power]. The root of Power is Victory over the Senses [1,129]

If someone can be replaced—was it really love at all? This is something Modern Girls need to think about.The question is whether we as human beings prove ourselves worthy of trust—even when faced with the highest of temptations. That is the barrier that all couples face and must ultimately overcome.

If the freedom of women has waxed and waned over the ages, it is because men must bear fault for most of it—but not all of it. The reality is, cheaters are not always men, and as Tolstoy explored in Anna Karenina, good men are often punished for their unconditional love (and no ladies, they didn’t make you do it). Being badgered over tfr may be irritating, but it doesn’t justify slandering your own like this shalya did (with clinical precision). Attributing certain social phenomena to such things is a sign either of stupidity or complicity—or probably both. But the reality is much simpler: in a time when doing bad feels good, chasing after what is forbidden becomes popular. And this applies to boys and girls brought up in any religion. They chase after what they are forbidden to have. And it works both ways only with differing consequences.

This also shows the importance of not losing the narrative on Love. Contrary to twenty-something anime fanbois, writing on Romantic Love or showcasing it (in Dharmic context) is not “sybaritic nonsense“, but rather an intelligent rejection of Bollywood. Do a check on who were the Action Heroes in the 90s & who were the Romantic Heroes in the 90s, and you’ll have your answer on the psychology behind this. If you leave space uncontested, don’t be surprised if you start losing it. But winning it doesn’t occur through rhetoric or bravado, but in defeating the strategy. The complete man is both warrior & lover.

Main Yoddha Bhi Hoon!

The question for modern women is whether they are indeed worthy of the the love they claim to seek, for the suffering of both men and women are linked to the nature of their behaviour.  Most men are content to sink to the bottom of uncommitted barrel (hence MGTOW). Unjust divorce laws and 498-A did not occur in a vacuum, and are the karmic result of man’s unjust treatment of woman throughout the ages. But as one can see from the more equitable rules of the Vedic period—where women had much more freedom—all too many ladies later were no longer as trustworthy, resulting in their later societal restriction. This is not a justification, but an explanation of the strict moral standards of a different time.

The times and laws have obviously changed, even the letter of Dharmashastra (hence the differing Dharmasutras), but the Principle remains the same. If the illimitable Shiva-Shakti is the goal, then women too cannot always blame men (however deserving)  for their illimitable pigheaded chauvinism, as it is the standard of Shiva’s wife Sati that inspired trust and freedom in the first place. No self-respecting man will ever consent to be cucked or even chumped. The love women feel they are born to give, men reciprocate (assuming they ever do so) only after careful consideration and complete trust. If women wish to gain that trust, they must prove worthy of it. It is true that much of the selfishness of men is inborn or due to baser instincts. But much of it is also due to the first or second-hand experience in the school of hardknocks.

Ending hypocrisy is indeed a two way street. If women are fed up with Neanderthals, to gain the evolved men they want in the post-modern era, they need to first reject the inner Carrie Bradshaw. That is the difference between Surpanakha and Shakti (the true Divine Feminine). When this is the case, men no longer need worry of humiliation and are no longer petty and small-minded about helping a woman achieve her full potential. Because what matters then is not capabilities, but intentions. All this starts first with character. And the foundation of good character is Achara.

There are of course still more polyamory advocates who argue “character be damned!”. For these degenerates, it is the height of “sophistication” to be able to love beyond number (or beyond species!) or beyond gender—be it the 3 genders one finds in many languages classified as “Indo-European” or the new “genders” being invented every day by SJW’s. But neuter gender perfectly aligns with the concept of atman (which has no gender). And the true beauty of love is found in the complementary male-female relationship. Some sages even speak of couples exchanging genders in the peaks of ecstasy out of love for each other, or each one becoming both. But none of this is meant to justify transgenderism or polyamory or who knows what. Rather, it’s meant to show the distinction between consciousness and matter. When we take material form,  it comes with its own rules. A soul splits into a male half and a female half per the Upanishads itself.

And when material form is taken,we must observe the rules of material existence: Dharma.

To give another analogy: As Rama wished to show his appreciation for Lakshmana’s exemplary service as younger brother by being Balarama’s younger brother his next life, would it be so surprising that the same Vishnu might want to show his love for Lakshmi’s life as Sita by repaying this devotion in a future life…hence a possible Mohini avatar? All this may be too gender bending for our 1 dimensional binary thinkers, but it does begin to explain how traditional morality can be at harmony with the gender transcending nature of Divine illimitability.

It also explains why “indologists” and “mythologists” can’t create perverted readings of the Sacred Puranas to misinterpret Dharmasastra or question gender as a biological reality (which it is). If you want to learn the correct interpretation of our Dharmic culture and religion, learn from actual Dharmacharyas…not online simulacra. Consciousness may be illimitable and without form, but matter comes with its own rules when we take form.

sitaram

Male – Female. Husband – Wife. Sita – Ram

Contrary to the policy of hippies, this transcending of gender and “everything being maya” doesn’t mean all the rules go out the door. It simply means that mithya and maya come with their own rules that have to be observed to prevent matsya nyaya. Loving “everyone” doesn’t mean you’re actually loving more. You are merely lusting more while loving less and less. If you romantically love everybody, then you truly love nobody. Nobody is responsible for you and you are responsible for nobody. As in the novel Brave New World, if someone dies, people merely pop a few soma pills, and the party goes on….”zip, zip”. [3, ]

Polyamory is a stepping stone to the cementing of every degeneracy known to man. Even promiscuity goes from being voluntary to forced. Even the sacred word “mother” becomes profane. Childbearing is seen as dirty, and pleasure the highest good (when in fact, it is a means of control). After all, if you can’t bear pain, then you will prefer a pleasant slavery.

Funny how one must absolutely take classes to “learn how to properly appreciate wine”, but the same cannot be done to properly appreciate life!—especially married life! Which is more important: pairing the right wine with the right food?—or pairing the right female with the right male? It seems ‘modern’ Hindus aren’t the only ones with their priorities out of whack.

That modern science can do “wonders” isn’t license for licentiousnessAll of this is not to judge many modern Indians (women and men alike), who have had a number of partners (not at the same time) or even a number of spouses. It’s to explain why your situation is different from these shameless polyamory advocates who are in effect saying “anything goes”. Draupadi was married due to special circumstances—and married to each of those men. Women who have had multiple lovers or husbands over time for whatever reason don’t amount to Anais Nin. Life isn’t always simple and not every woman (or man) is lucky in love (though it does explain why arranged marriage with consent has some logic to it). The point isn’t to judge those of you who were unlucky (or perhaps were confused by society and changing social standards), but to reassert what the traditional standards are in the first place. If even a righteous brahmana like Charudatta married a courtesan like Vasantasena, the latter had to reject all other men and show herself of deserving of such a good man. And of course, as the Valmiki Ramayana explains, even Rama had to show himself worthy of Sita by stringing the divine bow of Shiva.

Finally, one cannot simply point to custom—be it history polygyny among Rajputs or polyandry among Paharis to justify your carnality. The case of polygyny has been explained, and as for the Paharis (some communities among them at least), it’s understandable if skewed gender ratios often result in society adapting to certain circumstances. But that is why the ultimate guide for any society isn’t custom or ritual or tradition, but Dharma (virtue). It is not that custom or ritual or tradition do not matter, only whatever of these might be Dharma in a given circumstance or Yuga, may no longer be when the circumstances change. It is also why Dharma is not rooted in a frozen rna or Rta. Rather, Dharma upholds the moral order Rta which is ultimately the expression of Truth (Satya). That is why truth—rather than a given order—must triumph. This is because it allows us to understand the the reality of a given situation or context, and provide guidance to ensure harmony within it.

We get in life what we deserve. It may be difficult to reconcile traditional morality with divine illimitability (or for that matter, modern degeneracy), but the reality is, it is possible. Just as men have Nara Dharma, there is a Dharma for Naari too. For those who arrogate the right to interpret our sacred texts to justify their unsacred agendas, even if you don’t worship the Divine Feminine, it is important to understand how it drives the internal logic of Dharma. Shakti worship when correctly done, makes women more feminine but also makes men more masculine. By understanding the greatness of the female, a male recognises the need for his own qualities, which then resonate even  more.

Even if a man refuses to believe in “shakti”, the concept reminds Dharmic men that simply because women take on a more delicate and vulnerable form does not give license for physically stronger men to become tyrants. Whatever a particular set of circumstances may demand for harmony, She is his equal half. Shakti is the reminder that if man does not behave properly with Durga, he will get Kaali. But ladies, remember too, that Kaali sits astride the corpse of Shiva. The inauspicious form that Kaali takes does not justify becoming the very selfish and asuric forces Kaali is meant to devour.

Polyamory is not love, but rather, only license to lust. If you wish to degrade yourself in such degenerate definitions as “polyamory”—that is your business. Just don’t compare it with polyandry (which comes with marital duties) or polgyny—and certainly do not call it “Dharma”.

DharmaMandir

References:
  1. Chaturvedi, B.K.Chanakya Neeti.Diamond: New Delhi.2015
  2. Gurumurthy, Swaminathan http://vskkerala.com/society-was-the-source-of-knowledge-for-deendayalji-s-gurumurthy/
  3. Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper. 2006

Book Review: Being and Becoming

Being and Becoming‘ is the title of a contemporary fiction novel by Indian-American author Phalgun Prativadi. Set in the background of the US healthcare industry, the story is about a gifted physician-researcher, Dr. Arya Krish, who is drawn into a battle with a powerful and manipulative giant medical business group, Alpha Corp. You can read the synopsis and excerpts on the book website. The storyline connects two cities, Washington DC, where the main protagonist resides and where his office at Beacon Medical Institute is located, and Bengaluru, which is an HQ for managing his philanthropic projects in India.  The plot unfolds into an escalating chess-like tussle between the shadowy Alpha Corp and Krish, culminating in a fascinating end-game in the final chapter.

The author, with his first-hand knowledge of the US healthcare industry, is able to expertly communicate key aspects of the ongoing clash in the US today between medical care professionals and their patients versus the combined influence of big-hospitals, big-pharma, big-insurance, and big-lobbying (it is Washington DC after all). The author notes that “Ultimately, the insurance company got to decide what happens to the patient. It was an insidious takeover, corrupting the politicians in their favor, and desensitizing the public to their blatant power grab. And, the norm was being declined a certain treatment, facility, or medicine because the insurance company decided it wasn’t worth paying for, while at the same time influencing how much the damn thing costs!“.

Another takeaway is the insightful observation about the approach followed by medical residents (physicians-in-training):these physicians in training all wound up conforming to a single arbitrary but consistent and effective mode of operation. Lately, it seemed to him that they all looked and sounded the same, that none of their individuality came through in their behavior or interactions.” Some may contrast this efficient monoculture backed by first rate infrastructure in the US, with the excellent clinical ability, patient-history taking and examination skills, and diverse methods adopted by Indian doctors to overcome the limitations of equipment shortage.

It is interesting to note the use of a few Sanskrit non-translatables such as Shakti. Introducing a few more would have been handy, but the decision is understandable given the constraints and focus of this genre.

Being and Becoming

As Dr. Krish plots his fightback against Alpha Corp, a manthana emerges within Dr. Arya Krish as he introspects and attempts to reconcile his ‘being’ with what he was ‘becoming’ in this process.  Dr. Prativadi has addressed this inner conflict from a mostly Indic perspective.  This ICP post introduces us to the literary theory and dramatics within classical Indic Literature.  This exploration of inner-space within the novel is refreshing and different from the usual fare, where such discussions tend to get intellectualized using western philosophy and simplistic two-valued logic. The West has studied the being-becoming conundrum by building upon the ideas developed in Ancient Greece by thinkers like Plato, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and others. Such works resolve the issue in the favor of one position or the other, or propose an uneasy and synthetic unity [2] between such opposing poles. In any case, the anxiety latent in this conflict never really goes away.

Such dualities exist all around us. For example, in India, we often hear the phrase “Nation comes first whereas Religion is personal and comes next, and practiced inside the home“. This is taken as a positive way of ‘managing’ diversity, whereas in reality, it admits to a potentially irreconcilable conflict between organized religion and one’s duty to their nation, and that one can at best achieve a compromise without ever resolving the resultant anxiety. Similarly, it is not uncommon for western STEM professionals to be ‘scientists’ inside the lab, while embracing religious or atheistic dogma outside it, again manufacturing a tense unity between two separately independent worlds.  Such a synthesized unity is prone to fissure. On the other hand, this is a non-issue for the diverse dharma traditions of India [2]. Following a dharmic path naturally and always serves the nation as well as science in the most genuine manner.

In India, such pairs of opposites have received the attention of Rishis since the earliest of times and their resolution results in a harmony that rids us of such anxiety. In his book ‘Being Different’ [2], Rajiv Malhotra remarks:

in dharma traditions, integral unity can be discovered and experienced through spiritual practices such as yoga. Since both ‘exterior’ and ‘interior’, body and mind, spirit and matter, individual and collective, are mere manifestations or aspects of an integral whole, it becomes natural to start the quest for ultimate truth using what is at hand, namely the embodied self. Sri Aurobindo’s interpretation of the Isha Upanishad explains nine pairs of opposites and how they are resolved within the integral unity”.

Thus, the Indic solution to this challenge radically differs from the western and embraces an integral rather than a synthetic unity. For example, Sri Aurobindo writes on ‘Being and Becoming’ [3]:

Everything depends on what we see, how we look at existence in our soul’s view of things Being and Becoming, One and Many are both true and are both the same thing: Being is one, Becomings are many; but this simply means that all Becomings are one Being who places Himself variously in the phenomenal movement of His consciousness. We have to see the One Being, but we have not to cease to see the many Becomings, for they exist and are included in Brahman’s view of Himself. Only, we must see with knowledge and not with ignorance…”

On the whole, I enjoyed reading the book, which is the author’s first. The author has skillfully narrated an interesting story without making it a long read, and the plot moves forward briskly. To learn more about the novel and purchase it, please visit the book website. It is also available on Amazon and other retailers.

It is an exciting time to be a reader. There is a new generation of Indian writers who are grounded in India’s deep culture, which allows them to explore the world using an Indic lens and freely express themselves based on their own, authentic Indian experience.

About the Author

Phalgun Prativadi, M. D., is a practicing physician in the United States. He grew up in Maryland and graduated from Penn State, and is currently an infectious diseases physician in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He has previously authored articles for websites such as Hinduism Today. ‘Being and Becoming’ is his first full-length novel, and he hopes to continue the story in the future.

Click here to Buy this Book!

References:
  1. Phalgun Prativadi. Being and Becoming. Dog Ear Publishing. Kindle Edition. 2016.
  2. Rajiv Malhotra. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Harper Collins. 2011.
  3. The Collected Works of Sri, Aurobindo: Isha Upanishad, Vol. 17. 2003.

Classical Indic Art I: Silpa Sastra

Introduction

Art & Architecture is an essential aspect of any civilization. The notion of cultured living itself brings to mind not only material standards but also artistic ones as well. What does a civilization hold dear? What is the nature of its aesthetic? What is considered art and what is considered kitsch? All these things are determined by its fundamental approach to the fine arts.

In contrast to modern and post-modern society, the Indic approach to the fine arts is rooted in the Dharmic:

Padmapani, Ajanta, Maharashtra

In India the cultural chain is never broken. The cardinal truths of life and conduct as incorporated in the Vedas in their characteristic style and symbolism also handed down in the Puranas, though the outward appearance seemed different. [2, 27]

An oft-cited critique of Indian art and iconography is that it is often “erotic” or even “grotesque”. Many foreigners (and foreign directed) often find it difficult to appreciate Indian art. Part of it is of course due to conditioned & close-minded bigotry, as the beauty of Ajanta Paintings should be obvious to anyone with sight, but part of it is also due to lack of sophistication. While Greco-Roman and neo-classical European art is often (rightly) praised for its outward beauty, clumsy comparisons with Indic art frequently ignore the aim of art itself.

As such, any aesthete or connoisseur should have the requisite training to understand what it is they are in fact experiencing. While some Indic art is obviously attractive and magnetic for obvious reasons, other pieces remain compelling in ways only connoisseurs (sahrdayas) can properly understand.

Our previous article on Sthaapatya Veda introduced the upaveda that includes Vaastu, Silpa, and Chitra within its category. In an interesting way, each sub-category is inclusive of the succeeding ones. Vaastu in general refers to Architecture, but this naturally necessitates an understanding of Sculpture and Painting. Similarly, Sculpture in general refers to sculpture in particular, but naturally necessitates an understanding of painting. One can therefore see that rather than an unrelated collection of alienated arts, there is a singular Integral Unity that pervades each of these. Like Indra’s Net, each one comes to reflect the other, while possessing its own individuality. Put another way, much like the famed matryoshka doll of Russia, each subject area contains a smaller subset within it.

As such, terminology is another area of importance. After all, words don’t often translate precisely. Often, a singular art or subject area becomes synonymous with an entire branch of knowledge. Just as Soopa Sastra represents Cuisine, just as Arthasastra represents Statecraft, just as Dhanur Veda represents the Military Arts, and just as Gandharva Veda represents the Performance Arts, so too does Silpa Sastra represent the Fine Arts.

Architecture and Sculpture in India are very intimately related, the latter is rather hand-maid of the former.” [3, 209] Though often restricted only to Sculpture or image-making (pratima-kalaa), Silpa represents the Fine Arts in general, including Sculpture, but also Painting (Chitra), Pottery (Kumbhakalaa), Drawing (alekhya) & other forms of fashioning.

Chakresvari statue, Dilwara temple, Rajasthan

Terminology

  • Silpa Sastra—Sculpture, Iconography, and Fine Arts in general
  • Silpasaala—Art house
  • Silpin—Sculptor, Iconographer, and Artist in general
  • Sila—Stone
  • Rupa—Form
  • Rupakaara—Sculptor or fashioner of forms
  • Murthi—Religious Statuary
  • Prathima kalaa—Iconography/Image formation
  • Prathima—Image/statuary
  • Svadhiti—Chisel
  • Mudgara—Hammer
  • Phalaka—Wood
  • Takshana—Carpentry
  • Takshaka/Vardhaki—Carpenter
  • Alekhya—Drawing & Sketching
  • Lekhaneem—Pen
  • Chitrakalaa—Painting
  • Chitrakaara—Painter
  • Chitra lekhana/varthika—Paintbrush
  • Chitra-bhumi-bandhana—Canvas
  • Laavanya— Delineation of Beauty
  • Mudras—Hand gesture or Poses
  • Sutragrahi—Engineer/overseer
  • Kumbha kalaa—Pottery
  • Kumbhakaara—Potter
  • Maalakaara—Garland Maker
  • Sankhakaara—Conch Maker
  • Kabindaka—Weaver
  • Karmakaara—Blacksmith
  • Svarnakaara—Goldsmith
  • Sphatika—Crystal
  • Loha—Metal
  • Suvarna—Gold
  • Rajatha—Silver
  • Thaamra—Copper
  • Paittala—Brass
  • Kaamsya—Bell-metal
  • Aayas—Iron
  • Saisaka—Lead
  • Gaja-dhantha—Ivory
  • Kadi-karkaraa—Brick & Mortar
  • Thaalamana—System of measurement
  • Thaala—Measure
Fine Arts
Reconstruction of the Iconic Ajanta Cave Painting, “Satavahana Princess”

As previously mentioned, though primarily associated with sculpture, “Silpa may be said to mean all fine arts and crafts” [1, xxiv]. Therefore, to understand the Indic Approach to the Fine Arts, it is important to first fathom what a Fine Art is:

A fine art presupposes the arousal of an aesthetic experience and aesthetic experience is based on the sentiments, the Rasas and Rasadrstis. According to Hindu view of Poetics and Dramatics as well as the science of Fine Arts, an aesthetic experience is not only a pleasure to the senses, it is not only toning up of heart and mind, it is something more, rather much more. It is elevating the soul. That is the spiritual background and it is in accordance with this fundamental tenet of aestheticity in India that writers on Aesthetics have likened an a[e]sthetic experience to the ex-perience aroused in Brahma-Realization-‘Brahmananda-svada-sahodarah’.“[2,47]

There are some who may protest the association of singular Silpa with Fine Arts in general. They will putatively point to the chatusasti-kalaa, or famed 64 Arts of Ancient India. But this too is subject to some degree of controversy. While the Classical Saastric 64 are well-known, Jain literature lists 72 and Yasodhara, an important commentator on Vatsyayana, listed as many as 512. [1, xxiii] In light of this, which number is correct?

It is said that Bharata muni himself resolved a similar controversy at the outset. Pointing out the differences between Arts & Crafts vs Fine Arts, he notes that the “art of love” or the “art of kissing” is obviously distinct from the Fine Arts (Silpa) or the Performance Arts (Gandharva). Therefore, the 64 Arts refer to the basic arts and crafts that eligible men and women should be expected to learn. A fine artist, that is, an exemplar of the aesthetics, was not a mere crafter of kalaa, but a steward of silpa. As such, kalaa refers to arts & crafts, Silpa refers to Fine Arts, and Gandharva refers to the Performance Arts. While these categories are obviously not mutually exclusive (as practitioners of chitra-kavya know all too well), this clarification will elucidate what differentiates them, furthering proper understanding in the process.

Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical foundations of the Fine Arts are of course rooted in Sthaapatya Veda. Nevertheless, a deeper dive is necessary before one can begin to evaluate key concepts.

The Philosophical Sources are of course obvious. As Sthaapatya Veda emerges from the Atharva Veda, it is only natural that Vedic philosophy would be foundation to the native Fine Arts of Bharatavarsha. Beyond that, however, are a number of key literary sources that serve as authorities guiding Silpis and Alankara Sastris to this day.

Of all the names in Sculpture and Iconography, it is Visvakarma who remains the most prominent. The Agni Purana refers to him as the creator of a thousand Silpas (Arts). Interestingly, he is said to have 9 sons called the Silpakaarinah. These were Malakaara, Karmakaara, Sankhakaara, Kabindaka, Kumbhakaara, Kamsakaara, Sutradhaara, Chitrakaara, and Svarnakaara. [1,xxi]

Chennakesava Temple, Belur, Karnataka

Indian Iconography is very vast. There are three principal sects: Brahmana, Bauddha and Jaina which have given rise to an innumerable host of Icons and Sculptures both in Indian monu-ments and our Silpasastras. [3, 209]

“Iconographical literature may be divided into the following sub-divisions:

1.Puranas 2.Agamas 3.Tantras 4.Silpa-sastras 5.Pratishta-paddatis 6.Dhyanas 7.Sadhanas”

[2,50]

While the Puranas are seminal to any study of Silpa, the Agamas provide technical details regarding the installation of various murthis, etc.

Among the prominent texts exclusively on Silpa is the Agastya-Sakaladhikara. Sakala is said to mean the word ‘icon’. [2, 59] Nevertheless, due to the overlap of Vaastu and Silpa, many texts mentioned in Sthaapatya Veda would be common to both. The Maanasaara devotes 20 chapters to sculpture, while Kasyapiya-Amsumad-bheda dedicates 39. [2,60]

Above all, however, are the many treatises that have come down to us simply as “Silpa Sastra”. Due to widespread destruction and loss of precious heritage in the North, most of the surviving manuscripts come to us from the South. Nevertheless, there is one recension of Silpa Sastra which comes to us from Odisha. It is Eastern India, therefore, that retains much of the native North, be it in dance (Odissi) or in this case, Silpa Sastra. Notably, there are 30 families of silpins in Puri. [1, i] The famed temple of Jagannatha unsurprisingly gives patronage to these artisans of ancient practice.

As for Personalities, there are numerous names cited as authorities on Silpa Sastra. These include numerous Vedic Rishis, but also many others, such as Utpala and Nagnajit. Some are legendary, others are ancient, and still others, such as Srikumara are more recent. This court silpin of Deva Narayana (ruler of North Travancore) lived at the end of the 16th century and was considered a great authority on Silpa Sastra via his Silpa Ratna. [2, 61]

While traditionally there two main schools, the Northern Nagara, and the Southern Dravida, history lends credence to more. The Great King Paramara Bhoja of Dhar was said to have developed a composite all India Hindu style. D.N.Shukla writes that this evolved out of the Lata style of the Gurjara School. The Chalukyas of Karnataka are said to have evolved a fourth school, which in turn influenced regions such as Warangal.

Alternatingly, more recent attempts to categorise the various schools of ancient art list Amaravati, Mathura, Gandhara, & Odisha as the main schools. These however do not conform to descriptions of various treatises, and the most up-to-date scholarship in fact considers Gandhara to be an outgrowth of Amaravati. Irrespective, Bhoja’s Samarangana-sutradhara was a great work of Vaastu, and in turn, Silpa. If it leans to the northern Nagara Style, the Aparaajitha-prccha of Bhuvana-devacharya leans to the southern Dravida. [2, 67] The dominating skylines of Madurai and Thanjavur, and their lovely statuary, would be influenced by it.

Key Concepts
File:Amaravati Stupa relief at Museum.jpg
Famous frieze of the Amaravati Stupa

Art appreciation is a crucial aspect of understanding any theory of art. Just as oenophiles learn wine-appreciation from sommeliers and cork-masters, so too is art appreciation learnt ideally from the Silpa Sastris themselves, or failing that, from art historians.

Therefore, to properly appreciate Dharmic Art, one must gain familiarity with Key Concepts that are foundational to it.

Philosophy

Tvastr—Deva of the Fine Arts

The patron deity of the Indic Fine Arts is the Vedic god Tvastr. He is mentioned in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, and is alternately associated with many deities including Savitr and even Indra. Nevertheless, he is most often considered a form of Vishvakarma, himself the deity of Sthaapatya Veda and Vaastu Sastra.

This elemental connection to Purusha, with Tvastr conceived as emerging from the navel of Vishvakarma, delineates the centrality of the Divine to Dharmic art. Rather than mere interaction of matter, it is the concept of Supreme consciousness that pervades and sparks material reality. Art too, therefore, is a result of attempting to realise the divine, rather than simplistic expression of human caprice. Having understood this, one can begin to grasp the aesthetic motivating the artistic Indic.

Aesthetics

Indic Aesthetics is a topic that has inspired myriad authors and numerous books. The ancient Aestheticians raised it to a very great height that is only again now being properly conceptualised. Though often mis-translated merely as Rasa, the correct translation of Aesthetics is Rasalankara—that is, the beautiful experiencing of sentiment. As such, beauty must be married to sentiment to be properly experienced in a resonating fashion. There are a plethora of concepts attached to the branch of knowledge known as aesthetics. However, for the time being only Rasa-bhava and Dhvani will be discussed.

Rasa-Bhaava

Bharata Muni’s celebrated expatiation on the 8 rasas (which eventually added another to become the Nava Rasas) is known from his legendary work, Natya Sastra.

Rasa theory is the outstanding contribution of Classical India to World music, dance, and above all literature. This sentiment is the lasting impression or feeling of the author that he/she aims to impress upon the audience. These are nine in number (hence the term Nava Rasa): Sringara (Romantic), Veerya (Heroic), Haasya (Comedic), Karuna (Pathos), Raudra (Furious), Bhayaanika (Frightful), Bibhatsa (Loathsome), Adhbuta (Marvelous), and finally Shaantha (Calming).

The Sthayibhaava is the leitmotif or permanent sentiment of a composition. There are generally eight in number, based on eight of the nine rasas. They are as follows: rati (erotic), haasa (comic), shoka (sorrowful), krodha(angering), utsaha (enlivening), bhaya (frightening), jugupsa (disgusting), and vismaya (amazing). A ninth, sama (tranquility), is associated with Shaantha.[7]

Bhaava is the complete affecting of the heart by any emotion. Rasa means sentiment, sthayi bhava means dominant emotive state, and vyabhichari bhava means transitory or transferable stages.”They are the instrumentalities of conveying and communicating intangible but real states of mind.”[8,9]

But as we discussed elsewhere, mere paint by numbers alone is insufficient to experience Rasa and Soundharya (beauty). Much like a Dance performance or a Musical performance or a work of literature, a work of art must possess Dhvani (resonance). What is it that causes dhvani is a topic for another time and another place and another aesthetician known as Anandavardhana. Nevertheless, for our purposes here, for a work of art to truly capture the mind it must have dhvani, so as to draw in the observer, who need not be told of why such and such a piece is truly great. He or she can experience it.

Motifs

Chakra, Sun Temple, Konark, Odisha

There is also remarkable continuity in motifs from one end of Bharat to another. This is the case not just within India, but in the greater Indosphere. Symbols such as the Dharmachakra, the feet of divinities, the Thoranas (archways), and so on, find their way across both subcontinent and continent.

One motif is in fact so pervasive and expansive, it deserves its own section: the Mudra.

Mudras

Buddha, Dharma Chakra Mudra

Mudras are known as postures. In recent times, due to the popularity of Yoga and the like, Mudras have become synonymous merely with the hand. These are, however, merely hastha-mudras (hand postures). The fuller meaning of this term is posture, thereby beginning with the body itself, before expanding to parts of the body.

Mudras are divided into hastha-mudras (hand), sthaana (body), and paadha-mudras (leg)

There various hastha-mudras, but these can be discussed elsewhere, but here is a brief list of various types of various postures:

Hastha-mudra — 24 Asamyutha hasthas, 13 Samyutha Hastas, 29 Nrtta Hasthas

Sthaana — 9 total based on attitudes, for which Bhojadeva gives 3

Paadha-mudra — Sthaanaka (standing ), Aasana (sitting ), Sayana (reclining)

Thaalamana

Icono-planning is not only a ritual but also a scientific prerequisite before fashioning an image out and therefore any planning, if it is scientific, must start with the correct proportions as handed down in the Sastras.” [2, 94]

Measurement is a pivotal part of sculpture in particular, and art in general. The painter may be able to paint over a specific portion, but the sculptor must take exquisite care in preserving the stone he is working on. One misstep may mar a murthi, preventing worship of the icon.

Thaalamana (system of measurement or iconometry) ensures that a silpin has direction when crafting his work. Standardisation of measures found in the Sarasvati-Sindhu Valley has long been a matter of wonder, but what is more interesting is the standardisation of measurement across sastras. Both Dhanur Veda and Silpa Sastra stress the use of measurement using angulas (finger breadths). Interestingly, both feature many of the same paada-mudras as well.

With respect to sculpture in particular, the direction provided by Agama and Silpa Sastra ensures not only the longevity of the prathima (through minimised breakage) but also that the precise proportions are preserved for the prana-prathista of a murthi. This explains not only why the particular forms (rupas) are the way they are, but also why they are replicated with such exact frequency throughout the Indian Subcontinent.

Samaranga Sutradhaara gives the following unit measurement table [2, 86]:

3 parmaanus  = 1 raaja. 8 raajas = 1 roma. 8 romas = 1 liksa. 8 liksas= 1 yooka.

8 yookas= 1 yava. 8 yavas=1 angula. 2 angulas = 1 golaka. 2 golakas = 1 bhaaga (part)

Jeernoddhaara

Apsaras, Sirigiriya Cave Paintings, Sri Lanka

As discussed in our article on Sthaapatya Veda, renovation of old art and architecture is nothing new to Indic Civilization. While there are certain rules regarding the worship of religious icons, for which formal abhisheka and archana may not take place, art and architecture in general is another matter.

The concept of Jeernoddhaara (renovation of old or dilapidated art & architecture) [2, 163] is critical one, especially in the present time. Though it naturally encompasses the process through which old murthis can be re-consecrated, it has a wider connotation. It is discussed in Vaastu Sastra and remains a matter of import not only for renovating old works of art and architecture, but in renewing ancient cities.

Dhyana Buddha statue, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh

There are numerous other concepts to discuss, but for the purpose of this brief Introduction to Indian Art, these will suffice. Silpa, after all, may refer to all the Fine Arts, but is, more than anything else, about sculpture.

Sculpture & Iconography
Ramappa temple, Telangana

Leaving aside Silpa Sastra, Sculpture itself is a large field that naturally includes iconography. While painting (Chitrakalaa) can be discussed at another time, it is important to stress, as intimated above, that painting as Fine Art, comes under the purview of Silpa Sastra.

Each culture or civilization (mega-culture) may take on certain conventions or ideals, but behind the most sophisticated forms of sculpture, is an approach or theory of sculpture.

Theory of Sculpture

Indian Sculpture is nothing but an Iconography, par excellence— Devas, Gandharvas, Kinnaras, Yaksas, Apsaras, along with the sy-mbolic manifestations and Subjective symbolisations of so many mental and spiritual attitudes standing for our emotional edifica-tion and cultural integration that become temple icons and sculptures. [3, 209]

Literature on Vaastu & Silpa lists at least 10 different materials for the purposes of sculpture. These include clay (mrna), wood (phalaka), copper (thaamra), iron (ayas), silver (rajatha), gold (suvarna), and various precious stones (ratna). [2, 40]

A detail procedure for wax-models for metal casting is also stipulated, particularly in texts like the Silpa Ratna. Clay compounds are discussed based on the metal type. These clay compound types are as follows: katina (hard), mandha-katina (medium-hard), mrdvi (soft), mrduthara (softer), and moosaakarana-yogya (clay fit for a crucible). [2, 111]

The stones or materials themselves should have certain auspicious signs. These are padmakaara, svastika, sankaabha, chakrasannibha, chatraakrthi, dhvajaakaara, trisulakrthi, matsya-makara-koormabha, govrsabhaakrthi, vajra-khadgaakrthi, dandaabha, chaamaraakrthi.

Stone types

Various varieties of stones are listed. As is well know, all sorts of stone from sandstone to marble to everything in between have been utilised by the Silpis of old. But these can be better discussed in a separate article.

Other than the variety of stone, there is distinction of stone colour and how it should align on the basis of one’s way of life. White, Red, Yellow, and Black stone are recommended based on one’s varnadharma. The individual stone specimen itself could vary by age, and this too is treated by the various texts on Silpa Sastra. Yuva (youthful) and madhya (middle-age) are the two that could be used for religious iconography, while baala (very young) and vrddha (old) were listed as not appropriate.

This in turn dovetails from sculpture to the sub-branch of iconography.

Approach to Iconography

Iconography is both a science and an art. An art must express life in all its manifestations. Images and sculptures, the finest productions of art, naturally therefore, must express life. [2, 117]

Iconography deals specifically with religious Icons, originating from the Greek eikon (object of worship). It deals with religious icons (statuary and otherwise) as well as the detailed process involving creation and establishment. As is fairly well known among Hindus, the murthi-sthaapana (installation of statuary for worship) is very detailed and precise in the procedure stipulated.

Images of divinities are classified as follows: Chitrajaa (painted), lepyaja (clay), Paakaja (cast metal), and Sastrotkeernajaa (carved by metal instruments).  There is an additional classification provided by Gopala Bhatta that is more all encompassing:

1.Mrnamayi (made of clay) 2.Daaruja (made of wood) 3. Lohaja (made of metal) 4. Ratnaja (made of jewels) 5. Sailaja (made of stone) 6. Gandhaja (made of pastes, like sandalwood) 7. Kausumi (made of flowers [2, 96]

Painted icons are found typically on canvas, wall, or stone. As per the Silpa-ratna, clay icons are of two kinds martika (burnt/kiln-fired) and ammartika (unburnt). Each metal or stone or ancillary material is imbued with significance.

Furthermore, iconography(pratima-kalaa) require an even more rigorously trained sculptor

The iconographer must be adept in the sastras and endowed with insight and lead a life of perfect brahmacharya and the samyama (control over his senses). Before taking up his sacred task of giving a murta, the manifest form to the amurta, the non-manifest one, of the gods—the presiding deities of the destiny of mankind, he should perform the sacrifice and then start japa in order to purify himself of all the secular impurities, so that his hands may be in complete union with the spirit and the mind. A code, indeed of religious discipline, is prescribed. [2, 83]

There are organic variations within the various Dharmic sampradayas regarding religious icons. From a gold pendant featuring the Vedic aum to the massive 57 foot tall Jain statue of Gomatesvara in Sravanabelagola, icons come in varying forms and sizes. Worship and reverence for them takes place in different ways and for different reasons. However, the distinctions between Vedic, Buddhist, and Jain iconography (as well as Sikh art in general) are better discussed elsewhere. How the ancient Sastras seep into modern artistic and spiritual experience, remains more important.

image-worship…was a grand religious and philosophical solution of the difficulty of conceiving a limitless Absolute from the practical point of view and the conveniences thereof. A reconciliation of Vedantic or idealistic philosophy of the Upnisads with the image-worship, representing polytheism, has been strikingly effected in the National Religion of this ancient country. [2, 29]

Important Texts

Silpa Sastra

Agastya-Sakaladhikara

Kasyapiya-Amsumad-bheda

Maanasaara

Puranas—Agni Purana, Matsya Purana, Vishnudharmottara Purana

Agama—Pancha-ratra, Sapta-ratra, Vaikhanasa

Tantra—Hayasirsa, Trilokya-mohana, Vaibhava, Pauskara, Naradiya, Sandilya, Vaisvaka, Saunaka, Jnana-Sagara-Vasistha, Prahlada, Gargya, Galava, Svayambhuva, Kapila, Tarksya, Narayaniya, Atreya, Narasimha, Ananda, Aruna, Baudhayana, Visva

Chitra-lakshanam of Nagnajit

Aparaajitha-prccha

Samaranga Sutradhara of  Paramara Bhoja

Silpa Ratna of Srikumara

Personalities

Vishvakarma

Mayasura

Nagnajit

Maharishis—Vasistha, Atri, Narada, Garga, Kumara, Saunaka, Visalaksa, Kasyapa

Sukra

Brihaspathi

Prahlada

Paramara Bhoja

Bhuvanadevacharya

Srikumara

Conclusion

From the famed statuary of Khajuraho to the modern era works of Raja Ravi Varma, the Indic Fine arts have found expression in a myriad ways, manners, styles, and mediums.

In the coming months (and years), we will continue with this introductory overview and study the the various elements of Silpa Sastra, as well as the subsidiary Fine Arts associated with it.

As we have seen with this article, Silpa Sastra covers not only a wide array of topics beyond sculpture, but represents the authentic Indic approach of “Integral Unity” in all facets of life. [9] Rather than deconstructed alienation and surface-level appreciation of the superficial, the Indic Fine Arts forces us to look within, and appreciate the inward significance rather than mere outward appearance. There is beauty in all things, both the ordinary and extraordinary, the haasya and the bhayaanika, the written word and the sculpted form. This has been the driving philosophy of native Indic Civilization since its inception. While it appreciates the worldly accomplishments of man, it looks ultimately to the Divine as the inspiration and driver of all things. This consistent approach to art can be seen from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Arbuddha to Assam.

More than anything else, the pervasive influence of Indic art is seen throughout Asia. Whether it is Turkistan or Malaysia, there is a wide impact of obvious Dharmic motifs and outright Hindu inspiration. The influence of the Silpa Sastra and even Samaranga Sutradhara spread far and wide.

Pramaane sthaapathi devaah pujaahrscha bhavanti hi   Ch.40, sl.13

Gods and goddesses become fit to be worshipped only when they are set up with correct proportions. — King Paramara Bhoja

Murugan murthi, Batu Caves, Malaysia

Nearly all the artistic remains of ancient India are of a religious nature, or were at least made for religious purposes. Secular art certainly existed, for literature shows that kings dwelt in sumptuous palaces, decorated with lovely wall-paintings and sculpture, though all these have vanished. Much has been said and written about Indian art since, some forty years ago, European taste began to doubt the established canons of the 19th century and looked to Asia and Africa for fresh aesthetic experience. Since then most authorities on the subject, Indian and European alike, have stressed the religious and mystical aspect of Indian art. While admitting the realism and earthiness of the earliest sculpture, most critics have read the truths of Vedanta or Buddhism into the artistic remains of our period, and have interpreted them as expressions of deep religious ex-perience, sermons in stone on the oneness of all things in the Universal Spirit. [6, 346]

Dasavatara Temple, Imperial Gupta Dynasty, Deogarh, Uttar Pradesh
References:
  1. Kumar, Pushpendra Ed. Silpa-Sastram. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers.2006
  2. Shukla, D.N. Vastu-Sastra (Vol.II): Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. 2003
  3. Shukla, Lalit Kumar. A Study of Hindu Art and Architecture (with special reference to the terminology). Chowkhamba. 1972
  4. Gaur, Niketan. Sthapatya Ved-Vastu Sastra: Ideal Homes, Colony and Town Planning. New Delhi: New Age Books. 2009
  5.  Vatsyayan, Kapila. Kalātattvakośa V: Forms. New Delhi: IGNCA. 2002
  6. Basham, A.L. The Wonder that was India.New Delhi: Rupa & Co. 1999
  7. Vatsyayan, Kapila. Bharata: The Natyasastra. Sahitya Akademi.2007
  8. Kale, M.R. Dasakumaracarita of Dandin. New Delhi: MLBD. 2009
  9. Malhotra, Rajiv. http://www.firstpost.com/living/rajiv-malhotras-indras-net-seven-big-ideas-and-hinduisms-integral-unity-2382902.html

Classical Indic Warfare I: Dhanur Veda

It is often asked whether there was a Traditional Dharmic Military Science. After all, in an era where “Might makes Right” and “Victory is the only Morality”, how can a society, any society, hope to survive without its own Tradition of Warfare? Although modern India has come to be associated with the concept of Ahimsa, it must also be remembered that Bharat is also the society of Dharma eva hatho hanthi.

Those who wish to elevate Dharmo rakshati rakshitaha from a mere maxim to an actual eternal truth must first begin by properly understanding the first installment in our new Series on Classical Indic Warfare: Dhanur Veda.

Introduction

Vaasishtaaya namoh namaha

Salutations to Maharishi Vasishta, who expounded the Dhanur Veda to King Kausika (who became Vishvamitra).

Dhanur Veda is an ancient tradition, considered by some to be one of the 18 branches of knowledge. “According to Visnudharmottara, god Satakratu (Indra) represents Dhanurveda or the knowledge of warfare.” [2] Other divinities associated with it include Lord Skanda (the God of War), and his father (Sadashiva) who himself is credited with the Siva-Dhanur-Veda.

Although Dhanurveda is often referred to merely as Science of Archery or “Martial Arts”, it is in fact the Ancient Vedic Military Science. It is the foundation of the Indic Way of War. As for why the name emphasises the Dhanush, the explanation is as follows: Just as Soopa Sastra refers to Cuisine, just as Arthasastra refers to Statecraft, so too does Dhanur Veda refer to Military Science.

Long time readers would have become familiar with the preceding Upavedas we discussed. Each Upaveda is attached to one of the Chatur Vedas.

Gandharva Veda — Saama Veda

Sthaapatya Veda — Atharva Veda

Dhanur Veda — Yajur Veda

Ayur Veda — Rig Veda

As such, just as Gandharva Veda is attached to the Saama, just as Sthaapatya Veda is attached to the Atharvana, the Dhanur Veda is attached to the Yajur Veda.

That is why the realm of Dhanur Veda is not merely for rote regurgitators, but for those with an understanding of both ancient and modern military arts. In fact, the first guru-sishya parampara of Dhanur Veda begins with Lord Brahma teaching King Prithu. There are of course other lineages. The Siva Dhanur Veda propounds the teachings of Tripurantaka (Lord Shiva) who instructed Parashurama. And finally, the Vasishta Dhanurveda Samhita encompasses the discourse on Dhanur Veda delivered by Maharishi Vasishta to Vishwamitra. Some even list as many as 6 or 7 Traditions.

Despite the fumblings of neophytes, also-rans, and ahankari-shikhandis, a proper restatement of the Vedic Way of War has yet to be comprehensively discussed. To date, there have either been modern Subject-Matter-Experts with outstanding professional expertise, but minimal traditional awareness, or traditionalist (and pseudo-traditionalist) scholars who cite theory without practical modern understanding. But to face the Exigencies of the Politico-Strategic, both are required. We must be rooted in the past but pragmatically face the present as it is, not as we wish it to be.

As such, to fight the battle that faces us, rather than merely the one we want, one must properly understand that we face not a Clash of Civilizations, but a Clash for Civilization. Because when you realise the enemy you face is amongst you, and inherently uncivilised, you understand the traditional rules of Achara Yuddha do not apply. It is why Dhanur Veda stands astride both the realms of Raja Dharma and Raja Niti. While statecraft encompasses both, Dharmic Epistemology necessitates the classification of Sainyaara-vidya under Niti, as the principles of war are neither moral nor immoral, but amoral.

Dharma→Rajadharma→Rajaniti→Kootaniti→Dhanurveda→Kanikaniti

It is why in the Kali Yuga, Koota Niti rather than Dhanur Veda is the starting point, because strategy determines whether or not you go to war, rather than war being the starting point of considering strategy. The present time provides a set of sophisticated forms of warfare, which may or may not have been foreseen by our forbears and seers, but nevertheless are practiced today (Lawfare, Economic Warfare, Cultural Warfare, etc.). In fact, the modern and post-modern eras have become so complex, that one must consider strategy even before politics. The latter becomes an extension of the former, rather than the standard other way around.

If the Politico-Strategic involves understanding and successfully managing the competitive landscape, Dhanur Veda involves the ability to impose one’s decision upon the adversary.

Purpose

The Purpose of Dhanur Veda was stated by Maharishi Vasishta himself. Rather than for seeking glory or demonstrating mere skill, the purpose of archery (Dhanurvidya) and warfare (Dhanur Veda) was to protect one’s subjects, and rescue the weak from the strong, and preserve Dharma and the virtuous persons who practice it.

Dushtadasyuchoradibhya saadhu-samrakshanam dhammethah |

Praja-paalanam Dhanurvedasya Prayojanam || sl.5

The purposes of learning [Dhanurveda] are to protect the virtuous people from the evil persons, robbers and thieves and also to protect and defend the subjects. [2,4]

As such, a teacher of Dhanurveda has the responsibility to train students well, and also to reject greedy, foolish, ungrateful, and evil students so that they cannot abuse this knowledge to harm others.

Knowledge, for both student and teacher, comes with responsibility.

Theoretical Foundations

For the defence of a country, there are abundant references in Vedas, to maintain a regular armed force. It is also enjoined therein that the immediate control of this defence force should be under the command of a chief.  [1,14]

These of course are references to the state of the Military art of the time. Contrary to popular opinion, the theoretical study of Warfare is ancient and widespread in Indic Civilization.

As with all things Dharmic, the foundational aspects of the Indic Military Tradition are found in the Chaturveda. Due to the numerous references to the subject in that samhita, Maharishi Vasistha considers Dhanurveda to also be a sub-branch of Atharva Veda.

Committees (samiti/sabha/sura) consisting of competent experts were to be appointed by the King on defence policy and related matters (AV. 15.8.9, 4.30.2). Such bodies had an advisory role, with the King naturally serving as the overall Chief of the Defence Forces (RV.10.125) Nevertheless, separate Commanders-in-Chief (senadhipatis) were frequently appointed (though the risk of coups remained—as evidenced by Pushyamitra Sunga‘s rise to power).

The election and consecration of the commander on the field of battle as evidenced in the epic at once reminds one of the Vedic king’s coronation. [7, 2]

While rooted in the Yajur Veda, there are a large number of sources (extant and otherwise) for understanding the application of Dhanur Veda.

Dhanurveda, the standard work on Vedic military science being lost, dissertations on the Mahabharata, the Agni Purana, Akasa Bhairava Tantra, Kautalya Arthasastra, Manusmrti, Matsya Purana…Manasollasa, Yukti Kalpa Taru, Visnudharmottara Purana, Viramitrodaya, Samrangana Sutradhara, Sukraniti, and other small works on Dhanurveda like Ausanas Dhanurveda, Vasishta Dhanurveda, Sadasiva Dhanurveda and Niti Prakasika are the only source of information on the subject left to us.” [1,13]

Many of course will argue that some of these texts, such as the Siva Dhanurveda, focus almost exclusively on literal Dhanur vidya (archery). That is true, but even the Vasistha Dhanurveda Samhita is more robust and covers elements of battle strategy and military operations as well. There are also other Dhanurvedas that are lesser known: Vishvamitra Dhanurveda, Jamadagni Dhanurveda, Vaisampayana Dhanurveda, as well as the Veerachintamani of Sarangadhara. [1,15] Furthermore, the RamayanaMahabharata, and Arthasastra all cover the details of the art of Dharmic War, down to the granular level of logistics and military education of princes.

The Hindu did not permit even the military art to remain unexamined. It is very certain that the Hindu kings led their own armies to the combat, and that they were prepared for this important employment by a military education; nor is it less certain that many of these monarchs were distinguished for the highest valour and military skill. [1,1]

The Nitiprakaasika of Vaisampayana tells us that Lord Brahma was the originator of Dhanur Veda and taught King Prthu, son of Vena, via 1,00,000 slokas. This was reduced to 50,000 by Rudra, 12,000 by Indra and 3,000 by Pracetasa & Brihaspathi. Sukra reduced it to 1,000, Bharadvaja to 700, Gaishira to 500 and Maharishi Veda Vyasa to 300.  Vaisampayana himself provides us with this work in 8 chapters. [1]

Dhanurveda is generally divided into 4 sections: 1. Deeksha (Initiation), 2. Sangraha (Procurement), Siddhaprayoga (Training), Prayogavidhi (Operations).

Modern Hindus are more obsessed with 1 and 4, when they need to pay more attention to 2 and 3. Some leaders are born—it is true—but most are made. They are made through education and tested through practice. It is why all-theory and no practice pseudo-trads need to exit the kshetra where they do not belong.

Pareekshaa anyaa yogyataa anyaa

Exam is one thing competence is another

This is emphasised by Acharya Chanakya himself, who mentioned training in the military arts to extend to study of the Itihaasas. It is not for nothing that History is dubbed “the school of princes”.

Interestingly, talented generals were often highly trained in the fine arts. Maharana Kumbha crushed the neighbouring Sultanates and turned Mewar into a powerhouse. He was also a commentator on Music & Literature.  As for Andhra, the Nrtta Ratnavali (a work on dance) of Jaya Senapati ends every chapter colophon as follows:

Srimanmaharajadhiraja-ganapatideva-gajasaadhanika

Jayasenapati- viracitaayaam nrttaratnaavalyaam

Nrtta Ratnavali authored by Jayasenaapti, the chief of the elephant forces of Ganapatideva, the superior king of kings. [147]

A great general in his own right, Ganapati Deva was the father of the warrior Queen Rudrama Devi.

Thus the Gaja-sadhanika (or Elephant Corps commander) also had a well-rounded education. While these are some of the theoretical foundations, one must also familiarise oneself with the terminology and principles of Dhanurveda.

Teminology

  • Dhanurveda — Military Science
  • Samgraama/Vigraha — War
  • Yuddha — Battle
  • Sangraha — Procurement
  • Siddhaprayoga —Training
  • Prayogavidhi — Operations
  • Upasad — Siege
  • Samkrama — Bridge
  • Kavacha — Armour
  • Varma — Chain mail
  • Sirastraana/Sipra — Helmet
  • Kantatraana — Throat protector
  • Phalaka — Shield (metal or wood)/Charma (leather or hide shield)
  • Hastaghna — Armguard (especially for archers)
  • Dundubhi — War drum
  • Suhstra — Weapon
  • Dhanusha — Bow
  • Vaana — Arrow
  • Gadha — Mace
  • Vavri — Sheath/ Vaala — Belt
  • Khadga — Sword (falchion)
  • Khanda — Sword (long sword)
  • Asi — Blade/Knife
  • Chakra — Discus
  • Velam — Spear
  • Tomara — Lance
  • Parashu— Axe
  • Trishula — Trident
  • Yantra — War Engine (i.e. Catapult)
  • Durgam — Fortress
  • Skandhavaara/Shivira — Camp
  • Chakravartin — He who turns the Wheel of Dharma (Paramount Sovereign)
  • Raja — King
  • Rajanya — Royal Family
  • Kshatriya — Aristocrat
  • Veera — Warrior
  • Senadipathi — Commander in Chief
  • Senapathi/Senani — General
  • Nayaka — Commander
  • Upanayaka — Lieutenant
  • Sainik/Patti — Foot Soldier
  • Ashvasaada — Cavalryman
  • Spashah — Spy
  • Duta — Messenger
  • Gaja — Elephant
  • Ratha — Chariot
  • Naava — Boat
  • Nalikaa — Gun
  • Agnichoorna — Gunpowder
  • Nisthaanam — Base
  • Sena — Army
  • Nau Sena/Varuna Sena — Navy
  • Vayu Sena — Air Force
  • Kaksha — Flanks
  • Paksha — Wings (also camp)
  • Koti — Vanguard
  • Uras — Chest (front centre)
  • Madhya — Centre (behind the chest)
  • Prstha — Rearguard
  • Praligraha — Reserves
  • Vyuha — Formation
Principles

samudraram

  1. Initiation
  2. Procurement
  3. Training
  4. Operations
    1. Strategic Planning
      1. Personnel
      2. Logistics
    2. Military Operations
      1. Encampment
      2. Battles
        1. Organisation
        2. Formations
      3. Sieges

Study of specifically Dhanur Vidya is more appropriate for another time. It is important to understand its place and practice in the wider context of War (Samgraam)

Dharma of Samgraama

Dharmachakra

The Dharma of Samgraama, or Dharma of War, is one that is complex and one that has grown increasingly subtle over time. While the purpose of war has already been discussed, how should a just war be conducted?

The Epic code of ethics helped to soften the edge of conflict…The civilian population was allowed to pursue its labours umolested, temples and places of public worship were left undefiled. That these rules were operative in the fourth century B.C., is fully supported by the testimony of Megasthenes. It is doubtful if any other ancient civilization set such humane ideals of war. [7, 167]

Achara Yuddha

Hindu warfare was honoured for its code of Ethics, so much so that foreign commentators often asked whether it was more of a tournament for warriors.

Murcchitham naiva vikalam nashastram naanyayodhinam |

Palaayamaanam saranam gathanchaiva na himsayeth || sl.41

One should not kill the enemy who is lying unconscious, who is crippled, devoid of weapon or is stricken with fear and also who has come for shelter. [2, 64]

With such rules, it is easy to see why Rajputs fell for Turk deceptions time and again. But the first responsibility of a King is not to be a chivalrous/magnanimous figure, but to protect his subjects.

But contrary to naysayers, however, there was a practical aspect to it as well.Ethical warfare is suited for ethical enemies. Those who practice koota-yuddha must be opposed by similar conduct. Kautilya himself was merely reasserting what Krishna had already taught. When the enemy is breaking all the rules, you cannot fight with one hand tied behind your back. That is the difference between a Raja and Rajaputra.

Therefore, Achara yuddha was meant to be followed with other Indic Kings who observed the rules of Civilised Warfare. Above all, civilians were to be respected, and women and children to be protected.

Suptam prasuptamunmattam hyakaccham suhstra-varjitham |

baalam striyam deenavaakyam dhaavantham naivadhyaathayeth || sl.64

The person who is asleep, who is in drunken state, who is devoid of clothes or weapons, the lady, the minor, the helpless, the afraid one who deserts the battle field should not be killed. [2, 75]

As Bharatavarsha found out in the medieval period, there are some enemies who specifically mandate the opposite.

Rakshasa Yuddha involved an enemy who breaks all the rules. Atrocities are committed against civilians, who are not spared. Any unchivalrous method can be applied by this honourless foe. In fact, chivalry is seen as ‘markaz i jahalat’, or crassly stupid, as per such barbarians. War is not a mere tournament of arms, but as stipulated by Maharishi Vasishta himself, a means to protect one’s subjects, rescue weak from strong, and punish the wicked. To this end, Achara Yuddha must be put aside, and Koota Yuddha utilised.

Koota Yudha is defined as ‘deceptive war’ by Chanakya. Nevertheless, its more correct meaning is Strategic War, as it is ultimately rooted in Koota Niti (Strategy). Modern War as conducted by foreigners breaks all the rules and indiscriminately slaughters and even commits biological atrocities against civilian populations. One need not similarly become demonic to fight demons. Instead, one must use strategy to outwit such foes and develop asymmetric means to defeat their dastardly weaponry, via both R&D and strategic design.

Dharma Yuddha

Above all this, of course, is the concept of Dharma Yuddha. Some have tried to liken it to a “Crusade” or its Saracenic counterpart, but it is neither. Dharma Yuddha is a war to restore Dharma. That is, all Kings who proclaim to uphold Dharma are mandated to come together to defeat and uproot those who are threatening its very existence. When facing an Adharmic opponent, Koota Yuddha is often not only needed, but even required.

The person who in order to save the brahmins, cows, women or minors gives up his own life is sure to attain eternal salvation [2,75]

All this is more appropriate discussion for another time. For now, the Principles of Dhanur Veda will be covered.

Initiation

Vasishta muni states that “The ideal time for teaching and learning archery is in the presence of ten stars —Hasta, Punarvasu (Rama’s star), Pusya, Rohini, Uttaraphalguni, Uttarbhadrapada, Uttarasada, Anuradha, Aivini, Revati“, and that this should be done on the third, fifth, seventh, tenth, twelfth, and thirteenth days of the lunar month, ideally on Sunday, Thursday, or Friday. [2, 6-7]

The tradition of purvaranga vidhana (ritual oblations to the divine) is stipulated, as is reverence to the teacher by the students. Prayers to Mahadev, Krishna, Brahma, and of course, Ganesha are also advised.

The warriors of the day were duly indoctrinated in the code of morality and duty. Thus the education of Dhrtarastra, Pandu and Vidura includes lessons in morality, history, tradition, Vedas and the allied literature, apart from military exercises. [7, 163]

Martial Arts

kalaripayattu-martial-art-of-kerala-500x500

In general, martial arts is a subset of the greater Dhanur Veda. In fact, these are more commonly associated with Kreeda, hence the term Military Science better suited for Dhanur Veda. Nevertheless, initiation into the different schools can take place. Some train at akhaaras learning malla and mushti yuddha (wrestling and boxing), and others learn more armed forms of martial arts, such as Kalaripayattu and Gatka.

Officially dating back to the venerable Guru Hargobind Singh ji,  “Gatka can be practiced either as a sport (khel) or ritual (rasmi).” It features aspects of armed and unarmed combat. It is practiced to this day.

More importantly however, again like its Southern counterpart, Gatka is a direct connection to the ancient Indic warrior ethos. It is an outgrowth of traditional Suhstra-Vidya, which in Punjabi is called Shastar Vidya ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਵਿਦਿਆ, but has become a tradition in its own right. Sikh Dharma may be centuries old, but it draws from and is part of a millennia old Dharmic Civilization. Whether for sport or for safety, preserving and passing on its proud traditions remains important for Sikh: Citizen, and Soldier alike.

Procurement

Procurement of excellent weapons, armour, and other equipment are an important part of War. Ancient India was no exception. Dhanurveda being intricately connected with Dhanur Vidya (Archery), procurement of a good bow was elemental.

Characteristics of a good bow were given. All these can be discussed elsewhere. What is important for now is that, different types of bow even composite bows made of horn are also discussed. Ancient India was, for obvious reasons, known for the long bow. Qualities of arrows (and even poisoned arrows) are also discussed. But more than the bow, it was the bowman who was irreplaceable. Good people, after all, are hard to find.

Training

Chitrayuddha, practice of archery, is an essential aspect of training with the bow. Arjuna memorably shot arrows in the dark, and ultimately was able to strike the matsya yantra (fish machine) merely from a reflection. All this was due to practice and rigour in training.

Dhanurveda stipulates stringent rules for the selection and imparting of military instruction. Beyond the usual rules and rituals, it emphasised guna in pairing a soldier with a weapon of choice. Those with Sattvika guna should be paired with the Bow (dhanush). Those with Rajo-sattva should be paired with the Sword (khadga). Those of tamaso-rajas should be paired with the spear (kunta). And those of tamaso guna should be paired with the mighty mace (gadha).

In the ancient times, Acharyas in Dhanurveda were brahmanas (who were then barred from ruling and power politics). A preceptor excelling in 7 types of fighting was called a Saptayodha. One who is versed in 4 is called Bhargava. One in 2 is called Yodha, and if versed in 1 type, he is called Ganaka. Maharishi Aurva trained the mighty King Sagara, and the illustrious Saptarishi Vasishta, trained Sri Rama.

There are, of course, various methods of imparting training. Dhanurveda naturally begins with the bow.

Practice

Various methods for practice are stipulated, primarily for archery. These involve firing blunt arrows (and other suhstras) as practice weapons. These are very detailed in discussion and best discussed elsewhere. What is useful to know, is that Dhanur Veda discusses target practice for standing targets, moving targets, and even moving targets while on horseback. Success in this skill is more than just a matter of balance, but also technique.

 Holding the String (Gunamusti)

Pataakaa vakramushtischa simhakarnasthatthaiva cha |

Matsari kaakathundi cha yojaneeyaa yathaakramam || sl.84

Gunamusti is of five types — Pataka (Banner), Vajra-musti (thunder bolt), Simhakarna (ear of a lion), matsari (fish), Kakatundi (beak of a crow). These should be applied in proper places. [2, 23]

Dhanurveda specifies a number of different methods of holding the string. These influence not only the effectiveness of holding the arrow, but the precision of hitting the target. These are in turn combined with laksya (types of aim) and even types of bow draw (dhanurmushti) and bow posture.

Bow Postures (Vyaaya)

These are, of course, just a few of the basic aspects of training in Dhanur Vidya. Dhanur Veda proper is more complex. Though rooted primarily in archery, the Dhanur Veda Samhita of Vasishta is more detailed and covers operations as well.

Army Training

Contrary to our modern “I am an army of one!” ahankari-shikhandis, Dhanur Veda did not simply stipulate singular individual training. The Dharma of Collaboration requires not cooperation with the enemy, but cooperation with one’s countrymen and fellow soldiers.

Parasparaanurakthaa ye yodhaah shaarnga dhanurdharaah |

yuddha-jnaasthuragaarudaasthe jayanthi rano ripun || sl.182

The Warriors even armed with Saarnga bow (made of horn) who co-operate with each other and know battle-craft may beat enemies fighting them on horseback. [1, 141]

Moving and operating as a unit is nothing unique to a particular civilization. Here is Maharishi Vasishta on the infantry.

The infantry or the food soldiers should be of equal height. All of them should be equally expert in jumping an running. They should also be trained in moving backward (pascadga-manam), standing still (sthirikaranam), lying [down] (sayanam) running apace (dhvanam) rushing  headlong into the hostile army and moving in different directions in accordance with signals” [2, 69-70]

Horses and even elephants were to be trained as well. Indian mahouts were celebrated for their skill with the elephant and ankush (goad). A good driver would bond with his elephant, which was celebrated for its loyalty and fierce defence of its master in war.  All these involved detailed elements of raising an army. What about deployment?

Military Operations

Niti

Preparation and deployment of one’s defence forces is not a simple method of theory and orders. Strategic planning, selection and training of personnel, order-of-battle, selection of ground/place/time, and formations—all play a role in making successful contact with the enemy. Whether to oppose in the field or to prepare for a siege or to even engage in guerilla warfare via tribal allies (atavi), are all complicated aspects that are covered by Dhanurveda in general and Sainyara-vidya in particular.

While Naval forces (Samudra Sena) and naval operations are mentioned, they are better discussed elsewhere. The great Naval expeditions of Kalingas, Cholas, and the Vijayanagara Empire are important to Sainyara-vidya, but Land warfare being central to Dhanurveda, necessitates focus on that type of war first.

Strategic Planning

The Vasistha Dhanurveda Samhita specifically has a section called Samgraamavidhih. That is, it establishes the importance of war strategy. Though it does not go into depth, it becomes apparent that success in war is more than just about mere proficiency in weapons or even numbers. All the elements of the Art of War were required to come together under the command of skilled general who understood that ‘prudence is the handmaiden of victory’.

The Atharva Veda (7.12.2) “recommends the formation of an advisory Samiti that could chalk out the plan and decide the strategy to fight out the war. The members of such a Samiti are called Narista…All the members of this council have to work collectively.” [1,18]

Personnel

Vasishta muni writes the following regarding selections of Senadhipatis and Senanis:

Listen O Visvamitra! that the Commander-in-chief should be physically fit, learned and powerful kshatriya. He should also treat all his subordinates equally. He should prove his intelligence in arranging the army in array and also provide such work to the infantry that fits it. [2, 73]

Qualifications of a Commander

           1. He must be conversant with the art of fighting a war (RV.1.114.4)

           2. He should possess exemplary character ( RV. 2.33.8)

           3. A Vajrabahu (one with arms like a thunderbolt) inspires confidence in troops.

          4. He should be a Pururupa(one who can handle all types of situations (RV.2.33.9))

          5. He should be a sahasraaksa (one who is equipped with a spying system (YV))

         6. He should be an outstanding warrior (Avevirah) (AV. 19.2.2)

Competent military and strategic leadership is paramount. As even the Vedas recognised, an intelligence network to surveil the enemy to determine capabilities/intentions, and to do basic reconnaissance on the field was important. Win or lose, a general is not allowed to be surprised.

Soldier – He should be swift in action, have great courage, be fearless and bright, and be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. He must be proficient in arms, and expert in his tasks, and possess requisite knowledge of army rules and regulations.

The Hindus display bravery not surpassed by the most warlike nations and will throw away their lives for any consideration of religion or honour. [1, 30]

Even Women could be recruited (though generally not for frontline combat). A secondary line battalion consisting of women could be put at the command of the mahishi (chief queen). It is this tradition of warrior women that could be seen from Kaikeyi down to Rudrama Devi to Rani Durgavati. [1, 29]

Above all, “Foremost qualification of the warrior is that he must be deeply in love with his motherland. It is only then he can put his whole soul to save his motherland from all sorts of troubles.” [2, 28]

Logistics

Logistics is crucial to warfare in any era. After all, an army marches on its stomach and gold is the sinews of war. As such, “all kinds of facilities are to be provided to army men. A special type of clothing, proper nursing, food, living accommodation, clubs, playground, hospitals, places of the prayers and educational facilities are to be provided” [1, 29]

The Mahabharata makes reference to a position similar to that of Quarter-Master General. Yudhisthira appoints Nakula (a famed swordsman in his own right) to maintain records of the various forces, secure supplies (especially food and water), and ensure prompt payment.

Repeated stress is laid on the importance of regular and punctual payment of wages and rations to the army; irregularity in this may lead to disaffection or even rebelllion. In the Sabha parva Naarada asks Yudhisthira if he pays his troops in advance before he marches, and if he supports the wives and children of men who lay down their lives for him, or undergo misery on his account. [7,149]

In the medieval period, the Army of Vijayangara was fabulously well-supplied. It was a veritable moving city that accompanied the Emperor.

Encampment

The army camp should be established at prudent (and auspicious) hours and avoid encroaching upon various burning grounds, temples, and other places of sanctity. “The ground, preferably level and abounding in grass and fuel, is properly measured for an encampment; a moat is dug around to protect it, and guards are stationed at important posts. Door-keepers and sentinels keep watch outside the tents of the chief heroes and princes. Stocks of arms and armaments, food and water are in evidence, and physicians and mechanics form part of the establishment.” {7, 151]

Discipline was to be maintained and stockades and watch towers erected for protection. Contrary to the current civic culture (or lack thereof), Ancient Indian military discipline (particularly in camps) was strict. Bivouacking was an orderly process, cleanliness and carelessness to be avoided, and clamour kept to a minimum.

Campfollowers were numerous, with doctors, purveyors of food stuffs, musicans, merchants, and vesya (women of the night). This practice was eventually banned by Chhatrapati Shivaji, due to the disrespect shown to women by foreign invaders.

The camp is, above all, a place for soldiers and warriors. The seriousness of the task and the adherence to strategy must be remembered.

Battles

battlefield-of-kurukshetra

Organisation

Over the years, military organisation has changed given the size and needs of military forces. As gloriously recounted in the Mahabharata, these could reach fantastic levels that may stretch credulity in the modern day, and yet, align with the internal logic.  The Battle of the Kurukshetra featured 7 Akshauhinis on the Pandava side and 11 Akshauhinis for the Kauravas.

1 chariot and 1elephant, 3 horses and 5 foot soldiers = 1 patti.

3 pattis = 1 senamukha. 3 senamukhas = 1 gulma.3 gulmas = 1 gana.3 ganas = 1 vaahini

3 vaahinis = 1 prtana. 3 prtanaas = 1 chamu. 3 chamus = 1 aneekini.

10 aneekinis = 1 Akshauhini [1,17]

1 Akshauhini

21,870 Chariots; 21,870 Elephants; 109,305 Infantry; 56,610 Cavalry

With a ratio of 1: 1: 5: 3, the approximate total is 209,700 soldiers.

This would bring the total on the Kurukshetra to 4 million. It is an amazing number indeed, which would number in the more modest hundreds of thousands in the post-Legendary period.

The army of Chandra Gupta for example was estimated to be 600,000 infantry; 30,000 cavalry; 10,000 chariots; 9,000 War elephants. In late antiquity, the Imperial Pratiharas were said by middle eastern chroniclers to field 4 armies for the 4 cardinal directions, each numbering 800,000 soldiers—for a total of 3.2 million men. Ancient India was, not for nothing, known for its armies. But armies are one thing, and generalship another.

India has fielded many great and intelligent generals, none more so than Krishna (the real commander of the Pandava armies). Nevertheless, legendary figures aside, “historical” figures such as Ajatashatru, Samudra Gupta, and Chhatrapati Shivaji all made their marks on history. It is only a recent matter for Indians to forget the importance of strategy & generalship.The Republic of India must remember this again.

And after making the decision to take the field, the next decision for any general is how order-of-battle should take form.

Formations (Vyuha)

The Vyuhas are one of the most legendary aspects of ancient Indic armies. Perhaps no vyuha is more legendary than the chakravyuya famously featured in the Mahabharata. A formation of envelopment, it was notoriously difficult to enter, and as young Abhimanyu discovered, even more difficult to exit.

Despite the legendary aspects of the Kurukshetra War, the importance of Vyuhas was retained long into the entry of Common Era. Though divyastras obviously were not used, deployment in concentrated force with proper arrangement remained important. The four divisions of the army (chaturanga-bala) that would inspire chess (chaturanga), which would feature an elephant corps, a cavalry corps, chariot corps, and infantry. All these would be deployed per the needs of battle.

  1. Chakravyuha — Discus formation
  2. Makaravyuha — Crocodile formation
  3. Syenavyuha — Hawk formation
  4. Garudavyuha — Eagle formation
  5. Varahavyuha — Boar formation
  6. Gajavyuha — Elephant formation
  7. Sakatavyuha — Waggon formation.This is ideal if surrounded or expecting rear attack
  8. Kraunchavyuha — Bird formation
  9. Simhavyuha — Lion formation
  10. Sarpavyuha — Serpent array
  11. Agnivyuha — Fire array
  12. Gomutrika — Echelon or Zig-zag
  13. Pippeelika — Ant array
  14. Ardhachandra — Half moon formation
  15. Sarvatobhadra — Hollow square
  16. Suchimukha — Needle array
  17. Danda — Staff formation
  18. Gulma — Bush formation
  19. Mandala — Hollow Circle formation
  20. Padmavyuha — Lotus formation
  21. Srenika — ranks/rows
  22. Bhoja — column
  23. Asanhata — detachments of various units into penny packets

Many of these may seem rather intricate and complicated to our modern eyes. Nevertheless, there are certain important principles that come from this. As seen above with the Garuda vyuha, there is very much a concept of organisation and backup planning. Contrary to the current school of thought that assumes a disorganised mass of chivalrous soldiers in unthinking frontal charges, methodical deployment was very much a practical art. Above all, is the fact that the concept of keeping reserves was emphasised — a reality that frequently turned the tide of key battles in history. Placing the chariots in front, elephants next to break the enemy lines, followed by the infantry is specified. Siva Dhanurveda specifically mentions the placing of cavalry on the wings, in sloka 179.

Ancient Indian Warfare was certainly practical. If one does not believe in combining mantra with suhstra, then the place of supernatural astras is reduced, and rather than spiritual, more material weapons will be emphasised. That is the nature of war, as well as the nature of RMA.

Sieges

Some of the most successful wars are conducted not in the field, but inside the fort. From the Vedic times of Purandara (destroyer of forts) to Chanakya to Chhatrapati Shivaji, the Indic Durg has been a crucial part of Dhanurveda. The most successful armies in history were those that mastered the art of conducting the siege. This involves more than just investment of fortified cities, but also the defense of even fortified positions and redoubts.

The frontiers of the country were expected to be guarded by forts, with the intention of perimeter defence or defence-in-depth. Terrain was taken into close consideration, and measures such as investment, artillery, and mining discussed to take opposing forts.

For the purposes of brevity,  a simple discussion of forts will be discussed here to dovetail with Sthapatya Veda:

Mountain fort (giri durgam), Forest fort (vana durgam), Water fort (jala durgam), Clay/Cave fort (panka/guha durgam), Chariot fort (ratha durgam), Divine fort (divya durgam, has extensive fortress with efficient defensive system), and Mixed fort (mishra durgam, situated among both both mountains and forest). [1, 45]

A land fort is the easiest to capture, a river fort more difficult and the mountain fort most difficult. From the point of a view of a besieged king, a mountain fort is preferable to a river fort which is better than a land fort (7.12.2) — Arthasastra

Important Texts

Dhanurveda

Siva Dhanurveda

Vasishta Dhanurveda

Ausanas Dhanurveda

Jamadagni Dhanurveda

Vaisampayana Dhanurveda

Ramayana

Mahabharata

Agni Purana

Matsya Purana

Visnudharmottara Purana

Akasa Bhairava Tantra

Arthasastra

Manasollasa

Yukti Kalpa Taru

Veeramitrodaya

Samrangana Sutradhara

Niti Prakasika

Veerachintamani of Sarangadhara

Application

Vedic scholars were well aware that ‘armies can signify but little unless there is  council or a wise management at home‘. The efficiency of an army is thus very much dependent on the efficiency of the ministry of defence.

In the legendary times, the sarvasreshta dhanurdharas (Sagara, Sri Rama, Bhishma, Arjuna) could all reputedly summon divine weapons (divyastras) that would unleash firepower that normal chariot borne archers could not match. Obviously in the present time, these seem to stretch credulity. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the internal logic of Divine involvement in the affairs of man (which even Homer includes in the Iliad) one could understand the devastating effect these dhanush-wielders could have. Bhishma himself swore to wipe out 10,000 soldiers a day with the firepower he commanded.  With these dhanurdharas as the centerpiece of the Indic armies of Legendary times, one understands the emphasis placed on them why they were deployed the way they were.

The Epic material provies depth to the pic-ture that we have gleaned from our Vedic sources. The nature of the Vedic literature precludes the possibility of the graphic des-criptions of warfare which we can find in the Epics. The echoes of the Mahabharata can be detected in the Vedic literature and, as we have pointed out time and again in our text, some of the Epic tradition is indeed very ancient. Chariots in the Epic are the invincible instruments of battle [due to the Dhanurdharas they carried]; elephants and cavalry play role of comparative insignificance. …By the time Alexander came to India, things had changed; the chariots were there of course, but the real responsibility of attack and defence had shifted to the elephants and the cavalry. ” [7, 2]

Weapons

Standard Weapons are divided into mukta (released from the hand), amukta (held), mukta-amukta (may or may not be thrown ), and yantra mukta (released by artillery/engines). We also find another division of suhstra, yantra, and mantra. Mantra will obviously not be considered here.Nevertheless, ancient Indian war was more in line with how the native cinema depicts, rather than foreign indologists, who seem to imply that the society that had the best metallurgy somehow did not believe in armour and helmets. That is why it is important to not deconstruct a tradition, but to study it as a continuum.

Continuity in these traditional weapons is seen even outside strict Vaidika Dharma, as Sikh Dharma and its warrior-saints used them to great effect.

Technology

Technology is a trendy topic, particularly in what we presently consider to be a technologically advanced age. Some topics are controversial, while others not so much. One area that has been acknowledged by almost all parties is the advanced state of Indian metallurgy—particularly in the forging of blades.

The famous crucible steel (Wootz) had its origin in India. The Chera steel was renowned for its quality. Indian iron smiths must have invented the ‘wootz’ process in the 6th or early 5th century B.C. Ktesias saw two wonderful swords of Indian steel at the court of Artaxerxes Memnon. Herodotus speaks of the arrows of Indian soldiers tipped with iron.” [7, 102]

Hindu warfare (what has been acknowledged at least) has long been the subject of controversy. “Were divyastras really just pre-modern artillery?”  or the most notorious, “Come on, vimanas? Really?“. But the perhaps the most important one of all is the question of whether or not ancient India had independently invented gunpowder. That’s right, as discussed by this article, it has been averred that Eastern India (particularly Bihar) possessed excellent saltpetre mines which are crucial for firearms.

A number of ancient texts specifically refer to gunpowder (agnichoorna/ranjaka) and firearms (nalikaa). The Dhanurveda explicitly mentions nalikaa (guns) as well as goleem(bullets)

Even the Sukra Niti supports this:

In Sukraniti, the method and chemical composition for preparation of gunpowder has been given. Accordingly, five palas (582.5 mg) survaci slat, one pala (11.5 mg) of sulphur and one pala (11.5 mg) each of the charcoal received from the wood of arka (…asclepias giantia), snuhi and angaara plants by the Ayurvedic process of Sahdooma Putapaaka where a drug is prepared in a closed vessel placed in a pit. The above-mentioned salts and charcoals should be purified, powdered and mixed together. This mixture should then be soaked into the juices of snuhi, arka and garlic. It should be dried up in the sun and finally powdered like sugar, the substance will be gunpowder.” [1, 76]

Whether or not this is the case is for present day scholars to confirm. Nevertheless, these ancient texts make a convincing case for ancient firearms. At the very least they give insight into some of the ancient artillery Indian armies featured.

Professor Wilson writes “Rockets…appear to be of Indian invention, and had long been used in native armies when Europeans came first in contact with them.” [1, 74] He goes on to say that ‘The Indians are from time immemorial remarkable for their skill in fireworks..” [1, 77] So much for “cracker-free” Diwali…

Engines of War were called Yantras. Some celebrated ones include the Sataghni (hundred-killer, asmaguda (catapult that pelts stone balls), ayoguda (weapon that pelts iron balls).

That elephants and chariots also carried yantras, is proved by a few references, but yantras in open battle seem to signify weapons in general. King Ajatasatru of Magadha, a contemporary of the Buddha, used a new engine of war against the [Vrjjis], called the mahasilakantaga, which must have been a stone-hurling contri-vance like those denoted by the Epic yantras. [7, 113]

When Alexander of Macedon set foot in the ancient Indosphere, his armies were said to have been scattered by a besieged Indian city which featured weapons of fire and lightning. These were unleashed following a terrifying pitch silence, soon broken by the sounds of thunder and cries of men.

For those of you familiar with the Byzantine Empire, there is, interestingly enough, even evidence that perhaps the famed “Greek Fire” may not have had a Greek origin after all. “The fire which burns and crackles on the bosom of waves denotes that the Greek fire was anciently known in Hindustan under the name of badavaa“. [1,75]

Ctesias, Elian and Phostratus all make reference to such an incendiary oil , saying “it is inextinguishable and insationable [sic], burning both arms and fighting men” [1, 75] Perhaps when the Arabs were crushed at Constantinople and during the Battles of Rajasthan, they may have in fact received “Greek fire” from both ends…

Personalities

Though the study of the Dhanurveda cuts across classes, this list will focus primarily on military commanders and direct operational planners. For brevity’s sake, this list will focus on both legendary commanders and warriors mentioned in the Puranas as well as “Historical” personalities from the Ancient, Medieval, and Late Medieval periods. Strategists and Commanding Generals of the Modern Era will be listed elsewhere.

King Prthu

King Sudasa

Maharishi Vishvamitra

King Sagara

Haihaya Karthaveerya Arjuna

Parashurama

Aikshvaku Raghu

Aikshvaku Rama

Bharata Dauhsanti

Bheeshma

Vasudeva Krishna

Arjuna

Jarasandha

Ajatashatru

Mahapadma Nanda

Chandragupta Maurya

Ashoka Maurya

Pushyamitra Sunga

Kharavela

Stabrobates

Sriharsha Vikramaditya

Gautamiputra Satakarni of Andhra

Samudra Gupta Ashokaditya

Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya

Skanda Gupta Paraakramaditya

Narasimha Gupta Baladitya

Vikramaditya Panwar of Ujjain

Salivahana Panwar of Ujjain

Harsha Vardhana Shiladitya of Thanesar

Chalukya Pulakesin II

Karkota Lalitaditya of Kashmir

Pratihara Nagabhatta I & II

Rashtrakuta Dhruva Dharavarsha

Rashtrakuta Govinda III

Rashtrakuta Indra III

Dharmapala I of Vanga

Bhaskaravarman of Assam

Raja Suhel Dev

Haihaya Kalachuri Gangeyadeva

Paramara Bhoja

Chola Raja Raja I

Chola Rajendra I

Chalukya Rani Naiki Devi

Prithviraj Chauhan III

Ganga Bhanudeva II of Odisha

Rani Rudrama Devi

Kakatiya Prataparudra II

Hoysala Veera Ballala III

Musunuri Nayaks of Andhra

Maharana Kumbhakaran Singh of Mewar

Sangama Harihara & Bukka

Krishna Deva Raya

Venkatapati Deva Raya

Maharana Sangram Singh Sisodia

Maharana Pratap Singh Sisodia

Rani Durgavati

Lachit Bophurkan of Assam

Chhatrapati Shivaji Bhonsle

Admiral Kanhoji Angre

Baji Rao I

Maharaja Prithvi Narayan Sah of Nepal

Zorawar Singh

Banda Bahadur Singh

Maharaja Ranjit Singh

Hari Singh Nalwa

Sher Singh Attariwala

Marthanda Varma of Travancore

Conclusion

Clearly much water has flowed down the Ganga since the days of Dhanurveda’s first exposition. From the Imperial Armies of Magadha to the modern Day Indian Army, there is a long tradition of Military Science in Bharatavarsha.

For those who call for an Indic and Dharmic Way of War, it must be remembered that military lineages cannot commence with mere colonial regiments. Regimental and Tri-services pride aside, a society whose motto is Satyameva Jayate, must have lineages which work for the triumph of Truth, rather than colonial occupiers. But at the same time, one cannot be occupied or pre-occupied only with unthinking traditionalism or rote ritual.

The Dharmic way of War must necessarily adapt to the modern exigencies where victory is the only morality…

…and this is the cost of defeat.

The price of war is terrible, and therefore, must necessarily be practiced by professionals, whether strategists or soldiers. Knowledge of the Dharmic Art of War must be rooted in tradition, while being pragmatic enough to adapt to the Enemy. As Ovid wrote, it is right to learn, even from the Enemy.

It also means promoting those with a proper understanding of military history and modern strategy as overall Defense planners. This criticism was in turn criticised by the politically motivated, but leave aside gender and other considerations—is it not on point?

With V.K.Krishna Menon at the helm, Nehru planned to turn the Indian Army into a mere constabulary force of 100,000. Within a year or two, China launched a surprise attack (after similar Doklam type Chinese Checkers in Ladakh). The unmitigated disaster that was A.K.Antony was only further proof of the need for a governing class that has a strong affiliation for military affairs—beyond mere mantra japa of “Chanakya!“.

It is true, as those who actually understand global political affairs will tell you, that the risk of foreign funded military coups was at one point very great. One need only look at the Republic of India’s neighbour to the West to see just how frequent they could be. Even its neighbour to the North has come tantalisingly close to this very real reality of political life. The first step to fore-stalling or mitigating such risks would be to have a governing class that the officer class would not feel disgusted by. The current crop of the corrupt lining the IAS and the Rajya Sabha is exhibit A in a fool’s gallery of fops.

The Prime Minister has rather wisely been taking to the ancient nostrum of “minding the solidiers” and has restored a measure of trust between the Bharatiya Sena and the Bharatiya Sarkar. The current Raksha Mantri is a very efficient minister, and MP’s such as Rajyavardhan Rathore and Kiren Rijiju cut dashing figures. But the governing classes and would-be elites must build on even this, and regain a strong sense of the native Indic military sense, and military sense begins with strategic thinking. Winning in war is more than just a matter of mere numbers.

Api panchashatham suraa mrudananthi mahathim chamoom |

Athavaa pancha shat saptha vijayanthaanivarthinah || sl. 181

Even five hundred determined and well-trained soldiers can defeat a large army. Sometimes even five, six or seven such heroes who do not withdraw and fight bravely may emerge victorious [1,141]

—Siva Dhanurveda

If “war is too important to be left to the generals”, then it is definitely too important to be left to the hands of poets and pedants. Serious politicians with the Dharmic martial ethos and modern strategic education are required. The list of Dhanurveda personalities we listed above cut across caste and class, because they all faced the unignorable exigency of competence. All too much emphasis has been placed on Government, which in turn has become code for mere electioneering and politics. True Governance is rooted in Rajadharma, which is what is missing in today’s governing classes, with rare exception. An education in Governance and Modern Strategic Affairs is required to not only take the tradition of Dhanurveda into the Modern (and Post-Modern) era, but also to steer India and the rest of the world away from strategic disaster.

Indeed, the stakes of Dhanurveda are far higher than military honour or an “izzat ka sawal”. The very fate of humanity’s freedom depends on native Kshatriyata to re-emerge across caste lines focused above all on competence and character. We conclude this introductory article on the Indic Tradition of Dhanurveda and Dharma (and why they remain relevant), rather ironically, with a quote from a European General of whom you might have heard:

It is character that remains the Achilles heel of governing classes around the world, and India can no longer risk a governing class (or wannabe governing class) steeped in incompetence, completely clueless on strategic affairs, and utterly hypocritical and characterless. Those who are so compromised they induct and promote foreign “acharyas” to teach Indians how to “decolonise” are the least qualified to govern…period—their claims to “Chanakyanism” aside.

Vishvaksena Janardhana

It is time to  return to Krishna Niti. To properly understand modern Military Affairs, the ethos of the Kshatriya (the native Bharatiya Kshatriya) is required to train, mentor, and anoint a governing class across caste lines. That is the path of not only the Dhanurveda of King Prthu, but of Dharmic Civilization’s Revival itself.


References:
  1. Arya, Ravi Prakash. Dhanurveda – The Vedic Military Science.Rohtak: Indian Foundation for Vedic Science (Amazon Books).  2014
  2. Ray, Purnima. Vasishta’s Dhanurveda Samhita.Delhi: J.P.Publishing House.
  3. Gaur, Niketan. Sthapatya Ved-Vastu Sastra: Ideal Homes, Colony and Town Planning. New Delhi: New Age Books. 2009
  4. Rangarajan, L.N. Edit, Kautilya. The Arthashastra. New Delhi. Penguin.1992
  5. Sukra Niti
  6. Kota, Venkatachalam.
  7. Singh, Sarva Daman. Ancient Indian Warfare.Delhi: MLBD.1997
  8. Pappu, Venugopala Rao. Nrtta Ratnavali of Jayasenapati. Kakatiya Heritage Trust. 2013

Intro to Sthaapatya Veda — Indic Architecture, Sculpture, & Painting

Indian Architecture has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Often times, rootless people have a tendency to downplay the native tradition and place emphasis on theorised “foreign contributions” to the Indic Canon. The reality, however, is that there is a long and ancient tradition of not only Art & Architecture, but even City Planning per the Vedic Tradition. In fact, while these are all often grouped under Vaastu Sastra, they are in fact properly categorised under the upaveda known as Sthaapatya Veda.

Introduction

Much as Sangeeta Sastra & Nrtya Sastra emerged from the Gandharva Veda, so too does our tradition assert that Vaastu Sastra, Silpa Sastra, and Chitra Sastra emerged from Sthaapatya Veda. “It expounds the principles involved in the areas of Vastusastra (Architecture and Planning), Silpasastra (Sculpture and Iconography), Chitrakalaa (Painting in all branches“. [1,1] Just as the Gandharva Veda is attached to the Saama Veda, this upaveda is attached to the Atharva Veda. Further, knowledge of Ayurveda, Gandharva Veda, Jyotisha, and Saamudrika Sastra is also relevant to the field.

Central to Sthaapatya Veda is the Sthaapathi (master-architect). Sthaapathoh karma sthapatyam (the work of an architect is Sthaapatya Veda). [4,44] Silpa-Sastra has a section called Sthaapati-lakshana, or the Characteristics of a Sthapathi. It says:

“I am now going to described the Sthaapatya as handed down to us from generation to generation, by the knowing of which the values and defects of the Sthaapati are known”. The Sthaapatya is fourfold— the traditional lore (Sastra), the practical experience (Karma), intuitive insight (Prajna) and the righteous conduct and character [4, 45]

Vishvakarma is considered the originator of this field of study, and Pauranic tradition holds him to the be the Divine Architect. The great cities of Dvaraka and Indraprastha are attributed to his supreme skill in the field of city planning.

For civilized people a comfortable residence is as necessary as food and clothes. In fact the standard of civilization seems to be regulated, amongst other things, by durability, scientific plan, aesthetic construction, and successful finish of buildings, religious, residential or military. [1]

Maanasaara (‘the essence of measurement’, is considered the authoritative and exhaustive text on this topic today. However, the philosophy behind Sthaapatya Veda in general and Vaastu in particular is far more ancient. “The Creative feelings of Rsis, who were attributed to be the authors of the Indian Vaastu and Silpa texts, and the practicing Silpins had to activate the centre called aakaasa or aatman“.[3,17] This aligns very much with the common thread of Dharmic thought across the native Indic traditions.

For ancient Indian writers, at any rate, architecture seems to have been a very fascinating subject, inasmuch as the Vedic, Buddhist, Epic, Pauranic, Agamic, Historical, Political and even Astronomical literature bears traces of it. [1,1]

Theoretical Foundations

As with the Indic tradition in general, the origins of epistemology date back to our most sacred texts. Along with the Vedas, the Puranas, Agamas, and literature from the Buddhist and other Nastika philosophies have all contributed to Indic Art and Architecture. Therefore, an article on Sthaapatya should give space to all of them.

Veda

The Hymns of the Atharva-veda give some information about the construction of a house.” [1,1] Maharishi Vasishta is recorded to have spoken in the Rig Veda of his wish to have a tri-dhaatu-saranam constructed for him, indicating the varied types of housing even at an ancient date. [4, 51] The Sulba-sutras, which supplement the vast corpus of the Kalpa-sutra literature, discusses the measurement and construction of various vedis (vedic altars). This is often seen as foundation for the origin of Architecture in India. Altars mentioned by Baudhayana and Apastamba reach to the height of 10-15 layers of bricks.

As western scholars would later minimisingly mention, “the authors of the Vedic literature ‘were not ignorant of stone forts, walled cities, stone houses, carved stones, and brick edifices“.[1, 3] This is, therefore, even more so the case with the authors of the Pauranic literature.

Purana

The Mahabharata contains short but comprehensive accounts of the cities of Dvaraka (III.5), Indraprastha (1.207, 30f), a floating city (III.173,3), Mithilaa (III.207, 7) and others.[1,9]

Itihaasa-Purana is valuable source of information for Classical Indic Architecture. While it is averred that many accounts may seem fantastical to our ‘modern’ eyes, they give insight on not only continuity of theory to the present day, but also provide understanding of native inspirations (rather than the current obsession with native implementations of foreign inspiration).

The Epics furnish copious description of cities, storeyed buildings, balconies porticos, triumphal arches, enclosing walls, flights of stone masonry steps for tanks and a variety of other structures, all indicative of a flourishing architecture in the country [of India]. [1,8]

Perhaps the most famous account of City Construction in the Epics was that of ancient Indraprastha (modern Delhi). From the clearing of Khandavaprastha forest to the yagna performed for its construction, to its design and implementation by Vishwakarma, to even its beguiling wonders that caused Duryodhana to fall and Draupadi to laugh, one sees the start, completion, and effects of such beautiful municipalities.

Notably, the city plan of Ayodhya is ‘strikingly similar’ to the town-plan listed in the Maanasara and various other Architectural treatises. “The temples (devaayatana) in this city (Ayodhya) were as resplendent as the sky. Its assembly-halls, gardens, and alms-houses (prapaa) were most elegant; and everywhere were arranged extensive buildings crowded with men and women……..The houses were as mines of gems, and the abodes of the goddess of fortune. The steeples (sikhara) of the houses were as resplendent as the crests of mountains and bore hundreds of pavilions (vimana) like the celestial palace of the chief among the Devas. The rooms were full of riches and corn, exquisitely gilt and decorated, and seemed as charming as pictures; and they were so arranged that men could pass from one room to another without perceiving any inequality.” [1, 9]

Puranas

While the Ramayana and Mahabharata are traditionally classified under Itihasa, the Puranas proper (said to number 108) provide a wealth of information on the science of Art & Architecture proper.  The Matsya purana has 8 expansive sections discussing Vaastu and Silpa in great detail. One entire chapter is dedicated to the pillar, which is considered ‘the regulator of the whole composition of a building’. 5 styles of columns with 8 different mouldings are described. The other chapters focus on silpa and discuss taalamaana (proportionate measurement of images). Skanda purana has 3 chapters dedicated to it, and makes mention of construction of a golden hall, special pavilions for the wedding of a princess, and even chariots. The Garuda purana comprehensively discusses the 3 main types of buildings: religious, residential, and military. Layouts of temples, palaces, pleasure-gardens, fortresses, and fortified cities are all reviewed. Murthi-sthaapana (installation of religious icons) are also discussed. These are performed by a Sthaapaka (architectural priest) distinct from Sthaapathi (professional architect). [1, 11]

Finally, the Agni Purana of all the Puranas, allocated the greatest length to Sthaapatya Veda. It devotes 16 chapters to town-planning, 2 chapters with residential building, and 13 for sculpture. That temples are again discussed here shows the antiquity of temples to Sanatana Dharma itself. There are of course other puranas which treat on the topic, such as the Naarada, Linga, Vaayu, and Varaaha, but there are all better expounded upon elsewhere.

The most notable of the minor puranas is the Vishnudharmottara. It extensively covers the Artistic tradition of India, with special emphasis on sculpture and painting.

Bhagavata Purana

Agama

The agamas are critical text to the Vedic tradition that are still used today for both temple construction and temple management. Though legend asserts that there were once countless agamas, today there are about 200, with  3 Main categories: Vaishnava (108), Shaiva (28), and Shakta (64). In fact, from these are collected the 64 Tantras (but that is a topic for another time).

The Kaamikaagama dedicates 60 of its 75 chapters to Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting. It is a highly technical and systematic text (much like the Silpa Sastra) and deals with matters such as soil testing and preparation, selection of sites, measurement scheme and cardinal points for building orientation, as well as ground plans. 20 different types of buildings are mentioned. It also provides exceedingly technical classifications such as the various styles (Nagara, Dravida, and Vesara), shapes (masculine, feminine, and neuter), materials (Suddha, Mishra, and Samkeerna), amalgamation of materials (Sthaanaka, Aasana, and Sayana), as well as various ayadi formulae regarding proportionality. [1, 13]

The Karanaagama  allocates much of its treatment to Sthaapatya Veda, with 37 chapters on the subject. The Suprabhedaagama dedicates 15 chapters, but is highly useful for laypeople due to its brevity, clarity, and precision. It is deemed superior to Varahamihira‘s Brhat Samhita in such matters and has much in common with the Maanasaara. Finally, the Vaikhaanasaagama has 2 chapters on sculpture and various taala measures.

There are other Indic texts discussing various topics under Sthaapatya Veda. These include the Arthasastra of Kautilya, the Harsacharita of Bana, the Garga-samhita, and so on. Poetry, such as Bhavabhuti’s Uttaramacharita also mention aspects of Sthaapatya, as does Yaaska’s Nirukta and other subsequent compilations such as the Amarakosa.

However, this is also a unique point of divergence as we see along with the Astika Vaidika Dharma tradition, the Bauddha Dharma contribution to the Indic concepts of Art & Architecture.

Bauddha

“In the Buddha’s time and in that portion of northern India where the Buddhist influence was most early felt—that is to say, in the districts including and adjoining those now called the United Provinces and Behar’—the arrangements of villages were practically similar…Villagers are described as ‘uniting of their own accord to build mote-hills and rest-houses and reservoirs, to mend the roads between their own and adjacent villages, and even to lay out parks.'” [1,3]

The stupa is arguably the most famous contribution of Bauddha Dharma to Indic Civilization. Amaravati, Sarnath, Sanchi, Naalanda, and Takshasila all feature constructions famous the world over. While much of it is naturally an outgrowth of the Vedic Canon, the Buddha himself appears to have been a progenitor of a distinct approach to architecture. “At places it appears as if Buddha were delivering discourses on architecture. As a matter of fact, he enjoined upon his devotees the supervision of building construction as one of the duties of the order. It is stated in one of the early texts that the Bhikkhus were told on a certain occasion by the Blessed One, after the delivery of a religious discourse, with respect to dwellings, thus: ‘I allow you O Bhikkus, abodes of five kinds—Vihara, Arddhayoga, Praasaada, Harmya, and Guhaa’.” [1,4]

Viharas are the famous grand monasteries of the Bauddhas, Ardhayoggas are considered to be unique to Vanga (Bengal) and were part ceremonial and part residential. Praasaadas are purely residential multi-storied constructions. Harmyas are more humble versions of praasaadas, and Guhas are part underground cave constructions, which are famous through India. These of course often feature the Chaitya halls known in rock-cut cave architecture. Just to give insight into the timescales associated with their completion, a small Vihara was said to take 5-6 years and a large Vihara or Prasada 10-12 years.

Houses were built comprising ‘dwelling-rooms and retiring-rooms, and store-rooms, and service halls and halls with fire-places in them, and store-houses,, and closets, and cloisters, and halls for exercise, and wells, and sheds for the well, and bath-rooms, and halls attached to the bath-rooms, and ponds, and open-roofed sheds.” [1,4-5]

There was also mention of pavilions, lotus ponds, and inner chambers of 3 types: Sivikaa-garbha (square halls), Naalikaa-garbha or rectangular halls, and Harmya-garbha (large dining halls). Gates, doors, screens, and revolving doors are all mentioned. We also find discussion of various types of furniture such as divans (pallanka), rectangular chairs (aasandako), sofa (sattango), state chair (bhadda-peetam), cushioned chair (paeetikaa), cane-bottomed chair (koccham) and so on. There is also description of carpets, rugs, pillows, and other such accents and fixtures.

Literature providing insight into the Buddhist approach to architecture includes the Jatakas, the Nikayas, various Sutras such as the Mahaa-Suddassana.

File:Amaravati Stupa relief at Museum.jpg
Frieze of Amaravati Stupa, Andhra Pradesh
Key Concepts

There are a vast and variegated number of concepts associated with Sthaapatya Veda, given its status as a meta-category for Art & Architecture. As this article is meant to primarily provide a snapshot for readers, it will be more restricted in coverage.

Any object is a vastu, hence any creation deriving from an object is Vaastu.  Vaastu literally means “site planning”.  [2] As such subjects discussed below include home planning, municipality planning, and public hygiene.

Home Planning

Land Type

There are 16 types of Lands. They are classified under forest lands, fertile lands and ordinary lands. One that is fertile, verdant, full of hills and valleys all around, contains tall and “sweet scented trees and shrubs, where the atmosphere is serene, cool, and calm, where songs of birds abound, such a location is ideal for the selection of a dwelling site.” [1, 17]

Soil Type

Per the Maanasaara, “the ground should have sweet, dense, soft, and pleasant soil.” [1,17]

Ground to be avoided include those having the smell of honey, ghee, burnt items, birds, fish, or rotten bodies, those adjacent to Royal palaces or factories or workshops, road crossings, tomb, thorny trees, uneven surface, circular/concave land, and those infested by wild animals. Suitable ground is characterised by “having various colours, taste, fertile, redolent like musk by black bees, having all good features“, sloping hills and ponds in the right directions, and so on. Such a plot of land should be selected and purified. [1,18]

Each House plan is divided into x number of plots. Each set of plots is dedicated to a deity (such as Brahma, Indra, Vivasvan, and so on). Various directions and sets of plots are specified as ideal for certain occupations. It is said that water bodies should be made in the North East, South/Southwest suitable for dining halls, etc. Specification for bedrooms, study rooms, treasuries, and rooms for amusements, and flower gardens are also made on the basis of plot set. Proportionality (something modern Indians lack in behaviour) is mandated everywhere.

Rituals

There is a specified ritual for commencement of construction. Jyotisha should be consulted to determined the auspicious moment, followed by bath and prayers. A Sthaapathi (Architect) should also be consulted.  Following this, erection of the gnomon (similar to a sundial)and pegs can be done with the assistance of a surveyor. There are 3 types of gnomons. These are long, middle and smaller.

Construction

At the centre of the prepared site a circle having a radius double that of the selected gnomon should be drawn using a chord. The gnomon should be firmly fixed at the centre of the circle.” [1, 19] It’s quite clear from descriptions from the Maanasaara, that not only Jyotihsastra, but even Ganita that was crucially & carefully applied by the Sthaapathis.

Municipality Planning

Artist representation of Lothal, Gujarat

Urban planning of the Indic variety did not merely focus on urban areas and forts. Towns and even villages were meticulously planned and established. As such, what is called city planning is better termed municipality planning, since even ancient Indic villages not only conformed to certain patterns, but had specified plans for development and maintenance.

32 ground plans are given in the Maanasaara for the construction of buildings, villages, towns, palaces, and forts. Rather than give an exhaustive list here, the construction types will be covered instead

Villages

Per Sthaapatya Veda, there were 8 types of Villages. A separate exegesis on Vaastu Saastra will better cover the topic. Nevertheless, here is a brief overview:

  1. Dandaka—suited for agraharas, with 12-300 houses, including some for munis.
  2. Sarvotabhadra—another village type suitable for aescetics (Vedic, Jain, Buddhist), but in this case housing all classes of people with different occupations. Mathas may also be constructed here.
  3. Nandyaavarta—meaning frog-shaped, this type of village may even feature royal residences. Streets here are larger and feature footpaths as well. Residences for musicians and dancers are also specified.
  4. Padmaka—Has 4-8 streets. Generally follows the pattern of the nandyaavarta.
  5. Svastika—This village type has 81 plots and is particularly purposed for the residence of kings. Naturally the main street shape is in the design of a Svastika.Has a royal palace, with residential buildings laid out around temples
  6. Prastara—with 81, 64, or 49 plots, this village type is square-shaped. There is a circular road, and it is ideal as fortified trading municipality.
  7. Kaarmuka—This village type is ideal for mercantile and productive classes. Vishnu and Siva temples are stipulated for construction at the junction of 2 streets.
  8. Chaturmukha—Square or rectangular in layout, it has four main streets in four cardinal directions, with a round boundary wall. This village type can be purposed for all ways of life.

Reading various texts of Sthaapatya Veda, the ideal of the Village Republic becomes clear. The first priority is made for defence. Each village was expected to be surrounded by a high wall of brick or stone, along with a ditch beyond it to serve as an obstacle in the event of an attack. Four main gates are considered the standard with 2 intersecting N-S and E-W streets. Often one for circumambulation of the entire village is also advised.  Tanks and ponds are also mentioned. Houses in the street could range from 1 to 12 storeys. [1,39] The main point was that residential houses should be located in areas without street congestion from traffic. In addition, murthi-sthaapana was to take place only during festivals or special occasions, and with proper religious rituals and honours. [1, 38]

Most notable, however, is that provision is made not only for village planning but re-planning!In the case of replanning a village, the architect or town planner should follow the order laid down for all villages.” [1,39] And for those who believe Hindus have no sense of heritage, here is a specific exhortation for village re-planning: “if there is any ancient building or temple in the village it should be retained and preserved.” [1, 39]

Cities

Palitana — Jain City of Temples

City and town planning are admittedly more complex.  These were categorised based on who resided in the area, the most important being the ruler of the particular polity.  There were 9 categories for cities based on 9 types of rulers: Astragrahin, Praharaarka, Pattaabhaj, Mandalesa, Pattaadhara, Parshnika, Narendra, Maharaja, Chakravartin. These in turn had various sub-categories.

The other set of cities are simply known as Nagara or Kevala:

  • Nagara/Kevala—City with four gates in the cardinal directions. Army barracks and guard quarters with temples and markets.
  • Pura—Without a royal palace.  It has many gardens and orchards for people of the various varnas. It is a centre of trade and commerce, with temples for worship
  • Nagaree—A city near a mountain or river. It should have a wall for protection
  • Kharvata—A city near pasture lands with mixed population
  • Kheta— A forest municipality inhabited by hunters
  • Kubjaka—A town with diverse types of people. It does not have a defensive wall
  • Pattana—A citadel near a river (much like Mohenjo-daro)

Forts were categorised as Sivira (camp or outpost), Vahinimukha (city with defence establishments), Sthaniya (strategic city near mountains/passes), Dronaka (fortified town built on banks of a river for commerce), Samviddha (town for brahmins), Kolaka (a samviddha with a palace for the king), Chaari/Nigama (town primarily for religious and commercial purposes), and Skandhavara (fortified town for kshatriyas). [1, 44]

There are of course the traditionally specified types of fortresses, which are 7 in number: Mountain fort (giri durgam), Forest fort (vana durgam), Water fort (jala durgam), Clay/Cave fort (panka/guha durgam), Chariot fort (ratha durgam), Divine fort (divya durgam, has extensive fortress with efficient defensive system), and Mixed fort (mishra durgam, situated among both both mountains and forest). [1, 45]

Temple construction is a topic of its own.

Harmandir Saheb – Golden Temple of Amritsar, Punjab

Given the technicality, Temple construction is better dealt with again under Vaastu Sastra. Not to play to the gallery by saying “pehle sauchalay, phir devalay“, (which should really not be an either or proposition…) but another critical aspect to discuss is the emphasis on public hygiene. Modern Indian municipalities may not be known for this (the cost of Colonialism), but ancient India certainly was.

Interestingly, not just cities, but even villages had to plan for hygiene, drainage, and catchment.

Drainage & Hygiene

With the passage of time and the efforts of archaeologists, it’s becoming more and more difficult to deny the greater and greater similarities between the Vedic culture that is recorded (and still lived today) and the ever increasing discoveries of the scale and spread of the Indus Valley Civilization, so much so, that it is increasingly being called the Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization. This, of course, dovetails with the Vedic Tradition itself, which asserts the Sarasvati-Sindhu (Brahmavarta) as the original home of all Indians.

Given the likelihood of this, and texts such as the Arthasastra which specify the high degree of regimented and disciplined public hygiene, Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are very much emblematic of Sthaapatya Veda’s emphasis on the same. If these cities in Sindhu desh show the urban plan of drainage, Sthaapatya Veda describes it right down to the village level.

It is also no wonder that Ayurveda is closely associated with it. According to Sthaapatya Ved it is imperative to known about other various valuable effects to the environment given out by various types of trees, plants, shrubs and herbs, etc. This has been studied methodically and their effects to human physiology have been stated. This is effectively used in planning a garden around a home, planting trees around a village, public gardens and tree in the cities. The trees and plants have been classified according to the location of their use.” [1, 48]

Vriksha Ayurveda, due to it extensive nature, is again, better discussed elsewhere. Nevertheless, this dovetails into the key terms for the topic.

Terminology

Keerthi Thorana, Warangal, Telangana
  • Vaastu Sastra—Study of Architecture & City Planning
  • Silpa Sastra—Study of Sculpture & Iconography
  • Chitra Sastra—Study of Painting
  • Chitra lakshana—Painting
  • Taksana—Carpentry
  • Rajadhani— Capital City
  • Graama— Village
  • Thorana—Arch
  • Devaayatana—Temple
  • Sabha—Assembly Hall
  • Sikhara—Steeple
  • Gala—Dome
  • Uttara—Lintel
  • Jaala—Jali (screen/lattice)
  • Gopura—Tower
  • Garbagriha—Sanctum Sanctorum
  • Praasaada—Palace
  • Vimaana—Pavilion
  • Visesha Bhavana—Palace of Beauty
  • Marga—Road
  • Manusyalaya—Residence
  • Aarama—Guest house
  • Alinda—Verandah
  • Prakaara—Ramparts
  • Parikha—Moats
  • Kapisirsaka—Battlements
  • Kautukalya—Museum
  • Silpasala— Art House
  • Istaka—Brick
  • Stambha—Pillar
  • Dvara—Door
  • Kaksa—Room
  • Gavaaksa—Window
  • Attaalika—Edifices/Buildings
  • Sthaapathi—Architect
  • Sthaapaka—Presiding priest at an architectural site
  • Silpi/Bhaskara—Sculptor
  • Chitrakaara—Painter

Important Texts

Vishvakarma Vastu Sastra

Vishvakarma Prakasa

Vishnudharmottara Purana

18 Mahapuranas (Matsya, Skanda, Garuda, Agni, etc)

Silpa Sastras

Silpa Ratna

Brihat Samhita of Varaahamihira

Maanasaara

Mayamata

Agamas, ie Kaamikaagama, Karanaagama, Suprabhedaagama & Vaikhaanasaagama

Suryasiddhanta

Siddhanta-shiromani

Samarangana Sutra of King Bhoja

Aparaajita-Prcchaa of Bhuvanadevacharya

Leelavati of Bhaskaracharya (mentions architecturally important concepts)

Conclusion

Much like virtually every field of study—even contribution—in Indic Civilization, Indian Art & Architecture is also subject to great controversy. On the one hand, western and western-sponsored “scholars” seek to minimise and question every accomplishment, be it intellectual or architectural, and on the other hand, the atisayokti-prone argumentative Indian reacts in grand hyperbole (“Taj Mahal was Shiva temple!“—[even this theory guys, asserts it was a palace that housed a Shiva Temple…details matter].

Marxist “historians” have only complicated matters more by inventing schools that didn’t previously exist “Indo-saracenic”, and crediting everything under the sun (pillars, domes, screens, even temples!) to foreign invaders. Finally, foreign invaders themselves gleefully catalogued their vandalism and iconoclasm that resulted in the destruction of many beautiful palaces and temples. Ghazni himself waxed eloquent on the wondrous temple of Mathura, saying it would take 200 years to build such a magnificent and glorious structure—before he proceeded to rob it of its inlaid gold and gems and burn it down with sulphur and naphta. Self-proclaimed “seculars” engage in all sorts of denialism of such realities, despite widespread primary source evidence. How can a person interested in facts, and Historical Truth, navigate his or her way through such a quagmire?

The answer lies in starting from the roots. And the roots of Indian Art & Architecture (real Indian Art & Architecture) are in Sthaapatya Veda.

Hindus had codified every branch of knowledge in some kind of Saastra and we had a Saastra on Art also. Among many Vedas and Upa-Vedas there was a Sthaapatya-Veda. Accordingly Hindu Art had a very vast scope in which Fine Arts, Technical Arts and Applied Arts, all were included. We had a full-fledged science which was called Shilpasasatra or Vaastusaastra. We had also a tradition of Kalaas what are known as ‘Catussastri-kalaas” [2, 1]

Srirangam Temple, Trichy, Tamizh Nadu

As seen  above with the Srirangam temple and also with the Vedanga Jyotisha, most of the traditional sciences in Indic Epistemology have an holistic unity. Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting are seamlessly integrated not only with themselves, but also with Ganita and Jyotihsastra. Many of course naturally protest saying the mythological and metaphysical should be kept apart from the modern and material. But in fairness, is that always the case?

Are the findings of Dvaraka real? —maybe. Are the roots of the Sarasvati-Indus Valley, Vedic?—possibly. But the answer to whether or not there was a native and ancient Indic approach to Art & Architecture should certainly be “definitely”. And that Indic approach to Art & Architecture is found in Sthaapatya Veda.

Click here to Buy this Book!!


References:
  1. Gaur, Niketan. Sthapatya Ved-Vastu Sastra: Ideal Homes, Colony and Town Planning. New Delhi: New Age Books. 2009
  2. Shukla, Lalit Kumar. A Study of Hindu Art and Architecture (with special reference to the terminology). Chowkhamba. 1972
  3. Singh, B. Satyanarayana. The Art and Architecture of Kakatiyas.Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan. 1999
  4. Shukla, D.N. Hindu Science of Architecture (Vol. I). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. 2008

Classical Indic Literature V: Romantic Sanskrit Poetry 3

Those of you familiar with our Post on Madan Utsav are no longer wondering whether Bharatavarsha had its own Festival of Love. But what if we told you there were not one but two festivals where lovers honoured and celebrated each other, and secret prayers for romance to fructify were offered to the Gods.

Sharad Rtu (autumn) is famous throughout India as the season of moonlight. The very sight of the full moon itself brings many thoughts of Sringara rasa.

Therefore, in honour of the ancient Kaumudi Utsav—celebrated on Ashvina Purnima, we give you Part 3 in our Set on Romantic Sanskrit Poetry.

While most of your are familiar by now with the peerless Mahakavi Kalidasa, today’s poet is uniquely talented in the art of Sringara Kavya. From the supple and spritely verses sauntering in the sophistication of simplicity, we give you the very pangs of separation incarnate.

Today’s installment on Classical Indic Literature features that beautiful work of Bhavabhuti called the Uttararamacharita.

Author

Bhavabhuti’s patron is thought to be Yasovarman of Kannauj, and is thus dated to the 8th century CE. Though there are debates as to Bhavabhuti’s correct time period, it is known that his ancestral home was Padmapura in the Dakshinapatha. Udumbara was the surname of his family, which was of the Kasyapa gotra. Udumbara may also correlate to the present Amraoti of Maharashtra, which was previously called Audambaravati, city of fig trees. Nevertheless, this family was of the Taittiriya school of the Krishna Yajurveda. Five generations prior was also a Mahakavi in the family. Bhavabhuti’s grandfather was Bhatta Gopala and his father was Nilakanta. Some hold that Bhavabhuti’s actual name was Srikantha, with Bhavabhuti as his title. His mother was Jatukarni. His tutor, Jnananidhi, was considered a master scholar. This Jnananidhi schooled him in the Vedas, the traditional systems of philosophy, grammar, and rhetoric. Bhavabhuti was certainly well acquainted with the Upanishads. Thus, along with being a master poet, Bhavabhuti was a master scholar himself. [1]

There is some indication that he was considered a rival of Kalidasa (if not in fact contemporaneous with him). Other non-contemporaneous rivals mentioned in the Bhojaprabandha include Bana and Mayura, and the Goddess Bhuvanesvari said to have anointed Bhavabhuti the best. Irrespective, if Kalidasa excelled at depicting Romance (sringara), Bhavabuti was an expert portrayer of Pathos (karuna) and Heroism (veera). Karuna is especially seen through the sympathetic portrayal of the separation of Sita and Rama,in the Uttararamacarita. If Kalidasa is “the Grace of Poetry”, Bhavabhuti is the “Master of Loquence”[1]. If the former is more idealistic and romantic, the latter is more realistic and varied.

Bhavabhuti was a great stylist and had a wonderful command over language; he was skilled in adjusting the sound of his verse so as to be an echo to the sense. [1,19]

The great author is known to have written three dramatic works: These are Mahaviracharita, Malati-Madhava, & Uttararamacharita.

The chief merit of Bhavabhuti’s plays, apart from questions of languages, lies, however, in their high moral tone. Even in describing ordinary human love, Bhavabhuti never wanders into the sensuous; he has probed the depths of romantic passions without descending to appeals to mere lust. He maintains a dignified gravity throughout; his ideal of a lover is one who obliterates self [1, 19-20]

Mahaviracharita is considered to be the earliest and covers the life of Sri Rama from his childhood to his later victory over Ravana and return to Ayodhya. Malati-Madhava is a love story in 10 acts. Uttararamacharita deals with the separation of Sita and Rama.

Composition

Sometimes the truth isn’t good enough. Some times people deserve to have their faith rewarded.

The Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana is one that leaves feminists aflutter in fury, but more importantly, leaves devotees and romantics alike afflicted with the pangs of pathos. One cannot help but shed tears, not only for Sita, who after all her suffering, was fated to be slandered by idle gossip, but also for Ram, who had to uphold the rigid Dharma of the Treta Yuga, and banish his beloved pativrata.

If the wife of mere Caesar had to be above suspicion, is it any wonder that the Chakravartin of Ayodhya’s had to be as well? Such laws have no place in our time of easy lies and facile gossipy gupshup. But even those of us who loathe cruel kimvadanthi can’t help but be deeply unhappy at the doom these two transcendental lovers were fated to suffer. Even the great Bhavabhuti, who authored the Mahaviracharita that celebrated Rama’s prowess, asked Vidhaatha, “Is this how you end it?“.

Determined to set things right, Bhavabhuti decided to give an ending he believed to be worthy of such a Divine Couple.

A nataka (drama) in 7 parts, the Uttararamacharita, like its predecessor, the Mahaviracharita, is a work that celebrates an episode from the Ramayana. The naayaka (hero) is a dheerodaatta (generous & self-sacrificing) and the naayika is a sveeya (one’s own rightful lover). While there is no pratinayaka (villain), the vastu (plot) is considered historical. [1, 22] While the earlier work is steeped in veera rasa, the later one is replete with soka as its sthayibhaava. While we feel the pathos of the protagonists through Karuna rasa, we also get ripples of romantic Sringara Rasa—the king of the rasas.

Sringara Rasa, as discussed in our previous article, is divided into Sambhoga and Viprayoga. While the former deals with lovers-in-union, the latter deals with lovers-in-separation. Quite possibly the epitome of viprayoga sringara was personified by that epitome of Dharma: the Divine Couple of Sita-Rama.

As such, Uttaramaracharita is very much work on viprayoga. Much maligned by misandrist feminists today, Bhagavan Ram’s deep-seated pain is searingly catalysed into our being, by Bhavabhuti kavi.

An interesting point that exposes the agendas of the “many Ramayanas crowd” is that if all Ramayanas are equally valid, then so is the Uttararamacharita—anyways based on the Uttara kanda. So either only Valmiki Ramayana is valid or the entire industry of India-hating feminists must accept the Uttaramacharita where Rama is not only reunited with Sita, but where the Goddess Ganga herself justifies Rama’s action as King who accepted the popular will.

In any event, one cannot help but be moved by the agony in Raghava’s heart. He who laid low the haughty brahma-rakshasa Ravana, now stood powerless once more before the high burden of Dharma.

The crown prince of Kosala could give up his rightful throne as if it were a speck of dust, but how could the King of Kosala banish his beloved wife, whom he rescued from Ravanasura? His duty as a king came before his duty as a husband, but that he nevertheless suffered the pain of parting becomes apparent in Bhavabhuti’s opus. Selection I alone is proof of this.

Those of you with commercial preferences for the crass persianised pidgin poetry of Bollywood may first require an immediate primer on real Romance. For the rest of us, however, the more sophisticated sensibilities of Sringara Sanskrita Kavya are more appealing to aesthetes and connoisseurs with more refined tastes.

Before we begin with the Poetic selections, in honour of the occasion, here is a brief overview of the Kaumudi Utsav.

Kaumudi Utsav

The sanskrit word kaumudi comes from the term for moonlight. As you will read in the selections below, such beauteous comparisons are not infrequent in Classical Indian Literature. They bring to mind wondrous thoughts of sleepy serene vales and dreamy autumn nights, when great love is painted on the canvas of existence.

It is in fact still celebrated in many parts of India, notably Assam, as the end of the Monsoon. Ashvin Purnima is known as Kojagiri Purnima and Sharad Purnima elsewhere. Appropriately, the Sharad Purnima itself is dedicated to none other than Goddess Lakshmi.

So without further ado, we bring you the love story of the Uttama Purusha through the Poetry of Bhavabhuti’s Uttaramacharita.

Selections
§

I.Tatkaalam Priyajana viprayoga janmaa

Teevro’pi pratikruti vaanchhaya visodah |

Duhkhaagnir manasi punar vapachya maano

Hrunmarma vrana iva vedanaam karoti || A.1,Sl.30

The fire of grief arising from the separation of my beloved, however fierce, was at that time borne by me through the desire for retaliation; but now, reviving in my breast, it causes agony like a wound festering in the vital part of my heart . [1,9]

 §

II.Iyam gehe Lakshmiriya mamruta varthirnayanayo-

Rasaavasyah sparsho vapushi bahulaschandana-rasah |

Ayam baahu kante sisiramasrno mauktikasarah

Kimasyaa na preyo yadi parama sahyastu viraha || A.1, Sl. 38

She is the very Lakshmi of my house, and a pencil of nectar to my eyes;

Her touch is a thick sandal-paste to my body; this her arm twined round my neck is as cooling and as smooth as a pearl-string; what about her would not be pleasing, but separation from her is exceedingly unbearable. [1,11]

§

III.Paripandu-durbala-kapola-sundaram

Dadhatee vilolakabaree-kamaananam|

Karunasya moorthiratha va sareerini

Virahavyatheva vanameti Janaki || A.3.Sl.4

The daughter of Janaka, her countenance charming owing to its pallid and emaciated cheeks and her loosened braids waving about, coming to the wood like the very image of pity, or rather lie the pain of separation incarnate. [1,26]

§

IV.Sramaambu sisiree-bhavath prasruthamandha mandhaakini

Maruttha-ralithaalak-aakula lalaata chandra dhyuthi |

Akunkuma-kalankithojjvala-kapolamut prekshyathe

Niraabharana sundara sravana paasa mugdham mukham || A.6, Sl.37

I remember her face, as it was cooled by the perspiration caused by fatigue

with its beautiful moon-like forehead overhung with her tresses, disheveled by the gently blowing breezes of the Mandakini

with its cheeks bright, not being marked with saffron-paint and engaging with its well-formed ears, charming in their unadorned state. [1,71]

§

V.Ethaani te suvachanaani saroruhaakshi

Karnaamruthaani manasascha rasaayanaani A.1, Sl.36

These thy words, O lotus-eyed one, cause the withered flower of my life to bloom,

[they] Gladden me, lull all my senses into peace, serve as nectar to the ears and as a sovereign balm to the heart.[1,11]

Click here to buy this Book!   Click here to buy this Book!    Click here to Buy this Book!

§

VI.Advaitham sukha dukha yoranu gunam sarvaasavasthasu ya-

Dvisramo hrudayasya yathra jarasaa yasminna haaryo rasah |

Kaalenaa varanaatya yath parinathe yath premasare sthitham

Bandra tasya sumaanu shasya kathama pyekam hi tat praapyate || A.1, Sl.39

Blissful is that fortunate man who, somehow, obtains that one thing—pure matchless…

love—which is the same in happiness or misery, which adapts itself to all conditions, where the heart finds its solace, the flavour of which is unaffected by old age, and which matures, as time removes the veil of reservedness, into permanent deep affection.[1,12]

§

VII.Tvam jeevitam tvamasi me hrudayam dvitiyam

Tvam kaumudi nayanayor amrutam tvamange

A.3, Sl.26

You are my very life, you are my second heart; you are the moonlight to my eyes and ambrosia to my limbs. [1,34]


References:
  1. Kale, M.R.The Uttararamacarita of Bhavabhuti. Delhi: MLBD.2010
  2. Winternitz, Moriz.History of Indian Literature. Vol 1.Delhi: MLBD.1996
Acknowledgement: My gratitude to the young man who once more lent his voice to give life to these lyrics. An example to other young men on how to respect young ladies.

Vedanga Jyotisha & Indology

The method of simply assuming results, once one is persuaded that they are true, rather than trying to prove them, has all the advantages of thievery over honest toil.
- Bertrand Russell quoted in The Origins of Astronomy [5].

Introduction

This short article is a prequel to the ICP post on Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ). The prior post contains the answers to the questions from Indologists that are listed in this article.

Vedanga Jyotisha

Epistemological Continuity

Scholars from within the Indic tradition successfully decoded the complex VJ text available in the form multiple rescensions, after 150 years of attempts by researchers from all over the world [1]. Their rigorous analyses, made possible by their multi-disciplinary expertise in Sanskrit, Jyotishastra, Ganita Sastra, and astronomy, have helped debunk many unsubstantiated claims regarding Indic sciences and VJ. Their research work can also enlighten contemporary eminent historians in India who remain unaware of the deep connection between science and Vedas. The findings about VJ clearly establish that its scientific innovations arise from Rta and Vedic Yagna, and its calendar recalls earlier Indic traditions [2].  The inter-connected developments in astronomy and other sciences also coincided with the growth of Ganita (‘science of computation’). This progress was part of an independent and continuous Indic tradition [5, 11] that spanned more than 3300 years, from the VJ and Sulba Sutras, to the genius of Madhava and Srinivasa Ramanujan. We have discussed Ganita Sastra and its epistemological continuity in this ICP post. Due to the integral unity [9] of dharma traditions, we also find this continuity in multiple other fields including Indic artmusic, dance, etc.

Indologists Study Vedanga Jyotisha

The previous post concluded with three findings that are pertinent to this post:

  1. The date range for VJ (1150 – 1550 BCE).
  2. The location of VJ (Northern India / Kashmir).
  3. Necessary qualifications to study VJ in its original form [1]:
    • a) Expertise in Sanskrit,
    • b) knowledge of Western/modern astronomy, and
    • c) an understanding of the concepts/practices of Hindu astronomy.

The absence of one or more of these three qualifications is likely to nullify the research effort and end in frustration [1].

Indology is a peculiar field. Sportspersons, scientists, and actors love their work, take pride in the history and traditions of their respective fields, and generally take their field forward. However, many career Indologists loathe the subject they study: Indic history and culture, and their research effort is directed toward producing results that can bring both down.

Summary of Claims

We reviewed the various assertions made by some (not all) western Indologists regarding VJ and ancient Indic astronomy and compiled a representative set of ten claims to discuss.

  1. The Vedic Indians possessed only a crude calendar.
  2. The Indics borrowed ‘Nakshatra’ from Mesopotamia.
  3. The Vedic calendar had no systematic intercalation.
  4. The date for VJ is 600 BCE or later.
  5. VJ content was created in Mesopotamia.
  6. Aryans brought astronomy and VJ ideas to India.
  7. Indian Astronomy was borrowed from Mesopotamia.
  8. The superiority of European time-keeping.
  9. The water clock is a Mesopotamian invention that Indics borrowed.
  10. Indic sciences exhibit a lack of originality, are repetitive, and non innovative.

Christopher Hitchens fans would say “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence“. On the other hand, these claims have been systematically studied and countered by multiple researchers, which allows one to dismiss them with evidence. For brevity, we have reviewed the arguments in [5], [3], and [1] to produce a limited response to each of these claims.

Claim 1

The Vedic Indians possessed only a crude calendar.

Response:

Many of the ideas in VJ are present in prior Vedic calendars. It is sophisticated for its time, and its mean measurements of lunar cycles and parameters, as well as the start time of the Yuga (a fundamental time unit of VJ), are remarkably accurate. The computations performed required expertise in modulo arithmetic, and the rule of three was employed as a subroutine. The invariant Nakshatra coordinate system, the Javadi table, the self-organizing and self-correcting Yuga based calendar, etc. indicate the depth of thought that the Vedic Indians put into the VJ.  The Javadi table is a thing of beauty that emerges from Rta. We found hidden inside this table, a full-period linear congruential (pseudo random number) generator that enumerates the ecliptic longitudes of all the full and new moons in a Yuga. VJ combined observational astronomy and Ganita (computation). The resultant balancing of order and chaos is characteristic of the Indic method [9] that is anything but crude.

Summary: False claim that has to be rejected.

Claim 2

The ancient Indians borrowed Nakshatra from Mesopotamia.

Response:

The commonality of certain prominent Nakshatras across cultures is unsurprising since everyone shares the same sky. In particular, it has been shown that the importance of Krittika nakshatra (star group ‘Pleiades’) is special to not just one or two cultures, but to peoples across all continents [3]. The Vedic lists of Nakshatras start with Krittika and the Rta basis for this choice is that the seasonal year begins when the sun in this Nakshatra sector (in Vasanta ऋतु, spring season). Krittika is relatively easy to observe and is important for a variety of reasons tied to the seasonal cycles of agricultural planning, food gathering, etc., and not because one culture found it first and shared this ‘IP’ all over the world.

Nakshatras (as stars or star-groups) are fundamental to the Vedic calendar as summarized in the Vedanga Jyotisha post. On the other hand, the Nakshatra coordinate system of the VJ is a uniquely Indic development that is not found elsewhere. In VJ, the Nakshatras identify wide ecliptic sectors that yield an invariant ecliptic reference system, and not the stars themselves [3], as misunderstood by some western Indologists.

Summary: False claim that has to be rejected.

Claim 3

The Vedic calendar had no systematic intercalation

Response:

In our post, we summarized the findings of researchers on intercalation in VJ, and discussed the intercalary months (adhimasa or adhikamasa) employed by Vedic calendars, and how the VJ Yuga is a self-organizing system derived from Rta that contains built-in error-correction.  VJ authors knew that the seasons must be synchronized with the sidereal year [3]. Such corrections prevented cascading errors (something that the European Julian calendar carried forward for more than a millennium until it was repaired for theological reasons by Catholic priests to safeguard the history-centrism [9] of their religion). The maximum error possible in the Vedic calendar has been calculated and shown to be bounded. Over the centuries, updated calendars and astronomical results were produced by the Indian astronomers and Ganita scholars.

The Indic method is systematic and is characterized by the Sanskrit non-translatable term abhiyukti (~algorithm) which is not entirely mechanical, but is comfortable with approximations, exceptions and non-mechanical corrections. This aspect can be seen continuously in Ganitasastra from the VJ to Aryabhata, from Madhava to Ramanujan.

Summary: False claim that has to be rejected.

Claim 4

VJ date is 600 BCE or later.

Response:

The astronomical time-stamp present in the VJ itself, a statistical analysis of the Nakshatra system, and other data enable us to narrow down VJ to a date range 1150-1550 BCE. It must be remembered that the VJ recalls earlier traditions that go further back in time. The 600 BCE or later date may have been proposed by Indologists so that it would be later than the earliest available Mesopotamian texts on astronomy (700 BCE), in order to satisfy their assumption of transmission from a Mesopotamian source.

Summary: This Claim has to be rejected. VJ dates several centuries prior, and is itself a culmination of results from previously existing traditions.

Claim 5

VJ content was created in Mesopotamia

Response:

Indologists latched on to the 3:2 ratio of the longest to the shortest day given in VJ to make this claim. This claim has been well-studied in [3]. The ratio depends on the latitude where these observations were made, and multiple locations qualify. However, most Mesopotamian areas are excluded, except for a couple of cultural centers in West Asia. Furthermore, a mathematical analysis reveals locations in the latitude range of 25N to 30N to be the more likely candidates, increasing the likelihood of an Indic origin, and significantly weakening claim 5.  Furthermore, mention of this ratio shows up in Mesopotamian literature after 700 BCE, long after VJ’s latest possible date.

Summary:  Unsubstantiated claim that has to be rejected. Kashmir is a likely candidate. Mesopotamian locations are unlikely.

Claim 6

Aryans brought astronomy and VJ ideas to India.

Response:

Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), invented by Max Muller in the 19th century has been thoroughly debunked (historians have noted that the racist Aryan theory has been cynically exploited by two totalitarian regimes guilty of large-scale crimes against humanity: the British Raj and the Third Reich). There is no mention of such an invasion in Vedic text or Itihasa. Furthermore, the location and date of VJ, as well as its epistemology, considerably diminishes the chances of a non-Indic origin of VJ. There is a vast amount of work done by Indic scholars on this topic. The interested reader is referred to ‘Breaking India, by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan.

Summary: AIT today is a discredited theory, albeit one that has considerable propaganda value in contemporary Indian ‘vote bank’ politics, and thus the debate is unlikely to end soon. The only sure way to ‘prove’ AIT today is to assume that AIT is true and then find data (genetic models are popular in recent times) that agree with this assumption. Quite Easily Done.

Claim 7

Indian Astronomy was borrowed from Mesopotamia.

Response:

Again, the time period of VJ and prior Vedic calendars, and the secure epistemology of Indic astronomy, makes this a remote possibility. There are several differences between ancient Mesopotamian and Indic astronomy since the latter is rooted in Rta, which is Satya in action. For example: A seven-day week is recognized as a Babylonian artifact, and is not found in Vedic text. Note that a 7-day week is not clearly tied to Rta whereas ahoratra (day-and-night), Pakshas / lunar phases, and ऋतु (seasons) have naturally occurring periods that are observable (pratyaksha). They represent Rta, and are used within ancient Indic calendars.  Per [3], the earliest mention of a seven day week in Indic literature is 484 CE, nearly two millennia after VJ. Research shows that the Hindus developed their own calendar and astronomy, and in many areas, were several centuries ahead of their time. (For example, see Ahargana in claim 8).

Summary: There was little need to borrow astronomical concepts from Mesopotamia or Greece since Indic astronomy was epistemologically secure [5] and advancing quite nicely. Ancient Indics had developed strong traditions in both algebra and geometry [5], a claim that few others (if any), can make. It may have been counter-productive to import alien concepts since it would require the Indics to force fit them into the Indic approach based on pramana, which is no easy task. In fact, a leading Indian scientist has argued that although this Indic policy of rejecting foreign paradigms (that lacked pramana) had positive outcomes, not re-working and adapting them into the dharma framework proved costly later.

Claim 8

The superiority of European time-keeping.

Response:

From the 18th century CE, European time-keeping and astronomy made rapid progress and took the lead. However, time-keeping there was not always as well developed. We can mention a couple of examples.

a) The Julian calendar (~45 BCE) produced a cascading error that could not be fixed until the Gregorian reform in 1582 CE. This effort relied at least partially on Indian time-keeping methods, using text from the Indian west coast obtained by visiting European missionaries during this time period. Once the Gregorian reform victory was secured for the church, Roberto De Nobili, the Italian Jesuit missionary in India (in 1610 CE) launched a diatribe against VJ to discredit the source text [11].

b) The Julian day number (not to be confused with the Julian calendar) was first created in Europe in 1583. This system calculates the elapsed time from a fixed date, Julian 1/1/4713 BCE. In comparison, Aryabhata’s Ahargana (‘heap of days’) method [5] for tracking elapsed time was already in use for a thousand years. Without a reliable method for time-reckoning, accurate time-stamping of historical events and record keeping is difficult.

Formidable numerical and calculating challenges had to be overcome by ancient cultures that did not yet possess Ganita. Commenting on the Indologists who ignored these epistemic gaps, Kosla  Vepa [5] remarks:”[ancient Europeans] had no symbols or numbers larger than a thousand. Most Indians have been persuaded by the Colonial power into believing that Indian chronology is faulty and wanting (compared to whom?). Such an assumption is belied by the fact that it is the Indian records that they depended on to decipher what the Greeks did according to David Pingree. We will illustrate the inherent contradictions in their stance towards Indian historical record keeping in the chapter on knowledge transmission, where we examine a half a dozen instances of similar contradictions…”

Time-keeping (from small intra-day units to the largest time units) has been a part of Indian civilization for a long time, and evident in the earliest texts. The importance of history to Indic civilization cannot be understated.

Vedic Cosmology — The Dharmic View of Time

Summary: The claim is rejected since the data suggests otherwise. It makes more sense to reverse the claim and find out whether the ancient Indic methods could be considered dominant based on the available data.

It would not be out of place to recognize the Indics as the original time-keepers of the cosmos.
Claim 9

The water clock is a Mesopotamian invention that Indics borrowed.

Response:

Indic water clock designs were different from the Mesopotamian ones. Ohashi’s informative paper (see [3]) on this topic debunks this claim and shows that post-Vedic water clocks were different from Mesopotamian ones. Furthermore, Narahari Achar [7] identified passages in Vedic text that suggest the usage of water clocks in Vedic times were also different in design.

Summary: This claim has to be rejected for lack of evidence.

Claim 10

Indic sciences exhibit a lack of originality, are repetitive, and non-innovative.

Response:

The VJ post shows that the exact opposite is true. This claim sounds childish now, after all the evidence meticulously uncovered by researchers, but such claims were taken seriously and parroted by multiple western Indologists in essays and books.  There is a long list of Indologists who spent years learning from Sanskrit Pandits and thereafter U-turned and denied, diluted, or damned with faint praise, the original accomplishments of the ancient Indians, without pretence of objectivity.

Summary: It is time to reverse the gaze and study why, who, and from where the motivation for such sustained hostility to Indic civilization emerges from.

Many churlish claims were made by a researcher named David Pingree. It is worth studying his approach as a representative specimen of Euro-centric bias.

Who was David Pingree?

Professor Pingree was a mathematical historian at Brown University in the US, and much of his professional career involved the study of scientific material in ancient Sanskrit texts. After spending decades wading through Indic works to create his magnum opus, ‘a census (not just a sample) of  the exact sciences in Sanskrit’, he opined that the Indics really did not come up with anything noteworthy and borrowed everything either from Europe (ancient Greeks), and if not Greeks, then from Mesopotamia. Interestingly, the volume of relevant manuscripts available from these ‘sources’ is minuscule compared to the massive amount of ‘borrowed’ material in Sanskrit that Pingree literally had to take a census of [5].

Pingree makes an implicit assumption that designates Indians as knowledge consumers and Greeks/Mesopotamians as knowledge producers. Thereafter, one can always speculate about how this transmission took place and find data that fits this assumption. Such Indologists would claim, without hard evidence, that many valuable results in Sanskrit texts were borrowed. If by chance, Indic priority was undeniable, then the claim would be that the G/M discovered it independently [5]. Pingree was neither the first, nor the last indologist to indulge in such narrative building exercises. The Aryan Invasion fiction is a necessary tool in this Eurocentric propaganda since it provides the Indologist a safe fall-back that ‘in any case, the Indic science and math came from the Aryan master race who invaded India’. The discussions in [5] and [3] thoroughly expose the methods employed by Pingree and other Euro-centric indologists.

It was an uphill task for Pingree to begin with as there are few, if any, primary sources of these claimed Greek results, and the earliest texts relevant to these claims belong to the Common Era [5]. As far as verifiable evidence of Greek-to-Sanskrit transmission to support these claims, there is none. However, in recent times, there is information regarding potential transmission in the reverse direction. In order to create a plausible picture from scant data, some Indologists have employed a technique called speculative reconstruction [5].

Some Indologists may have missed the lesson on 'etaddhasti darshana iva jatyandhah'. Different people can look at the same data and arrive at entirely different conclusions that suits their preconceptions. 

Speculative Reconstruction

A grand narrative promoted by Euro-centric Indologists requires a glorious, ancient Greek past where almost everything important in science and math today originated there (or independently discovered there, if someone else got lucky and did it first). Researchers like Pingree have devoted entire careers, producing results that further this goal. They have succeeded spectacularly, if one looks at all the theorems, results, and entire areas in mathematics that are attributed to Europeans in textbooks, starting from the Pythagoras theorem and Euclidean geometry to Fibonacci series to Newton’s calculus and McLaurin/Taylor series. It is as if no worthwhile mathematics ever happened outside the Judeo-Christian domain (!). These historians of math have often employed speculative reconstruction (SR) to guess the original result from partial data. SR combines imagination with contemporary math to form a conjecture about what was done thousands of years ago.

Recently, researchers have used such methods to try and push back the date of trigonometry in ancient Mesopotamia by creatively reinterpreting an ancient manuscript: Plimpton 322.  Other western experts saw through this as a marketing exercise. A key counter-argument to such claims is that exceptional “3000 years ahead of xyz” events is unlikely to occur in a vacuum. Showing the continuity in epistemology throughout that time period, and establishing a historical context for the result goes a long way in making such claims credible and reduces the chances of being dimissed as hype.

SR in itself may be a useful academic tool, but its value as confirming historical evidence is nil since it is speculation. Some Indologists have employed multiple layers in SR, i.e., they have rejected part of the historical data as mistakes committed by the author thousands of years ago and then generated new data ‘to correct the error’ and essentially produce what they assumed. An outrageous example is the ‘chord table of Hipparchus‘ where SR was used to claim that Aryabhata borrowed his R-sine difference table from this [5].  This claim has been exposed by Indic researchers by showing how SR works and then explaining the original Ganita in Aryabhatiya and its commentaries.

Final Note

Of all the subjects we studied in school, Mathematics was regarded as the least subjective.  As a historian of mathematics in a top US university, why did Pingree adopt such an utterly biased approach when it came to Indology? To understand his motivation, let us turn to his PhD work. One of his graduate advisors was Daniel Ingalls.

Ingalls visited India and learned Sanskrit, became a celebrated professor of Sanskrit in the US, and authored several works on Sanskrit literature. The names of the students who did their PhD work under Ingalls read like the who’s who of Hinduphobic Indologists: Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock, John Stratton Hawley, and others. Daniel Ingalls has received relatively limited attention from Indic scholars so far, since the spotlight has been grabbed by the infamous bunch of students he spawned . He served as an espionage agent during WW2, when he was required to spy on Indians in Kabul. His closest Indian friend was the Marxist DD Kosambi. His student, Padma Shri Sheldon Pollock,  has progressed further and is the darling of both Indian marxists and Islamic fundamentalists. Indian billionaire Narayana Murthy’s son Rohan Murty, provided more than USD 5M to fund his subversive work.  More than 50 students got their PhD under Ingalls and teach in major universities.  The co-authors of the Harvard tribute to Ingalls that we have excerpted here includes Diana Eck and Micheal Witzel, well-known for their Hinduphobic writings.

Ingalls’ life-story deserves to be thoroughly researched since he succeeded in learning Sanskrit from the Pandits in India, and eventually produced an army of Sanskrit-aware western-supremacist scholars who, until recently, have hijacked and poisoned the discourse in India, and have been rewarded by the Indian government, media, and industrialists for this effort.

Juan Pujol Garcia (codenamed Garbo) was a spy and a dedicated double agent against the Nazis in WW2. His contribution toward the allied D-day deception is considered critical. He received major military awards from the Nazis and the British.The Germans paid for his fictional network of 27 Nazi spies. Once, one of these spies was killed, and the Nazis generously paid out a pension to his equally fictional widow. By the end of the war, German intelligence was actually funding British intelligence, paying several hundred thousand USD.

References
  1. KV Sarma and Kuppanna Sastry. Vedanga Jyotisa of Lagadha In its Rk and Yajus Rescensions. With the Translation and Notes of Prof. T. S. Kuppanna Sastry. Critically edited by K. V. Sarma. Indian National Science Academy. 1985.
  2. Subhash Kak. Astronomy and its Role in Vedic Culture. Chapter 23 in Science and Civilization in India, Vol. 1. The Dawn of Indian Civilization, Part 1, edited by G.C. Pande. ICPR/Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2000.
  3. Prabhakar Gondhalekar. The Timekeepers of the Vedas: History of the Calendar of the Vedic Period (From Rgveda to Vedanga Jyotisa). Manohar Publishers. 2013.
  4. K. Ramasubramanian. Perspectives on Indian Astronomical Tradition. HH Dalai Lama Premises. Dharmasala. 2016.
  5. Kosla Vepa. The Origins of Astronomy, the Calendar, and Time. Lulu.com. 2011.
  6. Narahari Achar. Enigma of the Five Year Yuga of the Vedanga Jyotisa. Indian Journal of the History of Science (33). 1998.
  7. Narahari Achar. A Case for Revising the Date of Vedanga Jyotisa. Indian Journal of the History of Science (35). 2000.
  8. John Playfair. The Works of John Playfair (Vol. 3).. with a memoir of the author. Edinburgh, A. Constable & Co. 1822.
  9. Rajiv Malhotra. Being Different: India’s Challenge to Western Universalism. Harper Collins. 2011.
  10. Sudha Bhujle and MN Vahia. Possible Period of the Design of Nakshatras and Abhijit. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 2006.
  11. C. K. Raju. The Cultural Foundations of Mathematics: The Nature of Mathematical Proof and the Transmission of the Calculus from India to Europe in the 16 c. CE.  Pearson Education. 2007.
  12. Subhash Kak. The Astronomical Code of the Rig Veda. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 2011.
  13. Subhash Kak. The Wishing Tree: Presence and Promise of India. iUniverse Inc. 2008.
  14. Kapila Vatsyayan. The Square and The Circle of The Indian Arts. Abhinav Publications. 1997.
  15. R. N. Iyengar. A Profile of Indian Astronomy before the Siddhāntic Period. ISERVE Conference, Hyderabad, India. 2007.
  16. Kuppanna Sastry. The Main Characteristics of Hindu Astronomy in the Period Corresponding to Pre-Copernican European Astronomy. Indian Journal of the History of Science (Vol 9). 1974.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to N.r.i.pathi garu for his patience and encouragement.

Grow Up, Bharatiyas

Indian politics remains one of those intriguing contradictions. Young nation-Old Civilization, Land of Dharma-Many Sampradayas, and with the commencement of Navaratri, it is key to note that it is also a nation of both Kaali and Sita. Yet no dichotomy remains more pertinent than Politically Independent-Mentally Colonised. Part of this is due to the nature of macro-politics, but much of it is due to the simplistic and even childish approach many Indians take to what is a strategic and highly sophisticated game.

Politics is not so simple as “Kalki Avatar!”. For starters, many of the self-proclaimed traditionalists themselves don’t realise that Kalki Bhagavan isn’t scheduled to arrive for another 427,000 years. What will you do until then? Many of the same ‘traditionalists’ are anointing Hindu beef-eating promoters as ‘pure satvic‘, so perhaps the time has come for people to look within.

Perhaps the problems are so great that not a single government—elected or otherwise—is capable of actually ensuring Dharma samsthapana. How is this possible you ask? Look no further than the world’s oldest democracy, and understand the debate that is going on there.

To properly understand the nature of sub-national, pan-national, and international politics, one must understand the nature of macro-politics. If you still believe this is a clash of civilizations rather than a clash for civilization, you are still clueless. If you still believe that prime actors are national actors rather than transnational actors, you are still clueless. If you still believe that only your caste, and no other caste will restore Dharma, than you are dumber than a post . Rather than doing 24/7 tom-tom (or supporting those who do), shouldn’t you being doing or promoting useful things?

The British were famous for the sociopathic pleasure that took in insulting people to their faces…and Indians, for their unique talent in being oblivious to that. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

If Bharatiyas, and other nations of humanity, are in the doldrums today, it is their own rejection of Virtue all while wearing their religiosity or anti-religiosity on their sleeves.

Make no mistake: However much we criticize Bharatiyas here, this is an international problem.

Problems specific to Indians in general and Hindus in particular have already been diagnosed here and here. But the main problem is an international one. It is one that plagues humanity as a species. Rather than not getting enough pleasure, it is getting too much of it.

Liberals of Delhi

Head-up-your-ass-itis may be a universal condition, but its Indian strain is particularly virulent. Exhibit A: Moron hindus RT’ing non-Hindus referring to “moron hindus”, albeit, by quotation.

Supporting people who proffer apologia for the well-known and well-documented British role in the Partition of India only shows how the so-called “RW” is as colonised as the “LW”. Ceding space to outsiders to a degree where they actually call you morons to your face while arrogating the position to lecture you on how to “decolonise” only shows RW Hindus are no less moronic than their “left” or “Hindu Left” counterparts. Getting respect starts with self-respect.

Devdutt Pattanaik’s detestable books pervert our Dharma through his perverted interpretations. Nevertheless, the crux of this article here is, sad to say, correct.

Far be it from me to support anything he writes, but it is the height of stupidity for RW’ers to knee-jerk respond by publishing the self-same british partition apologist’s mockery of not only Pattanaik’s thesis, but any Hindu calling into question the role of Foreign Saviours—a well-documented phenomenon even in the West. This left-wing bigot’s caste caricature should be condemned, but isn’t his general point about “Right-wingers” here correct?

Having to discuss nationality is unseemly & unfortunate when one is faced with not a clash of civilizations but in fact a clash for civilization; nevertheless, it is necessary. One cannot ignore the historic, well-documented and well-known role of De Nobili and other such foreign saviours used by foreign “universal” institutions to co-opt and ultimately replace first native spiritual leadership

 …and then ultimately “political leadership”.

And that is what is lacking today among Bharatiyas: Leadership.  They are quick to seek out videshis to settle native disputes, while whining about colonialism. They are quick to ally with their foreign enemies in order to defeat their native rivals. They are quick to anoint foreigners as “Acharya” who misinterpret our sacred texts for Liberal purposes:

all while arrogantly abusing their own orthodox native ones without provocation:

Perhaps that is the greatest oddity: The worst casteists are often the biggest foreign slaves. That is the true danger of Aryan Invasion Theory. It pits Indian against Indian, while giving justification for wannabe Indian elites to become mental, spiritual, and ultimately political slaves of supposedly more “genetically pure” Aryan foreigners…Just as FC Casteist needs BC Casteist, Right Wing needs Left Wing. All this is Liberalism anyway (Classical Liberalism (RW) vs Progressive Liberalism (LW). All this is why the casteist Right Wing is as colonised as the casteist Left Wing, and why a true Dharma Paksa—a Bharatiya Dharma Paksa—is what is required.

It is fine to question our Acharyas—particularly in this questionable era—but even this must be done with respect and Maryada…or at the very least Sabhyata.

DharmaMandir

True, “holy men” aren’t above the law (let alone Dharma), but the standards of law vis-à-vis men of the cloth must be equally applied. Are they? More than that, society should not be so quick to judge those who are ministering to others—and rebuilding Rta in their own way. That is also why—contrary to ambitious casteists of all kinds—there is a distinction between religio-spiritual leadership and politico-strategic leadership. Each has its role to play and its own variety of intellectualism to embody. Let the real Bharatiya Acharyas do what they must to spread the Dharma, and let those creating risible mythologies of “greatest political genius” leave politics to the competent professionals. But that is precisely the problem—a surplus of Ego that focuses on ambitions and (alleged) rights rather than necessities and duties.

Bharatiyas are infected by a pestilence of petulance so puerile that even a 1% disagreement with their own side results in a rhetorical (or actual) fight-to-the-death. The self-same hypocritical  do-nothings whine about westerners misinterpreting our texts but don’t call out “native” Indians misinterpreting them to further Aryan Invasion Theory. The self-same hypocritical do nothings will whine about Bose’s promotion of urdu but then  then double back and furnish apologia for M.F.Hussain’s bigoted and perverted paintings of Hindu goddesses. The very same M.F.Hussain’s who sins against Hindus go beyond overrated art (his initials are certainly apt). Funny how those who whine most about “cuckoldry” end up supporting those who further such an agenda. This is why your friends cannot be anointed to run your own homes. The great Kashmiri satirical writer Kshemendra wrote of such unwelcome guests who abuse and overstay their own welcome—despite coming in the guise of ‘acharyas’. That is why in the Kali Yuga, Atithi Devo Bhava does not apply. Observation of Atithi Dharma (by both sides) does.

There was a well-known criticism of Nehru that applies to self-appelled RW’ers and “trads” today: the type of intellectual pinhead who didn’t know which way was up. If you don’t know your interests, if you don’t’ know friend from foe—or at least have the sense to put someone in the “can’t be too sure/not one of us” category—then what business do you have giving advice to all and sundry?

Acharyas of old were of the mold of Acharya Vishnusarman. They had not only the command of spiritual texts, but had the practical sense to detect and distinguish the native from the foreign, friend from foe, the Daivik from the Asuric.

VN_foolishfriend

Rather than falling for threads and textual recitation, they had the good sense to understand capability and intentions—that is true realism. Rather than supporting Philip Goldberg & Sheldon Pollock over Rajiv Malhotra, they would have the good sense & virtue to prioritise Dharma over Rna.

Politics ain’t beanbag, and macro-politics ain’t for amateurs, intellectual or otherwise. The first qualification for this is the ability to shut up.

VN_Silence

And this is single-biggest thing “moron hindus” lack understanding of today: the value of ‘shut up’.

Videshis aren’t here to save you because videshis aren’t interested in saving you. That is why they are always saving each other’s asses even while on opposite sides of the same Indian dispute. Does this mean all of them are malevolent?—No. But it does mean a guest is just a guest—and not a family member. It does mean you can’t afford the risk of replacing your leadership, your primary advisors, with them. Kaakollukiyam was written by Acharya Visnusarman—yet you recite his Panchatantra with out actually applying its lessons.

This thread is a case and point in the stupidity plaguing Indians, top to bottom.

One set of morons exult in their own self-loathing embrace of English (in the name of ‘egalitarianism!’) and another set make matters worse by insulting the locals whose state in which they are living.

This childish need for external validation/inclusion is emblematic of esteem issues. This type of falling over each other to defend all things foreign, including foreigners poking their nose in your own politics, is part of the problem. Foreign friends have their politics and we have ours. It is fine to exchange notes in the clash for civilization. It is good to appreciate friends, and India does have many foreign friends of all shades who genuinely appreciate India and support its culture. But your friends cannot run your own house. They have their own house (which they must set in order) and you have yours. Many people choose to marry within their own castes—fine. But if you consider inter-caste marriage to be the same as inter-religious or inter-national marriage, no wonder many of you think you have more in common with other nations. Each nation has its own house.

Let foreigners practicing Dharma revive it in their own nations rather than ministering to India. If the above movie clip is emblematic of the real views in avowedly equality-oriented immigrant societies, what of non-immigrant societies like India? India and Europe are not immigrant societies, but old societies with their own long-established cultures or peoples. For all the talk of universalism, funny how the foreign commentators chased by LW and RW Indian publications are always North of the Equator…but never South. Leave aside African Acharyas, would an African Sonia Gandhi have been as successful among Indiots? Wouldn’t that be true internationalism and true racial non-discrimination?

Comparing notes is one thing, “outsourcing” leadership is quite another. Will this spark off xenophobia?—No, it’s just a healthy skepticism and self-respect that is required if all nations are to preserve their uniqueness. Rather than raising racial rhetoric, it will draw more attention to institutions making slaves of all races. In the guise of “freedom”, human beings are unwittingly being subjected to a hierarchy of slavery. Contrary to casteists, varnashrama dharma is not a hierarchy of slaves, but a framework for duties. No caste or class can be “respected without exception”—hypocrites and criminals of all castes and classes will be punished. If the most “classless” of  communist societies simply ended up  creating 3 new classes, then what is fundamentally the problem is classist and casteist attitude. So long as your approach is “kick the one who licks and lick the one who kicks”, hierarchy of slavery is all you’ll be re-establishing. So which are the institutions subjecting mankind of all colours to slavery? As Voltaire wrote, find out whom you cannot criticise, and that is who rules you…directly, or indirectly.

And that is what makes the ahankari-shikandi outrage over the Pradhan Mantri to so laughable. For all the claims of “political genius” they are utterly clueless of the macro-politics Modi faces. Many of his government’s policies are wrong: aadhar, gst, non-repeal of RTE, and yes, even demonitisation. But are many/most of these unique to him?—or part of the chillar-mukht policies proliferating around the world. Rather than threatening to vote for congress, perhaps clueless casteists should dismantle their own (substantial) ignorance and start asking…

bono

This is why it is time for Bharatiyas to set aside nationalism and start promoting patriotism. Desa Dharma isn’t the same as Nationalism. Nationalism is “help my country, right or wrong”. Patriotism is “help my country distinguish right from wrong”. Nationalism is about superiority complexes; Patriotism is about loyalty to one’s native land. That is why the true patriot respects patriotism in others. It’s why a Scipio Africanus could meet Hannibal on the eve of Zama. Often times opposing generals, warriors, and even diplomats express admiration for the other side, and wonder how they might be have been friends were they on the same side.

There are many reasons to be upset at the Centre. But what are the international politics? What are the macro-politics? If the Centre is doing what it can do to buy you time—what are you doing with that time? Are you continuing to cavort in caste-cliques spreading asinine propaganda, or are you working together or with others to do your part for Dharma?

Daily news cycles and social media free-for-alls only accomplish so much. They are simple reactions to the greater strategic action of those subjecting you to slavery. Rather than asking “why not me?” when looking at others doing something you wish to do, ask “why me?”—to see if you are even qualified. What’s worse, is if you spend day in day out RT’ing videshis poking their noses into our own politics—what self-respect have you?

Wolf in sheep’s clothing is a well-known parable. Better yet is the Panchatantra tale of the Crows and Owls…so remember the lesson of the Kaakollukiyam. Rather than chase after the approval and advice of foreigners you can’t be certain of, work together with your countrymen to collaborate in common interest.

Time to get your acts together. Grow up Bharatiyas.

A Case Against the “Hindu Left”

Subsequent to our preceding article on why the “Hindu Left” is an Oxymoron by Morons, it consequently became apparent that a methodical deconstruction of the origin & nature of this proposed political alignment would be required. This incipient movement by the insipid is neither something entirely new nor something entirely native.

To understand precisely why this re-igniting of the Left-Right dichotomy in the Hindu/Indic body politic is so dangerous, we will have to study the history of Socialism and Communism, which colour the connotation of “Left”, whether those ideologies are publicly professed or not.

A Case against the “Hindu Left”

The Case against the “Hindu Left”, an inchoate social media movement numbering in single digits, necessarily begins by studying the history behind not only it, but also the political ideologies that are intended to be revived by it. The funny thing about many socialist/communist revolutions is that they don’t always state upfront that their “Revolution” is meant to bring about Communism. After all, totalitarian forms of politics centrally and oppressively controlling every aspect of the citizenry isn’t exactly appealing. Vague calls for “Revolution” by label-less “Revolutionaries”, on the other hand, catch the interest of the disenchanted and disaffected. If things aren’t working, much simpler to just tear it all down.

Therefore, to properly understand exactly what the implications of a putative “Hindu Left” are, one must first study the history of this nebulous concept of “Leftism”.

A Brief History of “Leftism”

As with many phrases, labels, and typologies, concepts are not only purposefully opaque, but origins are often obscure and inapplicable to other contexts. As discussed by many intellectuals, the term Leftism originates in circa Reign of Terror Revolutionary France. It came to embody not only peasant interest or democracy & socialism, but also anti-clericalism. Hence our point in our previous article about how the inchoate Hindu Left’s demonisation of Hindu “mercantiles” will invariably be followed by demonisation of Hindu clericals. The bloody reign of terror in Revolutionary France also shows memetics affiliated with words such as “Revolution” and “Social Justice” and “Classless society”. The radical republicanism of France was soon followed by the even more virulent concept of socialism.

Often couched in literal utopian terms such as “utopian-socialism”, the origins and definitions of socialism are somewhat nebulous—likely by design. Though socialism, and some assert even communism, predates Marx, he and his associate/sponsor/sugar daddy Friedrich Engels would give these concepts a life and memeplex of their own. With the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, the ground was paved for history’s bloodiest political movement. The pen truly is mightier than the sword.

In the later 1830s and 1840s the German-born Marx was as obsessed with the leg-acy of 1789 as any French intellectual, and he even planned to write the revolution’s history.” [2, 17] Thus Marx was plainly inspired by the French Revolution, showing the bloody inheritance of not only Marxian Communism, but even Napoleonic liberalism. The Reign of Terror (and the later Red Terror of Bolshevik Russia) are the norm, not the exception.

Though the more famous (and more successful) October Revolution of Russia is well-known today, there were two other months where “Revolutionaries” attempted to overturn the established order. First there were the Decembrists (of December Revolution fame in 1825). These pre-Marx “Revolutionaries” were in fact inspired by the “classical liberalism” of Post-Revolution Napoleonic France. This shows not only the etiology of socialism, but also the nature of even “classical liberalism” in overturning order and setting society aflame. It may be difficult to digest in the present time, even up until a few years ago, but it is worth considering. Along with this was the February Revolution of 1917 that resulted in Tsar Nicholas’ abdication, which immediately preceded the October Revolution in the same year. This is important because one sees the perpetual demands that are a part of perpetual revolution. As one will see later on with Critical Theory, it’s not about achieving objectives or even solving society’s problems, but applying a method. It’s the method that unites disparate objectives and motivations to form an overarching Revolution.

Ironically, Russia was considered the least likely candidate for successful Revolution by Marxists as it was not a fully developed capitalist/bourgeois society. Long considered semi-feudal, due to the only recent abolition of serfdom, Russia (which became the USSR under Lenin) was ill-positioned to implement Marx’s theory. Nevertheless, primarily due to the 5 year plans of Stalin, a massive and inhuman industrialisation drive took place. Though considered partially successful, the human toll was terrible. Above all, certain difficult facts also were suppressed.

Food productivity (meaning the ability to generate greater amounts of food) was actually higher on smaller privately-owned plots of land than on large collectivised farms. Industrialisation partially succeeded, but Soviets were barely able to feed themselves. For all the talk, Marxist theory did not deliver—but the person who discovered this in totalitarian socialist (sorry, I mean communist) Russia, was summarily shot. Incidentally, he had been arguing that the small farmer was not a “capitalist”. As we can see from our own “Hindu Left”, it’s a slippery slope with mercantiles, with mathas and small farms also being labeled so—as political expedience demands.

The spread of Communism into China (with its Maoism and Cultural Revolution), and Post-World War II, into Eastern Europe is well known. Various movements to assert even independence from Russian domination, such as in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, were summarily crushed. Moderate Socialists were displaced in Afghanistan, eventually setting the stage for the rise of the even more abominable Taliban (also showing how the “Left” and “Right” feed off each other, first eliminating true alternatives (such as the Afghan Monarchy) before falling upon each other).

Perhaps Cuba offers the most interesting case. As is typically the case with communists, they usually don’t begin by pursuing true Communism. It’s usually something more innocuous. But eventually, due to the requirements of expedience and pressures from big brother Mother Russia, Cuba went communist. That is the danger of any “Left Movement”. It starts off as one thing, but whether in France, Russia, China, or even Cuba, it eventually ends up another.

India, of course, is no stranger to ‘Leftism’. The very mention of the word conjures up images of not only the anti-national CPI (M) of “China’s Chairman is our Chairman” fame, but also the brutal Naxalites, originating from Bengal’s Naxalbari. Corporate interests have a pre-Independence History in India (the British East India Company, after all, was a Multi-national Corporation). Therefore, it is possible to oppose corporate/imperialist exploitation without allying with Leftist/Naxal movements. That’s the true meaning of Swadeshi (desa Dharma, which opposes not only corporatism and mercantilism, but also foreign imperialism).

Regardless, while links can and are made to the Ghadar “Revolutionary” movement and even great Independence fighters & veer-balidanis such as Bhagat Singh, it is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who has come to represent the Left’s greatest impact on India. Rather than an extensive bio, here are key insights into Neta ji’s vision for India, often in his own words.

[3, 116]
It’s quite apparent, Netaji was not content merely with liberating India through his “Revolution”, but had every intention to use his powers under Socialist Authoritarianism to “mould farmers and workers according to socialism“. In short, rather than simply attaining independence and restoring a traditional Indic polity with some changes, his purpose was to change the very nature of Indic society itself. The desire to implement such ideas is seen in his own proposed solution.

[4]

Many would then argue that Nehru (hardly a profile in Dharmic leadership) also desired to establish “dams as the temples of modern India” and aimed to establish secularism in a religious country. True, but whatever asinine policies Nehru pushed through, they were done so in a parliamentary manner with some attempt at consensus. Opposition had at least some hope of legal or constitutional recourse. Nehru himself also was an advocate of democracy and individualism.  Even if we think of them as both extensions of western liberalism, an elected socialist democrat is certainly less oppressive than a socialist authoritarian dictator.

Rather than turn to Dharma as his guiding political philosophy, it appears Neta ji had other philosophies in mind.

Would Subhas Chandra Bose have been a Lenin or a Stalin? Or perhaps a ‘kindly’ Benito Mussolini? Those who fancy dictators and dictatorships should consider the body count they also come with.

Ideologies of “Leftism”

As discussed in the previous section, the etiology of “Leftism” is itself rooted in the reactionary. That is, it is premised more about reacting against an existing order, be it feudalism or industrialised capitalism. That is why it targets specific classes to generate a class-war. Ironically, many “socialists” expressly chase after utopian ideals, because utopia actually means “nowhere”. Because such a workers’ paradise is possible nowhere, perpetual revolution becomes the only way forward. Hence the war against “mercantiles”, then “clericals”, then “aristocrats”.

Aristocracy does mean “rule of the best”—the problem is, it’s become associated with degenerate idiots from Bollywood. But the question of the best is premised not on the basis of nepotism, genetics or assorted luxury perversions the film industry is known for, but historically, premised on virtue (Dharma).

It was the most virtuous who had the right to rule. It was why whatever the legalities of the succession crisis of Hastinapura, the matter should have been settled the moment the question of “who is the most virtuous” came up. This need not be read as justification for monarchy, but rather an explanation of what aristocracy meant and means in the first place. Even American Revolutionary Thomas Jefferson spoke of a “natural aristocracy”. This is because the American concept of Revolution was something quite different than the one envisioned by Marx—and also communism proper hadn’t been invented and popularised yet.

De Tocqueville asserted that Lawyers were the natural aristocrats in the United States. The legal profession is one not premised on birth, but on qualification (specifically passage of the bar exam, and ideally, earning a Law Degree). One possibility for a Dharmic Polity would reorganise varnashrama dharma along qualification lines rather than pure birth lines—with individual merit being premised on the virtue (rather than coaching centre/genetic network based “merit”)—and banning birth-based “untouchability”, which discriminates against whole communities of Hindus. Whether one agrees or not, it is at least some viable solution that preserves both freedom and dignity.

That is the Danger of the Hindu Left and the case against the Hindu Left.The desire to turn unique human beings into identical socialist bricks explains why socialist regimes are often totalitarian [or authoritarian in Subhas Chandra Bose’s case]—because it is the only way they can make a serious attempt to achieve their aims. The socialist obsession with equality has always been at war with the division of labor and knowledge that comes naturally” [1, 32]

If varnashrama dharma (misnomer: caste) is a key part of Vedic Dharma, then the Hindu Left will forever be at war with “the division of labor”. Perpetual Revolution is built into the Hindu Left concept.

Karl Marx, the most famous of socialism’s found-ing fathers, harshly condemned the division of labor and the inequality it produced, and sought to elimi-nate it precisely in order to destroy existing societies so that they could be replaced by presumed Commu-nist utopias. Marx and Marxian socialists sought (and seek) to use the coercive powers of government to stamp out all human differences, differences that Marx himself called a “contradiction” of the socialist ideal.” [1, 37]

The fundamental problem with socialism that in its obsession with Inequity it promotes Iniquity.

“Socialism can lead to the ‘end of truth,’ as Hayek called it, because socialists believe in indoctrinating people into ‘The Truth’. This is why socialists regimes have made us familiar with ‘reeducation camps’ and rigid, totalitarian ideological conformity. Socialists believe that there are no legitimate, alternative view-points. Socialists’ propaganda must dominate the educational system and the mass media so that, in Hayek’s words, ‘a pseudoscientific theory becomes part of the official creed’ which ‘directs everybody’s actions.” [1, 58]

Finally, India is a Truth-based society. It’s national motto is, not for nothing, Satyameva Jayate.  It is the land of Satya Harishchandra who would not tell a lie, and Lord Rama, who ensured his father’s promise did not become a lie. Even when Krishna made Yudhisthira tell one small lie, the purpose was to protect the greater Truth. And even here, Yudhisthira accepted the sin associated with telling even a ‘white lie”. Red lies, on the other hand, are an whole other story.

’Truth’in a socialist society is not something to be debated; it is mandated and enforced by the Social-ist regime, from which there is no alternative and no appeal.Once socialist ideology takes over and respect for actual truth is destroyed, wrote Hayek, then all morals are assaulted because all morality is based on respect for the truth.” [1,58]

Now Hayek and his Austrian school are no Saints. His Free-market Capitalism theories have also come under the scanner, not only in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis, but even through the association with Chile’s Pinochet. Again we see how LW and RW feed off each other, but capitalism can be critiqued at another time. If communism through Marx provides the most accessible critique of capitalism, capitalism through Hayek does the same for communism. Hence Hayek.

Irrespective, the following should now be clear:

Socialists, of all varieties, tolerate no opposition, allow no competing authorities, and are at continual war with individuals, families, private organizations, churches, businesses, and local and regional authori-ties that might oppose or interfere with their grand vision for reordering society. Socialists believe in total control. They want to control you.” [1, 76]

But if a “Hindu Left” can be packaged and posited by those who promote the achievements of the “Revolutionary Socialist Party”, perhaps a brief overview of the various forms of Socialism is in order.

Types of Socialism

The most fundamental characteristic of socialism is an obsessive commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society, based on solidarity and collectivism. There is a general drive to remake the world, usually in their own image, by controlling the means of production. The term itself is thought to date back to Revolutionary France, with the first type:

Utopian-Socialism: Where has it ever been applied successfully? “Nowhere?”. It is a theory of social transformation of society, solving various issues in the vaguest of terms with some nebulous notion of universal equality. Etienne Cabet, Henri Saint Simon, and Charles Fourier were all utopian-socialists focused on revolutionising society. Saint-Simon agitated against idlers (such as the nobility, and surprise… the clergy). He was a French aristocrat himself. Self-loathing socialist hypocrisy did not start with Engels.

Anarchism: This particular form should send shivers down the spine of any WWI buff. It was an anarchist who assassinated Franz Ferdinand setting off the ‘Great War’. Though it does cover a wide range of views, it is embodied by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin. Interestingly, Proudhon was anti-feminist, anti-homosexual, and very puritanical, but was also anti-property—securing his socialist credentials, despite his hatred of government. Bakunin’s main disagreement with Marx and Engels was on centralisation and on whether the Russia was the most likely candidate for Revolution, because its peasantry was more oppressed than factory workers in the West.

Communism (International Socialism): a political system in which men live cooperatively and hold property in common“. [2, xxii] It offers a critique of capitalism putatively to provide a replacement. Its major proponent, often termed originator, is Karl Marx. He provided a simplistic analysis of history based on a simplistic linear progression from slave society, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Marx himself insulted Hinduism, likely resulting in the deep-seated hatred Indian Marxists, Communists, and Leftists have for Hindu Dharma.

Maoism: A form of Communism based on the stipulations of Mao Tse-Tung. He developed a theoretical justification for the establishment of Communist power in non-industrial societies based on the backs of peasants and the petty bourgeoisie. Interestingly, Capitalists are known above all for turning small businessmen (petty bourgeoisie)into impoverished workers, creating a built-in base of alienation. Mao is also significant for his prioritisation of National over International Communism.

Fascism (National Socialism): Contrary to most people who view Fascism as the polar opposite of Socialism, it is in fact a form of socialism (a middle class socialism rather than a working class socialism). It is an internal dichotomy within socialism itself. In the communist form, workers take control directly and establish a dictatorship. In fascism, corporate interests capture the government and again ensure specific, sweeping policies are pushed through and concentrate resources in the hands of a few.  Above all, like communism, it establishes a tyrannical centralised bureaucracy that eliminates power at the state and local levels.

“fascism is just another form of socialism” [1, 13]

Social Democracy: Most often characterised by Sweden and Swedish Social Democracy. In true Bastiat fashion, the regulative tyranny of the Bureaucrat replaces the tyranny of the Politburo.

…ostensibly what Indira Gandhi had in mind when she inserted “Secular” and “Socialist” into the Indian Constitution. Interestingly, she later suspended democracy to establish the “Socialist” Authoritarian Emergency in India.

No matter what the form, all you need to know is that 100 million people have died from Socialism. [1, 59]

Affiliated Forms of Marxism

Feminism: Though not a form of government (yet…), it seems to have taken on elements of perpetual revolution through its eventual pursuit of not only political equality but ostensibly biological equality. Interestingly, Friedrich Engels (sugar daddy of Karl Marx) could be considered the First modern Feminist due to his express desire to emancipate women through the destruction of private property. While the downsides and flipsides to Feminism are discussed here, the implications of Radfem should be jarring to all.

Critical Theory & Cultural Marxism:

Critical Theory refers to the Frankfurt School of Marxism. It sought to effect cultural change through “social critique” and reexamination through the Marxist method. It is deeply rooted in Marxist notions of historical materialism. This arose out of Marx & Engels’ criticism of utopian-socialism’s inability to deal with the present based on use of the past.

Study of History is Important. But how it’s done, and how it’s even defined also matters. Those who mock the Indian approach to Itihaasa and life as “supernatural” deserve to be questioned on whether they are really Hindu at all. After all, all they seem to be doing is merely passing off the etic as the emic. Within the Marxian theory of history itself is a theory for change, and ultimately, the seeds for Revolution.

History to them is mere agit-prop.

This list is of course not exhaustive. But it is meant to show just how many-headed this Hydra truly is. It will also help readers understand the actual origin behind the “Hindu Left”, and why it is simply repackaging old (poisonous) wine in a new (saffron) bottle.

Origin of the “Hindu Left”

The origin of the “Hindu Left” is a curious case, much like that of Benjamin Button. It is an old concept that seems to be getting only younger with time.

Although many twitterati seem to be under the impression that the term originated with 3 “incorruptibly incorruptible chankian” uber-patriots of bose-ian Hindu dispensation, the overt call for a Hindu Left starts with a publicly “out”, formerly Christian, currently cultural marxist lesbian who inserts Freudian interpretations into Hindu texts. While alternative lifestyles shouldn’t be an issue in discussing the origin of such ideas, there has been a noted pattern of individuals with such an orientation seeking to change the traditional interpretation of Hindu texts (often with videshi or evangelical sponsorship).

Ruth Vanita is a well-known author of books on queer studies, specifically in the Indian context. Interestingly enough, it is she who appears to have been the origin of this (polish the gold trumpets…) clarion call for a “Hindu Left”. On what basis, this is not clear. Though Dharma does not persecute people of alternative lifestyles it does not promote such lifestyles either. So if not Dharma, what could such an ostensibly “Hindu” Left entail? Here is an illuminating section from her Post:

“No one seems surprised that Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world today that is supposed to have a Right but not a Left. In Europe, the US, Canada, and in South American countries, there is a secular Right and Left, and also a Christian Right and Left. While the Catholic orthodoxy opposes abortion and homosexuality, there are many vociferous Catholic groups that support both. There is an organization of gay Catholics called Dignity. Almost every major Protestant sect has a left wing and a right wing. The tradition of organized Christian feminism dates back to the nineteenth century and many earlier Christian writers are clearly proto-feminist. Today, the secular, that is, atheist or agnostic, left routinely works and organizes in cooperation with the religious left.1 Both constitute a visible presence in left-wing demonstrations. Gay Pride parades, for instance, always have substantial contingents of gay Christians and Jews. Similarly, in most Islamic countries, there is a Muslim Right and a Muslim Left. In India, however, there is almost no Hindu organized Left.2 What does this mean and why is it so? Does it mean that there are no leftists who are practising Hindus? Not at all. It is well known that even in their most militant days, Calcutta’s communists migrated en masse to Durga Puja celebrations, and I personally know Marxist academics at Delhi University who are pious Hindus at home, regularly fasting and performing puja. But at the level of public theorizing and organizing, this aspect of their lives remains invisible and unspeakable. The number of Indian thinkers today who try to integrate religious and leftist thinking can be counted on the fingers of one hand – Ashis Nandy and Ramchandra Gandhi are among the very few who make this attempt with Hinduism.”

Ah, yes, Ashis Nandy, famed worthy of Leftism parodied here, is making an attempt at concocting a “Hindu Left”. Interestingly enough, the unofficial bio of Mr. Nandy shows his affiliation with the Bengali Christian community, despite being a “non-believer”.  So these are the eminence grises, the delicate geniuses behind the “brilliant” idea of “Hindu Leftism—an oxymoron apparently originated by morons who aren’t even originally Hindu.

Naysayers may argue that there are many “sincere conversions into Hinduism”, and that may be true, but for both to come from an avowedly Abrahamic background and then seek to influence the Hindu body politic does strike one as more than a bit convenient. This is the case all-the-more so when one realises its aim at merely replicating the Abrahamic experience of Left vs Right, in India. Irrespective, one thing is clear, despite the Hindu label, based on this excerpt, the Hindu Left is meant to be non-Dharmic in orientation. Indeed, this is apparent in one of the concluding lines of her message:

If more liberal and leftist Hindus begin to acknowledge their Hindu identity and speak in defense of Hindu heritage, this can only strengthen, not weaken, the secular left.

Is this the real definition of “Hindu Left”. Will they bring the “true socialism” that the USSR and PRC failed to provide?

So the Hindu Left is merely a roundabout means to “strengthen, not weaken, the secular left.” How lovely. After all the hard work of cultural Hinduism exerting itself in the last 30 years, a plan b for the secular left to impose its politics on India has emerged in the form of, drumroll please, the ‘Hindu Left’.

In any event, Dr. Ruth’s message was then followed up by a LiveMint Article by G.Sampath, who mentioned and echoed Vanita.

This brings us to the present Bose Brigade.

Eels can be slippery animals, frequently denying affiliations where they plainly exist.

Code words and Catchphrases include such common bon mots such as revolutionary, solidarity, worker vs bourgeoisie, peasant vs mercantile, solidarity, etc.

While the modus operandi of this triumvirate was discussed in our previous article, the first triumvir seemed to have picked up the baton (or proverbial hammer and sickle) from Ruth Vanita just after the LiveMint article was published. Her ‘nationalist credentials’ were established with her “timely” support for Narendra Modi to speak at UPenn. She soon allied with like-minds, including the previously mentioned slippery eel, and one ironically Kalhana-quoting dushtamatya. Opportunism, after all, needs no ideology, only a means to (academic) self-promotion. From there, she would then have the foundation from which to lead an effort to revive Leftism under a rebranded Hindu Left.

All these personalities and the movements or parties they were a part of speak of revolutionaries, socialism, and humanism—even if they don’t expressly support communism. The Bengali Rosa Luxemburg (the original one was a ‘revolutionary’ Marxist who led an abortive ‘revolutionary uprising’ centered around the German Communist Party), seems to pretend that Revolutionary is some innocuous, ideology free term.

Colour Revolutions are, of course, not a new concept. There was a “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, an “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, and even a “Saffron Revolution” in Myanmar. What makes them concerning is not necessarily the degree of violence associated with them or the ideology, but rather, the questions of extra-national financing. That is the reason why any call for “Revolution” or “Revolutionaries” must be carefully examined. This is because any overturning of the existing political order (krama) benefits external actors (paradesis). Matsya Nyaya naturally breeds Marxists. Dharma, on the other hand, is about upholding order (Rta), which is the expression of Truth (Satya).

But for historical materialists such as this maven, anything dharmic or spiritual is invariably supernatural. Even fellow Bengali, Sri Aurobindo, does not escape critique from our resident Bengali Chauvinist.

Make no mistake, the Hindu Left is not some haphazard movement that came together by coincidental and happy circumstance. It is a concerted push to derail the return of cultural Hindus to political Dharma proper.

A Case against the “Hindu Left”

classvclass

Bhodrolok?

Cultural Marxism is a pestilence because it deconstructs (aka tears down) the status quo without offering a viable alternative. Sound familiar? It doesn’t take responsibility for providing solutions that can actually work, or for building a “pro-Hindu” party beyond the BJP—no, that would mean actual accountability. It’s why the brilliant idea to themselves work to build a transparent platform and new nationalist party never occurs to these delicate geniuses. Delicate genius can’t be bothered to see if its theories actually work in real life. Hence the need for simplistic agitprop, implicit support for Socialist Revolution, and explicit calls for a nebulous Hindu Left (meant to actually strengthen the Secular Left).

Nationalism is nothing new for socialism. As the Chinese and Vietnamese have shown, nationalism is nothing new for communism either. Socialists have in fact called for combining it with other traditions (such as the Hindu tradition) to make it and Marx relevant again.

Identity politics is nothing new to Marxism, Socialism, or Communism—Revolutionary or otherwise. Engels (the other half of the Marx-Engels Communist Manifesto) himself argued for the ‘emancipation of women’ through the elimination of private property (the Sex and the City lifestyle is apparently much more accessible if Carrie Bradshaw’s Manohlo Blahniks belong to all women…). Though the American Civil Rights movement featured many who drew upon the philosophy of Jefferson and Madison rather than Marx, a number of Marxist/Communist radicals would coopt or even spearhead anti-racist movements (sadly, the term racism itself owes its origin to the despicable Trotsky, who spoke the language of racial equality but had no respect for the sanctity of human life, unborn or adult).

And the close association of Cultural Marxism with the RadFem and LGBT movements needs no introduction. If all these movements could be co-opted (or even engineered), why can’t an Identity politics for Hindus? After all, all the requirements are there:

“Revolutionary”

“Socialist”

“Solidarity”

Propagandists vilifying ‘Vaishyas’ 1 day can switch to demonising Brahmins the next. Danger of casteism: scapegoating is transferrable. Today someone else, tomorrow you.

The reason is because to openly tout communism or even Socialist Authoritarianism would immediately alienate important and specific sections of the population. It is far easier to speak in vague terms about “revolutionaries” and “left” or even “hindu left” without providing an alternative to the common man. Thus, gradualism and communism are not strangers, but go hand in hand. Like certain religious extremists, they begin to assert that the problem was not too much socialism, but rather “not enough socialism or not real socialism”. The problem with socialism is that if you keep adding more and more socialism you eventually end up with communism. That is why socialist gradualists must be kept at arm’s length or even ostracised (along with their pinhead recommendations)—the end goal of these leftist movements is communism, plain and simple. They just can’t spell it out for you…yet.

Revolutionary martyrs such as Che in Cuba are invoked in a familiar template celebrating the “Revolutionary Spirit” and “Revolutionary Psyche”. Proponents will obviously draw comparisons with the American Revolution—but communism had not been created yet. The term Communist doesn’t even always appear in Party names.

The Communists Party in Russia formed around the “Social-Democratic Labour Party” (Bolshevik itself means ‘majority’), East German Communists relied on the Socialist Unity Party, Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge had the Kampuchean People’s Revolutionary Party, and Poland had the Polish United Worker’s Party

Would the same have resulted with Neta ji’s All-India Forward Bloc or the with the Bose Brigade’s affinity for the still extant Revolutionary Socialist Party? Perhaps circling back to the origin of the Hindu Left would be helpful here.

Indian academic Ruth Vanita posed the same question in an essay in Seminar magazine (2002) , titled Whatever happened to the Hindu Left?

What all this means is that there is still a huge political vacuum – a need gap, in free market terms – for the Hindu Left. A political formation that combines a genuinely Hindu religiosity – marked by pluralism and a respect for minorities – with an economic agenda oriented towards employment-generation rather than creating “an ideal investment climate”, is bound to resonate with an electorate tired of having to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee at the national level.

Most jarring is the history of appropriating unrelated Hindu Dharmic figures into the Hindu Left, starts from the very beginning.

And the Hindu Left has a long and worthy tradition – going back to the Bhakti movement, with a continuous lineage all the way from the Nayanmars and Alwars to Kabir, Meera Bai, Surdas, Tulsidas, Namdev, Tukaram, Tyagaraja, and many others right till the arrival of Ramakrishna Paramahansa in the 19th century.”

Apparently Saints like Tulsidas and Thyagaraja are now Hindu Left “Revolutionaries” too!

Everyone can be a Revolutionary (ideological consistency need not be required!). Only a Hindu label and a leftist politburo or a socialist utopianism, and voila, a new party of political interests dedicated to the destruction of traditional culture!

As such, the call for a Hindu Left is nothing new. Indeed, there appears to be a concerted agenda in pushing this theory.

Just as the “Hindu right” has been created to trot out Friedmanesque, Reagan-lite, objectivist drivel all in the name of “animal spirits” and the “miracle of capitalism”, so too is the other face of this Liberal Janus being debuted recreating the Left within the Hindu body politic

Interestingly, Hindus have (almost from the beginning) recognised it for the oxymoron that it is.

Understanding the genesis of this term is even more important. Ruth Vanita is well-known for her mangling of Indic Epics in order to advocate for alternative lifestyles (such as the one she leads).

But since the days of Manu, same-gender relations have not been advocated. Whether or not they should or shouldn’t be criminalised in modern India is another matter, but pretending as though Dharma protected or even advocated same-gender relations is specious reasoning at its finest. Ruth Vanita, Saswati Sarkar and their “Hindu Left” embody everything that Dharma is not.

One need not speculate whether these 3 individuals of the Bose triumvirate lead such alternative lifestyles (hence their advocacy of “the Hindu Left”). Nevertheless, it is important that gullible Hindus easily falling for slogans, sloganeering, and slow-witted ideologies understand the ramifications of “Revolutionary” changes to society that would be brought by an ostensible “Revolutionary Socialist Party” or oxymoronic “Hindu Left”.

The Hindu Left is merely the agenda of liberalism in newly stitched garb. Old (poisoned) wine in a new (saffron) bottle. Once upon a time “classical Liberalism” appeared to stand for something. It has now become apparent that liberalism is nothing but libertinism—a tool for the destruction of society and social morays.

Conclusion

If India is to remain the Land of Dharma,it must reject not only the oxymoronic”Hindu Left” of Ruth Vanita and the Bose Brigade, but must reject Liberalism (which is nothing but progressive initiation into Libertinism). All of these foreign ‘philosophies’ ultimately, like secularism, have their root in Protestantism. Do tell us, ye revolutionaries, if the “Hindu Left” project fails, will you bring about “Hindu Protestantism” next? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Is it any wonder the leader of the Bose Brigade called for the prostitution of women (royal or otherwise). Despite their undeserved arrogance on history, they even got the history wrong, as the Chachnama story of the Sindhi Princesses is considered apocryphal, and no “seduction” is required if one is sent to be a sex slave.  As one can see here, Socialist countries place no value on the honour and dignity of women—who were degraded as sexual objects by men…and often other women. Is this the “Hindu” society that these “revolutionaries’ wish to recreate? That is why the word dharma/dharmic generally only appears in their dialogue sarcastically. Hinduism not being our word, it is only natural that these phoreign-sponsored “revolutionaries” would degrade our Dharma. Bhadralok is of course a sacred term—but Dharma? Who needs that? Since when is Dharma ‘revolutionary’?

And that is precisely the point. Dharma is not revolutionary, because Dharma itself seeks to uphold order Rta, which is the expression of Satya. The order may be adjusted to time and place, but the fundamental Saamaanya Dharma is common to all, and has a common interest of preserving Truth (in all ages). In contrast, Communists and Socialists are famous not only for their political assassinations, but also for their assassination of Truth. Can such a people be trusted to uphold Dharma, Rta, and Satya in their soon to be revived Revolutionary Socialist Party?

Further, as Gen. Bakshi has recently asserted, Jadhavpur University (alma mater of Madame Blatavsky-Lenin) is a hotbed of leftist ideology endangering India’s integrity and national interests. It’s unsurprising therefore that the advocates of this “Hindu Left”-Ruth Vanita rebrand would have connections to such an institution.

The recent deaths during the post-Dera Sacha Sauda ruling are truly tragic. The lives of people of all castes and communities matter and should be treated with dignity. Use of force must be restrained save in the gravest of circumstances, as there are non-lethal methods of crowd control as well. Sensitivities to the Dalit community in particular are crucial not just to Hindu society’s future, but to the true principles of Dharma.

But the reality is, rather than laying the groundwork for a genuine Dharma paksha that allows each community and region to protect national interests, this triad is blazing an ideological trail for a re-invigourated Revolutionary Socialist Party. Despicably seeking to make hay out of the Dera rioting tragedy smacks of the worst sort of unashamed agitprop.

Socialism is mealymouthed and ambiguous enough for them to attempt to weasel out of the fundamentalist and tyrannical baggage accompanying communism and totalitarianism. And yet, their hero Subhas Chandra Bose himself advocated Socialist Authoritarianism. Is it therefore not logical to infer that they too are advocating the same? Naturally, our three (J)eeniuses (with a capital J) would presumably be on the politburo, dictating to “mercantile” (if any will be left), feudal, and clerical alike. The peasant, of course, would already have been easily fooled like the animals on Orwell’s farm. Because after all, no socialist society ever achieved perfectly equal, classless society. They only managed a “more equal” society. With various classes such as the “intelligentsia” forming to “guide” the worker and farmer alike.

Many people may be quick to aver that National Socialists in fact represent the Right rather than the Left. But this is why it’s called False Dichotomy. It’s a false choice between an International Socialism and National Socialism. The end result is still Socialism (itself a nebulous utopian concept that ensures those with the power have no accountability). Capitalism paves the path for oligopoly and monopoly, with Communism leading first to national expropriation then international expropriation, preferably by a suitable international body.

That is why both Leftist and Rightist rejects must be rejected. They both represent different brands of the same crummy product. The Hindu Left is simply creating a different starting point. While the Communist Party (Marxist) was very clear that “China’s Chairman is our Chairman”, the newly proposed “Hindu Left” merely mimics the original position of the Communist Party of India, in asserting the need for a Hindu Chairman. The Hindu Left still wants a Chairman, specifically a Socialist Authoritarian one.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. The “Hindu Left” is nothing but another hare-brained attempt to revive Socialism, except this time, rather than an anti-national socialism, the aim of these nitwits is a “National Socialism”. That is why their tactics, behaviour, & ill-conceived literature matches a certain Austrian circa 1920.

It has often been said that if fascism were to return, it would be in the guise of anti-fascism. Here is the face of the “hindu antifa”. Therein lies the problem with only focusing on “social justice”—such movements ignore the importance of other established aspects of Justice, such as forbidding crimes against humanity—whether in the name of socialism, etc. But when it’s socialism and social justice uber alles, it’s not simply Stalin vs Hitler, but Stalin & Hitler. What Hinduism, Hindu culture, or even Hindu dharma actually is risks becoming the sole purview of one man’s whims, beef-eater or otherwise.

That is the danger of super-imposing foreign typologies without regard for native philosophies. A square peg is force-fitted into a round hole, with predictable results. Contrary to critical theory, (Hindu) Poetry did not die with WWII and its accompanying atrocities. Hindu Philosophy was not debunked with the discrediting of the (European Christian) Enlightenment. And Hindus need not struggle to harmonise the material with the metaphysical.

Long ago, Acharya Chanakya spelt out the prime directives of Rajadharma in his Arthasastra. These are:

Raksha (Protection from External Threat)

Palana (Internal Law & Order)

Yogakshema (citizen well-being).

Of course, many self-appointed Subandhus believe themselves to be Chanakya and attempt to rule by proxy due to “authority”—ending up burnt like both. Ministers, as even Chanakya notes, are servants of the King. Raksha, Palana, and Yogakshema are the responsibilities of Kshatriya Dharma, and that core aspect of Kshatriya Dharma (Raja Dharma). Kshatriyas (by character, not necessarily birth) are not mere warriors, but traditional aristocrats who are responsible for protecting their people. This is the danger of separating the “intelligentsia’ from politico-military functions. Those who govern must understand the implications of the policies and even “political movements” that are being advocated.

The last remaining Hindu Kingdom in the world was disestablished this past decade in favour of a Nepali Left. Is the last remaining Hindu refuge in the world, which rejected Communist politics, in the cross-hairs via a new Hindu Left?

The opposite of an aristocracy (rule of the best) is kakistocracy (rule of the worst). If the original notion of aristocracy was rooted in virtue or Dharma, then it is only natural that kakistocracy be rooted in Adharma.

Government becomes more and more a government of the worst, by the worst, and for the worst. That is what socialism delivers.”[1, 63]

Socialism is nothing but kakistocracy in a supposedly ‘non-racist, non-misogynist, non-homophobic, non-transphobic, and non-whatever else you can [insert here]” form. The worst sanctimoniously assume the moral high ground by highlighting discrimination against increasingly micro-minorities, despite the bureaucrat or politburo collective effectively rejecting morality. Theories of racism or ill-treating people of other races or backgrounds is indeed unethical. But there are greater crimes, such as mass murder, about which socialists have no compunction .

Ironically, even Communist government was not free of class. Most socialists don’t even claim to have eliminated inequality, only to have formed a more equal society with less ‘antagonism’ between classes. Workers and peasants remained two classes of society with the ‘Intelligentsia’ forming the main component of a third called ‘stratum’. So 3 classes to replace 4?

Hindu society has come along way from the various forms of discrimination. But if its systems have become associated with pejorative words such as “collaborator”, “hypocritical”, “greedy”, and keeping the “chote log” down, it is due to the fall of cultural and political elites from their own values. It is adherence to values that determines virtue in society. The path to correction is not jumping from the frying pan into the fire via Revolution.

The plight of the Dalit is better today and there is a path for young and talented Dalit boys and girls to rise to see their potential come to fruition and succeed alongside others with dignity. But is the path to ensuring this to all Dalits through internally-driven reform or externally-funded revolution? These are the questions right-thinking Hindus of all castes must ask.

False dichotomies are nothing new to socialists of all sorts.Joseph Stalin, engineered a rhetorical/propaganda coup (with the help of the worldwide socialist movement) by repeating the notion that the only alternative to Russian socialism was fas-cism”. [1, 65]

Perhaps that is why the self-branding “Hindu Left” touts itself as the only alternative to the RW. Interestingly, elements of the Econ RW have also called for a ‘Hindu Left‘. But this conveniently ignores the fact that many Hindus vote for the BJP despite free market economics and despite the RSS, not because of them. Whatever the organizational relationship between the two, there is a clear Pro-Indic movement that wants nothing to do with the Sangh or Milton-Friedman minstrels.

After all, there is no centralised Church or Papacy in Sanatana Dharma. True culturo-spiritual (adhyatmik) authority lies  not with Nagpur, but in Dvaraka, Badrinath, Sringeri, Puri, and a panoply of other peethas, mathas, and even agraharas of different sampradayas. Each traditionally trained acharya is vedic voice of 1 by virtue of the deeksha and adhyapana they’ve undergone and the achara they are oath-bound to live. It is they who (together) clarify what traditional Vedic Dharma is, not Savarkar or even Swami Vivekananda for that matter. The sangh is merely a political organisation, whatever the relief work and social service of well-meaning karyakartas. That is the difference between RW “Hindutva” and actual Sanatana Dharma.

Thus, as we stated before, there is a clear basis for a proper Dharma paksha. A Contemporary Dharma paksha is what is required, not some anti-national left,  or now notionally nationalist hindu left vs a nationalist hindu right. A Civilizational Dharmic fight is what we face, and a pragmatic and Contemporary Dharma Paksha is what we need. One not rooted in rhetoric or foreign invention or repressive ritualism or hide-bound traditionalism, but one that recognises the exigencies of the time while remaining rooted in and protecting the tradition and those who live it. It is one that neither scapegoats specific varnas nor discriminates against specific Bharatiyas nor imposes foreign ideologies, but respects Hindus (and Bharatiyas of all backgrounds) while restoring and preserving Dharma.

Merely applying a saffron teeka onto Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose will not paint over the background of accompanying red. The end goal of Socialism is Communism. Those arguing that the BJP’s philosophy was termed “Gandhian Socialism” ignore three key points.

  1. Western Theory was the default characterisation of the time. Even until recently.
  2. The BJP and ostensibly Gandhian philosophy both support Democracy
  3. Subhas Chandra Bose not only favoured Socialist Authoritarianism, but expressly sought for something between Hitler’s Fascism and Stalin’s Communism

Many have assumed trappings of rajas without following true rajadharma, just as many have assumed trapping of Hinduism (as a mask for leftism) without following true Hinduism (more properly called Sanatana Dharma).

Nehru’s and Gandhi’s sins are well-known and deserve condemnation. Patel deserves fresh re-evaluation. The culture of hero worship itself should cease, and a culture of self-respect created rather than a perennial reliance on avatar-hood (genuine or otherwise). But Bose’s own words speak for themselves

And that is precisely the point. Both these totalitarian typologies of government, fascism and communism, are merely forms of socialist authoritarianism. The end goal of socialist authoritarianism is always in the end, totalitarian communism.

Socialism, Communism—and especially since 2008—Capitalism, have all become increasingly discredited systems of Political Economy. Whether it is Neo-Leftism or Neo-Liberalism, they all find their origin in Western Liberalism and ultimately Protestantism. But Hindus have their own basis for Economics and Political Economy (Arthasastra). Irrespective of the origin of Western Parliamentary Democracy, Ancient Hindus even had many forms of government, primarily  Rajya (monarchy) and Ganarajya (republic). The present Republic of India is called Bharat Ganarajya.

That is why the time has come for native Indic Systems inspired by native Indic Philosophies guiding native Indic Political Movements. Whether it is the Niti of Krishna, the Niti of Vidhura, the Niti of Chanakya, the Niti of Shivaji, or the Niti of Banda Bahadur Singh ji, there are many schools of Rajaniti in the Dharmic System of Governance: Rajadharma. Attempting to appropriate them into foolhardy rebranding movements is disingenuous in the least and despicable at the worst.

The time has come, not for Neo-Liberalism, Hindu Leftism,nor even Pseudo-Traditionalism, but rather, a Contemporary Dharma that treats with dignity all Bharatiya jatis, that preserves core tradition, but pragmatically faces the Exigencies of the Time under the civic mandates of Rajadharma:

Raksha, Palana, Yogakshema

References:
  1. DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Problem with Socialism. Washington D.C.: Regnery. 2016
  2. Priestland, David. The Red Flag: A History of Communism. London: Penguin. 2009
  3. Bhalla, Praveen.The Life and Times of Subhas Chandra Bose. New Delhi: Ocean. 2016
  4. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Netaji-Subhas-Chandra-Bose-wanted-ruthless-dictatorship-in-India-for-20-years/articleshow/46980513.cms
  5. Newman, Michael. Socialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. 2005

“Hindu Left” is an Oxymoron by Morons

The past 3 years of NDA government have left many Hindus feeling ambivalent about party politics. After all, for all the fanfare and rhetoric, there has been little dramatic change on the ground. Sure, there has been drastic policy pushed, but how much has it been in the Hindu interest? Demonetisation was hardly a priority, whatever black money fighting slogans were touted (and cashless society has been advocated for around the world  with many advising against it).

RTE has not been touched, and illegal Bangladeshi/Rohingya migrants continue to settle across India, tipping the demographic balance. In fact, from primary English medium to AADHAR there has been much continuation in policy from the execrable UPA government. So is there really any difference with the “Party with a Difference?”.

As usual, our Internet Hindus miss the Woods for the Trees, and fail to factor in the background macro-politics that influence national politics the world over. Contrary to the narrative of Narasimha Rao or alternatively Manmohan Singh being the Father of Economic Reforms, the reality is that the Balance of Payments crisis led to a vulnerable India accepting pressures from “the International Community” (whatever that means…) to liberalise its economy. What has been the effect of this? Yes, malls and growth in retail consumption and satellite TV, but also NDTV and a host of other nominally national but phoreign owned economic realities, and ultimately political realities. That is the whole point of Breaking India’. Indians need to understand that simply studying party politics or foreign-sponsored history textbooks or foreign doctored historical sources will not tell us the whole story. Critical thinking and following the money trail is required to understand exactly who is pro-Indic and who is not.

That is why it is so ironic to see the same sanctimonious voices, making pretence to incorruptibility, equate Modi with Mamta. Seriously? TMC=BJP? I mean, really, it takes either a special kind of stupidity (or a behind the scenes complicity) to cause so-called “scholars” to mislead gullible internet hindus into believing such false equivalency. Any criticism of their positions immediately leads to echo-chamber tactics (followed by cowardly blocks) or generally labeling of people as “Right wing” or “RSS” or “mercantile”. But what of those who reject both Right wing and Left wing politics as mirror images of each other, and what of those who prefer decentralised Dharma to “hindutva”? Such uncomfortable realities can’t be acknowledged by those with private agendas. After all, if “all parties are same”, what objection is there to this?

The reality, there is a concerted effort to reconstitute Socialist/Communist politics not under the unpopular Marxist/Communist label, but under the “Hindu Left” label. A methodical approach of first appearing to stand up for the Hindu cause…through much needed documentation of Human Rights violations of Hindus…followed by deconstruction of various Indian Independence Movement Figures…to reasserting the contributions of Subhas Chandra Bose…

subhashchandrabose_nation

…before ultimately using that legacy to call for a “Revolutionary” model for Hindus. How Revolutionary! Recreate the RW-LW false dichotomy by recasting them as Hindu Right vs Hindu Left.

But Dharma being their glaring weakness, they ignore the reality that the Hindu Left (as well as the Hindu Right) is oxymoronic. There is no Hindu Right or Hindu Left because Hindu isn’t even our word—Dharma is. And Dharma transcends such simplistic notions by asserting adaptability to the times not through contradictory L/R forces, but through Saamaanya Dharma, Sanatana Dharma and Yuga Dharma. Dharma may need to be updated for the times, but there is no “Dharmic left” and Dharmic right. There is only the Dharma for the times.

The RW-LW binary is product of liberal politics dating to the French Revolution (a notably ‘peaceful’ and ‘non-tyrannical transition’ overthrowing aristocratic elites our temperamental triad wishes to recreate…). But before ye unwashed masses sharpen your guillotines, perhaps a deconstruction of our deconstructors is in order.

Revolution is a severe danger to any society. The irony of these recalcitrant Revolutionaries is they forget the very meaning of a “revolution”—you end up exactly where you start—crisis. Rather than circle around 360 degrees, the question before us involves understanding not only who we were and who we want to be, but what genuinely faces us today. Micro-brained micro-specialists who don’t understand the inter-disciplinary relationships between not only politics and history and culture, but even those between politico-strategic and economic/financial domains, really have no business making pretence to leadership—especially given their own poor leadership abilities and self-proclaimed dearth of serious solutions.

Further, had these one-note nincompoops come out of their echo-chambers and set aside their kupamanduka literature for a second, they would understand the danger of factions and of revolution itself.

 

China’s Cultural Revolution

 

If you believe what exists must first be torn down before solutions can even be proposed, then you are part of the problem and are aiming to exacerbate it. And if you continue to legitimise such grha shatrus long after they have declared their true intentions, you are also part of the problem (no matter what you daily twitter clipping load).

There are major issues facing Indian society in general but Hindu society in particular. Despite the rank denialism and the obvious hypocrisy of political operators, casteism still exists particularly in the intellectual domain (only recast under the mantle of IQ theories, genetics, and AIT). Pure traditionalism instinctively will alienate large sections of the Hindu population, and with good reason. What stake would the masses have in simply reviving the past? Scheduled Castes clearly have cause to pause. At the same time, continuing to map the Indian polity onto a western blueprint of Right and Left, is a bait-and-switch obvious to all but the most buffoonish.

Citation of the historic American “Left” ignores the reality that the modern Democratic party is itself fielding overt Socialists in its primaries. But before Bernie bros get too excited, the hypocrisy of socialism was unveiled by their hero yet again.

The reality is, both the Left and the Right wings need each other to demonise all while continuing to exploit the unsuspecting masses. Both communists and capitalists thrive while accusing each other of being the devil—what happens when both are? What happens when socialism is merely a means to an end?

What if the laundry list of ideologies that are touted in the “intellectual marketplace” are virtually all intellectually bankrupt . It is why traditional thinkers reject ideology itself, favouring philosophy, and especially, political philosophy.

Let me be perfectly clear:dignity of labour  & entrepreneurial spirit should be protected. Neither workers nor honest businesspeople are the enemy. Unlike the neo-Leninists hell-bent on demonising an entire varna, those with a modicum of foresight know that in a country where Brahmins are so openly demonised by the media, any such “leftist revolution” will ultimately target the “clericals”. After all, following the political revolution is the cultural revolution—why would the traditional custodians of culture escape unscathed?

Once the financial “bania” are dealt with, what’s to stop those ‘Revolutionary’ attacks on the other half of the B-B party? What of the traditional brahmin?

This is the danger not only of casteism, but selective vilification, rather than society-wide introspection. Those who promote such selective thinking should be ashamed of themselves, and not only lack the moral integrity to lead, but despite their jstor driven twitter rantings, the intellectual heft to lead society. The less said about publications that persist to publish such petulant drivel the better. Those who prioritise daily hits and traffic over journalistic ethics and the ramifications of a varna-based witch hunt would do well to remember exactly why Kashmiri Pandits were targeted with such viciousness in the first place. A community that preserves not only the historical memory but also the living culture of their region and civilization is an impediment to any cultural revolution, be it for desert-based or Leftist-based ideologies.

Further, if one were to do an honest accounting of all the collaborators (better termed ‘cooperators’), why stop only with the mercantile or even feudal? How many clericals and ministerials collaborated to bring down their legitimate ruler for personal gain or worked for foreign occupier governments? The name Purniah itself should ring a bell and put to pause such increasingly caste-motivated attacks. The fact is, traitors and patriots can be found in all communities.

Puerile notions of “perpetual revolution” ignore the fact that most individuals are neither traitors nor self-sacrificing patriots, but are in the middle. They simply want to live in peace and live out their lives as comfortably as they can. They will rise up if there is sufficient cause or possibility of success, or they will find ways to accommodate a foreign power when facing total destruction. Hindsight is 20-20 and so is passing judgment on entire communities. Dushtamatyas perennially quoting Kalhana would do well to remember his view of them.

The reality is neither hypocritical traditionalism nor left or right-ism are the way forward. India has its own political philosophies. There are conservative elements and free-thinking elements in any society, but constructing a polity around such binary-thinking is beyond idiotic.  Thousands of years ago, Acharya Kautilya clearly enunciated the 3 purposes of government (not 2):

Raksha, Palana, Yogakshema.

Any real Hindu society must bear these 3 directives in mind. Raksha is protection from external threat, Palana is internal law & order & Yogakshema looks at citizen well-being.

A simplistic L/R false dichotomy is for the simple-minded, geared toward falsehood. Ironically, the only dichotomy that doesn’t matter for this bunch is dharma vs adharma. That is why rather than import obsolete, un-Indian thinking—rather than trying to appropriate Shivaji and Banda Bahadur Singh ji into some inapplicable “Hindu/Indic Left”—let us recognise what they actually stood for: Rajadharma.

Rajdharma and even Svarajya can take different forms: whether is a ganarajya or samrajya, government should be premised on Dharma, not Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Left’s concern for the peasantry is automatically covered by Yogakshema (welfare of citizens) and the putative right’s concerns covered by Palana (law and order) and Raksha common to both (though the Communist Party (Marxist) shows ideology comes first here too). The question is of balance, with Dharma as the ultimate guide. Here merely spouting off citations of Dharmasastra alone will not do, nor will pompous proclamations by ardha-purushas of “Purandara wreaking havoc on the Dasyu”.

One must take the precedents provided by real Acharyas such as Apastamba and Kautilya and Dharma Svarupa’s such as Rama and Krishna and apply them to the present context. That is the limitation of rote-memorisation and read-and-regurgitation. It doesn’t teach application. There is a difference between critical thinking and critical theory, and the sooner some ideologues understand it the better. Critical theory is another asuric construction coming out of the intellectual cul-de-sac of Marxist thought. But critical thinking is an highly necessary, and dare I say, critical skill set in this era of pervasive untruth.

Make no mistake: the Hindu Left is a too-clever by half rebranding effort by half-wits aimed at reconstituting the Left’s ideological moorings within the Hindu body politic. But Hindu Right (Hindutva) and Hindu Left (pseudo-intellectual pinhead rantings) are both ideologies commanding centralised unthinking obedience rather than positing contextual cultural ethics. After all, both Nagpur and Naxalbari have rightly come under criticism for hypocrisy—not only for their self-serving interpretations of culture and history, but also for the casteist natures of their respective leaderships.

Varnashrama Dharma (whatever its demerits and merits) has always posited a decentralised body politic—and with good reason. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The religio-spiritual and politico-strategic must work together, but must also be divided among different classes. Philosopher-kings are well and good as are Vedic-warriors, but constructing a new “Hindu Papacy” or “Hindu Politburo” is not in the interests of real Hindus—and neither is a Hindu Right or Hindu Left.

But these rhetorical gymnastics are not accidental. After all, if a Revolutionary is to be created, then a Revolution must be sparked so the peasantry may be mobilised against the (petty) bourgeoisie. Marx himself did not engage in violence, but routinely called for it. This is called incitement, and criminally punishable.  And what is this contemptibly Adharmic series but a transparent exercise in agit-prop.

Open attempts are made to caste (spelling intentional) only the “mercantiles” as the main collaborators of foreign rule (as though feudals and clericals did not have a hand). But who exactly is a mercantile? True to the politics of Animal Farm, apparently even some mathas are more mercantile than others (only the ‘intellectually superior’ politburo will decide!)

But Subhas Chandra Bose wasn’t for democracy, he was for Socialist Authoritarianism (anyway a transitional phase to outright communism). Agenda-hawkers have no time for understanding the greys. Everything is black and white—or in their case, black and red. Here is a measured analysis of Pradhan Mantri Narendra Modi’s term, which demonstrates the precise type of level-headedness Hindus need in understanding the issues facing them and the correct course of action.

Unlike our Revolutionary Triumvirate, however, the author of the article actually had the intelligence and common sense to offer a number of small local solutions as well. It is easy to dismantle any structure—until you have to answer what the alternative is. That article, on the other hand, also did a fine job of identifying a few of the macro-political forces that make it difficult for any government, let alone politician, to enact national wide civilizational change. In an era of fibre-optics, satellite tv, and quantum computing, foreign influence is even greater than the days of Shivaji. Those proffering simplistic courses of action are proving just how simple-minded they really are.

In fact, in perpetual over-compensation regarding “Bong jokes”, they ignore criticism of Bengal courtesy of a son of the Soil. What will they say of this?

What’s more, this self-touted mod squad of manic-depressives  will quickly go mute when asked who financed the Russian Revolution to begin with? After all, it is ok if petty traders are packed off to the gallows held by proletariat courts, but international financiers and big business must escape scrutiny.

Anyone disagreeing with them is touted “conspiracy theorist”, “misogynist” and a laundry list of other totalitarian touted labels meant to muzzle dissent. Anyone with a sound understand of international politics would quickly recognise the widespread influence of Big Business and Multinational Corporations in politics. Why is the petty Hindu trader being branded as a “mercantile traitor”? And is the poor Hindu priest next on the agenda when the political revolution is followed by a cultural revolution? Right-thinking Hindus would be right to ask.

Right-thinking Hindus would also do well to reject both the “Hindu right” and proposed “Hindu Left” as obvious Oxymorons pushed by Morons.  Right-thinking Hindus, better termed Sensible Hindus, are aware that our native civilizational tradition is not ideological but philosophical in nature.  Any theory of the Hindu Left will only seek to digest Hinduism into the same memetic pattern of “revolution“, “socialism”, “brotherhood”, and a laundry list of other code words and memes meant to spark general overthrow of traditional values.

It is traditional culture that is being destroyed the world over in favour of some ambigious “Global Culture” and monoculture.

If the politburo brooks no dissent, what protection for diversity?

Whatever Bose’s contributions to the freedom movement, his Socialist Authoritarian “Revolutionary” model would have been an utter disaster for India’s traditional culture. Casteism and ill-treatment of women must be condemned. But this must be done within Dharma rather than through importation and injection of a foreign ideology within Hindu Society’s polity.

There are indeed serious issues facing Hindus from Jammu & Kashmir down to Kerala, and from Alwar to Assam: Demographic aggression, RTE driven destruction of Hindu schools, Temple ownership, Safety of Women, stifled entrepreneurship, growing unemployment, declining privacy, and colonial legacy within the armed forces, all number in the expanding list of concerns that Hindu society has. But is the silver bullet to all our problems to chase after some hare-brained, ill-defined “Revolutionary” approach that doesn’t even have the courage to posit solutions to our political problems?

Socialist authoritarianism and national socialism are not the answers. Hindu society rejects leftism and fascism, because Dharma is our guide, not Marxism rebranded by “Marxians”. For those who wish to replace Kautilya Vishnugupta with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, let us get one thing straight: only the only actual Indian in this list touted a system of political philosophy that actually worked. Marx on the other hand depended on handouts from Engels for most of his life and was a career failure.

Even his understanding of economics was poor, with Engels preferring to call him a “philosopher”. But the truth is, he wasn’t even really that. He was an ideologue posing as a philosopher who created the literary agit-prop in plainspeak for peasants to spark the bloodiest political movements in the history of man. For advocates of a “Hindu Left”, here is the death toll of Socialism.

Marx’s only value is in his critique of Capitalism. Capitalism itself is a questionable system as we have previously written, because it only prioritises 1 factor of production—capital (ignoring the other 3: entrepreneurship, land, and labour). Communism does the same, prioritising only labour instead. But the truth is, for a functioning economy, all four are required. A student of Hegel, Marx was no stranger to the Hegelian dialectic. Between Capitalism and Communism is “Socialism”.

Socialist revolutionaries are merely a halfway house to outright communism. Whatever the marxian mod squad’s artificial “critiques” of communist totalitarianism, their artifice is not as skilled as they would like to believe.

Gandhi’s questionable legacy deserves (dharmic) deconstruction, Indian Independence figures from Nehru to Patel all deserve fresh (dharmic) reevaluation, the jarring history of Jagat Seths deserves honest (dharmic) documentation, but Bose is not beyond critique. Shivaji and Banda Bahadur Singh are not figures of some imaginary “Hindu Left”. Both practiced Kshatriya Dharma, and reorganised society in accordance with the needs of Dharma.

Like a ‘vampire squid’ seeking to attach itself to Sanatana Dharma, the “Hindu Left”/Marxians are merely a political parasitism seeking to reinvent the dying Indian Left through some halfwit appeal to the Hindu Right. I mean for God’s sake, ‘Mamta is the same as Modi’? Sensational news items and terrible crimes exist in any state or society, but the question is one of scale. Can any serious and honest person actually believe that both the border states of Gujarat and West Bengal are as bad for Hindus? Is the level of women’s safety at all the same?

False equivalency, agit-prop, echo-chamber tactics, and sophistry are all tools used by politburo tools. Academics and “intellectuals” are themselves often pens-for-hire on the payrolls of their political handlers. Anti-semitism does deserve condemnation, but can such figures who showcase Hindus for the sake of foreign audiences be trusted to safeguard Hindu interests?

Can those openly making casteist calls for witch hunts against a varna be considered well-wishers of Hindus?

Can scatter-brained, regurgitators be competent to provide Hindu leadership?

Glib bromides, census analysis, and twitter outrage are all easy. But actual competent and strategic leadership is hard. The reality is, if Hindus have become cynics, it’s because politics itself is so cynical—and social media is no exception.

Rather than simply running after what appears seemingly popular, it is high time Internet Hindus use their common sense and stop being so gullible. Reject this nonsense and the nonsensical poseurs reinventing and reimposing socialist/leftist theories. Both the RW and LW (Hindu Left or otherwise) are mimic men. They recreate the foreign within the domestic, that is why they don’t develop Dharma or a proper Dharma Paksha.

Vishvaksena Janardhana

Make no mistake: India is the Land of Dharma. The Dharma of Sri Krishna, Rana Pratap, Chhatrapati Shivaji, and Banda Bahadur Singh ji is what drives our political philosophy… Not some failed ideology of some failed newspaper editor of some increasingly failing civilization.

The ‘Hindu Left’ is an oxymoron pushed by morons. Right thinking Hindus would do well to reject it and them.