Tag Archives: Politics

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

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.

Comment on Cultural Communists & Cliques

agoodidea

In the aftermath of a recent furor over his remarks in Africa, some have unfairly remarked that Gandhi was fundamentally oriented towards “Eurocentrism”. But this is fundamentally flawed.

Gandhi and Gandhianism are deserving of a great many criticisms. His never-ending accommodation of never-ending series of unjust demands and his callous behaviour towards the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in partition era W.Punjab and Bengal is emblematic of what happens when you dedicate yourself to ahimsa, instead of Dharma.

Are the rumours about Gandhi true? Maybe all, maybe only some. Was he propped up specifically to serve as an albatross on the Hindu neck, only to gut him and our culture later on?—wouldn’t be the first time (there are certainly some such today). But who knows for sure?—only God. But as usual, the problem in our ranks is not uncertainty, but excess of certainty and certitude. Some of our guys and gals read a few books and blogs, and apparently have it all figured out. In the realm of binary-ism and false dichotomies, it is easy to set it up as Gandhi vs Godse or Gandhi vs Bose. But perhaps that is in fact the problem. Hindus are foolishly and forever making false choices between two extremes.

Whatever Gandhi’s sins (his “experiments with truth” certainly qualify as carnal), whatever the influence of christianity on his thinking, whatever the incredulity of his apologia for razakars and moplahs, there, nevertheless, were clearly strong streams of essentially Indic thought in his ideology that were crucial in an eminently un-Indic time: sanctity of the cow, vegetarianism, village economy as building block, and even varnashrama dharma (only with upliftment of dalits).

quote-cow-protection-is-the-gift-of-hinduism-to-the-world-mahatma-gandhi-128-90-95

Funny how some side-remarks of Gandhi that are racist in our era must be publicly excoriated for the benefit of foreign platforms, but the core philosophies of Marx that are revolutionarily racist in any era are explained away or ignored. Whatever Gandhi’s peccadilloes against Hindus, Marx was an outright enemy of Hinduism. Only a hypocrite carps and cavils about one while deftly utilizing the other sub rosa.

Similarly, today there are voices treating the legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose as beyond question. Netaji’s singular contributions to Indian independence are undeniable. Both British and Indic voices (even spiritual ones, have attested to this). But as always, the devil is in the details. Were the solutions and philosophies upon which Bose rode Indic in nature? Would India have traded feudal agrarians, mercantile compradors, and clerical hypocrites for totalitarian Marxists or Maoists, who would have betrayed Bose?

The rehabilitation of the Socialist Authoritarianism that drove the INA of Bose as merely “revolutionary” is a clever rebranding effort, but a rebranding effort nonetheless of fundamentally alien Marxist ideology. The Reds of Russia were “Revolutionary” too, but their fellow travelers wreaked havoc  in the 20th century. Here is the fate of women in Post-“Revolutionary” Russia. Do we want this for our young women too?

Gandhi’s abandoning of Pakistan’s Hindus to their fates may have been un-Hindu, but Bose’s choice of Revolutionary Socialist Authoritarian ideology was downright un-Indian. Had he succeeded in totality, would Totalitarianism have been the agenda of the nation and the state of its political economy? Would the accompanying vast accretion of central powers have overturned native Indic social structures (Panchayats, Mathas, Devalayas, etc) even more than inefficient and federal Nehruvian Socialism?—these are the intelligent questions that must be asked, rather than merely trading one patron saint, one “father of the nation”, for another.

Hindu Leftism, Hindu Marxism, or even Hindu “Revolutary-ism” are all ultimately as un-Indian and un-Hindu as “Hindu Fascism” or Hindu Feminism or Hindu Patriarchy.  Rather than promoting either only Bose-ian revolutionaries or Patriarchal “Pitr-bhoomi” advocates, perhaps our Mathrubhoomi should look within instead. Whether Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu, it is Dharma (and the philosophies and approaches that emerge from or respond directly to the Vedas) that makes India Indian.

subhashchandrabose_nation

SC Bose was a patriot, and he deserves his due credit for creating conditions that made India’s Independence not only possible, but in inevitable. But this is the danger of personality-driven movements and personality-dependent ideologies. Whether Gandhi or Bose (or any one else…), when a personality becomes larger than life and beyond question, we don’t examine policy or play counterfactual. When Bhagavan Ram himself is questioned and even mocked today as a “misogynist” by secularly misbegotten mongrels, who are Gandhi and Bose before him? So question Bose we must:  What would have happened if Bose succeeded? Would the Bharat we would have seen resembled Mao’s China more than Nehru’s India? For those who have no problem with this, I kindly direct you to China’s “Cultural Revolution” as exhibit A.

We saw the level of caste violence and violent targeting of Brahmins under the half-baked Dravidian theory in Periyar’s Tamil Nadu. How much more havoc would have been wreaked under “Revolutionary ” (i.e. Socialist Authoritarian) thought in a putatively Independent India?

Like it or not, whatever the true story of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, his philosophy gave a stream of Indic thought that allowed a physically and mentally colonised India to make its way back to the spiritually liberating Dharmic Common Culture of its ancestors. Those who pretend as though everything was perfect in Hindu society 200 years ago or even 1200 years ago, ignore the very real problems of ill-treatment of dalits and very real corruption resulting from general casteism, which are well-attested. Does this justify the atrocities and atrociousness of atrocious foreign rule—no. But it explains why it took so long to attain success against its various forms, and why we still have yet to fully succeed.

Any political movement, any Civilizational Revival is only possible if there is a common civilizational culture and a common set of priorities…rather than mere ambition checking ambition…or lying in expedient wait. Pretending as though this was and is “mere violence among lower castes” ignores the fact that the buck stops at the head of society, not the arms or feet. Philosophical justification for the ill-treatment or exploitation of communities is even more criminal, because like socialist authoritarianism, it provides pretext for violence. It may not wield the blade, but it points out the target for it.

But varnashrama dharma was not about exploitation. The caste systems of feudal Europe or colonial Spanish America may have been, but varnashrama dharma was and is about de-centralisation, specialisation, and accountability—with the topmost being the most accountable and living the most difficult lives. Those that violated the dharma were outcasted (this is the origin of untouchability, at least originally). Trading the downtrodden Dalit for the impoverished Brahmin as a target for exploitation is no solution, particularly for Periyarites and Razakars who talk of “final solutions”. But how could this be explained in a nation that still believed Aryans invaded India? –(some scientism advocates moonlighting as “ritualists” still believe this despite orthodox Brahmins clearly stating that per our Vedic tradition, Aryas originated in India, and Dravidas were Aryas).

Were there individual cases of Dalits rising in status in pre-colonial India?—yes. But as a whole, corruptions had certainly entered into varnashrama dharma, and many scheduled castes were indeed very wary of how an independent India would affect them. Ambedkar himself was concerned at the legal status and situation of Dalits in a post-independence India. After all, all the dalits of the desh could convert to Buddhism as he did, but what ultimately mattered was the fundamental consensus that governed the country.

The reality is, before Indira Gandhi amended the preamble to insert “socialist,  secular” to the republic, before Nehru said Dams were the new temples where Indians would worship, it was Mohandas Karamchand’s Gandhi’s views that served as guiding principle for the inter-regional and inter-religious consensus. Like it or not, Socialism is ultimately an outgrowth and transition period to Communism. Both ultimately have authoritarian and even totalitarian undercurrents, particularly when they become not only economic frameworks but outright political ideologies. Thus, Gandhian philosophy, whatever its merits, served as a sort of halfway house back to dharma. That many of Gandhianism’s proponents belong in a halfway house is another matter altogether, but to completely deride it and him in favour of Socialist Revolutionary ideology or hyper-masculine European memes of patriarchy, only demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of today’s opinion-leaders, older or younger.

Dharma wasn’t about patriarchy or hyper-masculinity (see ancient Greece or medieval Japan for some of the externalities of this ). Dharma was and is about complementarity and balance of the genders. This is the problem even with patriotic Indians—they are mimic men of a different sort, but never authentically Indian. Forever propping up foreign models and foreign saviours in native garb, they have egotists, ideologues, and superiority complexes aplenty, but never any self-respect.  Scientism, Japanism, and even the asinine “cuck heavy” Alt-right to justify casteism  is the m.o. for these “cucks” and […] of foreign fads and ideologies.

blindmen_elephant_hindoostan
Blind Men of Hindoostan on their ‘Idea of India’: “We must be Revolutionary!”, “No, we must be Blond Japanese from the Steppes!”, “No we must be Alt-right!”

Either Central Asia, East Asia, the Middle East, or the West, Indians can only ever come come from or look to inspiration from somewhere else. New left, alt-right, neo-nippon, medieval  mongol, laurasia, gondwanaland…never anything authentically Indian or even really Hindu, for this bunch. This is why they are forever adopting the jargon and memetics of the very white nationalists, racist leftists , or middle eastern race supremacists who either openly spit upon them, or do so after the veneer is scratched (they even promote such bigoted blogs…buffoons). It is a patina, a veneer of Hinduism, or in the case of the left, a version of perversion in colonised medieval India, but never the true, unvarnished clarified essence of authentic India. This is because unscrupulous and ambitious people are ever only focused on empowering vehicles that empower their ambitions, or in the case of pathetically over-compensating frat-boys—their fantasies. “Mimic men”, as V.S. Naipaul wrote,  only ever exist for securing their own position, authority, and enjoyment.

The same voices that correctly identify propaganda as a tool of British imperialists, must remember that pen has still not run dry, and the wielders of said pen have skeletons in their own closets. So perhaps the answer then is neither Gandhi nor Bose, but maybe selective aspects of both. The uncompromising national commitment of Bose that allowed him to fight for independence and the fundamentally Indic streams of thought that either intentionally or unintentionally emerged from the personage of Gandhi.

gandhi_villages

Was the “Mahatma” merely patterning Hinduism on a Christian template—maybe, maybe not. But whatever it is, his Gandhianism gave a common unifying political philosophy for a religiously riven, cultural cleaved post-Independence India to make its way back to its authentic self. Was Gandhianism obstructed by the obstructionist “Idea of India” brigade from the Fabian Church of Nehru…yes, but it eventually brought about a common sense of Bharatiyata nonetheless. Whether Gandhi himself was an authentic original or merely an instrument himself, is another matter altogether. But allowing him to be used as a means to caste (spelling intentional) Indian culture, and by default, the Hindu religion as racist, is emblematic of the very intellectually pinheaded stupidity that has been an albatross for Indians for the past millennium. When your enemy is trying to fit you into a box, “racist/rapist/misogynist”, you don’t step into it and play to stereotype, or in the case of alt-right “cucks and […] embrace it. If you do, you yourself are a “collaborator” of a different sort, or yet another of one those unscrupulously ambitious amatyas Kalhana condemned.

Rather than forever alternating like schoolchildren between contrasting shades of whites and blacks, understand the greys that define our era. The jury may still be out on Gandhi, if not Bose, but whatever he did or was, we must understand what Gandhi represents or is today. He remains a global symbol of India and its native culture and philosophies, whether we like it or not. Native historical re-assessment and re-allocation of his legacy must be done internally, not serving as a vehicle for agendas emerging externally.  That is true Swadeshi and true Poorna Swaraj.

sevenhundred_villages

Minute on the Indic Aesthetic

schooling-the-world-mp4_000194694

It is the nature of ambition to make men liars and cheats, to hide the truth in their breasts, and show, like jugglers, another thing in their mouths, to cut all friendships and enmities to the measure of their own interest, and to make a good countenance without the help of good will.

—Sallust

It is often thought that the highest intelligence knows not only how to do something, but how and when to use it. Those most obsessed with being the ones to do something and gain fame and get credit, are the least qualified for the work, because their Ambition causes them to prioritise themselves rather than honour the burden they have taken on. Those who view our samskruthi and our aesthetics as a means of control are the ones who are least deserving and least qualified to revive them.

The exact wrong type of people are jealously seeking to control aesthetics for their benefit rather than the benefit of the culture and the people (whom they detest). The notion that classical literature is some indescribable sui generis, frozen in time, is asinine. It is almost as though they are willfully playing into the hands of those who seek to destroy our culture—one wonders what was their selling price. Classical Literature is sastra-derived, but even sastra (see dharmasastra) adjusts to time and space and circumstance, kala and desa and paristiti. Practices and aesthetics that appeal in one era may not appeal in another. The task is in taking timeless principles, and adjusting them in the present time and space, to re-ignite a respectable state, national, and civilizational culture.

No one argues that a foreign aesthetic isn’t being imposed upon us, of course it is . But what should be the response? One cannot simply dial back the clock to previous eras and to present an aesthetic that is frozen, that is unsuitable to current taste and context. Part of the problem is the fact that there is a belief of uniformity not only across regions but across time. Of course there were changes not only over Yugas but even within them. The style in Kashmir is different from Cochin, the style in Gujarat is different from Guwahati. It is only by respecting this variation that the authentic Indic aesthetic can be revitalised. This is the difference between synthetic unity and integral unity [1].

No one argues that the Kali Yuga isn’t a degraded age, with present pop culture at peak degradation and perversion, but the question is making our Classical (that is saastriya) Literature, Art, Music, etc. relevant for the present time. It is the difference between memorising the letter and understanding the spirit. These would-be exemplars have done an outstanding job of perverting Dharma with their misbegotten pedantry, so much so that such perverts were forced to readjust their woefully wrong definitions of Dharma, with some not-so clever bait and switch. Meanwhile Foreigners present native Indic culture as grotesque, while favouring more medieval and colonial qualities. Our native informers then serve up requisite material on the platter, or provide indirect assistance through their kupamanduka “opinions”. This again is the problem of knowing more and more about less and less.

No wonder their focus is aesthetics. When their definition of classical is “dead”…the culture and even the “aesthetics” they propound  are plain dead and plain wrong—and like them, plain unappealing. Perhaps that is why they are forever waxing eloquent on “NRI’s” and “inferiority complex”, they are keenly aware of their own…and resent it. Like the simulacra passing as their efforts, they too are stilted. For all the highfalutin talk of civility, their (mis)behavior is the embodiment of mean-spiritedness and meanness of manner and uncouth breeding.

No one argues that prekshakas (audience members) shouldn’t be taught how to enjoy classical culture, be it music or art or anything else. But what should be the manner? To drone on pedantically without consideration for the diverse audience to which one must cater? When it is not one-size fits all, instruction must be such that all can be brought along. That there is a difference between the mere rasika (aesthete) and the sahrdaya (person of taste/connoisseur) is obvious. But mass and elite alike have a right to our culture, and thus, multiple avenues and multiple standards must be presented for all sections, not just our own.

Just as there is marga and desi within the real tradition, as true cultural exemplars from Bharata muni down to Jaya Senapati have all asserted, literary culture runs from high culture to mass.  How ironic that those most obsessed with caste and varna vyavastha are those most keen to impose only their view and only their way of life on others. However, these fools forget that even the venerable rishi, Sage Shuka, had to give up his guna to attain moksha. As even avataras take on gunas as per need, so too, must we understand that while it’s important to grow from tamas to sattva, there is need for all three at varying points of time.   A society that emphasises solely sattva guna is a sitting duck. A society that only emphasises tamas is what we have now. As such, it is imperative to not only adjust our aesthetics to time and place, but to ensure different levels of aesthetics and culture to appeal to all sections of society—not just our own. Aesthetics is not a mere static set of implementations, but a spectrum, from principles to cultural effect.

Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse.

Unlike these pretenders, the great poet, rhetorician, and expert on aesthetics, Mahakavi Dandin, excoriated the need of pedants to over-complicate our language and culture in order to demonstrate their self-proclaimed “intelligence”. People who have to act smart usually aren’t that smart. Merely regurgitating what you were taught, without any original thinking or creativity, is what the great Ramana Maharishi remarked as being a “gramophone”. Time for these well-tuned, well-advertised, and well-aged gramophones to recognise their obsolescence.

The requisites for fine art are, therefore, imagination, understanding, soul, and taste [2,  597]

Aesthetics is not for parrots. Aesthetics is for those with imagination. It is for those who understand that the letter of the word is not frozen in time, but it is the principle that is timeless. Perpetually fitting a square peg into a round hole, these dinosaurs preposterously imagine their country bumpkin concept of aesthetics will gain currency in the modern materialist world. They do not know how to lead. Perhaps that is why they are forever mimicking and appropriating the work of others—they couldn’t critical think their way out of a paper bag. That is why they copy others.

true-sign-of-intelligence-imagination-einstein

The fact remains, even on the basics, there are problems. The correct translation for aesthetics is not rasa, as pure rasa is “sentiment”. Perhaps that is part of the problem, Indians are sentimentalists above everything, hence the much vaunted “rasika”. The corresponding word that conveys the full meaning of Aesthetics is Rasalankara. It is the union of sentiment with ornamentation, feeling with feature. That is how beauty is properly appreciated, and thus, the actual meaning of aesthetics. That saundarya is central to the cultural cataclysm that we are facing is well known to sahrdayas. The issue is whether or not those who wish to lead the response are competent to actually do so. As we have remarked elsewhere, competence is not merely knowledge or ability, but it is capacity confirmed by practice.

Yet there are some playing into the hands of Sheldon Pollock’s prekshaa of the aestheticisation of power, replete with “classical literature” that is ‘unchanging’ i.e “dead” —precisely the characterisation of Breaking India forces. That is precisely why Rajiv Malhotra asked whether self-promoting “adhikarins” greedy for fame/fortune actually understand Pollock’s positions and their implications. This is the danger of pedantry: it spouts off pablum while being unaccountable for results. It pays lip-service to polymathy while ignoring the practical.

paundraka

Paundraka too talked of being Krishna, and styled himself the “true Vasudeva”. But despite the outer trappings, and the poses, and the peacock feathers, he ultimately proved false. He lived an immoral life and led others into immorality. What made Krishna the real Vasudeva was that he led by example. He encouraged good character in others and rather than state “don’t judge by vices”, he  compassionately urged people to give up vices, to dust themselves off when they fell, and to keep trying.

While he married Rukmini for love, the 16,000 rescued women he married were to restore their reputation, not his pleasure. After all, countless women pray to God for a husband like Ram. Lord Vishnu had to grant their wishes in his next life as Krishna. But for Paundraka, women were objects of pleasure, not embodiments of Shakti. He said one thing and did another, while judging everyone else. Hypocrisy is not the Indic aesthetic.

And while he craved the sudarshana chakra, he ultimately proved incapable and incompetent to handle it.

The true Kshatriya, intellectual or otherwise, doesn’t spend his day condemning and ill-treating others. He recognises that all individuals begin as flawed, but walk on a path to perfecting themselves. Individuals fall, but like children learning to walk, they pick themselves up, and with the guidance of true acharyas, correct themselves and progress. That is why he doesn’t justify vices, but holds himself to a higher standard than others.

Image result for paundraka chakra

That is precisely why strategy is the realm of the kshatriya ( and intellectual kshatriya), because he (or she) is accountable for results.  A defeat has consequences. Not so much for silo’d sellouts and village bumpkins. Merely lecturing about kshatra having only read about it, but being impotent to actually practice it, is emblematic of the lifestyle of those for whom life is a “24/7 spectator sport”. Perhaps that is the reason for their superiority complex towards Malhotra. After all, a superiority complex is nothing but an overcompensation for an underlying inferiority complex.

They know they lack the sophistication and knowledge of world affairs required to tackle these issues, hence they hide behind irrelevant drivel in their attempt to usurp the traditional responsibility of real Acharyas in the Mathas and Devalayas. But our real acharyas don’t just pay lip-service; we follow our acharyas not just because they gather (achinoti) and give us laws , but because they show us Achara by example. They lead by example and show us through the example of their lives how to live with spirituality and dignity. They show those of us in the material world how to ultimately reject temptation and follow the spiritual path. That is why kshatriyas were and are honour-bound to protect real Acharyas.

That is why precisely why our response must be calibrated not by single area subject matter experts, or self-proclaimed polymaths, but generalists (of all castes) with a wide array of knowledge across disciplines, who can see beyond their own noses and interests, and think of the big picture…not when it suits them…but all the time. That is the difference between the person who talks of patriotism to advance personal interests and the person who sacrifices (or at least sets aside when necessary) personal interests in order to preserve the common narrative.

If “Culture is the New Politics”, the Cultural and Civilizational response must necessarily be crafted and led by those with political skill and savvy. Poets, Artists, Musicians, Singers, Dancers, Traditional Scholars, Regional Language Scholars, Sanskritists, Sporting enthusiasts, all have a role to play, as support, but Cultural Leadership will necessarily be driven by those with a proven track record of Leadership–the meeting point, the sangham of Brahma-Kshatra-Vaisya-Sudra. Without understanding all four, the spiritual/religious, the politico-strategic, the economic, and the logistic, how can a unified response, a unified aesthetic be presented?  This the difference, this is the need for grass-roots and bottom-up rather than top-down.

All this is ultimately why Ahankar and Ambition are the two most dangerous aspects of the “modern” Hindu. It is not that other people don’t have ahankar and ambition, it is that it has reached such a self-defeating concentration, that Hindus are prepared to sacrifice the absolute cause to increase their relative status—long before the cause is a gone case. This inability to bear any pain, this inability to lay anything on the line, is exactly why the Kshatriya ideal is needed at this time. Why a Culture of Kreeda, Team Kreeda, is needed at this time.

From Brennus to Pyrrhus to Hannibal to Attila, Rome weathered many a foreign storm. Rome even had traitors like Coriolanus, but Romans ultimately were willing to sacrifice everything but self-respect. Their leaders were generals who led by example. Where is the self-respect of our people today? No, the country’s current political credo is “lick the one who kicks and you kick the one who licks!”. Until this is firmly kicked from the country it will be more of the same. This is the not the mantra of Rishis and Rajas, but the slogan of poodles. Rishis did Tapas and Rajas endured terrible pain; this lot knows only how to avoid pain and feed their faces. Rather than the individual skill of the gyaani, it was the unit cohesion of the legion that made Rome effective. The dog licks its master who thrashes, but growls at innocent passersby. The wolf hunts in a pack and wins as a team. Incidentally, the lupus was Rome’s emblem.

Lupa_Romulus_and_Remus
Lupa Capitolina

But this lot is more likely to have lupus than to embody one. These poodles would rather become foreign slaves or pathetically call foreign elites their brothers rather than seeing their own countrymen as one of their own. Rather than having ludicrous popinjays and milquetoast over-sophisticates give irrelevant gyaan from their sinfully hypocritical redoubts, the aesthetic response must come from those who can not only relate to all four/five sections of society, but know how to unify them. Unification, not under unaccountable tyranny, through textual misquote and misinterpretation, but through common accountability under a common dharma, a practical Dharma.

If foreign usurpers are ignored on account of not presenting a “pramana”, then its quite obvious such scholars are better off in their silos rather than attempting to anoint themselves “acharyas”, giving “upanyasas”. There is a difference between a poet and a pradhan mantri. If you don’t have the requisite knowledge of global affairs, and the backbone to bear pain, it is time to vacate the kshetra. Drona too talked tough & was an acharya, but ended up dead on the Kurukshetra for his misdeeds.

It is one thing to argue “everyone has flaws” or “all are on a difficult path to perfect themselves” and quite another to demand others meekly submit to the addiction to vice of certain tyrants-in waiting. These ahankari-shikandis hypocritically argue “judge us by our inner worth”. But character is the determination of inner worth, and character is nothing but habits (whether driven by virtue or vice). Habits become first cobwebs then cables. More than cables, it appears someone has this lot in chains. So if you have some sinful background, if you have some terrible vice that you refuse to control, then better to exit the field. The true brahmana is known by character and conduct. This what our real Acharyas teach. Not that great ones from Maharishi Vishwamitra on haven’t fallen. Rather it’s that once they have fallen, they get back up and dust themselves off, rather than roll around in the muck saying “don’t judge us”, or “do as I say, not as I do”. That is no ethic, and certainly no Indic aesthetic.

Teaching is not just about knowledge, it’s how you interpret what you know and present it to others.

That is why we must reject the bumpkin aesthetic. That is why it is imperative that we build upon an integral unity based on Satya, rather than a synthetic unity based on Rna. This is the era of not only Gross Domestic Product, and Foreign Direct Investment, but also Foreign-owned Debt. For all the talk of upayas, it’s clear their only policy is samshraya…under videshis. But a sellout in mundu-veshti is still a sellout. Whether Macaulay’s Children or Wendy’s Children or Pollock’s Children, drohis are still drohis. In the end, it is only the ambitious ahankari, the unscrupulous politician, the greedy gyaani who seeks a position for which he is unqualified, and sabotages the cause to preserve position. The true statesman sacrifices personal aspiration for common aspiration and civilizational destination.

Better one of my brothers or native rivals wear the crown than our common foreign enemy. When will Bharatvasis learn this lesson?

References:

  1. http://rajivmalhotra.com/big-ideas-2/miscellaneous/
  2. Kant, Immanuel.Kant’s Critiques. Radford.Wilder: Radford, VA. 2008

Discretion Part Drei

vishnu-sudarshan-chakra-durvasa-ambarish

Many of you may be wondering why the recent articles on the importance of Satya and Rta. After all, isn’t there a reawakening in Hindu community about the need for Dharma? What is the necessity to so stridently and trenchantly assert what the tradition actually says and what our Real Acharyas in Agraharas, Mathas, and Devalayas say?

The truth of the matter is that Bharatiyas need to start understanding that the path to Civilizational Security and Personal Spiritual growth are, ironically, one and the same. The dangers facing Indic Civilization today, at least if you believe in our traditional scriptures, are in fact meant to remind us of what true Dharma actually is. When the letter becomes more important than the spirit, when individual Rna becomes more important than absolute Satya, when the words of our Ancient Rishis are twisted for personal one-upsmanship, or worse, adharmic Ambition, then mankind is reminded of its lesser place in the greater scheme of things. When atheists, charvaka or otherwise, gleefully declare that “God is Dead”, why do they pray when it is their plane that is falling or their house that is on fire? The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves.

Truth be Told, those of us who contribute to this site are quite frankly much more interested in quietly and contently writing articles (or printing those by others…who are team-oriented) to help spread awareness of our High Culture. But as we wrote in our article on Culture: the Cure for Stupidity, Arts are the Alankara of culture, not culture itself. It is the values and morals and high-minded principles of our forebears that drives not only what to view as tasteful, refined, and cultured, but also what is good, decent, and proper. It is Dharma that is the soul of our Culture.

And yet, despite all the high-minded talk, we still have far too many ambitious and parochial people, who are putting their own private gain ahead of public good. Despite the growth of the “Indic Intellectual Ecosystem”, there remains far too much backbiting, copying, and petty politicking to make any of this Civilizationally beneficial. After all, if you treat your own countrymen no different than you treat your foreigners, if you still stupidly repeat the same mistakes as our ancestors and allow de nobilis into our ranks, if you still cut side deals with national enemies to gain one over your local rivals, then why is your society any more worthy of saving than it was a thousand years ago?

Ours is the civilization not only of Vasistha and Vikramaditya or Ram and Guru Ram Das, but also Saints like Annamacharya and Basavanna who took on those who misused our inheritance and twisted it for personal material gain. That is why we spoke out so fervently in favour of the absolute Truth, of Satya-Param, in our previous article. Without the truth, all we have is tyranny. It is the truth that truly does set us free.

Tradition without Truth is robotics. But Tradition with Truth is meaningful living. It is the Truth which destroys Ego, which reminds us of our minuscule place in the scheme of things, which teaches us that false pride comes not only from adharma but even Dharma. That is why we are asked to surrender to God in the finality of things (atma-nivedhana), or at the very least surrender to truth (if you are agnostic). Solipsism and narcissism can emerge even from those who have historically done good, like the Haihaya Karthaveerya.

kartavirya

Even the Parashurama who defeated him was in turn punished by Rama for pride.

That is the danger of Ego, that is the danger of Ahankar. Over time, it breeds the false sense that you are so good, whatever you do is beyond reproach, whatever you do cannot be judged. Pride in caste, pride in scholarship, pride in intellect, pride in strength, all can lead to terrible falls and even punishment, and so too can pride in doing past good.

As seen in the preceding article in our series, the amassment of wealth and power of the Bhargavas and their adharmic selfishness in the wake of societal famine was one of the reasons for their chastisement. Their ingrate behaviour towards their patrons, the Haihayas (supported by the Atreyas), is also significant. The later misdeeds of the Haihayas, who went overboard, were rightly punished by Parashurama, but the misdeeds of the Bhargavas were the root.

Society is one of balance. When there is an imbalance, when kshatriyas become tyrannical, or when brahmanas attempt to accrue wealth, power, and women, Dharma causes a restoration. Parashurama’s antipathy towards kshatriyas was well-known, his instruction of Bhishma being only on account of the latter being the divine son of Ganga. Parashurama’s cursing of Karna once he discovered the latter was actually a kshatriya, is emblematic of this. But a society needs both Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. He served as the conduit for Krishna to take his Sudarshana chakra, as the purpose of Krishna’s birth was to destroy sinful Kshatriyas, but Parashurama’s punishment at the hands of Rama is also well-known, again due to the sin of Ego. This egotism of the Bhargavas originated in Bhrigu himself.

Once upon a time, the rishis were performing a great yagna and wished to determine to whom they should dedicate it to. When it was decided to dedicate it to the Supreme God, Bhrigu decided to test the Trimurthi. He refused to pay obeisance to Brahma or embrace Shiva, and both were angered. In fact it was only when the wives of Brahma and Shiva begged them to spare Bhrigu that he managed to escape with his life, despite both of them preparing to burn him to ashes or slay him with Trishul. His encounter with Vishnu is even more illustrative.

The story of Lord Venkateshwara (Balaji) is well known in Andhra and other parts of the South (as this Kannada film demonstrates).

The impudent Bhrigu then made his way over to Lord Vishnu, who was asleep. Bhrigu struck Vishnu on the chest, awakening him. Despite the behaviour of this son of Brahma, he spared Bhrigu due to his nominal status as his father-in-law. True to his nature, however, Vishnu also removed the origin of Bhrigu’s pride, the eye in his foot that was the source of his great Ego.

Bhrigu Aksapada, as such, was punished by Lord Vishnu who removed of that eye in Bhrigu’s foot of which he was so proud.    After all, whatever legal title the oceans may be in, the entire cosmos belongs to the One who created it. What is a mere rishi before the preserver of the universe itself? This is the danger of self-glorification. Rishis too must know their place before God. Bhrigu and the Bhargavas soon learned theirs.

Maha Lakshmi herself was furious and cursed Bhrigu and all Brahmanas that she would never visit them. Rishis themselves scolded Bhrigu for his arrogance. After all, who was he to test the Trimurthi, who could burn him to ashes with a mere glance (Brahma almost did). That Lakshmi was born to him is considered a boon to Bhrigu, not the other way around. The Trimurti and their Divine other halves are beyond all materiality.

All this is precisely why time and again humility is of the utmost importance because False Ego leads to the temptation towards pride, which leads to greed, and untruth to justify that greed. The ancient brahmanas were known for truth because they foreswore from wealth and power, and were rightly respected for it. That some of their descendants greedily chase after it even at the cost of their country, is well known too: One, Two, Three.

One such has been writing abysmal nonsense, ostensibly for the benefit of a foreign patron. While he curiously criticised the kshatriya who spoke out against this videshi scholar, he has been inactive in actually defending our society from such videshi depredations.  This is precisely why avadhanis do not replace our Acharyas, who live in poverty and are attached to the truth, whatever the personal cost. But here is what one such public performer has been writing all while making pretense to giving “spiritual discourses”.

For all his obsession with his own caste, he had the gall to insult Maharishi Vasistha by stating he was the son of a prostitute. Per our orthodox Tradition, Vasishta is considered on of Brahma’s manasaputras (directly mind-born son)…How could he be called the son of an apsara? Whether you are atheist or not, that is the tradition, you are free to deny the rationality of it, but that is the traditional reality.Even if one accepts some later account of Vasishta being reborn to Urvashi and Varuna, that only demonstrates the danger that half knowledge accomplishes.  Urvashi as an apsara is no more a prostitute/courtesan than devadasis originally were. Apsaras were simply independent unattached women who chose their own lovers and had no interest in marriage. Ravana styled Rambha as one such prostitute, and he payed the price through the curse of her family. These ravanas will very well find out the same. All this is precisely why half knowledge  or knowledge in general, is not wisdom.

Another example was misdefining Dharma. That Dharma is defined as the upholding of Rta expressed by the Absolute Truth Satya as clarified by our Traditional Acharyas was established in our Post on Rta vs Rna. So why the effort to define it as such? Defining Dharma as inferior and motivated by Rna is, especially in the present time, very dangerous to our debt-burdened society. Whether it is unscrupulous moneylenders in Mother India or modern bankers, the perils of finance especially to the indebted illiterate are great.

earthlyspiritualrna

As once can see, spiritual rnas are far too easily conflated for material & financial rnas. In our debt-burdened society, the implications of this are terrible. That is why rna is necessarily inferior to Dharma, so that Rta is not offended. But why such artificial re-defining of Dharma? Whose purpose does it serve to first change Dharma from Rta and Rna, then in subsequent articles, subordinate Satya to Rta. These are wrong definitions, which we were forced to counter in our articles on Satya and Rta. That one of them used to call Rajiv Malhotra his “guru” only to later attack him, only shows how much they themselves don’t practice what they preach. So much for guru-rna. What an ingrate.

Next are the recent definitions of Classical Literature as something frozen, beyond time and space, i.e. dead. This is straight out of Sheldon Pollock’s view of Sanskrit as dead. No wonder a review was written by them against Rajiv Malhotra’s Battle for Sanskrit. It’s obvious they are indirectly assisting Pollock’s prekshaa. Even if one gives the benefit of the doubt, it is highly telling that they were far more vitriolic and spent more time trying to take down Rajiv Malhotra than rebut the claims of this western Indologist.

Finally, the most egregious of all, their supporting the theory of “Beef in Vedas”.  This was in turn used by such noted pseudo-scholars as a particular Wendy Doniger acolyte. This is the cost of pseudo-scholarship and why avadhanis are not acharyas. As we can see, even in the tradition, whether it was Ravana or the greedy and overproud Bhargavas, or Duryodhana and the sinful Kauravas, just as there are good kshatriyas and evil kshatriyas, there are good brahmanas an evil brahmanas. Hence, the issue that faces us today is not caste versus caste, but Dharma vs adharma. It is upto to good brahmanas to speak up and call out these dushta-brahmanas for the fraudacharyas they are. These are bahishkar-able offenses. Remember, that too is part of Varnashrama Dharma.

These are not mere indiscretions, but a pattern of perverting Veda, Purana, and Dharma to suit the needs of videshi “indologists”. The list in fact goes on to even referring to varna (caste) as being based on “aptitudes” instead of guna (per) the tradition. Is casteism any more obvious than in asserting only 1 caste has valour or only 1 caste has intelligence? This is the definition of it. This is the casteism and determinism that had bred fatalism. This is the casteism that furthers division.

When one teaches, it must be out of a sense of responsibility, out of a sense of duty not just to makes sure students are taught correctly but also in a manner that is comprehensible to them. One should not teach or write for the purpose of looking or sounding smart, but for the purpose of communicating knowledge, wisdom, and understanding effectively. A teacher does not teach for his own ego, or self-glorification, but out of a sense of obligation to society.

Worst of all, the obvious subtextual attempts to deify this charlatan self-styling himself as a “polymath”, is apparent not only through the references to Swami Vidyaranya as a “polymath” but even Sri Krishna himself.

Let it be known to this Ravana, and his resident Paundraka, that not only is he no Sri Krishna or Vasistha, he is no Vidyaranya either. Despite traditional knowledge and achievement, both Ravana and Dronacharya were punished for doing wrong and lusting for women in one case and power in the other. They should consider themselves duly notified of their walking the same path as these predecessors.

At this stage, many of you may believe this critique to be too harsh, or too focused on one community. Please understand, this is in fact out of great reluctance, as infighting, whether inter-caste or even intra-caste runs many risks as well. Nevertheless, it is imperative that correct interpretation of our tradition be passed on to the next generation, that correctly teaches not only correct culture, and correct Dharma, but even correct Varnashrama Dharma. Some seem to have forgotten this, as we have not been alone in similar criticism.

Even those who were once aware of such problems can become blind to them when faced with material temptation. All this is precisely why our true Acharyas are in the Agraharas or Mathas (Sringeri in this case), not in the material world, pursuing a material living. It is they who preserve the tradition of true Brahmanas and they who teach correct Varnashrama Dharma. Our writings must be in consonance with the spirit if not letter of what they teach. Traditional Brahmanas living the traditional way were and are respected. If you are not one such, do not expect the same treatment and authority commanded by an Acharya.

As we said above (and as we can see above) those who have a past store of good deeds can also fall on account of their pride in them. That is the danger of ahankar, which leads to greed, which leads to untruth, and ultimately untold sin. When the store of merit expires, from whence can they expect succour from the cost of their transgressions?

Relevant to the matter at hand, is K.A. Nilakantha Sastri’s recounting of a Buddhist perspective on ancient Brahmanas, that gives us insight into why some sections continue this “Beef in Vedas” sacrilege:

Buddhist account of gohatya

“The Ancient Rsis were ascetics (tapassino) and practiced self-control and avoided the five pleasures of the senses…They spent 48 years of their life as brahmacarins in quiet of knowledge and good conduct. Even after their marriage they lived a life of restraint. They held austerity, rectitude, tenderness, love and forebearances in high esteem. They performed sacrifices with rice, beds, clothes, ghee or oil, which they could collect by begging and never killed cows in sacrifices. They possessed a noble stature and a tender and bright mien and remained always engaged in their own pursuits. In course of time, however, they began to cove[t] a king’s riches and splendour and objects of pleasure such as women with ornaments, chariots yoked with stately horses…Coveting more and more they again persuaded him (King Okkaku, that is Ikshvaku) to celebrate sacrifices by offering of cows, which they said, constituted also the wealth of men…The slaughter of cows enraged the gods Brahma, Indra and even the Asuras and Rakshasas and multiplied the diseases which were originally three, viz. desires, hunger and decrepitude, to ninety-eight and further caused to appear discord among the people and within the household, and acts improper and impious among the various classes of men.”[2, 291]

The true Brahmins are distinguished from the false ones by Buddha and are well spoken of by him. Such Brahmins were expected to observe the five dhammas: truthfulness (saccam), austerity (tapam), continence (brahmacariyam), study (ajjhenam) and gifts (cagam). (sutta-Nipata p.85).”[2, 293]

buddha

That is the danger of perpetuating this calumny that Beef can be justified by the Vedas. Go-hatya is considered a mahapataka (a terrible sin). This in turn has been rebutted many times. Such actions of this clique not only put our society at risk (at least per the Vedic tradition), but also put at risk our venerable Acharyas.

It is widely known how Brahmins (traditional or otherwise) are specifically and bigotedly targeted for violence. The tragic violence in Tamil Nadu is one such example. Many of our own family-friends were directly affected decades ago and were forced to migrate. The continued murders of brahmin priests in Bangladesh and elsewhere is another. Protection of priests and others can only be achieved by unity in our society and correct interpretation and correct practice of Dharma. As the Paramacharya is reputed to have said above, the best way to ensure the safety of brahmanas (which many of us have a personal stake in) is their own good conduct.Supporting such colonial theories that have no support in scripture (like AIT, which others have done) only gives fuel for this Breaking India fire and artificially separates Brahmanas from the other castes (the express goal of colonialists). An intellectual sepoy is still a sepoy, and betrays his fellow hindu and fellow brahmin alike.

That is why we repeatedly state that in order to ensure their own nation, their own Civilization becomes stronger, such stalwarts of samskruthi must themselves become better people first, and correct their wrong notions and wrong opinion and wrong-headedness.  Such wrong definitions of Varnashrama Dharma only drive lower castes away. Such wrong “scholarly” support to Beef in Vedas only puts Hindus on the backfoot and encourages more go-hatya. And these are only some such examples. Recent attempts to even justify their own private vices on the basis of some alleged and subjective “inner worth” is another.

brahminbyconduct

Of course we are judged by our vices. Habits are first cobwebs then cables. An author, artist, musician, or even poet may not be judged by his vices, but a Pandit, Purohit, or Acharya certainly is. That is the mark of a true Brahmana. National honour is safeguarded by National morality. Whether you are born into a brahmin family or not, it is your conduct that makes you a true Brahmana.

But like Durvasa & Drona, those who in their pride or ambition or desire for wealth perpetuate these falsehoods, may in turn find that pride goeth before the fall.

ambarisha

 

References:

  1. Shree Balaji Mandir http://shreebalajimandir.org/lord-venkateshwara%20%E2%80%93%20the-story.aspx
  2. Kane, P.V. History of Dharmasastra. Vol.3.P.2. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1973.
  3. Sastri, Nilakantha K.A. Age of the Nandas & Mauryas. MLBD.1996
  4. Nagaswamy, R. Tamil Nadu-Land of the Vedas. Tamil Arts Academy. 2016

Who were the Yavanas?

Yavanapatha

One of the great controversies in “Indology” has been the term “Yavana”. But our Itihasa-Purana long ago expressed itself clearly. As usual, rather than speaking in one voice, Bharatiyas, especially our two clever by half half-wits  in their philognostic navel gazing have made matters worse by further associating the term with Indo Greeks.

TarnTaran

Fortunately, our real Acharyas, such as Pandit Kota Venkatachalam, trenchantly established the truth. Whatever the later usage towards Persianised Turks and Arabs, “Yavana” (especially in the Puranas) refers to degraded Aryas who later became the Kambojas, Sakas, and Parasikas (Persians). Some of the Yavanas became Ionian-Greek, but the Yavanas referenced in the Puranas were not Greeks. “Yavanacharya” and “Yavaneshwara” were not Greek. Milinda from Milinda Panha was not Greek.

GoodbyeIndoGreeks

Pandit Chelam categorically denies that the Greeks had any kingdoms East of the Indus River. In his “Plot in the Indian Chronology” he wrote that the British fabricated much evidence and even forged coins. Indo-greek history constructed primarily on the basis of coins (numismatics). Were these forgeries?—worth scientifically investigating.

SagaraDefeatsYavanas

Per the Vishnu purana, Maharaja Sagara (ancestor of Sri Rama) of the Ikshvakus defeated and banished the Yavanas. He made them cut their hair and shave their beards, hence the fashion of the western-most variety. Of course, western “Indologists” are careful to omit this part, but happily use the Garga Samhita and its alleged attachment, the Yuga Purana, to advance the claim that the Indo-Greeks successfully campaigned in Northern India. Pandit Chelam has questioned the authenticity of this “Yuga Purana” saying that it does not appear to be the work of Vriddha-Garga.

YugaPuranaBS

That is the stupidity of our band of half-wits because what they find “fascinating” and gleefully promote in their half-knowledge is actually used by westerners, western wannabes, and mid-east wannabes to mock them. Milinda was not Menander, but was a Yavana-Kshatriya of Balhika (Transoxiana). As degraded kshatriyas they had been banished from India, but were promised by Ishvara that they would successfully invade Madhyadesa later in the Kaliyuga (see Medieval Period). Their time is now over.

While Astika Brahmanas abandoned them, as they had abandoned the Vedic rite and Sadachara, these Yavana-Kshatriyas nevertheless had their own Yavana-Brahmanas, Yavana-Vaishyas, and Yavana-Sudras. Per the Vedic Arya estimation of Madhyadesa (that is the Gangetic core), all these had the status of Mleccha only.

YavanacharyaTherefore, the “Yavanacharya” and “Yavaneshvara” of the Surya Siddhantha, are none other than these exiled vratya Indians, who later joined with the various borderland tribes and became their rulers. That is why Yavana Astronomy is praised. That is what Yavana actually means. And that is why “Silence is Golden”, because these self-same morons-archaeologist who just discovered the topic in their Wikipedia research, have gone so far as to bring this to the attention of troll magazine and its resident olog-hai. That is why knowledge is not wisdom.

The reality is, Western Indology knows damn little about the Indo-Greeks, and a recent European scholar admitted as much. It took the work of native Bharatiya historians, and many decades, to push back against the colonial narrative established by the British, which imagined Demetrios and Menander as an ancient Clive & Dalhousie. Luckily for us, our ahankari-shikhandis lost no time to bring a broken narrative to the attention of all the wrong people, and help them revive it. But hey, who cares when we can give gyaan to grow follower counts and engage in half-knowledged speculation!

So next time you come across something that could be misportrayed and misused against your own people, make use of that dm option, do further research, or simply remember the value of “shut up”.

As for the full account of the Yavanas, here is some of what Bharatiya Charitra Bhaskara, Sri Kota Venkatachalam, wrote on the matter [Emphasis and Proofing ours]:

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on April 28, 2009


Uttarapatha

Reference to Yavana countries:

To the west of Kashmir there were five Yavana countries. Some of them are now part of Kashmir Empire. These Yavanas were not Greeks but they belonged to the Kshatriya race of India. As these disregarded and neglected the performance of vedic duties and rites they were called Mlechchas. In those Yavana regions lived four castes of people. As all these castes relinquished Vedic rites, their caste-names were merely nominal.

Among the people of the Yona kingdoms, Rajatarangini relates that there were castes called Yona Brahmins, Yona Kshatriyas, Yona Vaisyas and Yona Sudras.
Yona or Yavana Kingdoms:

1. Abhisara, 2. Uraga (Urasa), 3. SimhaPura (Singapura)
4, Divya Kataka (Deva Kataka or Kataka ), 5, Uttara
jyotisha.

(Vide the Map of western India in post ‘The Empire of Kashmir’).

“Abhisara” consisted of two regions namely “‘Darva” and “Abhisara.” The kings of these Yavana regions were Kshatriyas who became Mlechchas, were subordinate and paid tribute to Kashmir Kings. We find in Rajatarangini many instances, when these Yavana rulers revolted and became independent and the Kashmir monarchs subdued the rebels and brought them again under their sovereignty. Some of these five regions are part of Kashmir and others are on the western border. In the list of the Kashmir Kings, during the reign of 130th ruler, Kalasa Maha Raja, there was the description of Yona Brahmin as follows,

“There was a Brahmin born in the Yona Village who begged alms of paddy. His name was “Loshtaka” and he was considered to be an Astrologer of that village.” So says Rajatarangjni.

From this, it is evident that the Kshatriyas residing in the Yona regions, on the borders of Kashmir, though they were firstly Kshatriyas, were treated as Mlechchas, on account of their disregarding their vedic duties; the other caste people also were called Mlechchas. Therefore, Rajatarangini relates that there were caste differences even among the Mlechchas. The yona Brahmins were experts in Astrology. The ‘Yavana. Rishi’, the author of “Yavana Siddhanta”, was a ‘Bharatiya Yavana Brahmin’, but not a Greek. The territory “Ionia” which got that name, on account of its conquest by the Yavanas of india, was later called Greece from its contact with the savage Greek tribes.

The Bharata Yavanas were of a very ancient origin. They took the sciences of Astrology and others, on their migration to ‘Ionia’(modern Greece) from India, but India borrowed nothing from Greece. On the otherhand. the western writers turned matters topsy-turvy and proclaimed that all the arts and sciences flowed from Greece to India. The histories containing this inverted information were introduced as Text-Books and our children were taught these packs of lies in the schools and colleges.

As the students were manufactured to be disciples of the Greeks, as a result, they cultivated a love for Greek lore and learning and developed a hate for Bharatiya knowledge and wisdom. Until and unless correct and true history of Bharat is written and these authentic books are prescribed as Texts for study in the schools and Colleges, these wrong and baneful notions cannot be torpedoed and the minds of future generations of young men cannot be diverted from the tinsel glamour of west to the true glory of the East, the hearth and home of culture and civilisation from time immemorial.

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on July 4, 2009


Pandit Chelam provides an excerpt from a correspondence. Following that, he responds to the questions with his answer on Yavanas.

The two questions: The learned Dr. Sirkar (Govt. Epigraphist for India,Ootacamund, South India) asked in a letter in February,1955 after receiving a copy of a booklet “The age of Buddha from Pandit Chelam) :-·
On the basis of your (Puranic) Chronology how do you account for
1. The Yavana king “Milinda” of Sakala mentioned in the “Milinda Panha” who flourished 500 years after the Buddha’s Parinirvana?
2. The Yavana Monarch “Amtiyoka” whose dominions bordered on the empire of Asoka, grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, according to Maurya inscriptions?
To answer the questions raised, we felt the need for further investigation of allied history and historical research and came upon an essay by the learned Dr. D.C.Sircar himself on ‘The Yavanas’ in Vol.II of “The History and Culture of the Indian People” published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. We acknowledge that we found the essay also very useful for our purposes in this connection in furnishing our answers to his questions.

In Vol II of the “History and Culture of the Indian People” Dr. D.C. Sirkar writes about the Yavanas :-

“One of the factors that led to the extinction of the dynasty of the Imperial Mauryas was the advent of the Yavana invaders through the North—western gate of India. Indeed the most interesting feature of the post Maurya period of Indian history is the establishment of foreign supremacy in Uttarapatha, Aparanta Paschaddesa, and the adjoining region of Madhyadesa successively by alien powers, and the Yavanas were the first among them.
The word ‘Yavana’ was used in medieval Indian literature as a synonym of Mlechcha and indicated any foreigner. But as late as the early centuries of the Christian era it meant to an Indian, the Greeks only. The word was derived from the old Persian form ‘Yauna’ signifying originally the Indian Greeks and later, all people of Greek nationality. The Greeks of Ionia in Asia Minor, between the Aegean Sea and Lydia, and the people of North Western India, certainly came into contact with each other as subjects of the Achaemenion emperors of Persia since the time of Darius I (522-488 B.C.) Vide p. 101, Ch. VII of Vol. II of Dr.Sircar’s “History and Culture of the Indian people”, of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series.)”

PortraitChelam

[Pandit Chelam’s Response to Sirkar]

It is not a fact that foreigners established supremacy in ‘Uttarapatha’ in the post-Mauryan period. It is not correct to say the Sanskrit word “Yavana” is derived from the Persian form ‘Yauna’. 70% of the vocabulary of ancient Persian consists of Sanskrit words. The Persian language is itself a Prakrita(Vernacular dialect) derived from Sanskrit. The original Persians constituted a branch of Bharatiya Kshatriyas. Along with some others they were Kshatriyas excommunicated from the Kshatriya caste of Bharat on account of the non-observance by them of the regulations and rituals prescribed by the Vedas for the Kshatriya caste.

The regular Kshatriyas refrained from social and marital association with the excommunicated branches. One [o]f such excommunicated branches was known as the ‘Parasaka’ and they settled down in Eastern Persia. The region was named after them and came to be known as ‘Paarasika’. As they had originally belonged to the Aryan race, the country was also known by the more ancient name of Iran. Sanskrit was the parent language from which was derived the dialect known as Persian. The contention that the Sanskrit word ‘Yavana’ is derived from the Prakrit word ‘Youna’ of the derived Persian language is entirely baseless. The Sakas, Yavanas, Barbaras, Bahlikas and others were all branches of Kshatriya caste belonging originally to the Aryan race and the Hindu fold, but known generally as Mlechchas, having been excommunicated for their non observance of the prescribed caste regulations and duties, but they were severally referred to by their separate Kshatriya subsect names whenever necessary.

The Sakas, Yavanas, and others had their own Kingdoms in ‘Uttarapatha’ for thousands of years before the Mahabharata War (3138 B.C.). Thev were Hindus (excommunicated) and not at all foreigners.

The Mauryas were not emperors, sovereigns over an empire. From the time of Chandragupta Maurya. Chandragupta Maurya was able to establish himself on the throne of the Magadha kingdom, only with the help of the famous Chanakya. His son Bindusara also was only the king of M[a]gadha and not an emperor. In his time Magadha extended as far as ‘Taxila’ in the west. His son Asoka appears to have extended his dominion by conquest and got recognised as an emperor. Even for his empire the western boundary was only at Takshasila and there were the Yavana kingdoms and Gandhara to the north west and west of it, Kambhoja and Kashmir to the north. His descendants were not so formidable and so in a few generations after him the empire dwindled gradually and came to be confined once again to the Magadha kingdom only. In 1218 B.C. Pushya-mitra-Sunga murdered the last king of Magadha of the Maurya dynasty, himself became king of Magadha, conquered and brought under his suzerainty the neighbouring kingdoms and performed the Aswamedha to establish his claim to the status of an emperor.

The Maurya empire was disrupted on account of the weakness of the successors of Asoka which led to the independence of the feudatory kings and not on account of the invasions of foreign ‘Yavanas.’ Yavana kings were perhaps crossing the frontiers (river Indus) with small armies and indulging in marauding activities in the villages and towns across the border. But they were returning to their countries at the approach of the armies of Magadha. These Yavanas across the border of the Maurya empire were of Bharatiya Kshatriya descent and were neither Greeks nor foreigners. There were no Greeks at that time.

It is wrong to identify the word ‘Yavana’ with the ‘Greek.’ The ancient Yavana kingdoms now comprise modern Afghanistan. The Yavanas and the Yavana kingdoms were in the northwestern region of Bharat from times immemorial and not of foreign advent. There was only one (Bharatiya)Yavana invasion in the time of the Maurya emperors and then it was repelled. lt is erroneous to contend that the Maurya empire was disrupted by the Yavana invasions. It is not a fact. There is no historical evidence whatsoever in support of such a contention.

Sir william Jones, one of the most intellectual of the European critics of Sanskrit literature, pronounced the Sanskrit language to be ‘of a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. (Vide Asiatic researches, Vol I, p, 422)

While thus innumerable reputed scholars unanimously declare that Sanskrit is the most ancient and the parent language of all the languages on the earth, from which all the other languages [w]ere derived, and in particular Zind, the ancient Persian language, is 70% Sanskrit and derived from Sanscrit it is surpriseing that Dr. Sirkar should suggest that the Sanskrit word “Yavana” is derived from the ancient persian word ‘Yauna’. The word ‘Yavana’ is frequently in use in Sanskrit literature, from times immemorial. To say that it has recently been imported into the Sanskrit language, argues little acquaintance with Sanskrit language and literature. There is a lot of information and innumerable references in Sanskrit literature to the Yavanas and other Bharatiya Kshatriya races which subsequently spread all over the world.

The following excerpts are from a Post at True Indian History on July 4, 2009


Question II of Dr, Sirkar:- About the age of ‘Amtiyoka’, the Yavanah monarch mentioned in the edicts of Asoka.

[Pandit Chelam’s Response to Sirkar]

The above mentioned ‘Amtiyoka’ belonged to a branch of Bharatitya Yavana Kshatriyas. He was the ruler of ‘Simhapura’ one of the five Yavana kingdoms 1. Abhisara. 2, Uraga 3. Simhapura 4. Divyakataka 5. Uttarajyotisha.

The other four rulers were subordinate to him. These five kingdoms were all beyond the borders of Asoka’s empire on the North-west and a group stretching in sequence from west to northeast. Now we find them included 1. in Kashmir, 2. in the North- west Frontier Province and 3, 4. 5, in Afghanistan. They were very small kingdoms. The people of these regions were Yavana Kshatriyas and martial people who lived on their arms i.e. served as mercenary soldiers under any ruler who paid them. Their women were very beautiful and they were employed as body-guards in the royal (harems) households of several Indian princes.

These mercenary soldiers were very loyal to the masters under whom they served and sacrificed their lives if necessary for the safety of their masters. They were Kshatriyas of Solar descent. But they were excommunicated from the Aryan Kshatriya fold on account of their disregarding and discarding the Vedic rituals and observances.(Manu 10-43, 45) They were regarded as Mlechchas. When they could not secure employment under wealthy masters who could maintain them, they used to live upon theft and banditry, raiding peaceful villages and carrying away loot to their mountain regions

So “Amtiyoka” was a Bharatiya Yavana prince, not an Iono-Greek or Greek prince. He was the contemporary of Ashoka. His age was from 1472-36 B.C. The “Yavana” of Northwest Bharat became Ionian in Asia minor and Greece and mixing with the Greek the Ionian became Iono-Greek and then by the order of the Government of Ionia or Greece, the Iono-Greek became “Greek” and the country became “Greece”.

The following excerpts are from a Post at True Indian History on August 1,2009


YugaPuranaFabThat Menander was a great Indo·Greek prince was recorded by the historian Strabo whose authority for the statement was a reference to him by the ancient writer Appolodorus. Periplus is another book assigned to 70-80 A.D., but of unknown authorship. But it is stated in this Periplus that coins with Greek letters and devices were current in the neighbourhood of Broach on the west coast of India in the first century A.D, ‘These coins resembled the insignia of Appolodorus and Menander, Greek Potentates who were in power after Alexander. Hence it is inferred that the neighbourhood of Broach might have been included in the Greek dominions in the times of Demetrius, Appolodorus and Menander. All this is entirely in the sphere of conjecture. It seems Appolodorus and Menander are mentioned in the list of Bharatiya Yavana princes in the writings of Justin, the historian. But his writings are now extinct and not available for verification.

It seems Plutarch also mentioned Menander as renowned for justice and that when he passed away the various cities in the neighbourhood contested for the privilege of holding his remains. This Menander is further identified with Milinda of the Milinda Panha (questions of Milinda), a Buddhist text containing the several questions raised by Milinda and the answers furnished to them by the Buddhist monk Nagasena at the end of which the prince, satisfied embraced Buddhism. This prince is spoken of as ‘Milindra’ in Avadana-Kalpa-lata by Kshemendra. In the Shinkot inscription the name is given as ‘Menadra‘ and so it may be identified as ‘Minendra’or ‘Menandra’. This name might be read into the devices on the coins, we are told.”

numisforge

The following excerpts are from a Post at True Indian History on August 1,2009


“In Hieun-Tsang’s writings there is scope for the current provisionally accepted date of 486 B.C, If we count 500 years from the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana we get 14 A,D. So Menander should belong to after 14 AD.,ie. Ist century A.D. But even this is pure conjecture and based on the assumption of the identity of Menander with the Milinda of Milinda panha, Even the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana is itself based on the wrong assumption of the contemporaneity of M[a]urya Chandragupta and Alexander of 324 B.C. How can we expect the superstructure to yield correct dates when the basic assumption is itself questionable and a mere conjecture? As soon as the hollowness of the original foundation of the entire structure is exposed and recognised the entire edifice topples down with a crash and the time for it is approaching.
It is wrong to identify Menander with Milinda. Menander even according to the author of the essay, Dr. Sirkar. belongs to the 2nd century B.C. It will he proved in the pages that follow that Milinda belongs to the end of the 14th century B.C.”EucratidesEumenedes



References:

  1. True Indian History. [Various Blog Posts]
  2. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of Buddha, Milinda, and Amtiyoko. Guntur: Sri Ajanta Printers.1956
Acknowledgement to Sri G.D. Prasad garu, Grandson of Pandit Sri Kota Venkatachalam, for his kind permission to reprint these Excerpts and Blog Posts.

“An appeal to Young Indologists”

PKVCthePIIC

As we wrote previously, the Importance of History cannot be minimised in this era, let alone any other. A person, a people, a culture, a civilization, all derive their identity from history, sacred or otherwise. The critical lessons of history help politicians and military thinkers alike shape the course of their country’s destiny. But with a topic as powerful and as crucial as history, objectivity and dispassionate thinking are required. Scientific temper does not mean scientism. Ours is a spiritual civilization and our Vedas, a spiritual tradition. Therefore, before beginning to catalogue and disseminate True History, it is important to understand “True Indology”.

Instead today, mere regurgitations from social media and blog trivia are what pass for serious research and serious thinking. But serious people are driven by strategic thinking, not serial sycophancy and regurgitation of knowledge from self-appointed “acharyas”. They recognise that any nation that has been colonised must carefully review whether and how their society was tampered with. This is because…

What greater proof was there of this than British-colonised India?

Those wedded to scientism forget the true place of tradition, and how science exists to confirm tradition, rather than define or even pre-determine tradition. Fortunately, the modern and traditional are not always antipodal. There was one such true Pandit, indeed, a veritable “Bharata Charitra Bhaskara” who was learned not only in “western learning”, but our traditional Vedic and Pauranic learning as well. For those [b]raying for “true pandityam”, fine, let us then learn from a real Pandit, Sri Kota Venkatachalam.

Traditionally trained, but modern educated, he is the precise antidote to sage-imitating sepoys selling their knowledge to the highest bidder, while hiding behind sacred threads. Here is one actual Acharya of authentic lineage who actually deserved his yagnopavitham. And my pranams to him.

He wrote in the very era when Bharat’s history was being tampered with and painstakingly catalogued how our history was purposefully misrepresented, and archaeological evidenced destroyed. Here is what he had to say [emphasis ours]:

The following Post appeared on True Indian History on April 21, 2009


 

The history of India, particularly of the ancient period, as it is found in the Text Books of schools and colleges and in the writings of research scholars of Indology, requires thorough revision. European scholars, who attempted to construct our history, seriously erred in chronology.

  1. The false assumption that the Aryans came from outside India and the wrong identification of Chandra-Gupta-Maurya of 1534 B.C, with another Chandra-Gupta, the contemporary of Alexander(326 B.C.), led to several errors in chronology and other aspects of our history.
  2. The Puranas, which are a storehouse of historical information, were discredited as mere fiction. Several facts from the Puranas that do credit to our history and culture are entirely omitted in the historical writings of Europeans and their Indian followers.
  3. Some Indologists went to the length of interpolating in and otherwise tampering with the writings of ancient foreign visitors of India and with the Buddhist literature
  4. Many ancient inscriptions like the Kumbhalghar Inscription (V.S.1537) were destroyed.
  5. The genuine Inscription of Janamejaya ( Indian Antiquity pp333,334) dated Kali 89 or 3012 B.C. has been rejected as being spurious. Several other important ancient inscriptions between 4148 B>C. And 300 B.C., were destroyed.
  6. Some coins and inscriptions have been misread, mis-interpreted, misapplied and misrepresented and some are forged so as to be used for supporting the modern theories.
  7. The Aihole inscription and others that establish correctly the date of the Mahabharata War, 3138 B.C., have been neglected.
  8. Some important dates which are supposed to be the Anchor Sheets of Ancient Indian chronology have been arbitrarily determined, with no regard for or reference to ancient literature.

All this was to show that the historical literature of Bharat was unreliable as a document of history.

Although later researches by Indian Savants have brought to light several facts, the writings of these savants are not accepted by prominent Indologists for the simple reason that these writings do not fall in line with their modern theories. It is strange to expect that scholars that are bent upon showing the errors in the modern historians in the field should fall in line with the same writers. The interests of truth will heavily suffer if this attitude towards fresh research scholars of Indian history continues.

For about forty years I have been working in the field of historical research studying both Indigenous and modern histories and inscriptions etc., and during the last 9 years I have published genuine Historical facts in 24 books, some in Telugu and some in English running into 3000 pages. I have been sending my publications to research scholars and other prominent persons interested in the subject. Although the bulk of the scholars are too conservative even to examine my writings, some of them have accepted that my writings give a lead to the attempts for constructing a genuine history of Bharat. I am happy to note that there is a wide-spread desire in our country today, that our history should be rewritten so as to be nearer the truth.

I have done, through my writings, what I could towards the achievement of the legitimate wish of our people. I appeal to the younger generation to pursue the subject and do justice to the great culture and history of our country.

I have labored, long enough and am retiring in my 72nd year. I assure my young friends that as they proceed with the subject they will find in our ancient literature, inscriptions and coins, wonderful material that will enable them to construct history of our mother-land from 3138 B.C.. Beware of forged inscriptions etc.

This Ancient Hindu History consisting of two parts is the last of my works. In the first part of this book I have traced the dynasties of kings from 3138 B.C., the date of the Mahabharata War, to 1193 A.D., and I have also given historical accounts of these dynasties. This information is quite in accordance with the puranic accounts and genuine inscriptions. In this second part, I have proved that the genuine history of Bharat is to be found in the vast Sanscrit literature, that the so-called archaeological evidence cited by modern historians is full of misleadings, misrepresentations and misapplications and that this evidence besides being so very faulty has failed to help a correct reconstruction of ancient Hindu Chronology and has always tended to horribly curtail it.

My good wishes to all those interested in bringing the genuine history of our Bharat.

Kota Venkata Chelam

Author,

1-1-1957


Rajiv Malhotra has been shedding light on exactly how Western Indology is being used to Break India. Pandit Chelam showed precisely how history was and is still being used by Colonialists to confuse and disorient India. That is the danger of scientism–it fails to ask, cui bono?

bono

In the coming days and weeks, we will examine closely Pandit Chelam’s work. Many have heard of him, some are familiar with him, but it is time we study him. But study him we shall in his own example, and critically examine his statements to see exactly why the essential story, the core chronology, the true sheet anchor of history is in fact correct. Details here and there may be lost to time or uncertainty or require verification, but determining the correct chronology and place of origin properly defines the place of history and a people’s place in it.

Above all, someone of his calibre with knowledge of both realms clarifies precisely what our Vedic tradition actually says.

Emblem_of_India.svg


Our sincere thanks to G.D. Prasad garu, who is the grandson of Pandit Chelam for graciously granting permission to reprint this article, which reprints sections from Sri Venkatachalam’s work.

Discretion Part Deux

durvasa

In our previous essay, we discussed how Discretion is the Better Part of Valour. Without having the discretion to know when to fight and when not to fight, what to say and what not to say, when to speak it and when not to speak it, defeat is guaranteed. Those whining about why there isn’t a Civilizational Renaissance yet would do well to implement corrective action first. That is why, the merits of a rote-memorisation education extend only to communicating knowledge, not communicating wisdom. Wisdom means having the judgment to know when to apply and when not to apply. It means having the discretion to know how to apply and how much to apply. All this comes from Niti. In fact, Discretion is often translated as Suniti, meaning “Good policy”.

Discretion means attempting to understand not only your needs and your svadharma, but society’s needs and the situation around you. That was why we used the example from the Puranas about Durvasa. Filled with caste pride, Maharishi Durvasa berated the Kshatriya King Ambarisha who was doing a fast (upavaas) for society to end a famine. When Durvasa attempted to curse Ambarisha, Vishnu’s Sudarshana Chakra appeared and chased Durvasa. It was only after Durvasa begged for pardon from Ambarisha that Lord Vishnu called back the Chakra. The Puranas do not exist to contradict the Vedas, but rather, contextualise them so we understand how the rules and the Dharma that emanates from the Breath of Brahman are to be applied. The Moral of the Story is, none are above Dharma, not even Maharishis, and Discretion helps us understand this.

ambarisha

Discretion even extends to not only what to speak but how to speak it—a perennial ailment for Indians.When everything is communicated in hyperbole (exaggeration/over the top language) who will take you seriously? “ohhh, they deshtroyyed us. Oh they are the beautiest. Oh vee always losted”. Have a freaking sense of proportion! Moderate your language and explain your position; otherwise, no one will ever take you seriously let alone respect you. Above all, this is required to ensure self-respect.

When there is failure to prioritise, there is failure to be proportionate. Paleo-puritan, ultra-conservatives staunchly against inter-caste marriage continue to fail to differentiate between inter-caste and inter-religious. If both are viewed as “equally immoral” then clearly there is something wrong with your priorities. Ask yourself if some aspect of your understanding of Dharma might be better preserved under one versus the other. It is one thing to say you are against varna samkara, another to say inter-caste is the same as inter-religious or inter-national. Determine which contravenes your society more.

Similarly, idiots on the Left who claim that right to equality extends to “non-Indians as much as Indians”, clearly have a problem understanding the difference between those with millennia of connection to Indic Civilization, and those who just happen to hold Indian passports (when it was required by law on account of their spouse’s prime ministership).

When discourse becomes mere competing hyperbolics, argumentative atisayokti takes us to the bottom of the barrel.

This tendency to hyperbole has even resulted in needless self-flagellation where none is required—in part due to ignorance, but in part due to stupidity. While all other cultures tend to interpret ambiguity in history in their own favour, we’re the only people who consistently convert/interpret victories as defeats. An odd, masochistic pleasure is taken to reduce our own accomplishments. Victorious kings are themselves made to look the opposite, precisely to satisfy some inner sanctimonious need for “Fairness.”, “Give them a chance.”, “They should win sometimes too.” “A mother gives extra love to her youngest”.

Such nonsensical nostrums over logic are what pave the way to self-destruction. Bharatiyas are the only people who consistently mediate between their enemies and their own people—setting themselves as holier than thou arbiters, rather than advocates for their own just causes. Perhaps that is precisely why no other people on the planet stupidly advocate for causes of foreigners who treat their own people like trash: “Gaza! Syria! Italian marines!”. Such sanctimonious charlatans claim to follow their conscience, but they are merely following fashionability. If charity begins at home, so does justice.

How many times have perfectly rational tweets been ruined by the Indian inability to avoid hyperbole by missing out on le mot juste? Education and information distribution is not merely vomiting of knowledge in the most exaggerative manner. It is also about phrasing it correctly so that people will not only comprehend it, but apprehend it in the right frame of mind. This proclivity is of course complemented by the corresponding fixation on the smallest, most irrelevant detail. Rather than focus on the big picture, they have an obsession with the small picture. Being spoiled brats, even the information has to be communicated exactly how and when they want it—otherwise they reject it, whatever the importance. “My mummy made it for me like this only” is the driving consideration for our Mummy-approved egos.

Someone once said,”most people think with their brains, Indians think with their hearts”. Now we know why Bharatiyas lack discretion. If you think with your heart/sentiment/emotion, how can you ever make a sound judgment or good decision? If you don’t have the sense to keep team unity, how will you ever defeat your united enemy? What is the point of reading the Panchatantra if you don’t apply its Niti?

This is directly from Acharya Vishnusarman’s Mitra-Sampraapti (The Gaining of Friends [and value of collaboration]).

panchatantracover

Furthermore, those obsessed with tradition forget teleology. Tradition for its own sake leads to hidebound and recalcitrant thinking. Tradition wedded to the Truth, however, is focused on the practical—that is why our real Acharyas in Agraharas and Mathas practice their traditions and rituals. No tradition can survive that does not first ask what the truth is—even if it contravenes tradition. The next question should be how do we protect our society and restore Dharma? What are the specific teams, strategies, tactics, etc. that are required to achieve these objectives? Who is competent to achieve these? It is only at the very end does the question of caste even come up, if at all. For the casteist, however, every line of inquiry begins with “What is your caste?

Many, both young and old have taken to thinking that being an “Argumentative Indian” is a badge of pride. Stubbornness and debate as entertainment have become ideals and pastimes.

Traditional Brahmanas are forbidden from power, but may serve as advisors or bureaucrats. Kshatriyas are prevented from appropriating priestly power to prevent tyrannies. Merchants are barred from ruling in order to prevent what we have now. Dharma prohibits centralisation of power—so why do we have upper castes today aspiring towards Plutocracy or Papacy?

Austerity is not the price for political power. Austerity is the test for MORAL power. It is not “philognosis” that forged our society (even in Vedic times) but philosophy— the love of wisdom. It is why visiting Ancient Greeks would remark that Indians were the wisest of all races, due to the wisdom of their philosophers (read: Brahmanas). Where is such wisdom today? Our “founding fathers” weren’t poodles performing mental tricks in maths and memory while pretending to be chankian experts in “strategery”.  It is love of wisdom and love of Truth, not love of mere knowledge or mere learning or mere science that defined our society. Discretion ultimately comes from judgment. And both of these ultimately lead to wisdom.

In our article on the Origins of Stupidity we provided the famous quote “Deficiency in Judgment is properly that which is called Stupidity”. If that is indeed the case, then we offer the corollary: Proficiency in Judgment is properly that which is called Buddhi. One who is proficient in judgment has wisdom. Those who have not yet mastered the Panchatantra, have no business citing the Arthasastra and Hitopadesa.

Panchatantra, T.1, s.136: “An act is not so well-accomplished by means of weapons, elephants, horses or infantry…as when done by means of wisdom” [3, 53]

Make no mistake, Bharatiyas and Hindus in particular, are not cowards. They will fight to the bitter end when obvious, immediate, and declared threats to life, limb, livelihood, and family are involved. But they have become moral cowards, and are rightly criticised for being unable to see beyond their own noses. Rather than resolving to correct or even punish the instigator, they blame the person defending himself. “Why do you fight? He is like this only. You must have done something too. Well he says the same about you. Truth is somewhere in the middle”, and a laundry list of other clownish cliches are emitted from the self-same supercilious and blubbering baboos.

This takes another dimension when family or even caste is involved. Rather than justice for my friends and full extent of the law for my enemies it is: “No, he is one of ours, he can do no wrong”. Why, you ask? Because the protections of a racketeering outfit will then be extended when he’s in the bind. Perhaps, therefore, it is unsurprising that we live in an age where godfathers, mobsters, and dalals of all shades are celebrated, after all, do they not operate the same way?

That is why Yuyutsu and Vibhishana are honoured. They were not “traitors” as our post-modern pill poppers assert, but in fact, recognised that their own brother was in the wrong, and were trying to save their people from harm. Each did everything he could to convince his brother to do the right thing, and when he recognised that their “enemy” was no foreign invader but the very epitome of Dharma, that was when he switched sides. That is why Satya and Rta matter infinitely more than Rna ever could.

Our previous Post also discussed the dangers of casteism from ALL castes. Whether it is non-brahmin against Brahmin or Brahmin on non-brahmin—casteism is casteism. While the specific example of Sri Annamacharya’s struggle was used, another example from a different caste was provided to demonstrate that the correct way to fight casteism is not to cowardly sit on the sidelines and watch for the winner…or worse, chastise the fellow who is merely defending himself. Rather, it is for true patriots and true dharmikas and true rashtra-rakshakas to publicly criticise and shut down own side casteists.

That is how casteism is defeated. Not through a one time, one-line, emotional outburst, but through consistent education on what real Dharma is, what real Varnashrama Dharma is, or at the very least what real desa-bhakti and rashtra-bhakti is. Naturally the example I used came from Andhra, where an entire caste was demonised by the atrocity literature of, per Rajiv Malhotra’s studies, Breaking India forces. But instead of all the castes coming together to swear blood vengeance against those who demonised a fellow Telugu, or a fellow Indian, they all only continue to play into the hands of those foreigners who seek to destroy them all, one by one.

If you can’t correct your prejudices, at least have the sense to shut up and stop poisoning the discourse. If you don’t have the sense to shut up and stop poisoning the discourse, then stop participating where you only damage your state, your community, and your own individual interests. People like you are rashtra and desa-drohis, no matter what vaunted lineage of Rishis or Rajas or Nayakas you may come from.

Let me reiterate that no community that has ever wielded any power can boast of its nose being squeaky clean. Frankly, credible allegations can be made against all parties if one goes far enough back in history. But the point isn’t to use history to tear each other down, but rather, to bring ourselves up and inspire us to come together to tackle common enemies. Here is an entire foreign produced piece of Orwellian drivel that ironically demonises both the same Brahmins and the same descendants of the Nayak communities.

Therefore, get this into your allegedly high iq, yet so obviously thick, head: It is not “foreign saab will help me tackle my local enemy” it is “foreign saab wishes to tackle both me and my fellow vidyarthi“. So who then is the real enemy? The local rival or the foreign imperialist who will not only enslave you both but also destroy your common culture?

The response to the outsider shouldn’t be “thank you for showing us the mentality, and taking our side”. Rather, it should be “who the bloody hell are you to meddle?”. But what can be expected from a nation that stupidly accepted an uneducated european bar-maid as de facto ruler for 10 years, less than 60 years after formal Independence from Europe? I’m not here to weigh whether the allegations against a certain now-regional party are true. I’m only here to say that if you think they are true, what should be the answer? Seek foreign intervention to break your state into tiny pieces so each caste can have a piddly fiefdom to exploit under common European or Middle Eastern slavery? Or is the answer to take power like real men and win the election. For all the morons who like to quote the puranas in public while laughing at their inapplicability in private, here’s what Bhishma himself said on the field of the Kurus, thousands of years ago:

In a democracy, wars are won by election. So fight and win the election if you have the manhood, rather than whine and demonise a caste and destroy a state. Remember, not so long ago, another caste was demonised in south India, with tragic results in Andhra’s neighbouring state to the direct South. So if the target is whatever the leading community of a state or country is at the moment, why do you stupidly play into the hands of the slanderer? Andhra Pradesh was saddled with disproportionate debt after bifurcation. Who was it that said “at all costs?”, was it a member of this currently leading community or a foreigner? Isn’t it even more idiotic when an alleged nationalist supra-party institutions continue to play boastfully “chankian” but blatantly obvious and underhanded politics in fanning movements to further split a state?

This leads to the next point. When individual communities are idiotically raised to believe their well-being comes from kicking communities below them, isn’t it only natural that motivated foreigners (like the British East India Company) will use this to play one against the other? Aren’t good relations more important than public superiority complexes? Are you so stupid that you hate your brother more than you love your own freedom? Our Kali Yuga ancestors were…are you any different?

There is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. How many times will stupidly and stubbornly selfish Indians play into the hands of those who wish to destroy them? That is the value of “shut up”. Shut up and avoid making a celebrity out of the first foreigner who says something pleasant to you. This doesn’t mean xenophobia, as there are some genuine well-wishers of India in foreign lands, but prudence and discretion dictates that charity begins at home and patriotism protects the home. Clownish Adarsh Liberals may mouth the mealy-mouthed cliché “Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel”. But if that if that is the case, “globalism is the last resort of the stupid”. Be a good global citizen by being a good local citizen. Be a good national citizen by being a good state citizen. And be a good family person, by being a good individual person. This is done not only by rejecting selfishness and stupidity, and casteism and casuistry, but by using the practical dharma, the common dharma, the saamaanaya dharma to fix your common problems and maintain good and just relations between castes and communities.

The viciousness casteists demonstrate to their intra-dharma rivals puts to shame their cowardly opposition of the genuine shatrus of Satya. Hypocrites to the core, they wring their hands at the heavens asking for Divine succour, while doing everything they can to intimidate, sideline, and oppose those are doing what they can to revive Culture and Dharma. They pick fights with teammates and befriend subversionist enemies, taking their dubious counsel, even anointing them “Acharya”. Instead of working as teams, they form cliques designed to self-congratulatorily tom-tom their alleged knowledge, all while assisting the cause of adharmikas, like useful idiots. This is the cost of Ego.

They will even attack good, conscientious members of their own caste who propound correct dharma and expose their hypocrisy. When faced with evidence of misbehaviour, rather than accepting that all societies have done good and bad, the casteist himself decries opposition to him as “casteism”, all while absolving his own caste of any past misbehavior due to “no true Scotsman” fallacies. Allegiance to the supra-party institution or political ideology of his choice becomes more important than Dharma (whatever he may say or publish in public).

Despite these (and prior) entreaties, I know there is a dedicated group of gyaanis who will go to any length to contest what I have said in my previous article, and will continue to twist not only Varnashrama Dharma, but Vaidika Dharma and Itihaasa itself in order to gain influence, fame, and power. So, rather than respond directly, here is my response:

Let me begin by first distinguishing between traditional astika Brahmanas (many of whom dutifully live in mathas and agraharas and who should be respected) from a band of casteists who happened to be born as “Brahmins”. Traditionalists are not casteists; they simply follow ancient varnashrama dharma. But those living material lives in the modern world have some Brahmanas who genuinely have the interests of all sections of society at heart, and some “Brahmins” by accident who abuse the privilege of birth to further their prejudiced caste agenda and defend their private misbehaviour. They advance asinine and avaidika theories like Aryan Invasion Theory in direct contradiction of actual Vedic Acharyas who live the traditional way and actually have valid traditional knowledge.

However, many Dharmic Brahmanas have been keeping quiet. We too have avoided this minefield. But as some Dharmic Kshatriyas have been rightfully criticising the adharmic nature of these views emanating from scientism and casteism, the line of the casteists (& their useful idiots) is “Parashurama”. But as usual,half-knowledge leads to full harm.Such knaves further Adharma, knowing only partially the tale of Kartaveerya Arjuna.

kartavirya

Per the Puranas, it was the behaviour of the Bhargavas themselves that brought about this calamity. Yes, the Kshatriyas shattered the limits of justice through their later behaviour and committed unjustifiable atrocities. But then why hide the full story unless you have an agenda?

Brahmanas have no right to wealth and lavish living, yet the Bhargavas amassed it due to the generosity of the Haihaya kings (who were allied with the Atreya Brahmanas). These descendants of Bhrigu refused to return the grants for the common need of a society undergoing a devastating famine.[1] When Brahmanas fail to think of the rest of society and allow non-Brahmins to starve to death, this is Adharma. And such individuals will be punished. Common brahmins are not Maharishis and are punishable even by Smriti. Brahmins are not above Dharma.

Dharma does not exist to serve Brahmins.Brahmanas exist to serve Dharma.

When the Haihayas attempted to justifiably reclaim the wealth necessary to feed the rest of society, the Bhargavas took up arms, and were slaughtered by superior Kshatriya valour and strategy.  The Haihayas were right to fight, defeat, and punish the Bhargavas. Those who take up arms, cannot claim traditional protections and privileges, as the Ramayana itself validates. However, having lost control of their senses, the Haihayas began slaughtering innocents and in a sanguinary state, crossed limits. Therefore, they too had to be punished.

That was why the jeevatman Parashurama was merely born with Vishnu’s shaktyavesa (power and grace), though he himself was not Vishnu. This was what permitted him to defeat the otherwise invincible Haihaya Kartaveerya Arjuna, also known as Sahasrabahu (1000-armed), who was an amsa (partial) incarnation of Vishnu, meaning a smaller portion of Vishnu’s actual soul incarnating for a time. [4] Kartaveerya was a Dharmic King who took power after the Bhargava-Haihaya War, who did not misbehave like Parikshit, who put a snake on a Rishi. His desire for the wishgiving cow to feed his kingdom was well-intentioned but wrong, and his ego led to the unfortunate clash with the proud Maharishi Jamadagni. The sameJamadagni who had the head of his wife Renuka cut off had his head cut off when he resisted giving the cow. Some claim it was Kartaveerya’s sons who did this to take back the cow; others, say Sahasrabahu himself.

Irrespective, the point is that when Brahmanas misbehaved, Kshatriyas were permitted to punish them. But when Kshatriyas misbehaved and exceeded their limits, a Parashurama was born as a Brahmana to punish Kshatriyas and restore the balance. And when the jeevatman Parashurama became blinded by pride in his religious merit, Bhagavan Rama, the Poorna avatara (the epitome of the full soul of Vishnu, along with his brothers) took back the shaktyavesa and punished Parashurama for ahankar.

Kshatriya Rama ultimately punished the Brahmana Ravana for his tyranny, also due to the latter’s pride in learning and merit, which was the origin of this.

And finally in the late Dvapara, Krishna was born to punish the Kamsas, Jarasandhas, and Duryodhanas who came to characterise the majority of Kshatriyas in the end of that era. He did this by having them punish themselves in the Kurukshetra War as the cost of oppressing Brahmanas, Women, and other vulnerable sections of society.

So none of this is a matter of covering up to further discrete caste agendas, but discussion of everything to understand real Dharma. That is true Discretion.

The moral of the story is: Adharma breeds greater Adharma and no one, no matter what their caste, is above Dharma. The interesting thing is that in both the Durvasa and Bhargava episodes, Maharishi Vasishta was on the side of Ambarisha and the Atreyas were allies of the Haihayas. And when Parashurama crossed his limits, Maharishi Vishwamitra was on the side of Rama.

It is Ego that is the enemy of all, that undid Kartaveerya, that punished Parashurama, and that humbled Durvasa, and that destroyed the Kauravas.  Thus,  it is not caste vs caste, but Dharma vs Adharma. Until Dharmic Brahmanas begin challenging and defeating Adharmic Brahmanas, until Dharmic Kshatriyas begin challenging and defeating Adharmic Kshatriyas (and so on), expect more of the same. Oh, and if you just sit on the sidelines waiting and watching to side with the winner…you have no right to expect anything at all.

So remember, there is Dharma, there is Adharma. There is no third category for neutral spectators or self-appointed judges or opportunistic casteists. Despite demonisation by those who hate all Brahmins, not all Brahmins are false or bad—use Discretion to separate them from the chaff. Even in this late Kali Yuga, there are still some true and good Brahmanas left. [And some true Kshatriyas, Nayakas, and so on, left.] But they must work together, act in teams, and do their part for society.

I have done my part. Will you?

vishnu-sudarshan-chakra-durvasa-ambarishReferences:

  1. Mittal, J.P. History Of Ancient India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers. 2006.p.296
  2. Patil, Devendrakumar Rajaram.Cultural History from the Vāyu Purāna. Varanasi: MLBD. 1946.
  3. Jha, Naveen Kumar & Anjana. Srivisnusarmans’ Pancatantram. Delhi: J.P.Publishing House. 2016
  4. Swami Tapasyananda. Bhakti Ratnavali – An Anthology from Srimad Bhagavata. Chennai: Ramakrishna Math. 2009.