Rajiv Malhotra starts off his latest article admiring Christian Church, its longest history of continuous governance, tremendous track record of protecting its interests under all circumstances, its invention of corporate management procedures and floating of the first commercial multinationals, such as the Knights Templar.
It is said that whatever we give attention to, is reinforced in our minds. There is the sory of Maricha who wanted to stop thinking about Sri Rama and in the process tried to avoid using even the words having ‘ra’ alphabet. He only ended up reinforcing Sri Rama’s memory in his mind, went on to get killed by Sri Rama and achieved moksha.
Malhotra says he studied with interest the governance systems of various Christian denominations, both formally in seminary courses and through attendance of various Church conferences. It is possible that the long hours spent in such study will influence the mind of a person on those lines. Malhotra’s earlier articles available at www.rajivmalhotra.com show significant influence of dharmik thoughts even though mixed with a tendency to enter into dialogues with the adharmik people. His latest article shows enamoured admiration of christian church and compulsion to adopt their practices. This seems to be the story of a person who went to study the tactics of the enemy in order to fight them effectively, but ended up becoming like them.
A sample of the influence of adharmik is seen in the way the enemies’ way of viewing things have been adopted by the student. He says ‘The Church has learned a great deal through trial and error and has thus become robust’. Here he personalises the Church, as a being with cognitive abilities that learns lessons and takes corrective measures and becomes robust in the process.
What is Church actually ?
A front for self-aggrandizing individuals to indulge themselves, protected from scrutiny of inquiring minds using the deceptive cover of godly sanction.
By seeing the ‘Church’ as an individual, who acquired the ability to survive many scandals through learning from trial and errors and developing robustness and resilience, the student loses sight of the bunch of selfish, self-aggrandizing individuals who constitute this organisation, who often work at cross purposes, who are themselves indoctrinated and brainwashed into losing all sense of righteousness and who perpetuate a continuous line of similar rapacious zombies. This delusion of the student in not noticing the true constituent of Church leads him to admire that mirage.
Under this delusion, losing sight of dharma, the student sees admirable qualities in the chimera, which he feels compelled to adopt. So he wants to ‘professionalize the governance of Hindu institutions’, which in effect means ‘ape the working of the Church’ in order to be as ‘robust and resilient’.
This leads the student to observe that ‘Indian laws require compliance with regulations pertaining to trusts, societies and associations that are based almost entirely on Western corporate rules of governance which originated in the Church’. In other words, he says, it is not Dharmashastras or Arthashastras that provide the legal methods for governance in India.
Obviously he fails to note that perhaps this is precisely the reason why the Indian legal system and administration is so pathetic, why corruption is so rampant.
When the system is shaped on the lines of example set by self-aggrandizing, selfish minds, what else can be expected ?
What else can result, but rampant corruption that is seen.
The student plumbs new depths with this statement – ‘there is much our gurus can learn from modern corporate governance’.
Sure, it will help them peddle their wares profitably.
He says – ‘our tradition has a long history of assimilating new ideas from everywhere and adapting itself’.
Last known, the fundamental text, the srutis, are the same as they were millenniums ago. Apart from parashara smriti no other smriti has been formulated for this yuga. Puranas, itihasas that provide guidance remain unadulterated, so far.
The deluded student has bitten the fancy line propagated by the british and later continued with by the marxists, that Indian culture is a thorough mixture of ideas ‘contributed’ by different invaders to this land and that it is these ‘contributions’ that makes it rich. That it has always been willing to accept ‘ideas from everywhere’ and to ‘adapt itself’!
By parrotting these lines of the invaders, the students shows the extend to which he has been indoctrinated.
He then claims- ‘There is a clear history of dharma that shows change and evolution’.
It is not dharma that changes. It is the perception and cognition of dharma that does. And the results are obvious in the state of affairs today.
He further claims- “The scandal of SN provided an opportunity to test how Hindus might collectively respond in crisis management”
Really ?
One crook caught with his pants down(figuratively) is a crisis for ‘Hindus’ ?
The delusion of seeing organizational entity in the place of bunch of crooked individuals carrying out their own nefarious designs was displayed by the student earlier in the case of Church. Here he does it again, seeing in the discomfiture of one crooked individual, a crisis for the majority of this one billion plus country and its diaspora.
The cause for this delusion is easy to find- his admiration for World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church whom he had credited with resilience and robustness earlier, for thriving despite scandals involving sexual abuse of even children. He would like to see played out, a similar performance by his chosen collective of ‘hindus’ in this hour of ‘crisis’.
A tendency displayed by those bitten by the bug of such delusion is to try and appropriate organisations for personal aggrandizement. The Gramscian ideas of influencing academic institutions and media as means to gain societal control stems from that. So he calls for a Hindu body to be brought in to play a responsible role, either an institution or a panel of elders, such that there would be fair play by the system and not prosecution by an utterly biased and corrupt media.
Effective skill in wordplay to obfuscate issues is frequently practiced by crooks. Those who draw inspiration from such crooks inevitably acquire similar characteristics. In effect what is being proposed is an organisation that will provide unscrupulous crooks such as Rajasekara a.k.a SN, support and legitimacy. Later such organisations will conveniently form platforms for further deplorable deeds on the pretext of lofty and altruistic reasons, like its source of inspiration- Church.
The student then introduces a favored tool of his teacher into the article- the element of fear. His worst fears came true when he discovered the absence of any such mechanism like World Council of Churches with hindus!
He appreciates the several individuals who, like him, ’performed commendably’ in their personal capacities trying to help bring ‘dharmic justice.’ by coming out in support of a crook! Fortunately, such ‘noble attempts’ failed.
He admires the Church for developing its robustness, even though it took centuries to do so, ‘with considerable enterprise by numerous risk takers’. All that the enterprising people of church probably risked and lost were their sense of righteousness and morality, which fact the devout student overlooks in his eagerness to mold HDAS in Father Church’s image.
So he asks rhetorically, ‘are Hindus willing to go through such processes that are not instant successes and bring no personal benefit ?’, it may be added, forgoing considerations of dharma, morality and letting HDAS and its Popes set corporate agendas.
Even though Malhotra admits that ’SN did not make his position clear enough, and nor was he consistent in what he said to various persons from one day to the next’, he does not recognise precisely this moral vacilitation on part of SN as the primary cause of the crisis. This inability to distinguish adharma led him to come out in support of that charlatan when the scandal broke.
But the trained businessperson that he is, appreciates the ’corporate’ style Non-Disclosure Agreement(NDA) drafted by an American corporate lawyer and signed by lots of persons as a standard corporate NDA. This evident weakness for ‘corporates’ leads him to champion the idea of ‘Hindus Inc.’ in the guise of being concerned about self-governing competence of ‘hindus’.
The deterioration in this student’s ability to discriminate the right from the wrong is starkly evident when even after some parents told him of their daughters being compromised by SN, he only wonders whether the NDA will provide legal protection as proof that any alleged sex was between consenting adults.
This self-appointed spokesman for ‘Manu and other past leaders’ says the goal to unify Hindu groups in social-political matters is necessary if Hinduism is to survive. The student has learnt well from his padre teachers whose refrain for each of their selfish acts are- ‘This is what God wants done’.
Revival of hinduism entails inculcating kshatriya competence among a large number of individuals, he notes, but conveniently forgoes the fact that kshatriya is also about upholding dharma. Morality is integral part of dharma. Also, kshatriyas, vyshyas and sudras are to be guided by brahmanas for proper running of society, person’s varna being based on behaviour, independent of parentage.
Then rhetoric – ‘Such a revival entails courageous experimentation, risk taking, enterprising attempts to engage the real issues as and when they happen’ – to justify his recent ‘education’ in the hands of church, ’It also involves getting inside the large scale institutional management of other religions in order to learn their strengths and weaknesses as well what we could borrow from them.’
Before concluding he introduces the insinuation that his critics may well be double agents engaged in feeding material to opponents of ‘hinduism’, which is a rehash of George Bush’s memorable- ’If you are not with us, then you are with them’ line, one step away from ‘If you are not a believer like us, then you are a kaffir, heathen, fit to be killed off in the name of my one and only true God/Allah’.
What stands out in Malhotra’s article is the influence of church, which he seems unaware of.
Indians in the past have been known to shun the company of the unrighteous- mlecchas, and to engage in purifying acts if interacting with them became inevitable. The adharmic influence from mlecchas affects those who interact with them. Rajiv Malhotra’s article shows the effects of this.
Untouchables are the unrighteous, adharmis- those who have suppresed their moral compass or have abandoned it altogether. It is not a genetic trait. Environment and upbringing does influence it. But it is possible for a person born to an unrighteous person to become a brahmana, similarly, the progeny of a brahmana may also grow up to be unrighteous. Besides, an unrighteous person himself could later become righteous and vice versa. Ratnakara who became Maharshi Valmiki, Prahlada, son of Hiranyakashipu, Ravana, son of Vishravas, are examples.
It is consciousness of dharma and the willingness to adhere to dharma at all cost that differentiates the righteous from the unrighteous. Just as a body without atman is a dead body, material success without dharma putrifies. While kama and artha are essential for dharma to manifest, pursuing either at the cost of dharma is counterproductive.
Those who seek to learn from the unrighteous may realise late that the lessons are unrighteous, developed and perfected for unrighteous purposes, and that, by imbibing the unrighteous lessons they themselves become unrighteous.
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Kannon
Excellent analysis of Rajiv Malhotra. I have been a fan of RM for some time and was disturbed by the fight between him and Sandhya Jain and Radha Rajan. Your article explains well why RM is doing what he is doing.
May 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm
rajiv
Does the author imply that we must abandon the tradition of purva-paksha (study of the other) which is what we need to be capable of giving responses (uttara-paksha) in our own terms? If not, what does he propose to do in this regard. i.e. to engage in serious purva-paksha of the west? How am I not doing this? I feel that I am, and have made a conscious effort to be doing this for almost 2 decades. I am unaware of anyone else who tried to do this so intensely and explicitly. It is simply assumed by the author that I am not doing purva-paksha, and that i got influenced by the church? But he gives no reasoned argument to back this up – just an assumption being made. While the west has mastered the study of Indians through anthropologists and various other kinds of specialists, when an Indian reverses the gaze after getting inside the west’s core, why is that to be rejected so blatantly? I routinely come across what i consider closed minded Indians and especially Hindus, who have very little understanding of the external world discourse other than pop culture and superficial ideas heard through casual contact – from barber shops to TV news to desi parties. They have neither the desire nor the diligence and attention span to undertake a serious purva-paksha of the west. This study would be a demanding specialty in its own right, but tragically it does not even exist in India. When I proposed it recently in delhi at an event of supposedly intellectuals, they were too lofty to see any sense in this. Some felt we are too perfect to bother studying others. Some felt we survived 5000 years without such things – ignoring that even in the past 2000 years we lost 80% of the land and population to ideologies from the West. So felt that truth is already in our heart so why look at others. Some even felt that this had been done by someone else, but when asked to get into specifics they drew a blank. I would like to know what Ignognito thinks of all this. And by the way why is he afraid of coming out openly with his identity so others could examine him just like he attempts to examine others? What dharma does he cite for this deception?
regards,
rajiv malhotra
May 6, 2010 at 1:13 am
Incognito
There is a thin line that differentiates learning about the ‘others’ and becoming like them in the process. Often the person involved in the process may not realise when he crosses that line, unless he has a guide who is not involved in the process, who can observe him and guide him during the process. One necessary step in all such learning endeavours, that may help prevent the inadvertant conversion of the student, is to leave the tools of learning at the place of learning while the student checks out of there.
The west has “mastered the study of Indians through anthropologists and various other kinds of specialists”. Perhaps.
But they yet do not understand dharma or brahma. That is because they study Indians and everything else through their lenses that are polarised adharmically. Such lenses never allow them to discern dharma. This is part of the reason that lead some of them to do ‘U’ turns as you have mentioned elsewhere.
When a student studies ‘their’ concepts and methods and systems, he has to put on their lenses to understand why they do what they do. Having studied with them, he must leave those lenses behind when he leaves.
Having thus studied their methods, when the student comes back, s/he must put on the dharmically polarised lenses of bharateeya darshanas to discern truth. Then he will see that there is little admiration-worthy in their activities or so-called ‘achievements’.
purva paksha is possible when the ‘other’ has some dharmik element, such as with buddhism, jainism, sikhism, confucianism or even some so-called pagan concepts and systems of europe, maybe even with some native american or african traditions.
When the ‘other’ has no dharmik element in them, when the ‘other’ is a mere front for self-aggrandizement, purva paksha is not possible.
You may do purva paksha with the position of Jesus, but not with that of Church, not with that of Islam, not with Communism or Capitalism. Because the basic premises upon which these are based are adharmik.
namaste
May 6, 2010 at 1:25 am
rajiv
I am afraid Incognito is avoiding my question. I am not asking for a generic theory of various disorders, but how and why he applied it to me per se. I could give a generic throry of alcoholics or crooks or whatsoever, but that does not entitle me to say that Incognito suffers from that disorder. I asked but he evaded, to prove that I, Rajiv, suffer from the problems he alleged.
Also, he is dead wrong that we may do purva-paksha only on Jesus but not the church because the latter are adharmik. He does not know what purva-paksha is. It is not about whether the other party is good or bad. Thats not what it is about. It is simply about making sure you know what you are facing before you respond to the other, and this is more like market competitor analysis. That has nothing to do with who the competitor is and whether you approve of his ethics or not. The idea is not to become like him but to be able to deal with him. USA does this on al qaea and vice versa, not because they like or approve of the other but simply because they must be better at dealing with them. Ignognito, I am afraid, does not know what he is talking about in this regard.
Since I know Incognito, I feel sorry for his complexes that have to manifest in jealousy. He could be far more productive focusing on his own scholarship. But I suppose this gives him a sense of self importance he lacks otherwise.
Best wishes,
regards,
rajiv
May 5, 2010 at 1:46 pm
rajiv
I would also like to know how the author is able to make statements like whats in my head – such as i am influenced by the cbhurch but dont know it. How did he get such siddhis?
Would it not be more productive if rather than dealing with my “head” he dealt with specific issues that I write? take the claims I make and respond to those. The article does not attempt such an analysis, but reaches conclusions about me personally. Is this a sort of jealousy – that i am doing something s/he is not?
regards,
rajiv
May 6, 2010 at 1:21 am
Incognito
The conclusions drawn are based on Shri Rajiv Malhotra’s article cited in the first line of the blog article. Often specific sentences from Rajiv Malhotra’s article have been quoted while giving the conclusions/remarks.
namaste
May 6, 2010 at 10:45 am
Rajiv
Dear Incognito, you evade my direct and specific questions:
1) How much do you know about me to be able to conclude with so much confidence that I am under church influence? Do you think that making such a sweeping conclusion requires far greater investigation than you have demonstrated?
2) What do you know about purva-paksha of the West?
3) Why are you confusing purva-paksha with study of those who are dharmik? Where did you get that from? In Mahabharata, Sri Krishna does purva-paksha of the opponents who are clearly adharmik? That is how competitor analysis works.
4) Why are you afraid to show your identity to the public, given that you and I know each other, and you are disgruntled because I did not give you importance?
Regards,
rajiv
May 7, 2010 at 2:28 am
Incognito
The article “Can Hindus Self-Govern Competitively? Lessons from the Nithyananda Scandal” by Rajiv Malhotra is pervaded by dharmically inconsistent positions. It is these positions that have been criticized in the blog article above. The cause of these positions- revealing considerable influence of western ideas, discernable from the article itself, is the long term study of ‘Church’ carried out by Malhotra and have been identified as such.
The conclusion arrived at in the blog article- that Malhotra’s article reveals influence of church, is an observation on Malhotra’s state of mind when he wrote that article. It need not be construed implying that Malhotra’s state of mind has always been or will always be like that.
purva paksha
Divya had posted the following comments about purva paksha elsewhere on the web : -
“There was also an important concept of purva-paksha or studying your opponents viewpoint thoroughly before engaging in debate and thus the level of debates was very sophisticated.”
“About purva-paksha. This is a tool used within the various indigenous darshans. While I seriously recommend that all hindus try and understand the nature of xtianity and islam, I also hold that no argument or debate is possible between the indic traditions and the abrahamic traditions since they are faith-based. How can you possibly argue with a claim that God made the world and this is true because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God? So I’m delighted that you remembered the point about purva-paksha, but it is applicable only within the indic traditions since a dialog with faith-based traditions is sterile from the indic point of view. The other point about purva-paksha to note is that this tool was employed with the purpose of winning a debate. If you are interested in purva-paksha it will only serve your purpose if you tackle the solid points of the philosophy and not just go looking around for stuff to ridicule.”
In the above comments Diyva explains what purva paksha is and where it can be applied and where it cannot be.
purva paksha is the argument from the other side that a debater puts forth, which he then refutes using his reasoning.
There is no purva paksha possible in market or in war field. dharma is essential for purva paksha. Market and war field are paces where dharma often goes unrecognized.
purva paksha involves understanding the ‘other’ in order to refute them. The adharmi can never understand dharma, which is necessary if he is to do purva paksha on the dharmi. Therefore adharmi can never do purva paksha. Besides, the adharmi is not interested in purva paksha in the first place, only in acquiring others’ properties. purva paksha, even if s/he indulges in it, will only be a cover for ulterior purposes.
The dharmi also cannot do purva paksha of the adharmi because the adharmi‘s position exist solely as a tool for self-aggrandizement. It does not have an existence on its own, it is a mirage. If purva paksha is attempted, it would be an illusion.
What USA does on Al Qaeda or what Coke does on Pepsi may be called SWOT analysis or market competitor analysis, similar to how an opponent and his moves are studied before launching attack, which animals of prey do instinctively. The lack of dharmikata involved in this type of predatory action prevents it from being considered purva paksha.
The purpose of purva paksha is not predatory. It is, as everything else about bharatiya samskriti is, for establishing dharma.
>>>‘In Mahabharata, Sri Krishna does purva-paksha of the opponents who are clearly adharmik‘
Please give reference. Did Sri Krishna say he is doing purva paksha, or are you forming that conclusion based on your understanding ?
As regards identity, what is your identity ? Are you a name Rajiv, that anybody else could also use ? Are you a physical body recognizable as Rajiv Malhotra, which will one day be no more ? Are you the thoughts of yours that you express from time to time, which changes with time ? Are you the unchanging, qualityless atman within you that cannot be expressed, nor identified ?
What are you, that you seek to know ‘identity’ of another ?
namaste
May 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Desi
Incognito i hate to say this having read you for years but you are full of baloney here. you have not understood what purva paksha means and think it has to do with learning the truth from others. this led you to think that rajivji is church influenced because he does purva paksha on them. if you understand correctly that purva paksha is done on those you wish to oppose by figuring them out (kind of how indian intelligence must do purva paksha on ISI) then you will appreciate what rajivji does singlehandedly. a fool like you cannot contribute in this but at least you can get out of the way and not become a nuisance just to get your moment of importance. i am shocked at how many idiots come as hindu activists when they are failures in life and mentally disturbed. i hope you pause for some days to do soul searching
May 7, 2010 at 2:57 am
Incognito
“if you understand correctly that purva paksha is done on those you wish to oppose by figuring them out (kind of how indian intelligence must do purva paksha on ISI) ”
Don’t call that purva paksha. Don’t apply indic concepts arbitrarily.
The ‘figuring out’ that is referred here is meant to devise ways to cause damage to the ‘other’ for selfish purpose.
That is not what purva paksha is.
Rajiv Malhotra may think he is doing good for indian culture. That may be his perception, need not necessarily be the reality.
It is possible that Mohandas Gandhi and Indira Gandhi, and others like them, thought all their actions were for the ultimate good of India. In their perception it may have been so, they may even have convinced many others and even themselves. But that was not really the case in actuality.
The current position revealed by Rajiv Malhotra’s article indicates that course correction is essential for Malhotra if he is to do good for bharatiya samskriti
May 7, 2010 at 1:13 pm
desi
Incognito hides behind semantics. I dont care what you call it in hindu terms but he evades is whether Hindus must do competitor analysis on opponents like the church. If not, does he advocate remaining in blindness about opponents the way he and many other self appointed activists tend to be? He does not want to deal with the Hindu systematic study of others as a serious discipline. The US South Asian studies is a good example of this and malhotra had educated us about what it entails and what benefits it brings those who study other side. Incognito wants to remain blind.
Once Incognito accepts need to do this study of the church, then he must tell us what HE PROPOSES to do. How and what has he done about it thus far? He must tell us why he concludes rashly that Malhotra’s doing this study of the church makes him automatically influenced by the church. By merely making sweeping pronouncements like “Malhotra needs a course correction” he claims to have established his case but he has not made a logical connection at all.
I suggest ignoring this Incognito who is too afraid and hypocritical to come out publicly and hides behind the mask.
I can say that he lacks basic knowledge of hinduism or west. he is ill informed but has a great ego that needs to be fed with this feeling of importance.
May 8, 2010 at 3:16 am
Incognito
Go ahead, do your competitor analysis or whatever. At the end of it if you come out with an article like that of Malhotra’s, with dharmically inconsistent positions, you may get criticized. Whether you take that criticism in constructive manner or attempt to stifle criticism like church has been doing, is upto you.
namaste
May 7, 2010 at 1:29 pm
desi
Incognito must tell us what is his own purushartha for Hinduism’s success in the world. He must tell us what he is doing personally rather than sky down shooting from hip. He must tell us on what knowledge of the west he bases his work, and what he did to gain this knowledge other than at barber shops and casual egroups. He must confess why he hides his id if he is honest. Until he lets us cross examine his background he must remain suspect as an intruder who wants to destroy hinduism by dividing us against our own scholars. There are thousands who have learned a great amoun from Malhotra’s writings about what the west is up to. Incognito will continue to fail in his negative approach. He has nothing positive of his own to do.
May 8, 2010 at 3:22 am
Incognito
Incognito is not telling you anything. bharatiya samskriti advises each person to discern dharma and uphold it. It is upto each individual to choose his path, dharmik or otherwise.
dhanyavaad
May 8, 2010 at 10:37 am
Mala Jain
Just read the whole thread and conclude that Incognito is deluded into thinking too much of himself. He responds with generic statements similar to sky is blue. He says things like “bharati sanskriti is xyz…” as answer to why he does not know about competitor analysis. Asked what he has done by way of purushartha he responds by giving permission to the other party to go ahead and do his analysis. Each response is off target and does not seem logical at all. Comes across like a disgruntled person who failed in life to achieve anything and is hiding behing the mask of Incognito as a fig lead to cover shame. Little psychological difference from the Unibomber, another anti-society person who turned destructed. Hopefully Incognito is under medical care. A loser as they say here in corporate america where I work. He should pick an introductory book on SWOT analysis which stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. That will give him some clue as to what is being discussed as competitor analysis in a professional way. Seems to be uneducated making up with jargon.
May 9, 2010 at 3:22 am
karigar
Incognito seems to be in roughly the same box that many claimants of Hindu intellectual leadership today seem to be in. Here it is especially sad to see them using an idealistic frame to attack the pragmatic realism of people like Rajiv.
They seem to claim that Hindu ideals are better than, & very different from the Abrahamic/Church/Western ideals. So far so good, other hindus won’t disagree, one would say. But this then leads them to claim that “we’re so different & superior, that we should just not have any interaction with others like the Church, not even across the table as opponents, or as curious people trying to do ‘purva paksha”, “figuring out the competition” or whatever else”.
This should ring bells for students of history, since one thing all historians are pretty unanimous about is that India feel twice to foreign domination (Islamic conquest & Euro Colonialism) due to this very flaw, i.e. ignoring the developments in the rest of the world, being so wrapped up in their own sense of inviolable superiority.
Ideals are one thing, and reality is another.
They need to explain to concerned hindus how this willful ignoring of ground reality globally (i.e. the society in both the ‘civilized world’ & India in particular) is going to be of any practical use for the survival of Hindus & Hinduism into future generations.
In other words, the whole social / legal / political system in India today is based on western systems, the churches are in a dominant way rampaging across the country with the legal system tilted towards their kind of representations. Concerned hindus are supposedly just a bunch of “hid-bound anti modern traditionalists” at best, or “Communalists” at worst.
One doesn’t have to like it, but has to be mature enough to understand it as a hard fact.
If one is not deluded into thinking that somehow Hindu ideas & concepts (however great they may be in the eyes of practicing hindus & a few others) have any place in the legal / political systems of today’s India or elsewhere, then one has to do what Rajiv has been doing, analyze & learn, and alert concerned hindus as to the practical realities of how the Church & other western institutions function. For it is they that are calling the shots in the world today.
Without a practical on-the-ground vision & execution, Hindus will be left to indulge in more talking & quarreling with each other while the world moves on.
Rajiv seems to be attempting to do this, and awaken hindus to geopolitical realities that need to be first addressed before any successful hindu initiatives are taken. To accuse him as somehow getting sucked into becoming the ‘other’ that he is studying (a) betrays lack of confidence in the strength of hindu thought itself, and (b) shows a certain preconceived ‘guilty as charged’ mindset before assembling theories to prove the charge.
May 9, 2010 at 9:14 am
Self-Governance « Comments
[...] subsequent comments received on that blog reveals that intolerance to criticism, a hallmark of ‘church’, [...]
May 11, 2010 at 5:21 am
Ram
It is well known that Indian mainstream media is bought out by the so-called secularists, communists, missionaries, rationalists… .
From this article, the public must know that even the Internet Hindus are adulterated with elements from the church. Anyone who supports SN’s act is supporting Adharma and cannot claim himself to be an “Hindu intellectual”. Incognito, thanks for exposing RM’s intentions to mislead the people into Adharmic way.
May 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Siddhartha Banejree
Author’s outlook is typical south Indian brahmin supremacist. they have ruined Hinduism for the sake of clinging to personal power over the downtrodden. Now desperate they fight a smaller circle to stay afloat. The source is inferiority complex which makes them fundamentalist. he is obviously ignorant of what SWOT analysis means much less having any experience. Better to sit in his cave and leave the world alone where things have changed a lot since the so called good old days he wishes will return.
May 13, 2010 at 11:35 am
Siddhartha Banejree
Ram as incognito of incognito who is incognito of dravidian brahminical superego…my positions are…
i hate SN and always felt he was an outright crook…they should hang him…
but thats irrelevant wrt the imperative that we do swot analysis of opponents…
you are characteristic of those who cannot acknowledge own ignorance on anything, the “know it all” ego hiding inferiority complexes…
so you cannot see how others could have researched something and brought us useful knowledge…
you are too petty thats your problem…
you feel cornered with nowhere to go being shamed… so this fig leaf of attack mode to seem important… internet gives forum to lots of mentally depressed folks…
btw i am not permanent nri hindu but travel often and have lots of friends there who do fantastic work…
May 13, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Ram
@Siddharth
Excellent efforts to picturise and characterise myself and incognito. Your bashing or attack or anything of sort does not require a reaction from me. After all, we want Righteousness (or Dharma) to be propagated which will be very useful for the whole of universe.
I am not looking for any personal gain and neither interested to win an arguement with you or anybody. I am happy to note you have told SN as an outright crook and thus you are on the same league as me in upholding Dharma.
May 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Siddhartha Banejree
good we agree on SN so we can move to more important issues. lets debate with civility in the dharmic spirit…
my problem with you is that you operate at the level of superficial slogans to reach bombastic opinions which you call the Dharma. you self appoint yourself as some sort of adhikari on “dharma” and dismiss others arrogantly…
this is symptomatic of complexes that express as identity chauvinism… in your case some notion of south indian brahmin orthodoxy that is the keeper of “dharma” in the world… such persons use racism in disguise because they have little else to show for their accomplishments…
my second problem is that you dont seem to know much about swot analysis in this competitive world presumably having never done any yourself…this makes you threatened by others who engage in this kind of analysis…you are unable to offer any swot about the church which you better be able to do first before knocking down others’ analysis with sweeping generalizations…
to take this debate further i invite you to delhi university campus where i will arange a public forum with many other post-colonial studies students and scholars to discuss analysis of the west/church…that way we will compare our analyses openly and publicly…
should you decline this sincere offer it will confirm my views that you are insecure and lash out defensively…
May 14, 2010 at 3:48 am
Ram
If you would have called me for an analysis on how to spread the “Dharma consciousness” in the universe, then I am with you. I do not know SWOT analysis. I request Incognito to respond to you.
“should you decline this sincere offer it will confirm my views that you are insecure and lash out defensively”
I don’t loose or gain anything if you confirm your views that I am insecure and …………
I don’t have any business with any church and if your objective is to give a clean chit to the Church, you can give it right away without any analysis.
I am not a self proclaimed “Dharma Adhikari” as mentioned in your message. I have just developed an attitude to learn and propagate Dharma. It is not a must that Humans need to work to establish Dharma in the world.
Even if we all choose to side with SN, Rajiv and the Church to kill Dharma and propagate Adharmic way, Dharma will never vanish from the universe.
The Supreme being will take an incarnation to establish the supremacy of Dharma. “Dharmo Rakshathi Rakshitaha” and hence it is a self sustaining process.
May 14, 2010 at 8:27 am
Ram
Siddhartha Banejree, Banejree, Banejree – I have never come across a person who has written his name wrongly 3 times. It may be a case that the name is borrowed.
The SWOT analysis may be the efforts to find out the Weaknesses still remaining with the church to incultrate into the Bharatiya minds. Thank God, I am not helping in this adharmic effort.
May 14, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Siddhartha Banejree
Incognito, How nice it would have been had you been not linked to the Dravidian-Taliban-Communist Axis. You see church as your tentative collaborator to defeat Hinduism. But church has an ugly history as do taliban and Commies.
You refuse to debate publicly citing silly things like “if you call me xyz its ok so long as I am dhrama protector of the world” Wow! you must be Kalki avatar to have such massive ego! on what basis do you feel qualified?
At least you admit not knowing anything about competitor assessment which is what swot allows one to do. this means you know zip about the church to be able to counteract them. you have played into their hands. as an agent appointed by the indian church of south india you claim rewards from them for causing hindus such harm. you will rot in hell next to ravana another dravidianist with superego.
the chennai dragon lady you suck up to is well exposed. now her private affairs are being taped raw
May 14, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Siddhartha Banejree
fancy terms like inculturate – having never done swot you have no clue what they mean?
May 16, 2010 at 11:08 am
Deshika_
[quote] He further claims- “The scandal of SN provided an opportunity to test how Hindus might collectively respond in crisis management”
Really ?
One crook caught with his pants down(figuratively) is a crisis for ‘Hindus’ ? [unquote]
But, these blogs/comments suggest that it has indeed spawned a major crisis: a peculiar form of factionalism based on a conceptual difference on the best way for individuals to follow the Dharma. Incognito and friends suggest that:
[quote] taking guidance from our samskriti, is the way forward.[/unquote]
Seemingly forgetting that Samskriti / culture/ tradition is itself a fallout of the Dharma and therefore has a number of variations within the Darshans/ sub-Darshans further accentuated by local conditions etc, though there is the common underlying/ overall thread of the Dharma.
There can be no doubt that these (sub) traditions – cultures including their rituals – play an important role in transmitting, guiding people towards the Dharma. But, they are not the Dharma itself. Different peoples have different sub-traditions to guide their people towards the Dharma. So the traditions of a Vaishanavaite from Uttarkhand will be different from many traditions of for instance, the Kashimiri Pandit. Again, while some Brahmin traditions do not accept Mlechchas, others prioritise learning per se; or again, many Kshatriya traditions are not particularly keen on learning per se but want progeny to understand ‘others’ to better carry out the duty of ‘protection’. But they have a common denominator – the Dharma.
Thus the terms Dharma and Sanskriti are not interchangeable; and contravention of the Samskriti of any group is not equivalent to going against the Sanatana Dharma. Inter alia, a person can be ‘Dharmic’ without following a particular Samskriti and contrarily, someone may follow the dictates of that same Samskriti and yet be to some extent ‘Adharmic’.
RM’s use of the words ‘Purva Paksha’ provides a pointer to his motives. As a Management person he is familiar with SWOT analysis – so use of the term ‘Purva aPksha’ suggests a desire to use Dharma related methodology to counter the Church’s efforts. The lengthy ‘discussion’ on the term seems to indicate that at one level Global Hindus as represented here by RM/ Karigar/ others and, the Samskritists represented here have something in common. So it is possible that analogies/ terminologies from different Samskritis also contribute to the lack of intra-Hindu communication.
To get back to the Dharma itself: The much maligned Purushsukta teaches us that the Brahman is one; its head, upper torso, lower torso and feet denote different groups each of which is integral to the whole and imperative for it to ‘Be’ / exist. If even one part is missing or not functioning optimally not only can the others not function properly; but Brahman itself would cease to Be. The Chandyoga Upanishad reinforces this message as it tells us of the ‘Indriyas’ which fought for supremacy. When Prana threatened to forsake them they realised that all of them would collapse without it; that in fact, they are all at par. None of them could claim superiority, or stand in for another – each had something unique and important to contribute.
Again, all the Darshans/ Sampradayas/ Acharyas/Gurus/… repeatedly emphasise the necessity of transcending ‘Ahankaara’; and warn us to beware of the pitfalls of ‘Naam’/ ‘Roop’.