Ever since man evolved form animals and gained the ability of imagination, he has always had a sense of wonder and marvel about the complexity of life and everything around him. Religion, was meant to be an abstract wisdom passed on from one generation to their offspring which addressed these issues. Religion is the answer of civilizations to ‘what is the meaning of life/this is how the universe operates’, and being an abstract theory, different civilizations propounded different theories. So, comparing modern science (as we colloquially phrase it) and religion is an apples and oranges proposition. Religion was always meant to be a vehicle to pass on complex metaphysical ideas to next generations through metaphors, stories, comparisons and subjective truths. But it becomes a problem when a civilization’s conceptualization of religion is so narrow that it limits its people in understanding other concepts and starts to create intellectual contradictions.
All these ‘science versus religion’ debates are relevant to the specific set of faiths based on Abrahamic religions and do not apply to open ended Dharmic wisdom. Therefore the inherent contradiction, if any, is a function of the frame of reference of the observer. As a Hindu observer, we find no contradiction between the two. It’s not that there is no difference between a scientist and a religious philosopher but in our case, the ideas which these two professionals propounded weren’t in contradiction with each other, unlike Abrahamic faiths which hounded their scientists for coming up with theories that challenged their deeply held beliefs. ‘The idea of zero’, for example, was resisted tooth and nail by the Church because ‘nothingness’ and ‘infinity’ didn’t fit into their binary belief system, as it does in the eastern Dharmic value system. Also, how you define a scientist is also suspect? Our saints like Sushrut were masters of plastic surgery, as has been documented in detail in Sushrut Samhita, but the subterfuge lies in the way the word ‘scientist’ has been defined by the west to mean post 17th century western scientists. We never had any incidents of our scientists being at odds with religion or religious figures. It’s clear that the debate between science and religion in India was already settled thousands of years ago since both of these were not contradictory concepts, intellectually.
That is why there is a Nataraja statue outside the CERN science laboratory signifying that there is still no contradiction between science and religion.
That is also why when scientists discovered Higgs Boson and named it God’s Particle, no one saw the contradiction. This has always been our way of life as per Advaita Vedanta where the creator and created is one, united only by energy- it is this Shakti we worship as god, hence God Particle.
In ancient India, the philosophical schools of Samkhya and Vaisheshika, from around the 6th–5th century BC, developed theories on light. According to the Samkhya school, light is one of the five fundamental “subtle” elements (tanmatra) out of which emerge the gross elements.
In contrast, the Vaisheshika school gives an atomic theory of the physical world on the non-atomic ground of ether, space and time. (See Indian atomism.) The basic atoms are those of earth (prthivı), water (apas), fire (tejas), and air (vayu), that should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of these terms. These atoms are taken to form binary molecules that combine further to form larger molecules. Motion is defined in terms of the movement of the physical atoms. Light rays are taken to be a stream of high velocity of tejas (fire) atoms. The particles of light can exhibit different characteristics depending on the speed and the arrangements of the tejas atoms. Around the first century BC, the Vishnu Purana refers to sunlight as “the seven rays of the sun”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_optics
The sum total of ‘science’ (physics, electronics and computer science) we know today is merely a fraction of the real deal (quantum Physics). The deeper humanity dives in this quest for knowledge, the more these rigid faith based religions will find themselves at odds with ‘science’ while Hindus will simply glide through it as second nature. The most obvious reason why this is happening is, without mincing words, because the metaphysical hypothesis of the Abrahamic faiths about how the universe operates is completely flawed. There’s no way to sugarcoat it. The concepts enshrined under Abrahamic religions were less about elevating the believer’s spiritual understanding and more about being means of political organization aimed towards feudal imperialism. So, the more truth that gets revealed to the collective human race, the more uncomfortable Abrahamics (and crypto-Abrahamic cults like Marxists) will become and you will see more of these religion vs science debates coming out from these groups.
Even the Hindu concept of ‘अहं ब्रह्म अस्मिति’ is actually a constellation of Mandelbrot sets arranged in a particular mathematical formula. Check this fractal, and the fractal constellation below it, is what we call Shiva.
So the claims about Hinduism being a scientific religion isn’t exactly a vague one. The proportions and ratios that our idols, temples, carvings and various other things use are actually consistent with the Golden Ratio (Fibonacci)
The Shri Yantra is based on the Golden Ratio:
People forget that when the Christian west was busy claiming that the earth was flat, we had always been calling it Bhigol, भूगोल, which is a compound word for गोल भूमि (round earth), since eons. Our sages had presented coherent mathematical calculations about the solar system but unfortunately our definition of a ‘scientist’ is so narrow (coat-jacket wearing, usually German Christian) that this doesn’t even register in our brain while debating this issue and we dive into the debate believing the faulty Abrahamic premise that these two sides are not only separate but contradictory, although conventional Hindu wisdom has always said otherwise. Leave alone knowing all the scientific advances made by Hindu sages, but had our people known even this anecdotal trivia, they could have used that in the ‘science versus religion’ debates to drive home the point that Hinduism and science have never been at odds with each other. It is not an ‘either this or that’ issue for Hindus.
Take another example, the names of elements in the Periodic Table have Sanskrit etymology.
Sanskrit and Mendeleevs Periodic Table
Fortunately, the tide is beginning to turn in our favour as is evident from the upswing for Hindu ideas. They might not appear to be leading to an immediate conversion of the listener to Hinduism, but, all I can say is that the number of listeners is growing. Indic concepts like Yog, Karma, Pundit have become a natural mainstay of western discourse without any external stimulation or promotion. Although, there is this debate on Hindu ideas and philosophy getting digested by Christian west but reality is much more nuanced than that. If something is the truth, it ultimately spreads, one way or another, with one name or another, without having to have dedicated evangelists on your payroll for marketing purposes.
Take the case of the propagation of Hindu ideas through the movies like Avatar, Life Of Pi. The connotations are hard to miss.
Cameron calls the connection a “subconscious” reference: “I have just loved … the mythology, the entire Hindu pantheon, seems so rich and vivid.” He continued, “I didn’t want to reference the Hindu religion so closely, but the subconscious association was interesting, and I hope I haven’t offended anyone in doing so.”[13] He has stated that he was familiar with a lot of beliefs of the Hindu religion and found it “quite fascinating”.
“What is an Avatar anyway?” James Cameron replied, “It’s an nincarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human’s intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body.”
Explaining the choice of the color blue for the Na’vi, Cameron said “I just like blue. It’s a good color … plus, there’s a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually.”
Also, take for example the latest movie on Ramanujam, The Man who knew Infinity, again made in Hollywood. They have courteously shown him worshipping Hindu God, an idol (notwithstanding popular cultural touchiness about idolatry) engaged in traditional Puja. Ramanujam is shown explicitly crediting his mathematical genius to his local deity, which is more than enough for a movie that was not sponsored by Hindus. The director had the option to not show it at all, in the classic western fashion, and could have simply redacted those aspects and presented Ramanujam as a secular mathematician, denying him his Hindu identity. Instead, he was shown in his true Hindu form, someone who faced the intolerance of the then contemporary Christian scientists.
Fact of the matter is- if Hindus don’t take ownership of their own legends and tell their stories to the world then someone else will pick them up and narrate with a distortion or claim them as their own. Whether Hindus do it consciously or not, Dharmic ideas will spread and make the global grip of the Abrahamic narrative a little less rigid. And religion vs science debates just provide that right ammo to further expose the disconnect of Abrahamic cults from nature. The inherent contradictions in these religions are sitting there to be exploited, the only question is- will Hindus finally wake up and expose them for the betterment of the world.
Hinduism perhaps is always better lived first, and then understood, like any path of wisdom and spirit. Hinduism is often described as a way of life rather than a religion perhaps, for that reason. We do not begin with a theory or doctrine that we then try to bend the world to conform to. We are, one might say ‘spiritual anarchists’. We are ever evolving, we are ever free…….in our philosophy we have no Others, no reviled category for non-believers. We can be atheists, and Hindu. We can be monotheists and polytheists. But in all our freedom, we do, still have a sense of YOU, Alone, around which we have created all our philosophy, culture, art, science, and indeed civilization too.
Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition
Last summer I read a book that neatly organizes what I have been feeling for over two decades, ever since I left India. Since I grew up in India, as a Hindu, a very middle class, grandchild of Punjabi refugees, I heard more stories about India’s partition and its emotional, economic and social impact, than praising one religion over another. I also never heard a word against Islam in my house – instead I was told that at the time of the partition, while there was much bloodshed, there were also people who risked their life to help their friends, even when India’s division had been rendered enemies. I also heard that a relative of my grandfather’s was left behind during the partition, when he came to visit after two decades, that he had converted to Islam. The story was told as a matter-of-fact with any no malice. Growing up, I myself had Muslim friends and we frequented each other’s homes like family members. But I was asked to name my religion for the first time when I left India. I was also divided into a ‘race’ which many forms designed in the US, often used to gather demographic data, could not clearly identify (Asian vs. Indian).
My first experience of witnessing how Hindus were much more open and respectful of different faiths came when during my first year outside of India, at a prayer held at my house, I offered the ‘puja thali’ to all those present, among who some who were not Hindus. I did it, as a part of courtesy to make it all-inclusive, because for Hindus, there is no proselytization. But the young American woman, who I assumed would be more open, since it is (wrongly) assumed that the west is more open than the east, refused to touch the thali. I understood and respected her decision, as we are taught in Hindu households, even though I had bowed in/to Churches, Mosques and countless Gurudwaras. To her credit, years after the incident, she admitted that she wished that she had engaged in that ritual. What was confusing was that alcohol parties, sporting one night stands, even dabbling in drug abuse was considered a part of growing up, even for the church goers, usually labelled, ‘getting it out of your system’. But, the fact remains that while there is religion, in the west, a degenerate behaviour both sexual and social is considered a part of ‘becoming an adult’. Does that not happen in dharmic countries? Especially since western way of life has been promoted as the universal way of life? Sure, but in a dharmic concept what we have acted on or even thought about cannot be erased by repenting. There is a clear understanding that every thought leaves an impression on our minds, which affects our future decision-making, and as a corollary others around us. For me such self-destructive habits are not against religion, but against dharma—all that upholds a healthy society. To avoid any anti-social, self-destructive activities, including indiscriminate physical intimacy, for us Hindus was not religious but cultural, and accepted social behaviour. One simple word explained it all—DHARMA. Engaging in those activities would destabilize a society by weakening the will power of the young, so we were all self-disciplined, self-regulated. That ideology was so strongly embedded in the Indian psyche that it was accepted as a cultural norm, across all religions in India, even those that believed that the slate of previous deeds could be erased by, repenting and surrendering to God.
Later, came a series of conversations where I was subtly called an idolater. Since, I was not opposed to attending churches and listening to sermons, I often tuned into television sermons, even attended some Sunday sermons in churches with friends. There was always an emphasis on exclusivity of both Christianity and the Church. Being open minded I even wrote articles about finding similarities between Jesus as a Shepherd and Krishna as a Cowherd. In a multi-media class I photo-shopped Krishna as a silent witness to the birth of Jesus. For I had grown up on stories that Jesus was a recent incarnation of Vishnu—again an indication of openness and inclusivity of the Hindu tradition.
But over the last several years I noticed that the campaign for maligning Hinduism has been getting stronger and meticulous, even as it is disguised under the idea of freedom and equality. There was little discussion of Hinduism as the most secular of faiths, since it celebrates both the believers and the non-believers, allows worshipping the divine in all forms, or without a form. Instead, in my encounter all I heard about Hinduism was that it was superstitious, and discriminatory. No links were made between Hinduism in secular fabric of India, or how Hinduism has contributed to the world through yoga, meditation, Ayurveda and mathematics. Instead, some televangelists, in the US, directly went on to say on Diwali, ‘India still lives in the dark, because they have not seen the light of Jesus.’ In 1999, the then Pope in his visit to India stated, ‘I hope Christianity takes root in India like it did in Latin America’, on the day of Diwali—the most sacred of holidays for Hindus. Other than being plain derogatory towards the oldest surviving civilization, it was a speech of aggression.
Two years ago, on the streets of Dublin, I was stopped by a man holding a placard that said, ‘Jesus Loves You!’
‘May I talk to you? He asked in his American accent. I nodded.
He was a kind looking, middle-aged man.
‘Have you felt the presence of Jesus today?’ He started.
Having been a student in the US, I was very familiar with the talk. ‘I know what you are going to say, but I am not the person.’
‘What religion are you?
‘Don’t know what to say, because I have been known to say that I don’t really believe in God. I guess I grew up in a system that does not excommunicate you for saying that, so it works.’
‘Where are you from?’ Since it is hard today for many of us to be identified by the way we look, talk or dress, it’s a question that I am often asked.
‘Oh, well, I grew up in India…but…’
Before I could finish, he said, ‘You must be a Hindu’
Since I was in a rush, I nodded.
‘But Hinduism is really not a religion, I mean it is many religions in one, it is not really one religion….’
Again, all this sounded familiar, and I had gotten in debates and arguments many times before. ‘Look, I have to rush, but if I find the time before I leave, we can chat over tea about your misinformation.’ I chuckled.
‘I’ll pay for the tea’ he said. I add this part here, to acknowledge that when these incidents happen, I acknowledge their humanity and their desire to be kind, no matter how driven by proselytizing.
He also told me that his son-in-law was in India working with a mission, ‘bringing equality in rural areas, and doing the work of God’
As I walked away, I wondered, what made him the authority on a religion that defines itself as Sanatana –without beginning and end. A life-philosophy that has survived the onslaught from religions of the book, communism and colonization for over a millennia! A life-philosophy that considers every grain of sand divine! A thought process that prescribes Karma Yoga, that can be the best anti-corruption tool, as one of the highest philosophies for our modern times.
Karmanye vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
‘To work you have the right, not to the fruits thereof!’
Who made this man the authority to say that Hinduism is not a religion?
If this seems not enough evidence for the prevailing Hinduphobia, then here is another story. At one of the leading universities in the US, there is an organization, where nice and kind people arrange cheap tours around the US and sometimes as far as Canada and Mexico for foreign students. Sounds friendly and hospitable right? Well, they don’t tell you that often part of the package is ‘staying with a Christian family’ and attending Sunday church sermon. Many of these families are involved in going to ‘heathen countries’, especially India, which remains one of rare countries of unbroken civilization from 10,000 years ago. Still not harmful enough? Since only the word of ‘God’’ is being spread? Well, they actually have pamphlets about all ‘other faiths’ in their office. And the one on Hinduism states that ‘Hindus were colonized by the British, so they have an inferiority complex. And it is very important to uphold ultimate superiority of Jesus when engaging them.’ (paraphrased).
How do these views on Hinduism and as a consequence of India, affect understanding of India as a nation?
Shortly before 9/11, while lamenting US media’s narrow vision in covering democracies around the world, including their neighbouring Canada, when I mentioned barely any coverage was given to the world’s largest democracy, a student responded, ‘With all due respect, we are a republic and won our freedom, but India was ‘given’ its freedom by the British’.
Disturbed by the response, I devoted the rest of the lecture to Hinduism inspired, and Gandhi driven concept of ‘satyagraph’ on the civil rights movement in the US. A Hindu concept, satyagragh means ‘holding on to the truth’, which combined with ‘ahimsa’ remains till this day the most emulated method of civil disobedience and demanding human rights by such noted activists as Martin Luther King, Mandela and movements such Occupy Wall Street.
And to give an idea about the reality of Hinduism, here is another story of relevance, from when I was teaching. A Croatian-Canadian colleague who taught biology asked me very sincerely, ‘What is the Indian position on evolution?’
After looking at my knitted brows she explained, ‘Because when I teach, Indian students are ones without any issue with the idea of evolution.’
‘Oh yeah, that might be due to Hinduism. We have no issues with contradictory statements, the world is filled with those.’ I shrugged ‘both arguments are up for empirical testing’.
So, in that context of experiencing Abrahamic religions, struggling in my heart and conviction of ‘all religions being equal’ as we were taught, facing the reality that Abrahamic religions were not taught to see all religions as equal, living outside of India and constantly being treated as ‘those strange cow worshippers who are good at computers and math’, deeply respecting all faiths, but knowing fully well that there is an undercurrent of discrimination or else why would missionaries run to Asia, especially India to convert, why would new converts to Abrahamic religions refuse walking into a temple, being surprised and humbled by how in a Hindu dominated country we always celebrated Christmas with great pomp and show in every school and even had small Christmas trees at home, and being pained by the memories of those who had no qualms about getting drunk, but could not think of touching a ‘puja thali’ because it went against their faith—Rearming Hinduism, came as a saviour, as a tool for me to understand my own predicament, my own frustration and equipped me with a new pride at being a Hindu.
Rearming Hinduism reminds us of that sensibility that we Hindus have inherited– that wisdom whose worldview is vast enough to accommodate conflicting viewpoints. Because it is that openness, that Hinduism has upheld which allows for gathering information on topics that we may disagree with, contemplate on that information and turn it into knowledge (even if that comes in the form of neti –neti—‘not this, not this’—the process of elimination) and then move on to turn it into an applied form of wisdom in every aspect of life, from rituals for the living and those for the dead, for our regard towards nature or care towards animals, for the love of poetry and pleasure and veneration of renouncing the world.
Rearming Hinduism empowers us to question those whose purpose is to denigrate a philosophy merely because they cannot match or understand its depth and breadth. But more importantly Rearming Hinduism asks Hindus to reclaim their love for the murtis (not idols, as wrongly claimed), puja (not prayer as wrongly equated) and faith in experience of dhyaan (not just meditation) and mantras (Thank God, this one has not been mistranslated even though misunderstood).
Rearming Hinduism asks Hindus to wake up to the wisdom of their tradition that has on many an occasion lit the world with concepts such as Ahimsa (non-violence), and Tvemeva (only you, only one). It further
Authored by Vamsee Juluri, a Professor of Media Studies at University of San Francisco, the book comes at an apt time when Hinduphobia runs high, and unlike the pre-liberalization India, our popular media, often funded by foreign media conglomerates, has abandoned us. The result is a crisis that has not been defined yet, but is evident in a desecration of temples in the US, upholding Nazi rather than Hindu meaning of Swastika, and blaming all ills of contemporary Indian society on Hinduism rather than colonialism, and bland globalization that promotes values without any reference to the local and the national.
Although directed towards (young) Hindus, the book is clearly a response to the controversy that has surrounded Hindu studies in American academy. Juluri responds to Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History, point by point.
The book is divided into two main sections other than a preface, which reminds the readers of antiquity of Indian civilization, and a conclusion, which gently points at the potential place of India in the world affairs. The first section of the book defines the myths and misconceptions of academia about Hinduism and the second provides an insider’s view.
Each chapter provides a practitioner’s view of Hinduism to main arguments posited by Doniger, even when it establishes that Hindus are enraged at how they have been portrayed by some established scholars of the academy. Juluri argues that a book titled, ‘The Hindus’ not only says very little about how Hindus view the divine, but also distorts Hindus’ understanding of nature. It is as if the book tries to lay down the foundation to denigrate Hinduism.
‘It (the book) conforms to their own preconceived idea that nature is savagely violent, and so, naturally our Vedic ancestors too. –It is set up fundamentally so as to bend the narrative to the rest of Hindu history too, to make it seem like what they think it is rather than what it is really is. This simply is the official story of how Hinduism ‘progresses’ in their view: In the beginning, Hinduism was nothing more than primitive superstitious nature worship, those Vedic cowboys saw fire and called it Agni They feared lightning called it Indra! Fearful of things they did not understand, lacking mathematics, foresight, scientific acumen, and a weather app, perhaps, they sought to control what we know now to be simple natural phenomenon through quaint customs like Vedic chanting and human sacrifice.’
Juluri, Kindle edition. Part I, 5, The Myth of Hindu History
Juluri points out that espousing the now defunct Aryan theory, Doniger’s book speaks from a colonizer’s perspective who wants to undermine a tradition, by labelling it violent until saved by non-natives.
‘Instead of acknowledging the common, persistent Hindu sensibility of God as one, but also known through many names and forms, they try to break up the internal coherence of Hindu thought through a series of funny steps. In what might be better described as the ‘first denial’ rather than the ‘first alliance’ we are told by Doniger that the Vedas are pretty much stories of social oppression coded as gods and ogres. The feeling of devotion, which is what we associated with sacred stories, presumably does not come till the ‘third alliance’, centuries later. We have to wonder then if the people who chanted the same words that inspire devotion in us now felt something radically different simply because the experts say so. Or perhaps this is once again the civilizing fantasy at work; If Hinduism, like any religion at its best, seems to be about love, then it must be a recent development, a gift of redemption from more advanced civilizations.’
Juluri, Kindle edition. Part I, 5, The Myth of Hindu History
The book’s main argument is that scholarship is welcome but not vilification, discourse is encouraged but there must be an attempt to understand how we feel as Hindus. We cannot be asked to suppress our voice in the name of secularism- that only makes us angry, because—we re the ones who invented secularism.
Blaming Christians and Muslims will not save us either. In fact, it is counterproductive and un-Hindu. It is true we maybe fed up with pseudo-secularism. But we cannot forget that we invented secularism in the sense of respect for all faiths long before other lands had even figured out such a thing was possible.
——–
‘I do not become any less Hindu for offering my pranam to Yeshu or his mother, or Allah, or Yahweh or Guru or Buddha or Mahavira. It is our sense of devotion, our cultivated sensibility about what makes a god a god that makes us who we are.’ Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition
The book spoke to me, (as I am sure it will to others like me) who has felt isolated in today’s media driven world of half-baked secularism where contemporary global-mythology is based in non-dharma principles of individual at the expense of collective, secular (divorced from the sacred), at the expense of pluralism immersed in the sacred, and depicting lip-smacking violence as a way of promoting peace.
Points raised by Juluri range from the very title of the book, ‘The Hindus: An Alternative History’ to misunderstanding of an Indian connection to the monsoons. If most of the bookstores on Hinduism are filled with voices from Doniger and her disciples, then how is a yet another book by her an alternative voice?
Juluri points the reader towards the contradictions within academic theories related to Hinduism—namely there is no such thing as Hinduism, however,
Hinduism is responsible for the caste system; in fact the two are identical. Hinduism is responsible for patriarchy and oppression of women. In fact, Hinduism was full of violence until Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity somehow civilized it. And before we forget, Hinduism isn’t an Indian religion. The Hindus were invaders of India.
Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition, Part I, 1. The Academic Mahasabha
To Doniger’s claims that Hindus associated monsoons with violence Juluri very eloquently asks the reader to see how monsoons have been depicted in the most popular mythology of India—its film industry. Were it something that Indians feared, would we be singing, dancing and romancing in the rains?
The author addresses many misconceptions that the world holds about Hinduism both because of academic untruths and media’s sometimes slight and many times skewed portrayal, and provides scenarios of how a Hindu sees him/herself.
Though written with respect for all, and with an intention of initiating a dialogue among the Hindus themselves, Juluri does not shy away from providing the possible western origins of this ‘Alternative History’, which makes for several passages that can make the reader smile, even as they make a point that has been overlooked so far. Each one of those arguments can be turned into a book.
After all, when Hindu phobia is conquered, and the academy resumes its pursuit of truth, historians might find one day that it wasn’t just the zero and numerals that went West from ancient India, but its many humanistic ideals too. It is surely more than a coincidence that they got over their dark ages and had their Enlightenment just around the time they met us, but we don’t hear much about that at all.
Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition
Rearming Hinduism is free from academic jargon as it is written to awaken pride in Hindus both academic and non-academic which has laid dormant for too long. Juluri has clarified in interviews that the ‘arming’ in this case has to be done of the intellect and the conviction. It is important to mention that in times when every act of taking pride in being a Hindu is associated with being a fundamentalist. The cover of the book is an image of Narsingha with a broken arm from, Hampi. It is, as the book roars, time for Hindus to write their own story.
Although written in simple, almost poetic language, to appeal to the lovers of Hinduism, the book can be used as a supplemental text for Hindu studies, inter-cultural communication and even international business. I personally think that the book will make an excellent gift for young Hindu children entering college. The book would re-arm the young adults as they leave home (or country) and enter a world that is known to be secular but is driven by the religion of profit and self-interest. It is important that the young and old Hindus alike start to assert their identity, even as we are being blamed for ills that we inherited from colonizers and invaders. Juluri makes it clear that the criticism of Hinduism comes under the guise of Hindu extremism –which is a mere tactic to make the practising Hindus feel ashamed.
The attack on Hinduism today comes not from those who openly differ with us on religious grounds, but to a very generous device; they said they are not against Hinduism, but only against Hindu extremism. Most Hindus are against extremism too, and would have probably been happy to agree with them, if only that position had been really against extremism alone. But virtually every book, article, and argument made by the world’s supposedly leading, important, and celebrated intellectuals today says the same thing: in the name of criticizing Hindu extremism, they salvage the entirety of our religion. If they’re not challenged intellectually and culturally, soon our names, gods, goddesses festivals, sacred Scriptures, virtually everything that makes us who we are will be defined by them is something that it is not.
Maybe a day will come when he will feel ashamed to bear our own names again, our worship are all gods and goddesses, freely. Maybe a day will come when Shiva’s trident can be easily interpreted as a weapon, or a Lingabhishekham at temples banned as a primitive act of sexual worship. Maybe a day will even come when even our breathing is deemed oppressive because it is saying ‘soham’ invoking the Swan of Goddess Saraswathi’ the last example might seem extreme, but the fact is that we almost lost a word like ‘Sanksriti’. We might lose a lot more too, if we do not recognize this.’
Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition
And the language of this war against Hindusim, Juluri points out, ‘is cloaked in the very language that guarantees us our rights today, that of freedom, equality, democracy and justice. It maintains one shrill, moribund position: if you are not with us, you are a fundamentalist’ (Juluri, 2014). In fact, any questioning of Hindu ideas, stories, festivals, and philosophy is labelled fundamentalism.
Reading the book was a relief, as if someone had underlined the reasons for my anger and frustration of the years. I often fluctuate between being in love with Hindu Gods and being an agnostic, but no one who does not understand or practice Hinduism should tell me how or what I feel when I bow my head to the Sun or a murti of Shiva.
When I finished the book I thought, if I were to meet anyone now who tells me that Hinduism is not a religion or without any coherence, or a religion of oppression, my very polite response would be, to start with a question ‘But who made you the authority?’ I would also declare proudly, ‘We are a living religion, –and we are growing¨.
And I would definitely, very eloquently recite the following sentence from the book—
Hinduism after all has never been about ‘us or them’, but only about us and them, and that ‘them’ includes not just people of other nations or religions, but also those living beings of different species too.
– The examples above are based on author’s personal experiences. Most of the quotes in the article are taken from Vamsee Juluri’s book Rearming Hinduism.
It’s not uncommon to find agitated Hindu nationalists lamenting their government’s stance on all the conflicts that Israel finds itself in. Albeit, very little of this love is based on cold hard strategic thinking and most of it is based on emotional anecdotes. “Iseraal halped India when Kargil dood, read histry bro”, they say. So, let’s do just that.
We aren’t morally beholden to tow the Israeli line on any policy issue out of gratitude for weapons they sell to us, for which we pay the full price. We are a sovereign nation and do what’s best for us. Besides, Jews aren’t some otherworldly saints who have descended upon humanity to talk about marshmallows and bunnies. The Jews are no less hostile to Dharmics than other Abrahamics.
Before we even begin dismantling the security narrative built around Israel being best friend of India(actually Hindus), the bleeding heart Hindus will learn a lot by looking at the famous names of Jews who are bent upon destroying Hinduism from inside. Since they lie at the fountainhead of monotheism, it is no surprise that Jews fill the rank and files of breaking India forces and provide the intellectual armour against Hindu traditions and practices.The Jews believe that they are chosen people and share the same hatred for pagan Hindus like the latter monotheistic derivatives of Christianity and Islam.
Many Hindu nationalists become very attached to Israel for no reason at all and seem to defend Jews no matter what. They seem to have internalized the propaganda by the leading Jewish sympathisers in India like Subramanian Swamy and other US fanboys as if Jews are eternal friends of Hindus. But is there any evidence to suggest that Jews are friends of Hindus? Any empirical analysis around the subject shows no evidence for the same. In fact, if anything Jews have been as negative to Hindus and India as their Abrahamic cousins – Muslims and Christians. Israeli cafe in India said to only serve white customers
Many Hindus think that since Jews don’t evangelize like the other Abrahamics and because they have suffered under Christians and Muslims just like Hindus, they have an emotional attachment to Jews. This is stupid logic, since by the same logic, British and Mughals fought with each other and hence only a mad man can think that either of them were allies of Hindus. In fact, any unbiased look at evidence of Jewish behaviour against Hindus will show the same negative impact of Jews on Hindus just like their Abrahamic cousins. For instance, almost all of the Hinduphobic Indology, which lays the ideological foundation for most of the Breaking India forces have Jews at their heart. One just has to look at the venom against Hindus and Hinduism spread by Wendy Doninger, Christopher Minkowski, Yigal Bronner or the attempts by Andrey Truschke to white wash the atrocities of Aurangzeb as if it never happened. Imagine the outrage it will cause if a Hindu scholar of Jewish studies released a book saying Hitler never killed Jews and how he is misunderstood. But the point many Hindus miss here is that this is because of the basic polytheism of Hindus vs the monotheism of the Abrahamics, in which Jews lie at the core. Even the Israeli help for our country wasn’t really help but just mutual interest in containing the Islamic enemies which both have and for business reasons and not direct friendship. This is no different than Christian Byzantine empire helping the Islamic forces in Arabia to take out the pagan Persian empire. If not for the existential threat Israel faces from Muslims countries in its neighbourhood, it actually has no reason to befriend India and Hindus other than for business. So it is important for Hindus to drop this unusual and irrational and largely undeserved love they have for Jews and look at the situation from a proper geopolitical perspective and decide objectively the best course of action for Hindus and India.
Given this background, now lets try to understand Modi decided to not visit Israel. This is done with great forethought, not out of some Nehruvian idea of a hipster worldview. Modi was scheduled to visit Israel, making him the first Indian PM, but then suddenly India downgraded the level of diplomatic engagement from PM to MEA, now Sushma Swaraj is going. This change was a result of some hard thinking by India’s security cabinet. It is in our interest that Israel remain under some kind of existential threat from other nations, so that India can retain an elevated position of importance in the eyes of Israel. An Israel that is under no pressure has no obligation to play nice with India, and they might as well start blackmailing us with threats of selling weapons technology to Pakistan, like Russia and France does. The fact that Israel remains under siege impedes them from taking any measures that might alienate India. This status quo favours us.
Israel needs India because the constantly looming threat of India keeps Pakistan from forging any meaningful military alliance with Israel’s enemy, Turkey. It is this threat that makes Israel less likely to double cross us. If the threat from Turkey didn’t exist, Israel would be blackmailing us right now. It is in our interest that the Palestine conflict keeps boiling with no resolution in sight. We encourage both sides (Israel and OPEC) to indulge in a competitive bidding to stay in the good books of India since India is a big strategic buyer for both of them. We maintain an ambiguous stance on Palestine so that both Israel and OPEC keep offering us their respective strategic resources (weapons and oil) at competitive rates in exchange for our diplomatic support for their respective causes in the international forums. If the Palestine conflict is solved, then Israel has nothing to stop it from playing a wider global role and there is a fear that they might start playing the same game that the US plays with us vis-a-vis weapons sales to Pakistan.
Even our so called friend Russia threatened to sell weapons to Pakistan when the recent talks didn’t go as planned and our all weather friend Israel wouldn’t mind even one bit to carry out a false flag terrorist attack in India to ignite a war between India and Pakistan in the hope of selling weapons to India or to keep Pakistan army busy with India while Israel fights a war with Turkey.
That is what makes the situation volatile for us. There should be absolutely no doubt that when Israel decides to go to war with Turkey (or Iran), it will try to provoke a war between India and Pakistan to keep Pakistan engaged in a regional war with India and prevent Pakistan from entering a war to support Turkey (or to prevent India from helping Iran). Last time when Israel was attacked by Arab forces, Pakistani pilots were all over Israeli airspace and shooting them down.
An Israel under siege is good for India. Therefore it is in our interest to shrewdly keep the Palestine pot boiling by supporting both sides as and when it is expedient upon us.
Israeli presence in the Middle East even (especially) with the Palestine turmoil helps our overall security environment. The Palestine issue is a moral flashpoint for Sunni nations like Turkey. If the Palestine issue didn’t exist, Turkey and Israel would have no casus-belli to antagonize each other. If the looming existential threat of a large scale war with Israel didn’t exist, Turkey wouldn’t seek broader military ties with Pakistan and subsequently Israel wouldn’t share military knowhow with India to keep Pakistan tied down. This organic symbiotic relationship makes sure that Israel remains under our fold without having to bribe them or honeytrap them. If the Palestine issue is solved, we lose the favorable status quo and Israel might then start meddling in our affairs to make military sales. They played a devastating role during the LTTE period as well. We can’t guarantee that global security environment wouldn’t deteriorate to those incredible lows again. When that happens, it would be hard to rely exclusively on our economic relationship as a weapons buyer to fend off Israel without having our finger on the Palestine issue. The potential threat of India siding with Turkey on the Palestine issue would amply deter Israel if the security scene in our backyard worsens. For us to be able to exercise that option, the Palestine issue needs to be kept alive.
Let the conflict rage, it is the Muslims who are dying in disproportionate numbers anyway. Besides, what real costs do we incur by simply providing moral and diplomatic support? None. This is a cheap investment with very high returns for us. It would be stupid to give up the Palestinian cause for some cheap sense of right wing thrill.
Besides, Israel is no saint either. Israel itself has switched loyalties multiple times in the past few decades. Now many people know that Israel used to be good friends with Iran up until the 70’s. They even had a joint weapons development program called Project Flower. Guess what the objectives of the program were? To counter Indian nuclear program. Yes, you heard it right.
Israel took Irani oil, money, gave them old weapon and passed details to Iraq/US who later attacked Iran. Iran helps arm Palestine as a payback for Israel backstabbing them for nuclear project. Israel is no saint. It’s not our fight. One also needs to take a look at how Israel’s relations with their other allies have progressed after Israel’s objectives were served. France and Israel were the best of the friends. It is even rumoured (well known) that it was France which supplied nuclear technology and centrifuge technology to Israel in early 60’s and where does Israel-France relation stand today when Israel doesn’t need France any more? Incidentally Israel, France and Britain had made common cause during the Suez Crisis, which was rolled back by US military intervention against the alliance and Israel’s relation with all the involved parties is fraught with distrust and animosity today, including the US. India would face the same fate if we wear our hearts on our sleeve.
Israel today is close allies with Saudi Arabia, which as we all know isn’t exactly India’s best buddy. That has never deterred Israel from cultivating deep military and intelligence ties with the Saudi kingdom, without feeling guilty of offending India. But when India allies itself with Iran to look after its own interests, then it offends the Zionists?
Say what you may about Arab nations, one cannot deny the fact that India gets upwards of 50 Billion USD in remittances from our expats living there. Not to mention the safety and security of the expats themselves, all ~8 million of them, a confrontation with either the Arab states or Iran is not in India’s best interest and yet, Israel wouldn’t bat an eye lid to draw India into a conflict if it serves their interest. They won’t hesitate from tying up with Pakistan and use their soil to wage a covert war against Iran if their revenues from weapon sales to India take a nose dive. There is also the possibility of a greater Israel-Saudi-Pakistan alliance against Iran, which would isolate India and put all our interests at risk, so one needs to think it through before blindly supporting Israel’s position on Palestine simply to spite Indian Muslims in online debates. The diplomatic support India gives to the already dead Palestinian cause is simply flowery lip service and does not require India to commit any of its resources nor does it cost anything. The dividends that it yields in return, in terms of co-operation from Arab states and Iran alike are massive.
So all the bleeding heart Hindus who feel the compulsive obligation to speak up on behalf of Israel in discussions and rename their online profiles into Hindu Zionists should think t̶w̶i̶c̶e̶, or rather just once, before aligning themselves with the star of David. India needs to take strategic decisions in cold blood without any regard for misplaced emotions like “Hindu-Jew Bhai Bhai”.
