Friday, November 30, 2012

Can anyone like Rama, but dislike Ram-rajya? Shashi Tharoor can!

In an interesting write up on the speech given by Mr Shashi Tharoor at IIM Calcutta in January 2012, Dr Vijaya Rajiva has torn off the mask of secularism and hypocrisy of the minister. Though this speech was given when he was not a minister, his views well speak of his attitude which would certainly have an impact in his functioning as a minister. Of all his half learnt thoughts on India and Hinduism, I would rate as best his advice that it is enough if you have Rama in your heart!

Can Rama be there without his concept of Ram-rajya?  
Or can anyone have Rama, the Chakravarthy in heart without being surrounded by his brothers holding symbols of 'Hindu' kingdom?
Even the very name Rama has the katapayadi number 25, the concept of Atman in the 26 number concept of Hindu Thought.
The more one says Rama, Rama, one moves closer to realising his Atman which is the very core of Hindu thought.
But Mr Tharoor has an allergy to anything Hindu – an allergy that has become an identity for all those in the UPA dispensation and most other politicians.

The Rama-rajya as told by Rama himself in his enquiry to Bharata on the status of his kingdom shows that there is no room for anything other than Hindu way of life in Bharatvarsha.  When Bharata came to the forest to convince Rama to get back to the kingdom, Rama made several enquiries about how the kingdom was being run. There was no place for secularism of the kind that is practised in India today. Only temples were there everywhere, vedic homas were done everywhere – even Rama's earliest deputation on fighting was to protect Homas and penances of the rishis in the forest, even the very coronation of Rama was done by Vedic rishis and for that matter every king of Bharatavarsha was crowned with full Vedic rites in those days. There was nothing other than Hinduism in India which makes it truly a Hindu nation. Even today wherever Hindus are harassed, they look up India only for succour. There is no history or geography or archaeology that denies that India is a Hindu nation.

Even in his enquiry, Rama asks whether the nation 'well protected by his fore fathers' was prosperous. (V-R-2-100-46). This country belonged to Rama's forefathers, is the import.

He further asks whether he (Bharatha) as ruler follows the common practices which their fore father observed.
"Do you follow the common practice, which our fore fathers observed and which is in accord with the path of the virtuous and which is distinguished in itself." (V-R-2-100-74)
Such observances included study of Vedas by the ruler. Even a ruler must be well versed in Vedas, but  not in mleccha literature.

"Do you find advantages in your study of Vedas? Are your acts, production of fair results? Do you benefit from the company of your consorts? Has your learning been fruitful?" (V-R-2-100-72)
No other Dharma was practiced in India except Hindu Dharma. Everywhere in the kingdom there were temples and worship was carried out unhindered.

"I hope that the kingdom, adorned with peaceful places rich in temples and sheds where water stored for distribution to passers-by in tanks, with happy men and women, graced by social festivities, with land well-tilled, abiding in cattle which are totally free from cruelties, the agricultural land not exclusively fed by rains, which is beautiful and is purged of beasts of prey, which is completely rid of fears, studded with mines, a destitute of sinful men, and well-protected by our fore-fathers, is prosperous and an abode of happiness." (V-R. 2-100 - 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)

Rama speaks in these verses about cattle wealth and the absence of cruelty to cattle.  Can Mr Tharoor guarantee that at least in his home state?

Rama was anxious to know that those who were doing Vedic yajnas were not dissatisfied with the king (Bharata).

 "I hope those who perform the sacrifice do not hold you in contempt, as one who accepts terrible gifts; as one who is fallen, as women hold in contempt of those highly lustful men." (Valmiki Ramayana, 2-100-28)
Look at the choice of words – 'as one who accepts terrible gifts' (उग्र प्रतिग्रहीतारम् ) – for bribes. The Vediks would denounce the ruler if he accepts terrible bribes (taking something in return for the kingly duties he has to do for the benefit of the people). (Perhaps Karunanidhi was right when he said that it was Brahmins and not 2 G scam that led to his defeat in the elections. It is a certificate to Brahmins that they would not tolerate scamsters!) Mr Tharoor must be in the know of what terrible bribe means, so no need to elaborate.  His party is preparing itself for the Mother of all terrible bribes – that of giving out cash doles in the name of welfare schemes in return for the votes later in the elections. They think that voters are like dogs and by throwing money at them like dog biscuits, their loyalty can be bought. If the people are indeed having Rama in heart, they should throw out this multi headed Ravana who follows nothing of Rama's concept of governance.
Rama expects the ruler to spend for divinities, deities and Brahmins! Can we then call Rama as a Manuwadi? But elsewhere, in the same enquiry he cautions Bharata that he must not honour materialistic Brahmins (लोकायतिकान् ब्राह्मणामः)  (V-R- 2-100- 38).

"I hope that your expenditure goes for the cause of divinity, manes, brahmins, unexpected visitors, soldiers and hosts of friends." (V-R. 2-100- 55)

"I hope you greet your teachers, the elderly, the ascetics, the deities; the unexpected visitors, the trees standing at cross roads and all the brahmins of auspicious life and conduct." (V-R-2-100- 61)

Such was the concern of Rama for Hindu deities and Hindu ways of life that it is not possible to 'have' Rama in heart and not his ideals.

Another issue that I want to tell here is that if Mr Tharoor feels uncomfortable about using the name Hindu, there is nothing wrong in calling our nation as India. But he must know the name India is more Hinduised than Hindu!
India was actually called as Indu – the land of Soma or Indu or Devi who is signified by Moon. Regular readers would know that I have been saying that the triangular shape of India makes it too special for drawing the power of Mother Goddess or Kali or Syama Kali. 

The Himalayas look like the crescent moon on the head of India (2nd picture), thereby showering its cool rays on the people enveloped under its stretch. This gave the land the name Indu which was recorded by Hiuen Tsang in his travelogue. This was also written by Nehru in his "Glimpses of world history" . To quote him:-

"I told you once that India was known of old as the Land of the Moon-Indu-land!  Hiuen Tsang also tells us about this, and describes how suitable the name is.  Apparently even in Chinese in-Tu is the name for the moon." ( )

Even the name Hindukush is not correct. It was Indukush"This mountain range was famous for medicinal plants that bloomed in the moonlight. The Sanskrit word "Indukush" (Hindukush) means "krupan" (leaves or grass) that grows in the moonlight."

Ibn Bhatuttah gave  a wrong meaning as Hindu killer which was faithfully copied by western writers and  Indian secularists. We must note that even the avowed secularists Nehru did not manipulate nor alter the original meaning of India. At least now Indians must realise the true meaning and name of India.
" In his travelogue, he (Hiuen Tsang) records that "the correct pronunciation for Tien Chu (India) is Intu" which means the moon in Chinese language. He further elaborates that "the scholars from that land have brightened the world with their delightful and shining knowledge, like the moon." (

The knowledge that the scholars of this land gave to the world was Vedic knowledge. By denying that core fabric of India, Tharoor and his ilk are going into history as hypocrites who are ready to deride and mortgage their own country for selfish reasons, for some day or the other History will restore truth and dispassionately record it as the true past of our country. 

-          Jayasree

Is Shashi Tharoor still play acting?


Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

On January 2012 Shashi Tharoor launched into a lengthy speech (more than 45 minutes) at the IIM Calcutta. It was titled 'Who is an Indian ? The Politics of Diversity'. This was vintage Tharoor.
He summoned up his best acting talent (it is reported that as a student at St. Stephen's College, New Delhi, he  had acted as Anthony in the Shakespearean play Anthony and Cleopatra). This would also explain his curious accent. He declaimed (as Anthony would have in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar or in the play Anthony and Cleopatra ), the Nehruvian speech of midnight August, 1947 that talked about the tryst with destiny.

By now Indians are no doubt tired of theatrics, especially since Jawaharlal had sold the country down the drain on the Kashmir question and the Chinese debacle of 1962 and further would have planted a dagger in the heart of India if Sardar Patel had not acted swiftly in Hyderabad. No matter, Tharoor droned on and hailed Indian secularism and so on. He was in full flight as he quoted figures that showed the diversity of India. This went on for more than half an hour as he spun out jokes and stories (he described himself as a 'novelist' and rightly so, it would seem !) and kept the audience entertained. He even got carried away to tell the grisly story of his friend who described someone who had been electrocuted in prison as a Chairman of the electric chair or some such infantile story. The audience respectfully laughed!

It was when he came to the word 'Hindu' that he began to stumble. First off, he said that the word was a foreign importation, without actually mentioning that it was the Persians who changed Sindhu to Hindu. He seemed uncomfortable and ill at ease with the word. He did not and could not remember (most likely because he did not know) that Sindhu occurs in the Rig Veda, that most Hindu of all Hindu scriptures. Sapta Sindhu (seven rivers) is what every Hindu knows from the get go.

Why did Tharoor stumble on this one ? Ignorance, or the desire to get away from that word 'Hindu' ? Or to downplay it? He mentioned in passing the words Hindu Rashtra as if it were a dirty phrase, once again displaying his ignorance of the Rig Veda. There must surely be many Stephanites who know their Rig Veda ! Not Tharoor it seems. Aham rashtrii sangamani vasunam said the goddess Sarasvati (I am the rashtii that moves people towards their welfare) in the Rig Veda. But it seems that Tharoor could not or did not know that the word 'rashtram' also has a respectable Vedic lineage.

He was quick to point out that while North India suffered from the point of the sword (Islam) in the south it was a different story. He mentions the lone incident of the Arab traders who came to the Kerala coast but not the murder and mayhem by the Bahmani sultans who wreaked havoc on Vijayanagar or the ravages of Tippu Sultan in his very home state of Kerala. That Vijayanagar (after treachery) was destroyed with savagery for almost a year and the ruler Rama Raya was beheaded and had his head fixed on a pole (the similar fate of Prithviraj) was not at all mentioned by Tharoor!! One could say in defence of Tharoor that he was well intentioned and was not keen on raising contentious issues, but if so, why did he invoke the Babri Masjid and the death of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002? And interestingly enough he omitted mentioning the horrific roasting to death at Godhra of pilgrims returning from Ayodhya, old men, women and children at Godhra, that was the root cause that led to the riots in Gujarat ! Or the current murders and killings of Hindus in his home state of Kerala? He mentions that his wife and he visited the sufi saint's tomb and although her family's home had been burned down in Kashmir that she did not entertain any ill will towards Muslims. That is indeed big of her !

He omits to mention the massacre of Kashmir Hindus in the same time period (she was the lucky one who escaped !) and the current terror in which Hindus live in Kashmir. Or the thousands of Kashmiri Hindus who live in tents and miserable circumstances after they were driven out at the point of the sword from Kashmir. He omits to mention the terror which Hindus in West Bengal are subjected to. The list is endless and is about contemporary incidents not medieval history.

Why this selective memory ? Why this amnesia ?

The answer is that Shashi Tharoor is still play acting. He is still the teenage Stephanite . All the world is a stage (literally!). He is in his imagination the Anthony of the Indian scene. Perhaps in more ways than one ! There is a lack of gravitas in his new found role as potential come back as a new kid on the block for the Congress. And worshipping at the altar of the worst government that free India has had to date, he needs must disown his Hindu heritage and strike a few blows against it while he can. While he denies the status of 'majority' to Hindus he has no compunctions in conferring the title of 'minority' to other communities. Witness his recent visits and talks at the National Commission of Minorities. His hero at independence had acted in a similar way! (Editor's Note: By definition Tharoor must know there is no "minority" if the "majority" is not identified !!)
Nor is he concerned with the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act which hands over on a silver plate to minorities the looting of Hindu temples by the 'secular' government.

Witness his contrasting his ill informed view of Hindu Rashtra with his so called recipe for diversity, another word for the bashing of the Hindu majority. He cannot accept the fact that Bharat is a Hindu country. His stage managers from New Delhi are obviously calling the shots and he is willing to play courtier. While their indifference bordering on hostility is understandable and this includes his stage managers in Kerala, it is more difficult to explain his barely concealed hostility towards Hinduism to which he pays lip service.

Is he dissembling, play acting in the larger interests of his handlers ? The answer is both yes and no. No, because of his built in immaturity from the old St. Stephen days makes him a ready accomplice in the marginalisation of Hindus and yes because he knows it has gotten him thus far with a fair amount of success and hopes his luck will hold.

At the Calccutta speech he had said : it is enough if you have Rama in your heart.

The Hindus of India can be sure of one thing: when Lord Rama goes out to battle the asuric forces our Anthony will be nowhere around to help !

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).