This blog aims at bringing out the past glory and history of India, Hinduism and its forgotten values and wisdom. This is not copyrighted so as to reach genuine seekers of these information. Its my prayer that only genuine seekers - and not vandals & plagiarists - come to this site.
I am happy to note that Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) has given an assurance that it will look into the issue raised by Mr Amit Raj Dhawan on the mis-interpretation of Hinduism. Somehow my blog has made a squirrel's contribution in the process of setting right the wrong. The correspondence between Mr Dhawan and EB is posted here. I appreciate the honesty of EB in acknowledging the mistake and the assurance to make corrections. Mr Dhawan deserves the gratitude of all the Hindus for taking up this issue. I also thank Dr Kalyanaraman for keeping me posted of the developments.
SatyamEva JayatE!
- Jayasree Saranathan
***********************************
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Amit Raj Dhawan <amitrajdhawan@gmail.com> Date: Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:47 AM Subject: Re: Complaint to Encyclopædia Britannica To: "Duignan, Brian" <BDuignan@eb.com>
Dear Mr. Brian Duignan
Thank you for the quick and relieving response. Your promising message has been conveyed to other Hindus who were deeply concerned with Britannica's presentation of Hinduism.
I am very glad to learn that Britannica has agreed to revise its article on Hinduism, and for that purpose Britannica is searching for a Hindu scholar.
It is understood that such task cannot be concluded overnight but it is expected that Britannica will not take many nights either. Keeping in mind the huge readership of Britannica, its reputation, and its misinterpretation of Hinduism, it is hoped that the changes in Britannica's article on Hinduism will come as soon as possible.
As criticism is not the job of an encyclopedia, so is favouritism. We expect Britannica to portray Hinduism as it is, which is far away from the present presentation of Hinduism in Britannica. It is expected that Britannica will treat all religions in the same light, where unnecessary and strange shadows or highlights are absent on any part.
Please keep me posted with your progress on the situation.
Thank you for your e-mail to Amy Tikkanen, who forwarded it to me for response. I have read both the e-mail and your review of Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Hinduism at your blog "Non-random-Thoughts." I have also discussed them with the appropriate editors here at Britannica. I'm grateful for your close reading of the text. On reviewing the article in the light of your observations about it, we've agreed that the article is in need of revision. We are working now to identify a Hindu scholar to lead that revision.
I would like you to know that Britannica strives for balance in all subjects. We don't expect to please everyone—balance by nature will always disappoint some people—but we weigh all earnest criticism seriously, especially when it reflects as much work and thought as yours. We agree with your premise that all religions should be treated with equal respect and that this can be achieved without compromising scholarly standards.
Please be aware that the revision won't be completed overnight. This is serious, scholarly work, and we always try to do things properly and thoughtfully. We do hope to commission the work with a Hindu scholar very soon, however, and have him or her get right to work. If you like, I'd be happy to keep you posted on our progress.
Sincerely,
Brian Duignan Senior Editor, Philosophy and Religion Encyclopædia Britannica
The CNN IBN is currently airing its survey result that DMK alliance is all set to sweep Tamilnadu!
Though this is against the age old wisdom of poll-arithmetic, the reasons are not hard to find if this prediction comes true.
That reason is not what the IBN analysts say. They say that the Srilankan issue has favored the DMK - congress alliance. Impossible. There is sympathy for the Lankan Tamils, but everyone knows that no one in India can solve the Lankan issue.
The probable reasons lie elsewhere. One reason could be the division of anti DMK votes by Vijayakanth. This must be confirmed from the poll results.
If the Vijayakanth factor is not severe, then the only probable reason could be the cash-for votes by the DMK, which the DMK had rehearsed well in Thirumangalam by-elections.
Tamil nadu has recorded the highest polling in the last 25 years. When such high polling happens, then it is due to anti incumbency factor. If the DMK sweeps the polls, it revolts against this conventional wisdom. It means something else has happened to make the people to go to the polling booth - to vote for the government in power!
The highest polling of 80 % in Karur constituency which was in the news for cash distribution by the DMK before the elections, compounds the suspicion that money indeed has been promised. It need not have been distributed on the poll-eve - but promised.
Otherwise how else we can explain the crowding of the very poor people around the DMK agents on the polling day (which I saw in the polling booth near my house), leaving the ADMK and MDMK agents who were also sitting in the same area. Any promise given of 'gifts', if they vote for the DMK?
This section forms the gullible one third of the voters which I already mentioned in the post http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2009/04/election-pulse-of-chennai.html
This section was lured by freebies last time.
What is that carrot promised to them this time, will be known in a few days, if the DMK sweeps the polls.
Leaders and parties are bought post-poll, while the voters are bought before the poll. All this does not augur well for a democracy.
Finally from astrological point of view, I have the horoscope of Ms Jayalalithaa (24-02-1948. 2-34 PM, Mysore), which does not see her get the throne at present in Tamilnadu. If Congress does well in the hustings with DMK not doing well in TN, we foresaw a situation of the Congress aligning with Jayalalithaa. That means Jayalalithaa replacing the DMK governement here.
But Jayalaithaa's dasa- antar dasa indications do not give her Power at present. So no change of guard in Tamilnadu at present. It means either the UPA will do exceedingly well that Jayalalithaa will have no role in government formation or the UPA will do very badly that Jayalalithaa will have a role in government formation in the centre sans UPA and not in the State. This happens with the UPA in two extreme conditions of performance.
Ms Jayalalithaa's current dasa period is Rahu-Sun-Rahu-Rahu-Jupiter-Venus. Sun is a do-gooder for her. Jupiter also has helped her in the past
But Rahu is not good, though she came to power in Rahu dasa. Rahu is in the star of Venus (Bharani). Though Venus is exalted in the 10th in her horoscope, it is hemmed in between malefics. In the bhava chart, 7th lord Jupiter is in 6th, showing her partners turning hostile. These points are enough to give her some headache or the other at a given time.
The currently running sun antar dasa and Jupiter sukshma dasa will give her some leverage. But the predominance of Rahu and further sub-division of the day of the results having Venus, will not give the results as she expects. Venus as lord of 12th in papa karthari is likely to upset her calculations.
However I do see her resurgence in 2012 in Guru dasa. Guru (Jupiter), the 10th lord, has shad bala strength and the 10th bhava is also strong, making her powerful in political career throughout the Guru dasa.
Generally for India, things will further deteriorate in the next couple of years. With the entry of the saturn in Libra, the 10th house in the mundane chart of India (in capricorn) , a dharmic disposition will take place in India.
That is, things must deteriorate further to reach the limits and a revival will take palce as a result of that.
Eight years ago I boarded a plane to the United States to come to college. I was 17. As I left, my father hugged me and told me to never come back because he believed that soon Pakistan would not be a country fit for me to live in. I told him he was trying to save money by not having to buy me tickets to come home. We laughed it off. I hugged him goodbye and that day my father and I began our great debate about the fate of Pakistan. Abba told me to stay away. I defied him every time. I came home twice a year. I only flew PIA. I refused to do an internship in the US I worked every summer in Pakistan. I moved back when college ended. I started work in Pakistan. I worked two jobs because there was so much to do and not enough time to do it in. I was inspired and energised. I was hopeful and optimistic.
Today I am neither. And I have lost the debate with my father about the fate of Pakistan. The Parliament by endorsing the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation (NAR) has heralded the end of Pakistan as I knew and loved it. Today, the elected representatives of the people turned Pakistan into Talibanistan. Today we handed over a part of the country to them. I wonder how much longer before we surrender it all.
Today we legislated that a group of criminals would be in charge of governing and dispensing justice in a part of Pakistan according to their own obscurantist views. They have declared that the rulings of their courts will be supreme and no other court in the land can challenge them. They have also declared that their men that killed and maimed innocent civilians, waged war against the Pakistani army and blew up girls schools will be exempt from punishment under this law. A law that does not apply equally to all men and women is not worthy of being called a law. Hence today we legislated lawlessness.
What was most disturbing was the quiescence of the Parliament to this legislation. The utter lack of debate and questioning of this ridiculous legislation was appalling. The decision was not informed by any independent research or expert testimony, and to my knowledge none of the parliamentarians are authorities on matters of security, rule of law or regional conditions in Swat. This signals disturbing possibilities. Either our politicians are too afraid to stand up to criminals or maybe they don't possess the foresight to gauge the national impact of this action. There is no hope for a country led by cowards or fools.
How can one be hopeful about the political future of a country where the will and the wisdom of politicians becomes hostage to the threats of barbarians? How can I be optimistic about a country where doyens of the media like Ansar Abbasi hear the collective silence of the parliamentarians as the resounding support of the people of Pakistan, but are deaf to the threats issued by the Taliban to anyone opposing the legislation? How can I feel secure in a country where the army, despite receiving the largest chunk of our resources, cannot defeat a bunch of thugs? How can I expect justice when there are different laws for different citizens, and I as a woman am a second class citizen? How can I be inspired by a country where there is no culture, no music, no art, no poetry and no innovative thought?
How can I be expected to return to a country where women are beaten and flogged publicly, where my daughters will not be allowed to go to school, where my sisters will die of common diseases because male doctors cannot see them? How can I be expected to call that country home that denies me the rights given me by my Constitution and religion? I refuse to live in a country where women like me are forced to rot behind the four walls of their homes and not allowed to use their education to benefit the nation. By endorsing the NAR and giving in to the Taliban, Parliament has sapped my hope and optimism. Parliament has dealt a deathly blow to the aspirations of the millions of young Pakistanis who struggle within and outside the country, fuelled by sheer patriotism, for a peaceful, prosperous and progressive Pakistan.
When there is no hope, no optimism, no security, no justice, no education, no progress, no culture, there is no Pakistan. Maybe it is because I am the grandchild of immigrants who was raised on stories of hope, patriotism and sacrifice that even in this misery I cannot forget that Pakistan was created to protect the lives, property, culture and future of the Muslims of the Subcontinent. It was not established to be a safe haven for terrorists. We fought so that we could protect the culture of the Muslims of the Subcontinent, not so that we could import the culture of Saudi Arabia. Our ancestors laid down their lives so that the Muslims of the Subcontinent, both men and women - could live in a land free of prejudice, not so that they could be subjected to violent discrimination of the basis of sect and gender.
Maybe it's because I'm competitive and I don't want to lose the debate to my father, maybe I am afraid to lose the only home I have, or maybe because I love Pakistan too much to ever say goodbye. I hope we can remember the reasons why we made Pakistan, and I hope we can stand up to fight for them. I hope we can revive the spirit of national unity of 1947 and lock arms to battle the monster of the Taliban that threatens our existence.
Talibanistan is an insult to my Pakistan.
I want my country back.
Pakistan Paaindabad!
The writer is pursuing a master's at PrincetonUniversity. Earlier, she attended YaleUniversity.
About Iran, Henry Kissinger once asked whether the Islamic Republic was a country or a cause. About Pakistan, the question is whether it's a country or merely a space.
Mr. Kissinger's point was that if Iran were a country like France or India, its bid to acquire nuclear weapons wouldn't pose an apocalyptic threat: It would merely be seeking the bomb in pursuit of rational, and limited, national interests, like prestige and self-defense. But if Iran is a cause -- the cause being world-wide radical Islamic revolution -- then there's no telling where its ambitions end.
The world has a tough time dealing with cause countries, no matter if the causes are bad (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia), good (the U.S.), or somewhere in between (colonial Britain and France). Even more difficult is knowing what to do about countries that are really just spaces, wholly or partly ungoverned.
Today, Somalia is a space not even pretending to be a country. The result is destitution, piracy and a sanctuary for Islamic jihadists, but little by way of ideas for how to change things. Historically Afghanistan has always been a space, defined mostly by its power to repel: The Obama administration would be smart to take this into account by keeping its expectations for nation-building low. Whether post-invasion Iraq is a country or a space remains a question, though it seems to be leaning in the former direction.
As for Pakistan, we're about to find out.
The world took note last month when a Taliban advance brought it to within 60 miles of Islamabad. But that offensive was less intrinsically distressing than the seeming nonchalance with which Pakistan's rulers, current and former, surrendered sovereignty to Islamic extremists, first in the tribal hinterlands and then in the SwatValley.
What kind of state simply accepts that its judicial and political writ doesn't actually run to its internationally recognized boundaries? Three cases are typical.
One is a weak state that lacks the capacity to enforce its law and ensure domestic tranquility -- think of Congo. Another is an ethnic patchwork state that knows well enough not to bend restive or potentially restive minorities to its will -- that would be present-day Lebanon. A third is a canny state that seeks to advance strategic aims by feigning powerlessness while deliberately ceding control to proxies -- the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.
Pakistan's odd distinction is that it fits all three descriptions at once. It is politically weak, ethnically riven, and a master of plausible deniability -- an art it has practiced not only toward India, Afghanistan and the U.S. with its support for various "freedom fighting" groups but also, in the matter of the CIA drone attacks, toward its own people.
The roots of Pakistan's problems go to its nature as a state. What is Pakistan? Even now, nearly 62 years after its founding, the best answer is "not India": As with the Palestinians, Pakistani identity is defined negatively. What else is Pakistan? As with Iran, it is an Islamic Republic: Punjabis, Pashtuns, Kashmiris, Balochis, Sindhis and so on are only really knitted together in their state as Muslims.
No wonder the Pakistani army has been so reluctant to redeploy the bulk of its forces to the western front: To do so betrays Pakistan's entire reason for being. Tellingly, the army only went on the offensive this month after the Taliban took aim at an army convoy. Odds are roughly even that another "truce" will be agreed by the government just as soon as the Taliban draws appropriate conclusions and reserves its violence for clean-shaven men, independent-minded females and other enemies of God.
Of course the "Islamic" state that Pakistani founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah foresaw wasn't quite what the Taliban have in mind. "You will find," he said in 1947, "that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because this is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."
That vision still appeals to a majority of Pakistanis, who have repeatedly defeated radical religious parties at the polls. But rejecting clerical politics is not quite the same thing as accepting secular ideals. It's also hard to sustain republican hopes when the practical results -- in the persons of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and current President Asif Ali Zardari -- have been so consistently dismaying.
We live in an age dominated by immodest ideas of personal, national or ideological destiny, to which Pakistan has not been immune. It might consider more modest aims, like simple countryhood. And since the threat it now faces is existential, let's put the point existentially: The alternative to that kind of being is nothingness.
From: Amit Raj Dhawan Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM Subject: Hinduism Misinterpreted To: mail@infinityfoundation.com
Namaskar,
Millions of people worldwide use Encyclopedia Britannica to get information on various topics. It is counted amongst world’s most enormous and major knowledge archives. Wanting to search some things about Hinduism, I opened Encyclopedia Britannica. I was shocked and distressed to read the offensive material they had published about Hinduism. On the grounds of rationality, justice, and equality of all religions, it is strongly felt that Encyclopedia Britannica needs change its article on Hinduism. To bring to light this injustice, I have written a thoroughly researched logical article/paper. I would like to bring your attention to this injustice done to Hinduism. Encyclopedia Britannica should present Hinduism as it is, so that when any person, Indian or foreigner, reads Encyclopedia Britannica to know about Hinduism, he learns the truth.
You can read the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica’s article on Hinduism over here:
Please feel free to publish, print, and distribute my article. I hope that you will be supportive in my endeavour. Looking forward to hearing from you with the hope that you will be supportive in my endeavour.
Thank you,
Amit Raj Dhawan +420 222 506 996
P.S.: I am an Engineer. At the moment I am pursuing higher education in Czech Republic
*******************
Hinduism Misinterpreted
Encyclopaedia Britannica insults Hinduism
Amit Raj Dhawan (May 5, 2009)
amitrajdhawan@gmail.com
This work has been released under Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported licence on May 5, 2009.
For details visit: http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/.
This article will highlight some of the misinterpretations of Hinduism in EncyclopEedia Britannica, many of which are very offending to any Hindu reader and those who know and respect Hinduism. The author has based this article on the contents of [1]. Text quoted from Encyclopcedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition is in slanted red typeface. In the following lines an argument is presented, which shows and questions the biased intentions of a popular reference source like Encyclopedia Britannica.
Information conveyed by an encyclopedia should be unbiased, impartial, based on facts, true to the greatest extent, and not anybody’s personal opinion. In this light, the article on Hinduism in Encyclopaedia Britannica has been examined. The absurd choice of contributors of an article on Hinduism by the authorities of Encyclopaedia Britannica will also be analysed. It is felt that Britannica’s article on Hinduism is written in a sense that ill-disposes a reader towards Hinduism, whereas this is not the case with Britannica’s articles on other religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. After thought and analysis, I have been left with an impression which can be best summarized in the following question: Why is EncyclopEedia Britannica hostile towards Hinduism?
A Master’s level physics text written in English can be read, at least most part of it, by a person who has a Bachelor’s in English. But reading a text does not mean that it has been understood! To understand such a text on physics, at least one is required to have adequate knowledge of physics. Generally, a linguist is not a physicist. In this sense, what this person (who does not know physics) would infer from a physics text cannot be relied upon, and of course, before his or her findings are published, they have to be scrutinized.
Religion is based on belief, and reliable information on any particular religion can be conveyed by a person who believes in it, has good knowledge about it, and therefore realises it.
Authorities of EncyclopEedia Britannica had forgotten this fact when they had to publish about Hinduism, but they had well-remembered it when they had to publish material on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. On the one hand they have chosen people like Rev. Henry Chadwick to write on Christianity, Fazlur Rahman, an alim, to write on Islam,and Rabbi Lou Hackett Silberman to write on Judaism, and on the other hand they have chosen Wendy Doniger, who is criticised for her negative portrayals of Hinduism ([2], [3]), as a writer and editor of Hinduism. From the stated writers or editors of Hinduism in Encyclopaedia Britannica ([1]), none of them is a Hindu, or of Indian origin, or a holder of Hindu scholarship, e.g. an acharya. To write on Christianity, Encyclopaedia Britannica chose a Reverend (a priest of the Christian church), for Islam, an alim (a Muslim learned in religious matters) was selected, to describe Judaism, a Rabbi (a religious leader and teacher in the Jewish religion) was opted, but for information on Hinduism they had to choose people who have been criticised by Hindus and academia. Why has Encyclopaedia Britannica been partial in their choice on religious matters?
The lengthy article on Hinduism (approx.51 000 words) in Encyclopaedia Britannica ([1]), does not depict Hinduism in a positive manner, in general. It looks more of a critique of Hinduism, where several concepts — fairly clear to an average Hindu — have been predicted as tensions and confusions. Britannica has misrepresented the concept and message of Hinduism, and Hindu values have been disparaged. The articles on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been written in a very good sense, and the evils of these religions have been subjugated by the way of presentation of those themes. In almost every section of [1], unnecessary contradictions and tensions have been mentioned with exaggeration. Why? It seems that the ambition of Encyclopaedia Britannica is to show Hinduism inferior to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but even then the question is: Why?
Britannica disrespects more than 800 million Hindus by publishing mendacious statements about their religion. Some of these statements are extremely false, concocted, and rude. How painful they are to a Hindu heart, there is no account of that. About Lord Krishna, who is respected and revered by all Hindus, the article says ([1]):
Krishna was worshipped with his adulterous consort, Radha. According to reputed dictionaries [4] and [5], the word adulterous is related to adultery, and adultery refers to sex between a married man or woman and someone who is not their wife or husband. Consort means an associate ([5]). Neither through Hindu history nor through any reliable Hindu belief it can be stated that Lord Krishna had an illicit sexual relationship with Radha. They are symbols of pure divine love. How could the writers of this text, Arthur Llewellyn Basham, J. A. B. van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger publish such nonsense? How could authorities of Britannica allow this menace to Hindu belief?
Instead of mentioning the exemplary virtues of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, their righteousness has been critically examined. Moreover, insane and illusionary fiction has been presented as a fact. In [1], it is stated: The story of Rama, like that of Krishna, also has a shadowy side. and The benevolence and beneficial activity of these figures (Rama, Krishna, et al.) is, however, occasionally in doubt. Vishnu often acts deceitfully, selfishly, or helplessly; And then starts the critical examination of virtues of Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, and Lord Vishnu. Is criticism the job of an encyclopedia? The sole task of the writers of [1] was to tarnish the image of Hinduism, its principles, its beliefs, its revered. Has Britannica examined the shadowy sides of Jesus, Mohammad, or Abraham?
The preposterous imagination of the writers of [1] has presented an unacceptable statement which shows their lack of knowledge of Sanskrit language and Hinduism, past and present. The compound word shivlingam is composed of words shiv and lingam. Here shiv means Lord Shiv, and lingam means symbol. Therefore, shivlingam means the symbol of Shiv. Shivlingam is known to all Hindus as a symbol of Lord Shiv. In San- skrit language, it is common that one word has two or more meanings. Reference [6] provides more than 10 meanings of the word lingam. I state two other meanings: 1) gender, and 2) the male sex organ. Suppose a Sanskrit language student is asked to fill a medical form in Sanskrit. There it is required to tick or cross the box called lingam. Common sense says that in the form to be filled, the word lingam means gender. It would not make any sense to adapt the second meaning (male sex organ) for this purpose, certainly not for female applicants. To clarify further, an example from English language will be discussed. In English language, the word PETER can be used in at least three different ways ([4]). PETER can mean: 1) name of a person, 2) to gradually stop or disappear, and 3) a penis. What would it mean if you ask a person, “Are you PETER?”? The answer is obvious, and so is the meaning of shivlingam. In [1], it is stated:
Yet another epiphany is that of the lingam, an upright rounded post, usually of stone, representing a phallus, in which form he is worshipped throughout India and one of the most common objects of worship, whether in temples or in the household cult, is the lingam (phallus). Often much stylized and representing the cosmic pillar, it emanates its all-producing energy to the four quarters of the universe. As the symbol of male creative energy it is frequently combined with its female counterpart (yoni), the latter forming the base from which the lingam rises.
Symbols can be given many meanings, but not all are accepted meanings. The accepted meaning of shivlingam is the the symbol of Shiv, and not the phallus. It is weird that the foundation on which the shivlingam rests could look like a vagina to the writers of [1]. The meaning of shivlingam as asserted by Britannica is not accepted by Hindus, then why has Britannica misinformed the reader, and hurt Hindus worldwide? Encyclopedia is not a stage to display insanity. The authors of [1] should restrict their epiphany only to themselves. If shivlingam represents a phallus then all cylin- drical objects like pens or lipsticks represent a phallus.
The article does not hesitate to mention Hindus “killing” people of other religions, but it never mentions that Hindus were brutally massacred by people of other religions. At this point, three excerpts from [1] have been quoted in the following lines.
From time to time Hindus, especially Shaivites, took aggressive action against Buddhism. At least two Shaivite kings — the Hephthalite invader Mihirakula (early 6th century) and the Bengal king Sasanka (early 7th century) — are reported to have destroyed monasteries and killed monks and these strands converged at the end of the 20th century in a campaign to destroy the mosque built in 1528 by a lieutenant of the Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya, a city that has traditionally been identified as the place where Rama was born and ruled. In 1992 Hindu militants from all over India, who had been organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP; “World Hindu Council”), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS; “National Volunteer Alliance”), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP; “Indian People’s Party”), destroyed the mosque in an effort to “liberate” Rama and establish a huge “Rama’s Birthplace Temple” on the spot. In the aftermath, several thousand people — mostly Muslims — were killed in riots that spread across North India and It is hardly the case that Muslim rule was generally loathsome to Hindus.
In [1], there is no mention of genocide of Hindus and demolition of Hindu temples by the Mughals [7], and sabotage of Hindu schools (gurukuls) during the British rule. Did Mus- lims, Christians, or Jews inflict any acts of ethnic cleansing ever? According to the articles of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in Encyclopaedia Britannica — No! There is no mention of Hindu suffering during the Mughal empire, neither in the article of Hinduism ([1]) nor in the article of Islam ([8]) in Britannica. In recent affairs, as the 1992 Ayodhya episode has been mentioned, there is no mention of hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Hindus who have been forced to leave their homeland by Islamic militants ([9], [10]). Ethnic cleansing of Hindus is not an issue for Britannica. If one consults an encyclopedia to know about a religion, then he or she is interested in the concept of the religion. Other details, as stated above in this paragraph, are not required. Still, if Britannica wants to publish such material then the publishing should be fair, and all religions should be treated in the same way. But this is not the case! In Britannica’s article on Judaism ([11]), the atrocities imposed on Jews have been well-mentioned. Given below is a text from [11].
In the 20th century, particularly after the events sym- bolized by Auschwitz (a Nazi death camp in Poland, where approximately one million Jews were killed)
The Struggle of Hindus in surviving the attacks of Muslim invaders in the past, and the present day pain of Kashmiri Hindus has not been mentioned anywhere by Britannica. Do Hindus feel pain without pain?
There is no good mention of good deeds of Hindus or Indians in Britannica’s article. It seems that Britannica wants to make sure that no Hindu feels proud after reading about his or her religion in Britannica, and people who would like to know about Hinduism from Britannica get the worst possible impression about Hinduism. The wisdom of Hindu thought has been kept in dark by Britannica, forget highlighting it. Words are very playful, little adjustment and toning can make a great difference. The language used to write Hinduism in Britannica is English but this English has a different “sense” than the English used to write Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The editors of [1] have ridiculed Hinduism. They have mentioned, to a great extent maligned, Hindu history with such confidence as if they were witnessing the events themselves. Britannica’s article ([1]) talks about one of the greatest spiritual orders in the world — Hinduism — but there is no reference to spirituality in a spiritual way. Britannica has well propagated the essence of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but in case of Hinduism, it has not. As an example of usage of language, an excerpt from Britannica’s article on Islam ([8]) has been stated.
In Baghdad the tomb of the greatest saint of all, ‘Abdal-Qadir al-JItani, is visited every year by large numbers of pilgrims from all over the Muslim world. In the above mentioned excerpt, the phrase: the greatest saint of all, sounds very positive. There is nothing wrong in stating your beliefs with pride, especially when it is a presentation of your core, your culture, your true self. But Britannica did not give Hindus a chance to present their religion, and the ones who were given the privilege to speak, have vilified and traduced Hinduism.
Mahatma Gandhi is called father of the nation by Indians. About present-day obedience of his teachings, Britannica says ([1]):
Although the memory of Gandhi continues to be revered by most Indians, his policies and principles carry little weight. The great bulk of social service is performed by government agencies rather than by voluntary bodies, whether Gandhian or other.
From the above mentioned statement what does one learn about Hinduism? The statement is not required at all in an encyclopedia article on Hindusim. Though it would be interesting to know if Britannica had conducted a nation wide survey in India to find out to what extent are Gandhi’s policies followed there. There are many organizations in India (too many to name) that have been inspired by Gandhi and are propagating his policies and principles even today. There are many Indian non-governmental organizations that conduct considerable social service, esp. at the time of national calamities. Indians have generously donated to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) to help humanity I fail to comprehend on what grounds Britannica has made these claims. At this point, it should be adduced that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS; “National Volunteer Alliance”) that has been termed as a “militant” organization by Britannica, is very much respected in India and is known for its social services. If it would have been a militant organization then it would have been permanently banned by the Indian court of law. Fundamentalist nature of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RSS; “National Volunteer Alliance”) has been elaborated in [1] but there no mention in [1] or [8], how the want for an only-Muslim state led to the partition of India. This resulted in the creation of Islamic state of Pakistan in 1947. Does not this show the intolerant face of Islam? One can say that there is no need criticise a religion in an encyclopedia article about it. Fine, but this rule should be applied equally to all religions. Britannica has failed to do this.
The Christian church has been very well mentioned in Britannica’s article on Christianity. In [12], an entire section with subsections has been written on Church and social welfare. It is mentioned how the Christian church has healed the sick, taken care of widows and orphans, and done good to society. Article [12] also elaborates Christian beliefs in charity and prosperity of all. Some excerpts from [12] are mentioned below.
The Christian church has responded to the matter of human illness both by caring for and healing the sick and by expressing concern for them
and
In the early church, the care of the sick was carried but by the deacons and widows under the leadership of the bishop. This service was not limited to members of the Christian congregation but was directed toward the larger community, particularly in times of pestilence and plague
and
The Christian congregation has traditionally cared for the poor, the sick, widows, and orphans.
In the above mentioned lines there is nothing to impugn; it is generally true. The contrast is striking when one reads Britannica’s view on Hinduism. There is no mention of social work done by Hindu organizations, e.g. provision of free schooling and medical care, helping the needy, etc. There are many temples in India that offer all visitors a complete meal for free, but writers of [1] are blind to see the good done by Hindu organizations and temples. In everything, they have tried to find a sexual angle. What was guiding them? About Hindu temples, all they have to mention is erotic art of Khajurao, where they have once again misinterpreted the details, and not to mention again, they have ridiculed Hindu customs and beliefs with their false assertions. In strict sense, the term devadasis, is used for a lady who has surrendered herself to God. About them [1] states:
The god’s handmaidens (devadasis) performed before him at regular intervals, watched by the officiants and lay worshipers, who were his courtiers. These women, either the daughters of devadasis or girls dedicated in childhood, may have also served as prostitutes. The association of dedicated prostitutes with certain Hindu shrines can be traced back to before the Christian era.
Are these words trying to prove the connection between Hindu shrines and prostitution? Several cases of sexual abuse and sex scandals concerning Christian clergy have been exposed ([13], [14], [15]). Does [12] mention these cases? Of course, not! Well, these things are not “religion” and need not to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on religion. But is it fair that when Britannica mentions Hinduism, it spurts whatever ugly it feels, and when it mentions Christianity, it hides whatever ugly it wants?
In the lines above, only a few of the many objectionable statements of [1] have been mentioned and analysed. In general, Britannica’s article on Hinduism ([1]) is absolutely deplorable. The intention of my work is not to encourage religious rivalry. This writing is about Hinduism; it does not intend to show other religions in bad light. It was the reprehensible treatment of Hindu sentiments by Britannica that inspired this work. Academia and related works should endorse equality of all religions. EncyclopEedia Britannica has been very unjust and despicable in its writing on Hinduism. This can be felt very strongly by anyone who knows about Hinduism. Comparison of Britannica’s articles on Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism explicitly asserts that it has treated Hinduism unevenly and abhorrently. It is strongly needed that Britannica replaces its mal-information about Hinduism with information and facts that are true, honest, and in which Hindus believe. After all, it is about their belief. Only in this way religion, which is based on belief, can be interpreted with the belief that it is truly interpreted and not maliciously misinterpreted.
References
[1] “Hinduism,” Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[2] K. Ramaswamy, A. de Nicolas, and A. Banerjee. Invading The Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2007.
[3] A. M. Braverman, “The interpretation of gods,” vol. 97, no. 2, December, 2004. [Online]. Available: http://magazine.uchicago. edu/0412/features/index.shtml [Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[4] Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. [CD-ROM]. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[6] VS. Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dic- tionary, 3rd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965.
[7] H. Mukhia, The Mughals of India. Maiden, MA: Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2004.
[8] “Islam,” Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[9] “Islamic terrorism and genocide of Kashmiri Pandits,” [Online]. Available: http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org/sundry/genocide.html [Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[10] K. R S. Gill, “The Kashmiri Pandits: An ethnic cleansing the world forgot,” [Online]. Available: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/2003/chapter9.htm [Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[11] “Judaism,” Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[12] “Christianity,” Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition, 2009.
[13] “Timeline: US Church sex scandal,” September 7, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/americas/ 3872499. stm [Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[14] Jesmi, Amen - Oru Kanyasthreeyude Atmakatha (Autobiography of a Nun). Kot- tayam: Di. Si. Buks, 2009.
[15] C. Landau, “Sex abuse by nuns: the unknown story” October 2, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/americas/7022694.stm [Accessed: May 4, 2009].
[ As I sit in my home in Detroit, Michigan, watching all the drama that is unfolding in the General Elections of 2009, I wonder how far the truth can be stretched. I am quite disillusioned by the definition of secularism being proscribed and prescribed to the Indian public. I was wondering what a lesson in secularism would be like if there was one; so, I thought of this fantasy classroom where secularism is being taught by a Mr. Secular Indian to his Gullible disciples who are pursuing a political career as a secular politician . Now tighten your seat belts and start thinking. Think what your definition of secularism is? ]
Mr. Secular Indian: I welcome you disciples to your first day in class. I know you people are obsessed with the idea of secularism, but I will help you build on this idea today which will benefit you tremendously in your political careers; so, let us start by taking some questions.
A Gullible disciple: I am confused about the idea of secularism. I feel I am a secular person, but when I see some of our English channels and listen to our politicians, I feel I am not - How do I get over this dilemma ?
Mr. Secular Indian: What makes you feel as though you are not secular ?
A Gullible disciple: I find myself agreeing to some of the views of BJP, especially on terror, international policies and common civil code etc. But the very next moment, when the panelists on these shows call it a farce and communal, I feel I am communal too.
Mr. Secular Indian: First things first.You cannot be called secular, If you agree with the BJP. You have to be a staunch opponent of BJP policies irrespective of whether you feel they are right or wrong. Be careful, you will be tagged as a communal instantaneously if you agree with them. It would not matter what you think about the upliftment of minorities.
A gullible disciple: Some politicians are even called communal if they go to a temple or wear saffron clothes, what do you think of that?
Mr. secular Indian: Well, you cannot wear any identity that could relate you to a majority community. You can go to the temple every now and then but make sure nobody is watching you. This might come to haunt you later in your political career. At the same time make sure you make frequent visits to churches and mosques and also meet some religious leaders, but this time makes sure you do it in front of the full glare of the media.
Meanwhile a Muslim gullible disciple jumps in and asks:
A gullible Muslim disciple: I go to mosques every Friday.
Would I have to be careful too ? Also would I have to meet some swamijis in front of the media?
Mr. secular Indian: No, this does not apply to you as you belong to a minority community. In fact, if someone questions you about any aspect of your faith, just call for protection of your rights and your secular friends will take care of the rest. Talking about your meeting swamis, this could severely dent your chances of being a secular politician and your credentials might get questioned, even if you have to do that, do it behind the cameras.
A gullible Muslim disciple: I find myself agreeing with the BJP sometimes, especially about the introduction of a common civil code. I feel a different civil code for the Muslims is only alienating them and I do not agree with some of it's clauses. How do I express this view?
Mr. Secular Indian: Again, the golden rule is, you cannot agree with the BJP at any cost. Even if the BJP is trying to do some good for the minorities, you will need to portray theevil in it. These are the times when your secular credentials will be tested. Remember, you being a Muslim and finding any of BJP's comment acceptable, can spell doom to your political career. Common civil code might be necessary for the upliftment of the Muslims, but it is not acceptable to the Muslim masses. You can only take popular decisions in politics irrespective of the consequences.
A gullible disciple: I believe we would need to work hard for the upliftment of the minority masses to be called a secular.
Mr. secular Indian: Not necessarily, as long as you are anti-BJP and are making speeches condemning Hindutva, you need not do anything, just tell the minorities that you will protect them from the Hindutva forces and hope they might vote for you. At the same time, it can be dangerous if you try to bring a lot of development in the minority dominated areas as this would mean land occupations for roads, building, and schools instead of madrases etc.. It might be popular among few, but the masses would not like it. Always stay away from such controversies in the minority dominated areas. Moreover, educating them might harm you in the long run, as you might not be able to use them as vote banks.
A gullible disciple: What are the advantages of being a secular politician?
Mr. secular Indian: Numerous! Firstly, it negates several ills. You can be a gangster, a rapist or a murderer and you can still be called a good politician with an honest ideology if you are secular. You will be acceptable to all the secular parties and will never be treated as an untouchable in politics. Moreover, if you have any criminal cases or CBI cases pending against you, just lend support to a secular party at the centre and be rest assured that all the CBI cases against you will be withdrawn. Another advantage is you can win elections without doing any public service. Look at all the states which are dominated by these secular parties. They do not have to do any public work or develop anything. These states continue to lag behind in all human development indices. They know that as long as they are secular, their chances of remaining in power are high.
A gullible disciple: How do I tackle riots which are so rampant in our society?
Mr. secular Indian: Wait until the riots have subsided, you need not mobilise any forces to tackle these riots. But make sure you put the entire blame on the hindutva forces for the riots. Also portray the BJP as an accomplice and be very vocal about it in the media. This will exonerate you from being complacent during the riots. Look at the Mumbai riots and Babri demolition for example. A secular government was at the centre on both these occasions. They even agreed to these events tacitly, if not directly involved and let nature take its own course. But they make sure even to this day that they blame the BJP for anything and everything that happened. I am sure they could have done something about it, but they opted not to. Instead, they used it to their advantage and portrayed the BJP as the only evil. This is a great example of how you can maintain your secular credentials by just blaming the BJP, even though you were involved yourself.
A gullible disciple: Can you tackle Jihadi terrorism and maintain your secular credentials?
Mr. secular Indian: You have to be very careful when talking about tackling Jihadi terrorism. This is a condition you should be able to mend to your advantage. You should oppose every law that asks for a strong action against Jihadis. This will win you a lot of secular votes. In fact, if anybody tries to condemn Jihadis, reply to them by talking about Hindutva terrorism and always portray Hindutva terrorism to be a greater threat than the Jihadis. Also, try to magnify every violent incident associated with the Hindutva forces and make them look bigger and more threatening than the Jihadis. You will be surprised to know how many hearts you will win.
A gullible disciple: Muslims are equally affected by Jihadi terrorism. What if they do not agree to our idea of being soft on terror?
Mr. secular Indian: You have to create a fear psychosis among the Muslims and tell them that the fight against Jihadis is actually a fight against Islam. Tell them all the stories about how young Muslims are being tortured in the name of this fight against the Jihadis and that this fight would only create more terrorists.
A gullible disciple: What if the majority community gets angry with us for being soft on terrorism?
Mr. secular Indian: You have to make sure that the majority community is not majority anymore by dividing them into multiple factions in the name of caste or regions or languages and so on. Then select some large but disenchanted groups among them and promise them greater opportunity in every field. Now you will be left with a select few smaller groups which will question you. This is where you have to work like a salesman and try to sell your idea of secularism. If they still question you, threaten them with thoughts that they might be tagged communal if they support the same ideas as those being supported by the BJP. This works wonderfully and helps people soften their stance on terrorism.
A gullible disciple: How can we deal with the symbols of worship and religion and still be secular?
Mr secular Indian: You do not have to worry about the symbols of a majority religion like Ram Sethu etc., but make sure you divide the majority community so much that they start believing that the artificial lines created by you are more important than their religious identity. If they still persist on retaining their identity, then tell them that they could be identified with the communal forces. This helps even hardliners change their stance. Then you can even talk about destroying those symbols to appease the secular forces. At the same time make sure you never do anything to dilute the sentiments of a minority community. Remember, this sentiment is your bread and butter. Your entire survival depends on the minorities retaining their religious identity.
A gullible disciple: How can we tackle the media?
Mr. secular Indian: The media will give you a red carpet welcome. Remember, Indian media is the mouth piece of secular forces. They have been either created by the secular forces or been made to buy our idea of secularism. They cannot exist in this country if they differ from our viewpoint. The fear psychosis we have created helps us to make the media dance to our tunes. When in any TV debates, you can score a lot of points by making anti BJP rhetorics. If you find yourself in any trouble, just raise the issue of Gujarat riots and portray Narendra Modi as a devil. You are sure to come out of any troubled situation.
A gullible disciple: If you are tagged as a communal, is there anything we can do to get back to the secular brigade?
Mr. secular Indian: This is very simple. It is like conversion from one religion to the other. The easier we make it, the more it boosts our strength. Even if you are in the communal alliance for sometime for your own political advantage, you can dump these communal forces whenever you feel they are redundant and join the secular brigade. Remember Naveen Patnaik. He was tagged communal and his party was called a principal architect of the Kandhmal violence by the Indian media and the secular forces alike. Though as soon as he dumped the BJP on the question of 'winnability', he became the poster boy for secularism and everything that happened in Kandhmal was portrayed as a BJP conspiracy. We made everyone believe that Naveen Patnaik was just having a difficult time dealing with them. Also remember Kalyan Singh, the principle architect of Babri demolition is now trying to jump into the secular bandwagon and the secular forces are trying every bit to find him a place in their bandwagon. You can perpetrate the most heinous communal crime, but you can be secular any time you renegade the BJP. Remember, BJP hatred is the core quality required to become secular and other factors do not matter as much.
I will stop here and hope all of you had a very good understanding of secularism. Now work hard on these principles and you will climb to great heights in your political career. We will discuss some other issues in the next class.
Bharat and India are not separate pieces of land. However, they are separate states of mind.
While India believes in the West,
Bharat reposes its trust in the ancient culture of the land.
While India looks towards the west for solutions,
Bharat looks within for solutions.
The Indian outlook is materialistic,
while the Bharathiya ethos views spirit as primary and believes in the spiritual approach.
While India believes in self-indulgence,
Bharat believes in sacrifices.
While India believes in individualism,
Bharat believes in family values.
The list seems to be endless.
It must be said that India has its birth in Macaulay's minutes.
Lord Macaulay – the man who designed the Indian education system said:
"Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully; we find it difficult to provide instruction to all. The effect of this education on Hindus is prodigious.
No Hindu who has received an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. It is my firm belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respected classes 30 years hence. And this will be effected without our efforts to proselytize; I heartily rejoice in the prospect'"
Today, the word Macaulay's children refers to the breed of Indians –
who are Indians in blood and colour but British in taste, morals and opinions.
During the British rule, there seem to have been two motives working in the minds of the rulers: plundering the wealth of this land and the 'white man's burden' of civilizing the natives (the term used by them to refer to all Indians).
While the plundering was done in the name of the trade, the de-indigenization of Bharat was achieved through Macaulay's education.
Both the culture shock and the plunder was equally brutal:
Perhaps many of us do not know that India was the richest land till the British came on the scene..
Whereas Britain's share in world exports before was only 9% as against India's share of 19% today our share is only 0.5%.
In the Round- table conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi in one of his speeches said, "The beautiful tree of education was cut down by you British. Therefore today India is far more illiterate than it was 100 years ago."
Immediately, Philip Hartog, who was a parliamentarian stood up and said,
"Mr.Gandhi, it is we who have educated the masses of India. And therefore you must take back your statement and apologise or prove it."
Gandhiji said he would prove it. But the debate did not continue for lack of time.
Later one of his followers, Shri Dharampal, went to the British museum and examined the reports and archives.
He published a book "The Beautiful Tree" where this matter has been discussed in great detail. By 1820, the British had already destroyed the financial resources that supported our educational system- a destruction that they had been carrying out for nearly twenty years. But still the Indians persisted in continuing with their system of education.
So, the British decided to find out the intricacies of this system.
Therefore a survey was ordered in 1822 and was conducted by the British district collectors.
In the survey it was found that
the Bengal presidency had 1 lakh village schools,
in Madras there was not a single village without a school,
in Bombay, if the village population was near 100, the village had a school.
Teachers as well as students of all castes were in these schools.
The Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers,
and the rest of the teachers in any district, came from other castes.
Further all children had their education in their mother tongue.
Losing roots means losing power:
How does a nation get weakened?
A nation gets weakened when the ignorance of the people about their own roots increases, or when they become ashamed of themselves or of their forefathers.
Actually that is where real regression of a nation starts.
A nation, which wants to forget about itself and imitate other nations, cannot redeem itself but is on the path of self-destruction.
The regression is there in our nation at present.
And if we truly do not want to weaken ourselves as a nation, we need to extricate our educational system out of its Macaulayian traits,
and obtain a fresh and untainted understanding of our ideals;
which have held us together as a nation for nearly ten thousand years.
Only when a nation progresses along its roots,
it truly advances.
Indigenous growth is better than imitation of the west any day.
