Karnataka debates whether to teach The Gita in schools..

The topic introduced was compulsory teaching of Geeta in schools. But people are discussing the merits and demerits of Geeta and all, which were not the topic.

Mohammed Imtiaz: says:

“Can I force students of other religions or community to read the Quran compulsorily?"

I beg to differ with you Mr. Imtiaz. You cannot ask even the Muslims to read the Quran compulsorily. In matters of religion no one can be compelled unlike what the Taliban does.

Mohanakumaran asks: “Can any body think of any thing non-scientific in 'Gita'?”

.

 I am giving below a slokam from the Geeta:

अन्नाद भवन्ति भूतानि पर्जन्यात अन्नसंभव:

यज्ञात भवन्ति पर्जन्यो यज्ञ: कर्मसमुद्भव

Creatures are created from food – correct

Food materials are created by rain – partially correct.

We perform yagnas get rains – is that so?

And yajnas are karma – no comments.

What the sloka wants to say is that everyone should work and contribute to the economy. No one can dispute that. But is the example scientific?

As regards inter-caste marriage these are the views recorded in the Geeta.

संकरो नरकायैव कुलाघ्नानाम कुलास्यच: 

पतन्ति पितारोत्येषाम लुप्तापीन्ड़ोदकाक्रिया    

The ancestors of the person who marries outside his caste fall into hell, as they do not get the benefit of rituals performed for the dead.

The above are words of Arjuna and not Lord Krishna. But generally what the characters speak in a play by Shakespeare or Kalidasa are taken as the words of the author himself. Generally they are considered as words of wisdom, which the authors wanted to convey to the general public. Thus the above can be considered to be the words of Veda Vyasa. 

That takes me to the presentations of Mr. Kabeera and Mr. Zeeshan Ali. It looks as though they sat together and wrote them. Anyway it simplifies my task. I can answer them together.  Shakesphere and Kalidasa are considered great because of the words of wisdom contained in their works, which were spoken through their characters. When Amitabh Bachan or Shah Rukh Khan acts as characters in cinemas, whereas Bachan and Khan are real, the characters they represent are only imaginary.

What was the origin of Panchatantra? They were supposed to be stories told to two princes, by their Guru to prepare them for the world and to rule it. I ask Mr. Kabeera and Mr. Zeeshan Ali “Have you heard Aesop Fables?” They are also only imaginary animal stories carrying messages. If one says that another is following a “Dog in the manger” policy, the person, who hears that, will immediately understand, if he had read Aesop Fables or at least he had occasion to hear that phrase many times. If a scientist or other person discovers something by accident and it becomes a useful invention, it would be called Serendipity. The word is from a story in the Arabian Nights, again imaginary stories. A prince happens to land in Serendip (modern Sri Lank) and there he finds many good things just by chance.  I can go on writing many things here. In short I say “to dismiss imaginary stories”, only displays ignorance. The imaginary stories either educate us or entertain us. Anyway those who are capable of imagination only can write imaginary stories.  

One slokam often quoted by the critics of the Geeta is “चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं “. “The four castes are created by me”.Our Constitution claims not to support that.  But actually it has turned it upside down. Originally the Constitution provided for special considerations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, despite the equality under the Constitution, for a limited number of years, 15 years. The idea was that, having been denied opportunities for centuries, they would need a hand of support to compete with other castes under conditions of strict equality of opportunities. The provision was for a limited period because such unequal treatment should not cotinues for all times to come. The special provisions should be reviewed periodically and discontinued, if the lower castes had really come up. Later vested  interests made it a permanent feature giving a body blow to the concept of equality under the Constitution. As though that was not enough the Constitution was further amended to include Other Backward Classes (OBC’s) for special consideration. This kind of reverse discrimination acquired respectability and a new name “Social Justice”.

After the adoption of the Constitution the first General Elections were held in 1952. Elections were a long drawn affair during those days. Before independence there was Muslim League in India demanding Pakistan. But in 1947 Muslim League, so to say, vanished from India. But after the elections were declared in 1951, the Muslim League reappeared in Kerala. Jawaharlal Nehru addressed a mammoth crowd in November, 1951 at Island Grounds in Chennai. Referring to the re-formation of  Muslim League in Malabar, Nehru remarked “Muslims of Madras (Malabar was a part of Madras Presidency then) lacked  intelligence. Years passed by. Five years after the first General Elections, the second general elections were held in 1957. Kerala State comprising Malabar, Cochin and Travancore had been formed in 1956. In the elections the Communist Party under EMS Namboothiripad was voted to power. America was in mortal fear of Communism during those days. Instigated by the CIA, religious groups comprising Christians and to a lesser extent Muslims started an agitation against the Communist Government. It lead to an excuse for the Central Government to dismiss the Namboothiripad Government. Then elections were held and Muslim League was an ally of the Indian National Congress. The Congress combine won the elections. During that time a film titles “Crowning Experience” was made in America. The film first showed how the blacks were getting misled in America and the agitation against the Namboothiripad Government. Nehru and Indira Gandhi, then Congress President, declared that Muslim League was not a communal party. Hypocrisy was complete. Now who lacked intelligence, Nehru or the Muslims of Madras? Later when Namboothiripad again came to power, he also started appeasing Muslims. They demanded a Muslim majority district, the Malappuram District. Namboothripad in turn declared Muslim League was not a communal party and granted them the district.

We were children in 1942, when Quit India movement was raging all over India. We used to shout Bharat Mata Ki Jai, Mahatma Gandhi Ki Jai etc.. We would ask others also to shout the same slogans. There was an old woman, mother of a labourer, who was working in the factory, where my father was Engineer. We used to tell her also to shout Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai. But however much we may say, she would stoutly refuse. Her son told us that she suffered much during the Moplah Rebellion in the early nineteen-twenties. She believed that Mahatma Gandhi instigated the Muslims. And there was indeed a connection between Mahatma Gandhi and the rebellion. After the World War I, the Khalif in Turkey was deposed by the allies. The Muslims in India got enraged and started the Khilafat movement against the British. Mahatma Gandhi utilized the opportunity and made common cause with the Ali Brothers, Mohammad Ali and Showkat Ali. An echo of that was the Moplah rebellion in Kerala. People say that the Great Mahatma always said that the means should be as pure as the end. What happened to that ideal? What was the connection between Khilafat and India’s Independence?

During the time of Rajiv Gandhi, there was the Shabanoo case. Muslims revolted saying that the court was anti-shariat. They held rallies and burned the Constitution, the SECULAR DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION OF KABEERA.  I ask, can anyone dare to burn the Constitution of India in India? Instead of taking action against those who burned the secular Constitution, Rajiv Gandhi decided to amend the secular Constitution. With his then brute majority in the Parliament, he amended the Constitution to appease the Muslims.

When I heard the story of Zeeshan Ali, I wondered how was it that the Rajiv Gandhi amendment of the Constitution did not go to his rescue? The Shah Banoo case was application of Cr. P. C.127 to help a Muslim woman. That provision in Cr. P. C. is still there, amendment to Constitution notwithstanding and it is still applicable to Muslims too. Shariat doesn’t protect Muslim men against Cr.P.C.127, IPC 498A or the DV Act.

Years ago, USA supported Pakistan and the Taliban against the Soviet Union. Then the Soviet Union collapsed on its own, even without the efforts of America. The US abandoned Afghanistan. Then 9/11 happened and Taliban and Al Qeida became enemy no. 1 of USA. Afghanistan was bombed and the Taliban was routed. With the Northern Alliance and others a new democratic government under Hamid Karzai was formed. And what was its name? THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN. If in a country even if 100% of the people are Muslims, how can it become an Islamic Republic.  

Mr. Kushan Vyas has reproduced Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1966

Article 18

 Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his own choice and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Does this declaration support Islamic Republics?  Are not all member nations of UN , including the so called Islamic countries, bound by this declaration? Republic means Respond to the Public. In other words, the rulers should respond to the public and not the other way. Responding to the public doen’t mean thrusting Islam on people whether they  are Muslims or non-Muslims. There is a body called Organization of Islamic Countries. Why there should be such an organization? Shamelessly Indira Gandhi sent a Muslim as India’s representative to the Islamic Conference. He was not even admitted to the venue.

India was winning the war in Kashmir and in another 2 or 3 days they would have taken the so called Azad Kashmir also. But with good faith in the noble ideals of the UN, India went to that body. The Security Council ordered a cease fire and everything got frozen till today.

I want to ask the secularists, are secularism and Universal Declaration of Human Rights only for India and Indian Muslims? Are they not applicable to all member nations? Why don’t they raise their voice against other theocratic countries? They will reply that they are the internal affairs of those countries. Let them be their internal affairs. But they should be expelled from the UN.

Can one of the secular persons explain to me why in Secular India, Haj Pilgrims should be given subsidy? Government then got a bright idea. In order to be even, the Government started a scheme of giving subsidy to Hindu pilgrims going to Manasarovar also.

The secessionists and the so called freedom fighters of Kashmir say that they are fighting a jihad. Why not the Government tell Pakistan that jihad has no place under the UN charter? Secularism is not for India only. It is for the whole world. Secularism is inalienably linked to human rights. 

In Bosnia and Chechniya what are the problems? They want Islamic States though there are non-Muslims also there.. USA is supporting Chechniya against Russia. That much for the Secular credentials of USA.

On August 10, 1947 Jinnah addressed the Constituant Assembly of Pakistan. He declared that  Muslims, Hindus, Christians and all will be equal in Pakistan and religion will purely be a matter of  personal belief. No body in Pakistan cared to listen to Jinnah. Soon after August 14th Muslims entered Hindu homes, evicted them and also raped their womenfolk. Just before independence the Hindu population of Pakistan was 35%. Now hardly there is any Hindu left there.

Decades later Lal Kishan Advani went to Karachi. Addressing a Pakistani audience he exhorted them to think and act secular, just like the people of India. In support of his exhortation he quoted of Jinnah’s August 10, 1947 speech. When exhorting the people of Pakistan to think and behave in a particular way, whom else should Advani have quoted? Mahatma Gandhi? Newspapers in India reported half-truths. “Advani declared on Pakistani soil that Jinnah was secular”. Who else in India or for that matter in the world, would dare to tell Pakistanis on Pakistani soil to think and act secular?

I say, even in India the burden of being secular is more on Muslims than on Hindus. I have travelled widely all over the world. In conferences when I meet others, often they say, India is a Hindu fanatic country. If I rebut that, they would quote the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and later Rajiv Gandhi. What can I answer? Now they will quote Rahul Gandhi also.

Someone wrote here about Pragya Singh, Assemanand and their group. Rahul Gandhi is reported to have told an American diplomat that Hindu terrorism was more dangerous to India than Islamic terrorism. How many of you agree with that?  I say that Hindus are the most tolerant and secular people in the world. Is there anyone here to deny that? Prof: JBS Haldane was a noted British scientist. He did experiments on his own body and did chemical engineering calculations for the various functions of the body. He was an atheist. He became a Hindu, migrated to India and lived in Orissa. The reason he said was, that in Hinduism only, one has freedom of thought and even an atheist can be a Hindu.

There are some Hindus who think that we should retaliate in kind, for what Taliban is doing. When there are millions of people there will be some cranks also among them. The Karnataka minister is one like that.

I do not think that our Constitution is fully secular. If it were really secular, why it declares ban on cow slaughter as one of its aims. Some say it is Ahimsa. Then Ahimsa should be applicable to all animals. Hindus say that the cow is their mother because they drink her milk. India is now the largest producer of milk in the World. What milk does India produce? Buffalo’s milk. So rather than the cow, the buffalo is our mother. Cow is the mother of Americans.

Someone said that Religions are necessary so that people will have a moral code of conduct. Do they mean that all religious people have good morals and all atheists have no morals? It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good human being. Gowthama Buddha was preaching his precepts and many were following him. Then one person went and asked him “Why do you not say anything about God? Does God exist according to you? Only if you answer my questions, I will join you.” Thathagatha’s reply was like this. “I did not ask you to join my path. If a person goes in search of answer to your question, he will only die without finding the answer. And it is not necessary to know the answer either. A man is lying there mortally wounded by an arrow. Another person rushes to him, tries to remove the arrow and apply medicine to heal his wound. The injured man replies “No do not remove the arrow. First find out who was the person, who shot the arrow and what is his caste. Only after that you can heal me.” “If the injured man persists that way, he will only die without knowing who shot arrow.” The Buddha also preached the concept of Anatma, which meant that there was nothing called Atma or a soul. No one will say Buddhism does not make a person a good person. However, after the death of the Buddha, the concept of “Atma” crept into the religion. Jataka tales are supposed to be stories of Buddha in his previous births. If there was no Atma, how could there have been punarjanma?

The departure from Buddha’s teachings made Buddhism a violent religion. In Sri Lanka the conflict is not between Sinhalese and Tamils. It is between fanatic Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Buddhist Bikkus are very violent. Husband of Sirimavo Bhandarnaike and father of Chandrika Kumaratunga was assassinated by a Buddhist Bikku in 1959.

Mr. Kabeera says that India should not be called Hindustan. Our Constitution states “India, that is Bharat”. Probably he wants to rename it as India that was Bharat. The countries to the North-West and North of India are all Sthan countries. There are Waziristan, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazhakstan, Uzbekistan etc. Thus India was Hindustan. Another name for India is Hind and the language of North India is called Hindi. I say we should abandon the name Hindi and call the language ‘Indian’. Every name including India is derived from the word Hindu only. In original Tamil the letter ‘h’ was not there Even now in Tamilnadu Hindus are referred to as Indus. There is a Hindu organisation called Indukkal Munnani. There is newspaper called ‘The Hindu’ from Chennai. Currently Mr. Ram, a Marxist is its editor. I do not know why he has not changed the name of the paper.Why should we abandon the word Hindustan? People other than Hindus are most welcome to stay in India and they will have the same rights as the Hindus. But that doesn’t mean that we should abandon a name that denotes a great culture.

सारे जगहसे अछा हिन्दूसीतां हमारा 

हम बुलबुले है इसकी यह गूलसीतां हमारा हमारा

What a beautiful song? Even an idiot will get inspired by this couplet. Does Kabeera know who composed this?  It was Mohammad Iqbal.

We had once a meeting of Malayalees. The subject was  “the status of women in India”. There were many Christian women in the group. One Christian lady spoke first. It so happened that she talked about the status of women in Hindu mythology, about, Sita, Ahalya, Draupati and all. After that a gentleman spoke. He said that monogamy was a virtue and prostitution was a sin only in Christianity. The Christian ladies mistook that the gentleman said so, because the lady who spoke earlier was a Christian. Immediately all of them in unison shouted “we are all Hindu Christians” and it was a fact. Many Hindu fanatics think that non-Hindus in India neither know nor respect Hindu History.. Hindutva is there in every converted Hindu. When BJP said that, the media distorted. Hindutva now is a communal and derisive term.

Kabeera says that BJP is not able to come to power because they do not have national acceptance. India has an overwhelming majority of Hindus. If Hindus had voted like Muslims, BJP would have come to power long ago. Jan Sangh, the predecessor of BJP was formed just before the first General Elections. It is the political arm of the RSS. Around 1952 and a little later Shyama Prasad Mukherjee the founder of Jan Sangh was the only MP in the Parliament. During those days the spell of Gandhi and Nehru ruled on the people and parties like Hindu Mahasabha and Ram Rajya Parshad never got a single seat. BJP was untouchable for all the other parties. Gradually the hold of the Congress started waning election after election. Nehru died in 1964. But the spell of the Nehru dynasty continued until the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. After that Mr. Narasimha Rao could form a Government only with the help of other parties. After Narasimha Rao’s tenure, things became even more difficult. A significant development was many non-Congress, non-Communist parties were willing to do business with BJP. They did not any more consider the BJP as untouchable. After the 13 day Government and after the third alliance formed Government and fell, Mr. Vajpayee formed the NDA and formed a Government with a wafer-thin majority. Such a coalition could not last long and in the next year itself the Government fell. But in the ensuing General Elections, the NDA got a comfortable majority and ruled for 5 years.

Why the BJP finds it difficult to get votes? It is not because of its “communal” ideals Mr. Kabeera. The bulk of Hindus, comprising the OBC’s and the dalits do not get much inspiration from Gita, Upanishads and other Hindu scripttures. They think that the Hindu scripttures were created to exploit them. It was also true to a large extent. But they are also highly caste conscious. An alibi for castism is “Social Justice”. SP and BSP of Uttar Pradesh, DMK, ADMK, PMK etc. of Tamilnadu are rank casteist parties. They shamelessly promote their own castes. Is not casteism  also communalism?. But no one calls them communal, because of vote bank politics.

Linguistic communalism is the most dangerous of all. Languages by their very nature are confined to regions. If linguistic fanaticism takes over and India splits into a number of countries, America and China will be controlling those countries just as Pakistan is now controlled.

No one can lose Indian nationality because one does not have regard for Hindu culture. Neither can anyone lose his nationality because he believes in Islam, Christianity or any other religion. Patriotism cannot be a pre-condition either. But that does not mean that Hinduism can be the whipping boy for every non-Hindu and “Secular” Hindu.

Clerics of Islam and Christianity (especially foreign missionaries) preach contempt for Hinduism from within the four walls of the mosque or the church. Most Muslims are very pious and go to the mosque every Friday. Many Christians, especially Catholics attend the Church every Sunday.

Foreign missionaries target illiterate Adivasies and Dalits only. They say that they want to serve the poor. But the real reason is that they are soft targets for conversion. They convert one person in a family and try to use him for converting other members. If he does not succeed, it results in break-up of the family and consequent heart-burn. The Nagaland problem was created by foreign missionaries. The Nagas say that Christianity is their State Religion and India is not their country. Do we want to create many Nagalands?

For those who had the patience to read this, I say, “thank you”.