What's new

Temple remains found while levelling land in Ayodhya

Status
Not open for further replies.
Depends on where your grey area is tending towards.
And from where your grey area tends to?
If they grow stronger they can play the part of Sudeten Germans, alright. But if we Hindus in India grow stronger, in time these Muslim friends of the league type will have to play the part of German-Jews instead. We Hindus have taught the Shakas and the Huns already to play that part pretty well. So, it is no use bandying words till the test comes. The taste of the pudding is in its eating.
V D Savarkar, Hindutva ideologue, in Hindu Rashtra Darshan, 1949
 
.
A court case where one of the litigant is a mythical deity speaks more about the justice system than any judgement pronounced.

Might as well have included Donald Duck and Goofy.
Mythical or not, the truth came out on itself. The litigant parties accepted the truth..
This is post truth
 
.
Mythical or not, cametruthout on itself. The litigant parties accepted the truth..
This is post truth

Litigant parties accepted the judgement. That is different from accepting the truth.
 
. . .
Litigant parties accepted the judgement. That is different from accepting the truth.
Well, before coming to judgement part. Those litigant parties agreed to give away the claimed land if there is any evidence to prove the existence of a temple before on the very land, in supreme court. Obviously courts are not blind
 
. . . .
@Naofumi

From his criticism of the caste system to disapproval of Mahatma Gandhi’s views, Savarkar was far ahead of his times.

Everyone knows Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as the man who popularised the term ‘Hindutva’ through his treatise on the subject in 1923 while being lodged in the Ratnagiri prison, but few know about his thoughts and writings that were far ahead of his times.


Other than the historical bias against him, the fact that most of these are in Marathi and not translated has made them inaccessible to contemporary scholars and readers.


Despite being born in an orthodox and religious Chitpawan Brahmin community, right from childhood Savarkar despised the caste system. He developed close kinship with children from various castes and strata of society and also dined at their homes. He was among the few Brahmins of the time who took to sea-travel to London for his education, at a time when most members of his community forbade it due to the fear of a loss of caste.

Savarkar had no qualms about vegetarianism like several Brahmins of the time. In October 1906, he met young Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for the first time when the latter came to the India House in London where Savarkar and other revolutionaries lived. Savarkar was busy cooking his meals when Gandhi joined him to engage in a political discussion. Cutting him short, Savarkar asked him to first eat. Gandhi was quite horrified to see the Chitpawan Brahmin cooking prawns, and being a staunch vegetarian, he refused to partake.

Savarkar apparently mocked him and retorted, “Well, if you can not eat with us, how on earth are you going to work with us? Moreover…this is just boiled fish…while we want people who are ready to eat the British alive.” This was obviously not a great first meeting and their differences only widened with time.


As Savarkar’s political thoughts matured during his long years of incarceration, he penned poetic essays on the abhorrent practice of the caste system and untouchability and how these sapped into the very vitals of the nation.


Casteless India
Advocating a strong case for their total, complete and unconditional eradication at a time when these ideas were not yet a part of the political discourse popularised by either Gandhi or Ambedkar, he was the pioneer of a vision of a casteless India.

In his 1931 essay titled Seven Shackles of the Hindu Society, Savarkar said that heredity as a determinant of talent and intellect was erroneous and an individual’s environment was what shapes his character and conduct. Taking a radical stand against those scriptural injunctions, including the Manusmriti, that advocated caste, he said fossilising oneself to them was idiocy.

These scriptures that were often self-contradicting according to Savarkar were created by human beings and were relevant in a particular context and in a particular society. They need to evolve or be discarded as society moves ahead, he said. He viewed the caste system as an evil that splintered and disunited Hindu society, making it susceptible to attacks and conversions by other groups.


The seven fetters that he advocated a complete dismantling of were:

1. Vedoktabandi: Exclusivity of access to Vedic literature and rituals to only the Brahmin community.
2. Vyavasaayabandi: Choice of a profession an individual chooses must be entirely his and based on his aptitude and capability and not on one’s birth.
3. Sparshabandi: Untouchability that he considered a sin and a blot on society.
4. Samudrabandi: Loss of caste on foreign travel or crossing the seas.
5. Shuddhibandi: Disallowing reconversions to Hinduism. “I have nothing,” he said, “against those who convert to another faith by sheer conviction. But such examples are rare. Why should we not allow the enhancement of our (Hindu) numbers due to some antiquated idea that does not even have any scriptural sanction that we cannot convert to Hinduism?”
6. Rotibandi: Prohibition on inter-caste dining.
7. Betibandi: Prohibition on inter-caste marriage.

Social reform
Calling for a reinterpretation of the chaturvarna or four varna system based on Lord Krishna’s assertion in the Bhagwad Gita that it was He who created the four varnas, Savarkar writes, “Different human beings have different qualities and virtues. All that Lord Krishna is saying is I create human beings who are different in nature, character, virtues and values — yet, good or bad, they are all my creation alone. Nowhere in this declaration does he state that I also make those virtues hereditary for the person’s successive generations… We are all shudras at birth. As life progresses, we attain qualities, education, and virtues to graduate to various levels of consciousness and thinking — that is the fundamental concept behind the four varna system.” Savarkar asserted strongly that the varna system was not part of Sanatan Dharma. “Sanatan are those lofty ideals and beliefs.” he said, “that predate time and are indestructible…whereas social practices such as caste system, opposition to widow remarriage or vegetarianism are man-made social practices and rituals that can easily be dismantled depending on the needs of the society.”

To further these beliefs, Savarkar advocated social reforms on a large scale during his incarceration in Ratnagiri from 1924 to 1937. Among his measures that earned the ire of the local Brahmin community were the advocacy of large scale inter-caste dining and the establishment of a Patit Pavan (literally meaning the protector of the fallen) temple that allowed entry to members of all castes for community prayers.

Cow worship
Savarkar held radical views even on matters such as cow-worship. He wrote, “Animals such as the cow and buffalo and trees such as banyan and peepal are useful to man, hence we are fond of them; to that extent we might even consider them worthy of worship. Their protection, sustenance and well-being is our duty, in that sense alone it is also our dharma!”

At the same time, he cautioned that if the “animal or tree becomes a source of trouble to mankind, it ceases to be worthy of sustenance or protection and as such its destruction is in humanitarian or national interests and becomes a human or national dharma. When humanitarian interests are not served and in fact harmed by the cow and when humanism is shamed, self-defeating extreme cow protection should be rejected.”

An appropriate advice in these times of cow-vigilantism leading to instant mob-justice and lynching.

He also asserted that while he held the cow as a “beautiful creature”, protecting it and not worshipping it as a goddess was his belief. Elevating an animal that eats garbage and sits in its own excreta to the position of a goddess, even as society disrespected scholars like Ambedkar and Chokha Mela due to their supposed low-caste, was “insulting both humanity and divinity”, Savarkar said.

We become the God we worship and hence Hindutva’s icon should be the Narasimha or fierce man-lion and not the docile cow, wrote Savarkar.

Savarkar concludes the essay saying, “I am no enemy of the cow. I have only criticized the false notions and tendencies involved in cow worship with the aim of removing the chaff and preserving the essence so that genuine cow protection may be better achieved. Without spreading religious superstition, let the movement for cow protection be based and popularized on clear-cut economic and scientific principles. A worshipful attitude is undoubtedly necessary for protection. But it is improper to forget the duty of cow protection and indulge only in worship.”

Just like he gave a call to the Hindu community to give up these superstitions, he exhorted the Muslims too to reform themselves with time and “abandon the belief that not even a word in the Quran can be questioned because it is the eternal message of God, even as you maintain respect for the Quran.”

Elaborating, Savarkar said that the norms that seemed feasible to an oppressed but backward people in Arabia at a time of civil strife could not be accepted as an eternal way of life. The Muslims must “accept the habit of sticking to only that, which is relevant in the modern age,” he said.

The rationalist
An undying rationalist who relied on logic and scientific temper, Savarkar decried Gandhi’s attempt to attribute the devastating earthquake in Bihar in 1934 to God’s curse on Indians for practicing untouchability.

“It is our misfortune in India,” he said, “that even someone as influential as Gandhi ji invokes his “inner voice” to attribute the recent massive Bihar earthquake as God’s punishment for the barbaric caste system! I still wait to hear what the Mahatma’s inner voice will tell us about why Quetta was rocked by an earthquake!”

A staunch advocate of a capitalist, market-driven, mechanised society, Savarkar wrote as early as in the 1930s about scientific temper alone being the foundation of a modern and prosperous India.

“It is through science, modern thoughts and industrialization and not by spinning wheels,” he held, “that we can ensure that every man and woman in India will have a job to do, food to eat, clothes to wear and a happy life to lead.”

His views that were radical and far ahead of his times caused friction even within members of the Hindutva fold, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that held more orthodox views on such matters. This was possibly why Savarkar stayed away from the RSS, even though his elder brother Ganesh Damodar was among the founding members of the Sangh, along with K.B. Hedgewar.

A retrospective unbiased and clinical analysis of Savarkar’s writings on society, science, economy and foreign affairs show how so many of his predictions eventually turned out to be true. If the timelessness and relevance of a leader’s thoughts are the litmus of his greatness, Savarkar certainly was one.

https://theprint.in/opinion/savarka...oked-prawns-and-didnt-worship-the-cow/161016/
 
.
Well, before coming to judgement part. Those litigant parties agreed to give away the claimed land if there is any evidence to prove the existence of a temple before on the very land, in supreme court. Obviously courts are not blind

I am sure you are delighted with the judgement, but find it hollow, hence the effort to convince us otherwise.

The only undisputed fact about the case is that a Mosque was razed in 1992.
 
.
@Naofumi

Just to let you know, I'm not absolving Savarkar of his wrongs. I'm just asking people to look at the other side of things.
 
. . .
Why wud u think otherwise. :D
I n many others wud appreciate it if u take the trouble.
Why Rss, how RSS.The origins

Certainly, dear fellow.

The RSS strangely enough started with a branch of the Congress activism, with the organisation and activities of the Bengal terrorists, and the ideas of Savarkar who was influenced by European fascist and racist thinking of the period between the two world wars. Their founder, Hedgewar, was sent to study medicine in Calcutta by his mentor, a follower of Tilak. A quick word of context: Gokhale, Jinnah's mentor in the Congress, was a member of the Moderate faction; Tilak was an Extremist. The terms referred to the approach to advocating change to the British administration; the Moderates were not willing to go down any activism that involved violence or a direct challenge to the forces of law and order, on a point of principle. The Extremists were willing to do whatever it took to challenge the British.

So Hedgewar, through Moonje, his Congress mentor, went to Bengal, and soon got to know the principles and organisation of the Anushilan Samiti, one of the two Bengal terrorist groups. He used these methods in forming the RSS when he founded it in 1925. This was the second theme in the foundation of the RSS.

At this point, however, it was still a protest without a cause. If it was to have been Extremist Congress politics, Hedgewar might as well have joined the Congress Party. If it was to have been terrorism, he could have founded terrorist cells (he did, or rather, the RSS did, but in an entirely different context). It was neither of these. Instead, he was influenced by the writings of Savarkar, who thought that Hindus and Muslims and Christians were different nations, and could never share a political vision, because the Hindus had no loyalty except to India, Bharat Mata, and the Muslims and Christians had very obvious extra-territorial loyalties, mainly the holy cities of the middle east. Savarkar wrote that all who were loyal to Bharat Mata were the true inheritors of the land, and their composite culture, unalloyed by foreign culture (the Muslims and the Christians), was the essential culture of the land. This was the concept of Hindutva - 'Hinduness' - and it had nothing to do with religion; Savarkar himself was an atheist.

Hedgewar decided that an organisation was needed to reinstil the principles of Savarkar's line of thinking into Hindu youth - no one else qualified at that time - and he set up the RSS. Essentially, what it did was to parade in uniform, in the belief that parading in uniform would create martial valour in the hearts and minds of the paraders. It took up drilling with lathis. It had classes where the young people who joined the parades were sent through a catechism - how it would have irked Hedgewar to think that he was using a learning mechanism perfected by the Catholic Church. It had pracharaks who were responsible for setting up branches - shakhas - all over India, and the number of branches spread rapidly.

This is not the place for a detailed history of the RSS. Let me conclude by saying that the RSS did not oppose the British; that was not the point, reviving Hindu moral courage was the point. This underlying objective is the reason why the RSS and its political wing, the BJP, are always on the defensive, and always adopting victimhood. As far as Gandhi was concerned, he was hugely suspect in the eyes of the Hindu Mahasabha, the organisation run by Savarkar and his lackey, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, for being 'soft' on Muslims. The RSS was initially neutral, but soon developed an Islamophobic streak, parading with Ganesha with beaten drums in front of mosques, and that sort of thing; it was neutral to the British, since fighting for freedom was a distraction from the holy task of re-building the Hindu as a brave and dauntless community. It was hostile to partition; far from delivering Bharat Mata from the interloping Muslim, partition was actually giving away a slice of the mother to the foreigner.

The rest you have to read up on your own.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom