Transcript: Arun Shourie's Lecture on 'Indra's Net'

Credits

Sankhadip Das for coming up with the idea of transcribing Arun Shourie's main talk, writing the first draft, and sharing it with the forum. Others in the forum and then the HHG team have reviewed the material, which has gone through additional hours of editing. There remain tiny sections where the audio is unclear. We have highlighted certain key passages. The Youtube video is embedded at the end of this post. If a keen ear can spot key missing words, please add a comment and we will update the post.
[March 5: minor transcription updates]

Introduction

Arun Shourie delivered a thought-provoking and witty lecture on January 29, 2014 at the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF-India) meet in New Delhi, while releasing Rajiv Malhotra's new book 'Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity'. The written word is powerful and often remains embedded in our memory longer than the same information received by listening to a lecture. We hope this transcript will complement and amplify the experience of listening to Arun Shourie ji's video lecture on 'Indra's Net'.

[begin transcription]

Dear Friends, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra:

Just few days ago, I got a telephone call saying that “I would like to speak to Mr.Arun Shourie and I am Rajiv Malhotra speaking.” I said “How can I recognize you? You have to say I am The Rajiv Malhotra speaking.” [applause and laughter in the audience]

As in his earlier books, the three books, so also in this one, Rajiv has given us a pair of spectacles, a new pair of spectacles through which to understand, through which to see our own religions and our own tradition. He has done this with meticulous scholarship and with as much force, he has smashed the distorted lenses which were fabricated by so called scholars abroad and here and through which to our shame we had been seeing our religion and our tradition. So, it is a dual contribution he has made. And of course the book is full of facts, the book is full of documentation, but even more so it is suffused with very important argumentation. It is not citation mongering, just quotations from here and there or just alleging conspiracy theories. It is an argument that he gives us as to why it is that certain propositions which you and I may have taken innocently as just the findings of a scholar, why that proposition is being advanced.

For instance, why is it that the church is afraid of the notion of immanence. Most of us would not have thought about it, but he gives us a deep reason as to why this is like this.

Second is his plain speaking, because many scholars say things in convoluted ways. Very often they say it in such a soft way because they are still looking for careers or acclaim in the very circles that need to be exposed. Rajiv told me that his formulae, his attitude in this matter was, that what we do must be, to use this word ‘unignorable’. It is a wonderful word. But that does not mean abuse, that does not mean just a sort of torrent of strong words. It means that the kind of scholarship and documentation which he has provided.

And, third point about him before I get to the book, is why he is an example to us; that he is truly independent. He is not dependent on any institution, he is not dependent on acclaim from an audience. So, that true independence of an individual scholar is an example which we should always bear in mind because too often in India I found, as I had occasion to mention here, earlier on this very thing, and the last time you were kind enough to call me, [that] too many of us look for institutional purchase from which to do some work. But great work has been done, has been done by individual scholars working absolutely alone, unaided often unrecognized; on both sides. If you see [Kosambi]’s work on one side or if you see [P. V. Kane]'s work on the other side. So, we should take heart and follow the example of a person like him who labouring alone has been able to…

I know from scholars in the West that they are apprehensive if he walks into a room, in a conference on philosophy or religion or on Indic studies in the West. So, this book shows how tendentious his scholarship has been. 

Mr. Doval was just recounting some of these things but really he… if I may use the word, he shows that the scholars have really been sort of missionaries in mufti and how they have been insinuating certain notions in us, sowing the seed of that tree which will keep changing, but their tree also keeps changing in this way. And he documents the lengths to which they will go, if I may just read one passage. One of the chapters is devoted to a very famous scholar from whom,… who is very well cited in India by Indian scholars, Paul Hacker, and Rajiv tells us that when his collected writings were being published to mark his 65^th birthday. These were most... many of his writings were on India, Indian religion, Hinduism and so on. I’m quoting he says that “acting on Hacker’s wishes, the editor of his collected works excluded the author’s polemical Christian writings from the compilation”. I have found the same thing in the case of Max Muller. If we see the four volumes of his letters…It’s called Sparks from the Smithy's or something [like that], those writings are just not known in India, but they set out a clear agenda and their hope in Brahmo Samaj as how it will be the lever by which India would be converted and their great disappointment when the very person on whom they were relying, went to Shri Ramakrishna Ji, and Ramakrishnaji changed him and he became a follower of Ramakrishnaji.

So, Rajiv documents their tendentious scholarship and the lengths to which they will go. He documents so well the echo effect that they create.

Woh kuch likhenge, yahan quote hoga, kyunki ab Indians bhi wohi kehe rahe hai, ya Hindu scholars bhi wohi kehe rahe hain, to woh Hindu scholar ko quote kar kar apni cheez ko aur bhi reinforce kar lete hain.

And much of it turns on definitions. They will define a religion as something and thereby say, as Doval was, sort of reminding us, that Hinduism is not a religion as it has no central authority, no book, no prophet.

Hamhari khasiyat hi yehi hai ki yey nehi hai. Kumbh mela hai, kisne start kiya hai, kaun uske piche hota hai. Pata nahin kitne 3 crores sey 10 crores log aa jate hain [Sabarimala mein 3 million go] or these kavadiyars.

Nobody knows who has started the yatra, nobody knows who organizes it and yet it continues and nobody has been able to erase it. Now for somebody to define a religion as one that must have central authority, director, an authority sort of Supreme Court, which can pronounce something is right or not right, then you say that this is not a religion. But then you are surprised that it continues. Then you have to say, no but it does not continue, it is not there, it is something new, which is being created. This used to be the same thing till even the 1970s, that India was actually not a nation. The nation was also being defined in same way that which is one race or one language or one religion or a contiguous territory and then it turned out that none of those things helped many other countries at all. So, Rajiv does this.

They can not comprehend and if I may quote a Western scholar whom Rajiv talks so well and about whom also I am sure he would have many things to educate us with . But Diane Eck in her wonderful work on ‘Pilgrimages of India’, she uses a sentence which is incomprehensible to many of the scholars. She says that India has been defined not by the writs and edicts of its Kings but by the foot falls of its pilgrims. Basically India was never united. Itne kingdoms the [Hindi], but, have you ever heard of a pilgrims procession being stopped at any border within it and those who are inside the tradition? Gandhiji, Ramakrishna Paramahansa soch bhi nahi sakte they ki aisa question [koi] puchega. Gandhiji ko dekh lijiye, Vinobha ko dekh lijiye unko – those who are steeped in the tradition, Vivekananda, they could see the essential unity and it is just the outsider who sees only the difference and in this Rajiv so well documents their double standards. You see the animosities among Christians sects, these Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. But Christianity, remains a religion, Islam, remains a religion, magar hamare yahan (in our case), when there is difference of opinion on things which are essentially unknowable, say between different ‘Sampradayas’ or between a ritual then, aise dekha nahin, ek religion hi nahi (this is not religion).

Achha ek taraf hai ki ek religion nahi hai, there is nothing like Hinduism magar agar ek inscription apko mil geyi jismey ki aap infer kar sakte ho jo inscription mein nahin likha kyunki kisine kise local sect nay, kisi local jain temple ko appropriate kar diya toh aapne to dekha nehi.

Hinduism is so intolerant that it took away the temples of the Jains; a religion which did not exist till just now! [laughter in the audience]. I’ve documented this in the case of many of these Marxist historians. Similarly Rajiv so correctly points out, this whole notion that of boundaries, boundaries between religions: that. these in our case are permeable. I mention here an example from a survey in Japan, in 1985. Writers have written, there is a book on this. People were asked what is your religion. So, 95% of them said we are Shinto, 76% of them said we are Buddhists. It couldn't be: because it was no different for them. It was completely Judaic, Christian, Islamic notion that you can either belong to this or to that. We are Hindus, many of the people, persons like me, all my reading is Buddhist, many of my practices would be from teaching of the Buddha but nobody would say that I am less of a Hindu or more of a Buddhist or vice versa and actually this notion was fomented in India and the first time this happened is in the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Act. In that Act, ‘Who is a Sikh’ is defined. ‘Who is a Sikh’ – He who believes in the Granth Saheb, He who believes in the Ten Gurus. Most of us could be Sikhs from that point of view, therefore a new clause was added "..and who does not belong to any other religion". You and I may think it is just an administrative thing, but that seed is sown in 1925 and you see it in the agitations of Bhindranwale and others much later... as to what happens when these seeds come into being. And as Doval was just saying one of the essential things about that scholarship was that and…Rajiv does a wonderful job of documenting this that we can not do anything right. You see if we remain as we were, let us say we keep sacrificing animals, then we are fossilized. Hinduism is uncreative. If people come along and say no,no, sacrifice does not mean sacrifice of animals, it does not even mean sacrifice of your material assets alone, it means the sacrifice of your ego. That is Gandhiji’s Anashakti Yoga. Then…Neo Hinduism! This was never there. [laughter in the audience]. And as Rajiv points out that every Christian theology has actually been inventing a Neo Christianity, but nobody says that. So, if Vivekananda reformulates things so that it is relevant to the time, then he is just inventing. If they do something it is creative, it is renaissance, it is reformation.

Doval saheb, burah nehi manenge, hamare senior log, burah nehi manenge, mera ek bihari dost ney muje ek muhawara unka bataya. woh kehte hai ki – ‘woh kare to chamatkar aur hum kare to balatkar’. yeh joh cheezein hay ~ not fair. [huge laughter in the audience]
 

Not only that you see, there are contemporary accounts. We have one of the best people I know, knowledgeable on Islam and Islamic history or history of Islamic rule. Islamic historians, contemporary historians, court historians, writing accounts contemporary with the events are full of slaughter, of destruction of temples and so on. So, how is that to be explained? The word that has been used, I was quite surprised. They say that this proves that this was not being done. The accounts claiming that all this has been done by our great king, is because he was not doing this [laughter in the audience]. Why then did you write it? Because it was trying to table verbal virtue for him. But if that one inscription shows that after losing a wager, the Jains had to vacate a particular temple for the local Shaivites then it will be Hinduism will be intolerant and the ridiculous lengths to which people will go… Rajiv documents this in Swami Vivekananda’s case or in the case of other when they make ANUBHAV, direct personal experience as the criterion or as the mode, then that we are only trying to ape the West and ape Western Science. He asked was Patanjali aping Western Science or West? Was Ramakrishna Paramhansha aping the West or Western Science or Ramana Maharshi? So, in every one of these things I could go on with the details. It’s a book which is a must for every Indian. We must see our tradition through the spectacles that persons and specially Rajiv Malhotra has constructed for us. And it was a particular education for me because I had focused only on the Marxist historians and felt that they were regurgitating, sort of swallowing and vomiting what had been written by some Soviet historians. But I then now realize after reading Rajiv’s books that they were actually swallowing and vomiting what many of these so called Western scholars in America and in Austria, or Germany had written with a purposive agenda. The main lessons from this book, I’ll spell out three and I’ll sit down after that.

One is, there is reason we should look to the future with confidence even in the religious sphere because in the case of Christianity, Rajiv points out, attendance is falling by the hour not even by the date. In places like Belgium, it has almost completely disappeared, the attendance in churches. Islam is tearing the Muslim world apart and even more important, it is a very important and a point of great insight which Rajiv has made that out of the religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, Indic religions are the closest to the spirit and substance of science. Just as the goal of science is the understanding of outer reality, its method is experimentation and peer review, its means is the laboratory, so also Indic religions are the science of the inner world. Their means is personal, direct experience and their peer review is unending and that is how the religion keep evolving and its method is entirely the scientific method of empirical verification through direct personal experience and the means… just that the means for those persons are laboratories and observations through instruments,... here a very good phrase Rajiv uses that the means, ours, was the living laboratories of these sages. They looked inside their own mind and came up with great formulations and great insights. So, time is on our side and we should do and we should work on these matters and practice our religion with great confidence. If something requires reformulation, we should reformulate it and say yes, we have reformulated it. Because this is the new formulation, this is what is required for the time. If we need to endow old words with new meaning we should do that with confidence. We must have and I am sure you will have after reading Rajiv’s book, a little contempt for these tendentious scholars. 
 

mujhe yaad hai, yahan Chandni [?] auditorium mein ek music festival chal raha tha. Siddheswari Devi ji gaane ke liye baithi thi. Taanpura tune ho raha tha, tabla tune ho raha hain, light dim ho gaye hai. Somebody got up from the audience, Siddeshwari Devi ji, nahin, nahin, raag yeh wala gayiye. She sang what she had planned to sing. Khatam ho gaya, log taliya baja raha hain. aab dushre gane keliye tune ho rahe hain. light phir sey dim ho gaye. wohi shaks phir sey utha, Siddheswari ji who to bahut accha tha, magar aap yeh gaayiye, She again sang what she wanted to sing. 3^rd time he got up and Siddheswariji told arre yeh hai kaun. Toh hamhe bhi yehi attitude hona chahiye – ki Yeh Hai Kaun? [applause and laughter in the audience]

And the main thing to do is to succeed. Even in intellectual things nothing succeed like success. Not one of these scholars will fabricate and propagate the type of nonsense that he does about India, he will never do it about China [audience concurs]. Because China has become strong and the scholars know if they write things about China they will lose their livelihood because they will lose their access to their sources. So, the important thing is to succeed and then everything will follow and one reason, final reason for being confident is that because of the work of Ram Swarup, Sitaram Goel, Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, Rajiv Malhotra – because of the work of these persons, the corpus is now reaching a critical mass. So that we can think that within few years we will have two [series]

One, A library for India, and a library of India. We should aim for those but the prerequisite is that we should be like Rajiv Malhotra, we should know our tradition, we should know our religion. The reason on account of which this kind of fabrication has prevailed for so long is that we have not known our tradition, not known our religion and we have known these only through the eye, we have seen through the distorted lenses which were fabricated by these tendentious scholars, these missionaries in mufti.

So, Rajiv, certainly on my behalf, and I’m sure on the behalf of every one, and on behalf of all of your readers Thank You.


[prolonged applause. The main lecture ends here. Arun Shourie then has some interesting observations on how Indians misinterpret "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" (the whole world is one family). The HHG team has transcribed this portion for the sake of completeness and also because this segment has a very important message for the millions of gullible Indians wallowing in the myth of sameness].

It is not anti-christianity, anti-Islam or anything like that. It is, the book is, it's a wonderful thing both about cosmos and life, this metaphor of Indra's Jaal and also about Hinduism. Every part reflecting every jewel all other jewels. Therefore if anything is changed [or disturbed], it is reflected all over, etc.  But he also makes a very important point in the end. Which illustrates... Rajiv illustrates both his style and forcefulness of his argument. It [is an illustration of what he was] telling us in the end. In our anxiety to be liked. we keep repeating words without understanding their implications. Humne Sabse pehle kaha 'Vasudhiva Kutumbakam' [comment on India's tolerance] .... Sari duniya to humne ek mana. So I will read to you where actually says where this word comes from [reading from pages 295-296 of Indra's Net].

"In one story in the Hitopadesa, a cunning jackal, trying to create a place for himself in the home of a naive deer says ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ in his appeal to the deer. The deer ignores warnings from other animals, who caution that it is unwise to trust someone at face value without first ascertaining his history, nature and intent. Upon deceitfully acquiring the deer’s trust and moving in his home, the opportunistic jackal later tries to get the deer killed. Indeed, the moral of this story is that one should watch out for cunning subversives . Blindly trusting those who preach ‘universal brotherhood’ can lead to self-destruction. 
[a brief comment here before continuing] 
The Panchatantra encodes this same message in a different story. In this version, the man who utters ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ is described as a murkha (‘idiot’). He is determined to bring a dead lion back to life, and disregards a wise man’s warning about the dangerous consequences of such an act. The idiot and his accomplices feel moved to resurrect the lion after citing this sentiment of universal brotherhood among all living things, and hence end up being eaten by the lion they help. The wise man lives to tell the tale.  Clearly, the lesson taught in these stories is not one of blind adherence to a policy of unilateral disarmament." [appreciative applause]

...Bahasa is a creation of the Indonesian freedom movement in the 1930-40s. Mother country Italy ke bare me baat kar le [laughter in the audience]. Modern Italian is [Anderson] says modern Italian is a creation of the television age. But we are on the defensive ki saab, Instead of celebrating the fact, that yes, we have so many languages, we get defensive, and that's how this book is so invaluable. It takes us to the root of our defensiveness and that is ignorance about [our own systems]. Aur isi liye, bahut important hai ki Poison pill bhi fabricate karni chahiye, magar jo poison, jo dusron ki pills humne swallow kar li hai, aur repeat karte rehte hai Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, uska bhi meaning asli mein dekhna chahiye!

[end of transcription]

Original Youtube Video Sources

Summary of the Neo-Hindu thesis

February 2014

A senior forum commentator recently provided a summary of the thesis of the neo-Hindu cabal that is analyzed in the 'Purva Paksha' section of Rajiv Malhotra's new book 'Indra's Net'. The book is available at http://indrasnetbook.com, flipkart, Amazon (including Kindle e-format). This blog is published here so that all Indra'sNet audiences around the world can use this excellent summary as a reference resource while reading. Comments welcome.

Surya wrote:
This summary only provides the context but facilitates reading and understanding the book.  

Thesis of neo-Hindu camp:

(1) Hinduism as a modern construct: Hinduism is 'an orchid bred by European scholarship ... In nature, it does not exist.' (Page 50). Hinduism is no more than a collection of amorphous religions that co-exist in the same region and have some commonalities, but these commonalities are far outweighed by divisions and mutual antagonisms.(Page 67).  It is primarily not a religious concept but one of geographic origin.  (Page 94).  Before 19th century, there was no Hindu religious identity that transcended narrow sectarian boundaries.(Page 50).  Before 'Hinduism' came into use, the natives of India referred only to sampradayas (lineages of traditions), which were orthodox and narrowly defined. (Page 94). Instead of seeing Hinduism as a religious system, it would perhaps be more accurate to view it as a multidimensional socio-religious process which has undergone radical transformations over the last hundred years and continued to change. (Page 94). Hinduism then is a joint construct of Britain and India, Christians and Hindus, who devised 'something that the later 19th century would take for granted: a coherent, pan-Indian Hinduism.' (Page 134)

(2)  Neo-Hinduism as a modern variation of Hinduism under Christian and Western Secular Influences: In 1800s, Indian leaders suffered a deep inferiority complex about the weakness of India compared with Europe, and attributed this weakness to Hinduism's inability to adapt to modern times. (Page 68) 1800s was a time when Protestant and Catholic missionaries constantly denigrated and criticized the Hindu scriptures.  Their attacks were troubling to Hindu reformers of the Brahmo Samaj.  Under these conditions, Western Unitarians arrived in India as a welcome relief, for they interpreted Hindu theology as being open, rational, experiential, and science-friendly.  Sensing a good-fit, Brahmo Samaj sent its bright youth to Unitarian Seminaries in England for training.  Following this, Brahmo Samaj started to adapt the framework of Unitarian Christianity in order to identify alternative sources of authority within Hinduism that would support this kind universal and scientific ideology based on experience. This is the advent of neo-Hinduism (as distinct to and discontinuous from native traditions). (Page 53).  The neo-Hindu dogma of equality of all religions emerged originally in the 19th century from the ideology of European Enlightenment. The neo-Hindu concept of Dharma was clearly prompted by the philosophy of Saint Augustus and Philosopher John Stuart Mill but expressed completely in Indian terms. (Page 70).  

(3) Swami Vivekananda as a key architect of Neo-Hinduism and his political interests: Swami Vivekananda, who was familiar with and influenced by Brahmo Samaj and Unitarian Church, introduced Western scientific inquiry and direct experience in order to bring Hinduism on par with Western thought. (Page 53)  Vivekananda's call for unity and inner resolution of tensions were clearly ideas of nationalism and the driving force behind the neo-Hindu concept of unity. (Page 68)  

(4) Swami Vivekananda brings Western Thought into neo-Hinduism: Swami Vivekananda's innovation of 'Practical Vedanta' was meant to address the needs of his time using Vedanta Principles.  One such practical application was in the realm of social ethics. Such social ethics were not in alignment with traditional Vedanta. (Page 74).  Christian missionaries inspired the new definition of karma:  'Under the influence of Christian missionaries, the idea that karma = seva (understood as social duty and service to others) was articulated in the 19th century.' (Page 91).  

(5) Neo-Hinduism deviates from tradition:  Per traditional Advaita, moksha is brought about by merely a 'cognitive shift' and this cannot be caused by any action, be it devotion or work.  This means that actions such as meditation, bhakti, social service, and so on, are unable to cause moksha (Page 100).  Lack of intellectual depth in contemporary Hindu scholarship is due to the popularity of views on the primacy of yogic experience, and secondary status to Sruti. (Page 117).  Additionally, Vivekananda chose to reconcile and unify various schools of Vedanta (Page 117) bringing hierarchical relativism to Hinduism.

(6) Contemporary Hinduism = Neo-Hinduism as an incoherent amalgam: Unlike Abrahamic religions which are wary of epistemological relativism out of the fear of relativizing the World of God revealed in the Bible or the Koran, Brahminical Hinduism (and Hindu nationalism) thrives on a hierarchical relativism to evade all challenges to its idealistic metaphysics and mystical ways of knowing.  (Page 142). Therefore, the idea of a unified Hindu religion is counter both to religious practices and to the theological doctrines of India (Pages 50, 51). Unified Hinduism is counter to tradition and serves nationalistic interests and calling for unity for political expedience.  Hinduism then is an instance of Pizza Effect i.e., Indians adopting Western concepts but giving them Sanskrit names.  These are true neologisms, invented by Western Indologists and then copied and re-marketed by Indian scholars who displaced the old pandits with this newly minted coinage that is now in vogue in the Indian literature, media, and educational institutions. (Page 82)

Why are Hindus Celebrating the Digestion of Hinduism? - Part 2

This is the latest in our series of blogs dealing with the problem of digestion of Hinduism, which is quite different from both inclusivism and conversion to Abrahamic faiths. For example, in Kerala, the digestion of many aspects of Hinduism in general, and the festival of Onam, in particular have been covered in the last few days. This post is part of the discussion on Phil Goldberg's 'American Veda' has been shown to be an example of this problem. You can find Part-1 of the current discussion here. However, many Hindus live in denial for a variety of reasons. You can find the first set of posts in 2012 on Goldberg's American Veda: Analysis-2 that summarizes the first set of feedback on AV is here, and Analysis-1, is the very first summary, where AV was introduced to the forum, and shows Goldberg's attempted defence of his work.

There are several other dicussions of 'digestion' in the forum that can be accessed by clicking the keyword. Another external blog that was among the very first to comment on AV is the 'Digesting Veda blog'. 

For those who want to get the full details on digestion of Hinduism, the links (total of 9 posts) provided above can be traversed in the following order:
1. Familiarize yourself with digestion activities in Kerala
2. Understand how digestion differs from both inclusivism and conversion  
3. American Veda: start with the DigestingVeda blog 
4. Then read Analysis-1 and Analysis-2
5. Read Part-1 and Part-2 of the current discussion on how American Veda is being supported by Hindu intellectuals (this one and the previous one)
6. Examine other discussions of digestion in the forum. 
7. Don't stop there! Blog, discuss and educate others about this serious problem.


In Part-2 of our current discussion below, we examine the foreword and contents of Phil Goldberg's book 'American Veda' shared in this blog, and then see how Hindu intellectuals respond to it.

Inside the 'American Veda' - celebration of uturners
Subra shares: "...  Just the first 25 pages. We can see the shoddy scholarship, the Sanskrit mistranslations being used to set the stage for digestion, the reductionism, and the justification for digestion. Once this is done, the remaining chapters celebrates one u-turner after another..."

Rajiv responds:
"Thanks for a good analysis. People who are in doubt should read the analysis:

It is sad how many so-called supporters of our cause failed to understand digestion at work, and went around proudly promoting the author. One such man called me... to say: "What if we get him to state he is against the Aryan theory and against missionaries"? I told this man he does not understand digestion. It is not about being against missionaries, being against Aryan theory, and so forth.

If a thief is taking your assets and digesting them by characterizing them as belonging to others, does it help you because he praises your home, expresses anger at some of your opponents, etc and other unrelated things.

THE DIGESTER LOVES WHAT HE IS DIGESTING OTHERWISE HE WONT DIGEST IT. Why am I unable to get this across???

These people among us are so STUPID and ignorant of our own history where we have seen so many westerners support us, praise us, etc precisely to dupe such IDIOTS. By now we ought to have no more fools but sadly we do.

I am confident I can get a statement from Witzel opposing missionaries. In fact he told me as such in person many years ago. But is that the issue???

Can Hinduism be rescued by a bandwagon of fools, who are easily swayed, lazy to read and understand issues, and in awe of someone supporting them with glamor.

I hope people who have promoted his works will now do penance by promoting the link above with greater enthusiasm."
 
Aditya has a useful suggestion:
"... Does anyone want in this group want to write an "alternative" review for AV on Amazon with a mention of "Being Different" as a book to read?

...  for someone who has [read the book], this would be one small step in the right direction."

css shares feedback from another person who disagreed that 'American Veda is digestion'. Please read the details in the forum. We only provide a gist of the arguments here:
1. He acknowledges the impact of Indian spirituality on America
2. He is not working on behalf of missionaries
3. He is not a practitioner in the Ken Wilber mould
4. Sloppy scholarship does not prove digestion

Rajiv comment: The above looks at DIRECT digestion only. Does not understand the subtlety and multi layered processes at work. This simplistic view is quiet common and hence I know my work is cut out for me.

PhilG valorizes digesters - he himself does not have to be one. Every digester has a coterie of cheerleaders supporting him, building is brand value, legitimizing him. These cheerleaders might not be smart enough to do the heavy thinking like a digester. They are his support team. PhilG is such a cheerleader. Wilber and Keating are examples of top tier digesters that PhilG celebrates. Good analogies are:

- most sepoys merely suck up to another thinker and hence build brand credibility for a major thinker and are not capable of doing this thinking themselves.

- People in Indian media are supporting X but not doing the nasty things personally that X does. Yet we oppose such media persons. They are part of the entourage of X that makes X important.

The problem .... is that he has not read Keating or Wilber, for example...What he sees is PhilG praising these folks in ways that seem reasonable. This is why incomplete knowledge is dangerous... I have separate volumes in the pipeline on each of these men, along with many others.

The history of PhilG work with me... (Read the original and complete information in the forum).

...
5) When the book came out I was shocked. He took all my info on the uturners and made them look like heroes. This inverts my thesis. He celebrates the process that I consider a problem...

6) ...PG's book has a couple of pages on me. I am depicted as someone who complains about uturns. He is dismissive of my complaint. He includes me to be able to say "I have already factored what Malhotra has to say". This is a tactic to dispose of a serious issue without properly dealing with it.

....point on PG criticizing missionaries is simply irrelevant. It further shows shallowness of understanding this theater. ...Witzel also opposes proselytizers, and so do most western scholars we fight - Doniger, et al. By the standards of sophisticated western scholars, proselytizing is crude, old fashion, meant for extreme right wing christianity. These folks are liberal left wing and hence anti-proselytizing.

....As I said before: People who digest from the liberal left wing side are not proselytizers or in support of them. For instance, Wilber is too sophisticated to operate at the evangelism level. Nor are any of the neuro-scientists and cognitive scientists appropriating Hindu and Buddhist ideas and practices. ... understand the complexity of liberal/leftist ideas of dharma and not try to collapse all western approaches as proselytizing. (For one thing Jews are not christians or proselytizers and yet many of them are digesters!)

It is sad that while I must invest years of rigor to get one book at a time out, there are "supporters" who cant wait. .... On limited knowledge they align themselves with the very same digesters I spend all my time investigating."

 

What are the differences between Digestion and Conversion?

This is another very important post in the series on 'digestion. Here we examine the difference between the differences between digesting Hinduism versus converting Hindus to some Abrahamic religion.
 
November 2013
None in US will support Missionaries' conversions in India
Raghav started this thread by sharing a link and commenting:
The following was posted on an another e-group (Hindu Civilization). The good cop's assurance is what I see here. Mr. Goldberg might have overlooked Rajiv Ji's 'Breaking India'

'None in US will support Missionaries' conversion activities in India', says Philip Goldberg, author of American Veda

Rajiv comment: Jews are active digesters though they dont convert. Most Christian digesters are liberal, left wingers who hate missionaries. They reject Christianity and the digestion is into WESTERN SECULARISM/SCIENCE. Will I see the day when our folks do not think of every problematic person as christian missionary? On the one hand our folks are seriously troubled by the LEFT and yet they confuse them all as missionaries. If YOU read BI (forget whether Goldberg read it; did YOU read it?) you ought to notice the clear emphasis that leftwing and rightwing threats are DIFFERENT. If so, why is it a big deal for a leftwing to certify that he hates missionaries???

...All that someone has to do to get certified by morons is to decry missionaries.

To make it simple again: If you want to eat and digest food you do not reject it, do you? You LOVE it. Thats digestor mindset = love for Hinduism as food to be digested.

On the contrary, if you are a missionary you propagate REJECTING it. Can you please see these are OPPOSITES and yet each is harming us?

Another attempt: Missionary teaches repulsion for it. Digestor teaches love for it as food. The Christian Yoga promoters LOVE yoga, not hate it."

Neeraj asks:

"... when the digester is assimilating [Yoga], he is branding it as Christian Yoga and not something neutral like holistic yoga or secular yoga. If the digester is leftist, then his/her hatred for christianity would push him to do so. Wouldn't it?

Rajiv comment: The digester will repackage it (i.e. digest) into whatever western framework he subscribes to. This means there are as many varieties of digestion as there are varieties of predators..Specifically, the following is a partial list of western digesters:

1) Christians who will turn it into a part of christianity.

2) Hard material scientists turn it into secular science.

3) Post-modernists will show that it is generic and same in every culture.

4) Indians into Dalitstan/Dravidstan will show that whatever is good about it belonged to pre-Aryan people who are now the dalits/dravidians. Whatever is wrong with it was a contamination by later aryans turned into brahmins.

5) Islamic scholars will show it was always part of islam.

I am aghast at the trivial/superficial capacity of our so-called thought leaders. They have still not understood the following:

- the difference between hinduism haters and hinduism digesters (and some who combine both).

- the difference between several kinds of digesters, as illustrated above.

- the public postures of good cop and bad cop, which can hide the private agendas of hater or digester. I got calls and private emails from Hindus claiming victory that a digester touring India was speaking against missionaries, hence he is good for us!!!  

What a bunch of murukha (idiots).

"

Harish summarizes: "...digestion means "loving" and conversion means "rejecting". I really appreciate Rajiv ji's clarity of thought."

Rajiv comment: "Digesting is deadly love. I love you in such a way that you turn into my property and lose your self existence. When I see a delicious dish I appreciate it and praise it. A stupid deer would go around saying "he loves me and invited me to his dinner table". What makes digestion far more dangerous is that it occurs over a long time. The digestion tract takes time to suck out the nutrients and expel what's waste. So fools being digested go around dancing with glee that the predator is being so nice to them."

Srinath makes an interesting observation:

"Aren't both digestion and conversion observed in varying degrees across the WU power spectrum...  Missionaries reject, convert, and subjugate for the most part but also engage in stealth digestion.  Examples from pagan Europe abound. The Scientists on the other hand while being "uber" predators - also negate other sources of intelligence, suppress independence with groupism, etc.  For sure digestion is the killer app because it can be resorted to with subterfuge when heavy handedness isn't yielding the highest return.  I see this mix of digest/convert between let's say, Akbar and Aurangzeb.  Neither of them were 100% in one area but even within their lifetimes the pendulum swung slightly this way or that depending on the political landscape."

Rajiv comment: "Yes. This is how I have explained these. Its about time our members got beyond the basics and started going further. We cannot afford to come back to ground zero every few weeks and repeat the same basics."

 

 

The Chicago Story: How CPWR was Exposed

A controversy was triggered in September 2013, when a group that called itself the 'Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions" (CPWR) decided to withdraw from the event that VHP-America was organizing in Chicago to honor Swami Vivekananda as part of his 150th birthday celebrations. This post summarizes the incident in three parts:

part 1) the discussion this triggered in the forum, the research done by Hindus in finding out who supported the boycott, who CPWR really was, the impact the debate in this forum had on the subsequent trajectory of events post-withdrawal. Particularly shocking is that CPWR turned out to be not what it appears on the surface. Some fact-checking indicated that this organization was incorporated in 1988 and had nothing to do with 1893 World parliament of religions that Vivekananda graced! Stunning how and disturbing why the Hindu representatives signed up for this without doing any background check!

part 2) the positive outcome (resounding win) for Hinduism with its figurehead Hindu representatives resigning, and finally,

part 3) A manifesto for Hindu representation in Interfaith bodies, going forward and being more proactive.

Part-1
The thread was initiated by a post by NS that posted a news article carried by HinduismToday.com, that is summarized below:
"... a respectable interfaith organization the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR) decided to withdraw from the event that VHPA was organizing in Chicago.

VHP (America) is holding event marking 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekanda which will feature Baba Ramdev as the chief guest (see here). It is "co-hosted" by many Hindu organizations based in the USA. Air India is also listed as one of the co-host.
120-year old CPWR is the organization that invited Swami Vivekanda to Chicago in1893. In a statement issued today [see here, issued by Mary Nelson, CPWR's Executive Director] CPWR said:

"We honor Swami Vivekananda and that legacy he left creating interfaith cooperation to build a just, peaceful, and sustainable world. Our organization was not informed that an event we were asked to co-sponsor was also co-sponsored by organizations promoting controversial political positions. While we do honor and promote the ideals of Swami Vivekananda, we respectfully withdraw our name from any co-hosting or co-sponsorship of the 'World Without Borders' event and any connection to this event or its other co-sponsors."

....Coalition Against Genocide (CAG) [see here for a list of members--it is mostly comprised of Muslim, leftist and Christian groups] welcomed the move by the CPWR to disassociate itself VHPA's event...

(another post records CAG's cheerleading press release, summarized here)
"

Coalition Against Genocide (CAG - http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/ ), a broad alliance dedicated to justice and accountability for the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 (sic), and for continued violations of human rights in Gujarat (sigh), today welcomed the resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR), ....

In a letter to CPWR Executive Director Dr. Mary Nelson, CAG spokesperson Dr. Raja Swamy congratulated the CPWR on advancing the cause of interfaith harmony...."
".....This incident exemplifies attempts by Hindutva organizations to legitimize their virulent politics by appropriating the legacies of important historical personalities such as Swami Vivekananda," said Dr. Raja Swamy, ...."

Prasad's response (the text is a bit garbled in the yahoo forum, but I have provided the gist) was to respectfully  request that two Hindu members associated with CPRW resign their posts in protest:
" Anju Bhargavji and Anant Rambachanji,
whatever be the outcome of your efforts to reinstate cpwr's sponsorship, I request you both resign as directors of this organization. When they cancelled the commitment they made without consulting you, your presence there does not matter, ..."

Arun also had the same opinion:
"... shows that how artbitrarily [CPWR] is run and their decision process is biased and undemocratic. It also shows that how intolerant the leadership of CPWR has become over the years to promote their own agenda and politics. I believe that all board members of CPWR, who were not consulted for this decision should resign..."

Vishal disagreed and favors an alternative approach:
"..Non-cooperation is less ineffective than fighting from within."

Rajiv's response: What "fighting from within?" I dont see them having done that. In fact, in one case I was explicitly told that the person WILL NOT FIGHT to risk sticking her neck out...

To fight from within the representative must first spell out the positions being represented, and the policy for fighting for each of these. Otherwise its not even clear as to WHAT they might fight for, assuming they decide to fight at all?

The only fighting going on is positioning personal careers, prestige, glamor, PR, etc...

Furthermore, there is also the issue of COMPETENCE beyond intentions. Even if the intentions could be turned around, there remains the question whether a given person is cut out for the job. Our community must learn to hold Hindu leaders accountable for performance just like political leaders are hired/fired in elections if they do not perform. Lets end this idolatry based on personalities."

Next, there is a very interesting (but tangential) post by AJ and a response by Rajiv about the forum responding by circulating emails.

A professor (VR) from Bangalore was upset by the actions of CPWR:
"The [CPWR] under the influence of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists and anti-Hindu leaders has already ditched the ideals of Swami Vivekananda and buried them."

Abhimanyu posts the findings from his investigative work on CPWR. This appears to be the first of a few crucial posts that began to open people's eyes to what this CPWR really is, and we carry this report almost fully. Also important to note, that he also looks at possible links to the 2014 General elections in India.

"1.  Who is the Coalition Against Genocide?  -  this is a notorious nexus of Indian Communists/ Islamists / Christian Missionaries - with a clear mission to demonize Hinduism and Hindus around the world.  People like Raja Swamy are prominent members of FOIL and its sister groups like the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (the same group that attacked the IDRF and the Hindu Students Council). On this blog, I have written extensively about FOIL and its network, building on Mr. Malhotra's Breaking India as well as some other works out there.

2.  CAG, CSFH, FOIL, IAMC (Indian American Muslim Council) are partners in this...  They were also behind the 2005 campaign to block Narendra Modi's visa to the US.  Angana Chatterjee is one of the key players in this nexus also.

3.  Recently, Raja Swamy, Biju Mathew, Shabnam Hashmi, Ram Puniyani, Harsh Mander, etc. Have started a website against Narendra Modi, called Pheku.in.  This site purports to expose Modi's "lies" and discredit his model of development.  I have recently written about this on my blog as well.  It is interesting to note that this Pheku.in site is registered in Texas, which gives away its interconnections with foreign groups like FOIL that are attempting to "break India".  They also sympathize with and also hold terrorist Ishrat Jahan in high respect.

...

5.  Initially, when the CPWR issued a statement of withdrawal, there were two signatures - one of Mary Nelson, the Exec Director and the other one of Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.  Now, if you go to their site, you only see Mary Nelson's signature!  Mr. Mujahid's signature has been "whitened out", but one can clearly see a small black dot of a spot missed by the web artist next to Nelson's signature!  Why did CPWR remove his signature?"

Rajiv comment: Good 'forensic' work. I wonder why our eminent "Hindu representatives" have been sleeping through all this and woke up only after we gave them a jolt?

Karthik adds:
"...the question of "Secularism" has entered the public discourse in a big way. Specifically, it is being suggested that a person who is otherwise suitable to run the country in terms of governance record, should be disqualified on the strength of an alleged lack of commitment to "secularism", which is a threat to the "Idea of India."

I have written a blog post about this here:   As you can see, the post makes reference to many of Rajiv ji's ideas.."
 




Vishal clarifies: "Let me clarify. Resigning from posts does not achieve much. I am not privy to private information on whether these two members will fight it out or not. However, if they resign, if opens the possibility of some rabid leftist (who is Hindu in name only) to replace them and then and work positively against our Dharma in the future..."

Rajiv comment: Let me clarify. Defending incompetence does not help much. It lowers the standard and makes incompetence the new normal. Someone could also say, "let the corrupt, incompetent government in India remain, because if they leave we could get someone worse". Let us stop operating in fear...

The point is that Hindus never appointed these individuals in the first place. Secondly, they have not produced any resistance from our side by way of offering criticism of the organization's positions. Only now they are running around doing PR and press releases because we have exposed this scandal. ...

...There is a prominent man [] who tried to pressure me to not critique Anju Bhargava in my book, but that failed. He even went to Swami Dayananda Saraswati along with Anju and they camped there for a few days asking swamiji to withdraw his invitation for me to speak at the ashram's annual day; but swamiji refused to do so. I am also aware that other organizations have pressure points. Such "networking" notwithstanding, we must be objective and not get influenced by linkages. Otherwise we are no better than the dominant nexuses that operate this way except that they have been winning. We must hold ourselves to an objective standard in evaluating leadership."  

 Rajiv further comments:
"People have asked me to suggest what "our" Hindu representatives on CPWR must go at this point. I feel they ought to write an open letter to CPWR that gets posted widely by them. It should make the following points. I am not suggesting exact language, merely the main points they should cover:

Letter to CPWR:

1. We as practicing Hindus, and as individuals representing the interests of Hinduism in CWPR, are very upset at the decision that was made to boycott Swami  Vivekananda's anniversary celebrations, and we would like that decision reversed immediately.
2. We are troubled that we were never consulted or involved in such a major decision being made, which makes our Hindu community doubt whether we speak for them in this forum at all. It would be unimaginable, hypothetically, for you to make a similar decision against Islam without even bothering to tell in advance and consult the Muslim representatives in your organization.... 
3. It is clear that the process leading to your decision was opaque rather than transparent. Individuals with personal agendas and political pressure acted secretly rather than through a process carried out in an above board manner....
4. We are sending each of the trustees and each member of all committees at CPWR a copy of an important book, titled, "Breaking India", which exposes the kinds of nefarious activities by many persons who acted in making this recent decision. In the interest of transparency and allowing all sides of an issue to be heard, we seek the right to articulate the point of view of many Hindus. After your review of this book, we would like CPWR to host a public debate on the charges and allegations being made in this book - concerning the nexus that is operating to undermine Hinduism. Let both sides speak and debate each other in an amicable manner. This is the true spirit of open intellectual discourse that CPWR claims to represent...

We hope to hear from you very soon on these requests which we feel are fair....In case you find our request unacceptable, then please consider this as our letter of resignation from your organization.

Signed...

.............................

My closing remarks: I would like us to pressure all Hindu representatives to put out such a letter. Let their loyalties become clear. We must get past goody-goody PR behavior. We have had enough nonsense from self serving leaders.


Sheshadri notes:
"...FOIL is dead against Infinity Foundation. I know for a fact how FOIL fanatics try -by hook or crook - to foil university programs sponsored by Infinity Foundation. They are more aware of the power of genius of Hindu Thought than most of our own people. When "Sarve janaH sushi no bhavantu" catches up there can be no room for "workers of the world unite" or "only my god is god" creeds. No wonder we will face in future more virulent as well as subtle forms of opposition. They will leave no stone unturned - literally" 


Abhimanyu uncovers more details:

"Ubaid Shaikh, co-founder of CAG, IAMC (Indian American Muslim Council, formerly known as Indian Muslim Council USA) and founder of Indian Muslim Advocacy Network (Imannet, whose site www.imannet.com, has been "under construction" for who knows how long) is friends with Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.  Mujahid is the founder of Muslim Peace Coalition USA, another advocacy group that is very popular in advancing the image of Islam and Peace.  See the two links below:

In the above link, these guys, especially Ubaid, while condemning the attack on thw Wisconsin Gurudwara, nefariously weaves in connection to "hate-filled" Americans and "Hindu Extremists" (READ RSS, VHP, etc.), saying how these Hindus inspire hate amongst Americans!

Check out this second link -

In here, these two orgs squarely blame the Norway killings as being inspired by "Hindu Nationalist Ideology"!"

 

Rajiv shares a response from Anju only briefly summarized here, stating her position:

"I want you to know that both Anant and I have fought really hard and supported VHPA in this matter as you know from the joint statement we sent out. However we are outvoted. There are people who have their own agendas.  Since I found out I have spent most of the time on this. Negative attacks on me which incite people will not help the Hindu cause..."

Rajiv's response:

".... troubling items in your statement.

1) Earlier you had said that this decision by CWPR was made without your knowledge and you and Anant were taken by surprise. Only afterwards you reacted (once the community started pressuring you). Now you saying that you and Anant were outvoted (and hence knew of the decision being considered). Which version is true?
2) Secondly, if there was a vote in CPWR, when was it held ? Who voted for the resolution and who voted against it? Also, who drafted and proposed the resolution for vote? These names must be made public as per the norms of any public foundation. The community must know this, and its YOUR JOB to keep us informed.

3) Thirdly, I disagree with your view that the Hindus you claim to represent should have no right to criticize you regardless of your performance. You did not consult any of us prior to the resolution against Swami Vivekananda's anniversary event being put out as a press release. Now you expect us to support you even though you have not shown competence in representing us. ...Please note that the same pattern occurred in another organization where you represented Hindus for one year. I documented that fiasco in my book, BREAKING INDIA, and it bothered you. ....

4) You write that the "smart and strategic" thing would be for us to focus on those who do such negative things against us. But how can we put our focus on such persons unless and until YOU disclose their names in detail - I mean EVERY ONE OF THEM.

5) You seem only concerned about "negative attacks" on you. You did not say a word about how the conduct of CPWR that you serve has attacked Hinduism, which is larger than any one individual like you or me....

6) Finally, now that you and Anant have acknowledged that CPWR has hoodwinked the Hindus, should you not resign in protest - thereby sending the message that you are not pets sitting there to legitimize their actions in exchange for being given some "importance"? Please consider that such a bold action by you and Anant would boost your standing, because it would show that Hindus cannot be taken for granted as a bunch of morons led by morons. I hope you are now aware (as per Arvind Kumar's post) that Ms. Nelson who runs CPWR is falsely advertising that CPWR was somehow linked to the [1893] Chicago event named the World Parliament of Religions. She has cleverly used the name of the original organization and you did not know this earlier"

Part-2

In another thread, Arvind [mentioned in Rajiv's response above to Anju] posts some startling findings on CPWR that totally exposes their membership, agenda, and modus operandi. We only briefly summarize his post. Read it in its original form to grasp the full impact of what CPWR was up to.

" ...This group was formed only in 1988 (Document from Sec of State office is below).

The attempt to claim the legacy of Vivekananda by a group calling itself the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions is a FALSE PORTRAYAL of the truth. The page on their website purportedly containing the history of the organization contains a timeline that starts in 1893.

....

...had nothing to do with organizing the event in 1893 at which Vivekananda spoke! To learn about the real organizers of the event in 1893, click here and here (original news items from 1893). ..

Mary Nelson is a "progressive" ... For evidence that she belongs to a "progressive" group, click here.

Mary Nelson has also been associated with Rod Blagojevich ... ...If their values are like those of Rod Blagojevich's,

...

  INCORPORATED ONLY IN 1988!!!

CORPORATION FILE DETAIL REPORT

---

Entity Name	COUNCIL FOR A PARLIAMENT OF THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS	File Number	55101108
Status	ACTIVE
Entity Type	CORPORATION	Type of Corp	NOT-FOR-PROFIT
Incorporation Date (Domestic)	05/27/1988	State	ILLINOIS
Agent Name	MARY K NELSON	Agent Change Date	09/26/2012
Agent Street Address	70 EAST LAKE ST #205	President Name & Address
Agent City	CHICAGO	Secretary Name & Address
Agent Zip	60601	Duration Date	PERPETUAL
Annual Report Filing Date	04/15/2013	For Year	2013
Old Corp Name	09/22/1988 - COUNCIL FOR A PARLIAMENT OF WORLD RELIGIONS

Rajiv comment:

" I am glad Arvind brought this to our attention. Does it mean our "Hindu reps" did not do any due diligence all this while - just joined it and started serving its interests? It turns out the woman Ms. Nelson who signed the letter against this weekend's Vivekananda event is the same person who formed this organization 25 years ago. Falsely advertised to be formed in 1893 to promote the spirit of Vivekananda, it was actually formed recently just to capitalize on that event's prestige. Moreover, it is NOT operating in the spirit of Vivekananda. In fact just the opposite by insulting him. Nelson is a Christian, linked to World Council of Churches, various Muslim activists like Eboo Patel among other "religious activists"... It is dangerous to "network" in this field esp if one is lazy and not doing one's homework."

Ravi notes:

"It appears that Rajiv's email (especially point #6) has had its impact. Both Bhargava and Rambachan appear to have resigned from CPWR, per this news report.

Rajiv comment:"Indeed. But let us see this as a positive watershed event where Hindus came together to say "enough, we wont accept bias against us any more from any organization that is claiming to be neutral."

Let us consider this as a loss for CPWR. Not having Hindus represented voids their claim to pluralism. Hinduism is the most pluralistic faith of all major ones, and this absence of Hindus should be positioned as something that discredits them. We must engage such inter faith bodies from a position of strength rather than going as beggars to let us in on their terms and treat us as third class." 

Another post from Rajiv sharing more details.

"This thread seems to have had some impact. I am glad.

Some members here sent it to the Hindus who had got themselves appointed on the Council for a Parliament of World Religions, thereby putting pressure on them. Two of them have issued the following statement a short while back:

Joint statement from Anju Bhargava and Anant Rambachan regarding the Chicago event with CPWR

"We, Anju Bhargava and Anant Rambachan, found out on September 14th, through media reports, that the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR) had withdrawn its participation in a Chicago event "World Without Borders," celebrating the 150th Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. We were not consulted about this decision. Once we found out, we requested  an explanation for the Parliament's decision.  We have also formally requested the Parliament to reverse its decision to withdraw from co-hosting/co-sponsoring the Chicago event. We are working with Parliament to get this issue resolved harmoniously.".

Rajiv comment: Its a good start for them to take such a stand against CPWR, but this must have teeth in it. If such a boycott by CPWR had happened against an Islamic icon's anniversary celebration, the Muslim representatives would not have been caught off guard...As a group claiming to foster harmony this behavior by CPWR is unacceptable. Certainly, many of us disagree strongly with beliefs of some religious organizations but the CPWR would not reject those organizations' legitimacy just because we found them offensive.

We must keep up the pressure on every Hindu who makes a career out of "representing Hinduism"in various bodies; we must demand that he or she must speak up for us assertively even if that is not in their personal vested interest.

Part-3

Sant comments:

" ...he entire episode at CPWR is a wake-up call for the followers of our Hindu faith. ....

May I suggest that we form a group consisting of individuals from leading Hindu organizations in the US. , We (who will be 'we' here) will need to define the qualifications of the persons to serve in such a group along with all so many other details will need to be worked out. ....One of tasks for this organization would be make recommendations to various Inter-Faith organizations on the individual being considered for serving in a significant role, claiming to represent our community.

I was convinced from the outset that CPWR will not reverse their decision once made. In fact, the overwhelming no-votes shows the enormous challenges we face. This could not have been a one-time issues. Majority of their trusteeship's anti-Hindu feeling had to have been present (and visible) all along. ......" 

Rajiv's Notes after the CPWR victory: The Way Ahead

"In light of the recent victory in the CPWR saga, it is  a time to think how the Hindus should proceed going forward.

There will be many opportunities and offers that various individuals and organizations will have to join such movements. So let us formulate a list of principles that any Hindu representative should adopt openly and publicly as part of his or her participation. For instance, I would propose the following kinds of principles that could be turned into a sort of manifesto that our leaders are asked to accept. This is just off the top of my head thinking and we have to sort these out in more detail:

1) We as Hindu leaders oppose various common positions that are biased and lack authenticity, such as the following examples:

- Aryan Invasion/Migration Theories

- Allegations that Hinduism causes caste abuses, women's abuses, minority abuses, etc. Such allegations must bear the burden of proof and Hindus must be given a chance to fair representation in such due processes. Such claims must be put on par with the facts concerning other religions and Hinduism should not get treated more harshly than other in such evaluations.

- Digestion attempts, sameness positions, mapping of Sanskrit non-translatables, mapping of our categories and framework on to others in ways that compromise our distinctiveness and authenticity.

- Theories that Hinduism did not exist until British influence caused Vivekananda and others to manufacture it. Again, we must be given opportunities to debate such nonsensical positions.

- Inaccurate history of various ideas that actually originated in Indian civilization but are taught as originating elsewhere.

2) Major books, reports and speakers who represent the Hindu position on important matters must be given equal pace on forums as the representatives of other major faiths are. These individuals must not be selected in a way to avoid "controversy", as long as the subject matter being presented is of scholarly merit. Changing minds often requires controversy. In other words, Hinduism should no longer be represented by benign, goody-goody types who wont rock the boat for whatever reason. ...

3) Our representatives must fight instances where a Hindu thinker, guru, political leader, organization, etc. gets targeted without due process and without fair and reasonable proof. This is what happened in this latest saga at CPWR. I have personally faced this bias for 20 years because the Hinduphobic side cannot respond to what I write, and its easy to badmouth me just  to try and muzzle me..."

4) "Breaking India" type of forces must be called out, exposed and we must go on the offensive. Just like some forces xyz torpedoed the Vivekananda event, our reps must be able to do such things to others when we have fair and reasonable grounds. For instance, I see lots of "breaking India" individuals and groups enjoying the limelight with no organized resistance from our Hindu representatives.
... If we take this step we will have matured a lot."

Kaajal responds:

"... I'd like to volunteer to take the lead on coming up with our list of expectations for Hindu leaders..."

Rajiv comment: 

"This is a good idea..

My recommended step 1 is to develop a draft on the core Hinduism positions that any future representative must get educated on and must uphold. My initial input is in the post I did yesterday to start another thread on such a "manifesto". Such a draft needs to be debated and then we can lobby for people to adopt it at least as a starting point."