Dharma 701 or maybe 101 – for many dont seem to get it

A long time Offstumped reader brought this piece by Mr. Arun Shourie to this blogger’s notice. Mr. Shourie covers some familiar terrain here on Dharma, Gita and the variance in Tilak and?Gandhi’s interpretations.

Before we get to that Offstumped would like to state for the record that Mr. Shourie has been an inspiration and a role model to this blogger from High School days. His editorial stance at the height of the Anti-Reservation stir during the Mandal era was stellar. His penchant for making arguments that are rooted in facts and logical analysis makes him stand tall above the rest of the psuedo intellectual crowd.

The one defining attribute of Mr. Shourie that this blogger has attempted to imbibe is his intellectual courage in challenging conventional wisdom and never giving in to political correctness.

That said let us get to the heart of this post. Mr. Shourie writing in the Indian Express on December 27th had this to say on the subject of “Hindutva and radical Islam: Where the twain do meet”.

That grain is the fact that every tradition has in it, every set of scriptures has in it enough to justify extreme, even violent reaction.

Mr. Shourie’s basic premise is flawed, Offstumped will get to that in a moment. But to argue his premise Mr. Shourie meanders into something Offstumped originally began its whole thought process on Dharma, Flat World Hindutva.

From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived non-violence and satyagraha, Lokmanya Tilak constructed the case for ferocious response, not excluding violence. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived his ?true law?, shatham pratyapi satyam, ?Truth even to the wicked?, the Lokmanya derived his famous maxim, shatham prati shaathyam, ?Wickedness to the wicked.?

Could the variance between two interpretations be greater than is the case between the Lokmanya?s Gita Rahasya and Gandhiji?s Anashakti Yoga? Yet both constructions are by great and devout Hindus. Are ordinary Hindus nailed to Gandhiji?s rendering? After all, at the end of the Gita, Arjuna does not go off to sit at one of our non-violent dharnas. He goes into blood-soaked battle.

The above analysis and conclusion drawn by Mr. Shourie is a classic mistake made by most who find themselves trapped in the “progressive liberal” template of “Violence versus Non-Violence”.

Mr. Shourie for all his scars from a lifetime of fighting the political correctness of the Left has made the mistake of accepting the Left’s template to frame his case and in the process ends drawing the wrong conclusions on Gandhi and Tilak’s interpretations of the Gita.

Let us be very clear

- Dharma does not concern itself with the silly Violence versus Non-Violence debate.

- Dharma does not pass a value judgement on the relative morality or immorality of Violence over Non-Violence

To frame the debate on any issue from the narrow prism of Violence versus Non-Violence is to make an intellectually insipid argument. It reflects a poor understanding of Dharma and a tacit acceptance of “Progressive Liberalism” as the overarching template for all public debate.

So one may ask how pray should Mr. Shourie have framed his argument ?

Instead of trying to explain away the apparent variances between Tilak and Gandhi’s interpretation to rationalize violent responses Mr. Shourie should have looked deeper into Mr. Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita? (refer Offstumped on a Gandhian Doctrine for Anti-Terrorism) and he would have seen not a variance but commonality called “righteousness” or “Dharma” (also refer Offstumped on Golwalkar).

Had he done Mr. Shourie would have seen that be it Gita Rahsya or Anashakti Yoga, it is not about choosing between Violence over Non-Violence but it is about choosing the “righteous path” over the “unrighteous path”.

Mr. Shourie in fact almost discovered the flaw in his premise when he asks how come Arjuna after a discourse from Krishna went to fight a blood soaked battle.

But he misses the point when he concludes

The mistake is to assume that the sterner stance is something that has been fomented by this individual or that ?in the case of Hindutva, by, say, Veer Savarkar ? or by one organisation, say the RSS or the VHP. That is just a comforting mistake ? the inference is that once that individual is calumnised, once that organisation is neutralised, ?the problem? will be over. Large numbers do not gravitate to this interpretation rather than that merely because an individual or an organisation has advanced it ? after all, the interpretations that are available on the shelf far outnumber even the scriptures. They gravitate to the harsher rendering because events convince them that it alone will save them.

Offstumped has respectfully disagree with Mr. Shourie here.

They sir gravitate towards bigoted, distorted and underinformed interpretations because of Poor Intellectual and Political Leadership and nothing else.

If large numbers believe that in stray acts of violence targetting innocents there is salvation it is because this Nation has failed them in providing the kind of Leadership they deserve.

Mr. Shourie then goes on to lament the twin evils that imperil the fabric of our society – aggresive proselytism and Jihadist Terrorist, but in doing so he unwittingly adopts the second “Progressive Liberal” template of “Victimhood”.

There is a real vice here. The three great religions that originated in Palestine and Saudi Arabia ? Judaism, Christianity and Islam ? have been exclusivist ? each has insisted that it alone is true ? and aggressive. The Indic religions ? Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism ? have been inclusive, they have been indulgent of the claims of others. But how may the latter sort survive when it is confronted by one that aims at power, acquires it, and then uses it to enlarge its dominion? How is the Indic sort to survive when the other uses the sword as well as other resources ? organised missionaries, money, the state ? to proselytise and to convert?

Offstumped must once again respectfully disagree with Mr. Shourie when he succumbs to the emotional weakness of victimhood.

By viewing the Hindu way of life from the western monotheistic template of religion we suffer paranoia and anger while failing to see that what appears on the outside as a weakness is an inherent strength.

You sir miss the point on how we survived 4000 years of civilization while many have perished in the sands of time.? It survives not because of a central controlling authority or proselytising agency – Pontificate or Caliphate. Its a decentralized faith. It can morph and evolve and transform itself in a million ways. It survives because of this inherent strength. It is like how species surive through the process of Natural Evolution.

If today there is a perceived threat it is not primarily because of the monotheistic faiths but because of our intellectual atrophy in not recognizing this inherent strength. We have attempted to monotheize this way of life in our knee-jerk response to the perceived threats from the monotheistic faiths.

That exactly is why Mr. Shourie’s prescription is flawed when he quotes Swami Vivekananda

It is because of this vice, and the realisation born from what had already come to pass that Swami Vivekananda, for instance, while asking the Hindus to retain their Hindu soul, exhorted them to acquire an ?Islamic body?.

Sir one must humbly submit that there is no room for a Dharmic Soul in what you imagine to be an Islamic Body. What good is such a body if it cannot tell right from wrong and the righteous from the un-righteous.

In closing Offstumped would like to say this.

No People or Civilization can achieve greatness who are trapped in the self defeatist mindset of victimhood.

Victimhood is not a sign of strength or self confidence it is a negative that has a debilitating effect on intellect to cloud one’s mind into confusing Vengeance to be Justice.

We can win against aggressive Proselytism and Jihadist Terrorism. But first we must win over our own emotions to remember that it is not about choosing Violence over Non-Violence but it is about choosing Righteousness over Adharma.

Randomly targeting someone of a monotheistic faith through Riots and Bomb Blasts is Vengeance and Adharma.

Aiding and Assisting the State in nabbing Terrorists and bringing them to Justice is Dharma.

Making the Hindu way of life relevant, inspiring and hopeful to the those at the fringes of society is Dharma.

Those who fail to make this fundamental distinction are a far greater threat to our way of life than any of the perceived external threats.

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva, War on Terror, betrayal of aam admi