Hinduism Hindutva Is Different From Hinduism: Sri Veer Savarkar

[Archived_member7]

He adresses all Indians as Hindus only in the national sense .for your information He was an atheist

 

[pk70]

he speech of John Howard is a clear message which had to be sent to even such minorities in India (Bharat or Hindustan you can decide ), if your mentor faiths give you this identity, then go to them, there is no accomodation for another partition of the country.Anyone who nurtures separatist ideas is free to 'LEAVE' to anywhere they feel they and their ways and ideas are accepted.


That sound very harsh stand Raj Khalsa ji especially when I hear from a Sikh like you, puzzles me in context of tolerance advocacy in Sree Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
Well back to the point, unlike Australia, majority of the minority have deep roots in India, promoters of Hindutava do not own the country to declare "live as we determine to live”. There is not a single bit relevancy in the comparison you have been doing. Let me take it point by point.
Who are these Hindutva to force their ideology flawed in million ways on the residents of a country they have been living over centuries unlike the migrants or naturalized residents of Australia who J.H is addressing?
What is need of this Hindutava to prove what,? a dream of a person who was just one of them who also lived in a country owned by foreigners? They were never migrants or naturalized residents as in Australia. Does it unite the country or divide it, if it divides, it’s a fanatic view must be ignored as other fanatic views are. I strongly call it a fascism attitude being promoted in a democratic country.
There is no truth about its application to a race from old History to date, how Hindutava dreamers have got the right to force own views on others? When and where Hindu is more used as a race than as a man of faith? Australians have a point, these guys don’t. Who wants to divide the country further? Why just blames are thrown all around, is it done to cover up what Hindutava guys are doing?
This, India belongs to all people live in there regardless of their faiths. They are proud of being Indians or Bharti, why they should bow to someone’s coined phrase that dents the unity of the country. Taking excuses to force a word totally defining a faith of others, is the same frustration as some who are frustrated with some Governments and registering their anger by demanding separate states. I do not see any difference of both categories. Any thing that divides the country must not be entertained Raj Khalsa Ji, because love for a country goes beyond all this commotion.

 

[Archived_member7]

Brother Pk 70 ji ..i agree love for the country is beyond everything..see u and me will agree to Bharat...what abt those who want to break the country ? The thing is some vested interests have made Hindutva such a hated word.

I only wish i could sit with you physically and we could talk over this..because we need to understand things in the Sikh context ..we are only pushing our brothers away...We need to understand what each one means.

Do we even know that Sikhs in Delhi had praised the RSS ..Khushwant Singh himself has ..they had saved lives ..brother..i know 84 changed a lot things...we feel as if there is always someone to swallow us..and i 100% agree with you in context to Arya Samaj in Punjab...i been there ...We will have to separate things and analyse..

 

[spnadmin]

He adresses all Indians as Hindus only in the national sense .for your information He was an atheist

I know. His atheism was made clear in the Wikipedia article a few posts back. He substitutes the idea of "indigenous cultural heritage" to take the place of a common religion. From this thesis he then argues that Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs should accept the concept of Hindutva, essence of Hindu, because they share a common cultural heritage. This makes it possible for him to skirt around the unique religious identities of these groups. He inserts the idea of Hindu Rashra because this allows him to say -- Oh, I am only talking about the "essence of Hindu" not about Hinduism itself. I am not trying deny your religious identity. You are a Sikh! Of course, but you are also a Hindu (wink, wink).

The notion of "Hindu principles" (Hindutva) promoted by this group is intended to be inclusive of the multiple indigenous traditions of India, including Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. However these religions do not consider themselves to be Hindu. Hindu nationalism has played a crucial role in the recent history of India and that of Hinduism." Hindu nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then, rajkhalsa ji -- I got to thinking. Why is this man, an atheist, defining Sikh, Jain and Buddhist identity? That is strange, don't you think?

 

[Archived_member7]

Aad ji ..The term Hindu in the national sense is entirely different ..it is not like saying one is a muslim or a christian...the difference can be made out by reading his works ..i have read some of them...and all these Panthic groups have the most common link..they are of Indian Origin ..there is bound to be common ness..and to tell you the fact Sikhs had no objections till 1920s ..

 

[spnadmin]

rajkhalsa ji

Your answer is completely correct within the framework of Sarvarkar's philosophy of Hindu Rhastra. :star::star::star::star::star:

Now I ask you why an Indian national who is a Sikh cannot be a citizen of India who is a Sikh? Why does he/she have to be "a Hindu in the national sense" as per your words above? In other words -- Why should Bhai Singh ji say, Well, I am "a Hindu in the national sense," and besides that, I am a Sikh No! He is a Sikh and a citizen of India, and not a Hindu.

This way no matter where you are born you know you are a Sikh -- which you clearly understand.

 

[Archived_member7]

Aaad ji normally no one will give 2 identities ..you can walk on any street in India and ask anyone ..never will u hear he or she is hindu..they might i m a brahmin, a kshatriya, a vaishnav and so on ..or ..the word hindu is understood..they might say this only if they feel its necessary...go to Punjab and while sharing a cup of tea ..ask anyone ..even among sikhs .you will find this answer ..i am ramgarhia, Jat, Rajput, ..in India ..its rarely that we ask amongst ourselves if we r hindu or sikh ...

Do you think Savarkar means that Sikhs should carry Flyers..WE ARE HINDU..BUTTT..IN THE NATIONAL SENSE ..

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

That is not the point ..see Aaadji ..things might be a little hard for you to understand since you have not been a resident here ...

My point to post this ..was not to debate how sikhs are hindus or not ..that is not the point ..The point is ..Hinduism is different from Hindutva.....

The ' ISM' in Hindu narrows down the person's identity to a person who belives in idol worship , smears marks on his forehead ..worships the cow which he feels is equivalent to his mother ...and so on....

The Hindutva is the element which can bring togather even atheists ..can disbelive in religion and concentrate on national integration.

 

[spnadmin]

NOOOOOOOOOO, Rajkhalsa ji!

From where I stand you have bought into a theory that is dangerously close, if not already, to being an overt attack on the strength that comes from honoring diversity. Any attempt in history to overwhelm the value of unique cultural and religious identities and experience, that aimed at overwhelming the value of diversity, has in the end been a social tragedy.

In nature, without diversity species die. In any society, without diversity, that society becomes extinct.

 

[Archived_member7]

Nooooo i m not against diversity ...and India is a land full of diversity ..thats why we say Unity in Diversity ...the thing is we still some how have hindu as a religion clinging to our psyche...Savarkar had not even the slightest intention to destroy the identity...He has morever promoted Sikhism to the max...His writings mention Guru Gobindsinghji ..He persuaded Ambedkar to convert to Sikhi..He has written considerably on Sikhi..unfortuantely that dint come to print ..due to circumstances...

 

[Archived_Member4]

Nooooo i m not against diversity ...and India is a land full of diversity ..thats why we say Unity in Diversity ...the thing is we still some how have hindu as a religion clinging to our psyche...Savarkar had not even the slightest intention to destroy the identity...He has morever promoted Sikhism to the max...His writings mention Guru Gobindsinghji ..He persuaded Ambedkar to convert to Sikhi..He has written considerably on Sikhi..unfortuantely that dint come to print ..due to circumstances...

Whats wrong with saying i'm Indian. My nationalty is Indian. There problem solved no hinduism or hindutva.

If Sikhs in India are going im Jatt and so on then they got a serious problem. When someone asks me who am I, its like a reflex to say I am Sikh. And if I feel like adding my nationality I'll add im a Canadian Hey.

What i don't like being called is Indo-Canadian. Like what the hell is Indo-Canadian. Am I not good enough to be called Canadian. I guess my skin aint light enough, too much tanning.

 

[spnadmin]

Nooooo i m not against diversity ...and India is a land full of diversity ..thats why we say Unity in Diversity ...the thing is we still some how have hindu as a religion clinging to our psyche...Savarkar had not even the slightest intention to destroy the identity...He has morever promoted Sikhism to the max...His writings mention Guru Gobindsinghji ..He persuaded Ambedkar to convert to Sikhi..He has written considerably on Sikhi..unfortuantely that dint come to print ..due to circumstances...

rajkhalsa ji -- A few of us are wondering how it is that an atheist converted someone to a different religion. Did this Savarkar have a gigantic ego? I have to investigate this further.

 

[spnadmin]

Nooooo i m not against diversity ...and India is a land full of diversity ..thats why we say Unity in Diversity ...the thing is we still some how have hindu as a religion clinging to our psyche...Who has hindu religion clinging to his/her psyche? And I thought you said previously that hindutva was not about the hindu religion. Savarkar had not even the slightest intention to destroy the identity...Maybe that was not his stated intention. However, destruction of the Sikh identity is the consequence of Hindu Rhastra which he conceived. :}: He has morever promoted Sikhism to the max...How does Hindu Rhastra promote Sikhism? It places Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism "under erasure" to paraphrase the use of the term by the famous deconstructionist scholar, Jacques Detrida. His writings mention Guru Gobindsinghji . .He persuaded Ambedkar to convert to Sikhi..He has written considerably on Sikhi..unfortuantely that dint come to print ..due to circumstances... I wonder why? :hmm:

rajkhasla ji,

It doesn't add up.

 

[Archived_member7]

Aaadji Sorr for my absence ..i do not usually check my mails on week ends ...

So...You are getting confused ...all messed up ..I said we have hindu as a religion clinging to our psyche ..it is we sikhs ...I still say the term Hindu doesnt mean a religious identity ..When the invaders invaded India..do u want them to be community concious and say..this is the land of th Hindus the Sikhs the Budhdhists and so on ???

I said Savarkar 'PERSUADED' Ambedkar..He dint convert Ambedkar...He suggested Ambedkar

Now you are getting into another topic ..Hindu Rashtra..well ..i dont think you even have any idea what it means ..there is no erasing of any identity ..They are losing by erasing the Sikh identity ..is what i know ..and not gaining ..The Khalsa was the very cause why Islam dint get as many converts by terrorizing people ...The Khalsa had given a strong resistance ..It is a myth that there Sikh Identity is being erased...

There is a poetry like ' Naa kahu main ab ki...Naa kahu main tab ki...Naa hote GuruGobindSingh to Sunnat hoti Sabki' translated as Had there not been for Guru Gobindsingh then all of them would be circumcized i.e. conversion to Islam...

You also want to know why his writings on Sikhi dint come to print well here is the answer from the official website

Q & A | Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
Is it true that Savarkar wrote a history of the Sikhs?
Yes, Savarkar did write a history of the Sikhs. The facts of the matter are as follows:
While in England, Savarkar learnt the Gurumukhi script and read Sikh scriptures like the Adi Granth, the Dasam Granth and other works like Panth Prakash, Suraj Prakash and Bhai Bala’s Janamsakhi. He also read histories of the Sikhs, written by British authors, like J.D.Cunningham. Savarkar used to send patriotic pamphlets to the camps of Sikh soldiers. Savarkar may have studied Sikhism and Sikh history to communicate effectively with Sikh soldiers. By the end of the year 1909, London became too hot for Savarkar. Pandit Shyamji Krishnavarma had to sell off India House. Even Bipin Chandra Pal could not keep Savarkar as his paying guest due to angry English mobs. Savarkar had to put up in London slums. There too, British detectives hounded him. Due to deprivation and extreme cold, Savarkar developed a serious lung infection. Dr. Muthu, the Vice President of Pandit Shyamji Krishna Varma’s Indian Home Rule League took Savarkar to his nursing home in Wales. Fortunately, Savarkar recovered in those pre-antibiotic days. He began writing the history of the Sikhs in Marathi, when Dr. Muthu permitted him to work for a couple of hours a day. This book was of about two hundred pages and traced the Sikh history, from the birth of Guru Nanak to the founding of an empire by Maharajah Ranjit Singh. At the behest of his comrades in arms, Savarkar went to Paris in the latter half of January 1910. There, he revised the manuscript of his Sikh history, made its three copies and dedicated the book to his son, Prabhakar who had died in 1909 at the age of four. All the three copies were lost and Savarkar’s history of the Sikhs, the first in Marathi thus remained unpublished.

Aad ji ..there are so many pages of Indian History which you will need to go through to understand these things ...you stil will have read on Ambedkar ...

You concept of Hindu Rashtra is that of Islam's Dar-ul-islam...where no other identity survives ..

Islam and Indian religions are not the same ....even the concept of Khalistan doesnt say that there would be no non-sikh surviving ..

It is easier to understand a one liner Religion ..which has a set of rules and a book...neither Sikhi nor India come under this category.

 

[spnadmin]

rajkhalsa ji

It is never a good idea to patronize someone by saying something like this, Aad ji ..there are so many pages of Indian History which you will need to go through to understand these things ...you stil will have read on Ambedkar....

You don't know the sum total of my knowledge about this matter. It is interesting that at the beginning of the Hindutva movement Dalits were considered outside the sphere of Hindutva interest. Once Dalits were viewed by Hindutva as politically useful, they were used by Hindutva strategically -- to organize and manipulate as a political bloc to advance Hindutva agendas. From the mid-1990's, until about 2004 Dalits saw Hindutva as a way to achieve political influence - EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE INTEGRATED INTO THE BRAHMINISTIC HIERARCHY OF HINDUTVA -- at the very bottom of the ladder. By about 2004 Dalits woke up and realized that they could play this game too -- play both ends against the middle. Work their votes this way or that according to political interest to Dalits.

You see, this is a favorite theme of Hindutva -- "Let us band together for the good of Mother India, seek out our enemies, and neutralize them forever." Today the target happens to be Christians and particularly Muslims. All this does is perpetuate aggression and violence. It solves nothing.

So do not speak as if I am a {censored}... I can spam the thread with articles of political interest just to show how cynical and manipulative this "Hindutva" movement really is.

 

[Archived_member7]

I apologize if u felt i took you as a {censored} ...I cannot even attempt this ..you for me are a person of knowledge.. and wisdom ...Aaadji i have a lot of respect for u and besides all this we r good friends ...dont take things personally ..what i meant was ..the India you know is what is potrayed by people on the net ...and i should say if i were to write on American politics ..i would be on the same boat ...

Well.. there are many articles by pseudo secular interests who blame hindutva for creating hurdles in their vote bank...and what is wrong in uniting for Mother India and neutralizing enemies ? we need to be united ..Aadji my India is not going through a good time ..we have been attacked mercilessly....We will have to be ONe InDiA

The Evangelists have created christian terrorism in the North East..the Muslims...well our muslim brothers are all over besides Kashmir..they have a burning desire to make Kashmirs all over India ...We are fighting tooth and nail ....

Savarkar had always had the so called 'untouchables' and Dalits in his writings ...to make things more clear ...you should read a novel he wrote 'Moplah' ...well He was staunch rationalist and had criticized and opposed people who advocated caste .He launched a movement and also had a temple in Ratnagiri Maharashtra ..known as Patit Pavan...this was an open to all temple from where he launched anti caste activites ..

 

[spnadmin]

rajkhalsa ji

If one goes to the site hindutva.org, and reads through the various pages 2 things stand out.

On the home page there is article after article and link after link solely devoted to anti-Muslim subject matter. All political rhetoric.

On the page devoted to Sikhs -- and this is really a good example of my point as it relates to Hindutva/Sikh relationships -- great care was taken to make Sikhism a wonderful religion (which it is) but great care was also taken to focus on the conflicts between our Gurus and Muslims, and not a whisper about Brahminism. Connect the dots -- this web site is a Hindutva site. When you connect the dots what does it tell you?

One India -- absolutely. Who am I to question that? You have India; peoples of India include Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, "Hindus" of every type, and other peoples as well. On the flag of India is the wheel of dharma. But Brahmins are not in charge of Dharma. Hindutva was and is promoting a Brahmin defnition of India. What do you have to say about the persecution of Buddhists by Hindutva agitators? Who did they terrorize?

 

[Archived_member7]

Well if u hold hindutva.org as a offical site of hindutva then u r highly mistaken...the name doesnt mean its a patent spokesman of the ideology ...can u shed more light on hindutva agitators ? i need to get a clear picture ..of what u mean ..

 

[spnadmin]

Well if u hold hindutva.org as a offical site of hindutva then u r highly mistaken... RajKhalsa ji, I never said that hindutva.org is the official website. Problem is: Who are the official spokesmen/women???? the name doesnt mean its a patent spokesman of the ideology .. Where is the place where anyone can pin leaders of Hindutva down? The idea of One India is variously coupled with anti-this group and anti-that group, depending on political currents of a point in time. Is this what One India is supposed to mean? .can u shed more light on hindutva agitators ? i need to get a clear picture ..of what u mean ..

rajkhalsa ji

The hindutva.com link on the hindutva.org homepage leads to something called the Hindutva pledge But here is the Hindutva pledge as put forward by the webmasters of hindutva.org. Once again, and this is just my reading, it is very crafty. It appears to honor diversity and neutrality with respect to religion. What is the underlying message? Whatever it is it is not per Gurmat. I have reacted inline in crimson (the color of love :yes to some ideas that are not consistent with Sikhism. And in other places to ideas that are so ambiguous that they are destined to trigger animosity because anyone can interpret them to mean anything.

This page brings you Our Hindutva pledge.

- compiled by the hindutva.org team

We, the hindutva team, advocate the rational-humanist outlook of the late Veer Savarkar, former President of the Hindu Mahasabha who also pioneered the concept of Hindutva in a treatise by that name. This is what defines our outlook and distinguishes us from our twins from the Sangh Parivar who represent the spiritualist-nationalist outlook, which today, by default, is understood as Hindutva.

My reaction: When we are talking about hindutva, as we are in this thread -- which version are we talking about? Or is this confusion there for a purpose?


We, pledge to ourselves that we disown superstition, dogmatism, mythology, miracles, miracle men, godmen, spiritualism, mysticism, This part sounds per Gurmat and the entire religious, dogmatic and theistic outlook completely. But Sikhism is a theistic faith.

We also pledge that we disown caste and casteist feelings totally and permanently.

Hindutva did not disown caste, etc., until it became obvious that by integrating in Dalits they could control larger blocs of votes to swing elections in the direction of agendas that were politically good for hindutva. This is a recent development in hindutva political rhetoric, and one that Dalits now recognize as a political deception.

We pledge to disassociate Hindutva from all that is considered religious, casteist, sectarian, nationalistic and theistic; and pledge to retrieve the modernist, futuristic, egalitarian, secular, globalist, humanist and rationalist outlook which is the essence of the universal and timeless outlook that is inherent to Sanatan Parampara (literally "timeless tradition"). Sanatana Parampara represents the ancient tradition of free-thought from India. Why should followers of the Sikh panth associate themselves with an organization that is anti-theistic and secular?


The outlook of the Hindutva site advocates tolerance of all forms of religion as a matter of private belief (with controlled public expression). But we reject and pledge to fight casteism to its finish, we also reject and pledge to fight to their finish ALL shades of religious fanaticism.

Do they plan to fight casteism within the hindutva movement? Are they talking about fighting the political wings of hindutva that the webmasters are not part of ?

OUR CONCEPT OF AN IDEAL SOCIETY
We advocate a form of society where the belief or disbelief in religion is a private matter and religion has controlled public expression. Towards this end, we pledge to use the web to help in fighting to intellectually checkmate and destroy all across the globe, religious fanaticism that advocates the expansion of any one particular form of religious belief at the point of the sword. I have to change color here because they are using blue. What is this? They are declaring a cyber-jihad which will checkmate and destroy fanatics of other religions. How do they propose to do this? Is it legal?

We also pledge to intellectually fight and neutralize all across the globe, religious fanaticism which advocates belief in any one particular form of religious belief as the only true faith the others being paganism. This is definitely a rhetorical attack against Christians and Muslims. And tries to win adherents with allurements of free education, medical care, orphanages, etc.

We also pledge to expose and neutralize that form of religious fanaticism which is a reaction to the above two forms of religious fanaticism and which attacks missionariesand tries to counter peaceful but deceptive missionary activity with terror tactics apart from acting as a Culture Police to impose a ban on beauty pageants, celebration of birthdays, New (Julian/Gregorian) Year festivities, honeymoons, et al. More pointed against Christians.

These folks claim, like us, that they also uphold our same outlook of Hindutva. But we assertively state here that these lumpen elements, do not represent Hindutva since their ideas go against human sanity and commonsense. These vagabonds do not fathom the depth of the Sanatana Parampara, which they allege to represent. We from the Hindutva - The Hindu Way of Life team, distance ourselves from such uncultured culture police. Unlike them, we are all for the modernization of human society; which in this context is interpreted by many as Westernization or as Americanization. We do not attach significance to the name(s) given to this process. What we fully endorse is, the observance of everything that makes life full of easygoing fun without causing social harm or social nuisance.

We advocate the principle of the universal brotherhood of man and the oneness of humankind and reject all kinds of discrimination between man and man. We advocate service to humankind without any ulterior motive of trying to convert people to any kind of mode of worship. We pledge to ensure that there is freedom for people to worship the way they want to (without leading to social discord or holy wars); or not to worship at all. We have to thus work towards a scenario where there is no discrimination between man and man (discrimination as existed in the de-humanizing caste system and in all other forms of socio-economic division of society) and where there is complete freedom to choose one's method of prayer (without leading to social discord or holy wars); or to choose not to pray at all. A scenario where religion is allowed a controlled social existence and thus does not become a reason for social discord. These statements are insulting to all religions. First they say there should be freedom to choose one's method of prayer. And then they advocate a scenario where religion is "allowed" a controlled social existence so it does not become a reason for social discord. This is both offensive and self-contradictory. Who are they to advocate a scenario that gives permission to the practice of religion?

This scenario is quite similar to the ancient Hindu society, the only difference being that religion, understood as the public practice of worship is controlled, so that it does not become a reason for social discord or holy wars.. ???? In ancient Hindu society there was a considerable amount of bias against other religions. This was also the same society that killed any Shudra who was caught reciting the holy scriptures of Brahmins, or coming close to a Brahmin. I am not certain that Shudra's were even allowed to learn to read. Does it not look to you as if hindutva wants to have its cake and eat it too no matter how illogical. They are saying "Go back to the tolerance of ancient Hindu society, but only back to that part of it which romantically seems good and pure." We know our Gurbani - and we know that Guru Nanak rejected these notions. It is this scenario, in which the pre-history of humankind will end. With this will end religious sectarianism, and division of our globe by national borders - borders along which there has been violence, hatred and bloodshed. With this scenario will begin the history of the human species, where science and quest for knowledge will dominate the human outlook and where WE as one species will face SPACE - the final frontier for humankind. RajKhalsa ji..... these words could have been uttered by any 20th Century dictator aiming to bring humanity to the brink of a new way of life according to his utopian theory of what that way of life should be. Anyone who did not agree, ended up in a bad place sooner or later.

How Religion is a weakness of the human mind WoW!

Religion is a wrong turn which humankind has taken on the road of perception, at the crossroads – one leading towards “Quest” and another towards “Faith”. Animals have no faith and are not religious. Since they have no perception and no capability to think beyond perception. Humans have this capability. And so when man started thinking of the universe he saw above him, he developed two contradictory responses.

One response was to assume that behind all what he saw was a creator and all what he saw was the creator’s creation. This response was “Faith” and was based on the weakness of the human mind’s inability to understand the unknown universe. This led to the birth of religion. This choice was psychologically satisfying, since nothing was left unexplained. Behind everything man saw in the universe, he assumed there was the creator’s hand. And so he prayed to the creator for his own well being.

The other response was “Quest” according to which he tried to assume nothing, but to understand the unknown universe to the extent of his (man’s) capability. This gave birth to science. This choice was realistic, since it was not based on the assumption that there is a creator behind all that man saw. But this choice could not psychologically satisfying, since it did not explain everything in the universe with the one common explanation – what exists is god’s creation and whatever happens is god’s will.

I am a servant to the will of Waheguru. These passages above are a rejection of faith. And a celebration of manmukh philosophy.

How come many leading scientists are deeply religious?
In many cases a leading scientist would be devoutly religious. This does not prove that religion is right. Are they saying that religion is not a right? Do we go back to the part above where in this new society we will be "allowed" to practice our religion. But only if we are not nuisances about it? It only proves that humans can have the two mutually contradictory responses of faith and quest within one person. The fact is that “Faith” and “Quest” nullify each other. And most of us (excepts atheists like me) have both these responses as a part of our personality in a Jeckyll and Hyde syndrome. It is good to see that the webmaster admits he is an atheist.


Are religion and morality same?
One factor that wrongfully gave (and still gives) an alibi for religion to exist was that of the association of ethics and morality with religion and the confusion that religion (or the mistaken belief of the unknown universe being a god) is ethics and morality. Since religion was based on the fear of the unknown universe, this fear could be used to make man behave in a certain manner – good or bad. When this fear was used to inculcate good behavior like “You should not steal” You should not lie”, etc., religion became a medium to enforce ethics and morality in society in the early phase of human social evolution. There is nothing new or amazing about this discovery.

This was like a small child being told by his mother that “Do not eat the sweets, while I am away, since god is watching and he will punish you.” Now the child does not eat the sweets when mummy is away, since he fears that god will punish him. If the same argument is used when the child grows into an adult, it would look silly. You do not tell a thirty year old person not to eat sweets, since god is watching. He needs to be told the real reason for not eating sweets (whatever that reason may be). Similarly in the early phase of humankind’s social evolution, religion based as it was on the fear of the unknown, played a useful role to inculcate ethical and moral behavior among humans. But in today’s scientific information age, human society can be taught ethics with the reasoning that ethics and morals are necessary for civilized society to exist, and not because a god will punish humans who do not have ethics and morals! Thus we see that ethics and morality are independent of belief in the unknown universe as being a god, but since in the early phase of human evolution, it was necessary to have a psychological medium to inculcate ethics and morality- religion played this role, which today is not necessary. This also shows how ethics and morality are independent of religion and we need not confuse ethics and morality with religion.

As against these examples of good ethics and morals, religion also inculcated unethical and immoral behavior like the religious commands to convert all humans to your religion and use physical force in doing this while killing all those who refuse to comply. So, the religious choice while psychologically satisfying in explaining the unknown universe as god’s creation and all that was happening as god’s will, also led to another problem, where humans wanted all other humans to accept their interpretation of the assumption called god. This put humankind on a path of perpetual conflict in religious wars.

Again manmukh speaking about ethics and morality. Guru Nanak says if we wish to play the game of love, then we give up our egos and trickery of munn. Enshrine the Name of the Divine in our hearts and evil will depart.

Hence Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc stick to their own interpretation of the assumption called god and try to enforce on others their interpretation of the assumption called god. Everything written so far by the webmaster in this pledge is based on his/their assumptions about God AND it is a pledge to enforce control of religion on others.


No such problem existed in the field of science. The scientists who subscribed to the theory of the ‘Big bang’ of the creation of the universe do not impose this theory on those who go by the ‘Implosion’ theory of the creation of the universe. There may be seminars and conferences and debates, but this cannot lead to violence as it does between different religions. More so they never think of imposing this theory by the force of arms on other scientists. They never say “Accept this theory or else I will kill you”. But in the field of religion this is very much a reality, “Accept my interpretation of the assumption called god or I will kill you, or force you some way.” Sometimes this is a reality. It is not always a reality. Not even in India. Is what most religious persons say, especially the monotheistic Muslims and Christians, but the Hindus and Buddhists are also insistent in a generally non-violent way. I am getting tired typing right now. But isn't it very interesting how monothesitic Sikhism was omitted from the list. Now I would agree that Sikhs do not try to force their religion on others at the point of a sword. But when was the last time you saw or heard of a Buddhist doing that?

The insistence of the monotheistic Muslims and Christians has led to the inter-faith wars of the past and present (Jihad, and the response to Jihad – the war on terror). But the possibility of such a war or coercion did not and could not exist among different schools in the scientific community. No Doctor asks a Lawyer or an Accountant, to become a Doctor or else he will kill them! Sounds stupid, isn’t it? But a Muslim does ask a Christian or Hindu to become a Muslim or else he will kill them or harass them. Why does a Muslim as a religious person do this?? But a Doctor as a member of a scientific profession does not do this? Any answers??? And do we see the difference that religion and science leads to in human behavior? This is why religions are inherently contradictory to each other and so are in perpetual conflict with each other and also with science. Obviously science does not lead us to peace, harmony, rationality (a favorite of the person who wrote the pledge), the absence of war and conflict. If science were the solution, then why do we have the H-bomb! If a scientific attitude were the answer, then why are little girls in the majority the victims of foeticide? Science is misused because humans misuse it. The humans who misuse it are humans who do not have a moral and ethical center that arises from a sense that there is someone, something, greater than the laws of the material universe and the human experience to guide them. To base moral and ethical guidance solely on scientific understanding of material universe and/or from the human experience is the source of pain and suffering.

It is this inherent contradiction in religion that had made it imperative today that religion be controlled and not be allowed to destroy human civilization. Finally the truth is out. This is and the next sentence are hardly compatible with Sikhism. It needs to be controlled by curtailing (or banning) the public practice of religion. But religion as a response cannot be removed from the human mind, since it originates from the weakness of the human mind’s inability to understand the unknown universe. By preventing the public practice of religion, we can only ensure that this weakness does not develop into a sickness of religious fanaticism that threatens human civilization, as it does today through the Jihad and the unavoidable response to this Jihad – the War on Terror

For the Future, to ensure that the public practice of religion does not lead to social strife, we feel that the following points need to be implemented in human society the world over.

- Celebration of religious festivals or any other form of public expression of religion, should always be under the supervision and control of the civil (law and order) authority. No more Guru de Naal celebrations.

- All educational institutions should be run by professional educational bodies who should follow a common syllabus and curriculum. This syllabus and curriculum should educate every generation about the nature of religious outlook itself and the creative and destructive role it has played in past Human history. The syllabus and curriculum should not to require/ask of everyone to believe in god or to stop believing in god. Every child of schooling age would have to get educated through the medium of such schools. No Gurmat school.

- There should be a common Civil Code for the entire citizenry across the globe. There already is a common code in India which includes the Hindu Marriage Act - and if you are a Jain, Sikh or Hindu, you have to pay someone to facilitate your walk around Agni to be married whether you want to or not.

- There should be a general ban on evangelism and public debate between different modes of worship. SPN would not longer be able to have an Interfaith Dialogs forum.


We are aware that these suggestions will be subjected to severe criticism by visitors from various (all) religious backgrounds. Yes. Me. But we the webmasters of this Hindutva site believe that the future hope for the human species does not lie in religion, spiritualism, dogmatism, and the concurrent religious fanaticism and theology-inspired terrorism that all religions breed. The future Human Being should be more attuned to frequenting Science Labs and Astronomical Observatories; rather than going to Churches, Temples, Monasteries, Mosques, Fire-altars, Synagogues, etc.

Our future lies in the human qualities of reasoning, scientific research, increasing understanding of the physical universe beyond the globe and the solar system. The qualities for a future ideal Human Being would be those of being a saintly scientist who would function as a soldier whenever our human species and the civilized human way of living is threatened from forces within the human species (like those of theology-inspired terrorism) or from forces beyond our planet and solar system.

The religious human beings of today use their capabilities to conquer one another through holy wars in an effort to impose one single religion on the human race. The vision religious people pursue is to land up in heaven with all the goodies of heaven, or Jannat, or swarga. Who is having the fantasy? This fantasy is built around a mythical paradise with its angels, fairies, houris, etc. But we hope that the rational human being of the future would use all his capabilities to extend his understanding of the universe and to conquer the universe. His vision would be to extend human control over the universe in an endless exercise where he goes from the Earth to the Moon, to Mars, to outside the solar system and onwards beyond our galaxy in an endless quest that engages him in a thrilling saga of understanding the universe, where his capabilities are pitted for the conquest of the universe, and not against his own species in war of self-destruction.


- pledge compiled by the Hindutva.org team

(This Hindutva Site is managed by a Virtual Team of Webmasters across the globe. The articles included at this site do not necessarily represent the views of the Webmasters.)
Site Map of hindutva.com


________________________________________
Send your feedback to:
- The Hindutva Team
From the Hindu Mahasabha

______________________________________________

Now rajkhalsa ji -- Put this pledge together with the steady, negative focus on Musims on the home page, and one begins to wonder whether there are some profound biases among the followers of hindutva. One place though where I may be starting to concur with you. This site hindutva.org and in particular this pledge may not represent hindutva in a fair and accurate way. It seems very strident. So if you send me some links, I will read the material, and provide you with an equally serious critique. I am serious.

 

[Archived_member7]

Well i shall get back to the previous post Aaad behenji...my dear sister....hwo can u quote a site as such...see the name given doesnt mean they endorse all the values ...they are using the name ...

Also ..i know the person who heads it ...he happens to be a writer and use to stay close to where i use to stay before...so we had met ..this was 7 years ago...I dint agree with him too...

Aaad ji this site no where is connected to the ideology....its like say sikhsangat.com..or so many other sites ..who do speak of sikhism but do not endorse all the ideas ....

 

[spnadmin]

rakhalsa ji

I am going to watch Obama's inauguration on TV -- so will not be on the forum this morning. Will come back this evening to see if you have posted some links for me to read. Thanks for your reply.