रविवार, 16 मई 2021

Misappropriation of National Symbols

 Misappropriation of national symbols is the first sign of fascism to exploit national feelings, emotions and sentiments. Their names are packaged for sale in the name of nationalism, culture and religion. Some convenient scapegoat is invented to shift the blame for misdeeds committed in the society by the vested interests.

In India fascism can assume a very ugly form. Hitler invented the myth of the Aryan race and took the drastic steps to eliminate non-Nordic from the German soil. Hitler gor inspiration from Nietzsche and the Teutonic Knights when he selected Swastika for his flag as an emblem of his Nazi Party.

But in India, heros apotheosised by the R.S.S. are the ones who had been opposed or cold-shouldered by custodians of the culture R.S.S. pretends to represent Rana Pratap, Shivaji and Guru Govind Singh, are merely the misappropriated heros in whose name it exploits the national and religious feelings of Hindus. Golwalker blames Jaichand, Man Singh and Natu, who he says, betrayed Prithvi Raj, Rana Pratap and Peshwas respectively and brought about the slavery of India.

Golwalkar further says that the caste system was not the cause of India's slavery. Iran, Egypt, Rome & Europe succumbed to Muslims invasion even though there was no caste system.

Blaming Jai Chand

In "An Advanced History of India" authored by three professors, R/C. Majumdar, H.C. Ray Chaudhari and K. Dutta, write, "This is said to have added to the bitterness of their relation (Kidnapping og Jai Chand's daughter) so that Jai Chnad did not ally himself with Prithvi Raj when Muhammad of  Ghur appeared on the scene. There is no reason to believe that Jai Chand invited Muhammad of Ghur to invade India. The invasion of this country was an almost a corollary to Muhammad's complete victory over the Ghaznavids in the Punjab."

 Blaming Man Singh, but not Shakti Singh

The ruler of Amber (Jaipur), Biharimal, offered the hand of his daughter, Yodha Bai, to Akbar without asking. She exerted great influence of Akbar and his policy. She become the mother of Jahangir, Prince Salim of Anarkali fame. Akbar took Bhagwan Dass and Man Singh, son and grandson of Raja Biharimal, in service and treated them as his most trusted relatives. Bhagwan Dass married his daughter to Jahangir. Akbar also married two other Hindu Princesses of Bikaner and Jaisalmer.

In his book, "History of India" Prof. A. L. Srivastava writes, "Many a Hindu would not have his break fast without having seen the emperor's face (Darshan) in the morning. Some flattering Pandits went further and sought to establish that Akbar was the king of the world and fountainhead of religion. Akbar repaid compliment by trying to assimilate Hindu thought and by conforming to the Hindu mode of life."

Prof. Srivastava opines, "Had Hindu Pandits and princes been broadminded enough to accept him (Akbar) as a member of the Hindu faith and had made an attempt to rid Hinduism of idolatry and our society of caste system, Akbar would probably have embraced Hinduism. It is pity that our forebearer of the second half of the 16th century betrayed reluctance to receive even Akbar as a member of their creed."

Is it Man Singh to blame or is it that the Pandits are to blame? 

... Ranade was excommunicated by the Shankaracharya for criticizing the caste system and idolatry, Dayanand was administered poison and Gandhi was assassinated.

As a matter of fact, the Brahaminism cannot do the away with caste system and idolatry. The caste system bestows on them the superior status and idolatry a means of livelihood. Both together give them economic, social and political power to tule over the gullible masses so that they have to invent some imaginary foes to divert the attention of the common people away from the real bane of Indian society.

Wasn't Man Singh's allegiance to the Mughal Emperor as impeccable as R.S.S. allegiance to the British Crown? How can Golwalker blame Man Singh and exonerate himself for treason against India? What about Shakti Singh, Maharana Pratap's own brother, who joined Akbar's forces and fought against his own brother? There is no complements to Hakim Khan, a Muslim who fought against Man Singh and Shakti Singh, as a general of Maharana Pratap's army!

 Blaming Natu

 Golwalkar writes, "Even in the last-ditch battle between the Hindus and the British at Poona in 1818, it was a fellow casteman of the Peshwas, Natu by name, who lowered the Hindu flag and hoisted the British flag. There was a veritable race of such traitors but they were so because they fell prey to other temptations and for other reasons. Caste never came into the picture." 

Golwalker hides the truth and takes recourse to fallacious reasonings. ... Natu is the "castemen of the Peshwas!" Were the Peshwas not Brahmins?

Misappropriation of Chhatrapati Shivaji

Golwalkar himself admits that all the battles Shivaji fought against the Mughals and Bijapur were manned and led by our valiant brothers-untouchable. But after the crushing defeat at the third battle of Panipat and after the sad-demise of valiant Sadashive Rao and especially under the later Peshwas, "the valiant brothers of ours" were treated most inhumanly. The laws of Manu Smriti in worst form were enforced against them in Maharastra.

Shivaji's throne was usurped by the Peshwas from his descendants and the Peshwas became the rulers. Untouchables become the direct victims of this rule. The Peshwas apprehended a threat to their power if untouchables and Shivaji's descendants, who were declared Shudras, joined hands.

What the later Peshwas did to untouchables is depicted by Prof. G.S. Ghurye, "The Mahars and Mangs (untouchables) were not allowed within the gates of Poona after 3 p.m. and before 9 a.m. because before nine and after three their bodies cast long a shadow, which falling on a member of the higher castes - especially Brahmins - defiles him. A Mahar - one of the untouchables - might not spit on the road lest a pure caste Hindu should be polluted by touching it with his foot, but had to carry an earthen pot, hung from his neck, in which to spit. Further, he had to drag a thorny branch with him to wipe out his footprints and to lie at a distance prostrate on the ground if a Brahmin passed by, so that his foul shadow might not defile the holy Brahmin."

Nathu is a scapegoat. The real culprits are those who still define and practice Dharma as a corporate social existence and not as love for humanity. They have not learnt any lesson from history - if you enslave fellow members of the society, you are bound to be enslaved by others!

After carving out a vast Maratha Empire, Shivaji announced his desire for coronation in 1672. In the eyes of Mughals and other kings, Shivaji was a rebel, a successful usurper and not a king. The high caste Marathas considerd him a Shudra and not a Kshatriya. 

A conqueror without crown and a wielder of power without the sceptre of royalty neither could convince the unlettered masses to acknowledge his sovereignty, not could he enter into treaties with other kings.

Moro Pant Pingle, Shivaji's Prime Minister was a leading Brahmin. He persuaded the Maharashtrian Brahmins not to perform coronation ceremony for Shivaji as he was a Shudra.

When Shivaji come to know about this conspiracy, he bribed Gaga Bhatt (the most learned and renowned Pandit of Banaras). Gaga Bhatt then, invited other learned Brahmins to find out way to perform coronation ceremony of a Shudra. Eleven thousand Brahmins, many uninvited, assembled at Raigarh and they were shortly joined by their families. For four months, fifty thousand Brahmins were fed and entertained by Shivaji!

For four months, the eleven thousand 'learned' Brahmins regaled in religous hunts to find out a way to give Shivaji the sacred thread as he had passed the Upanayana age.

On 25th June, 1674 the eve of the coronation ceremony, was spent by the king in self-restraint and mortification of the flesh. On this day Gaga Bhatt was given 5000 hun and other learned Brahmins a hundred gold pieces each.

On the day of the coronation (June 16), Shivaji got up early in the morning, worshiped his house=hold gods and other adored the feet of Balam Bhatt, his family priest, Gaga Bhatt and other eminent Brahmins who all received gifts of ornaments and cloth.... He took his seat on the throne amidst the chanting of hymns and music of the band. Gaga Bhatt held the royal umbrella over the enthroned monarch's head and hailed him as Shivaji Chhatrapati. Shivaji then gave large sums of money to the Brahmins, other people and beggers...

Shivaji was obliged to undergo a second coronation ceremony on the 4th Oct 1674 on the suggestion of a well-known Tantrik, named Nishchal Puri Goswami who said that Gaga Bhatt has performed the ceremony at an inauspicious hour and neglected the spirits adored in the Tantra.

Karvir Shankaracharya declared that in Kaliyug, there were no Kshatriyas; only Brahmins were left as twice born. Shivaji's descendants had to contend with Puranic rites and confine themselves in their quarters when real power went in the hands of the Peshwas.

After all that the priestly class had done to Shivaji and his descendants, R.S.S is now packaging Shivaji for sale to this nation. Do the custodians of the Hindutva culture have any answer for their conduct?

Misappropriation of Guru Govind Singh

Golwalkar writes, "The great religious Guru Nanak and his successors had the foundations of the Hindu upheaval exhibiting itself in the war like Sikhs under Guru Govind Singh and Banda Bairagi. Thus once again, the great national consolidation centred around Dharma and the vicious, anti-national forces were put to rout and the flag of national victory flown triumphantly from Attack to Calcutta and from Kashmir to Kanyakumari."

The center exercise of Golwalkar looks like a master bluff of a bluff master to bluff the gullible followers. The history of Sikh Gurus does not testify the authenticity of what he harps on dharma.

A constant companion of Guru Nanak was Bhai Mardana, a Muslim. Dharma of Guru Nanak, was a revolt against the ancient Brahmanical caste system, it was a revolt against Sanskrit, the confined and monopolized language of the priestly class, and he preached his new Dharma in the simple and straight forward language of his people, it was a dharma based on Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man and not on Golwalkar Bhagwan Manu's callous and inhuman code. For Guru Nanak, Allah and Ram are the same.

The gurus broke the caste barriers. The concept of pollution and untouchabiltiy, the cornerstones of Manu's Dharma, lay shattered beneath the ground of community kitchen (Langar). They gave us a new set of values and a new social vision.

When Guru Govind Singh was born in Patna in 1666, a Muslim Fakir, Sayyad Bhikkam Shah, saw a strange light in his village. He declare that, "God has sent a new light on the earth." Following the light he tried to test the new born 'prince'. He purchased two jars of sweets, one from a Hindu vendor and the other from a Muslim vendor and placed before the baby to know his preference. Smiling baby clutched the both jars and he was acknowledged the mentor of both the faiths.

Guru Govind Singh was considered as enemny of Hindu kings of northern India. Guru Govind Singh when asked why Hindu Kings were against him, he said, "The Idol worshipping hill-men want to kill me because they are idol worshippers and I am an idol breakers."

In his fight against fifteen Hindu kings of hill states, Guru Govind Singh was supported by Pir Budhu Shah, a Muslim of Sadhaura, now in Yamuna Nagar District of Haryana. He sent a contingent of seven hundred soldiers under the command of his four sons, two of them died in the battle of Bhangani. The Guru was victorious.

After his defeat at Chamkaur Sahib, Guru Govind Singh escaped. His last companion, a Sikh, Dalla by name, also deserted him. At this critical juncture the Guru was escorted, helped and saved by the Muslims.

Guru Govind Singh's family took shelter in the home of their cook, Pandit Gangu. One night Pandit Gangu stole the entire treasure of the Guru and betrayed his family to Wazir Khan, Governor of Sarhind. Both the sons of the Guru Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh were asked by the governor to embrace Islam. They refused. On the intervention of Nawab of Malerkotla who was present at that time in the court, they were pardoned and let off. But another courtier, Pandit Sucha Nand, summoned the princes back and asked them what they would do when they would grow up. They replied that they would fight the tyrant Mughal emperor. This question was further repeated twice and their reply was the same. On this, Pandit Sucha Nand told the governor that they were the sons of a snake and deserved the death and they must be bricked alive in the wall.

The entire Sikh community is still grateful to the Muslims of Malerkolta. During the communal frenzy in the wake of the country's partition in 1947, not a single Muslim of Malerkolta was harmed in any way!

It is difficult to presume how Guru Govind Singh and Sikh Khalsa could fit in the R.S.S. ideology and Golwalker's ancient dharma. Guru's five deliverances are an anti-thesis to the R.S.S. ideology:


1. Dharam Nash or freedom from previous religious practices and customs

2. Karam Nash or the obliteration of the past bad deeds.

3. Janam Nash or giving up the family influences and caste effects

4. Sharam Nash or the disappearance of hereditary professional distinctions.

5. Bharam Nash or discarding the rituals prescribed by previous practices.


In Akal Ustat the Guru says:

"Some are HIndus while others are Muslims. Of the latter some are Shias and others are Sunnis. Man's caste should be considered as one."

"Karta, Karim, Rajak, Rahim is the same, no other distinction should be recongnized at all."

"Temples and Mosques are the same. Hindu worship and Muslim prayers are the same. All men are alike but they are under delusion."

Sikh gurus' dharma is love of humanity, which is anti-thesis of Golwalkar's definition of Dharma. Golwalkar's sixteen Samskars, without which a Hindu is not a HIndu, are in direct conflict with the five kinds of Nash of Guru Govind Singh.

The question arises why Golwalkar is trying to apotheosise and glorify Guru Govind Singh when he knows the Guru's religion does not conform to R.S.S. Hindutva.

 


<< Assassination of the Mahatma  Contents  God's Wrath >>

शनिवार, 30 जनवरी 2021

Assassination of the Mahatma

It is time for me to go. Me to my death, you to your lives. Which of us goes to the better fate, only God knows. ~ Socrates.

A Socrates is to drink hemlock, a Christ is to be crucified and a Gandhi is to be assassinated. They uphold the truth and die for their courage of conviction, an ideology that throws a challenge to the established order.

Socrates spent his life "seeking and asking for living truth".  He was "one of the finest philosphers of the world, perhaps the greatest of great men produced by Athens. His name commands admiration, honour and reverence. For his genius, he became conspicuous, for his virtues he was condemned to death - the world cannot stand the completely honest man". He was charged that he neglected the gods of the republic, neglected their worship and corrupted the youth of the day.

Christ was a liberating force. "In the white blaze of his Kingdom is to be no property, no privilege, no pride, no precedence, no motive indeed and no reward but love."

He was crucified that the mighty Roman Empire, with no parallel in ancient times, be saved. It was mighty Roman Empire, which produced the most famous and powerful generals, like Julius Caesar and the most nymphomaiac queen, Messalina, with no rival in the world history.

Gandhi, like Christ, was also a liberating force. He was the very breath of India's freedom struggle against the mighty British Empire in which the sun never set. He walked on this earth like an angel, a messiah and a true messenger of love, truth and non-violence.

Great men like Socrates, Christ and Gandhiji are killed for their ideology and not for sake of money or over money. They are killed when they become a threat to the established order. Gandhiji had become a threat to the pernicious and perverted social system prevalent in our country.

Gandhiji's courage of conviction, clear vision, tenacious faith and above all his admission of mistake endowed him with leadership qualities. Before he launched his non-cooperative movement, he wrote a letter to the Viceroy and surrendered his honours, decorations and titles conferred on him for his services during Bulu War and Boer War in South Africa.

Orthodox Hindus were against Gandhiji. Quoting The Times of India (5th Janurary 1925), Prof. G.S. Ghurye writes, "In the beginning of 1925, a number of merchants of Bombay, among whom were included the leading public men, convened a meeting of orthodox Hindus. Almost every speaker denouced what they called the heresies of Gandhi in respect of untouchability, and declared that the Hindu religion was in danger at his hands." Success of this conference was a shot in the arm of Dr. Hedgewar and he embarked upon founding R.S.S.

Gandhiji started a campaign against untouchability. "He was attaehed by orthodox and social reactionaries. They met him with black flags demonstrations and disrupted his meetings. They brought out scurrilous and inflammatory leaflets against him, putting fantastic utterances in his mouth. They accused him of attacking Hinduism. They publically burnt his portraits. On 25th June 1934, at Poona, a bomb was thrown on a car believed to be carrying Gandhiji, injuring its seven occupants. The protestors offered the government full support against the Congress and Civil Disobedience Movement, if it did not support the anti-untouchability campaign. The government obliged by defeating the Temple Entry Bill in the legislative Assemby in August 1934, " writes Bipin Chandra in India's Struggle for Independence.

Gandhiji's courage of conviction did not deter him from his path. He said, "I would like to assure my Harijan friends, ... that they may hold my life as a hostage for its (removal of untouchability) due fulfillment."

Gandhiji does not recognise Manu. He strikes at the bottom of the pyramid by saying, "We do not know that a Rishi named Manu ever lived." 

Gandhiji does not give any credit to superior intelligence of the Brahmins."Superior intelligence is for superior service. The moment superior intelligence arrogates to itself superior status, it is worth trampling under foot." This must raise the eyebrows of stiff-necked social Darwins, who consider themselves "visible gods on earth" and repository of Indian wisdom.

Gandhiji goes step by step in attacking the punic Brahmanical social system by demolishing its spurious foundation. His third attack is on the  Brahmanical false definition of two-level Truth. He defines Truth as Absolute, God. Arun Shouries's exposition of two levels of truth, "the thesis of two level of truth becomes a handy instrument in the hands of ideologists, it ended up introducing double think into the vexy heart of corpus. In practice it, like the other part of doctrine, reached the masses in a vulgarised version. It had rationalised differing levels of development in their spiritual quest, it ended up rationalising the hierarchy itself, it became a justification for dual morality... it became a justification for different codes. One code for the Aryans and another for non-Aryans, one code for those who wore sacred thread and another for those whit did not, once code for caste Hindus and another for out-castes, one code for individual in one age-group and another for individuals in another age-group, one set of punishment for a crime committed by individuals from one caste, another set of punishment for the same crime committed by individual form another caste and so on.

"This these about differing capacities of individuals ...mirrored a division of labour that had divided society into compartment so that clergy, rulers, merchants and labours were now leading entirely separate lives. What was right for one group was no longer right for another group...some individuals were capable of grasping the higher truth and other had to seek solace in lower truth, so also some were there to be served and others had to seek solace in serving them."

Gandhiji does not accept the irrationality of two levels of truth. He reads between the lines and fully grasps its implications. He defines Truth as God and affirms like Buddha, "The right as well as the competence of each individual to ascertain the truth for himself," without the aid of "dharmagurus" mushrooming as vendors of faith, each hawking his own particular brand or without the intervention and apparition of computer simulated supernatural agents, each advocating his or her own sectarian ideology. 

Gandhiji proceeds further. According to him our so-called religious scriptures should be taken as the works of poets, the works of great poets, but nonetheless just words of poets.  In one stroke, he demolishes the myth that ancient texts, erroneously called Dharmagranths, are "divinely ordained." He says, "I would reject all scriptures authority if it in the conflict with solar reason or the dictates of the heart. Authority sustains and enables the weak, then it is the handiwork of reason, but degrades them when it supplants reason sanctioned by the still, small voice within." 

"Blind worship of authority is an sign of weakness of mind," he says.

Gandhiji does not accept the authority or infallibility of any ancient text. Even Dr. S. Radhakrishanan agrees with him when he says, "The Vedas are neither infallible nor all inclusive."

Gandhiji says, "I accept no authority or no Shastra as infallible guide.. Hinduism is not a codified religion. We have in Hinduism hundreds and thousands of books whose name we do not even know which go under the short name of Shastras. Whatever falls from the truth should be rejected, no matter where it comes from and therefore, the burden lies with the person, who upholds a practice which is inconsistent with truth, so that if a man wants to defend for instance untouchability, he has to show that it is consistent with truth."

The "embarrassing glorification of everything Brahmanical" is the basis of "half-truth." Contradictions get reconciled by the dictum of dicey Manu who declares all contradictions true as they were uttered by "wise" Brahmins. Tautology is a Gobbelien art to make lie appear true if told a hundred times.

Gandhiji moves ahead. His next attack is on the so-called "sacred texts." According to him, the ancient texts we possessed today have been passed on from generations to generations by rot. (In those ancient times of India's glory, age of high spiritualism and zenith of civilization, there was neither a pen, nor paper and nor ink!) These ancient texts through centuries have undergone many interpolations, distortions etc. and it is difficult to sift the grain from the chaff.

Truth speaking Yudhisthira says, "A Shudra is not a Shudra by birth alone, nor is a Brahmin by birth alone... Caste is such a confused affair that no one can be sure of his own caste's purity. Man of all four caste bred children form women of all four cases; how can we make our caste distinctions now? In any case, speech, sex, relations, birth and death do not follow caste rules. Character is the only thing that is certain. Does'nt Manu himself say in one place that the person of mixed caste is better than the "pure" if the "pure" does not have character?" The caste is a confused affair, "Confusion of caste" has been interpolated differently in the Gita.

Lastly, Gandhiji suggests that since all the ancient texts are not in their pristine purity, "we bring out a revised edition of scriptures." What Gandhiji desires here is that we must purge from these texts portions, which are interpolations and very abhorent to human dignity. In the post-Mauryan period, priestly class had played havoc and committed a fraud on Indian Society by polluting all those texts and every abominable speech was put in Krishna's mouth whom it hated and despised when he was alive!

Gandhiji says, "the certainty that the whole mass of Hindus and persons accepted as religous leaders will accept the validity of such authority need not interfere with sacred enterprise. Work done in long run and will assuredly help those who are badly in need of such assistance."

Could priestly class tolerate it? It tolerated Gandhiji for too long.

Fundamentalist Hindutva elements waited when Gandhiji declared that Partition would take place over his dead body. When Partition came, Lord Mountbattaen requested Gandhiji to be his 'one man army' against communalism in Noakhali where he was walking barefoot to stop blood bath. Communal frenzy in Delhi stopped him to die. Patience of Godse and his ilks was being exhausted. They were waiting for an opportunity.

Gandhiji went on fast on 12th January 1948, when communal violence in the wake of partition did not stopped and ended after six days in terms of the assurance given by the Hindu leaders to end violence according with six-point formula. This was the opportunity for Godse to Kill Gandhiji. Godse appeared on the scene attired in a Muslim Pathan's dress to camouflage his identity and motive - to create Hindu-Muslims riots and motive to assassinate Gandhiji for his social ideology. 

Godse killed him for the partition of the country, and his faith in Hindu-Muslim unity and for pressuring the government of India to pay Pakistan Rupees 55 crores towards the final settlement of partition based on division of assets and liabilities. 

Under the international law and by moral obligation India was bound to pay Pakistan the amount due to her.

Godse's testimony is a clear proof that Gandhiji has become a threat to the established Brahmanical social order.

Nehru wrote a letter to home minister, Sardar Patel o 26 February 1948 suggesting that Gandhiji's murder was "a part of a much wider campaign organised chiefly by R.S.S." Sardar Patel sent a reply to Nehru the very next day informing that it was a fanatical wing of Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that hatched the conspiracy and saw it through. Savarkar was not found guilty by the Court. Golwalkar, somehow went scott-free! 

Now, photographs of Sardar Patel occupies a prominent place on the wall of R.S.S offices!

R.S.S considered Patel a practical Hindu and Nehru a westernised impractical visionary. As Nehru did not interfere in the Home ministry affairs, Patel's good conduct certificate given to Golwalker smacks of partiality.

The glorification of Sardar Patel by the R.S.S outfits is not for his achievements of consolidation and undisputed unification of India. It is also not for reconstruction of Somnath temple. Somnath temple was not destroyed by inveder. He simply plundered its wealth. It is that Sardar Patel loosened the noose around the Golwalker's neck.

Sardar Patel was a great freedom fighter, good administrator, a great statesman and a visionary. The credit of national integration goes to this wise man. But, this "Iron Man" perhaps could not visualise that one day R.S.S would be a threat to the integrity of this nation.

Pretender to Sardar Patel's legacy, L.K. Advani, denied Godse's link with R.S.S. Godse's brother, Gopal Godse, rebuked Advani. Gopal countered Advani, saying, "it is cowardice to say that.. You can say that R.S.S did not pass a resolution, saying, go and assassinate Gandhi." But R.S.S. hatched a conspiracy to kill Gandhiji.

It is worth mentioning here that Golwalkar was instigating the Hindus of UP to kill the Muslims when Gandhiji was administering healing balm on the wounds of the Hindus and Muslims in Noakhali. Pt. Govind Vallabh Pant saved Golwalkar from going to jail.

A bomb was thrown on Gandhiji a few days before his assassination. Home ministry should have provided a secret security cover for his safety.

 Murder of Swami Dayananda was attributed to the dancing girl who poisoned him for his rebuke. Here Hindu-Muslims unity and payment of settlement amount to Pakistan provided the opportunity to apply the 'threat'. There is evidence of D.R. Goel, once staunch R.S.S activist, to suggest that Godse was in touch with R.S.S before he assassinated Gandhiji. His motive is to smoke screen his identity at the time of assassination. Neither R.S.S nor its communal outfits can expiate their sin by constructing Ram Temple, not the whole of Ganges water wash their bloodstained hands!

 



<< Exploiting Rama and Krishna  Contents  Misappropriation of National Symbols >>

Exploting Rama & Krishna

 A falsehood is an attempt to withhold the truth from  those who have a right to know. -- Lawrence J. Peter.

In his book, Bunch of Thoughts, Golwalker writes, "No individual, however great, can be the ideal for a nation. The individual is after all a fleeting entity in the eternity of national life.. Moreover, it is futile to expect that all people will cherish the same devotion towards a particular person, however noble and venerable he may by. Some worship Sri Rama as their chosen Deity whereas some others look upon Sri Krishna as their God as  so on. Therefore, the Sangh has kept a symbol (Bhagwa Dhawaj) which is at once universal and all absorbing in its appeal."

For Golwalker, Rama and Krishna are not national ideals, however great they might be. They do not, for him, command universal love, admiration and devotion. It is only Bhagwa Dhawaj which is "universal and all absorbing in its appeal," whereas other sects and faiths have different flags of different colours.

What is the reason that Golwalker does not recognise Rama and Krishna as national heros?

Critical analysis of both of the epic poems, Ramayana and Mahabharata, reveals caste and class struggle. Priestly class which claims to be repository of ancient Indian wisdom conceals more than it reveals. Denigration and deification were its self-arrogating rights. It wields these rights to its best advantage. Its arrogance of social superiority has been the cause of caste conflicts and wars through the millennia. Religion cloaks its self-aggradizement and acquisitive politics.

 

Rama

Solar kings in ancient times fought unjust wars against Brahmins for supremacy and not for social equality. Muscle power of ingenious Kshatriya kings like Puruvas, Nahusa, Nimi and Sudas was no match for the crude diplomacy of ingenious Brahmins. Kshatriya lost.

It was Kshatriya king Vena who abolished the Varna System and sacrifices to gods. He introduced rule of law and freedom of marriage. He claimed the "Divine Right" of the king to rule according to the Rule of Law not according to the self-devised law of Manu.

But Brahmins retorted, "the king established an irreligious system of conduct, transgressing the ordinances of the Vedas, he was devoted to lawlessness." Rule of law is lawlessness to the priestly class and abolishtion of Varna System, a transgression of interpolated ordinances of Vedas!!

Narration of events leading to Rama's birth is an expression of Kshatriyas' humiliaton by the priestly class, disregard of the Shudra's right and exploitation by the priestly class. Rishyashringa performed the Putresi (son giving) sacrifice and Dasarath gave his sister Shanta in marriage to the sage and gifts, "ten thousands cows, ten crores of gold coins and four times that many silver coins; they handed over the wealth to Rishyashringa and Vasishtha, who distributed it equally among the deserving." And who could be more deserving than the Brahmins?

The sage prepares some pudding and places in two bowels to be given to Kaushalya and Kaikeyi which the king takes to the palace. Sumitra, being Shudra, was not meant to have the pudding. When the king leaves the palace, both the queens summon Sumitra and place some portion of pudding in her bowl from theirs. Kaushalya and Kaikeyi have one son each and Sumitra gets two!. Vishnu takes human form as Rama to Kill Ravana.

Rama wins Sita's hand after lifting and breaking the bow of Shiva causing consternation and fight with Parshuram, a devotee of Shiva! Rama humbles Parshuram and spares his life, as the later happens to be kinsman of Vishwamitra, Rama's teacher.

Parshuram's defeat was a insult to the priestly class. He defeated Kshatriyas "thrice seven times" or "twenty and one times."  If both were incarnations of Vishnu, why did they fight against each other?

 After Parshurama's defeat at Rama's hand, priestly class owed not to allow Rama to ascend the Ayodhya's throne. Vasishtha's complicity in the conspiracy could be confirmed by subsequent events.

In exile, Brahmins use or exploit Rama's noble qualities and ask him to kill the Rakshasas who prevent their penetration in the South to capture its commerce and foreign trade, which alongwith Babylon has emerged as one of the biggest centers of the world trade.

Inspite of Sita's pleas and persuations not to kill Rakshasas, Rama wants to keep his promise given to Vasishtha's 'brother' sage Agastya, sent by Brahma in advance. The sage cons Rama and recommeded Panchvati for his stay where he comes in conflict with Ravana as planned. Sita is kidnapped by Ravana to avenge the insult to his sister, Shurpankha.

Vishnu born in human form to kill Ravana, even in victory, Rama, is shown sitting at the feet of dying Ravana to listen to his lessons on statecraft! The scene depicts the transfer of caste loyalty. Even dying Ravana scares the gods who appear on the scene only after he is dead to shower flowers on Rama, showing the gods with the feet of clay!!

At Ayodhya, Brahmins refused to perform coronation ceremony for Rama. The 'humbler' of Parshuram and 'slayer' of Ravana was declared unfit for any religious ceremony by the Brahmins. Rama managed somehow (Shivaji had to do the same) some Brahmins to do the job. The Brahmins who performed the ceremony were socially boycotted by the rest of the Brahmins and forced to leave Ayodhya to setlle down across the river, Saryu, who even today are known as Saryapari Brahmins. 

Coronation ceremony was held. The full time mischief and rumour-mongers started a whispering campaign against Sita's chastity. In a feudalistic society where king's command could produce death, a washerman could not have the temerity to denounce the queen, much within the hearing of king's spies. Inguinity of priestly class to shift blame on others is matchless. Rama was throne was a thorn in the eyes of Brahmins.

Sita is sent to exile. Laxman leaves her alone in the forest. Rama in separation asks Laxman to look after the affairs of the state. But, can the sone of a Shudra woman be allowed to exercise king's power. A way has to be found. Hasn't he earned the displeasure of gods by leaving pregnant Sita in forest? Yes, he must be punished.

Yama, disguised as begging ascetic seeks Rama's audience, where no "eavesdropper" or "interpreter" is allowed. Rama asks Laxman to stand guard at the door. As manipulated, rishi Durvasa appears on the scene and wants to see Rama at once. Laxman denies him the entry. The rishi in his "divine" rage pronounces death sentence on Laxman for insulting a Brahmin. Commotion invites the attention Rama and Yama. Yama says Laxman's time has not come and any other punishment would be in accordance with Dharma. Rama agrees. Then Vasishtha appears from nowhere. And three custodian of Dharma pronounces banishment on Laxman! Vasishtha says, "Banish Laxman. ... To save the three worlds, banish Laxman."

Rama banishes Laxman and saves the three worlds! Laxman goes to Saryu river and absorbs himself in breath-controlling exercises or to die of drowning! Rama, unable to bear the separation of Sita and Laxman, abdicates the throne and follows Laxman's path. Brahma unites Rama with his "large-eyed consort" Sita. What a divine favour! A slow,  steady and sweet revenge! A marvellous Brahmin's feat! That is the reason Rama is not a national hero for Golwakar.

In post-Rama period, Parasurama collected hapless Kshtriya widows and 'pious' Brahmins without any "lust" cohabited with them and inflicted most mortifying humaliations on them. They did what Pak army did in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. To expiate his sin, Parshurama gave lands in the Malabar to Brahmins from the north. If is difficult to understand how Parshurama expiated his sins of killing the Kshatriyas by giving lands to Brahmins, without assuaging the hurt feelings and humiliations os Kshatriya widows and their orphan children! 

Brahmins in Malabar declared themselves Bhu-devas, Lords of the Earth and arrogated to themselves the right of pre-libation, first fruit of nuptials. If the priest required he may have three nights of her company, because the first fruits of her nuptials must be a holy oblation to the god's worship. This right they claimed and exercised until recently.

 

Krishna

Krishna is the most celebrated and most popular deity in Hindu pantheon.  He is supreme universal spirit, the supreme dwelling, the eternal person, divine, prior to gods, unborn, and omnipresent. Krishna says, "All things exist in me. All this universe has been created by me." He is three-in-one - the creator, preserver and destroyer. He is above all gods.

Krishna asked His folks not to worship India. He mocked Brahma whose world was subject to re-birth. He challenged the Varna system based on birth. He exploded the myth of concept of pollution by declaring that, "if someone with love and devotion offers me a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it."

Priestly class did not recognise the Krishna's tribe as Kshatriya.

Out of seven Yadav tribes, five were conquered by the Aryans. They could not subjugate the tribes of Kamsa and Krishna. Narada became friend of Kamsa and created wedge between both tribes. When Krishna killed Kamsa, "Brahmrishi" Narada took a summersault adn started chanting "Naraina" at Krishna's door and became His devotee!

Parshurama tried his best to see that Krishna was not married in any Kshatriya family or in any subjudated Yadava's tribes. He visited all the kings for this purpose. But Krishna eloped with Rukmani and checkmated Parshurama!

It is pertinent to say, that a man who is neither a Brahmin, nor Kshatriya not Vaish is considered Shudra. Even today, Yadavas are in the OBC's list. In 1930, both Bombay and Madras High courts declared Yadavas as Shudras. In Kaliyug, there are no Kshatriyas.

Before caste wars there was no isolation of Varnas. "Inter-marriages and inter-dinning, the two strongest bonds of unity had full play. There was no room for the different Varnas to develop that anti-social feeling which destroys the very basis of society." After the wars, "Brahminism isolated the Varnas and sowed the seeds of antagonism."

The antogonism marked the dislike of priestly class for Krishna and He accepted the challenge of both the gods and priestly class. That is the reason Krishna is not national ideal for Golwalkar!

Priestly class was always in search of an opportunity to debunk, denigrate and humiliate Krishna. According to Gada Parva of Mahabharata, when Duryodhana accused Krishna of "low origin" and "loose morals", gods in heaven came down to listen to Duryodhana and shower flowers on him.

When Bhima used unfair means to kill Duryodhana at Krishna's instance, Duryodhana reminded Krishna of all the "intrigues" to defeat Kaurvas, "A rain of fregrant celestial flowers fell on Duryodhana's head even as he spoke these words. The Gandharvas playes soft music and the spirit of perfect sages chanted glory to Duryadhana! Scented breeze blew on every side and the sky was one vast lapis lazulli of blue." See the joy of gods and sages on the humilations of Krishna and glorification of Duryodhana!

Then, why did priestly class elevated and deify Krishna? Necessity if the mother of all inventions. During the Buddhist period, old gods had lost their credit with masses. Clientage of the Brahmins had shrinked causing them great hardship. So, they exercised their last prerogative by declaring that "even gods in heaven are with the pleasures of the Brahmins." By virtue of this "divine" right, they could deify anyone, who could preserve their social supremacy.

In the post-Mauryan period the Brahmins killed three birds with one stone. They gave a fatal embrace to the Buddhism by declaring Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. As a matter of fact, Buddha did not even believe in God and concept of incarnations is an anathema to Buddhism. Priestly class adopted some of the ways of the Buddhists and gradually Buddhists was reduced to nothing "except Hinduism meant for export," as Dr. Radhakrishnan would say, "as a matter of fact, Buddhism = Hinduism - Brahminism."

Rama was declared as an incarnation of Vishnu. Brahmins were very apprehensive of the rise of Shudras. Their alliance with Kshatriya could pose a threat to the social supremacy of the Brahmins. So, a way was to be found. The story of Sambuka was interserted into the Ramayana and Rama was accused of killing Sambuka, a Shudra ascetic, to create a wedge between Kshatriya and Shudras. By deeds, Rama cannot be accused of killing Sambuka or be anti-Shudra. Guha, a Shudra king was Rama's family friend. In exile, Rama, Sita and Laxman stayed with Valmiki, a Shudra. Rama ate the tasted plums of Bhilni, a Shudra. Rama felt honoured in the presence of Shabari, a Shudra woman whom he up-casted from low status. In his battle against Ravana, his army consisted of the tribals.

It is beyond human imagination to think Rama killing Sambuka performing religous austerities. Blame should go to the priestly class for not only inventing such stories but also preventing people from mediating on God. In the religion of God, all human beings are equal and have the freedom to worship. A Satanic faith can prevent people not to worship God. Any idiot can believe the story of a dead Brahmin boy becoming alive the moment Sambuka was killed!

Krishna was also deified and he was also declared as an incarnation of Vishnu. All the three - Buddha, Rama and Krishna - were not declared the incarnations of Vishnu when they were alive, but many centuries later.

Before Buddha, Rama and Krishna were declared incarnations of Vishnu by the priestly class in the post-Mauryan period by arrogating to itself the right of deifying anyone, it had done a master-piece of forgery by changing the roles of Vishnu with Shiva.

Brahma has lost his status as god of worship. Shiva, being non-Aryan and non-Vedic god, was found not fit for the job. Vishnu was the symbol of phallic worship in Vedic literature. Churning of the ocean is an allegorical expression of deceit and breaking of the promise, he gave to the Rakshasas when they entered into partnership with him in churning the ocean. Rakshasas are not only deprived of their due share, Rahu is beheaded when he takes the nectar. The name Rakshasa was not assocaited with the demon at that time.

One such "demon" was emperor Mahabali, a very benevolent and popular ruler who established the rule of law. A folk song goes like this: 

"All men equal during the Mahabali's reign
It was a period of pleasantry and free of danger of any sort;
No theft, no deceit, not even a grain worth of lies,
No disease or epedemics and unheard of was infact mortality:
Measures and balences were kept in order and
Absolutely there was no fraud of any sort." 

But those who believed in rule of law and social equality were demons and Rakshasas in the eyes of Brahmins. Rule of law and social equality became a threat to the priestly class.  

Who is god and who is demon, only God above knows. Even the gods cannot escape the retribution of God. Vamana and Parshurama both incarnations of Vishnu, destroyed the just social system in Kerala.

It was during this period that the priestly class under the royal patronage of Sunga Kings and "wise" guidance of Patanjali and his successors embarked upon an enterprise of re-casting all the ancient texts for about a century. All interpolations, interserting, distillations, manipulated mutilations, stuffing, substractions etc. were effected in all recensions to make any exegecies appear verisimilitude in concatenation in restropect! These ancient texts coming down to us from generations to generations through learning by rot had a break in the oral tradition during the rise of Buddhism. In the post-Mauryan period evry stuffing or substractions was possible and was delibrately effected. No ancient text we have today is in its pristine purity. Even Vedas have been polluted. Purush Shukta is na outright interpolation, which is a symbol of forgery, deceit, fraud and lies, which the priestly class has inflicted on Hindu Society through the milleniums and still invokes it to perpetuate the hegemonic and parasitic system they have foisted upon the society.

The original Mahabharata, including the Gita consisted of about 8 hundred Shlokas. By the time, it was earthed out from the Bhargwa clan,it swelled to more than twice. Today's Mahabharata, excluding the Gita, contains about one hundred thousand Shlokas. Which Shloka is original, which is interpolated, which is true, which is false, can hardly be ascertained. The same is the case with the other ancient texts, which have been messed up by the priestly class with ulterior motives - Brahmanical stuffing of Manu's perverted philosophy.

We were told that Arjuna is sapient. If he is so, there is hardly any need for Krishna to tell him about the kinds of foods and steps in meditations. Krishna asks Arjuna to fight like a Kshatriya. Arjun's mother, Kunti was not Kshatriya. Her husband Pandu, son of Vedvyasa, himself was a son of Shudra woman was not Kshatriya. Indra, Arjuna's biological father, was not Kshatriya. How could Arjuna be Kshatriya? If Arjuna as a warrior was Kshatriya, he has not on account of birth.

... Gita lays much emphasis on austerity, charity and sacrifice. The house-holder should observe austerity and save money. Money for what? For charity. Charity to the poor or needy? No! Charity to the priests. Does sacrifices reach gods? If it reaches them, it is not devotion by commercial partnership. If priests collects the sacrificial material, then it is the exploitation of the producers by the parasites. Does sacrifices involve killing? No! Ramanuja says that the sacrificial goat goes directly to heaven where it is received by divine Savitri at the gate. Pray, where does the killer of goat go? Tilak says that animal sacrifice has gone out of vague. Why doesn't caste system go out of the vogue? He says we can incur the wrath of gods if we give up every custom!

 These are conclusions, inter-alia, have been discussed by Arun Shourie in his book, "Hinduism."

Krishna was the champion of the masses. He protected his folks from the tyranny of Indra. How could Krishna and author of Mahabharata and the Gita Vedvyasa, son of a Shudra woman, say anything against the Shudras? 

But no race or class of people on earth can match the ingenuity or crafty mind of our priestly class for whom religion or culture is a form of acquisitive politics. Golwalker has scant regard for Rama, Krishna and Shiva. Those who regard Rama and Krishna as incarnations of Vishnu do not do great service to both as by conduct, character and heroic exploits both were much higher than all the gods of mythology put together. Now, R.S.S and its outfits are packaging Rama and Krishna to sell them to this nation.


<< Caste System - An Exotic Concept  Contents  Assassination of the Mahatma >>