misuse of the term 'Hindutva'

[Aupmanyav]

Indeed, there is need to change those so that freedom of speech is put on a much securer foundation. Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed because some group or the other feels offended by it or the state feels it to be threatening in some way. Many laws in India need to be changed in any case (like LGBT laws).

LGBT laws are without fangs. Supreme Court has ordained that such acts do not constitute a crime. As for freedom of speech, people are welcome to change the law, it requires a 2/3 majority in the Parliament and I think a simple majority in the Upper House.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I don't see why there's such a need to be see these things in black and white terms. One can not support Hindutva without saying that Hindutavadis are fascists or the equivalent of ISIS. Just because someone doesn't support Hindutva doesn't make them a Hinduphobe, and doesn't mean they're saying Hindutva is some "Nazism for Hindus" etc. Personally I think there are very genuine issues behind the rise of Hindutva and there are real concerns which Indian society will need to deal with that are raised by people within the movement. And many proponents which come to power may well benefit Indian society too. But I don't buy into it wholesale by any means despite some sympathies, and wouldn't consider myself a follower.

There are different versions of Hindutva and sometimes it hard to define exactly what it is. For some Hindutva is simply the building of a Ram Mandir or making the national book of India the Bhagvad Gita or teaching about Mahabharata or Ramayana at school. This is what I think is just symbolic Hindutva and it is trivialising in my opinion. I hold a very different view of Hindutva. I think Hindutva is an entire worldview, a unique Indian worldview, that should replace the current modern Western secular materialist worldview. That is to say the Indian worldview has a different approach to everything. It has a different approach to education, government, policies, environment and society in general.

I will give an example of how a different worldview changes a country radically. The Celts were a brave warrior people who believed strongly in the pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation. When the Romans came to fight with them, they fought bravely fearlessly because of their strong belief. Similarly, when Alexander invaded India and encountered the gymnophists, he was shocked by how they were not afraid of his power at all and laughed at all his wealth, and that is because like the Celts, they had a worldview that their soul cannot be destroyed and the conquest of ones own desires is the greatest wealth. This worldview had an huge impact on later Hellenic Greek philosophy.

Likewise, I think Hindutva needs to go onto replace the entire Indian constitution, which really is just the revamped British constitution that they left behind. Ambedkar credited as the father of the Indian constitution, who not overly enthusiastic about it, because basically he added very little and was basically forced to keep it as it is. This has gone onto define India's politics since as a constitutional republican democracy with a Westminster style of parliament and along with it inherited secularism as the separation of the state from religion, assuming materialism as its default worldview. So India has lost its distinctiveness. If the Greeks had turned up to India today, India would have no impact on them, because it no longer has any distinct worldview to offer. It is just like another Western country.

However, if Hindutva is implemented properly, it can completely change the entire landscape of India, of how everything is done in India. E.g. Indian theories of education would be integral, it would include not just physical and mental training, but also emotional and spiritual training, sort of like the Aurobindo model. The economy would not be driven by profit, by the spiritual needs of people i.e., that which promotes purity of mind sort of like the BJP integral humanism philosophy. Some of these goals can be fulfilled by integrating Yoga and Ayurveda at all levels.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

These are reasons to object to such portrayals, but not reasons to paternalistically ban them.

I am fairly sure Kirran that Mein Kampth, Jews and their lies and wearing Nazi Swastikas is DEFINITELY banned in most Western countries. Also the Censor board in most countries bans certain material.

 

[sayak83]

I am fairly sure Kirran that Mein Kampth, Jews and their lies and wearing Nazi Swastikas is DEFINITELY banned in most Western countries. Also the Censor board in most countries bans certain material.

No Mein Kampf is not banned in US and has also been recently legalized in Germany. Many Western nations consider it legal to wave the Nazi flag as well, including US, UK etc.
Post–World War II legality of Nazi flags - Wikipedia
Sales of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ Skyrocketing in Germany — But It’s Not Why You Think

Books on making explosives or that which reveal national secrets or that which reveal private information of individuals whose privacy is protected can be banned. But otherwise doing such a thing is unethical and not conducive to a free public square and democracy.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Here at a list of banned films all over the world: List of banned films - Wikipedia

Just the UK: List of films banned in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

From the above it would seem that banning certain expression is based on a variety of reasons political, religious, legal and civil. It does seem to be largely subjective and depends on the moral perception at the time. However, this is exactly my problem with secularism, it is amoral. It is like setting out on a deep sea voyage without a compass. A moral compass is required to guide polices and secularism does not allow for it, and if it does, it is based on another subjective criteria.

A Hindutva worldview would define morals in society based on an objective criteria of yamas and niyamas, that is known habits that we know increase or decrease purity of mind(punya and paapa) That we can scientifically demonstrate to do so, by showing neuroscience studies etc. If we can have an objective moral law we can then remove the arbitrariness of censorship as it currently stands in most countries. I think atheist and materialist philosopher Sam Harris is sort of pitching in that direction too. Recently, lots of studies have emerged of how bad porn is for society and many countries are contemplating banning or restricting it. India tried recently unsuccessfully, bit withdrew the ban within 48 hours, because of the internet outrage.

The most worrying trend in India is the proliferation of rape porn. Now gang rape porn can be purchased at seedy video parlours in all Indian cities for less than a dollar. I do think that is very worrying and it is feminist and anti-rape activists, that are this time trying to ban it.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Only direct incitements to violence and clear endangerment of public safety by the speech acts of a person may be prosecuted (like shouting fire or issuing a death fatwa etc.) . There is no right to be not offended by the speech and opinions of others. Also, a Hindu should not be offended by anything, but should point out wrong ideas and wrong views as and when they arise, but abjuring from any violence or coercion as long as the wrong views are themselves expressed without violence. Books with books, speech with speech.

Of course we have right to be offended by the speech and opinions of others. The right to free speech allows one to make offensive speech, but it does not remove ones right to be offended.

Gita 5:20
One should not rejoice upon attaining what is cherished
Nor should one shudder upon encountering what is uncherished
With firm intellect , undeluded, knowing Brahman
Knowing Brahman, one is established in Brahman

Gita 6:9
He, who is equal minded toward friend, companion and enemy,
Who is neutral among enemies and kinsmen,
And who is impartial among the righteous and also among the evildoers,
Is to be distinguished among men.

As long as my right to freely express my opinions is protected, it is himsa to prevent others from having the same right, no matter how much I disagree with them.

I think you are taking the Gita out of context here. The Gita is speaking about a perfect human, a yogi or muni who has transcended the gunas i.e., all duality. Such a person, the Gita adds, is one who sees no difference among a dog and dogeater or gold and stone. However, this does not apply to the practical society, where of course we need to make a distinction between gold and stone and good and bad. Ironically, the Gita is set on a battlefield where Arjuna is being told by Krishna to fight a righteous war against the unrighteous.

I think absolute freedom of speech and expression is simply not practical. There has to be certain kinds of expression that needs to be restricted and controlled, but this needs to be informed by an objective criteria and not a subjective one. In the past, morals were imposed by a religious body. This would not be acceptable to our modern world, and certainly not in contemporary India, because it will provoke the question which religions morals should we impose. However, I think with latest research in neuroscience and psychology we might come closer to a scientific objective morality which can be demonstrated to be beneficial to society. For example recent studies now show that emotional abuse like bullying etc actual leaves real physical damage in the brain, debunking the old adage "words cannot hurt me"

In classical Indian ethical theory, yamas do not just apply to the level of physical action, but also at the level of speech and thought. We currently do in the law of most countries apply yamas like non-violence and non stealing at the physical level, but it is not yet applied to the level of speech. I admit applying it at the level of thought is close to impossible unless we develop technology to read thoughts, but speech while difficult, it is not impossible. We just needs to draft new definitions what kind of speech is unlawful. I think if implemented correctly, it could only be for the betterment of society. I think India should become the example that shows the rest of the world by implementing Hindutva. Like it influenced the Greeks and others in the world in the world, India should again be the world guru by showing them a worldview that does have moral and purpose.

 

[Kirran]

There are different versions of Hindutva and sometimes it hard to define exactly what it is. For some Hindutva is simply the building of a Ram Mandir or making the national book of India the Bhagvad Gita or teaching about Mahabharata or Ramayana at school. This is what I think is just symbolic Hindutva and it is trivialising in my opinion. I hold a very different view of Hindutva. I think Hindutva is an entire worldview, a unique Indian worldview, that should replace the current modern Western secular materialist worldview. That is to say the Indian worldview has a different approach to everything. It has a different approach to education, government, policies, environment and society in general.

I will give an example of how a different worldview changes a country radically. The Celts were a brave warrior people who believed strongly in the pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation. When the Romans came to fight with them, they fought bravely fearlessly because of their strong belief. Similarly, when Alexander invaded India and encountered the gymnophists, he was shocked by how they were not afraid of his power at all and laughed at all his wealth, and that is because like the Celts, they had a worldview that their soul cannot be destroyed and the conquest of ones own desires is the greatest wealth. This worldview had an huge impact on later Hellenic Greek philosophy.

Likewise, I think Hindutva needs to go onto replace the entire Indian constitution, which really is just the revamped British constitution that they left behind. Ambedkar credited as the father of the Indian constitution, who not overly enthusiastic about it, because basically he added very little and was basically forced to keep it as it is. This has gone onto define India's politics since as a constitutional republican democracy with a Westminster style of parliament and along with it inherited secularism as the separation of the state from religion, assuming materialism as its default worldview. So India has lost its distinctiveness. If the Greeks had turned up to India today, India would have no impact on them, because it no longer has any distinct worldview to offer. It is just like another Western country.

However, if Hindutva is implemented properly, it can completely change the entire landscape of India, of how everything is done in India. E.g. Indian theories of education would be integral, it would include not just physical and mental training, but also emotional and spiritual training, sort of like the Aurobindo model. The economy would not be driven by profit, by the spiritual needs of people i.e., that which promotes purity of mind sort of like the BJP integral humanism philosophy. Some of these goals can be fulfilled by integrating Yoga and Ayurveda at all levels.

Interesting ideas. I sympathise with some, although I'd express them in different terms.

Gandhi said there would be no point getting independence for India if it was just gonna be another Britain but with Indians at the top instead of Brits. Which is of course what ended up happening. Gandhi wanted a decentralised anarchist society based on mutual support, democracy and non-violence.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

My version of Hindutva is far more faithful and authentic I think. As I argued in the anti-materialism thread, Hinduism is a worldview with an entirely different epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, cosmology and sotereiology from the secular materialist worldvew, which today we call the "Western worldview" The Western worldview is amoral and nihilistic, that is though you can have morals and purpose in the Western worldview, it can only be a subjective or consensual one, otherwise it does not allow for an objective one due to its metaphysical ciew. On the other hand, the Hindutva worldview does allow for morals and purpose.

Hindu morals are the the closest you have to a realist moral system. It is not arbitrary like "Thou shalt no pray on Saturday/Sunday" or "Have no God other than me" It is based on real positive and negative habits which the Yoga sutras assert are universal and not subject to time, place and circumstances: Non-lying, non-violence, non-stealing, non-greed and non-sexual misconduct. You can easily see why these are good habits for purify of mind, because the inverse leads to the total opposite. If you lie, then it causes fear of being caught; if you are angry, it diminishes intellect and also releases negative hormones in body like cortsiol; if you steal, again fear of being caught, but also destroys your reputation and credibility; greed for things just makes you uncontent, because desires are non-ending and sexual misconduct develops self-esteem issues and diminishes sense control.

It is true at the social level, as much as it is at the individual level e.g. If everybody is lying, then it is hard to trust anyone, so we have a society where nobody trusts each other. If there is a lot of aggression and violence, it leads to high rates of crime. If stealing happens, then everybody is always on their guard. Greed, leads to a dog-eat-dog cut-throat world. Sexual misconduct leads to objectification of people and perverts our thinking.

Purpose can also be objectively defined, but it requires accepting two assumptions: Pre-existence of soul and reincarnation. In the past, before modernity, all Hindus believed in reincarnation. They all saw life as a temporal learning ground, so if they were born in one caste in one life say a carpenter, they accepted it as their karma and tried to act to improve on their current position. If reincarnation was proven to be true, it would radically change the way we think of the world. When you know this body, name and personality we have in this life is just temporary and i.e. only for this life time, it radically changes your priorities in life. You become less attached to it, to other people, friends and family. You see yourself as a visitor rather than a permanent resident. What is good for the soul becomes more important than what is good for the body.

The problem is how can we actually impose that today in India or in any country in the world, where not all people believe in soul or reincarnation? Again, like with morals, we need science to objectively prove it is true. This is where Hindus would benefit with an alliance with Parapsychology. Although Parapsychology is Western, it is antithetical to the Western materialist secular worldview and outcasted. However, it is not antithetical to the Hindu worldview, and this is why recently the top leading Parapsychologists like Dean Radin have tried to get the Hindus on their side and come to India to give lectures at top Indian universities, like IIT.

I think we Hindus should redirect our focus from mechanical, electrical and software engineering, to the inner sciences like transpersonal and parapsychology which as traditionally been our strength, and become pioneers in these fields. It is because at large Hindus are not interested, that Western transpersonal and parapsychologists have taken freely from well established Hindu sciences like Yoga and repatented it. Like Pranayama is repatened as "holotropic breathing" or Yoga Nidra as "Lucid dreaming" or Tumeric, neem and other Ayurvedic herbs are repatened. Then we Hindus complain the West is taking our stuff lol

 

[Kirran]

If you say all that is in the West which is good is not Western, then by definition everything about the West will be bad.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am not saying all in the West is bad, I am just saying as an example of what is good like say parapsychology and transpersonal psychology or quantum idealism or transcendentalism is outcasted. That is because the West has for the last few hundred years assumed a secular materialist worldview. Recently, the likes of Sheldrake are throwing challenges at it. He is also an Oxford educated biologist, but he gets discredited for his Eastern inspired views. So he tries to hide the fact that his views are Eastern. A lot of Western scientists in fields like these suffer from this complex, as Malhotra shows in his theory of digestion how Eastern ideas get digested and then turned into something Western e.g. Not many people know a lot of Western psychotherapy is derived from Yoga, such as psychoanalysis, CBT, progressive relaxation and breathing techniques. Recent, craze like mindfulness and attention training, is directly derived from Buddhism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Interesting ideas. I sympathise with some, although I'd express them in different terms.

Gandhi said there would be no point getting independence for India if it was just gonna be another Britain but with Indians at the top instead of Brits. Which is of course what ended up happening. Gandhi wanted a decentralised anarchist society based on mutual support, democracy and non-violence.

Exactly, Gandhi was Hindutvadi, he wanted a new free and independent India based on "swadeshi" philosophy i.e.,indigenous philosophy. This included a decentralised government and an economy based on cooperation. But he lost out to the ideas of Nehru, who thought indigenous philosophy was obsolete and superseded, and the only way India could proceed was by copying the West. So the last 70+ years have been exactly as you said, copying Britain to make India a new Britain. If you turn over to channel like NDTV I wouldn't fault you for thinking you just turned over to the BBC.

Nehru, a hero of the seculars, has a lot to do with where India is today and for all its current problems. He was elected PM of India by subterfuge. The Congress party and Gandhi knew he was a man of questionable character, ideas and values, so all but one voted for him to be PM, they voted instead far a better man Sardar Patel, who was able to unite the Indian princely states. But the British wanted Nehru to be PM, because they considered him "one of them" a true blue blood Macculy's child and Lord Mountbatten even got his wife to seduce him. When Nehru learned the Congress party did not want him as PM, he went to Gandhi and basically blackmailed him that if he did not make him PM, he would dissolve the Congress party, and had that happened India was at risk of not getting its independence from Britain. So Gandhi caved in, persuaded Sardar Patel to withdraw his candidature, and Nehru became PM of India.

If in a parallel universe Sardar Patel had become PM of India, India would probably be a very different and much better place today than it is now. Fortunately, Modi may still change India's fortunes.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It would be wrong to say the Nehru-dynasty Congress party have done absolutely nothing for India. Obviously over the last 70 years they have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and illiteracy and they laid the foundation of science and technology education in India, which today has become India's biggest strength. But it is what they did not do, which they could have done which is disappointing. They felt little need to change old British laws, as old as Victorian times, because it benefited them e.g anti-government laws or sedition remained. Like the British they ruled India for their own benefit, and basically treated India like their own private company, leaving a legacy of corruption, scam and scandals. Although when the British left India, India was at the same pace of development as China and South East Asian nations, due to bad economic policies, India grew at a snails pace which was called the "Hindu rate of growth" sarcastically, and China, Thailand, Singapoore, Malaysia all left India behind. It was only in 1991 when the bad policies of the Congress had brought India to the point of bankruptcy, that the Congress was forced to liberalise the economy, and finally India started growing. Then BJP took power in 1998, and made huge strides in development that the Congress could not achieve in decades -- but it lost in the next elections because of its Hindutva India shining fiasco and its massive emphasis on Sonia Gandhi's status as an Indian.

There were many bad policy decisions the Congress made that basically crippled India for more than 70 years. There was a rampant culture of corruption, inefficiency and red tape that has continued to this very day, and recently forced Modi to take drastic steps to combat it, including demonitization, which to be honest has been a bit of a failure. It is unbelievable to think that in 70+ years more than 50% of all Indians did not have a bank account and schools did not have toilets for girls, and in just a single term of his tenure Modi has opened bank accounts for 90% of Indians and built lakhs of new toilets. The Congress could have done this, but it didn't, because it simply lacked any political will to do it.

Today, India is on its way to being "Congress-Mukht" or free of Congress. About 80% of India is now under the BJP and Congress has been reduced to a third rate party. Congress is the unfortunate past of India and BJP the brighter future.

 

[Aupmanyav]

About freedom of expression, the present Indian view says that no freedom without responsibility. In case of dispute, Supreme Court decides, not even parliament or legislators. Indian Constitution has a balance of judiciary, politics and administration. It has done a fairly good job. So Bhansali should not cry. He is trying to create a public problem for his benefit.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

This is an article I found today which brings up a lot of points discussed in this thread so far: Yogi Adityanath as Uttar Pradesh CM: Modi is performing the last rites of Nehruvian secularism

Secularism is finally coming to an end in India. A New India is born.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Very nice article, @Spirit_Warrior, thanks for linking it. We have a secularism which is different from how the world defines it. It is 'Sarva dharma sama bhava' (Equal treatment to all religions) and that is enshrined in the Constitution. (I hope) There is no danger to that Indian secularism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As long as my right to freely express my opinions is protected, it is himsa to prevent others from having the same right, no matter how much I disagree with them.

For your information, the Tamilnadu High Court has asked the Film Censor Board to explain why it is not cutting out scene which may induce people to commit crimes.

Girl elopes, blames it on films; (Tamilnadu) High Court summons censors
"Censor board officials are directed to appear before the court on (this) March 27 for the purpose of explaining to the court why necessary action should not be taken against them since they are responsible for exhibiting such kind of cinemas involving POCSO Act offences," said the bench of Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anita Sumanth on Monday.

The judges issued the directive after a minor girl, who eloped with her boyfriend in May last year, was traced in February this year. She was found to be pregnant. The girl told the judges in court that her elopement was the result of similar acts in many films.
Girl elopes, blames it on films; HC summons censors - Times of India

As I said, freedom of expression in India entails responsibilities and is not an unbridled 'I say or show whatever I like'.

Note: I have edited the post. It was meant for Sayak.

 

[sayak83]

For your information, the Tamilnadu High Court has asked the Film Censor Board to explain why it is not cutting out scene which may induce people to commit crimes.

Girl elopes, blames it on films; (Tamilnadu) High Court summons censors
"Censor board officials are directed to appear before the court on (this) March 27 for the purpose of explaining to the court why necessary action should not be taken against them since they are responsible for exhibiting such kind of cinemas involving POCSO Act offences," said the bench of Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anita Sumanth on Monday.

The judges issued the directive after a minor girl, who eloped with her boyfriend in May last year, was traced in February this year. She was found to be pregnant. The girl told the judges in court that her elopement was the result of similar acts in many films.
Girl elopes, blames it on films; HC summons censors - Times of India

As I said, freedom of expression in India entails responsibilities and is not an unbridled 'I say or show whatever I like'.

I disagree with such nanny state tactics. If a film is considered inapproriate for minors, rate it appropriately. That is all.
If this is how it goes, Mahabharat should be banned from tv as it shows among other things, gambling, attempted disrobement of a woman, polygamy (of Arjuna) and lots and lots of killing (in war).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, that is what judiciary thinks. If High Court decides something on which the Censor Board has differences, then they can always appeal to Supreme Court. That is the established process of law in India to be followed in all case by every one, nobody being exempt unless it is clearly so mentioned in the Constitution. We are very much a constitutional people.

However, I may point that Supreme Court in other judgments has said that Censor Board cannot make a cut. It can only give an appropriate certificate. IMHO, this is something which needs to change and Censor Boards should be given their scissors back.

If this is how it goes, Mahabharat should be banned from tv as it shows among other things, gambling, attempted disrobement of a woman, polygamy (of Arjuna) and lots and lots of killing (in war).

As I read somewhere, Mahabharata is a story of a time when 'dharma' was in decline. It is an illustration of what happens when 'dharma' declines. If 'dharma' were not in decline then there would not have been any reason for Lord Vishnu to take an avatara and no reason for a Mahabharata to have happened.

 

[sayak83]

Of course we have right to be offended by the speech and opinions of others. The right to free speech allows one to make offensive speech, but it does not remove ones right to be offended.

I said there is no right that guarantees one's right to be not offended by the speech and opinions of others. If one curtails speech of others because people are offended, that is the end of freedom. One can feel offended of course, and criticize things in an appropriate manner.

I think you are taking the Gita out of context here. The Gita is speaking about a perfect human, a yogi or muni who has transcended the gunas i.e., all duality. Such a person, the Gita adds, is one who sees no difference among a dog and dogeater or gold and stone.

Well, there isn't any difference. Gold is simply a convenient token of value, just like paper money and is completely worthless in an of itself. I have always found Indian culture's addiction to gold (in marraige etc.) against the principles of Hinduism. Anyways, I do not find any of the principles laid out in the Gita to be things that ordinary people cannot attain. Gita's principles are laid out for common men to follow, much of the malaise of Hinduism (and all religions actually) is that the book or the author is worshiped rather than the ideas mentioned by him understood and pursued.

However, this does not apply to the practical society, where of course we need to make a distinction between gold and stone and good and bad.

Good is the actions and principles of the wise and bad are the actions and principles of the unwise. The unwise see such distinctions and are bound by the them, and the wise do not. Simple.
There is no problem is using gold as a convenient token of economic transaction. The problem is mistaking that thereby gold somehow becomes intrinsically more valuable than stone.

Gita 5.12:-
He who is disciplined in yoga, having abandoned fruits of action, attains steady peace;
The undisciplined one, attached to fruit, is bound by actions prompted by desire.

Ironically, the Gita is set on a battlefield where Arjuna is being told by Krishna to fight a righteous war against the unrighteous.

Its not ironic at all. The Kaurava's are unrighteous in this precise sense. They had become enamored to treasure, lands, lordship and selfish oaths and misplaced loyalties forgetting their dharma to people as kshatriyas, to their own atmans as aspects of Brahman and their role in the well-fare of the samsara. That is why the war became necessary when all other means of maintaining dharma was gone. When rulers of the land become corrupt they have to be removed, like British colonists, South African racists or Nazi Germans...for they make dharmic living impossible. But Hinduism gives private individuals and groups the freedom to pursue their life in accordance with their nature and stage of development. Even Asura-s and Raksasha-s, who have rejected higher spiritual attainment to enhance their dominance in Maya are free to pursue such a path as long as they do not seek to dominate and terrorize others by such means.

I think absolute freedom of speech and expression is simply not practical. There has to be certain kinds of expression that needs to be restricted and controlled, but this needs to be informed by an objective criteria and not a subjective one. In the past, morals were imposed by a religious body. This would not be acceptable to our modern world, and certainly not in contemporary India, because it will provoke the question which religions morals should we impose. However, I think with latest research in neuroscience and psychology we might come closer to a scientific objective morality which can be demonstrated to be beneficial to society. For example recent studies now show that emotional abuse like bullying etc actual leaves real physical damage in the brain, debunking the old adage "words cannot hurt me"

Bullying, internet stalking etc. are clearly attempts to dominate and terrorize individuals and are forms of violence. Criticizing ideas and ideologies or expressing dissent or contrary opinion in the public square through art, books or satire is entirely different...and I consider them essential if democracy is to be at all meaningful. There is a difference between Voltaire, Socrates and a college bully. If some Hindus seek to ban books, vandalize arts or movie sets because they disagree with what they portray, these actions are no different from actions of extremist Muslims effacing Buddha statues or breaking Roman ruins. The proper application of force is where Hindus are being deprived of their rights and homes as has happened in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc. Political and diplomatic force should be justifiably applied to ensure that such oppression stops. Targeting individual artists or skeptics is cowardice.

In classical Indian ethical theory, yamas do not just apply to the level of physical action, but also at the level of speech and thought. We currently do in the law of most countries apply yamas like non-violence and non stealing at the physical level, but it is not yet applied to the level of speech. I admit applying it at the level of thought is close to impossible unless we develop technology to read thoughts, but speech while difficult, it is not impossible. We just needs to draft new definitions what kind of speech is unlawful. I think if implemented correctly, it could only be for the betterment of society. I think India should become the example that shows the rest of the world by implementing Hindutva. Like it influenced the Greeks and others in the world in the world, India should again be the world guru by showing them a worldview that does have moral and purpose.

There is nothing in the the yamas that says to stop others from expressing their thoughts freely. One has moved from dharma to adharma if yogic principles are spread through forced legislation rather than self-willed voluntary actions. As I have noted, Gita clearly says to let people do what they wish to do on such things. One cannot legislate yoga.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Well, there isn't any difference. Gold is simply a convenient token of value, just like paper money and is completely worthless in an of itself. I have always found Indian culture's addiction to gold (in marraige etc.) against the principles of Hinduism. Anyways, I do not find any of the principles laid out in the Gita to be things that ordinary people cannot attain. Gita's principles are laid out for common men to follow, much of the malaise of Hinduism (and all religions actually) is that the book or the author is worshiped rather than the ideas mentioned by him understood and pursued.

Well, there is a distinction between gold and paper money actually, paper money is a token because it has an agreed value set by the state and can be rendered valueless, gold is not a token, because it has value itself which is not determined by the state, but determined by its rarity. It is valuable simply because it is rare. Regarding Hindu families having a thing for gold, this is not actually uncharacteristic in Hinduism, the pursuit of artha is a valid pursuit and we even have a goddess of wealth Lakshmi that we pray to for gold, wealth, beauty, material prosperity etc

I think you are reading the Gita rather selectively. Krishna instructs Arjuna first in the path of pure knowledge(Samkhya) and tells him that the sage sees no difference between opposites, the sage is one of steady consciousness(stithya prajnana) and neither profit/loss, cold/hot, pain/pleasure can disturb him. Then Arjuna naturally asks him, "then why do you want me to fight this bloody war" so Krishna then instructs him in the path of action(Karma) and tells him though that his gunas force him to act, and therefore he must make a choice, because inaction is also an action. In other words, he is telling Arjuna, he is not at that level of the sage who has transcended the gunas, but at the level of one who still under the effects of the gunas. Until, that be the case, he must deal with opposites and act accordingly.

Hence, it is impractical to live by the path of pure knowledge for people. We have to live by the path of karma yoga whereby we bring ourselves to knowledge through the gradual purification of the mind, and to this we must make a distinction between what is tamasic, rajasic and sattvic, and we can't treat them all the same. If they were all the same Krishna would not then go onto describe what is tamasic, rajasic and sattvic. A Yogi definitely sees that distinction and pursues only sattvic.

Good is the actions and principles of the wise and bad are the actions and principles of the unwise. The unwise see such distinctions and are bound by the them, and the wise do not. Simple.

All of Chapter 16 is dedicated to the distinction between good and bad qualities.

Its not ironic at all. The Kaurava's are unrighteous in this precise sense.

Well, there you go, you just made a distinction between good and bad.

Bullying, internet stalking etc. are clearly attempts to dominate and terrorize individuals and are forms of violence.

Well, there you go, you are recognising certain acts of speech as violent. Bullying does not necessarily have to be physical, it can be done through words, gestures alone.

Criticizing ideas and ideologies or expressing dissent or contrary opinion in the public square through art, books or satire is entirely different...and I consider them essential if democracy is to be at all meaningful. There is a difference between Voltaire, Socrates and a college bully.

You are conflating two things here freedom of thought and freedom to criticise and violent speech. You would not put bullying through violent speech in the same category as "contrary opinion" would you?

If some Hindus seek to ban books, vandalize arts or movie sets because they disagree with what they portray, these actions are no different from actions of extremist Muslims effacing Buddha statues or breaking Roman ruins. The proper application of force is where Hindus are being deprived of their rights and homes as has happened in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc. Political and diplomatic force should be justifiably applied to ensure that such oppression stops. Targeting individual artists or skeptics is cowardice.

I disagree to an extent. Although it is lawful for Hindus to go vandalise others private property, for which this group that vandalised Bhansali's sets will now face criminal action, if you push a group too far you will attract consequences. If it is true Bhansali is going to depict an infamous mass murderer of Hindus as a romantic hero or anti-hero, then he is using the freedom of his speech irresponsibly. As the state does not yet have laws drafted to deal with such acts, it forces Hindus to take law into their own hands. This may alert the state that such laws are needed. I personally would not do something unlawful, but here I can understand the sentiments of the people.

There is nothing in the the yamas that says to stop others from expressing their thoughts freely. One has moved from dharma to adharma if yogic principles are spread through forced legislation rather than self-willed voluntary actions. As I have noted, Gita clearly says to let people do what they wish to do on such things. One cannot legislate yoga.

Again you conflating freedom of thought with violent thought. The Yamas do prohibit violent thought, speech and action. To direct violent thoughts at somebody is a form of black magik, and people do it, for example some people go to to tantriks to put curses on other people. This is done by directing negative thoughts at somebody. Hence, one should not even think negatively about somebody, because it is very subtle form of violence. However, like I said we cannot really regulate violence at the level of thought, but we can regulate violence at the level of speech. Physical acts of violence are often preceded by verbal acts of violence. You can often see a fight is about to break out after a violent verbal exchange.

So my point is we draft new laws that recognise certain acts of speech as violent and unlawful. There cannot be absolute freedom of speech.