It has become fashionable among common Hindus and many self-proclaimed Hindutvavadis to moralise (a new addition to the Moron Smriti) over what is right or wrong, especially with regards to Sanyasis and the concept of Ahimsa. (Malhotra 2014) So let us commit another fashionable action that is cherished by both the anti-Hindus and Hindus – quoting a Westerner (albeit with a Dharmic drishti). Dr. Frawley wrote,
“Ahimsa does not simply mean `non-violence’ as a physical action, nor is it opposed to the use of violence to prevent harm from happening. In addition, ahimsa must be applied with courage and fearlessness to expose and eradicate evil. It is not an attitude of tolerating or excusing evil. It is not a form of appeasement in which one lets bullies get away with their action or which rewards violent action by surrendering to its perpetrators to prevent them from causing more harm.” (emphasis added)
अहिंसा परमो धर्मः | धर्म हिंसा तथैव च ||
(Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma) (Maheshwari 2018)
An entire thesis can be written on this topic of what is Ahimsa and what is not. But to surmise, Bhagavad Gitā is quite clear that it is the state and degree of detachment from which an action is undertaken that makes it ahimsa or not and karmic or not. Even MK Gandhi is known to have supported and insisted on military action in Kashmir in 1947 to prevent the invasion by Islamic mercenaries.
Not so surprisingly, the disease of “selective” understanding, quoting and action has afflicted Hindus as they grind through and excel in Macaulay’s education system. These Hindus loudly proclaim, akin to Champagne liberals (perhaps we should call them Mosquito Hindus as they live happily under the shaded protection of the sweat and / or blood of the Kshatriya Hindu Kalpavriksha banyan tree but “contribute” only through vehement burdensome moronic criticism), that this is against Ahimsa and that is not how Sadhus should behave, etc. Their edicts are an endless list, increasingly acquiring the character of Fatwas. Fatwas that are enforced by a convenient and crippling non-participation even in peaceful protests, but providing the anti-Hindu camps with sufficient ammunition and false moral high ground to attack the very foot soldiers of Hindu Dharma.
Please read at least the Wikipedia articles, mate. It has been this author’s long-term gripe that the so-called intellectuals of the left ecosystem often do not even read even their own left-friendly Wikipedia articles. Recently, the author discovered that Hindus as well boycott Wikipedia. There is a whole section on “Warrior ascetics” under the topic of Sanyas. (Wikipedia contributors 2017b; Pinch 2006)
If Sanyasis can fight, can they not fight verbally as well? Should Sanyasis surrender meekly if the larger public fails to protect them and / or Sanatana Hindu Dharma? The tradition clearly holds that they need not have to surrender meekly like the larger public. (Wikipedia contributors 2017a, [b] 2017) They have, in fact, fought valiantly over the history. Though the Wikipedia article deals with this phenomenon as if it was a medieval Hindu invention, our Puranas attest to the fact that innumerable Gurus and Rishis have been warrior enough to train almost all the known heroic Kshatriyas of Hindu history. (Siddharth 2013; Lorenzen 1978)
Well, if the Macaulay-infected Mosquito Hindus believe that the Puranas are just myths, how can one expect them to put their trust in the maxims they preach? And that is what is endemic in Bharat now, especially in the Dravidian Tamizh Nadu. Will the real Hindu, please stand up…?
Who is a real Hindu?
“Mark me, then and then alone you are a Hindu when the very name sends through you a galvanic shock of strength. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when every man who bears the name, from any country, speaking our language or any other language, becomes at once the nearest and the dearest to you. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when the distress of anyone bearing that name comes to your heart and makes you feel as if your own son were in distress. … Mark me, every one of you will have to be a (Guru) Gobind Singh, if you want to do good to your country. You may see thousands of defects in your countrymen, but mark their Hindu blood. They are the first Gods you will have to worship even if they do everything to hurt you, even if everyone of them send out a curse to you, you send out to them words of love.” proclaimed Swami Vivekananda. (emphasis added)
But what we have here is an Avatar of Mahalakshmi being called a sex worker by a Dravidianism-drunk muppet, not just “anyone bearing” a Hindu name, yet the debate that is raging is, “Should Sanyasis fight?,” and further nuancing, “If they do fight, what sort of verbal rebuttals is acceptable and what is not!”
Will you sit nuancing if your mother is abused? The irony is when the author spoke to some loud critics of the Sanyasis of a certain order, they refused to answer what will be their reaction if their mother or family womenfolk were abused. One need not state it explicitly here. Their reactions would have been, physically and verbally, filthier than what the Sanyasis used. If they would not react, but nuance, what are they? Let the readers decide for themselves with utmost honesty though.
It was shocking that not only were these critics against such a bold fight put up by those Sanyasis, but were outright abusive, border-lining on criminal defamation. Yet, in the above quote, Swami Vivekananda clearly demands a Hindu react as if their own child is in distress even if an unknown Hindu is under distress. Is sitting on dining tables and nuancing the language used such an action as if their child is under distress? Should we trust these Mosquito Hindus with our future livelihood and security, assuming these self-proclaimed Hindutvawadis will deliver us from oppression? Are they not the enemy within? Whom are they batting for? Is this not a fair question?
Disarmed and disheartened Hindus
Perhaps in the medieval times, the Sadhus had weapons and could fight for themselves. What about now? The state has effectively disarmed all Hindus, while hordes of weapons and cash are regularly seized from religious structures of other communities. The judiciary does not protect Hindus while restricting and banning every Hindu ritual and festival.
Yet, the only weapon left, a verbal retort (yes, abusive) should not be used even to counter abusive assaults on Hindus? The only weapon left for Hindus against violent mob-mobilising ideologies and religions is verbal assault and these Mosquito Hindus want to gag the Hindus from doing even that, by nuancing if Sanyasis and Sadhus should talk, if they talk how, in what attire, etc. Is this is the debate to have at this hour?
Being the innate liberals that we Hindus are, even if such nuanced debates are allowed to happen, is that a licence to abuse that Sanyasi order? Clearly, these people have failed Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and countless others. They will fail their own womenfolk too. Is a father or a brother or a son who is unwilling to protect his daughter or sister or mother fit for family life and to be able to cherish those relationships? Hypothetically speaking, if an ISIS invasion were to happen, these will be the first to voluntarily give up their womenfolk and risk others.
It is time that these Mosquito Hindus are quarantined from their family and society for the protection of their own womenfolk and the Hindu society at large. Else the cancer will cause the whole Hindu body to disintegrate and rot, or worse, let the fate of Yezidis befall on Hindus in Bharat too.
(Many thanks to Sudarshan T Nadathur for reviewing the draft and for the meme)
Wikipedia contributors. 2017a. “Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. September 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akhil_Bharatiya_Akhara_Parishad&oldid=800286924
Did you like this article? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.