Last updateSat, 16 Jun 2018 7am


Fashion of India and Hinduism Bashing in Foreign Land

Fashion of India  Hinduism bashing in foreign land


Right in the middle of busy a work day (Wednesday, Oct 21st, 2015), I received an email from a friend about an India related event happening in my neighborhood. The event titled Shattering the Silence: India's Authors Protest Recent Murders”- An Evening with Ashok Vajpeyi, was hosted by Centre for South Asian Civilizations at University of Toronto. Simply knowing that most of the Centers of South Asian Studies are typically Anti-India/Anti-Hindu, it peeked my curiosity. I knew from the news headlines, that there is an anti-Modi campaign of intellectuals in India to return literary awards. Knowing about the Indian media’s bias against Hinduism, it made me wonder: How come someone is invited to University of Toronto, with such good timing. Who paid for travel expenses? Who are the anti-India, anti-Hinduism players in my town? With these thoughts, I moved around some items on my schedule to participate in the event.

While driving to the event I called my wife to do quick internet search on the speaker, Shri Ashok Vajpeyi. She gave me a 2-minute gist on his profile and the local organization hosting the event. I learned that he was one of the initial people who returned his Sahitya Akademi Award and he is an activist who’s linking Dadri lynching incident to suppression of freedom of speech of intellectuals in the country. He’s connected to leftist & Nehruvian-secularist mindset people and was close to Congress politician, Late Sh. Arjun Singh. I also called Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who has been my advisor in understanding the intellectual Kurukshetra. Rajiv Ji encouraged me to speak up my mind and be comfortable with the confrontation.

Although I expected it to be another anti-India/ Anti-Hindu event,


Indianize Education

indianize education

As a lover of Indian culture and spirtuality, I am sometimes appalled at how westernized education is in India. I can only hope that a future Human Ressources Minister will take-up the job to « Indianise, nationalise and spiritualise » education in India. Of course, he or she will be criticized by the secular media and intellectuals who will call it « a hidden Hindu agenda ». So What ?

With 800 millions souls, Hindus constitute the majority of this country. Why should Hindus then be ashamed of a « Hindu » education ? Traditionally and historically, Hinduism has always been the most tolerant of all religions, allowing persecuted minorities from all over the world, whether the Jerusalem Jews, the Parsis from Persia, Christians from Syria, or even Arab merchants, to settle in India over the centuries and practice their religion in peace. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of India's invaders, be it the Muslims, who ruthlessly tried for ten centuries to stamp out this most peaceful of all religions; or the Christians missionaries, who used every means at their disposal to convert Hindus to the « true » religion (and are still trying today).

But Hinduism, never tried to convert anybody, never sent its armies or missionaries to neighbouring countries,


How Irfan Habib tried to highjack Indian history

How Irfan Habib tried to

According to Prof M. G. S. Narayanan, Prof Irfan Habib  has poisoned not just history, but culture and social life by his narrow groupism, nepotism and treachery. – Jayakrishnan Nair

Few decades back, at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Prof. Irfan Habib  summoned his former student and now faculty member K K Muhammed to his office.  Muhammed had discovered Ibādat Khāna in Fatepur Sikri. Built by Akbar in 1575 CE, the  Ibādat Khāna was the place where various religious scholars held discussions. A major discovery, this was reported in various newspapers, something which Prof. Habib was not too happy about. The conversation went as follows:

Irfan Habib: “This is not Ibādat Khāna”

Muhammed: “No? This is not Ibādat Khāna?”

IH: “What you gave in Times of India is not Ibādat Khāna”

M: “How can you say that? Are you an archaeologist?”

IH: “I may not be as good an archaeologist like you”

M: “Sorry, you are not an archaeologist.” Irfan Habib was speechless.

Habib pushed a paper to Muhammed and said, “write what you discovered is not Ibādat Khāna”. Muhammed refused and walked away.


12 Reasons why there is chilling media silence over crime against Hindus

12 Reasons why there is chilling  1

In the course of recent years and particularly in the previous couple of months, there can be seen a pattern of highlighting Hindu violations against Muslims. Slaughtering of peaceful Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh or even in India is not considered important by the media, by government or by different political gatherings or by Human Rights industry in India.

In a case where the wrongdoing is against the Muslim community or a minority gathering, there is bound to be a heated television debate on the topic but should it be something against the Hindu community, the silence on those very television channels is deafening. It unmistakably demonstrates that the media is not unbiased and is actively playing a partisan role.

Why the double standards? Why this discrimination?

Let us try and comprehend the reasons why this has been going on for a while now:

1). Television media is upon intent inculcating a feeling of victimhood among Muslims


Aurangzeb as a ‘tolerant tyrant’: the case against ‘secular’ historiography

Aurangzeb as a tolerant tyrant

Aurangzeb was the last of the ‘great’ Mughals whose policies set into motion those forces, which would pave the way for the disintegration of the empire. Until the mid-20th century, there was scholarly consensus that Aurangzeb’s religious policy animated by his zeal for application of orthodox and fundamentalist Islamic law gravely undermined the logic of the Mughal state, which under Akbar while retaining its overarching Islamic character compromised by permitting the peaceful albeit subjugated co-existence for its majority Hindu subjects. Jadunath Sarkar who was arguably the greatest historian in colonial India in his meticulously researched five volume biography of the emperor made the dismal observation that “Schools of Hindu learning were broken up by him, Hindu places of worship were demolished, Hindu fairs were forbidden, the Hindu population was subjected to special fiscal burdens in additional to being made to bear a public badge of inferiority; and the services of the state were closed to them…the effect of Aurangzeb’s reign was not only good to goad the Hindus into constant revolt and disturbances, but also to make them deteriorate in intellect, organization and economic resources.”

Post-independence, the Nehruvian state apparatus understood historical interpretation as a mechanism for, among other things, creating a ‘secular’ society in which religious persecution of Hindus in medieval India were problematic facts incompatible with their ‘idea of India’ in which ‘communal’ historical consciousness had to be eradicated in order to legitimize the present and crush the emergence of alternative ‘Hindu majoritarian’ ‘right wing’ movements, which could potentially upset the hegemony of the Congress and its dominant narrative. The ‘secular’ state thus sponsored this pious act of historical revisionism by patronizing historians of a decisive Marxist or “secularist” persuasion with an implicit understanding for creating new narratives of ‘magnificent’, ‘progressive’ and ‘tolerant’ Mughal ages with minimal emphasis on the excesses against its Hindu subjects and institutions. Hence, the ultimate objective of this new historiography was to overturn the historical conviction of Aurangzeb as the fundamentalist tyrant and persecutor of Hindus,


Hindus And The Restoration Of Cultural Diversity


If we turn back the clock 2000 years we would see a world full of diverse societies and cultures. Though there were indeed clearly identifiable markers that represented distinct civilizations, be they Chinese, Indian, American Indian, African, Persian, Greco-Roman, Egyptian etc a plurality of diverse cultural expressions always existed within each civilization.

As the Europeans began their colonization of the Americas, initiated by the voyages of Christopher Columbus, they came across thousands of diverse communities with different languages, customs, beliefs and lifestyles. Yet at their core, each of these peoples overwhelmingly shared a common civilizational ethos and functionality. The same patterns had in fact existed in Europe as well and this is still evident in the multiplicity of languages to be found on the continent. However by the time of Columbus an enforced cultural homogeneity had created a common identity based upon religion. Despite the various sectarian rifts such as Protestantism, the entire region from Russia to Iceland was clearly Christian and was often referred to as Christendom.

The spread of Islam from Arabia, North Africa, Persia to Indonesia soon led to the homogenization of that entire arc of Planet Earth. Yet again we see that the development of various sects and the diversity of languages remains. Regardless of these differences Islamic civilization remains clearly identifiable.


Study Of Hindu Culture: The Misplaced Theories Of Western Indologists

Study Of Hindu Culture

Judging from the interview, the proposed book by Dr Parpola seems to be providing the proverbial old wine in new bottle.

His scholarship is subsumed by his attachment to the Aryan migration/invasion framework and his selective politicking with India’s own establishment historians of the old school.

The recent interview of Finnish Indologist and Sindhologist Dr Asko Parpola was interesting for two reasons. First, this is the interview of a person, who has devoted decades in studying Hindu culture. Second, the interview shows what was wrong with Western Indologists, who spent a lifetime studying Hinduism.

Dr Parpola states at the beginning of the interview that the earliest literature of South Asia is generally dated between C 1300 and 1000 BCE. He accepts it. This chronology forms the edifice on which he builds his arguments.

So, he speculates in the interview:

Could they come from the advanced civilisation of the Indus Valley that flourished between about 2600 and 1900 BCE, long before the Vedic texts came into being?

And again:

The tradition of the earlier wave, coming to South Asia already around 1900-1700 BCE, infiltrated into the Rigveda in its late books I and VIII-X, but is best represented in the Atharvaveda. By the time the Yajurvedic Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇa texts came into being, the two traditions had already fused together. The Upaniṣads and the “heterodox” religions of Jainism and Buddhism bring to the surface religious ideas that may be new or that may have survived from older times further east, outside the Vedic realm.