In the happiness of his subjects lies the happiness of the King (Head of the State) and in what is beneficial to the subjects his own benefit. What is dear to himself is not beneficial to the king, but what is dear to the subjects is beneficial to him. (Kautilya’s Arthashāstra, I, 19, 34)

Prime Minister Modi saluting the troops in Udhampur, May 13, 2025

Truth Behind Global Terrorism and India’s Response via Operation Sindoor

Prime Minister Modi exemplifies Chanakya’s conception of a leader like no other in the world today . Far too often, terrorism has struck down families, devastated and shattered people’s lives, altering the course of their destiny, for no reason other than to make some ideological point, and to strike fear and terror in the hearts of ordinary and common people. While it is true that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, it is also true that most terrorists are Muslims. That Pakistan is the global leader in the manufacturing of terror, is also undeniable; but to state these obvious truths today is to invite the wrath of the Islamophobia brigade that serves as a global watchdog. People who call themselves leftists, liberals, and other convenient labels, are far too guilty of white-washing terrorism and equalizing the perpetrator and the victim as somehow responsible for the violence in equal measure. Our hearts and prayers are with the families who were irreparably shattered by these acts of violence in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Retaliation and retribution will not heal their wounds. Rebuilding their lives will take years. Some of them may never fully recover from the psychological impact of these barbaric attacks.

Operation Sindoor, aptly named, was long overdue. The Mumbai terror attacks of 26/11, 2008, which the world watched with horror for several days went largely without retribution, not because India did not have the capacity to retaliate, but because the ruling party of that time was afraid of escalation with a nuclear armed enemy. These frequent acts of terrorism on India, backed and bolstered by the threat of nuclear escalation, have been the calling card of Pakistan for decades now. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shattered that barrier. He has displayed an extraordinary level of balance between aggression and restraint. So have the armed forces of Bharat. Adharma requires a response from Dharma—this is the lesson of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Ahimsa is not always the answer to Himsa. When one’s mother is being attacked, one does not have a choice of whether to defend, or to engage in pacifism and Ahimsa. So, what then when one’s motherland is attacked? Kshatriya Dharma has its vital place in the life of a nation, though often unappreciated.

Atmanirbhar Bharat: India’s Path to Self-Reliance ‘Even in Defense’

Operation Sindoor did not happen in a vacuum. It was the consequence of decades of investments, research, design, and development. It was made possible by a decade of unprecedented economic growth. It was founded upon careful integration of electronic systems, satellites, radars, guns, missiles, drones, espionage, human intelligence, and devastating fire power. It required in equal measure the ability to defend the homeland, its citizens, cities, military establishments and assets as well as the ability to reach deep into enemy territory and strike with devastating precision. It was made possible through exceptional ground, air and sea force coordination. It has established a new paradigm in war, through drones, missiles, and air defense. It has brought into sharp focus what Prime Minister Narendra Modi meant when he coined the term “Atmanirbhar Bharat,” meaning a self-reliant India. Equipment and capacities that rarely get battle-tested are now proven capabilities. India’s defense manufacturing and exports are going to skyrocket following Operation Sindoor. Bharat, that is India, now has demonstrated a nearly unparalleled capacity in this modern paradigm of war. Prime Minister Modi’s relationships with the armed forces of India are also extraordinary. He has spent every Deepavali since 2014 with the armed forces, distributing sweets, and being with them, even when there was no imminent war. His acknowledgement of the armed forces, in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, was deeply moving to hear. I cannot say that I have felt as much pride and respect for the Army, Navy and Airforce of India ever in my life. Nor have I felt as proud of a leader of a nation as I do now.

L to R: Shri Sajjan Agarawal, Shri Braham Ratan Aggarval, Dr. Jashvant Patel – HUA Chairman of the Board and Shri Kalyan Viswanathan – HUA President meet PM of India Shri Narendra Modi.

HUA Meets PM Modi

In September of 2024, a small team from the Hindu University of America met the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi Ji, in New York City. It was the first time I met him. There were four of us: along with me, Dr. Jashvant Patel, Chairman of the Board of HUA; Shri Braham Ratan Aggarwal, Member of the Board of Overseers of HUA; and Shri Sajjan Agarwal, member of the Board and Chair of the Finance Committee of the Board.

This was the first time I had met a head of state, and I did not quite know what to expect. Surprisingly, he spent about 30 minutes with us. What surprised me even more was his simplicity, and the ease with which he interacted with us. The meeting was warm and friendly, even affectionate. He held my hand several seconds longer than I expected and invited me to take a selfie with him. It felt like a meeting between old friends, not a new acquaintance. I spoke in English, and he replied in Hindi. He asked me if I understood Hindi, and I said yes, I do. We took a few more photographs.

HUA President Shri Kalyan Viswanathan in a selfie with PM Modi

After introductions and pleasantries, we used the opportunity to brief him on the progress that HUA had made over the last five plus years. We spoke about the recent merger of the California College of Ayurveda with the Hindu University of America, and he listened with great interest. I shared the brochures describing the programs offered by HUA, and he took it all in. He listens keenly before he speaks. So, when he responds, he is always appropriate to the occasion, a quality so rare among leaders in this world today. We spoke about the future possibilities for this university. He focused on what he called the two treasures from India – Yoga and Ayurveda. He said that even we Hindus don’t fully appreciate the potential of Yoga and Ayurveda, for the world. He shared a story about the young daughter of an African head of state who was going blind. On his recommendation, she had taken Ayurvedic treatment in Kerala and restored her eyes. He said that she had become a great proponent of Ayurveda.

He spoke of the ‘jhagada’ or fight, in India between the mainstream allopathic doctor community and the Ayurvedic community. He wondered what could happen if the divide between these two communities could be transcended. What potential and possibility could be unlocked if the relationship between the different medicinal systems were to be situated in a framework of collaboration instead of rivalry. Ayurvedic practitioners suffer from a sense of inferiority in India. They are trying to become more like mainstream medical practitioners, he observed. This leads them sometimes to represent Ayurveda as a superior system that has all the answers. He remarked that Ayurveda suffers from a lack of adequate scientific validation. Ayurveda needs authentication. Without this authentication, it is easily dismissed as an ancient tradition not grounded in science. This can be rectified, he said. HUA must take this up in earnest, he suggested. The contemporary scientific validation of Yoga and Ayurveda through rigorous study and research – this is one of the true potentials of Hindu University of America, he said. In India, he said the focus is more on practice and developing practitioners. The research focus is not yet mature. This must be developed in collaboration with the West, where research is much more well developed, he said. It seemed he was giving us a task to do. Setting a direction for us. He said that Indians living in America can make this important contribution. Not just for our sake, but for all humankind.

He inquired about each of our families and wellbeing. He invited us to visit India and see him in India. The Government of India, he offered, will do whatever it can to support HUA’s mission. Outside the hotel suite a big Japanese delegation was waiting to see him next after us. But he seemed in no hurry. He was present with us for the whole half an hour that he spent with us. I was left amazed, most of all by his presence, his attention and keen sense of listening, his humility, and the lack of any of the airs of self-importance and power that we see so often in much less accomplished individuals. I was in the presence of a Rajarishi, I thought. A Yuga-Purusha unlike any we might see. There was great power in him, great confidence, and self-assurance. But it was held in the poise of humble, kind, and compassionate bearing. Bharat is very lucky to have him as its Prime Minister, for as long as he has been. But only 37% of the voters in India vote for the Prime Minister’s party. 63% of them don’t. I shudder to think of what would happen to Bharat, if the other 63% somehow united and came together. They keep trying and failing.

Conclusion: A Leader for the Ages

It is perhaps the most consequential idea in the Arthashāstra: that the ruler must surrender his entire life in service of his people. This is not the renunciation of a Sannyasin, the one who withdraws into an ascetic life far away from the madding crowd. It is a different kind of renunciation, that of Karma Yoga, that prioritizes the happiness and well-being of his people over his own as the first and foremost the first principle of Rāja Dharma. Shri Narendra Modi is the greatest example of such a Karma Yogi, that we can hope to encounter in our lives. And he does it all amid the raging Kurukshetra, of the powerful currents and forces, both domestic and international, that seek to unseat him, vilify him, denigrate him and destroy him on a daily basis. It was a great grace and blessing that I got to meet him in New York City.

1. https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/india-operation-sindoor-china-pl-15-missile-france-japan-fragments-explained-13889890.html
2. https://www.opindia.com/2025/05/operation-sindoor-how-india-can-become-global-leader-defence-export/

The post Narendra Modi’s Leadership: Modi’s Vision for India and HUA appeared first on Hindu University of America.

Dīpāvali is a Hindu festival celebrated through the lighting of lamps, bursting of crackers, offering puja and sharing delicacies. Celebrated to mark the return of Śrī Rāma to Ayodhya, it inspires a commitment to righteousness in the face of challenges at ādhibhautika, ādhidaivika and ādhyātmika levels.

Celebrating Dīpāvali

Dīpāvali, a festival celebrated across the globe, is observed as a festival of lights when Hindus illuminate their homes and streets with long rows and arrangements of earthen lamps. Many Purāṇic stories represent the origin of this festival, such as Bhagavān Rāma returning to Ayodhyā after his 14-year exile, the Pāṇḍavas returning home to Hastināpura, or Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s victory over the demon Narakāsura. Despite the diversity of these stories, they all carry a single message: the triumph of Dharma over Adharma after a great existential struggle, when a demon with extraordinary destructive power is vanquished.

The rise of Adharma is one of the characteristics of this age, the Kali Yuga. Adharma is characterized by ignorance (Avidyā), which leads to desire (Kāma), anger (Krodha), greed (Lobha), attachment (Moha), egoism (Mada), and jealousy (Mātsarya). The demons in Hindu Purāṇas represent the power of Adharma, rising to engulf the world with their darkness and violence, sowing chaos and fear among the people.

The colonial era was one such period of darkness, engulfing much of the world in unrestrained plunder, leaving vast regions subjugated, impoverished, dislocated, and illiterate. India suffered through two hundred years of this demon—the darkness of the colonial era. On August 15, 1947, it finally managed to throw off the colonizer and emerged from darkness into light. The two world wars fought in Europe in the last century were also periods of intense darkness and violence that descended onto the European continent. The Islamic invasions of India were another such age of wrath and darkness, devastating thousands of Hindu mandirs across the country. The Rāma Mandir in Ayodhyā, built to consecrate Bhagavān Rāma’s birthplace, lay in ruins for over five hundred years, a period of darkness so long and despairing. However, earlier this year, in 2024, the temple was re-inaugurated, symbolizing once again the triumph of Dharma over Adharma. These examples reveal malevolent demons of immense destructive power dominating vast swaths of history for long periods.

In our own time, a new demon has arisen: the demon of disinformation. Today, falsehood masquerades as truth, truth is distorted, and news is manipulated, obscuring the distinction between reality and illusion. We are passing to the younger generation a world where it is no longer clear what is true or false, forcing them to retreat into a personal world of their own ‘truths’ and to social networks of like-minded individuals. An epidemic of mental illness is now plaguing the world, with anxiety and depression, loss of confidence, and a lack of purpose. This new demon gains power when fanned by the flames of social media outrage (Krodha). The Upaniṣads declare “Satyameva Jayate”—Truth alone triumphs. Yet, falsehood has its day when it rules the world. Furthermore, the demon of corruption plagues many societies globally, where politicians seek power not for public good but for personal gain (Lobha). The battle between Dharma and Adharma is ever-present, whether we stand and fight for Dharma or disengage into our own private worlds.

Dīpāvali, therefore, holds great significance. At the manifest, physical realm—the Ādhibhautika level—it marks the end of an āsuric era of Adharma, filled with darkness, negativity, violence, fear, and sorrow, and the inauguration of a new era filled with hope, joy, positive energy, and the anticipation of peace and prosperity. The lamps pierce the darkness of the night and herald the dawn of a new day.

At the subtle, unmanifest psychic realm—the Ādhidaivika level—it invokes the Devas to bring us inner joy and transformation, burning away the inner negativity and despondency that often besiege us through the fire (Agni) of yoga. It calls on us to recommit to Dharma in its eternal struggle against Adharma. The lamps symbolically pierce the darkness of inner confusion and herald the dawn of a new understanding.

Finally, at the Ādhyātmika level, Dīpāvali represents the light of illumination—the fire of knowledge (Jñānāgni) that shatters the darkness of ignorance (Avidyā). The lamps symbolize the movement toward the knowledge of Brahman (Brahma Jñāna) and the establishment of the bliss of the Self (Brahmānanda).

On this Dīpāvali 2024, may we celebrate this ancient festival at all three levels of our being: the Ādhibhautika, the manifest physical level; the Ādhidaivika, the subtle psychic and divine level; and the Ādhyātmika, the unmanifest causal level, which is the source of truth, knowledge, fullness, and freedom.

Om Tat Sat.

The post Celebrating Deepaavali appeared first on Hindu University of America.

 Śri Rāma – Vigrahavān Dharma

Celebrating Ayodhya – A Symbol of Sanātana Dharma

The Personal Connection

My parents named me Kalyanaraman, hoping and praying that some small fraction of Bhagavān Śri Rāma’s qualities and character may manifest in me. However, before I could fully understand the significance of that name, during my first visit to the USA, I changed it to better suit the Western tastes. Similar aspirations as my parents’ were perhaps held by those of notable individuals such as E. V. Ramasami Naickar, Ramachandra Guha, N. Ram, Jairam Ramesh, Sitaram Yechury, and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, who may have also desired a glimpse of Rama in their sons. It is important to acknowledge that not all prayers are answered, and in hindsight, in some of these cases, the answer was a resounding “No.” Nevertheless, our history has also witnessed the presence of illustrious figures like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maharishi, Ram Swaroop, Sitaram Goel, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and C.V. Raman, where the answer to their parents’ prayers was a “Yes”, even if it is a partial Yes.

The Clash of Two Ideas

In the present times, there exists a clash between India and Bharat, each representing two dominant and distinct ideas of India, being played out in the grand stage of India’s political battleground – its modern-day Kurukshetra. On the one hand, there is the idea that the entire civilizational heritage of India, encompassing its spirituality, religion, culture, and traditional wisdom, indeed its Sanātana Dharma (eternal law) is an unnecessary burden, irrelevant and detrimental to India’s progress. A natural corollary of this idea is the notion that India is better off forgetting its past, and must focus on modernizing and westernizing as quickly as possible. A consistent and deliberate effort, to engineer this “forgetting of the past”, has been made as a critical political project for many decades now; with the disconnection of the people from their language, Sanskrit, serving as one of the significant pillars. As individuals became increasingly alienated from their own culture and heritage, they developed an indifference, and even disdain, and grew to look down at their past, their parents, and ancestors. This disdain soon came to be considered a precondition for progress. This was the idea of India that I imbibed through my education at school and college, during my time as a student in India.

On the other side is the idea, which propounds that the country’s future cannot be de-linked from its civilizational past, and rely solely and entirely on imitating the latest Western fashions and fads. That its future must be rooted in a meaningful recovery of the wisdom embedded in its ancient culture, its traditions, and civilizational heritage. Recognizing and embracing that such a meaningful revival of India’s civilizational past—its “Dharma” or law which is “Sanātana” or eternal—as necessary for its own self-respect, sense of identity and destiny, is the alternate idea of Bharat. This perspective unfolded for me only gradually. The realization that this recovery of the past and restoration of Bharat’s Hindu heritage is not antithetical to its progress and does not constitute a regression, was not easy for me. I did not arrive at this understanding in one dramatic moment of explosive illumination, but rather the idea grew on me over time. Many Gurus and Acharyas contributed to this gradual understanding – Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam being a central figure in that journey from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge. Just as the “forgetting” of India’s past was meticulously orchestrated, over many decades and perhaps even centuries, the “remembering” of India’s culture, wisdom, and civilizational heritage must also be consciously and diligently engineered. It cannot be left to the happenstance of accident, good fortune, or fate. And we all have a role to play here. To arrive at this understanding, I had to unlearn the previous idea of India that I had already deeply assimilated.

The Watershed Event and Pivotal Turning Point

In late 1992, I was a student at Ohio State University when the Babri Masjid was brought down. Like many poorly informed Hindus, I too was upset, and felt deeply disappointed with my fellow Hindus for having brought down the Babri Masjid. “It is not in our Hindu ethos or character to tear down a religious site of another religion, even if they had done it to us many times over”, I reasoned. I was filled with questions – “Why can’t we construct a Ram Mandir at a nearby site instead?” “Why do we have to claim that exact site for the Ram Mandir?” “Why do we need to stoke this controversy? Why can’t we be secular and work extra hard to get along with the Muslims?”

However, my perspective shifted after I came across the books Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them – Volume 1 and Volume 2. These books changed my thinking. I hold my encounter with these two “Rams” i.e., authors Śrī Sita Ram Goel, and his mentor Śrī Ram Swaroop, to be pivotal moments in my intellectual journey. I then went on to read another book by Śrī Sita Ram Goel titled How I Became a Hindu and one by Śrī Ram Swaroop titled On Hinduism – Reviews and Reflections. Until then, I had never heard about these two “Rams.” Their works left a profound impact on me and after this encounter, I couldn’t stop reading them. I highly recommend reading their books, and for those who have not read them, I have shared their links here. We must note with gratitude that the parents of both these authors had named them after the Bhagavān Śri Rāma.

The Symbiotic Juxtaposition

Vikās (development) and Virāsat (heritage) had always been pitched against one another in the old Idea of India. The current Prime Minister of India, Sri Narendra Modi, changed the rules of the game and showed us that Vikās (Development) does not have to be antithetical to Virāsat (Heritage). He taught us, and is still teaching, this invaluable and unforgettable lesson, through his ideas, his actions, and his accomplishments. It is unclear which of these he is more passionate about – Vikās or Virāsat. I must say here, that it was not entirely clear to me that this integration of Vikās and Virāsat was even possible. I often used to wonder, if a commitment to restore and recover our civilizational past, also invariably meant that we sacrifice a little in the realm of material progress i.e., in the general direction of modernization and westernization.

108 ft tall Statue of Oneness at Omkareshwar, Madhya Pradesh

Hi-Tech Vande Bharat Trains

However, the events that have unfolded in Bharat in the last ten years have shown otherwise. One day, Bharat inaugurates yet another of its latest Vande Bharat Railway Trains; and a few days later, it consecrates a newly created Kashi Vishwanath Mandir Corridor. One day, Bharat lands its Lunar mission Chandrayaan on the moon at a location where it has never been done before; a few days later, it inaugurates a newly refurbished Mahakaleshwar Temple Corridor. One day, Bharat celebrates completing nine billion Digital Payment transactions in one month; and a few days later it unveils a 108-foot Statue of Adi Shankaracharya at Omkareshwar. One day Bharat throws open its longest over-sea trans-harbor bridge from Mumbai to Navi Mumbai; and a few days later, the same Bharat is set to consecrate its Ram Lalla Mandir after a five-hundred-year wait in Ayodhya. We can go on with the examples. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is changing the grammar and structure of the democratic politics of India as we speak. He has moved it beyond family, caste, corruption, and appeasement, and created a new possibility – ‘Vikās with Virāsat’. He has overturned the Nehruvian idea that Vikās can come only at the expense of Virāsat and vice-versa. And the Nehruvians are in a state of shock now.

Chandrayaan III – The only Lunar Mission to land on the dark said of moon

Atal Setu – India’s Longest Sea Bridge

Ayodhya – A Testament

Ayodhya is a testament to this unique synthesis of Vikās and Virāsat. The whole city is re-emerging from a state of longstanding destruction, neglect, and abandonment. The Mandir is rising again, and is bringing in its wake a brand new airport, a new railway station, new trains, new facilities, and in time, new hotels, and other infrastructure will also emerge. The whole economy of the region is awaiting an impending transformation. When Rama returned to Ayodhya after his 14-year exile and numerous travails, the whole of Ayodhya lit up in joy. Now, when the Ram Lalla Mandir rises again in Ayodhya after its 500-year symbolic exile, Ayodhya will light up once more with unspeakable joy.

The proposed uplift of Ayodhya Railway Station underway

Interiors of the Maharishi Valmiki International Airport, Ayodhya

A Civilization is waking up from its slumber. Dharma is awakening. This potential for rebirth, for re-emergence, is what makes it ‘Sanātana’ or eternal. Rāma is simultaneously eternal and undying in his Ādhyātmika dimension; He is the Avatāra of Viṣnu in his Ādidaivika dimension as a Vigrahavān Dharma; He is a great example for us all to emulate, as a human Hero in his Ādibhautika dimension. It is the Spirit of Sanātana Dharma that is re-emerging once more in Ayodhya.

We at Hindu University of America stand with Prime Minister Modi and the billion-plus Hindus all over the world, those who believe and stand ready to rejoice, and those who are confused and don’t know what to do about this phenomenon, to celebrate with gratitude this ceremony consecrating the Rām Lallā deity in this newly built Rām Mandir, on January 22, 2024.

May it be a day when we Hindus remember our past once more with both joy and pride and contemplate our future with confidence and clarity.

Jai Śrī Rāma!

The post Celebrating Ayodhya – A Symbol of Sanātana Dharma appeared first on Hindu University of America.

HUA President’s Message

Chairman of the Board of HUA, Prof. Ved Prakash Nanda passes away.

Within a few hours, after I sent the New Year’s message on Monday, I heard the heartbreaking news of the passing away of the Chairman of the HUA Board, Padma Bhushan Sri Ved Nanda ji.

Nanda ji had a fall in his house on December 6^th, 2023, and was unable to get up. He was quickly hospitalized and diagnosed with a spinal cord injury as a result of the fall. He underwent surgery, and subsequently went into rigorous physical rehab for a short time, but unfortunately had an adverse turn of events with internal bleeding, requiring another surgical procedure. On Dec 26^th, 2023, we got a word that his family made the difficult decision to transition him into hospice care. We are told that he departed peacefully on Monday, January 01, 2024, in Denver, Colorado, at 12:30 p.m. Mountain Time.

Prof. Ved Nanda ji served as Chairman of the Board of the Hindu University of America from January 2019, for almost five years, and played a critical guiding role. I have personally known Prof. Nanda ji for well over a decade. I have seen him at events when I was a mere spectator in the audience when he was on the dais; I had interacted with him long before we became more intimately acquainted at the Hindu University of America. And then at HUA, I had the opportunity to work with him much more closely. His experience as a senior academic and administrator was invaluable in guiding me as well as the whole Board of Trustees of HUA over the past five years. He brought a sense of humor that easily smoothed over what seemed to be contentious issues, and was at all times a cheerleader and champion for the growth and development of Hindu University of America. At the same time, he kept an extremely full and busy calendar and was in constant demand from a wide variety of organizations and institutions.

Prof. Ved Prakash Nanda ji is seen here receiving the Padma Bhushan Award from the President of India, Shri Ramnath Kovind, in the year 2018 in the field of literature and education.

Professor Ved Nanda ji was born in 1934, in Gujranwala, near Sialkot, British India (now in Pakistan). His family migrated to India following the partition in 1947. Growing up in the aftermath of this significant and traumatic historical event, Nanda ji developed an awareness of the complexities of international relations and the importance of diplomacy in maintaining global peace. His early experiences and exposure to the challenges of post-partition life likely influenced his later academic and professional pursuits in the field of international law. Professor Ved Nanda ji ’s distinguished career and contributions to the field of international law have made him a respected figure in academia and beyond. Throughout his life, he has worked tirelessly to promote understanding and cooperation among nations through his teaching, writing, and advocacy in the realm of international law. His contributions invited the following message from the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi ji.

It is impossible to capture in a few short paragraphs, the multi-dimensional contributions of Prof. Ved Nanda as a Professor of Law, a Champion of Human rights around the world, an author who has left a legacy of over twenty-plus books and countless articles, and a champion of Hindu causes for more than six decades. Prof. Ved P. Nanda was a Distinguished University Professor and Thompson G. Marsh Professor of Law at the University of Denver, where he founded the International Legal Studies Program in 1972 and later directed the Ved Nanda Center for International and Comparative Law.

During his academic career, he wrote books and chapters on diverse subjects such as Human Rights, Third World Development, Refugee Law and Policy, Laws about Trans-national Business Transactions, International Criminal Law, Climate Change and the Role of International Law and Institutions, Litigation of International Disputes in US Courts, Water needs of the Future, International Environmental Law and Policy, Nuclear Weapons and the World Court, Law in the War on International Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation and its Legality, Compassion in the four Dharmic Traditions, Hindu Law and Legal Theory, and so on. During his academic career, Prof. Ved Nanda was instrumental in graduating many students who went on to play distinguished roles in American society.

Here is a picture of one such student greeting him, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Prof. Ved Nanda ji served as Vice Provost at the University of Denver from 1994-2008 and has held numerous official posts in international, regional, and national professional and civil society organizations. He has also received several awards including the Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award for Community Peace Building. He had been the Sanghchalak (President) of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), in America for many years, and guided its growth and development.

In the coming weeks, I am sure that we will hear more and more about the distinguished life of service and contribution of Ma. Shri Veda Nanda ji, from a great many sources. In the meantime, on behalf of the Board of Trustees and the entire family of Hindu University of America, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the bereaved family and invite all of us at HUA to remember him.

May we all include Nanda ji in our prayers today.

OM Shanti, Shanti, Shantihi!

Kalyan Viswanathan,

President, Hindu University of America

The post HUA President’s Message – Prof. Ved Nanda passes away appeared first on Hindu University of America.

Until one awakens to the possibility of mokṣa.

In the Bhagavad Gītā, Krishna holds out the possibility of a radical dissociation of one’s inner disposition from one’s outward circumstances, exemplified by the ideal of the sthita-prajña^[7] whose abiding peace is centered on the Self alone (ātmanyevātmanā tuṣhṭaḥ)^[8] and is unconcerned with the anxieties of acquiring and protecting (niryoga-kṣema ātmavān)^[9] material things. Without this awakening of a desire for mokṣa, and thereafter jñānam, neither jñānayoga nor karmayoga, as two lifestyles (dvividhā niṣhṭhā)^[10] have any relevance. Sanyāsa as a lifestyle, actively and deliberately embraces tremendous physical and financial insecurity i.e., no income, no medical insurance, no savings, and no retirement plan—at least that is how it ought to be—–notwithstanding the many sanyāsins, who seem to continue to have worldly business interests. Yet, in the midst of this physical and financial insecurity and uncertainty, the (vidvat) sanyāsin abides in a settled and almost unperturbed inner security, or that is how he or she ought to be. Indeed, there are very few people who can attain this equipoise in the face of the crushing burden of economic insecurity, while still pursuing mokṣa and jñāna (vividiṣa sanyāsa).

Even though we may develop an awareness of all of these attachments being temporary and time bound, (anityam), it is not easy to walk away from it all—giving up the security and comfort of a life as we know it, in favor of a life that is entirely unknown and uncertain. The transition from gṛhastha to sanyāsa is not easy to make. In Hindu thought, vānaprasthāśrama is structured as a stage in life which is transitional, when one gradually extricates oneself from worldly interests. The vana (Forest) symbolizes a retreating away from the hustle and bustle of the everyday kurukṣetra that each of us find ourselves in. And karmayoga is the critical shift in attitude^[11] that enables this transition and can even constitute a committed lifestyle as an alternative to sanyāsa. Making and viewing pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat as essentially the same (sukha-duḥkhe, lābhālābhau, jayājayau, same kṛitvā)^[12], prepare for battle (yuddhāya yujyasva)^[13] says Krishna—once again articulating a paradox. How does one engage deeply with the battles of the world, if at the same time, one does not care in the least for how they turn out?

The critical ingredient that transforms karma into karmayoga is the discernment of mokṣa as the singular and final commitment in life, to the exclusion of all other interests. There is a certain clarity (niścaya) that has arisen in the mind, regarding the transitory nature of existence in the world, (nitya– anitya vastu viveka) that is no longer easily shaken by the entanglements with the world (nistrai-guṇyo bhava)^[14] where innumerable outcomes, experiences, and desires can easily carry one’s buddhi away (avyavasāyinām)^[15]. The evenness of mind, (samatva)^[16] that is at the heart of karmayoga^[17], in the face of success and failure, (jayājayou)^[18] pleasure and pain (sukhaduḥkha)^[19], profit and loss (lābhālābhau)^[20]—which are of a material nature (prakṛti– trai-guṇya)^[21] arises from three sources: first, the practical recognition that as a human being, we have jurisdiction (choice, authority, power – adhikāra)^[22] over the realm of action alone, (karmahetu)^[23] but not over the realm of results of those actions (karmaphala hetu)^[24]; second, the assimilated understanding that the results of our actions are governed by laws of this world, both seen and unseen, not within our own jurisdiction but of that of Īśvara; and third, in any case, we are no longer yearning for results within the material sphere (trai-guṇya), and that our commitment to mokṣa has assumed a singular and unshakable priority in our lives i.e., we wish to know (jñāna) and be more fully that which we have come to know—an ātmavān.^[25] Without the discernment of mokṣa as our ultimate purpose of human existence, and its attendant end to all other forms of seeking^[26], one is still embroiled in worldly life—pursuing various ends and enjoining Īśvara to actively join in the task of accomplishing the results that we are aspiring for, which is the condition of most human life. Our karma and our attachments to the karmaphalam may be tempered by prasāda buddhi^[27] but is yet to fully transform into a karmayoga.

[1] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 41, Gita Home Study Program, Page 256
[2] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 39, Gita Home Study Program, Page 249
[3] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 43, Gita Home Study Program, Page 262
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 45, Gita Home Study Program, Page 266
[7] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 55, Gita Home Study Program, Page 310
[8] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 55, Gita Home Study Program, Page 310
[9] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 45, Gita Home Study Program, Page 266
[10] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Verse 3, Gita Home Study Program, Page 373
[11] Bhagavad Gita, Gita Home Study Program, Page 254
[12] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 38, Gita Home Study Program, Page 248
[13] Ibid.
[14] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 45, Gita Home Study Program, Page 266
[15] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 41, Gita Home Study Program, Page 256
[16] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Verse 48, Gita Home Study Program, Page 282
[17] Ibid.
[18] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 38, Gita Home Study Program, Page 248
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 45, Gita Home Study Program, Page 266
[22] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 47, Gita Home Study Program, Page 270
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 45, Gita Home Study Program, Page 266
[26] Bhagavad Gita, Gita Home Study Program, Page 269
[27] Bhagavad Gita, Gita Home Study Program, Page 281

The post Transforming Karma Into Yoga appeared first on Hindu University of America.

Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way is a painted mural displayed behind the western staircase of the House of Representatives chamber in the United States Capitol Building. The mural was painted by Emanuel Gottlieb Leutzein 1861 and symbolizes Manifest Destiny.

As another example, of the way Kshatriya Dharma worked in traditional India, and continues to work is illustrated in the contrast offered by the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, through the images of innocent civilians in hospitals, schools and other gathering venues ripped apart by weapons of large-scale destruction. These images reek of the Adharmic conduct of war. In stark contrast, wars in ancient and traditional India were confined to the specific swim lanes designated by the warring sides, with the fighting engaged only by Kshatriyas, while the broader community i.e., all other Varnas and Jatis, carried on with its daily activities, certain that the war and violence will not spill over into the non-Kshatriya spheres. Those were the rules of engagement generally accepted and followed on both sides in a Dharmic culture. This principle even sustains today’s India, that is Bharat, for the most part.

The Rise of Adharma

We cannot deny that the societal conditions in the US today are very concerning. Compared to just one generation ago, 84% of people surveyed in a 2019 NPR-IBM Watson Health Poll[1] said Americans are angrier. There are very few compelling reasons to believe in the possibility of a reversal of that sentiment either. Social media has had the unfortunate effect of amplifying hate speech and its causative crimes. With nearly all continents communicating through social media, perpetrators of crime can publicize their acts[2]. The confluence of a disgruntled citizenry, extreme discontent in society, the inability to manage emotions responsibly, and the easy availability[3] of guns makes for a deadly combination. Despite strong barometers of material success over the last decade as measured by property values or financial market performance in the aggregate, are we witnessing a case of civilizational decline in the form of the rise of Adharma in the USA? This pervasive decline is characterized by the choice, that America keeps making, i.e., to prioritize the ubiquitous presence of guns in society that has repeatedly proven to be deadly on unarmed citizenry, as something more important than the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. Without a fundamental reappraisal of such abnormal and perverse priorities, how are changes possible? There was a time when we could trust lawmakers to make certain course-corrections. Is that trust valid anymore, or has it been long eroded?

Such a reappraisal must necessarily consider the history of these gun related amendments, statutes, and regulations. For example, the 1791 second amendment was not some isolated gun regulation. It was preceded by several efforts towards “… prohibiting negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs,” ensuring that “… that all such free Mulattoes, Negroes, and Indians…shall appear without arms,” so as to “…prevent negro insurrections.”[4] These laws and statues were enacted in various states through the 1600’s and 1700’s. Even more dramatically, in 1792, just a year after the 2nd amendment was passed, the “Uniform Militia Act of 1792 ‘called for the enrolment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five’ to be in the militia and specified that every militia member was to ‘provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.’” The meaning of the term militia as used in the 2nd amendment is clarified by the this Uniform Militia Act of 1792. These laws and regulations had a different intention and purpose in the 1600’s through the 1800’s i.e., one of proactively arming the white settlers against their non-white enemies, whom they were either subjugating, exterminating or enslaving. After the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 abolishing slavery, the issue of gun ownership became one of the ‘equal rights’ of non-whites to also own guns, in relation to the whites. The question of whether ordinary members of the country’s citizenry really ought to possess weapons has not, it appears has not been considered effectively till today, outside of the rhetorical echo-chamber of rights of all people. If every citizen is required by law to carry a driver’s license, and acquire liability insurance in order to drive a vehicle, safely on the roads, without being a hazard to others, gun ownership ought to have a much more carefully thought-out process of regulation, is it not? What has prevented such a reappraisal till date, and continues to prevent it?

Dharma and Adharma

It is during these times that the wisdom of everlasting principles of human existence envisaged by Hindu Dharma become ever more important. One may ask, how do we apply the concepts of Dharma to synthesize solutions to current issues?

The word Dharma, from the Sanskrit language, is difficult to be reduced to simple definition in English. Dharma can mean transcendental cosmic order, physical order of the universe, social order, ethical behavior, duty or responsibility, community service, right self-expression, or ultimately self-liberation. Furthermore, digging into the root of the word itself, Dhr means uphold, sustain or support. Therefore, when a society has collectively built an environment of peace, harmony, and stability with a concurrent check on the opposite kinds of forces, the potential for prosperity and creativity becomes possible[5]. The exact opposite outcomes manifest when the inverses of the stated factors become dominant.

In other words, Dharma promotes social harmony, while Adharma generates social conflict. This can be a simple operating definition. It becomes imperative, then, that a conscious choice towards creating a Dharmic society is necessary to prevent the alternative spiral of decline from taking further hold. The idea that anyone and everyone in a state may and should possess guns, regardless of their extent or lack of careful preparation and training on how to use weapons, when to use them and when not to use them, is a fundamentally Adharmic choice, which has its attendant and inevitable tragic Karmic consequences. That careful preparation and training, when institutionalized by law and regulation, is a Dharmic choice, and the only way of reversing the course of affairs. For the leaders of a nation to make such a choice, requires them to have some idea of Dharma at least. Insofar as the leaders merely reflect the people of a society, the people also must have a sense of Dharma.

Guns are not just a product to be bought and sold like a commodity. They are deadly weapons, capable of taking lives. The conflict here is between a Vaishya Dharma, the freedom to buy and sell guns as a commodity, without restraints, and a Kshatriya Dharma, where careful training, preparation and self-regulation is a necessary duty, that is inseparable from the privilege of possessing such weapons. When the Vaishya Dharma and a Kshatriya Dharma enter into a seeming confrontation, there must be a framework for resolving that conflict. These Dharmas are not merely mutually conflicting imperatives, that can be settled only through a gunfight, but also have an inherent sense of hierarchy built into them. This is where Hindu thought is infinitely more insightful than a discourse on rights, which has lost its way, into a radical clamour for their inviolability and has no more any space for its counterpart, i.e., a discourse on restraints, duties, responsibilities and obligations. Dharma brings balance, order, justice, it integrates, and responds to the diverse interests in play – It transcends the mere scramble for power. But to actualize this, one must move from the sphere of power-struggles to the sphere of wisdom. That call to move from a sphere of power, of dominance, or control, to the sphere of knowledge, wisdom and peace is the voice of Dharma.

For more information about HUA, visit https://hua.edu.

[1]    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/26/735757156/poll-americans-say-were-angrier-than-a-generation-ago

[2]    https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons

[3]    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7MwvqCtlk

[4] Steve Eckwall, The Racist Origins of Gun Control, Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans, at https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf

[5]    Kalyan Viswanathan, Orientation to Hindu Studies, Dharma, Hindu University of America, 2020.

The post Gun-Violence and Dharma – Part II appeared first on Hindu University of America.

If the American civilization as we have come to cherish and respect has entered a spiral of self-destruction, as it appears to be, is there still an opportunity to reverse course? What is the way out of senseless violence plaguing American society today? Or do we simply have to accept that everyday a certain number of people randomly will have to be sacrificed, as unavoidable collateral damage, to uphold the ‘freedom’ of Gun ownership for the people and the ‘freedom’ to maximize gun sales for the corporations?

What does Hindu Dharma have anything to do with domestic gun violence that the USA is witnessing all too frequently? What does it have to say about ownership and use of guns or any weapons for that matter? In this sequence of two articles, we will examine this issue through the lens of Hindu Dharma.

Overview

Ownership of a gun is a deemed fundamental right in the US Constitution[1], as enshrined in its second amendment passed in 1791, which reads “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This has often been read in a way that means that anyone in the US can keep and bear arms, i.e., legally possess a weapon of destruction. It is understandable that a trained military officer or soldier, who is a member of a well-regulated entity, such as the military or the police, may necessarily keep and bear arms to perform his duties, but what is the relationship between any private citizen i.e., the people and a ‘well-regulated militia’ that the second amendment references? Herein lies an enormous space for mischievous interpretation. There appears to be no guidelines in the constitution about how a gun may be used except for a vague hint about sport hunting. The US Department of Justice website[2] says that “Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing.” The reality is gun ownership is a key causal factor for unnatural mortality in the US. The data on this is beyond ambiguous.

Sobering Statistics

In 2021, in the US alone, 45,010 human lives were lost due to some form of gun violence[3]. Nearly a quarter million souls (240,512) have been lost just in the 5-year period ending 2021 and yet nothing in the horizon appears to be able to put a stop to this senseless, deliberate, and preventable loss of lives. Lawmakers in the USA are trapped in a tragic quagmire, justifying the importance of the “freedom to own and sell guns” on the one hand, and lamenting the loss of innocent lives, with their all-too-frequent “thoughts and prayers” on the other hand, apparently in utter bewilderment as to how one could be correlated with the other.

Drivers of Gun Sales

Nearly 20 million guns (about 6,000 for every 100,000 people) were sold in the US in 2021[4]. Two reasons have been proposed as key drivers of gun sales[5]: (1) protection against a potential breakdown in civil society and (2) acquisition of the firearm ahead of any potential government intervention on gun ownership. Co-incidentally, a breakdown in civil society especially as it pertains to the peaceful transfer of power after a democratic election has just concluded, is not something America can turn a blind eye towards anymore. Perversely, gun sales also tend to spike after mass shootings[6]. This means that to promote gun sales, these sporadic shooting events, and loss of life, are quite helpful, even if they are not pre-planned. According to Firearm Industry Trade Association, 2021 the firearm and ammunition industry employed ~376,000 people and was responsible for ~$70 billion in total economic activity in the US in 2021[7], indicating that it is a lucrative market for a variety of industries. These beliefs and facts make it extremely difficult for legislative interventions to change course.

Contrast with Indian Situation

A comparative study of India along the same or similar metrics reveals that there is no gun industry for the domestic civilian market. There are no legal provisions for ordinary citizens to own a gun except perhaps for non-violent competitive target shooting activity. Manufacturing activity around guns and ammunitions are for either domestic military, paramilitary and state police use or for exports[8]. More importantly, the civilians in India do not aspire to own guns for domestic self-defence. They leave this matter to the community of people engaged in law-enforcement, and the military, by and large. Of course, there are exceptions, such as criminals and mafia gangs and so on, but they are exceptions by and large, and not the norm.

The Dharma of Violence

The natural question is then why does the Indian society seem to be the opposite to the US on guns, and gun related laws, especially when on every other matter, it seems to want to do nothing more than copy the west? A review of the social history of India provides a few explanations.

For thousands of years, social interactions in Indian society were framed by Hindu Dharma, specifically the Dharmashastras. These treatises on Dharma included extensive thought and writings on religion, ethics, society, and politics. Also embodied in these texts of profound insights were codes of conduct formulated by realized masters such as Manu, Yagnavalkya, and others. In particular, the Dharmashastras never sanctioned ownership of weapons to private citizens. The Protectors of the people, i.e., the Kshatriyas, so designated by their character (Guna) and choice of work (Karma), were the only community officially called upon and expected to carry arms for one purpose – defence of the state and its citizens, and the enforcement of law and order. That other members of the society i.e., other communities never aspired to own weapons was well understood by society, a characteristic behavior that continues even today.

Kshatriyas have always lived and transacted with the rest of the Hindu community on a mutually cooperative, inter-dependent basis, within the framework of Dharma. A true Kshatriya will never confront an unarmed member of the society for doing so will go against Dharma. Chapter 18, verse 43 of the Bhagavad Gita says,

शौर्यं तेजो धृतिर्दाक्ष्यं युद्धे चाप्यपलायनम् |

दानमीश्वरभावश्च क्षात्रं कर्म स्वभावजम् || 43||

śhauryaṁ tejo dhṛitir dākṣhyaṁ yuddhe chāpy apalāyanam
dānam īśhvara-bhāvaśh cha kṣhātraṁ karma svabhāva-jam

Translation:

Valour, strength, fortitude, skill in weaponry, resolve never to retreat from battle, large-heartedness in charity, and leadership abilities, these are the natural qualities of “Kṣhātraṁ Karma.”

That immensely stable structure, called the Varna-Jati social order, protected by the Kshatriyas, prevailed in conditions of a stable peace for thousands of years. That it broke down in the face of relentless outside pressure, from both Islam and Christianity, and gave rise to the enormous problem of the Dalit and Subaltern community, which it could not reabsorb subsequently is a story for another day.

Since independence in 1947, the Indian Polity, despite ravages from invasions and colonial incursions, has somehow maintained the essential spirit of the Dharmashastras as it pertains to private ownership of weapons. In other words, despite the fact that the constitution of today’s India, is largely an exercise to replace the duties of individuals and communities as espoused in the Dharmashastras with “rights” of citizens – a concept borrowed from Western ideals of state constitution, not only is private ownership of arms not sanctioned by the constitution as a fundamental right, but the broader society itself continues to live by its code of traditional Dharma for the most part, at least in this regard i.e., it does not demand the private ownership of weapons as a right of all its citizens.

[1]    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

[2]    https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

[3]    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

[4]    http://smallarmsanalytics.com/v1/pr/2022-01-05.pdf

[5]    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52189349

[6]    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/

[7]  https://www.nssf.org/government-relations/impact/

[8]    https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/features/india-as-an-emerging-weapons-exporter-383067

The post Gun-Violence and Dharma – Part I appeared first on Hindu University of America.

Hindudvesha perpetuates a state of disharmony and conflict, leading to systemic discrimination and violence against the Hindus.

Hindudvesha – Systemic Hinduphobia

This article seeks to define and differentiate “Hindudvesha”, a relatively new term, from its more popular cognate “Hinduphobia.” First, each term will be defined, then compared, and finally, it will briefly look at the impact of Hindudvesha on the Hindu world and make suggestions on the way forward.

“Dvesha”is a Sanskrit word meaning “aversion”, “repulsion” or “hatred” – a deep-rooted emotional response that negatively influences one’s perception of the world, or something or some phenomenon in one’s world. Hindudvesha, like systemic racism or anti-Semitism, is an ambient, all-encompassing discourse that denigrates and delegitimizes Hinduism and the Hindu people as it relentlessly problematizes, dehumanizes, and demonizes them. Its accusatory rhetoric treats Hindus as objects or patients to be examined and diagnosed. It presupposes and concludes that Hindus and Hinduism are unacceptable because something about them is irredeemably bad and wrong, evil and demonic.

“Linking Hinduism with backwardness and primitiveness,”^[1] the Hindudvesha discourse freezes Hinduism in time as ancient, obsolete, and irrelevant in contemporary times and continues to produce a form of incontestable “received knowledge” about the Hindus. The narrative structure of Hindudvesha frames “the superiority of Western culture both as its presupposition and its conclusion”^[2] and “can be traced back to the Christian theological understanding of ‘heathen’ religions [which] have become the foundation of the descriptions of India [Hinduism and Hindu culture] as developed by later generations of social scientists.”^[3] 

In the academic study of Hinduism, “the scholar’s relationship to his subject was framed as a conflict between modernity and tradition, between reason and revelation; and the scholar’s role was primarily that of an iconoclastic subversion of tradition, albeit in the name of “criticism,” “universal values,” and “enlightened’ modernity.”^[4] Thus, both Christian theology and enlightened modernity nearly totally agree on the conclusion that Hinduism is irredeemably bad and wrong, evil and demonic. They seek to redeem the Hindus through urgent eradication, using secularization, civilization, modernization, westernization, Christianization, or Islamization. In other words, Hindus must be emancipated, liberated, and saved from Hinduism itself, or at the very least be regulated, policed, accused, interrogated, monitored, shamed, and silenced.

In the colonial era, the discourse of Hindudvesha was set in motion in picturesque language, as evidenced by James Mill – that described and characterized Hindus as imperfect, barbaric, savage, wild, vague, wavering, obscure, rude, primitive, regressive, frivolous, wretched, imbecile, mean, absurd, base, gross, monstrous, superstitious, stupid, degraded, hierarchical, oppressive, immoral, disorderly, violent, selfish, corrupt, deformed, disgusting, grovelling, ridiculous, inconsistent, incoherent, ignorant, credulous, timid, dirty, weak, given to exaggeration and flattery, engulfed in darkness and confusion, and hardly different from monkeys.^[5] In contemporary times, such offensive language may not pass the test of the “appearance of objectivity.” Therefore, while it may not be “politically correct” for Hindudveshis i.e., the exponents of Hindudveshic discourse, to use these terms explicitly, today, they continue to use them subtly to suggest, hint, indicate, imply, insinuate, suspect, wonder about, propose, assert, conclude, and to construct their Hindudveshic arguments. The one too many adjectives in the preceding sentences, serve to portray the relentless, all-pervasive, ambient nature of the discourse of Hindudvesha.

In contrast, the more popular term “phobia,” is an exaggerated, usually inexplicable, and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.^[6] A phobia can also be defined as an extreme or irrational fear or aversion of something.^[7] For instance, claustrophobia is the abnormal dread of being in closed or narrow spaces, or a feeling of discomfort or discontent caused by being in a limiting or restrictive situation or environment;^[8] autophobia is the morbid fear of solitude;^[9] and so on. Not all people experience phobias. Some experience and exhibit certain phobias vividly and powerfully, while others might unconsciously do so, much in the way that one may be racist without knowing it.

Construed in this manner, it would be legitimate to ask the question, “Is there or is there not an irrational fear of Hindus?” For most Hindus and many Non-Hindus, the answer would be ‘No’; they do not see the question as legitimate. After all, what have Hindus done to evoke fear in the “other?” Hindus have not threatened anyone; they are not proselytizing by nature; they do not seek to convert the entire world to Hinduism; they do not wish to replace all the other religions, philosophies, and ideologies in this world; they do not seek to conquer the world; they have no history of invading, conquering, colonizing, enslaving, and exterminating peoples in any part of the world, as some other nations and ideologies have done and continue to do. Hindus did not conquer Arabia and the Middle East; Hindus did not colonize England or America or the rest of the world; Hindus did not buy and sell African Americans as slaves; Hindus did not exterminate the American Indians and confine them to reservations; Hindus have not launched well-funded proselytizing missions rampaging around the world. The fact is Hindus have been on the receiving end of these atrocities against humanity.

Any encounter with a Hindu in the workplace, marketplace, college, school, neighborhood, or any public sphere, does not cause a primal, inexplicable fear in the “other.” On the contrary, Hindus (in America) are mostly well educated – they are doctors and engineers, scientists and technologists, entrepreneurs, businesspersons, teachers, and professors. Despite this, the Hindu is relentlessly portrayed in academia and the media as an existential threat to others. What could possibly be the source of “fearing” the Hindu in that fundamental and visceral way that a term like Hinduphobia seeks to represent? Therefore, it seems reasonable and rational to dismiss the term “Hinduphobia”either as something that belongs entirely in the realm of imagined and unreal paranoia or, at best, as an inaccurate term that is nevertheless trying to describe a real underlying phenomenon. This ambiguity about the term has led to calls for a different term to describe the underlying phenomenon. For example, terms like Hindu-baiting, Hinduodium, Hindu-hater, or simply Anti-Hindu have been suggested in the attempt to capture the reality of that visceral hatred or aversion towards Hinduism, as distinct from any “fear” as suggested in “phobia.” This article proposes that the term, Hindudvesha best captures the phenomenon in conjunction with systemic Hinduphobia. It’s not inaccurate to say that the discourse and narrative of Hindudvesha thrives in an environment that is relatively free from the fear of Hindu backlash. In fact, it is the near absence of fear of cost or consequence that fuels Hindudvesha, even as pervasive ignorance and arrogance sustain its mocking, stereotyping, caricaturing devaluation of Hindus and Hindu civilization.

We may distinguish two forms of Hindudvesha i.e., Blatant Hindudvesha, conscious and explicit, and Blind Hindudvesha, unconscious and implicit. Common to both the blatant and blind forms of Hindudvesha is the underlying presumption that the champions of the discourse are discovering and representing objective and unbiased truth about the Hindus, and that they are merely seeking a legitimate corrective based on an honest critique of Hinduism’s many perceived problems. Blatant Hindudvesha is explicit, conscious, and does not even try to pretend that it is an honest critique of Hinduism. It consciously and relentlessly demonizes Hinduism and disregards all evidence to the contrary. It is a discourse that begins with the premise and prejudice that the “Hindus” are the problem, no matter what the issue is, and ends by repeating this foundational premise as the conclusion of its argument. Blind Hindudvesha is implicit, unconscious and masquerades as a genuine and honest, even an objective criticism of the Hindus. It is unaware of the prejudices that drive its discourse, and mostly unwilling to examine the underlying historical factors behind the emergence of such a discourse. Blind Hindudvesha thrives on the weight of endless repetitions and long chains of citations and also ends up calling for the eradication of the Hinduness of the Hindus, even if not explicitly so at all times. Hindudvesha – both blatant and blind – can be readily recognized in the outrage of its practitioners, whenever Hindus try to speak for themselves; the outrage then manifests in the form of urgent and inflammatory calls and petitions to suppress, silence, ostracize and outlaw the Hindus, while at the same time, scrupulously avoiding the substance of their arguments and criticism. The absence of Hindu voices in academia and the media is both an enabler and a consequence of the discourse of Hindudvesha, and traps both perpetrator and victim in a vicious self-perpetuating cycle.

Ultimately, like “Anti-Semitism”, Hindudvesha perpetuates a state of disharmony and conflict, leading to systemic discrimination and violence against the Hindus. As a discourse it justifies and camouflages all those forces directed at destroying Hinduism, the Hindu people, their culture and their civilization. And in so far as it shames, embarrasses, gaslights, and silences the Hindu people, it is a remarkably successful discourse. If as a Hindu, you are in any way embarrassed or ashamed of your Hindu heritage, or if you find yourself frequently being interrogated for the apparent mis-deeds of your ancestors such as the caste system, or if you find yourself constantly on the defense about your traditions, and feel compelled to defend or denounce them, of if you feel pressured to distance yourself from your heritage, or actively participate in denigrating and devaluing Hinduism, through name-calling and other strategies, then you may need to determine if you are a victim of Hindudvesha just as a victim of systemic racism needs to do.

Now that we have defined the term, it shall be incumbent upon us to distinguish the strategies that promote Hindudvesha as the objective truth about the Hindus; and to illustrate and demonstrate its ambient presence through examples and case studies in academia, media, school and college campuses, movies and the public square, politics, and policy domains. It is incumbent on all right-thinking persons, more so Hindus, to identify, call out and legislate against the principal players and stakeholders who institutionalize and perpetuate Hindudvesha.

[1] Sharma, Arvind, “The Ruler’s Gaze”, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2017, Page 27

[2] Balagangadhara, S.N., “Reconceptualizing India Studies”, Oxford University Press, 2012, Page 10

[3] Ibid, Page 10

[4] Adluri, Vishwa and Bagchee, Joydeep, “Jews and Hindus in Indology”, published in academia.edu, 2017

[5] Mill, James and Wilson, Horace Hayman, “The History of British India”, In Nine Volumes, Volume I, Fourth Edition with Notes and Continuation, London, 1848, (originally published by James Mill, 1817) – Every adjective or phrase used in this paragraph have been taken from the writings of James Mill.

[6] The Merriam Webster definition of ‘phobia’, at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia 

[7] The Oxford dictionary definition of ‘phobia’, at https://www.lexico.com/definition/phobia 

[8] Merriam Webster definition of claustrophobia: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/claustrophobia

[9] Merriam Webster definition of autophobia: https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/autophobia

The post Hindudvesha – Systemic Hinduphobia appeared first on Hindu University of America.

When Hindus talk about Ahimsa, Shanti and Peace, but do not seem to have a big stick to back it up with they often seem unprepared for conflict, merely engaging in naïve, happy talk.

US vs Them

In the United States of America today, the Republicans and Democrats are deeply polarized into an “Us” versus “Them” divide that does not bode well for the people of the nation as a whole. Invariably, everyone is drawn into taking sides in this divide, which makes dialogue across the divide strident and fraught. But this tendency to get divided and polarized is not a new phenomenon.

In the very first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, this sharp contrast between the mentalities of Dhritarashtra and Arjuna can be seen in their respective ways of identifying and categorizing the people who faced each other in the battlefield. In the very first verse, Dhirtarashtra says “What happened between my people (Mamaka)^[1] and the others (the Pandavas)?” Clearly Dhirtarashtra’s expression of “my people” did not include the Pandavas, who were not “his people”. On the contrary, as Arjuna confronts the people arrayed before him, he does not see any “other people”, instead all those assembled in the battlefield occur to him as his own people (Drstvemam Svajanam)^[2]  – there was no sense of mine and not mine.  

So much conflict, war and violence throughout human history has emerged out of this singular formulation of “Us” and “Not Us”. When one group separates itself away from other groups, and claims to be fundamentally different, whatever be its basis, it seems to inevitably sow the seeds of conflict and confrontation. Colonialism made possible protracted confrontation between the “Civilized Us” against the “Uncivilized Them” in Asia, Africa and the Americas, and inflicted untold violence and misery from which many countries are yet to fully recover. The “Fully Human Us” could buy and sell the “Not Fully Human Them” as slaves and brought about the American Civil war. Islam divides the world into two clear categories, i.e. Muslims and Kafirs, and not just denies the privileges granted naturally to the Muslim “Us” to the Kafir “Them,” but theologically seems to sanction endless confrontation and violence with the Non-Muslim world. Relentless violence may be justified as long as it is being done in the name of Allah and on behalf of Islam. Christianity divides the world into those “Us” who have chosen Christ and adopted the “True religion”, and the “Them” who have not yet chosen Christ and keep clinging on to “False Religions”. This particular formulation gives rise to perpetual violence against non-Christian societies, in the name of “Saving them” and “Sharing the word” and so on. Hitler was able to divide the world into the “Aryan Us” and the “Non-Aryan Them” with devastating consequences for the Jewish people, and Europe as a whole.

So much conflict, war and violence throughout human history has emerged out of this singular formulation of “Us” and “Not Us”. When one group separates itself away from other groups, and claims to be fundamentally different, whatever be its basis, it seems to inevitably sow the seeds of conflict and confrontation. Colonialism made possible protracted confrontation between the “Civilized Us” against the “Uncivilized Them” in Asia, Africa and the Americas, and inflicted untold violence and misery from which many countries are yet to fully recover. The “Fully Human Us” could buy and sell the “Not Fully Human Them” as slaves and brought about the American Civil war. Islam divides the world into two clear categories, i.e. Muslims and Kafirs, and not just denies the privileges granted naturally to the Muslim “Us” to the Kafir “Them,” but theologically seems to sanction endless confrontation and violence with the Non-Muslim world. Relentless violence may be justified as long as it is being done in the name of Allah and on behalf of Islam. Christianity divides the world into those “Us” who have chosen Christ and adopted the “True religion”, and the “Them” who have not yet chosen Christ and keep clinging on to “False Religions”. This particular formulation gives rise to perpetual violence against non-Christian societies, in the name of “Saving them” and “Sharing the word” and so on. Hitler was able to divide the world into the “Aryan Us” and the “Non-Aryan Them” with devastating consequences for the Jewish people, and Europe as a whole.

Furthermore, when one Party in the confrontation, who is bent on dividing the society and draws the “other” Party into the confrontation, the other seems to have very little ability to reason with the first party, even though they may not wish to participate in the “Us versus Them” formulation. There are so many battles going on at so many levels today i.e. Capitalists versus Socialists, White versus Non-White, Aryans versus the Non-Aryans, the Left versus the Right, the Rich versus the Poor, Britain versus the European Union, China versus America, America versus Iran, Russia versus Ukraine, India versus Pakistan, China versus India, the Hindu versus the Anti-Hindu, Israel versus Palestine, Gun owners versus Gun control advocates, Climate change activists versus Climate change deniers, and on and on.

How do we live with “sanity” in our contemporary world? Is it our Pravritti Dharma to take one side or the other in these endless confrontations? Or do we find a quiet corner in the world where we can retreat to and mind our own business, imagining that these confrontations do not apply to our personal lives and move on to Nivritti Dharma? Even as Arjuna sees all as his own people,. one family (Sambandhinah)^[3], his choices are stark: Either he runs away from the whole confrontation (takes refuge in Sanyasa living on the food offered freely to Sadhus (Baikshyam)^[4], or he has to join the battle for the sake of Dharma, even though he does not have the heart to do so.

If the Kurukshetra war was a civil war that pitted two halves of the same family against each other, the American civil war did the same – it divided a nation. And the current political climate is not any different. We have two halves of a nation each living in its own virtual reality echo-chamber, responding to different facts, and making up different conclusions.

What do people who see this world as one undivided family (e.g. Vasudaiva Kutumbakam) do, when continually assaulted by those who readily divide the world into an “Us versus them” confrontation? If we unilaterally extend an olive branch, an offering of peace, signaling a desire for a truce, what if the other does not reciprocate? What if they simply construe our olive branch as representative of a weakness in our position, and draw us ever deeper into conflict? What will bring forth a transformation in this circumstance? Will a unilateral commitment to Ahimsa from one side of the divide call the other towards a higher consciousness, to embrace the better angels of their nature? How does the seeking of peace transform the other, and move them also into seeking peace and cooperation, rather than war and conflict? Do we speak softly and extend a hand of friendship, while also carrying a big stick, which we make visible at all times? If so, there is only one thing left to do. Procuring a bigger stick, than the other fellow’s, which is what the world is doing. Big Stick diplomacy involves five critical steps, as articulated by the elder Roosevelt: 1) First ensure that you have a big stick; 2) Act justly towards the other – never draw them into a conflict; 3) Never bluff them – Always speak the truth; 4) Strike them only when you are prepared to strike them hard; and lastly 5) Allow the enemy to retreat and save face in defeat.

The Mahabharata also describes the sequence of steps that need to be taken to resolve deep rooted conflicts, exemplified by the terms Sarasa, Sama, Dana, Bheda and Danda. The first step is Sarasa – always a bi-lateral dialogue, where an attempt is made to reason with the other party, one to one, through which one’s grievances can be expressed and we may seek an appropriate redress directly. We anticipate that in civilized society, as we live in today, a great number of conflicts can be resolved using this primary method not only between individuals and groups but also between nations and alliances among nations. The second step is Sama – which requires an escalation to a mediated dialogue, where a third and neutral party is called upon to arbiter the conversation and serve as a mediator. Again, in modern society, mediation could take place informally, through the intercession of a third party; a counselor, an elder or a qualified mediator, even a court of law. In the realm of conflicts between nations, the United Nations is often called upon to mediate as a neutral entity, in the hope that perhaps a win-win solution can be found, even though its effectiveness may be open to question. The third step is Dana – a voluntary relinquishing of something that one holds to be valuable, in the interest of avoiding further escalation of the conflict. It represents a principle of give and take, a willingness to compromise, to negotiate a settlement of some kind. This may represent a giving up of a certain claim, however difficult it may be, and in the expectation, that the other party involved may recognize and appreciate the sacrifice that has been made, and will avoid further escalation, by in turn giving up some ground themselves. The fourth step is Bheda, which involves a threat of some kind, specifically induced by creating a division, or dissension within the opponent’s camp. In modern parlance, this is applied mostly by the threat of a lawsuit, or propaganda of some kind, which weakens the opponent, and thereby induces them to see the value of avoiding further escalation of the conflict. Among conflicts between nations, threats such as economic sanctions, a boycott of trade, an introduction of a tariff on goods imported, an appeal to the United Nations to impose a ban on another nation, etc., are all examples of the application of the principle of Bheda. The fifth and final step may be Danda – involving an actual act of punishment – where one commits some kind of physical act of violence that is designed to hurt the other, in a manner that would then perhaps have them see the light of day, and avoid further escalation. This step is often an irreversible step and may lead to continued escalation of violence leading to war, especially if the other retaliates with an equal degree of violence. The same rules for escalation can also apply in conflicts of the domestic and social variety, not just international and political.

Escalation into war, de-escalation into a troubled peace, and the maintenance of a tense truce seems to be the way of humanity, from time immemorial. In any case, the procurement of a big stick, the preparation for war at any time, appears to be part of the process of securing a peace by appealing to people’s better angels, even if for a temporary period. Without that stick, that readiness to go to war, talk of peace and Ahimsa appears to be more the prattle of the weak. This is the predicament facing the Hindu people as a whole and has faced them now for over a thousand years. When Hindus talk about Ahimsa, Shanti and Peace, but do not seem to have any stick at all, let alone a big one, they often seem unprepared for conflict, merely engaging in naïve, happy talk. Another striking case in point is the unilateral Buddhist commitment to Ahimsa, concomitant with the total inability to defend their territory in Tibet, with the Dalai Lama being in exile in India. The question is “Where has the Kshatriyata gone?” Or do Hindus even know what that is anymore?

Cover Picture Credit: Artist B. G. Sharma

Source: Internet

[1] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 1, Verse 1

[2] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 1, Verses 28-29

[3] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 1, Verse 34

[4] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 5

The post Us vs Them — A Reflection appeared first on Hindu University of America.

A moment of reflection, on what Consciousness and Matter are, and what does Hindu Philosophy, especially Bhagavad Gita say about it.

This week, I lost a good friend. One moment he was alive, and his heart was beating. The next, it had stopped. All the machines of modern science could not restore the heartbeat or the brain to function. Life – that quintessential thing that differentiates itself from death, had left the body, and it was final. There is a whole cascade of consequences to be responsible for in this terrestrial realm. But where has he gone, and what is his future? Was my friend just a physical body, or was he much more the subtle phenomena unavailable to the human senses i.e. spirit, mind, psyche, memory, knowledge, desires, hopes, dreams, aspirations, joy, and sorrow?

Hindu thought at its essence revolves around the relationship between two phenomena that constitutes existence as we human beings perceive and experience in our everyday reality i.e. consciousness and matter. Variably called Purusha and Prakriti[1], Kshetrajnah and Kshetra[2], or in English, the Subject and Object, the Knower and the Known or the Observer and the Observed, the central question seems to be “Are there two fundamental primordial entities here or is there only one?”. The multiplicity of phenomena that we perceive and experience, seem to be built out of the fundamental building blocks of consciousness and matter. Interestingly, contemporary Physics is also looking for a “Unified Field Theory” (also called a “Theory of Everything”), that explains seemingly disparate forces observable in the universe i.e. gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear, and so on. We may notice in passing the use of the word “Field” emerging from Physics which is often also the word used to represent the Sanskrit Kshetra. It has become common knowledge now, that all material objects and phenomena that we observe, and that are observable, are built out of the building blocks of swirling atoms, molecules, electrons, protons and other energy waves. Everything is constructed i.e. assembled out of something else which constitutes it. We may call this the field of matter or the material field i.e. the Kshetra or Prakriti, as a totality, for the time being. Yet, Physics does not even begin to touch the domain of Purusha.

The Knower of this Field of Matter, the Kshetrajnah, the Purusha, however, seems to belong to an entirely different order of reality, perhaps even inaccessible to the methods of Science. We might ask, without the Kshetrajnah, does the Kshetra really exist? In other words, without the Subject, the one who knows the varied objects, the one who can objectify (and therefore name, analyze, inquire into and so on) all these objects in this universe, is there any object here at all? Besides, are there many Subjects here, or only one? Our everyday experience seems to suggest that there are a great many discrete subjects here as there are many varied objects. Yet they are all constituted by only two things i.e. consciousness and matter. Just as there is only one electricity, that makes the fan, the microwave, the washing machine, the refrigerator and the light bulb “come alive” in their unique expressions, and it makes no sense to speak of a plurality of electricities, so too, can we really speak of consciousness in the plural or is it really only one? Moreover, consciousness is everywhere, only to a greater and lesser degree, it seems. The plants exhibit consciousness, and so do a variety of animals, birds and inspects – in fact, this world seems to be alive with it. And if consciousness were to leave the body, that seems to be the end of life. Yet, even the earth which is seemingly inert, throws up vegetation, trees and forests, which are not! Consciousness seems to be the difference between what is alive, and what is not, while pervading both at the same time.

Krishna says, “this entire world is pervaded by me” (Maya Tatam Idam Sarvam Jagat)[3]; “All Beings have their being in me” (Matsthani Sarva Bhutani)[4] just as the “Vast air, which goes everywhere always exists in space” (Mahan Vayu Sarvatragah Nityam Akashastitah)[5]. This example sets up the relationship between space and all things that exist within it, as analogous to all beings that exist within consciousness. Without space, nothing can exist within it. At the same time, space does not require anything to exist – it exists on its own, whether or not there are any objects within space. Space both pervades all objects that exist within it and transcends all objects at the same time. So too, all beings exist in this singular consciousness, and come alive due to “My presiding presence” (Maya’dhyakshena)[6], says Krishna definitively; And just as the objects within space do not have any discernible effect on space itself, so too, all the activity and experience i.e. creation, dissolution, birth, death, growth, desire, pursuit, accomplishment, success, failure, loss, grief and sorrow, that consciousness makes possible has no effect, indeed has no connection with it (asaktam tesu karmasu)[7]. Consciousness presides, pervades, and makes possible all the beings and objects within it, including space and time and this universe as we know it – indeed what can exist or be known to exist if consciousness did not exist? And Consciousness and the material field belong to two orders of Reality, just as Space and the objects that exist within space enjoy different orders of reality.

Whereas the Sankhya system of thought postulated that Prakriti is Pradhana and there were perhaps many Purushas here, Krishna resolves this saying that the material field is entirely within his control (prakritim svam avastabhya)[8] even as he creates this universe again an again (visrjami punah punah)[9] through the power of Prakriti (prakrtervasat)[10] and returns them all back to it, at the end of the cycle of creation (prakritim yanti mamikam kalpaksaye)[11], before he begins the cycle all over again (Kalpadau Visrjamyaham)[12]. The one Brahman emerging into two – Purusha and Prakriti is the great cosmic mystery. What is the process by which this Prakriti (the field of matter) emerges from Purusha (the field of consciousness)? What is the power (Maya Shakti) that makes this emergence possible? How does it resolve back into Purusha and re-emerge again? Or do they ever remain separate, as parallel Realities, having once emerged into two? Can we human beings ever fully comprehend these mysteries? Or do we just have to take Krishna’s word for it, and settle for Shankara’s commentary? Hindu studies as a field, engages these questions fully, and enters into the Hindu texts, for their various perspectives on these questions. Both science and history seem to entirely sidestep them.

My friend has left one realm and has entered another, but he lives on in the memory of all those who were touched by him.

End Notes: 

[1] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 13, Verse 1

[2] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 13, Verse 2

[3] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 4

[4] Ibid

[5] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 6

[6] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 10

[7] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 9

[8] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 8

[9] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 8

[10] Ibid

[11] Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 7

[12] Ibid

The post Consciousness and Matter appeared first on Hindu University of America.