Message of Swami Vivekananda

: Apparent Paradox and Deliberate Mischief

Swami Vivekananda was a very comprehensive personality. He was a person with sharp intellect, command over language and passionate heart. To add to this he had a Guru in whose presence he had realised the Truth. That gave an added insight and power to his words. Moreover he also went round the country and also the world, so he could get an opportunity to see the world from close quarters, he could see the weakness of man as well as his inherent strength, the cultures and world-views developed over millenniums and their impact on the progress of the humanity.
He addressed various audiences in the world, the varying shades between – the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated, the technologically advanced and totally backward, those wallowing in the ego of conquerors and those suffering in the humiliation of conquered, those who looked at whole world as expression of one’s self and those who divided the world between ‘we as believers’ and ‘they as non-believers’, those who prayed for the good of all and those who insisted that the good of all depends only when all accept their definition of god. He had to address to all these varied groups. His address was never for the show of oratory but with the over-flowing compassion in his heart, he wanted to raise the people spiritually from wherever they were.
Naturally though his message was the same that is awakening of the divinity within and respecting the diverse expressions of One Truth in the universe, he had to give different stress at different times depending on the audience whom he was addressing. Taking into account the 360 degree range of his audience geographically and ideologically, his message too was varied and many times appeared exactly opposite. Thus his message if seen out of context looks paradoxical. Just to site few examples:
With respect to Hindus in one of his letters, Swami Vivekananda says, "Good-bye, I have had enough of the Hindus. …Why should I give up such a noble nation (America) to go to the land of brutes and ingrates and the brainless boobies held in eternal thraldom of superstition, merciless, pitiless wretches?" And same Swami Vivekananda also said "My countrymen, I have been more than a year in this country (America). I have seen almost every corner of the society, and, after comparing notes, let me tell you that neither are we devils, as the missionaries tell the world we are, nor are they angels, as they claim to be. …let me tell you plainly if such a comparison be instituted with any amount of justice, the Hindu will be found head and shoulders above all other nations in the world as a moral race." He also had said that he was proud to call himself as a Hindu.
He said in the Parliament of Religions at Chicago, "If any one here hopes that this unity (of religions) will come by the triumph of any one of the religions and the destruction of the others, to him I say, Brother, yours is an impossible hope." But the same Swami Vivekananda says while talking in India that, "It is not only that we must revive our own country – that is a small matter; I am an imaginative man and my idea is the conquest of the whole world by the Hindu race."
Swami Vivekananda said, "Heroes only enjoy the world. Show your heroism; apply, according to circumstances, the fourfold political maxims of conciliation, bribery, sowing dissentions, and open war, to win over your adversary and enjoy the world—then you will be Dharmika. Otherwise, you live a disgraceful life if you pocket your insults, when you are kicked and trodden down by anyone who takes it into his head to do so; your life is a veritable hell here, and so is the life hereafter. This is what Shastras say." But on the other hand he also tells, "One of the greatest lessons I have learned in my life is to pay as much attention to the means of work as to its end. …All the secret of success is there; to pay as much attention to the means as to the end."
Swami Vivekananda criticises Christianity but talks about Jesus Christ with all respect. But he has also said that Christ ruined Greece and Rome. His message when taken out of context appears paradoxical. It can not be understood at times even when it is seen in the context of the lecture given. To understand his message also the place, the spiritual development of the audience and the situation has to be taken into account.
If that is not done then we find his message apparently paradoxical at times and we are puzzled. This confusion can be cleared if we read Swami Vivekananda more extensively keeping the audience and the context in the mind. As such Truth is never one-dimensional it is always multi-dimensional. Even in science, the scientists have accepted that. For example whether light is particles or waves? The scientists say it is both. Swami Vivekananda also says that we do not travel from falsehood to truth but we travel from truth to truth. The journey of man as he grows is from lesser truth to higher truth.
The words of Swamiji have such tremendous strength that his message galvanised whole of India and the independence movement took off. Any good work in our country since then has its source in the inspiring message of Swami Vivekananda. To understand Swamiji fully, to get his invigorating message we should read him regularly and extensively and not just some quotations taken out of context.
The people of India have such Shraddha – deep respect for Swami Vivekananda that whatever is told as the message of Swami Vivekananda is accepted. Thus what is necessary for the growth of one say the western audience can not be given as prescription for Indians. If the message of Swamiji is wrongly prescribed then we are not only betraying Swamiji but our action can cause harm, as a medicine meant for one disease if given to others can cause harm. The tragedy in our country is some are bent upon doing this deliberate mischief so as to paralyse the fighting arm and response of Hindu society.
When Swamiji spoke in front of the Western audience he told that they should not dream or work for spreading their religion but same Swami Vivekananda when he spoke in front of Hindus he told them to conquer the world by their spirituality. The religious traditions like Christianity and Islam are violently exclusive in their approach like –‘Our God alone is the True God and others too should follow our God. If they don’t then it is our duty to make them do so by fraud or force.’ Whereas the Hindu tradition is inclusive it says – everything is expression of the same Divine and therefore respects all names and forms of God. Being a realised person who feels one with the people of the world and so has over-flowing love and compassion for all, Swami Vivekananda gives apparently paradoxical message to different people. Because, he envisaged that if the inclusive did not become proactive then the exclusive would become virulently reactive as the very existence of inclusive is offensive to exclusive. Therefore the inclusive has to be pro-active to contain the damages that exclusive can wrought on humanity. The inclusive declines when it does not pro-act and in the long run the hopes of survival and growth of humanity are dashed to the ground. The exclusive if not contained then it destroys others and in the long run hurts itself. Thus Swami Vivekananda - the great world teacher adopted a method to make exclusive more inclusive by making it realise the facts of life and making inclusive more confident and pro-active to spread the inclusive view in the world. Unfortunately, the discourse in today’s India since independence has become exactly opposite of what Swami Vivekananda had initiated. The Hindus who are inclusive are criticised and are blamed for all the violent activities of the exclusive. Whereas the people following exclusive religions are pampered, their religions are treated with all respect and thus rendered respectability. The academia, intelligentsia, political establishments, the ‘eminent’ persons all resort to this.
For example, Shashi Tharoor wrote an article after the riots that erupted in Kandhammal in the wake of the brutal killing of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati. He argued in that, that ‘reacting to conversion is violence whose closest equivalent can in fact be found in the "Indian Mujahideen" bomb blasts’. Thus indirectly he says that the work of Swami Laxmanananda for the welfare and protecting the religious rights of tribal is on par with the terrorist acts! When some protested for this, he wrote another article in which he says, "If a Hindu decides he wishes to be a Christian, how does it matter that he has found a different way of stretching his hands out towards God? Truth is one, Vivekananda reminded all Hindus, but there are many ways of attaining it." Really, is it so? Did Hindus need Swami Vivekananda to tell that Truth is One and there are many ways of attaining to it? Hindus know and have practiced this since ages. They did not need Vivekananda for that. Nor Swami Vivekananda reminded this to Hindus. This was told to the West, to the audience brought up in violent exclusive thinking. If at all Shashi Tharoor wants to quote Swami Vivekananda he should have quoted this to missionaries who resort to conversions by all means and call others’ God as false. But he would not do that.
Persons like him in our society who have risen up at the cost of Hindus and have the halo of being some big achievers quote out of context Swami Vivekananda whom all cherish and respect. This quoting of Swamiji’s message to the wrong persons is not due to ignorance but is a deliberate mischief. The message meant for the exclusive is being continuously prescribed to the inclusive and so the inclusive has become paralysed, it feels apologetic in even protecting itself. The result is more helpless society, paralysed leadership and the terror attacks like recent 26/11. The enormity of 26/11 has shaken many; all feel something needs to be done. But if we really feel committed not to have the repetition of 26/11 then on the birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda we need to take his message of pro-action for conquering the world with spirituality to the inclusive tradition like Hinduism and the message of "Help and not fight", "Assimilation and not destruction", and "Harmony and peace and not dissension" for exclusive traditions like Christianity and Islam. If we really want solution to terrorism we have to follow Swami Vivekananda by giving befitting message to the inclusive and the exclusive.

B. Nivedita

Isolate terror, do not secularise it!

Isolate terror, do not secularise it!

S Gurumurthy"

The mounting evidence" says The New York Times (28/11) quotingAmerican intelligence and official, "indicate that Pakistani militantgroup based in Kashmir, most likely Lashkar-e-Toiba, or possiblyanother terror group in Kashmir, Jaish-e-Mohammed, was responsible forthe dastardly attack" on Mumbai on November 26। `The Mumbai terror hasbeen planned for the last six months' and `the terrorists came fromKarachi; they landed on the Indian coast through boats; they weretrained by Pakistan Navy for 12 to 18 months; Dawood Ibrahim's localinfrastructure had provided the logistics for the attack; the terrorbears the Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) stamp', say the mediareports citing Indian intelligence and Mumbai police. All this pointto the Jihadi character of the terror. The Jewish religious head inMumbai and the white foreigners staying in hotels as special targetsof the terrorists who allowed Turkish Muslim inmates of Taj Hotel toescape because they were Muslims reinforced the view that theterrorists were part of the global Islamist terror network againstnon-Muslims (Kafirs).Yet the Home Minister first and the Prime Minister later madestatements on November 27, warning that the terrorists would pay fortheir crime, but, did not utter a word about who were the terrorists,and where they came from.Then entered the Minister of State for Home Affairs Sri PrakashJaiswal. He provided the comedy in an otherwise grim tragedy thatMumbai was experiencing for nearly 48 hours. He told the media on

November 28, `terror could be a conspiracy hatched by right-wing Hinduparties'. Hindu parties — read the BJP? Yes. So Pakistan, orLashkar-e- Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed or other Jihadi outfits are notthe prime suspects! Following this line the Chinese People's Dailysuspected Hindu terrorists as the culprits! But most secular media inIndia fortunately dismissed the junior minister's statement as just ajuvenile prank. As his state minister was striving to make those whocry laugh, the Prime Minister stepped in to supplement his juniorminister's efforts to humour the nation. On that very day, he invitedthe chief of the ISI — the main suspect in the terror on Mumbai — tocome to Delhi.Why? To share info on the Mumbai terror with the main conspirator! Isit that the PM too was cracking a joke like his junior minister byinviting the ISI chief ? The ISI continues to be, as it always wassince 1959 when it was born, hostile to India. On August 1, 2008, TheNew York Times reported, citing US officials, "American intelligenceagencies have concluded" that Pakistan's ISI had "helped plan thedeadly July 7 bombing of India's embassy in Kabul" that left 58 deadand 141 wounded. As his junior minister spoke of Hindu terrorists assuspects, the Prime Minister invited the ISI chief, a well knownjihadi who was involved in the jihad in the July Kabul attack toassist in investigating the Mumbai terror. That is, the Prime Ministerwas asking the main conspirator, ISI, to catch the other perpetrators– namely, the Jihadis whom it had trained to attack India! Normallysuch an act would be a subject of a cartoon.Read together what Jaiswal said in Mumbai — namely, the terroristswere from Hindu political parties — on November 29 — and what Dr Singhdid in Delhi on the same date – namely, invite the ISI chief to probethe Mumbai terror.Did the Prime Minister take his minister of state for home so
seriously that he wanted the Hindu angle to the Mumbai terror — someAdvani or Modi involvement — to be jointly investigated by the IB inIndia and the ISI in Pakistan? Or did he expect the ISI to confess toits involvement? Or did he think that the ISI has suddenly shed itsenmity and turned its admirer under its secular leaders Sonia Gandhi,a Christian, and himself, a Sikh? But fortunately for India, thePakistan government refused to send the ISI chief to India. The worldwould have laughed at India if the ISI chief had come to India anddeclared to the media that the ISI would `co-operate' with the IB tocatch the culprits! What has done India into this mess? It is theIndian polity's inability to say plainly that Islamic terror is aglobal phenomenon, and it is extending itself into India throughglobal Islamic network.Result, instead of isolating the terror, the national politicaldiscourse began secularising it. The seculars saw normal anti-terrorlaws as anti- Muslim laws by showing the number of detainees under thelaw which contained more Muslims. They refused to acknowledge thatglobal Islamic jihad appeals only to Muslims and not to othercommunities. How then to maintain arithmetical parity betweencommunities in the arrests under the anti-terror law? Once it isconceded that a terrorist has no religion, the person detained foracts of terror also has no religion.How then could detainees under POTA be seen as Muslims and others?More, this secular formulation has facilitated the free entry ofglobal jihad.More, the national discourse, instead of protecting the local Muslimsfrom global jihad, has not only exposed them to it, but alsoencouraged the process by integrating anti-terror laws within secularvs communal discourse. In the discourse anyone opposing strongantiterror laws became instantly secular, and any one supporting itinstantly communal. Consequently, terror became secular, and
anti-terror laws became un-secular. Thanks to this debasing seculardebate, the UPA repealed the POTA as its first job. The result is forall to see. In the last four years and more, the terror attacks haveaccounted for more than 4,000 lives and in the last one year ourterror toll had been more than that of — believe it — Iraq.The next perversion followed the first.The secular discourse instead of isolating the jihadi outfits like theStudents Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) worked to make the unwarylocal Muslims identify with, own such outfits.Take the example of the ban on SIMI. The BJP-led NDA had banned it in2001 and the Congress had opposed it, saying that the ban had targetedthe Muslims. This secular perverted discourse made the unwary Muslimsown the SIMI about which most of them perhaps knew nothing except thatthe `anti-Muslim' BJP had banned it and the secular parties — readpro-Muslim parties — had opposed it! The UPA first lifted the ban, butreimposed it but not before allowing the SIMI to grow into an IndianLeT. Why not ban the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, asked the Congress and theseculars, when SIMI was banned. But little did they realise that VHPcan and should be banned if it indulged in terror, but not to justifythe ban on SIMI. See what this secular perversion translates into.One, the state cannot act against the SIMI unless they find some Hinduoutfit to act against.Two, the state cannot detain or act against a terrorist unless it canfind terrorists from all communities. QED: terror stands secularised,not isolated in secular discourse! How will India fight terror withthis cerebral paralysis?

Blame the rulers, not democracy

04-12-2008
Blame the rulers, not democracy

A fall out of the Jihadi attack on Mumbai is huge outrage. While this anger is understandable given the way the present ruling politicians have handled the issue of national security, what is intriguing is the hate campaign is directed against the politicians as a whole and as a class. Most English TV channels are ceaselessly and systematically feeding this hate. It is 'Page Three' personalities particularly in Mumbai who star in this campaign. Most Indians would not even know what 'Page Three' personalities means. They are the partying type, mostly found in restaurants in Five Star hotels. They are so called because, a decade earlier, their pictures and their parties used to appear in page three of newspapers. Now they are all over the media, with most media sometimes celebrating them with the front page positions.
When in the past several terror attacks had taken place and hundreds of people had died, there was public outcry against terror. But the media never ceaselessly telecast or print their outrage like they do now. What is the difference this time? This time around Page Three celebrities are the protestors. This class had never imagined that terror would ever touch them. In the past they had seen the terror blowing the commuters by train and bus to pieces, tearing down ordinary men and women in crowded vegetable and general markets. Most in this class do not travel by trains or buses nor go to crowded markets. Now the abode of this class, the Star hotels, is hit, it is terribly angry. How is this class positioned in our polity? It talks about democracy but does not vote. It talks against corruption, but would not fight it. It talks of high values but follows a lifestyle that hardly support those values. Now they are the ones anchoring the national debate on the right and wrong of politicians. Examine how dangerous this is.
Politicians are the products of elections. And elections do not yield quality leadership. For example, a Ramakrishna Paramahamsa could not have found a Vivekananda in a Narendra through ballots from his co-disciples. It cannot be that democracy is good, but elections are bad, as there can be no democracy without elections. Elected politicians are the backbone of democracy. If they manipulate the people, it is the duty of the elite to educate the people to be vigilant. How many Page Three characters have taken to educating the people to make right choices? So their anger against politicians is because their undisturbed fun and frolic have been disturbed. If they feel so outraged now what where they doing when trains after trains and market after markets were being targeted by terrorists in which the ordinary people were maimed and killed?
Now come to their targets, the politicians. Politicians are the easiest target of the elite. But in this country they are the only ones who are open to scrutiny – as to what they say or do. No one can scrutinize, say, the judges. The scrutinizer will go to jail. No one in his senses can talk against the media. Only politicians are easy subjects for cartoon or hate. But this time around, the campaign that is on after the Mumbai terror strike is not just the eruption of pent up apathy towards the politicians. It is something more. The Mumbai terror has exposed the ruling parties in the centre and at the state, like no other act of terror has done. The reason is self-evident. It has touched the very class, the chatteratti, that is the backbone of the secular class. The anger of this class cannot be directed against the secular political groups that run the country today as that would shift balance of advantage to the un-secular opposition. So the present rulers need to be protected. Result, the anger is intentionally directed against the political class as a whole.
Thus, this campaign against the political class as a whole conceals the real intent behind it, namely to protect the secular governments at the centre and at the state which had had all intelligence input about the sea side terror attack that was coming on Mumbai and on Mumbai hotels specifically, but did nothing to act on them, whatever the reason for their inaction. The present government at the centre and in Maharashtra have been so callous about national security that over 1000 innocent persons have been killed in Mumbai by terror strikes in the year 2008 alone! Seeing the entire political class as hate objects protects the ruling parties against public retribution. The present rulers had repealed the anti-terror law in India when the whole democratic world was enacting such laws against terrorism. The terror attacks multiplied in numbers under the rule of the present government. So blaming the entire political spectrum bails out the culprits ruling India today. The Page Three icons and the media seem to be on this joint enterprise to wash off the sins of the ruling party and its leadership by targeting the political class as a whole.
Take this process to its logical conclusion. The hate against the ruling parties is being universalized thus as anger against the entire political class. Compare this anger against the politicians with how the ordinary people raised patriotic slogans, 'Vande Mataram' and 'Bharat Mata Ki Jai' when the NSG and Army commandos successfully vanquished the terrorists and again when the funeral of the slain ATS, NSG and Army fighters was taking place. Admiration for the army coupled with hate for political class as a whole is dangerous to democracy. In a democracy, it is necessary to let the public anger correct the ruling party that is at fault. The rulers must pay for their fault. They should not be allowed to escape punishment for their mistakes by joining the crowd of hated politicians. There is a lesson for the opposition also; that is if they come to power, they would be treated no differently. Imagine the political class is hated, and the army is admired, the legitimacy will be with the army, not with the political leadership. This is what made the army in Pakistan ambitious to become, and it became, the ruler. Yet, now, the Pakistan army is as hated as politicians in that country. So generating hate against the political class as a whole risks dangerous consequences. The media should not help dowse the public anger against the rulers at fault. That is what democracy is all about. The mistakes of the ruling party becomes the talking point for the opposition. This forces power to shift between the ruling and opposition parties.
So the media should educate the people to punish the rulers at fault, not bail them out by blaming all of the political class, as that undermine the political class as a whole, for ever. It should not allow the rulers to escape punishment. Is any one listening?
S Gurumurthy