HINDU CULTURAL HERITAGE AND GANDHIAN CREED OF NONVIOLENCE by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

HINDU CULTURAL HERITAGE AND GANDHIAN CREED OF NONVIOLENCE by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

source: http://www.indianresurgence.com/hindutva18.htm

Agnido garadaścaiva śastrapaņirdhanāpah І

Kşetradārāpaharī ca şadete hyātatāyinah ІІ

        

The above verse (lll/16) of Vaśiştha Samhitā says that six kinds of miscreants, namely the incendiary, the poisoner, the approaching assailant brandishing sharp weapons, forceful dispossessor of one’s tilling land, his spouse and plunderer of wealth, are to be reckoned as ātatāyīns (aggressors). How should one deal with such an ātatāyī?? In this regard the verse (VIII.350) of Manu Samhita says, 

                          Gurum vā bālabŗddhauvā brāhmaņam vā bahuśrutam І

                     Ātatāyinamāyāntam hanyādevābicarayam ІІ 

such an atatyi is to be put instantly to death without giving a second thought, even if he is a teacher, a learned man, a Brahmin, an old men or a child. It should be pointed out here that the above instruction is to tackle those aggressors who intend to harm an individual only. 


So there is no doubt that the foreign aggressors who set out motherland of fire, plundered our national wealth, massacred our own people and dishonoured our mothers and sisters, were aggressors of most despicable type, and one can easily guess what should have been our attitude to those atatayins, according to the Hindu code of conduct. But unfortunately, we being misled by a man having little wisdom in Hindu Dharma and culture, remained nonviolent to those aggressors, following his quack doctrine of nonviolence.

        The admirers of the said quack doctrine, on the other hand, opine that the said doctrine reflects the turn spirit of Hindu Dharma and the same has earned respect for us and immensely raised our prestige across the world. But there is no doubt that a nation which is incapable of protecting its sovereignty, incapable of protecting life and properties of their countrymen, and on the contrary, tolerate coercion and torture by the foreign aggressors like a lamb, in the name of nonviolence, can hardly earn any respect from others.

       These ardent followers of nonviolence must have gone through our history, but have they been able to find a single instance where our forefathers adopted nonviolence as a weapon to combat foreign intruders? They resisted the barbarian Alexander by application of force. Raja Vikramaditya drove the Sakas out of our motherland with the power of sword. Our ancestors in western India repulsed the barbaric Muslim invaders for a long period of nearly 500 years, by force alone. 


Later on Rana Pratap,Maharana Sangram Singh, Vikramaditya Hemraj and Raja Shivaji tried to drive the foreign Muslim ruler out of this holy land with the power of sword. After arriving in Srilanka, Lord Ram did not opt for a Satyagraha or for a fast unto death to recover Sita. Lord Krishna sided with the Pandavas to suppress the lawless Kauravas, in the battle field of Kurukshetra, with the application of force alone. So, the people, who are trying to project and establish their creed of nonviolence as a great Hindu heritage, are either ignorant of true heritage of the Hindus, or are motivated.

        

        A real Hindu should nevercause slightest harm, not only to a man, but also to living plants and animals, but he is to deal with an aggressor or an evil doer severely. The real devotee of Lord Krishna is one who punishes the evildoers with strong hands, but ready to sacrifice his life to protect innocent, weak and virtuous ones. 


The real devotee of Lord Ram is one who is a skilled warrior and can mercilessly kill out utmost stupidity, we are mistaking a man, who sings Ramdhun and preaches nonviolence, as a great devotee of Lord Ram. The Sanatan Hindu dharma is not a Dharma for the cowards. The Fundamental teaching of the Vedas is “abhih”, or be fearless. Furthermore, every Hindu god or goddess carry weapons for killing or annihilating miscreants en masse.

          It is said that, Hindu Dharma and Hindu Culture rests on four pillars, namely Ganga, Gayatri, Gita and Govinda and every Hindu admits that Gita or more specifically.   Srimadghavadgita  contains  the  nectar of Hindu Dharma. In Gita, Lord Sri Krishna says that He incarnates Himself to protect the good and law abiding people and destroy the evildoers and miscreants enmasse as and when it becomes necessary. 


In the battle field of Kurnkshetea, when Arjun expressed his unwillingness to fight with his own people, Loed Krishna did not admire his attitude and advise him to remain nonviolent. On the contrary, He rebuked Arjun and said, “Play not the eunuch, O Partha, it dose not befit you, give up this vile faintheartedness and arise, O destroyer of the foe”. (II.3). So it becomes evident that the said creed of nonviolence is contrary to the teachings of Gita, and hence contrary to Hindu Dharma.

          It is true that. Ones upon a time this holy land rose to prominence in every sphere of life and attaned supreme wisdom in every branch of knowledge by following the path of Rajomaya Karma od Gita, and there is no doubt that it has turned into a land of cowardice and Tamasic people, or in other words, a land of slaves and clerks, by forgetting the said teachings of Gita. 


Blessed Lord also said, “(O Arjun), muse upon me always, and go to war as well” (VIII.7), and we fools are considering only the frist part of the Lord’s advice, i.e. “muse upon me always” as dharma and have dropped the other part, “go to war”. In this way, people of this great nation abandoned weapon and foreign invaders began to come like wave after wave, subjugated us and ruled over us for centuries after centuries.

          In fact , it took several thousand years to the said downfall take place. During the entire mediaeval period that lasted for nearly 4000years, we had great religious teachers like Gautam Buddha. Sankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya and so on, but none of them did uphold the teachings of Gita. Out of the four purusharthas or duties and aspirations of individual, i.e. Dharma. Artha, Kama and Moksha, these teacher put emphasis only upon Moksha or the spirituasl part and neglected Dharma. Artha and Kama or the worldly aspirations of life.

There is no doubt that sankaracharya, believed to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Came to save Hindub Dharma ,with the help of his Advaitabad and Bhaktibad. But still he did not uphold the Niskama Karmayoga of Gita, but on the contrary, said “Though seifless work is capable of purifying one’s heart, it cannot raise one to the stage of ‘Realisation of the Self’. One can achieve that highest goal only through pursuit of knowledge, while performance of crores of actions (karma) can do nothing” (Vivekchudamani-11).

           So, throughout the entire middle age, none of out religious teachers echoed the teachings Gita, upholding the superiority of karma or selfiess work, no one tried to inspire our people by the teachings of Gita, such as, “Do you the work that is prescribed for you, for to do work is better than to do no work at all” (III. 8.); or “you have the right in performing your duties alone, but not to claim their fruits” (II.47); or “you ought to engage yourself in action for the good of this world”(III.20) and so on. 


On the contrary, they listened from our leaders. “Karmana badhyate janturvidya ca vimucyate” or, one can overcome this world only through pursuit of knowledge, whereas, by duty and action (karma) he gets himself entangled to this phenomenal world; or, “Dandagrahanamatrena naro narayana bhavet”- an individual instantly become Narayana (God) by accepting asceticism.

           It is to be pointed out here that, in Gita, Lord Krishna had cautioned wise people not to confuse common people. Who are engaged in action, even though for immediate personal gain, by bringing the wisdom of scriptures to them. Lode also cautioned people against renunciation of work and submission to asceticism and said, “There is hardly any necessity for me to engage myself into action, as I am the Lord of this universe. But still, I do not withdraw Myself from my duties. If I do so, common people, by following me would withdraw themselves from duty and action and hence the entire creation would perish” (III.24).

           But, unfortunately, the apprehension of the Lord came true. By the adverse teachings of our religious leaders, nothing but escapism could gain popularity among the people and they started getting themselves detached from duty and action (karma) and accepting asceticism in large numbers. As a result, the great ideal of karma of Gita began to abolish and, in stead, number of parasitic, lazy, utterly unfit and escapist sanyasins began to swell very rapidly. In this way, “Tamas” took the place of and action, and gradually, India turned into a land of unmanly, timid and coward people.