subroto

We also tend to blame our problems on other religions. For eg. yes Muslim invasion of india hurt india very bad and is inforgivable, but can that be blamed for the mordern hindus disinterest in his/her own religion..NO. I know many many hindus that have VOLUNTARILY converted to other religions...who do we blame that on??.. muslim invasion of india?? Hypothetically speaking even if we removed every other non-vedic religion from india it still would not revive the interest of hinduism among hindus. What can we do to fix that??..that is the real question. Why do we ridicule our own religion so much??

check out this website http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1996/6/1996-6-08.shtml or you can read it below My Turn Religion for the Young By Shyamal Chandra Debnath In Bangladesh, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Christian people live together. Among these communities, only the Hindu community fails to practice their religion in an organized way, something I have been observing since my childhood. I spent my childhood and boyhood with my family and some other Hindu families in a Muslim-dominated area. I saw that Muslim children learned their holy books and went to their holy houses everyday. They knew many facts about their religion, but we Hindu children did not learn our holy books, although we went to our community temple regularly. We had no clear idea about our religion. We only knew that we were Hindus. We did not even know that the name of our religion is Sanatana Dharma, which I learned from a friend in six grade. I did not go to any religious school to learn our religion. I did not get any education about Hinduism during my regular schooling either. Overall, I was not provided any religious teaching during my childhood. And, generally, I did not give proper answers when people asked me questions about my religion. At primary school, a Muslim teacher consistantly told us that we should not worship idols. I was upset by his comment because I performed regular puja. Actually, I did not know why I did it. My non-Hindu neighbors, youth and children frequently criticized me about my religion, pujas and lifestyle. I had no explanation for them. They questioned, why Kali is black? Why does Durga have ten hands? Why do we worship the Shivalinga? What is the Shivalinga? I had no answers. But, inexplicably, I liked our religion and lifestyle very much. I always knew that our religion, Hinduism, was greater than all other religions, though I did not know why. We all loved our parents' Gurudev, Sri Radhika Gobinda Goswami, who visited our house once or twice every year. He offered many programs. Everyday he read from the Bhagavatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita and the Srimad Bhagavad Gita. He explained these holy books. He performed kirtans and Bhor Arati on the path of the colony where we lived. He explained why we don't kill the cow. Generally, he spoke about Vaishnavism. He directed us deeply into our religion during the time of his visits. But I saw a discrepancy during his programs. Children and young boys never came forward to learn about Hinduism. I think their parents had no interest to send their sons and daughters to Gurudev to learn our religion. Of course, all the children and youth approached Gurudev, but they only did pranams. I think they had no idea that they could learn many things from this guru. My guardians always told me, practicing religion is only for elders, not children and youth. So we youth avoided practicing the basic religious rituals such as puja, japa, surya pranam, sanskrit mantras, etc. But my parents did encourage us to collect flowers for puja. Nevertheless, we did practice our religion in several ways. We celebrated Saraswati Manasha puja, Dole yatra and Ratha yatra. We organized these programs and participated. We danced and offered anjali. But the priests chanted the mantras and did the pujas. Every year during the summer season, we youth decorated ourselves as Shiva, Parvati, Ganesha, Saraswati, Laksmi and as lions. As a group, with a village music band, we went to every house and sang songs, danced and collected pranami at the end with a puja. I played the role of Saraswati for two years. We followed our religion in this way. Yet we lacked any concrete idea about the basics of our religion. Thousands of village gurus control the majority of the millions of Bangladesh Hindus. They travel to every corner, even to very remote places of the country, and tell Hindus about their rich culture and heritage. They are the living Hinduism in Bangladesh. I think they should be sure to teach Hindu children and youth about Hinduism. If our neighbors know about our religion, they will honor our religion and culture. And if the Hindu children and youth know the Sanatana Dharma, then they will feel proud of their religion and will give good answers when they are asked tough questions. Shyamal Chandra Debnath is a student of Medical Geography at Dhaka University in Bangladesh. He is associated with many national and international newspapers and voluntary organizations, including the Debnath Mission for Hemophilia.

"if in spiritual world there is no war and fights then why do the saivites and vaishnavites figth?and above all i have no words for the ISCONites" They fight because they misunderstand the true meaning of hinduism. Just because people corrupt hinduism doesn't mean hinduism is bad. Secondly saivites and vaishnavites do not live in the spiritual world, they live in the material world and are plagued by the same material problems that most people are. Saivites and vaishnavites are in NO way indicative of what the spiritual world is like.

I am not sure exactly which ones, but there are special yogic exercises that help prevent sexual or lustful feelings and help control oneself. Many people, incuding christian priests in kerela have used yoga to control their sexual desires. You might want to look into that, but I don't know which yogic postures specifically....yoga is a extremely broad subject. You will have to do some research on that or talk to a rishi or guru. Also abstinence from certain foods help reduce sexual cravings as well as look into ayurvedic herbs and medicines that eliminate sexual desires. good luck

Thats a great answer...I see a lot of people here arguing about which god is greater, and which god to pray to....i am sure god himself laughs at all these arguments by us stupid humans. Instead on concentrating on what god to pray to concentrate on praying to god and on what you are praying for. If yor heart is pure you will be rewarded, no matter which god you pray to. Like madhav said krishna is never jealous of which god you pray to..because all gods are one although to us humans they may appear different. The only thing you got to watch out is for what you pray for.

The main thing is to ask for spiritual liberation no matter which god or demi god you worship. I am not sure, but maybe what krishna meant by abandoning all other vedic practices was that.... don't ask other demi gods for material gifts as they are temporary, demi gods being the givers of material gifts as well ..ask me for spiritual upliftment for that is the ultimate ideal, but if you ask shiva or durga for moksha or spiritual upliftment there is nothing wrong with it. It is what you ask for that is more important than who you ask for it from....maybe thats what krishna was trying to say because in those days a lot of people were praying to demi gods for material gifts.

Whoever argues that if bush's policies are vedic or not.......ONe thingg...Bush is regarded by many as a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN....forget about iraq..which I think the war was a fake war for oil....but if it came between cristianity and hinduism ..bush would pick christianity..even a lot of chritians consider him extreemist...never ever forget that...before arguing if he is vedic or not...there is nothing vedic about that meat eating materialist.

Your statements are ignorant and show that you have not grasped the concept of hinduism. In this day of declining hindus we need as many people who embrace the values of hinduism. Most hindus today are turning away from hinduism..a lot of them are also converting to other religions..hinduism is on the decline. We need as many hindus as we can get. Ever heard of Stepehen Knapp...he is an american hindu...he has done more to spread the word of hinduism than most of us hindus could ever do. Last but not least, the values of hinduism are for everyone interested.....god handed down the values and principles not for indians alone....after all our true identity is atman not human, so bloodlines are irrelavant.

Very good article barney. Goes to show how much hinduism has declined. These so called hindus that discriminate the dalits seem to be everywhere. I dont know how they can call themselves hindus when they are going against the very principles of hinduism and don't know what hinduism is about. I am sure most of the people that have hatred for the dalits have no knowledge of hinduism nor have they read the bhagvat gita, or else they wouldn't be acting this way. This is also a big reason why some dalits are convertting to other religions and will continue to do so. So ultimately it is hindus(so called hindus i mean) that often force other hindus to convert....like i have said before so called hindus are the biggest threat to hinduism and unless we do something to educate these so called hindus, hindusim is going to loose out...sooner or later it is bound to happen.

Go to this website for more info on free will/ destiny www.geocities.com/tvnswamy/sanskrit_notes.html ONce you get there scroll down and read Lesson #2: Verse #3: VIDHIHI - Fate: ****************************** Yet another verse, culled from Subhashita Rathnakara, relates to what is called ,VIDHI or Fate. The verse says: Bhavithavyam bhavathyeva narikelaphalambuvath, Ganthavyam gatham ithyahuhu gajabhuktha kapithhavath. What is destined to happen will happen inevitably, and what is not destined to happen will never happen in spite of all efforts. The verse conveys that what must stay would invariably stay. A cocoanut is destined to have water in it; but how does this water come inside it is a mystery to the naked eye. We cannot perceive the source of water that trickles into a tender cocoanut. This does not happen to any other class of other fruits and is destined to happen only in this family of fruits at the appropriate time. Similarly, what is not destined to remain, will not remain. The example given here is of the Kapithha fruit (wood-apple). An elephant eats a Kapithha fruit as it is without breaking it and excretes it as it is without any rupture. But if one examines the excreted fruit he will find that the water which was there before eating it is not there now. It has to go, and how does it go without breaking it, is Nature's mystery. This leads to a greater question. Does it mean that human effort has no value and every thing happens as per "Destiny"? What is Fate or Destiny? Is it blind faith leading to Fatalism? Does it lead to cutting at the very root of self-effort? There are three types of Karmaor "results of one's own actions". They are: (1) Sanchitha, (2) Prarabdha and ( 3) Aagami. Sanchita is a bundle of all the Karmas accumulated over a number of births. Prarabdha is that specific Karma or Karmas already taken up for the purpose of this life. Since these Karmas have already started to give results /fruition, nothing can be done about them at this stage. This is called Destiny or Fate. But there is yet another group of Karmas called Aagami, i.e.,the actions that are now being done which will give their results later in future. In this way, one can make or mar one's destiny. Man is not a puppet in the hands of Fate, he is the creater of his own Destiny. For more details, please see FAQ question # 1. at website: http://www.geocities.com/tvnswamy/faq.html Top Lesson #2: verse #4: KARYASIDHI: Then go to Lesson #2: Verse #5: UDYAMAHA - (Effort): ********************************************************** Udyoginam purushasimham upaithi Lakshmeeh Daivam pradhanam ithi kaapurushaah vadanthi, Daivam vihaya kuru pourusham athmasakthyaa Yathney krithey yadi na sidhyanthi ko/tra doshaha. The Goddess of Wealth, Lakshmi, favours only those who are diligent and industrious. Those who are weak-minded are lethargic and do not strive forward nor initiate an action on the plea that every thing is pre-determined by Fate which alone, they say, is more important than one's actions. One should, however, put one's best efforts disregarding "fate ". What is wrong, if one puts his best efforts, but does not succeed? This sloka is yet another quote from Subhashitha Rathnakara, the "Ocean of Good Sayings". It is said that no deer will voluntarily enter the mouth of a sleeping lion. Without an effort, even things that are destined to happen will not happen. Unless one moves one step forward, even God cannot help him. A hungry person once decided that he will not do anything that is required of him and wait for Fate to take its own course. He was sitting in a choultry where many travellers come, stay for some time and leave. He was feeling hungry, but would not move anywhere, for, he felt that fate will give him food. A couple of days passed by, and he could not get any food. His mouth began to water seeing other travellers eating and enjoying the food. He could not suffer any more and involuntarily, he coughed to attract the attention of those who were eating in his presence. It had the desired effect and one of the travellers heard his peevish cough and took pity on him and offered food. Atleast that much of effort as even a cough was required to succeed in life. It is only the daring and the adventurous that succeed in life. Goddess Lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth goes to such person and favours him with, wealth and prosperity. Only the weak-minded people take cover on " fate" and take an excuse for not starting a work. The poet here asks a question generally raised by the weakminded: "What is the guarantee that the work started, if at all, will win ?". The poet says that even if it does not succeed, what is the fault here? It is better to try and lose, rather than not to try at all.

Here is the website I got the page from www.goddessherself.com/mantras/mantras.htm Under "free samples of the gayatri mantras" click on shiv gayatri.

Does anyone know why people worship the shiva linga?? I was reading on a american website which says that people worship the shiva linga and chant the shiva gaytri to improve their sexual stamina..is that true?? It also says: Lingam is worshiped by all women in India: unmarried daughters pray to be blessed with good husband, and married once blesses with good sex. Shiva is the creator of the system of marriage, in which both partners accept equal responsibilities, disregarding caste or community. Shiva himself came from a mixed family and through his marriage to an Aryan princess helped a lot in unifying the warring fractions in India at that time. Shiva is the seed, or origin of the multidimensional universe, giving rise to all other ontological categories. Yet, there is no duality in Shiva because he is still completely immersed in blissful union with Shakti.His consort is the divine Mother herself, in her forms of Parvati, Uma, Kali, Sati, Amba, Durga and her other beautiful, wild and sexy manifestations. Only with Shiva the Mother Goddess is in her complete personality. This doesnt make sense ..what do you think of this?

PLease read this article by a pakistani high court advocate recently printed in their newspaper All the self-importance the Bharat has been making a show thereon, have been the Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely Allah Rakha Khan to the Nuclear Scientist, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated poets, writers, historians, geographers, architectures, sport stars, film stars, musicians, singers have been Muslims. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been Indians Muslims made. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their country of theirs and thus have swindled us of our name “India” - which had been ours exclusively. Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been ‘Pakistanis’ and Hindus on either side of the border have never been ‘Indians’ - We have been ‘Indians Muslims’ throughout and they have been ‘Bharati Hindus’ throughout. Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule - and ‘Bharati Hindus’ have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule. During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as ‘Hindustan’ or ‘Hind’ as a nickname, in the local languages and ‘India’ in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language - and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been ‘India’ - and ‘India’ has never ever been ‘Bharat’ before the partition. The name ‘India’ therefore has nothing to do with ‘Bharat,’ ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindus’. Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly - and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. ‘Bharati Hindus’ always keep their real face, trick and every task concealed, for their ‘realities’ look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, ‘India’ - which is exclusively our property and pride - and have sent their real name, ‘Bharat’ in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name ‘Bharat’ nor they can escape therefrom so openly - hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they displayed the stolen name ‘India’ on the forefront and kept their real name ‘Bharat’ hide and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout - even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ - while one Raja Bharth was reigning the huge country of its time. The name of that very country, more or less the now Bharat was ‘Jambu Devipa’ - and hence after the death of the Raja Bharth, the Hindus used to call the land as ‘Bharth Versh’ (i.e. land of the Bharth). In this way the present name of ‘Bharat’ is the corruption of ‘Bharth’. And it is for this reason that their religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as ‘Bharatia Janata Party’ (BJP) - and due to this cause the Hindus have been calling their country as ‘Bharat Matha’ (i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as “Bharateena” The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years - if the name ‘India’ had any link with ‘Hinduism’ or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have smashed it into the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name ‘India’ - as they have grabbed Junagarh, Manader, Haiderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir. How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, ‘Freedom At Midnight’ of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre: "AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS CLAIMED THE MOST PRECIOUS ASSET OF ALL, THE NAME "INDIA". REJECTING PROPOSAL TO NAME THEIR NEW DOMINION "HINDUSTAN", CONGRESS INSISTED THAT SINCE PAKISTAN WAS SECEDING, THE NAME INDIA AND INDIA'S IDENTITY IN GROUPS LIKE U.N. REMAIN THEIRS". Now let trace the base of the name ‘India’. There is no denying the hard fact that the Greek word ‘Indos’ and the Latin word ‘Indus’ have been the ancient names of the mighty River, ‘Sindh’ (i.e. Indus) respectively - and the ‘Sindhus’ as well as India have been derived from the words ‘Sindh’ and ‘Indus’ respectively. One of the world most ancient civilizations has been the ‘Indus Valley Civilization’ which came out more than before 3230 BC - flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley - and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryans Settlers - it was buried also in its nativity. Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, ‘Sindh, (i.e. Indus) - whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as ‘Indos’ and ‘Indus’ - and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as “Indus Valley Civilization.” Though it had the most ‘contemporary’ features. Its main ‘Mausoleums,’ the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan, ‘Mohenjo-daro’ on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larhkana (in Sindh province) and ‘Harappa’ on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province). Now let go back a little more. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years - those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; ‘Sindh/Indus’ namely, ‘Sindh Valley’ or ‘Indus Valley’ - which were then known as ‘Saptasindhva’ or ‘Sapta Sindhus’ meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e. Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chanab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati). Bode Roy Punjabi quoting Dr. Abinas Chandra Das as under, "The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name” Bode Roy Punjabi himself writes in his book, ‘Saptasindhva’ as under: “ Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the NWFP, Eastern Balochistan and Sind was the area of Aryan Settlement”. So merely as a common noun from the word “Sapta Sindhus” and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan Settlers: they were first called as ‘Sindhus’ and ‘Sindhi’ in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word ‘Indus’ they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was either Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted. Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. sindh province) and its natives as ‘Sindhi’ because of the river ‘Sindh/Indus’ - exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabi, as a common noun. Now how the erstwhile common noun ‘Sindhus’ transmuted subsequently into the ‘Hindus’- the proper noun - that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun ‘Sindhus’ from the word ‘Sindh’, corrupted into ‘Hindus,’ the complicated noun - which turned into as a certain creed specific. In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, ‘Hinduism’. Because emerge of the word ‘Hindu’ was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, ‘Hinduism’. And as a matter of fact the word ‘Hinduism’ have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the ‘caste-rule’ (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word ‘Hindu’ had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done. The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - a native of ‘Sindh - Valley’ (i.e. Indus - Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word ‘Sapta Sindhus’ as ‘Haft Hindus’, for in Persian language the word ‘haft’ also denotes seven - and as such the word ‘Haft-Hindus’ is the Persian corruption of ‘Sapta Sindhus’ the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word ‘Hindu’ is admittedly the corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - then the word ‘Hindi’ is obviously the corruption of Sindhi. And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as ‘Hindi’ whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus - exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hindi’/’Indian’ are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words ‘Hindu’ or ‘Hindukki’ are used simply for the believer of Hinduism - and its plural has been ‘Hindoos’ or ‘Hanadic’ - whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as ‘Hanud’ - from the former plural. Now let go a little further deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryans Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a ‘sculpture based culture’ and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the ‘sculpture based culture’ into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway - and the newly debuted ‘sculpture based creed’ thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism - they used to use the word ‘Vern Ashram’ (i.e. caste rule) and subsequently ‘Sanatan Dharma’ (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness - that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism. Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the ‘Aryans’ and the ‘Sindhus’ or ‘Hindus’ lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture. Thus those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, they were called the ‘Hindus’ specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the ‘Sindhi’/’Hindi’ in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the ‘Indians’ in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the ‘Hindus’ word is the corrupted form of Sindhus - similarly the ‘Hindus people’ are the corrupted viz converted form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as ‘Barsagheer-Hind’ in the eastern languages and as ‘Indian subcontinent’ in the western languages - and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively - irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India - and had nothing to do with any religion - whereas to denote believers of the ‘caste rule’ or ‘Vern Ashram’ the specific word ‘Hindus’ were/are used for them, in all the languages of the world. Exactly as Asians implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin - hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their creeds also developed with the passage of time - then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific. Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion - secondly, unlike all others man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed their creed thereto. Conversely, the Honorable Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao-tzi, Mahavira, Mormon, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of the Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively. Actually in the start the creed of ‘Vern Ashram’ was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians - which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed. A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, “The Continent of Circe” "I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to 'Christian' or 'Muslim’. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase ‘Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label ‘Hinduism' because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism". Another Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, ‘Wakes up Hindus’: “The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu.The Punjab in Vedic times called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders." To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a ‘Muslim River’ (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e. the Pakistan) - and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean - the Ocean which itself has not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but had also been contributed, by this splendid and refined river, with an identity and name - (i.e. the Indian Ocean). The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly - and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance, Indian Ocean; the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been taking bath, since the time immemorial. Indonesia; a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean. Indochina; the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. - once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese. West Indies; the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etc. which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean - given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean. Red Indians; the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians have been given officially, the name and status of ‘Indiana state’ as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; ‘ENCARTA’ “The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch”. Furthermore, “Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidents—William Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincoln—lived in Indiana for substantial periods. Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The state’s name, which refers to Native Americans (“Indians”), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the “Hoosier State”. Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond”. I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataes (549-52) and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as “father of history” - in the following borrowed words: ‘India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the “ Deserta Incognita” unknown desert or “ Marusthali” (i.e. place of death)’. It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat. Now when it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus (even in the northern regions of Pakistan, including Malakand division the name of this river has been ‘Aba Sindh’ - meaning, father of rivers) - then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it - and we alone have the right to snatch it back - and rename our country as ‘Islamic Republic Of India’ - or ‘Muslim India’ to be more appropriate. The reasons for my this urge and drive are very much compelling and pressing, for instance, 1. The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion) and the body (i.e. the region - or the nativity) - as these have been inevitable for a living being. Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time - but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced. This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith - and they all became Muslims - but so far their nativities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact - hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth. So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) - (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) - (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) - (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) - and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mu’mineen (RA), namely, Omul Mu’mineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammad’s son, has been ‘Maria Qibthiya’ (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) - and Malka of Saba, AS (i.e. Sabean Queen, AS) has been ‘Malka Saba,’ AS (Queen of Saba) - even after they all embraced Islam. As such the ‘Muslim Millat’ (i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the ‘Muslim Grand Nation’ or Muslim Millat - then the whole world is their Grand Nativity’. This is one of the edges the Muslims Nations have got over other nations, for there is no conception of Millat in ‘them’ - because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities has the same i.e. Islam - whereas in them the both the nucleuses as well as the peripheries are different. In seeking the answer of the question my reliance is on the Holy Qur’an: “O MANKIND! LO! WE HAVE CREATED YOU FROM MALE AND FEMALE - AND HAVE MADE NATIONS - AND TRIBES THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER. LO! THE NOBLEST OF YOU, IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH, IS THE BEST IN CONDUCT. LO! ALLAH IS KNOWER - AWARE.” (SURAH AL-HUJURAT, 39-13). By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject - what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Qura’n therefrom is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind: A- Humanity; humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their descendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity - and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-à-vis other beings. B- Loyalty to a faith; now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick - and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the “Muslims” - whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews, the believers of Christianity are called Nazareth or Christians - and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods. C- Nativity; But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities - so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither being made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes. Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world. To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a religion could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality - and nor alone the nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) have been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities - as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities. Now the next part of my question is, what is our nationality? In our case too Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the ‘Indian’ nativity has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution - it is always granted - and we have been bestowed upon, the ‘Indian’ nativity - the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been ‘Indian Muslims’ - as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity, they have had long before embracing Islam - why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours? Whereas in fact our nativity has been more ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy ‘Indian Muslims’ at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before - but simply a little after i.e. at 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims - altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for round about one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously. 2. Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e. the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth. 3. The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not - or survive hardly. 4. We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim empire and before the freedom - but yet we were a formidable nation, as ‘Indian Muslims’ and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland - we left behind our identity and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity - and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality. 5. By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the ‘Bharati Hindus’ as ‘Indian Hindus’ and the left over Muslims i.e. the ‘Indian Muslims’ as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other. 6. As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history - but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy. 7. The word, Pakistan had never ever been, a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country. 8. The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world. 9. All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed - and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality were being contrived, retrieved and erected instead. 10. The word ‘Pakistan’ has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly - very recently, Mr. Blair as well as Mr. Bush pronounced the Pakistanis, as the “Pakis” in an internationally televised speech, which is a nude slang. 11. The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old mischievous habits, have been mispronouncing it in more offending way as “phukis” and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang “pakis” as a nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the ‘senior’ slangy twins. Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word “Ra’ina” (i.e. Listen to us) - while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and used to mispronounce the same as “Ra’aina” which was a slang hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; “O YE WHO BELIEVE, SAY NOT (UNTO THE PROPHET): “LISTEN TO US” (RA’INA) BUT SAY LOOK UPON US” (UNZURNA). (SURAH ALBAQARAH 2-104) Thus so much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words. 12. The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition - but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their problem within no time. 13. No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement - like a big choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in ‘pind’ (village) - they call them, ‘kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as ‘nathu’ or ‘khairi’. 14. China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity. 15. Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never tie the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey. 16. Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e. warmth and excitement) need constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader - who does not born so frequently but rather very very rarely - whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire. 17. Religion needs nice and virtuous people to be attracted to and blended together - but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home. 18. Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer - so how a nation can stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri Lanka) - the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of nativity we left behind. 19. Religion has been but not always a strong source of convergence – some time it become the source of divergence, when it falls in the hands of illiterate fanatics, hence a nation must be always kept tied with the second rope viz nativity too, for none can leak out therefrom. 20. To re-catch, reclaim and maintain the lineage and relation with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context. Now the mind haunting question, I know is, how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity? The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few, They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great. Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as ‘Bharth Versh’ right from the demise of their Rajah Bharth, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief. In their constitution their official name has been as Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution. The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the grammar of an international language. The name “Hindustan” is purely a Persian word and the name “India” is purely its English version - and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least - the suffix “stan” has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule. Whereas both, the original name “Bhart” and its corruption the now “Bharat” have its origin from Sanskrit. They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus - rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard therefrom. Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been Ganges and Yamunas, hence they should borrow name therefrom, if they like their own rivers. Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity - and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, ‘Nepalese’ - which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India.

The Hindu Art of Self Hate The Hindu talent for self-condemnation does not find a parallel anywhere in the world. The art of self-hate is what the Hindus have mastered in during the latter half of the last century. The politicians, media, so-called secularists, intellectuals, human-rights activists who never tire condemning Hindus are themselves Hindus. The greatest enemies of the Hindus today are the Hindus themselves. Understanding the Hindu mind is not difficult. Let us try and analyse our mentality - the Hindu mentality. Whenever there is a problem with some other community, which is harming the Hindus, how do we address the problem? We have two options – we acknowledge the problem and take action for its resolution or we do not acknowledge the problem. What if we acknowledge this problem? – We will have to take steps to resolve it, interact with the other community in question; there might be confrontation and agitation; we will have to “fight”. What if we do not acknowledge the problem at all. Nothing happens – no confrontation, no agitation, no “fight”. The adverse effects of the problem can be tolerated – after all, it is easier to tolerate than to fight. What if grave consequences will have to be faced in the years to come? At the moment we are comfortable with few adjustments and compromises, so why worry about the future? Who cares if to make today more comfortable we make tomorrow bleak? How do we address the problem then? The easier course of actions is to blame our own people for being communal, narrow-minded fundamentalists. After all, it is much easier to confront the Hindus as they are less aggressive and less violent. Fighting the real enemy would require a lot of courage so we choose to make the enemy look saintly and turn against our own people. We find faults with our own people rather than addressing those who are actually at the crux of the problem. So our politicians, media and the so called secularists and intellectuals call the Hindus communal and fundamentalists, responsible for rioting but never have the courage to criticize the Jehadi terrorists; and the human rights activists agitate for the human rights of the terrorists, never caring for the human rights of the victims of terrorism. So we don’t acknowledge that the rising Muslim population is a threat to the integrity of our country and to the very existence of the Hindu civilization. What if we have faced a vivisection of our Motherland when the Muslim population became one third of the country’s population? What if the only Muslim majority state Kashmir saw the driving away of the Hindu minority from their homeland? That is history and we Hindus have an excellent record of not learning anything from history. Even though the current trends and figures clearly reveal that we are heading towards a second partition, our intellectuals and media refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, they are criticizing our people who conducted demographic studies on the basis of religion. They find census figures on the basis of religion completely irrelevant and uncalled for in a “secular” country like India. The larger threat facing the country becomes a non-issue whereas whether religious demographics should be studied as a principle or the technical errors like the publication of wrong data on the first day become the issue. The idea is to take the attention away from the larger issues and focus on the non-issues, so that we don’t have to address the real issues. To address the real issue we will need to talk to our Muslim community, persuade them to go against Islam and practise family planning, persuade them to not shelter but report the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants staying in their colonies, we will need to confront and “fight”. We quietly look for an escape route, don’t acknowledge that the problem exists and condemn those who perceive it, then there is no confrontation and we need not “fight”. Thus, when Uma Bharati gets arrested for hoisting the national flag on “disputed ground”, we do not question how and why a ground became “disputed” for hoisting the national flag, we do not question the loyalty of the community whose “sentiments” get “hurt” by the hoisting of the national flag, instead we blame her for indulging in communal politics and criticize her for using the national flag to play with the sentiments of the people. When riots break out in the aftermath of Godhra, we condemn the rioters as communal fundamentalists but do not say a word to those who started it all by torching a train full of Hindus. Instead we conduct an enquiry to prove that the Hindus had themselves deliberately started the fire in order to have justified grounds to riot. Thus, we cannot perceive a threat to the country’s integrity from illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, we cannot acknowledge that the terrorism faced in India and throughout the world is Islamic terrorism, we cannot see the merits of teaching the real history of the atrocities of the Muslim invaders, we cannot change the British education system, we cannot regulate the madrasas which breed terrorism, we cannot ban the missionaries who defame our religion and convert our tribals by unethical means and methods, we cannot feel pride in rebuilding our demolished temples, we cannot call India what it truly is – a Hindu Nation. Thus, we condemn our own people who talk of driving away the Bangladeshis staying illegally in our country, we call our people who implement laws against terrorism communal, we call the teaching of the true history of India as “right-wing” history, we call the teaching of Vedic mathematics and astrology as “saffronisation” of education, we believe that the missionaries are doing great services for our tribals, we find the re-building of demolished temples a wasteful effort to dig up the past, we call India what it officially is - a secular country. If we acknowledge all these problems, we will have to work towards their solution. The cowardly, escapist Hindu mentality refuses to acknowledge the problem, so the question of working towards a solution does not arise. We do this under the pretext of Hinduism being secular, peace-loving and non-violent, but we accept and practise only those aspects of Hinduism which suit us. Hindus spend time, money and energy in performing poojas, yagyas, Bhagwat path, visiting swamis and babas but when it comes to practicing the real philosophies of the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta, we back out. We have forgotten the teachings of the Bhagwat Geeta which asks us to fight against the wrong – adharma. We are using the tolerant and secular mask to hide our incapacity. We have tampered and moulded the doctrine of ahimsa or non-violence to camouflage our inaction. Not protesting against violence is in fact supporting and encouraging more violence, which is a greater sin. What we are resorting to today is not tolerance, secularism or non-violence but cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “My own experiences but confirm the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu is a coward; where there are cowards there will always be bullies.” Even this great apostle of peace and ahimsa had said, “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence ... but non-violence is infinitely superior to violence.” The ostrich mentality of the Hindus does not help make Bharat a better place to live in. Rather it endangers the very existence of the Hindu civilization. Turning a blind eye to our problems will not solve the problems, instead it will only aggravate them. Nehruvian secularism has already left us with a legacy of complications and it would be sad if our successors were to inherit more. Playing the blind man’s bluff is leading us to disaster. It is high time we call a spade a spade, “fight” the real enemies or else it will be too late. It is time we pay heed to what Lord Krishna told Arjun: “Klaibyam maa sma gamah Paarth naitatvayyupapadyatey Kshudram hridaya daurbalyam tyaktovttishta Parantapa” “O Arjun! Yield not to unmanliness for such an attitude is not worthy of you. Casting aside your weakness of mind, therefore arise, O scorcher of enemies, and get ready for the battle.”

All Hindus should read this web page www.indpride.com/articles.html go to hindu art of self hate and click on more

What kind of proof do you want? What if I tell you that by performing bhakti and chanting the maha mantra every day , following regulative principles, following a vegeterian diet etc you will actually see and feel krishna, think about it you will get to feel and see him yourself......isnt that better proof than some reference in a book or some ruins... you up for it or what?? you said you wanted proof of krishna.

"And hindus are thier own enemies. They care very less for their religion. Even now, Churches are built in front of temples, and during the festivals of Hindus, they conduct their won masses. And when a great guru of hinduism is arrested on a hindu festival, the foolish hindus say "Law will take its own course". Who created this law? God? NO. THey were created by ignorant human beings based on the laws of other countries." Very good piecee I agree with you all the way..I have always said hinduism's biggest enemies are hindus themselves...people say islam is the biggest enemy but hindus themselves are a bigger enemy than islam, you can always fight then enemy, but if your own people laugh at you and leave you what can you do? Thats the peoblem with hinduism: Our own people laugh at our religion and follow different paths some even willingly convert to other religions. They are the biggest enemy. Most muslims really love their religion..there are a few that don't but most do and will defend it with all they have, christians also love their religion..some don't, but hindus are a different story..a lot of hindus really love hinduism, but there are also a huge number of hindus who are apathetic, dont care and even laugh at hinduism. We have more self haters than any other religion...what do we do about that..that is the key.

"For eg. eating meat, and drinking alchhol is adharma....so if a hindu eats meat or drinks alchohol he as much a rakshas as a xtian or a muslim..there is no difference between them." Could you back this up with some quotations from the scriptures...am just interested to know what the scriptures say about this. What do you mean by a quotation in the scriptures...the scriptures don't mention anything about islam or xniaty..what the scriptures talk about is dharma and adharma.. dharma is dharma and adharma is adharma ...doesn't matter what name you give it or what religion you do it under it is still adharma..just because you were born a hindu and now eat meat..does not make your karma any less than a muslim who eats meat. In the vedic times their was no hindu religion...there was dharma and adharma...hindu is a foreign word used by people who could never comprehend the depth of hinduism.

This come as no big surprise. Most of the hindus I have seen don't know enough about hinduism nor have they read the gita. Those kind of hindus (fake hindus) are growing in number and are already majority in many parts of india, with such a large percentage of fake hindus its no surprise that hindusim will be a minority religion. If you see most of the hindus that have been converted or have converted to islam or christianity in the last few years have been fake hindus. Real hindus can never be converted to islam or chrisitanity unless it is by force (which happened thousands of years ago), but in todays age fake hindus can easily be converted who are growing in number. I think fake hindus are as big a problem to hindusim as islam or christianity is. Infact, fake hinduism makes it easier for islam/xtianity to get stronger in india. Fake hindus can be as adharmic as muslims or xtians....adharma is adharma whether it is commited by a hindu/muslim/xtian. For eg. eating meat, and drinking alchhol is adharma....so if a hindu eats meat or drinks alchohol he as much a rakshas as a xtian or a muslim..there is no difference between them. Unless we concentrate on converting fake hindus to real hindus we cannot win this war....remember fake hindus don't have any real pride in their religion, real hindus have a lot of pride. I have had so many arguments about hinduism with my hindu brothers themselves who think gita, ramayana and mahabharata is nothing but mythology. Now if these kind of hindus become a majority in india hinduism is in real trouble. The funny thing is that hindusim is growing in popularity among westerners but is declining in india. If you go to some parts of india, I have seen european hare-krishna devotees trying to convert some of these fake india hindus ..they fail most of the time but they keep trying ...atleast that is some good news.

<<becaue saddam's supporters (baath party) are not captured. besides, the victims of saddam do not know how to form and run a gov. that would not allow any future saddams to come to power.>> Really, how come Saddam had the full support of the US in the eighties?? The very year saddam gassed 20,000 kurds the US doubled its financial aid to iraq. So the US was responsible in the first place for the rise of saddam hussein, they even supplied saddam with a lot of the weapons of the weapons of mass destruction. Now the US has to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to solve the problem it, itself played a major part in creating. << How come the American companies are making billions of dollars in profit??? becaue of greed and oppertunity. you can tell your favorite company - a krishna conscious company - to compete with them too. please do it. >>> Then, you and a lot of other people that claim they are hindu should not support the US...just because all companies in the world are greedy does not mean we have to support some of them.. a real hindu would never do that...he fights injustice and adharma everywhere no matter where or by whom it is commited. When the US kills thousands of civilians to solve a problem it created in the first place and is greedy for oil it is OK, but when saddam(who was helped by the US in the past mind you) kills his own people he is a brutal dictator...that is not hinduism. Hindusim is fair. Also a lot of people here have compared the US to arjun and india to krishna.....please stop doing that because arjun/krishna would never have that level of greed and opportunity as american companies. <<<oil and desire to implant a better culture than islam are the motives. the location choice is a militry stategy of long term effect to retain world superpoer status.>>> " to implant a better culture than islam" is a big joke... <<that is the quandry whenyou deal with a devil.>>> PLease don't make it sound like a quandary.. There is no quandary whatsoever.. When it is time to invade saudi arabia...the US has to make a simple decision "Millions of dolllars in OIL money that will make the bush family and his friends richer" VS STOPPING ISLAMIC TERRORISM. We all know which deciiosn Bush took, bush's brother and many friends own a huge oil companies that are doing a lot of business with saudi arabia, he is more interested in making his friends and family richer rather than <<"to implant a better culture than islam">>. We see his sincereity over here. "Ahmad Chalabi, who the US has installed as the country's civilian president has stated on more than one occasion that his first priority as president is to privatise Iraq's oil industry, which effectively means handing it over to US corporations. There has never been any intention to allow Iraq's oil wealth to benefit the Iraqi people."" If Iraq was still selling oil for cheap and doing business the way the US wanted it to...the US would have never invaded Iraq no matter how bad saddam was.

'because it would free iraqis from saddam's cruel rule' How come then doesn't the US leave iraq now after saddam has gone?? How come the American companies are making billions of dollars in profit??? That shouldn't be part of the plan to free the iraqis...if the americans are truly interested in freeing the iraqis then they shouldn't make a single dollar from iraqi stolen oil. Right there we see americas true motive to invade iraq. Secondly I am waiting for america to invade saudi to free its people from their cruel monarchy....that'll never happen..here also we see how much america cares for the saudi people.. Last of all did you know that saudi provides financial support to pakistani and afghan terrorists???? Now where does saudi get so much money to give to pakistani terrorists???? Oil money from America is one of main sources...so american money is indirectly being used by the saudis to fund the pakistanis.....Do you think that the american secret service does not know this????? They know everything that goes on...they know that their money is being used by the saudis to fund pakistani terrorists who attack indian bases.....do you think the americans care??? Not at all.

"That is a baseless argument. it seems you want to shift the blame on US very illogically, whereas the actual blame goes to islam and those who choose to live by islam and in an islamic country" If it is a baseless argument what base do you have for your argument...or better what proof do you have for your following statement... ---"no muslim has raised that question. so why you or i ask it? " because I can show you proof of saudi citizens who have raised that question and have been punished by the saudi governement ----"That is a baseless argument. it seems you want to shift the blame on US very illogically, whereas the actual blame goes to islam and those who choose to live by islam and in an islamic country. Besides, US is not telling saudis to follow islam. the "friendship" is for oil, not for islam. US actually would be happy if saudis give up islam" Oh really?? How come the US is calling the invasion of iraq "operation freedom" then???? They say they want the iraqi people to have democracy and want to free the iraqi people.....how come they don't invade saudi arabia as well???? Don't they want the saudi people to have democracy just like the iraqi people??? Because they are more interested in oil money than helping the average saudi citizen. Remember the majority of the islamic countries do not cut off peoples hands and heads off...saudi is an exception...the us still does business with them. ---"Besides, US is not telling saudis to follow islam. the "friendship" is for oil, not for islam. US actually would be happy if saudis give up islam." Why doesn't the US stop doing business with saudi then??? You yourself have said all countries should stop buying oil from saudi and stop supporting their government but the US does exactly opposite of that. If the friendship is for oil only...then they have chosen to ignore the fact that the saudi government is a brutal regime...so they value oil more than religion???..that is not good dharma. A lot of the oil money in saudi arabia goes to support terrorism...and the us still buys oil from them. Because if it were upto me I would never buy oil from saudi arabia if I knew my money that I was paying them was going to fund terrorism....but the US does not think the same way.

Firstly a punishment should be as severe as its crime...not more than its crime. Secondly what if an innocent person is killed acciddntally?? The karma for that will not only be on the person commiting the execution, but also on the people supporting the act. Thats the problem with the deat penalty in the US today,a lot of innocent people have also been killed along with the guilty. The bad karma for that will be on the people commiting the execution. "that is per korna and hadith. they do not listen to anything else than that bookd. those who live there hae chosen islam. so theyget what they believe and enforce on others." Thats a very wrong statement you have made, a lot of saudis don't like having their hands and legs cut off, but they cannot do anything about it... since the saudi dictatorship is so powerful because of the american backing and funding they get. << is it working??? >> no muslim has raised that question. so why you or i ask it? YEs a lot of have people have asked that question in saudi arabia itself....they get put in prison or executed for asking that question. Those people cannot rise up against their own government because the united states financialy supports an islamic extreemist country like saudi arabia.

Does anyone know how to pronounce this mantra in sanskrit....it is a bit confusing when written in english for eg. how is laxmi racha gachha pronounced? is racha the same as raksha????? or is it rachha? Om Shreem Hreem Kleem Shreem Laxmi Racha Gachha Mama Mandire Tishtha-Tishtha Swaha thanks

---if a hindu does not know hinduism well, and if some one invades his home, he still has first duty to throw the invader out or even kill him if necessary. you cannot say, "wait, first learn hinduism well before throwing out the invader."---- YEs but one of the reason a lot of hindus tolerate the practices of the asuras is because they don't think that there is anything wrong with them. That can only be corrected through the knowledge of hinduism. To fight the invaders one has to first have pride in his religion...that only comes form the study of hinduism. Muslim invaders have always had pride in their religion thats why they have succeded....their pride and faith is their weapon...if hindus don't learn about hinduism how will they have pride in their religion? We need a weapon too.... Pride cannot be artificially created. "muslim soldiers always have gone into battles without any knowledge of dharma" YEs but they have always thought that they were doing the work of god, and they have had complete faith and belief in what they were doing. We have to first instill faith and purpose in our soldiers first. Let me give you a simple example....krishna said to fight adharma...adharma includes eating meat/beef, drinking alchohol, selfishly hurting others.,......Now how can we tell our hindu brothers that we must fight these asura muslims because they lead a life of adharma when a lot of hindus themselves eat meat/drink alchohol and are selfish??...they don't see anything wrong with what they are doing....BUt if we teach them the hindu way and show them that what they are doing is wrong then they will be more willing to fight. This is just a small example there are many more issues that can be taught to other hindus.