About

I am the ultimate and irrepressible critic, and in the words of Eric Hoffer, probably a “man of words”. I love life and all living things and therefore – hey snooping authorities, or paranoid governments! there is nothing to fear from me! I am too much of a critic to take sides blindly, and my “Guru” is Socrates. The only freedom I cherish is the freedom of my mind to think irrespective of what religions, races, or paranoia of small men demand that we all think.

There is no need to jump to conclusions about my ethnicity, or race or religion. Dikgaj is derived from the very ancient Indian language Sanskrit by conjoining two root words having Puranic and astronomical connotations but commonly used in the sense of a  “wise man” or a “seer”. The Indian subcontinent was always a fascination for me, and hence all its religions and cultures. I like India’s vibrant colours, scents, and its immense sense of humanity. By studying and preserving India I believe the world will study and preserve unique aspects of itself otherwise almost lost forever.  My interest in India has led me to learn  several of its ancient languages as well as some which were primarily used by the Islamic chroniclers. There are many individuals, not necessarily of Indian origin,  who  are quite sympathetic to and also fascinated  by the history and  culture of India.

I believe in the future, one day mankind will leave for space, and earth will then be the original homeland – the “Uhrheimat” left behind. I believe religions are “post” ideologies, they are attempts at making sense of past and immediate experience. At a very mundane level, systems that arise out of optimizing collections of interacting agents can appear to be too “complex” to be without “intelligent super design” – and this is how the concept of a supreme being comes about. In spite of my basic inability so far to accept a “super intelligent supreme supra-human authority” one aspect of Hinduism and Buddhism always attracted me – the chance to be reborn as a human being, – it is too tempting to think of the possibility of going to an unknown planet in a future lifetime, or explore space, or be a sailor on a warmer Titan!

I am against any ideological framework including religions that do not allow freedom of thought and the right of free speech. Both Christianity and Hinduism have lost this censorial power because of certain developmental components within these two faiths even from pre-modern periods that enabled protest and reform movements to form, emerge and modernize these faiths. In today’s world, I find that it is only the Islamic faith in all its major forms (frankly the Sunni a bit more than the Shia) which are absolutely a menace and danger to all that I hold as the most precious of the freedoms and birthrights of all humans – the power and right to think freely and speak freely. Islam has stubbornly refused to change, and is increasingly reviving its essentially militarist, violent, and devious methods of imposing hegemony. Christians have many “homelands”, as a result of colonial  misappropriation of the homelands of others,  but for “Hindus” and Buddhists and Jainas, the Indian subcontinent is the only undisputed homeland. Outside of India, they face subtle or not-so-subtle racism and broad hints that they should “get back where they belong”  whenever  the host populations feel insecure about their own qualifications and jobs. I have always admired my Hindu professional colleagues’  bemused and  rather philosophical tolerance of such racism.

I firmly believe that Indians should culturally unite and rise above divisions that have essentially been created or redefined with sinister aims by the colonial regimes of the Muslims as well as the British. Europeans are already realizing the costs of their violently racist and shortsighted policies that have led to a strengthening of Islamic hegemony over the world, and their economic greed may still cost them further losses. Hinduism has shown sufficient depth and flexibility  to modernize without much  objection, and  I personally would not feel threatened to  live  and think  under a modern Hindu order  but I  would be very very scared to  live under Islam, and I can understand very well  why many Hindus chose to  commit suicide  rather than survive under Muslim rule.

I do not support everything that passes for Hinduism, and have found in my researches that a lot of that stuff developed in reaction to external cultures but the modern Hindus are blamed for those “hindu” characteristics.

Non-Muslims of India, just as non-Muslims of the world, should unite to eradicate Islam as a practising philosophy to overcome this last challenge of our times to human freedom and progress. It is not my ambit to prescribe methods of doing this on a blog. Hindus and non-Muslims of India know much better than me what methods they will need to adapt, to eradicate Islam as a practised religion and embrace the ex-Muslims as their brothers and sisters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

18 Responses to “About”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

[…] and interesting for me to read, Dikgaj’s Weblog. I found an interesting statement on the about page. I personally would not feel threatened to live and think under a modern Hindu order but I would […]

Excellent blog! Interesting article and very informative! I will necessarily subscribe for this blog. http://lowsalego.com/map.html

[i]”Both Christianity and Hinduism have lost this censorial power because of certain developmental components within these two faiths even from pre-modern periods that enabled protest and reform movements to form, emerge and modernize these faiths.”[/i]
i think this comment of yours rings too hollow. You have tried to group together Christianity and Hinduism. The “loss” of “censorial” power of Christianity is a factual thing because of the reformation movement that happened in Europe. But the “censorial” power was never there in Hinduism which gave infinite freedom of thought to all schools of thought. The openness of Hinduism is an innate thing and not a product of any reformation movement as you have claimed. In case your statement was borne out of some historical analysis, I would be richer to know the same.

Historically speaking, both Christianity and Hinduism are very loose and broad categories. Strictly speaking, there are no such distinct categories. Historically Christianity as we know it now never existed – surviving schools are almost all derived from the state sponsored version of Constantine as modified by the Council of Nicaea and further adopted into the imperialist cause by the eastern Byzantine strand and Carolus Magnus of the Franks. Lost are the early Nestorians, the Gnostics, and the Coptics among the more famous. There are even speculations about the real form of the “Christian” movement as a socio-political radical one under Joseph (the “brother”) in Jerusalem and we have little to go on because of their possible complete liquidation – the completely non-critical of Romans version of Paul is what dominates. Same goes for “Hinduism” – just to give one small example would be the case of the “Barhaspatya darshan” more popularly known as “Charbaak” darshan. We have almost everything we know about it from the severe sarcasm and criticism rained on it from other “Hindu texts”. There is historical evidence of conflict between “sects”, and anecdotal references in narratives of intolerance of dissenters -for example (1) the demand by Adi Shankara that scholars who agreed to engage in debate with him, if defeated, should consent to burn themselves alive in a pyre lighted at the start of the debate for this purpose (2) Yagnabalka’s angry warning to Gargi when unable to defeat her in a philosphical argument, that she should not be “arrogant” as her head “might simply roll off onto the ground”. There was perhaps a lot of diversity and conflict within the Bharatyia schools of philosophy before the advent of Islam, and it is a matter of academic nitpicking about whether it was “Hinduism”, and whether existence of debate is proof enough of lack of censorial power (changes of regimes could accompany changes of dominant philosophy sponsored by the regime and each dominant philopshy could then claim superiority and hegemony under its state sponsor). The word “Hindu” historically does not appear before the late medieval, and by that time a lot must have changed in interaction with Islam. Loosely speaking “reform” had been going on throughout the medieval period through the various “Bhakti” movements, and we do not find such movements (with their peculiar mass mobilization techniques and features in common with the revealed traditions) before the advent of Islamic regimes. This could point an important clue as to common peculiarities in “Christianity” and “Hinduism” as they exist today – (1) under hostile politcal-military regimes the political and “national” ambitions of the elite of the subjugated is frustrated and prompts them to relax ideological hegemony (or they have lost their military power to impose such hegemony on their own people) (2) respond to any “socially tempting” feature of (or propaganda by) the ideology of the ruling hostile state power by either adopting these attractive features or “reform” those which were particularly obnoxious for the non-elite of the subjugated and imposed on them by their previous ruling elite – notice that the Bhakti cults all had a particular obsession with downplaying or eliminating “caste” – if it was a non-issue there would be no need for this obsession – all this helps the subjugated elite strategically to retain their social basis of power by holding onto “followers” (3) there is no denying of the role of “reform” in modern “Hinduism” that took place under “non-Hindu” “partially hostile” regimes – the example of anti-“Suttee” movement of Raja Rammohan Roy is pertinent, as we have documentary evidence of Roy’s hesitation in implementing a law banning the practice by the East India Comapany led government even though he had initiated the movement against it and it was Count Mayo who insisted and overrided Roy’s cautious objections. Roy’s fears were justified as there was substantial opposition with threats of violence from the groups of influential elite “Hindu” leadership in Bengal. Similar threats of physical violence were faced by Ishwarchadra Vidyasagar, when he used a verse from the Parasara Samhita to justify remarriages of widows (among several other causes for annulment of marriage with a “non-dead” husband and remarriage). There were similar oppositions to increasing the minimum age for consent and marriage from 12 fro women under reformulations of the Hindu code bill, even in the “modern” period. Such vehemently intolerant attempts at denying viewpoints sourced from within its own ancient literature, by “learned scholars” of Hinduism does not point to tolerance of “openness” during this particular phase of development of the “Hindu” (under Islamic or British Imperialism). We can try to say that these are “deshachar/lokachar” (popular practice/local/national custom) and not part of “Hinduism” proper, but then it becomes a matter of personal viewpoint and probably the beginning of “revisionism” – since more than any other “religion” “Hinduism” is defined more by its cultural implementation in the absence of a centralized authority structure, and especially so if the “keepers” of its philosophical conscience – the “priestly class” – have to fight it out within themselves with the majority opting against “reform” or tolerance of alternative viewpoints (Both Rammohan and Ishwarchandra were “hereditary Brahmins” just as their staunch opponents were).

we believe “Sarve Jana sukhino bhavanthu”
and “Bhavishyam Bhavathi Eva, Thasmath Karothi Karthavya:’

In tamil we would say,”Ellorum inputrirukka ninaippathuve allamal vaeronrariyen paraparame!’

Few ‘aspects’ of this blog can objectively be countered.
Well at least two ‘aspects’ of the secular-( Lasting from century to century ) India should, vehemently and urgently, be totally eradicated…
First, the infanticide toward young girls.
Second, the burden of the “future bride”.

Both ‘aspects’, seems to have been inherited from the Muslims and Islam…

Indeed, in the cult of Islam, until proven the contrary, 9 years old girls can be taken as bride and used as.

The muslim inheritance system, until proven the contrary, sealed the fate of the girl, the sister, the widow, the ‘future bride’…

Message to dikgaj.
( Not intented to be posted, well feel free. )
Greetings.
Would you mind as a “wise man” inform the blog community about the infanticide still perpetred in India ? Or perhaps it is just a myth ? Would you mind inform this blog community why the India “future bride” is a burden for its own family ? Or perhaps it is just a myth ? Well, a scholar as yourself, surely, has already made the links between those humiliating practises to the “still enslaved to the will of the males, the brothers, the husbands, the fathers, the uncles, the nefews, the sons…” and the verses of the invading religion ? It is not propaganda, it is facts, that it seems you want to censor. Guess i am mistaken, and that you will pinpoint the issues soon enough.
Best Regards.

No, I did not want to censor anything. I hinted at such practices in my “About” page and their possible links to the experience of Islam. We do not have any historical or narrative references to such practices before the period when Islamic armies arrive in the subcontinent. I intended to write about this in my sequence on “How Islam came to India….” – the portions concerned with social and cultural effects. Hoe to find some time soon to do this.

who are u? i wish i could come in front of u only once in my life…just one chance…. I m happily willing to giveway everything I have for this chance & after that my body may cut into pieces… BUT 1 THING I CAN ASSURE… UR SHIT EXISTANCE WOULD NOT LONGER BE IN THIS WORLD after this….

As blog policy, I have clearly stated that abusive posts without any logic, argument or restrained views, will not be published. But I am including this, as the net address from which this came indicates Middle Eastern kingdom which lies in the heartland of Islam. If the comment is indeed coming from an Islamic source, it expresses nicely the feelings expressed in the pages after pages of the Islamic chroniclers about India.

An indication perhaps that the mentality has not changed over a thousand years.

dikgaj

(1) the demand by Adi Shankara… (2) Yagnabalka’s angry warning to Gargi when unable to defeat her in a philosphical argument…

Can I have a reference for 1. Vivekananda had cited this, but I did not find a complementary reference and in case of 2. Yajnavalkya did not threaten terminating the existence of Gargi, it was more allegorical since he himself answered the question subsequently and to Gargi’s apparent(?) satisfaction.

Thanks for a great blog.

Keep it up
Wish you all success.
Its time islam should go and we should take the help of all converts as they are looking for way out.Women are the most sufferer anad victims. They should come out and look fro way out. This will hapen soon.

What about Turkey? are they modern?
What about the movements for democracy within the middle east, which have always been thwarted by the US and Europe since they don’t want precious oil to become a national commodity? What about Sufism? What about the Shiv Sena, are they modern?
Oh, and what do you mean by Islam exactly? Are you talking about Wahabbi Islam, and then extrapolating that version of Islam, including Al Qaeda and other militant Jihadist groups to stand in for all of Islam?

Turkey is divided between nationalist/atheists/leftists and a “back to Islam” movement, which appears to have grown in popularity in elections. Its the Islamic party which is in power. In all the so-called relatively “modern” states with dominant Muslim majority population like Egypt/Turkey – the Islamists groups are steadily growing in power. And the inherent trend of this Islamization manifests itself more in trying to impose the medieval Sharia on all rather than “nationalism” – as imposition of Islamic violent laws seem to be the priority. If Islam is “democratic” how could it fail to sustain “democracy” apparently undermined by US for oil, but still manage to sustain and increase the hold of Islam in these countries? Its better to read up a bit more from non-Islamic scholarship about the early origins of Sufism and the differences between its pre-islamic roots and the early forms when Islam was still weak, and the the form it took by the time Islam had turned fully imperialist. In my sequence you can see the fourth article where I briefly touch on Sufis and quote from what Sufis write about Indian Sufis – these anecdotes are never allowed to be publicized – and you can see that even Sufis find nothing wrong in deliberately hurting the “sentiments” of other “faiths”, or occupying and living off their resources, or abducting their women for personal satisfaction. The early Sufis are almost all associated with violent acts to spread their “faith” in India, and they all happen to be successful exactly at the period when there is a strong Islamic military presence nearby – start looking from Ajmer to Shah Jalal in Sylhet now in modern Bangladesh.

Does it really matter as to the fine differences of Wahabism or the three main sections within Shias etc? Here we are concerned with all these sect’s attitudes towards non-Muslims, especially those not considered “peopl of the Book”. There isn’t many points of difference in this regard – oh well small things like what to do with the captive women of the “qafir” – one allows sexual enjoyment without “temporary marriage” and the other allows sexual enjoyment “after temporary marriage” – and things like that, but no difference at all about the enjoyment bit, and about the automatic annulment of the captive woman’s marriage either if the woman happened to be married.

What’s your view of Sikhism and Sikhs? Can they stay in India, or do they have to go to?

Sikhs have never claimed that their ultimate source of faith and religious centre or loyalty lay outside the subcontinent. They do not include sanction of rape, enslavement, and forced conversion under the penalty of death, or looting and appropriation of people not belonging to their faith – as a core part of their faith. Sikhs are very much part of India.

Hi!

I really liked your blog. It contains alot of useful information! Thank you.

~Jennifer

good essay . I published part of it and also your URL at the following web page

http://myads.org/holy_places/somnath.shtml

contact me at my e-mail address and I may be able to help you.

Barry

Hi, nice to meet you !


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: