What is the message of Bhagvada-Gita?

What is the message of Bhagvada-Gita?

Though it is not within the range of a person like me, but still I have tried to take a lesson from Gita and discuss it here with you.

All of the 18 Adhyayas (Chapters) of Gita are about the disenchantment of Arjuna from War, and Shri Krishna’s exhortation of Arjuna to fight. There is a single theme in Gita, which is present, everywhere and that is the eternal fight between dharma and a dharma good and evil. Pandavas are siding with dharma, while Kauravas are siding with adharma.

Though on stake is a mere material and worldly thing, i.e., Rajya or possession of a kingdom (though it is not so trivial as a corrupt reign tyrannizes its subjects) but still that becomes a sufficient cause, for Lord Shri Krishna to exhort Arjuna to fight and kill his own kith and kin, his own blood.

Why did he exhort Arjuna to kill his own relatives for a mere worldly possession?

Why did he resort to violence and even deceit in order to fight Kauravas?

Wasn’t it immoral, illegal and not befitting the stature of Shri Krishna or good conscientious people like Arjuna to commit all this violence?

This is the reason given by today’s opportunist politicians and half-baked intellectuals regarding Ram Janmabhoomi and Krishna Janmabhoomi, that they are mere stone structures, that what if they are desecrated, broken and replaced by Mosques, God is everywhere, and Ishwar Allah tero naam, hence, what is the difference if Allah is worshipped there instead of Shri Krishna and Shri Ram. Let it be?

In the words of Sita Ram Goel, “ Hindu psyche has suffered greatly.”

Coming to the point again, then what is the purpose of Gita, what was the purpose of Shri Krishna in resorting to violence, and exhorting Arjuna to fight and to kill.

Why did he lead such disastrous was just for the sake of a kingdom.

Because on the stake, was a much greater thing than a material thing such as kingdom. No material thing could be the justification of such a great war.

On the stake was dharma. Kauravas had gained the kingdom by adharma, and if Shri Krishna had allowed them their adharmic deeds, then it would have created precedence for the posterity of the victory of adharma over dharma.

So dharma and satya were at stake in Kurukshetra, the prevention of adharma gaining victory over dharma was the purpose of Mahabharata and is fighting for dharma against dharma by any possible means and in any conditions is the message of Gita.

However, we have forgotten this message of Gita in Kali Yuga and have distorted it. We have taken ahimsa as our dharma unconditionally, even when it leads to adharmic forces defeating dharmic forces and destroying the very peace and ahimsa, which was vowed to be protected by ahimsa.

Actually this ahimsa was never our primary dharma. Our dharma was satya (truth), and our duty was to fight and protect dharma and satya from every enemy. And violence was not prohibited in this fight for satya and dharma.

Actually violence committed for ensuring peace and non-violence, but non-violence.

And a non-violence which leaves its borders unguarded, which lets adharmic forces overcome dharmic forces and lets them destroy the peace and non-violence, is not non-violence but violence.

That’s why Shri Krishna asks Arjuna in each and every chapter of Gita to pick up the weapon and fight adharma. This is the message of Gita.

But in Kali Yuga having lost the message of Shri Krishna in Gita have also lost the distinction between dharma and adharma, and also our deity to fight for dharma and adharma. That’s why we all raise mindless slogans of non-violence when adharmic forces attack and destroy our culture, our temples, our civilization. This is no, non-violence, but sheer cowardice.

At last in the words of Shri Krishna, “Arise Arjuna, pick up your weapon and fight to defeat adharma”.
So, if we want to save our civilization, then we will again have to hear the teachings of Shri Krishna.

Why did Shri Rama deceive Bali?

Why did Shri Rama deceive
Bali?

There is an episode in Ramayana in which Shri Ram deceives Bali in order to killing and ends his tyrannical and corrupt reign.

This episode has been criticized by many (mainly the modern political motley crowd of Marxists, Socialists, Communists etc.) as immoral or at least not befitting the stature of Shri Ram. In fact this episode has been the whipping boy of its opponents.

But if we will think a little on the topic then we will understand its importance.

In that era, there was a clear distinction between dharma and adharma, good and evil. Nothing stood above dharma and nothing bad amounted to adharma. There was no confusion regarding what is what is dharma and what is adharma. Adharma had to be defeated by any means. There was no compunction in using even deceit to defeat dharma, as it was considered dharmic and nyayasangat to defeat adharma by any means.

So that is the reason why Shri Ram used deceit to defeat Bali.

This episode send a clear signal to us. It exhorts us to recognize and defeat adharma by any means possible.

However, in Kali Yuga we have lost the distinction of dharma and adharma. We can no longer differentiate between dharma and adharma. We are confused by the mindless slogans raised by opportunist politicians like Secularism, sarva-dharma sambhava, and half baked thinkers.

We have accepted the half-baked socio-political idea given to us by Mr. Gandhi, without even enquiring about it. We have lost our distinguishing powers. We do not realize that under this cover of sarva-dharma sambhava, there may be lurking adharma in order to overcome dharma.

We have lost our sense of duty towards dharma. We have forgotten what Shri Rama conveyed to us by defeating Bali.

Civilizations in particular like humans are mortal. Their continued existence cannot be taken as granted. We will have to strive hard in order to save it from degeneration.

We will have to stand again with dharma, against adharma to fulfill our duty to Shri Rama.

Naipaul's views on Indian History

Naipaul’s views on Indian History and its
analysis

"How do you ignore history? But the nationalist movement, independence movement ignored it. You read the Glimpses of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru, it talks about the mythical past and then it jumps the difficult period of the invasions and conquests. So you have Chinese pilgrims coming to Bihar, Nalanda and places like that. Then somehow they don't tell you what happens, why these places are in ruin.
They never tell you why Elephanta island is in ruins or why Bhubaneswar was desecrated."
“People in India have only known tyranny. The very idea of liberty is a new idea. Particularly pathetic is the harking back to the Mughals as a time of glory. In fact the Mughals were tyrants, every one of them. They were foreign tyrants and they were proud of being foreign”.
“India has been a wounded civilization because of Islamic violence: Pakistanis know this; indeed they revel in it. It is only Indian Nehruvians like Romila Thapar who pretend that Islamic rule was benevolent. We should face facts: Islamic rule in India was at least as catastrophic as the later Christian rule. The Christians created massive poverty in what was a most prosperous country; the Muslims created a terrorized civilization out of what was the most creative culture that ever existed.”
"India was wrecked and looted, not once but repeatedly by invaders with strong religious ideas, with a hatred of the religion of the people they were conquering. People read these accounts but they do not imaginatively understand the effects of conquest by an iconoclastic religion."
"India became the great land for Muslim adventurers and the peasantry bore this on their back, they were enslaved quite literally. It just went on like this from the 11th century onwards." (source: Economic Times - www.economictimes.com).
"The millennium began with the Muslim invasions and the grinding down of the Hindu-Buddhist culture of the north. This is such a big and bad event that people still have to find polite, destiny-defying ways of speaking about it. In art books and history books, people write of the Muslims "arriving" in India, as though the Muslims came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence- the absence of Hindu monuments in the north is convincing enough. This conquest was unlike any other that had gone before. There are no Hindu records of this period. Defeated people never write their history. The victors write the history. The victors were Muslims. For people on the other side it is a period of darkness."
On Hindu militancy and India's secularity
“To say that India has a secular character is being historically unsound. Dangerous or not, Hindu militancy is a corrective to the history I have been talking about. It is a creative force and will be so. Islam can't reconcile with it.” .
On Hindu Revivalism
"India was trampled over, fought over. You had the invasions and you had the absence of a response to them. There was an absence even of the idea of a people, of a nation defending itself. Only now are people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalizing of India. The movement is now from below. It has to be dealt with. It is not enough to abuse these youths or use that fashionable word from Europe, 'fascism', There is a big, historical development going on in India." (carribeanhindu.com)
"What is happening in India is a new historical awakening....Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening."
"Indian intellectuals have a responsibility to the state and should start a debate on the Muslim psyche. To speak of Hindu fundamentalism, is a contradiction in terms, it does not exist. Hinduism is not this kind of religion. You know, there are no laws in Hinduism. And there are many forces in Hinduism.... My interest in these popular movements is due to the pride they restore to their adherents in a country ravaged by five or six centuries of brutal government by Muslim invaders. These populations, in particular the peasantry, have been so crushed, that any movement provides a certain sense of pride. The leftists who claim that that these wretched folk are fascists are wrong. It's absurd. I think that they are only reclaiming a little of their own identity. We can't discuss it using a Western vocabulary."
"I think every liberal person should extend a hand to that kind of movement from the bottom. One takes the longer view rather than the political view. There’s a great upheaval in India and if you’re interested in India, you must welcome it. "
"What is happening in India is a new, historical awakening. Gandhi used religion in a way as to marshal people for the independence cause. People who entered the independence movement did it because they felt they would earn individual merit. Only now are the people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalising of India. Because of the nature of the conquest and the nature of Hindu society such understanding had eluded Indians before." (indolink.com) On how he reacted to demolition of Babri Masjid
“Not as badly as the others did, I am afraid. The people who say that there was no temple there are missing the point. Babar, you must understand, had contempt for the country he had conquered. And his building of that mosque was an act of contempt. In Ayodhya, the construction of a mosque on a spot regarded as sacred by the conquered population was meant as an insult to an ancient idea, the idea of Ram which was two or three thousand years old.” (The Times of India, 18 July 1993). On the attire of the people who demolished Babri Masjid
“One needs to understand the passion that took them on top of the domes. The jeans and the tee shirts are superficial. The passion alone is real. You can't dismiss it. You have to try to harness it. Hitherto in India, the thinking has come from the top. What is happening now is different. The movement is from below.” (The Times of India, 18 July 1993). On the Taj Mahal
“The Taj is so wasteful, so decadent and in the end so cruel that it is painful to be there for very long.” (Outlook, 15 November 1999).
"You see, I am less interested in the Taj Mahal which is a vulgar, crude building, a display of power built on blood and bones. Everything exaggerated, everything overdone, which suggests a complete slave population. I would like to find out what was there before the Taj Mahal." (economictimes.indiatimes.com, 13 January 2003) On Islam
Naipaul says that Islam had enslaved and attempted to wipe out other cultures. "It has had a calamitous effect on converted peoples. To be converted you have to destroy your past, destroy your history. You have to stamp on it, you have to say 'my ancestral culture does not exist, it doesn't matter'." (Guardian News Service)
“It is not the unbeliever as the other person so much as the remnant of the unbeliever in one’s customs and in one’s ways of thinking. It’s this wish to destroy the past, the ancient soul, the unregenerate soul. This is the great neurosis of the converted.” (The New York Times Magazine, 28.10.2001)
“I had known Muslims all my life. But I knew little of their religion. The doctrine, or what I thought was its doctrine, didn't attract me. It didn't seem worth inquiring into; and over the years, in spite of travel, I had added little to the knowledge gathered in my Trinidad childhood. The glories of this religion were in the remote past; it has generated nothing like a Renaissance. Muslim countries, were not colonies, were despotisms; and nearly all, before oil, were poor.” (From his book Among the Believers, 1981)
On non-fundamentalist Islam
“I think it is a contradiction. It can always be called up to drown and overwhelm every movement. The idea in Islam, the most important thing, is paradise. No one can be a moderate in wishing to go to paradise. The idea of a moderate state is something cooked up by politicians looking to get a few loans here and there.” (The New York Times Magazine, 28.10.2001)
On formation of Pakistan
Naipaul considers Pakistan’s founding “extremely fortunate” for India as the “religious question would otherwise have paralysed and consumed the state”.
“The Iqbal idea that religion wasn’t a matter of conscience, that it needed a separate community and society, was a wicked and rather foolish idea.”
Naipaul calls Pakistan a “criminal” enterprise. “Here is a Muslim country which after its creation in 1947 promptly became a state of manpower exports. Lots of people came to Britain. The idea of a state for the Muslims began to undo itself very quickly.”
Naipaul’s advice to every Indian
Naipaul has advised every Indian to make a “pilgrimage” to Vijaynagar “just to see what the (Muslim) invasion of India led to. They will see a totally destroyed town.”