Purpose of History : An attempt to have a Hindu perspective

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

I have been wondering the purpose History and if it is important to study history at all. This thought has been long brooding in my mind. It started with one of my many interactions with Shri. Parag Tope ji (Operation Red Lotus : 1857 - A must read book by every Hindu) decade ago. Topic started with his take on Baizabai Shinde and her role in 1857 war of independence. Goes to role of house of Amber (Kachwaha) and their role in Hindu history. So on and so forth. The recent foolishness of one comment in the court by one of the judges about descendants of Shri Raama etc made it fresh in my mind. It has to do with Rajiv Malhotra's term "History centrism". Indian religions aren't history centric while Abrahmic religions are dominantly so.

Problem is in India where memories run deep, some past mis-action by some group is always used to build a case against them. 

Example 1 : Holkar screwed up on Panipat (Whole Najib affair, relative inactivity on right flank perhaps with an understanding with Najib) is a fact. Now Holkar is also Dhangar and a Hindu hero. So one who criticizes Holkar, earns wrath of not just Dhangar community, but Hindutvavaadi people too - for Malharrao Holkar was one of the chief architects in almost all of the Bajirao's later and famous campaigns and also of the famous Attock campaign. This is just an example. Pure history was always kept among “classes”. We called them brahmins-kshatriyas - but mostly brahmins. And not all brahmins. Those who were associated with some royal court/archive or some gurukul. 

Now does this mean that public should be kept ignorant? No. 

Should they be taught of history so that they don’t repeat mistakes? Yes 

Do we need to teach them history as it is? Are events important or are the lessons important? Lessons in my opinion.

So - a romanticized history that comes through folklore for memory (which is polished and good where rough edges are rounded). A construct like panchatantra where fox lion and hyena had a battle and a fox made deal with hyena calling him a “manasputra” thereby leading to defeat of the lions is easy to build. When we replace actual historical names with animals, we dehumanize them (in a positive way) and then this history doesn't have the baggage of name-surname-caste-clan-region (that we wish not to push away).

Example 2 : Ahilyabai was a great hero. She did monumental job at temple revival etc. But most of that work was done by evading taxes (many letters by Madhavrao available which threatens her to pay up or else...). We know her temple rebuilding is monumental work for Hindu civilization. But those us who have read history also know how finances were a problem for Marathas till the very end. If finances were good and they had enough resources (which is doable in a very rich country like India if people do not evade taxes), Marathas wouldn’t have folded so easily.

Example 3 : My own ancestors evaded taxes by building Ram temples here and there because Raghuji Bhosale of Nagpur was a Rambhakt and would let the money spent on Ram temples go. So that was the loophole extracted by his subordinates (like my ancestors) to keep larger chunk of wealth.

So is temple-building more important or paying up taxes regularly to a Hindu state so that they can do warfare and liberate India (more of it and more efficiently) more important? Karma is mysterious. It always comes to bite you. All of us contributed towards the downfall of Hindavi svarajya by our petty actions. Just as all of us contributed in some capacity to build it and liberate India.

Question is : is it necessary to teach all this to public?

I am appreciating varNa-vyavasthaa more and more. I see the point. It is difficult (nay almost impossible) to implement it in these changed times. So not advocating it. But I begun seeing its point for past few years

There is a fascinating story of "past-birth" of Shivaji and Aurangzeb in "Chitnis Bakhar" written by Malharrao Chitnis (Grandson of Balaji Aavji - the secretary of Shivaji Maharaj and son of famous "Khando Ballal" - the bodyguard of Sambhaji Maharaj). It is a fascinating story which underlines how a "Hindu" views at its past and smooths the rough edges. 

In that story - in earlier birth, both Shivaji and Aurangzeb were devotees of Mahadeva and were doing tapasyaa in some cave in Himalaya. Mahadev got pleased and told them to ask for any boon. If my memory serves me correctly, A'zeb asked for power and Shivaji asked for dharma. So since the yuga that was to come was of Mlechha ascendancy, A'zeb was born in Mlechha kula while Shivaji was born in dharmik clan. Aurangzeb got power and Shivaji got to establish dharma on this earth - thus boon given to both by Shankara fructified.

I find this backstory very fascinating and very Hindu in character. If left alone, it would have smoothed and rounded all the rough edges of memory that Hindus have for Muslim atrocities. This is written when Muslims were defeated conclusively and Hindus emerged victorious after 27 year war. So actual physical defeat was ensured. There would be little threat from Muslims regaining the ascendancy in India after Marathas emerged victorious and Bajirao stormed North India. So from the perspective of Malharrao Chitnis, Hindu victory was done and dusted. And he is writing this chronicle from the perspective of a victor - Like Frodo writing memoirs of war of the ring after final victory from his perspective). 

But unlike accounts of Khafi Khan and other contemporary Muslim sources (& Xian sources), Hindu chronicles "did not rub it in". He is quite magnanimous in my opinion, to think of even Aurangzeb (who had brutally murdered a Hindu Chhatrapati, killed and persecuted millions of Hindus, desecrated their temples - just couple of decades ago, as a Shiva-bhakta who is simply living off his karma-phala (boon from Shiva). I find this very profound.

I feel there is sense of a profound wisdom in Hindu Historiography - and it is used by Indologists to criticize Hindus : That Hindus do not maintain historical records. The first real "Hindu historical record" that passes the test of modern Indologists is Kalhana's RaajatarangiNi. Before that Deepavamsha and Mahaavamsha are Buddhist historical records during Ashoka's time which pass Indological test. No "aastika" record before Kalhana passes this western test of being an "authentic history". I am proud of this wisdom by Aastikas.

Records like these (which pass modern Indological or Historiographical tests as "authentic history") sets the narrative in stone. It cannot be altered by anyone without perpetual misgivings. It works in west where society is already broken and state has assumed the role of God (no family, clan, caste etc is strong enough to be an alternate support system for individual)

In India, caste-clan-family is very much alive and thriving. It is anathema to Indian setting. It is not that Hindus (or aastikas) did not know how to keep historical records. 

But they were wise enough not to make it publicly available (in all its grey shades) and make the narrative set in stone. Instead they created stories like Panchatantra, Hitopadesha, Vikram-vetala etc to pass on important historical lessons that MUST be passed on to generations and masses. A quick criticism of this. Same argument is also given by Romila Thapar types to whitewash Islamic atrocities in history for ensuring communal harmony. They too smoothen the rough edges of Islamic history. However this is fundamentally different from Hindu approach. I guess there are phases of history where all the linens are washed out in open for everyone to see. We are in that phase.

In the end it all boils down to choosing a side, doesn't it?

Finer details - are irrelevant for real purpose.

The real purpose is - sustenance of "dharma".

Shri Raam....

Deracination of Shuddhi-understanding by Hindus

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

The incomplete understanding of Dharma ,by even those who are genuinely dharma-rakshaks is one of the glaring problems that Dharmik people of Indian origin are facing. Here is tweet-series dealing with insufficiencies of Shuddhi Ritual. We need a new vidhi and a new rationale for efficient gharwaapsi of Indian muslims which has to be in sync with Karma-Siddhanta.

Deracination of Dharma from Hindu minds - Principal reason for Hindu suffering.

Citizenship of Nation, State and/or Nation-State : A Hindu dharmik perspective

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Background article to read to understand the "bhumika" of this one - Critique on Savarkar's ideas - Hindutva in proper perspective

A quote from linked article for the convenience of gentle readers which forms the back-bone of this article. 

The original definition from Savarkar's "Hindutva", for the consideration of reader, goes like this - 

आसिन्धु सिन्धु पर्यन्ता यस्य भारत भूमिकाः
पितृभूः पुण्यभुः च एव, स वै हिन्दुरीति स्मृतः 
One who considers this land from Indus to southern ocean (poetic way of saying entire Indian subcontinent, no need to take it literally) as "India" and regards this country as  his "pitRu bhumi" (land of forefathers) and Punya-bhumi (difficult to translate this one), he is "Hindu" 

India is my Pitrubhumi (Land of Pitaras - forefathers). All the places, rivers, mountains which I consider valuable and am ideologically and emotionally attached to, are in Indian subcontinent. Hence, India is my Pitrubhumi and Punyabhumi. Julia Roberts, for example, may be a Vaishnavaite, but her pitrubhumi is somewhere else. She is dharmik, but not Hindu. Hindu and Hindutva ARE geographically confined terms. These terms "Hindu" and "Hindutva" are for denoting dharmarthik (socio-politico-economic) aspirations of ethnic Indic people. Hindutva is a subset of Dharma. Dharma is for entire humanity.

Now that the bhumika (position) is stated, I will give a context of discussion that was happening which resulted in main-body of this article. The discussion, happened on Bhaarat-rakshak forum where I frequent, centered around why "Hindutva" and "Hindu-nationalism" has such a bad PR in market of ideas in current space and time? The very identity of "Hindu" came into existence in context to abrahmic monotheistic invasions. Before that there was no such identity as "hindu" - there were adhyatma-maarga based identities like shaiva, vaishnava bauddha, jaina etc. and there were jaati and varNa based based identities. 

The very term "Hindu" came into being as a rallying umbrella term to organize and strike back at Islamism (and Christianity). So it is natural that opposition to muslims (in fact it is opposition to Islamism which on street level manifests as opposition to local muslim person) is important (and bulk) portion of what constitutes as "hindutva nationalism" or whatever other names attributed to this socio-politico-economic movement. Hindutva is India's adaptive response to nation-state based polity. If and when current global polity based on Westphalian nation-state model will collapse, so will the dharmarthik ideology of Hindutva and even the identity of "Hindu" will fade away.

Why is it spoken in pejorative sense? Simple - it is a response which other contemporary ancient and medieval non-abrahmic civilizations have failed to develop against nation-state which preserves the core within; thereby preventing complete digestion of everything that Indian civilization stands for and means. Its a hindrance for those forces which would like to digest us. Hence hatred.

This position when state was responded by following argument.

XXX says that the terms ("Hindu" and "nationalism") are not owned by Indians and the owners are doing what they want. You are saying that the term Hindu was coined specifically as a reaction to invaders. In XXX's viewpoint "hindu nationalist" is pejorative because others choose to describe in in whatever way they like. But according to you, Hindu nationalism is anti-Muslim/Christian and this corresponds, for example, to Wendy Doniger's viewpoint.  

The implication from both meanings is that you cannot be a Hindu and a nationalist without admitting to be anti-minority. For example we dissect statements from Muslims and ask if they say "I am an Indian first" or whether they say "I am a Muslim first". A similar choice is being offered to the Hindu if he says that he is Hindu first, then he is anti-minority. He has to say "I am Indian" first unless he does not object to the anti-minority tag. 

In other words, for Indians, nationalism has to come in different flavors for different people. But the choice of being Hindu and nationalist is removed for all Hindus unless they admit to being anti-minority.

Following is my response to this argument which will form the main body of this article. It happened few weeks ago. I waited to think it through before considering this opinion fit to be published.

First, when we say "nationalism" or "nationalist" or "Hindu-nationalist" etc, we have to ask one basic question - what is this "nation" thingy? Does nation here means Republic of India - a Westphalian nation-state which emerged on world-stage on 26th January 1950? Or do we mean raashtra of Bhaarata which Vedas proclaim पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra). 

They very construct of Westphalian nation-state is very illogical according to me. It was designed to stop wars from ravaging Europe, but in fact, Westphalian nation-state has ravaged Europe much more. In fact, lasting peace of in Europe was achieved when post WW2, when the seeds of European Union were sowed and after conclusion of Yugoslavian war and fall of Berlin war, we now have a peace in Europe which seems to be organic, sustainable and lasting. Last 70 years have been most peaceful for Europe and this they achieved by moving away from Westphalian nation-state's rigidity.

However while they did this post WW2, they already had shaped the world in their image. Hence creation of nation-states all over the world. 

Now this construct is diametrically opposed to very nature of human societies to naturally expand and shrink in geography. What is a citizen? All German citizens are equal, as per German constitution - irrespective of his race, religion, creed and background. In exchange, all German citizens are expected to owe allegiance to Germany (which actually refers to a book with words "German constitution" written on its cover). While this is technical expectation from a German citizen, the expectations of ethnic Germans are however very human and basal - all German citizens should consider themselves German. But an Arab immigrant or a Pakistani or for that matter an Indian origin person may not feel that way. He has German passport alright, but he openly says he does not feel German and will never be a German. Thus the very construct is fundamentally flawed which will soon reveal itself in ugly manner in peaceful Europe. 

More or less, this is the fate of all other so called "nation-states". The problem of "citizen" is going to play havoc in today's globalized world.

In dharmik civilization, raashtra is separate from raajya which is also separate from desha.  Dharma is not limited to geography (desha) of Indian subcontinent. Dharma is universal. Raashtra in our narrative is linked with geography (desha) - hence the Rigvedik Richa that I quoted above. Our narrative acknowledges existence of other raashtras (varshas) on earth. The varsha or raashtra which we live in is called "bhaarat-varsha". 

Raajya or state, on the other hand, is not linked with raashtra, nor necessarily with desha. The raajyas of Saatavaahana-VaakaaTaka-chaalukya-raashTrakuTa-Kakatiya-hoysaala-yaadava-vijaynagar-marathas-maharashtra/AP/Karnataka - all have existed on same "desha", belong to same "raashtra" (which ran as per dictats of dharma), but were/are vastly different "Raajyas". That is they existed in same space and belonged to same raashtra but at different times. On the other hand, raajyas of Magadha and Chola were located in different space within same desha (i.e. Indian subcontinent) and same raashtra (Bhaarat-varsha) at same and different times. Thus we see raajya not being rigidly interlinked with geography and identity in same and different space and times.

Thus raashtra-raajya-desha segregation and interlink in dharmik (in post islamic times, Hindu) polity is understood and inherent. This is not the case in Abrahmic polity and its successor Westphalian nation-state based polity. 

In Abrahmic polity, deen and daulat (religion and state) cannot be separated. In post renaissance Westphalian model, while they forcefully separated state from religion to an extent, but in the process they linked it to geography and identity (vaguely - rashtra/nation). To make things complicated, they froze the borders. Thus giving rise to modern "nation-states".

This is so much different from our way of organizing the polity. But we were overcome post 1805 and our attempt to revert back to pre-1805 polity in 1857 was crushed by English. Thus we were forced to swallow this pill of reformatting our identity (raashtra), our way of organizing polity (raajya) and our desha (geography in form of partition) in British occupation. This was tried all over the world. 

Islamic world has Quran which preserves its "deen-daulat" model based on Sharia and since it is word of God (same god as European Christians worship), it was safeguarded. Look what happened to non-abrahmic cultures and their world-view. Look at China - they have given it up (or so it seems, I hope they too have preserved the core in some form) that. 

We too had to adapt to this. The era of nation-state had arrived and no matter how conflicting it was to our understanding, we had to find a way to preserve our core while preventing further loss of raashtra-raaajya-desha and dharma. This is where the theory of Hindutva arose. 

It has its origins in Hindavi-swarajya of MaraThas (which was an Indian or Indic socio-political response to Islamism) which in turn had origins in Vijaynagara movement and early Rajputs. Hindavi swaraya of Marathas (for sake of simplicity, we must understand that all non-islamic, non-christian political entities which existed in India in past 1000 years are "hindavi swarajya") was a socio-politico-economic rebellion of those native brown skinned Indians against Islamism and its socio-politico-economic dominance on people and geography of India. In other words, it was an Indian dharmaarthik response to Islamism.

Now as far as the word "Hindu" goes, as I said earlier, it was a collective umbrella term for all, Indian origin people following Indian any of adhyatmik paths. So it has an ethnic undertones to it. As I said previously, Julia Roberts is a VaishNava woman, but she is not a Hindu. On the other hand, APJ Abdul Kalam is a Hindu following Islam as his personal adhyatma maarga. 

The term 'Hindu' has always been a socio-judicio-politico-economic (dharmaarthik) term. British fused it with alien concept of "religion" and gave this term "religions" connotations thus giving rise to the nebulous "Hinduism". I do not even understand what religion means anymore - thankfully. I have managed to detoxify myself to some extent. 

So, in summary, we have terms Hindu and Hindutva. Hindu is an identity based term (raashtra) and Hindutva is dharmaarthik theory which deals with Hindu-polity in era of nation-state. 

Imagine for a while a time in distant future when this very edifice of nation-state has collapsed. Hindutva will collapse with it. It is a survival adaptation of Hindus. After few years/decades of collapse of Hindutva, when the very concept of "religion" collapses (or becomes irrelevant or non-interfering), the term "hindu" too will drop off. 

This has preserved our way of life in past 1000 years. Without this, in my opinion, dharma would have been relegated to museums like Zoroastrians and Egyptians. And since this adaptation, although uncomfortable, is a protective shield it is hated by those who wish to homogenize the world. 

Hence all this conflict. 

Shubham astu!!!

The Hindu good-news according to NaMo - Reinvoking Vedik and Ashokan Dharmavijayee streak among Indians.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Background reading - 

"कृण्वन्तो विश्वं आर्यं " - Civilize the world 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NaMo is bringing in a much needed "Evangelical streak" among Hindus. This should translate into full-fledged Hindu evangelism. Will be useful in the process of assimilation in future. Those in their 20s, 30s and 40s should remember this streak and sharpen it.. Bhaaratmata is going to need it 2-3 decades from today.

A legend tells us that having conquered Kalinga, a certain king which is referred to as Devaanaam Priya Raja Priyadarshi (Beloved of devas, king Priyadarshi), whom modern historians equate with Ashoka Maurya,  grandson of emperor Chandragupta Maurya, looked at the battlefield filled with remorse and proclaimed that he shall henceforth conquer the world by the means of Dharma-vijaya and not shastra-vijaya. Dharmavijaya is beautiful Indian counter-word for western word "Evangelism". It does not have the baggage of evangelism, yet captures the zeal to spread and convert aptly. I will henceforth call Hindu-missionaries as "Dharmavijayee" people. 

He then trained and sent Indian missionaries all over the world which spread Indian civilizational influence to distant lands. The wheel of Buddha's dharma started rotating throughout Asia. The real catalysts of this revolutionary spread of Hindu soft-power were traders, monks, roaming brahmins and Bhikshuks who were so convinced about their belief in superiority of "Dharma" that the original Vaidik zeal of Krinvanto Vishwam Aaryam received a shot in arm. 

Various darshanas in India kept on competing with each other on ideological domain to capture the imagination and following of as many people as possible. This continuous churning which is characteristic of Hindu civilization gave rise to stalwart names like Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti, Ashwaghosha, Adi Shankara, Kalidasa, Ramanuja and many many others in all spheres of life from engineering to poetry, from warfare to philosophy and sciences. While Ashoka himself temporarily paralyzed himself and India due to overemphasis on Ahimsa in political domain, the subsequent Indian kings corrected this course time and again and maintained a fine balance between Shastra-vijaya (victory by arms) and Dharmavijaya (victory by soft-power). If we follow the trajectory of Sungas, Guptas, Pratiharas, Rashtrakutas, Cholas etc, a long spell of dharmavijaya followed after every short-spell of shastravijaya. 

The agents of Dharma-vijaya, were able to function and convince others due one simple and fundamental fact - They were living as per "dharma", they were protected dharma and were in turn being protected by dharma, they were tasting the fruits of leading a dharmik lifestyle and thus were convinced (by comparing adhaarmik civilizations through the 4-pramana based tarkashastra) that following dharma will lead to the ultimate happiness of mankind. In fact, it is their ishwara-pradatta karma (godgiven duty) to spread dharma. Hence they even chose to call one of their most prominent and popular dharmashastras as "Maanav-dharmashastra" (The ethics for mankind).

The drive and the qualities described in above paragraph are essential in every civilization hoping to perform a dharma digvijaya. The invasions of past thousand years have eroded this mentality among the Hindus. It is true that post independence, many dvaita-vedantin sects have been successfully propagating and "Evangelizing" their sampradaaya (ISKCON, for example), but this is in very limited context of a small-subset of total moksha-purushartha repertoir which in itself is a quarter of overall purushartha-ashrama based dharmik civilization. For dharmavijaya to show its effect, the thrust has to be on all four purusharthas and all four ashramas from all four Varnas of society. For this to show its effect, people have to have an example, a real experience of living in a dharmik system and leading a principled, prosperous and peaceful lives. 

Strange things started happening in Indian society since Indira Gandhi imposed internal emergency in 1975, thus breaking a social-contract which Indians had with Indian National Congress. The civilization struck back, thus giving vital sanjeevani to a long suppressed Dharmik  revivalist movement within the society which is now popularly referred to as Hindutva. Throughout the decades of 80s and 90s, this movement grew stronger, although it was severely diluted in my opinion by fixating it on a material object, that is Ramjanmabhumi temple of Ayodhya. The rise of Narendra Modi is against this backdrop. 

The man belongs to an institution which in turn belongs to an ideology which invokes and tries to work by the very Rigvedic and Ashokan concepts of Krinvanto Vishwam Aaryam OR Dharmavijaya. It has the necessary discipline, pride and mechanisms to train the dharmavijaya agents. What Narendra Modi has done is given some tangible data and evidence to these agents to go out and spread the good news of Dharma among macaulayputras and Nehruvians and common people. Today we see various people arguing with other people who oppose Narendra Modi out of either ignorance about Indian civilization OR hatred towards Indian civilization - both instilled in the minds due to 6 decades of three-pronged Nehruvian education (which comprises of Nehruvian socialism, secularism and westernism).  These dharmavijayi people argue and try to "convert" the Nehruvians and fence-sitters with similar missionary-like zeal. This sort of arguments stem from inherent pride which the dharmavijayins have in their civilization and way of life which is buttressed by actual workable material growth models which Modi has demonstrated. 

It is not about Modi, the individual. It is about valuable data that he has provided to dharmavijayi people to go out and evangelize and convert people to lead their life under all-encompassing umbrella of Dharma (Hindutva is just a fashionable name of this fundamental Indian characteristic). The critics of this idea has expressed their reservations about this thesis by saying that this is only a temporary swell in the enthusiasm of Hindus which can be easily cauterized by engineering an electoral loss. Yes, in case there is electoral loss of BJP in loksabha elections, there will be some depression among dharmavijayee people. But this will not reflect in states of India which are becoming increasingly prosperous and demanding increasing autonomy to operate and make their own decisions. The very fact that the number of dharmavijayee people and their drive and zeal only went on increasing in past 6-7 years (that is in spite of electoral loss of 2009), is evidence this is not a superficial change in Hindu society. 

In many ways, Narendra Modi is like Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of USA. He represents a fundamental shift in Indian political thinking from the London based regimes of internationalist controls. But there is a catch here - One should know that Andrew Jackson actually started the process in 1833 of slow descent of USA towards Civil war 20 years later. America truly became independent from London based regimes of international controls after Lincoln won the civil war and stabilized the two coasts. The nullification crisis of 1833 was a major turning point in American history which is underrated. 


India has much to learn from USA. USA, with all its current failures, is a model for India to relearn our ancient genius. The current faults of American policy has arisen because they signed the Atlantic charter in 1941. Churchill somehow managed to sell the English dream of global empire and "Pax Americana" to Roosevelt. Anyways, post 1941 USA has very little to teach India. But the American founding fathers and some great leaders of 19th and earlier 20th century has a lot to teach. By studying them, we can actually find some missing data-points of how India would have been if we had continued on the pre-Islamic trend-line as if nothing happened.

The Mughal-British-Congress continuum of Delhi-based centralized governance on India with the coalition of small local regional satraps pandering to a small but united minorities, has induced India into a long comatose tamasik state. To shed this tamas and invoke the inherent Raajasik and Saatvik characteristics in Hindu prakriti, past decade has been instrumental. Now is the time to fan this dharmavijayee zeal among Dharmiks. 

My fellow Dhaarmik brothers and sisters, it is our duty to make this world dharmik and aarya by removing the adharma and uncivility rampant. I urge you to not only try and convert the "other" Nehruvians and adharmiks within and outside the geographical confines of India, but also to study, learn, adapt to current times and resurrect all the dharmik models of all spheres of life - from spiritual to economic, from military to political, from sociological to family-related and from individual to entire world. The rest of the world is desperately searching for sustainable solutions to lead a principled, peaceful and prosperous life. They are searching for answers and my fellow dharmik brothers, you are sitting on that treasure trove. You only have to know yourself and spread this goodnews to rest of humanity. 

That is your Dharma in this birth !!!!

Shubham astu.. 

Critique on Savarkar's ideas - Hindutva in proper perspective

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Regarding Savarkar's definition of "Who is Hindu".

The original definition from his famous "Hindutva", for the consideration of reader, goes like this - 

आसिन्धु सिन्धु पर्यन्ता यस्य भारत भूमिकाः

पितृभूः पुण्यभुः च एव, स वै हिन्दुरीति स्मृतः 

One who considers this land from Indus to southern ocean (poetic way of saying entire Indian subcontinent, no need to take it literally) as "India" and regards this country as  his "pitRu bhumi" (land of forefathers) and Punya-bhumi (difficult to translate this one), he is "Hindu"

About Fatherland - It is translation of original sanskrit word - Pitrubhumi (Land of Pitaras - forefathers). India is land of my forefathers. Ever since human being entered Indian subcontinent from Africa 1 lakh years ago, all my ancestors were from this subcontinent. So India is my pitrubhumi (Purkhon ki zameen in common hindi). All the places, rivers, mountains which I consider valuable and am ideologically and emotionally attached to, are in Indian subcontinent. Hence, India is my Punyabhumi as well. All those who share opinion with me are Hindus. 

Julia Roberts may be a Vaishnavaite, but her pitrubhumi is somewhere else. She is dharmik, but not Hindu. Tarek Fatah and some Muslims like him (many are my friends) openly and proudly say that India is their Pitrubhumi and Punyabhumi, are Hindus. In their opinion, Mecca is just a place and over reverence to a place is non-islamic. On the other hand, culturally they  are of this land and identify with Ayodhya, Kurukshetra, Ramsetu etc. They do not worship those places, but then nor do many Nirishwarvadi (non-theistic) Hindus. Whatever Subramanian Swamy said in his DNA article, is what Savarkar said in 1920s. Hindutva is Dharmarthik (socio-politico-economic) concept. It should not be made OR treated as an Adhyatmik (vaguely "spiritual") concept. 

Hindu and Hindutva ARE geographical confined terms. Hindu comes from Sindhu and means Indian. With Muslim rule, it came to be associated with Indian faiths and with British rule, it was confined to Indian aastika faiths (segregating Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and tribals). GOI continued this. But people did not. Please do not think of Hindu and Hindutva as Adhyatmik terms. They are purely geographical and hence ethnocentric terms meant for describing Hindus of India. Those who have accepted some other land as their Punyabhumi and are interested only in adhyatmik traditions of Dharma, need not pay attention to what Savarkar says. It is not applicable. 

These terms "Hindu" and "Hindutva" are for denoting dharmarthik aspirations of native brown Indic people from Indian subcontinent who consider Indian subcontinent as their native land and revered land. Hindutva is a subset of Dharma. Dharma is for entire humanity. Hindus (or the ethnic group which today is known as Hindus) are the last custodians and as well as originators of meme-complex of Dharma. 

Remembered following quote from the film Good Shepherd (a fantastic film to watch, BTW)

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the blacks, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you (WASPs) have?  

Edward Wilson: We have United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

Here "we" are "hindus". And "we" have and ought to have "India". Rest are welcome, but are just visitors. In future when this Nation-state based polity will crumble and the very concept of "Nation-state" will fade, "Hindu" tag will fade along with it and so will "Hindutva". So, in another words, Hindutva is also one of the few Indic responses to "nation-state" concept imposed upon India by Brits after 1857. 

Until nation-state exists, Hindus (brown indic people of Indian origin living in India and considering India as their native land and revered land) will have to ensure that their traditions and models (dharmik, aarthik, Kaamik and mokshik) are protected and implemented and their population well-versed with these traditions and models in geographical confines of "nation-state", that is today's "Republic of India".

I hate to speak in terms of skin color (too simplistic for my mind), but this will be the last time I will use this just to make myself and my understanding of Savarkar clear. 

Native Indic Indian people believing in integral India as their native land and revered land, are Hindus and the nation-state of India (with her establishments, institutions, constitution and outlook) should be built as per the traditions, values, customs and four-fold Purushartha models of Indic origin. This is "Swa-Tantra" (self system). And this is what Savarkar's Hindutva (or anybody else's Hindutva including RSS) demands.

Critique on some events in life of Veer Savarkar

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Following is an essay which formed a part of exchange with a dear friend in response to my previous "Narendra Modi is Savarkar Redux" post. Various issues which are typically raised while extending a critique on Savarkar are addressed in this post, as per my capability and knowledge. 

1. Regarding Savarkar's role in increasingly communal politics of 1937-1947 era.

India has faced two fold threats since her fall to central asian Muslims. One is against an open foreigner. And second against natives following foreign ideology OR carrying forward foreign interests. Turks and Pathans, Mughals and Pathans, British and Muslim League were the three iterations of these two antagonists of Dharma.

Partition of India - Part 2

INC was focusing only on British. Muslim league which represented the antagonistic aspirations of political Islam (evident from all actions of Pathan lobby since 1500s), was the elephant in the room which everyone chose to ignore (many still do). And this elephant "Islam", was singularly focused on Hindus. Savarkar and Mahasabha was the only Indic voice which spoke in favor of Hindus. 

I do not know how to remain secular when Moplah riots are happening (similar to recent Assam riots) and 100,000 Hindus were killed. We can of course disagree but, wait until you see the buildup of 1947 like conditions in India. I assume you do not live here (I am sorry for this assumption, but it is important one since we are talking on purely aarthik issues, not dharmik or adhyatmik issues). If you visit many parts of country, you will witness a buildup. On ground, you will be surprised to see Hindus support the thoughts of Savarkar, even if they do not know his name. A very harsh Greeshma Ritu is coming. 1947 like scenario is slowly building up in India. You will hear similar voice from other regions of India (or may be same region), as years progress. 

Regarding Savarkar's role in elimination of caste-discrimination

Regarding Savarkar's efforts on eliminating Jaati discrimination and jaati pyramid, you need to read a lot. Savarkar consistently worked on it on grassroot level for more than 4 decades. Entire Ratnagiri district and parts of Konkan were completely free of untouchability (noted by Ambedkar himself) before Ambedkar burnt manusmriti. And all this when he was under arrest in Ratnagiri. This work continued until his death. He performed Upanayana on thousands of ex-untouchable children, organized sahabhojans, opened temples with dalit priests (properly trained), organized gatherings for women, gave scholarships to dalit students. It is not a red herring, but one of the essential aspects of Savarkar's life. 

Regarding Mahatma Gandhi Assassination

Regarding MKG, what killed MKG were his own Karma helped by nelson's eye of Brit-INC establishment towards his security. Savarkar was staunch critic of Gandhi since India House days (MKG was much senior to Savarkar then). Savarkar's Hindutva criticizes MKG's inaction garbed under dharmik terms of Satya and Ahimsa. And it does so in harsh manner. This is not the proof to attribute the guilt of MKG's murder (and planning) to Savarkar. MKG's murder was an operation of and by Godse et al. Godse was also RSS swayamsevak at a time. Apte was a recruiter for RAF. Savarkar had supported Hindu recruitment in army (and was derided by INC as recruit-veer). An ideology does not kill a person.  It is men who kill men. Ideology kills Ideology. So it is unfair to blame Hindutva for murder of Gandhi. 

Regarding Savarkar being "reactionary" and not "original" in his ideas, approach and actions


Finally, about Savarkar (and Hindutva) being reactionary, lacking in original ideas - Just because a voice is reactionary, does not belittle its importance.  One may shy away from his name because it has been made a hot potato, but that makes one a hypocrite. But fact of the matter is that Hindu Mahasabha  (or something similar) will rise again, if state of affairs continue. You are right that HMS like organizations are reactionary. Because dharma, in its nature, is accommodating. But there are levels of accommodation, we are prepared to accept. And when accommodation transforms into bootlicking or compromise, there will rise a reactionary voice (followed by a fist) which will at least try and bring senses to society.

Reactions are as strong and important as actions. Entire movement of Marathas and later Sikhs was reactionary throughout. "Eminent historians" have thrashed them for being "merely reactionary" and hence "lacking original ideas of governance", but that does not change the fact that India is still a Hindu majority because of that "reaction". Original ideas was not their job. Their job was to free India using whatever means available and dilapidated society ready to crumble. Same is the case with Vijaynagar (better manifestation, but equally reactionary). For implementing original idea, the previous damaging idea has to be undone. Until ground is leveled, every force (however well meaning and rich in original ideas) has to focus its energies on leveling. Savarkar's case (along with that of HMS) is similar. He had to attempt mobilizing a society which was being nicely and sequentially sedated, at short notice against a superior and well-entrenched enemy.

The Tale of Two Butchers - A lesson on Satya and Ahimsa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Some times, best of the lessons are learnt and taught, not in classrooms but in times and places where the distinction between life and death, is murkiest. Consider the example of Bhagvad Geeta - Who would have thought that the sublime song would be sung on the battlefield which saw death of forty lakh soldiers? Yet it did. This post today, will recount a tale of two such unlikely teachers who taught the characters in the story (and us, the readers and onlookers) the quintessential lesson of Dharma and Duty. 

Tale One - Dharma Vyadha (धर्मव्याध) - From Mahabharata (Book three, chapters 206-216)

As a typical Indian story begins, once upon a time there was a poor Brahmin named "Kaushika". He learnt all that was to learn from Vedas and decided to do a "Tapas" to sharpen his Yogic prowess and gain knowledge and Siddhis. He began his Tapas. Years passed by. The glow of the penance started showing on his face and his very aura started becoming radiant. One day, while he was meditating under a tree, his concentration was disturbed when a sparrow started making noise while trying to build a nest on the tree. Angry, Kaushika glanced at the sparrow causing nuisance and lo! sparrow turned to ashes that very instant. 

Pleased by his progress, he went to a town nearby to ask for Bhiksha. While asking for alms on one door, the lady of the house took long time to answer his call and give the alms. This angered our Kaushika who threatened to curse the lady and burn her down with his Yogic Powers. But to his surprise, the lady replied that she was neither a crow nor a sparrow, to be burnt. Kaushika is amazed to see that an average housewife had such sophisticated Yogic powers without having to do the stringent austerities. The Lady replied that by doing one's duty, one can achieve all that is to be achieved. She redirected Kaushika to a butcher living in the city of Mithila who, according to lady, would impart knowledge unto this learned Brahmin. 

Curioser and curioser, Kaushika decides to check out this Butcher whom the lady referred to as "Dharma-Vyaadha". He reaches Mithila, tracks down the meat-shop of the said butcher and is horrified at the sight of blood and meat and death around. He gives up the expectation of gaining any knowledge, but now that he had come this far, he decides to atleast meet and talk with this butcher. The Butcher, however, guesses the intent of this brahmin and requests him to wait until his shop is closed, so that he can instruct the brahmin about the intricacies of Dharma as told by the housewife in another city. Kaushika gets second surprise of his life and his arrogance is thoroughly grounded and replaced by genuine curiosity, befitting an ideal student. 

DharmaVyaadha starts his instruction,"Oh tapasvi, I will instruct you upon the nature of Dharma and Ahimsa by my own example. I am in this business because my family has been in this business for generations. Upon careful thinking, I found out that this business suits me well. I devote all my time to ensure that my customers are satisfied with my service. Furthermore, it allows me to take care of my old parents as well as family while ability to have a decent life in this good city. Do not judge an act as good OR bad. No act is of higher OR lower stature. It is higher OR lower based on the driving force behind that act. Right action is achieved by the means of coordinated efforts in two directions - Controlling the six enemies (Kaama/Krodha/Lobha/Moha/Mada/Matsara) and strengthening Dharmik intent of the mind. Any action under influence of these six enemies is bad action. 

Ahimsaa (nonviolence) and Satya (truth) are the two main pillars of Dharma. A decision on what is truth, under difficult circumstances, should be made by choosing that course of action which would lead to highest good of all that is (Bhuta). And Ahimsa is when person wishes and acts for benefit of all keeping the true understanding of Justice (Nyaya) and virtues (GuNa)." 

Knowledge and bliss dawns upon Kaushika who thanks the Butcher and bid him farewell. Butcher gives him final lesson,"Oh learned Brahmana, in quest of mastering Vedas and acquiring Yogic Siddhis, you have neglected your duties towards your parents, your family and have become ascetic. You learned from me, but you also have to learn from the housewife who sent you here. Dharma and knowledge can be achieved perfectly by staying in the society and fulfilling all the duties and earning all the Purusharthas. You have to pay back the dues to parents, to society before you are liberated (Mukta). Quit Sannyasa, go back home, take care of your parents, start family. You have my blessing, knowledge will shine upon you."

It is both interesting and humbling that one of the finest lesson on Non-violence given to a brahmin, not by some enlightened mahatma, but by a Butcher who's occupation is to kill animals. There is an elaborate story where the butcher tells Kaushika about is past life and how Shudras and brahmins are defined. They arrive upon a conclusion that good conduct alone determines who is brahmin and who is not. And good or bad is, is determined by the bold part in quote above. Possession of qualities like Purity, Discipline and adherence to truth alone makes one a brahmin, irrespective of the caste a person is born into and not the birth.

Tale Two - The story of Gopalchandra Mukhopadhyay aka Gopal Patha

Gopal `Patha' Mukherjee, Gopal the Goat was among the most feared of Calcutta's musclemen, with 800 boys at his command. He was an emperor and they were his army. Gopal Patha he got the name because his family ran a meat shop on College Street was, at the time of partition, a protector of his community.  

When Direct Action Day unleashed communal rioting in Calcutta, Gopal Patha assembled his force. In his words, "It was a very critical time for the country. We thought if the whole area became Pakistan, there would be more torture and repression. So I called all my boys together and said it was time to retaliate. If you come to know that one murder has taken place, you commit 10 murders. That was the order to my boys.'' 

The words are uttered so softly, it takes a while for their import to sink in. Calcutta was in flames and Gopal Patha, in effect, took the opportunity to douse the city in kerosene. "It was basically duty,'' he said. "I had to help those in distress." Patha ripostes that his boys were always selective. "We only fought and killed our attackers. But why should we kill an ordinary rickshaw-wallah or hawker who happens to be a Muslim?" 

"An year later when Mahatma Gandhi came to city appealing for peace, people came with their weapons and placed them at the feet of Gandhiji. Shabbily-dressed people came with swords, daggers and country-made guns. However not me. Gandhi called me twice, but I didn't go. The third time, some local Congress leaders told me that I should at least deposit some of my arms. I went there. I saw people coming and depositing weapons which were of no use to anyone out-of-order pistols, that sort of thing. 

Then Gandhi's secretary said to me: "Gopal, why don't you surrender your arms to Gandhiji?" I replied, "With these arms I saved the women of my area, I saved the people. I will not surrender them. Where was Gandhiji during the Great Calcutta Killing? Where was he then? Even if I've used a nail to kill someone, I won't surrender even that nail.'' - click to view source of this story

I find a strange connection in these two stories. I think Gopal Patha understood the crux of Satya and Ahimsa in far better proportions than Gandhiji during those difficult times. The more I think about it, the more I realized that the words of Dharma-Vyaadha resonated in essence from words and actions of criminals and butchers like Gopalchandra Mukherjee. 

As Dharmavyadha said in first tale, it is the driving force behind the action which determines its moral position. Satya is choosing a course of action which would lead to higher good in long term of living beings in the frame of reference. And Ahimsa is acting for benefit of all with true sense of Justice and Virtues. 

What eventually happened to Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh? And What has happened to Muslims in India? This is the frame of reference to judge the higher an long-term good of humans. And this should be frame of reference while using the terms like Satya and Ahimsa in context of socio-politico-economic events happening in Indian subcontinent.

Parshuraam ki Pratiksha - Ramdhaari Singh "Dinkar"

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

हे वीर बन्धु ! दायी है कौन विपद का ?

हम दोषी किसको कहें तुम्हारे वध का ?

यह गहन प्रश्न; कैसे रहस्य समझायें ?

दस-बीस अधिक हों तो हम नाम गिनायें।

पर, कदम-कदम पर यहाँ खड़ा पातक है,

हर तरफ लगाये घात खड़ा घातक है।

घातक है, जो देवता-सदृश दिखता है,

लेकिन, कमरे में गलत हुक्म लिखता है,

जिस पापी को गुण नहीं; गोत्र प्यारा है,

समझो, उसने ही हमें यहाँ मारा है।

जो सत्य जान कर भी न सत्य कहता है,

या किसी लोभ के विवश मूक रहता है,

उस कुटिल राजतन्त्री कदर्य को धिक् है,

यह मूक सत्यहन्ता कम नहीं वधिक है।

चोरों के हैं जो हितू, ठगों के बल हैं,

जिनके प्रताप से पलते पाप सकल हैं,

जो छल-प्रपंच, सब को प्रश्रय देते हैं,

या चाटुकार जन से सेवा लेते हैं;

यह पाप उन्हीं का हमको मार गया है,

भारत अपने घर में ही हार गया है।

है कौन यहाँ, कारण जो नहीं विपद् का ?

किस पर जिम्मा है नहीं हमारे वध का ?

जो चरम पाप है, हमें उसी की लत है,

दैहिक बल को रहता यह देश ग़लत है।

नेता निमग्न दिन-रात शान्ति-चिन्तन में,

कवि-कलाकार ऊपर उड़ रहे गगन में।

यज्ञाग्नि हिन्द में समिध नहीं पाती है,

पौरुष की ज्वाला रोज बुझी जाती है।

ओ बदनसीब अन्धो ! कमजोर अभागो ?

अब भी तो खोलो नयन, नींद से जागो।

वह अघी, बाहुबल का जो अपलापी है,

जिसकी ज्वाला बुझ गयी, वही पापी है।

जब तक प्रसन्न यह अनल, सुगुण हँसते है;

है जहाँ खड्ग, सब पुण्य वहीं बसते हैं।

वीरता जहाँ पर नहीं, पुण्य का क्षय है,

वीरता जहाँ पर नहीं, स्वार्थ की जय है।

तलवार पुण्य की सखी, धर्मपालक है,

लालच पर अंकुश कठिन, लोभ-सालक है।

असि छोड़, भीरु बन जहाँ धर्म सोता है,

पातक प्रचण्डतम वहीं प्रकट होता है।

तलवारें सोतीं जहाँ बन्द म्यानों में,

किस्मतें वहाँ सड़ती है तहखानों में।

बलिवेदी पर बालियाँ-नथें चढ़ती हैं,

सोने की ईंटें, मगर, नहीं कढ़ती हैं।

पूछो कुबेर से, कब सुवर्ण वे देंगे ?

यदि आज नहीं तो सुयश और कब लेंगे ?

तूफान उठेगा, प्रलय-वाण छूटेगा,है

जहाँ स्वर्ण, बम वहीं, स्यात्, फूटेगा।

जो करें, किन्तु, कंचन यह नहीं बचेगा,

शायद, सुवर्ण पर ही संहार मचेगा।

हम पर अपने पापों का बोझ न डालें,

कह दो सब से, अपना दायित्व सँभालें।

कह दो प्रपंचकारी, कपटी, जाली से,

आलसी, अकर्मठ, काहिल, हड़ताली से,

सी लें जबान, चुपचाप काम पर जायें,

हम यहाँ रक्त, वे घर में स्वेद बहायें।

हम दें उस को विजय, हमें तुम बल दो,

दो शस्त्र और अपना संकल्प अटल दो।

हों खड़े लोग कटिबद्ध वहाँ यदि घर में,

है कौन हमें जीते जो यहाँ समर में ?

हो जहाँ कहीं भी अनय, उसे रोको रे !

जो करें पाप शशि-सूर्य, उन्हें टोको रे !

जा कहो, पुण्य यदि बढ़ा नहीं शासन में,

या आग सुलगती रही प्रजा के मन में;

तामस बढ़ता यदि गया ढकेल प्रभा को,

निर्बन्ध पन्थ यदि मिला नहीं प्रतिभा को,

रिपु नहीं, यही अन्याय हमें मारेगा,

अपने घर में ही फिर स्वदेश हारेगा ?

Dvija - Rescuing Varna from Jaati

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Thoughts continued from these previous posts.

1. India - A civilizationial state

2. Parashuraama - Metaphor bridging Varna and Caste system

3. Few thoughts on Varnashrama Dharma

4. Engineered language of Sanskrit

My Priya Bandhujan,

Upanishad Ganga has begun churning minds. Here is a snapshot of this ongoing manthana in my mind after watching the episode of Chanakya and Varna-Vyavastha. More than the episode itself, this bharatvaakya of the episode had a lasting impact.

जन्मना जायते शूद्रः. संस्कारात् द्विजं उच्यते |

वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः| स्कंदपुराण ६.२३९.३१

Everyone is Shudra by birth. With Sanskaras (the system of 16 sanskaras in dharma) makes a person "Dvija". Mastering Vedas (knowledge) makes one "Vipra". One becomes a "Brahmana" as he attains "Brahma-Jnana".

applying modern context - 

Everyone is Shudra by birth. After enrolling in school (Upanayana sanskara) and graduation (Samaavartana) one becomes Dvija (twice born). After becoming a "master" of a particular stream of knowledge, one becomes a "Vipra". And after attaining "Brahma-Jnaana" one becomes Brahmana.

If one looks at most of the Smriti verses dealing with "dharmaarthik" theories pertaining to Purushaartha-trayi (Dharma-artha-kaama i.e. politics and economy, jurisprudence, personal lifestyle), the most frequent term used is "Dvija". 

Dvija is one who has initiated his formal education in an institution which is recognized by sociopolity of given space and time. Initiation of education is marked by Upanayana Sanskaara (admission to primary school in modern context) and Samaavartana sanskaara (graduation - HSC OR Bachelor's degree). All scriptures are unanimous at giving these two sanskaras to three varnas. In modern context, we have amended it to include all 4 Varnas (a welcome decision). 

In days of current dharma-shaastra (constitution of India and Hindu civil code suite), all those who have completed formal education up to at the least HSC and at the most Bachelor's level is a "Dvija". 

As far as Brahmanas are concerned, well, that is subjective. But all know such Brahmanas in and around our lives and times. That is "Adhyatmika" aspect and falls outside the scope of my capability and experience. Hence I respectfully tiptoe and desist speaking about it, until I have credible "Pratyaksha Pramaana".

Those who choose to specialize and become authorities in a particular field of knowledge (PhD, Post-Doctoral researcher, associate/assistant/ full professor, having published the fruits of his/her deliberations in a peer-reviewed platform) can be called as a "Vipra" (vip + ra - vaguely translated as praiseworthy brightness). In all these, categories, a person is expected to live on donations by parents, society, King and Vaishyas. And even in modern times, these guys do live off the donations (we call is grants). Ironically, the fact that most of our "vipras" now a days are busy applying for grants here and there, instead of spreading their luminescence (research), shows that this system too has begun its decline and will shed and evolve into something else shortly. 

In none of the above categories, does (rather SHOULD) one really care about "Jaati". One beautiful sentence from TV series Upanishad ganga - 

जो सत्य कह सके, सत्य सून सके, सत्य धारण कर सके, श्रेष्ठ ज्ञान का अधिकारी वही होता है   One who can speak truth, listen to truth, bear the truth, only he can attained greater knowledge.

This actually gives us platform to serially dismantle this distorted system. Jaati-System is here to stay. One has to dissociate the word "brahmana" from various jaatis like "Muhiyal", "Bhumihar", "Chitpavan", "Deshastha", "Vaidiki", "Niyogi", "Iyer", "Aiyangar", "Namboothiri" so on and so forth. All these are merely "jaatis" and should have no right to place the word "Brahmana" after them, unless they really follow the "dharma of brahmana varna". Of course, thanks to Britishers  the words Brahmana and Kshatriya are perhaps tainted permanently, we may need to find a new word which imply the meaning depicted in the opening Shloka of this post.

Varnashrama functions on ratio of Varnas in society. With onslaught of Saif-ud-Deen (sword of faith), this ratio was disturbed. The specialized Kshatriya classes of India either fell fighting OR migrated after defeat OR converted to newer faith OR retained their way of life by compromising on their Dharma and living to see next day. Same applies for other specialized classes, one of which is Brahmana Varna.

Looking logically, none of these responses are illogical and condemnable. All of us have had ancestors who compromised on Dharma and lived on (hence we exist) and some other ancestors who chose one of the other three options. 

The word "compromise" elicits a strong emotion, so does the word "selfish". But are these really "bad" words? What would one call of a "Jaati-dhaari Brahmin" (not varna), who took decisions which resulted in great troubles for some people of lower castes in his vicinity, but also preserved a rare manuscript(s) at the cost of his life, his property and even his honor from predatory hands of invader? What about those Veda-shaalas who kept the oral tradition of vedas alive, by gulping up the resources from local vaishya OR king instead of helping farmers in famine, probably by threatening him of religious excommunication and at times blackmailing the traders OR at times even legitimizing the deeds of a "Muslim ruler" committed against his fellow Hindu bretheren?

There are many such complex points in history where choices of individuals arose out of the "cost-benefit ratio" calculations being played out in his mind and he taking the decision based on his understanding of this equation and grasp over situation. In fact, this entire domain of history wherein the flame of Dharma was kept burning (at least the memory and resources required to resurrect it when time is ripe) at "ALL COSTS" is full of such instances. Hence it makes it difficult to categorize them as "good" or "bad".

Dharma sustained due to these so called compromisers. Dharma also sustained due to so called "Aakramana-Kaari". There is space-time for "compromise" and there is space-time for "Aakramana". Those who keep on compromising (or advocate doing so) in space and time of "Aakramana" are real Dhimmis. Those who advocate Aakramana in space and time of "compromising" are real "Martyrs". And both "Dhimmis" and "Martyrs" are necessary as "examples" so that the message of Dharma is delivered and wheel of Dharma starts rotating (Dharma Chakra Pravartana).

The moral of the story is, we need to dismantle this distorted understanding of varna and "brahmin" and need to rebuild the cadre by drawing and training individuals from wide spectrum of Jaatis. May be a new word, but the connection between Jaati and Brahmin should and will severe.