Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha – Piece on a global chess-board 2
by Radha Rajan on 19 Jan 2010 32 Comments

International meetings and declarations: What’s in it for Hindus on Hindu bhumi?

It was not from the people of India that India was won by Moghul or Briton, but from a small privileged class” - (Aurobindo, Bande Mataram, April 29, 1907).


Aurobindo’s perspicacious analysis of how the Hindu nation was enslaved, first by Jihadis and then by the Crusaders who co-opted a section of the privileged class to enslave us, may well apply to the small privileged class manipulating the HDAS, the highest body of Hinduism’s traditional religious leaders.


The HDAS is in very real danger of becoming a piece on the global chess-board not because any one or even a few of the mathathipathis have turned their inward-looking eyes to view foreign shores, but because “a small privileged class” has monumental ambitions to be seen by “inside and outside agencies” as being the face and voice of Hindu dharma – well educated and trained to face the modern world, engage in scholarly debates and to participate in international conferences(HDAS Resolutions, January 11, 2010)


The list of international conferences attended by the Convener of the HDAS in that capacity, and as listed at the very beginning of the resolutions passed in 2010 by the HDAS is self-explanatory -


“The members heard a report from the National Coordinator listing the conferences in the country and overseas in which the Acharya Sabha was represented either through the National Coordinator or through one of the Acharya members.”

-        Participation in a Conference in Jerusalem in February 2008 centering on scholarly exchanges with Jewish scholars for a better understanding of Hindu religious philosophy and practice. This interaction was greatly appreciated by the Jewish scholars.

-        Participation in an international conference of government and religious leaders in May 2008, called by the President of Israel.

-        Participation in an UN Conference in December 2008 at the Hague where the UN Declaration on Human Rights was re-visited; on behalf of the Acharya Sabha. Some important changes were made in the final document to describe “Religious Freedom”; this was to reflect the concerns of the Acharya Sabha and Hindu Society on the “right to religious conversion” by Abrahamic religions.

-        Participation in February 2009 in a Hindu-Buddhist dialog in Cambodia organized under the auspices of Global Peace Initiative of Women.

-        Attendance in a preliminary meeting in December 2009 with the Russian Orthodox religious leaders in Moscow to explore future clarificatory dialog with a view to substituting spiritual collectives for international political bodies like the UN, in matters of cultural and religious importance.


This alone should make every Hindu with an iota of political sense, sit up and take note. These are not ordinary conferences, and imply that the move by the Chennai clique and the HDAS Convener to play international politics of religion at the level of foreign governments and powerful international organizations. The list above does not include an inter-faith conference in Lariano Italy in May 2006, a conference organized jointly by the Vatican Pontifical Council for Inter-faith Dialogue (PCID) and the World Council of Churches. Political-minded Hindu nationalists are troubled by a few questions –

-        Was anything concrete achieved by the Convener of the HDAS for the Hindus on Hindu bhumi from these foreign inter-faith, multi-faith dialogue ventures?

-        Did the President of Israel, the UN, The Vatican, the World Council of Churches, the Cambodian NGO and the Russian Orthodox Church invite Swami Dayananda Saraswati or the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha?

-        If they invited the HDAS, how did they come to know of this body and why did they short-list this body to speak on behalf of Hinduism?

-        When one of the press notes stated, “The Sabha also expressed its thanks and appreciation for the efforts made by the forum for Religious freedom of US for recognizing the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and its activities to help Hindus and also promote the message of Hinduism, did it mean that someone from within the HDAS or one of the members of the Chennai clique with their overseas partners had actively campaigned for US State Department recognition of the HDAS as the sole voice of Hindus in the country?

-        If the invitation was addressed to the HDAS, did the traditional acharyas, mahamandaleswars and mathathipathis constituting the HDAS discuss the invitation and send its Convener to the discussion table with a set of Hindu-centric and specific assertions, demands, and queries, when we sat across the table with Christians, Muslims and Jews?


The writer doubts it; and doubts it for simply two reasons. The HDAS resolutions expose the fact that except for cow slaughter, the HDAS has not discussed or passed resolutions on some of the most pressing and dangerous problems confronting Hindus on this soil. If we are not discussing these problems within the country, it follows we are not even raising these issues in international conferences and meetings.


Secondly, some of the resolutions and declarations accepted by the Convener or his representatives on behalf of the HDAS, and the aims and objectives of the HDAS are totally at variance with, and even directly contradict, the very purpose for which the HDRS and the HDAS were conceived of in 2000 and then in 2003; whereas the GFCH is eminently capable of accepting and even enthusiastically endorsing such inter-faith and multi-faith declarations.


We may safely presume that the HDAS website is maintained by its Secretariat which, not surprisingly, is manned by Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s disciples. But what is surprising is that the HDAS website does not inform us about the aims and objectives of this body; information which is sine qua non.


One of Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s past refrains was, “All religions do not have the same goal”. Pujya Swamiji will find it very difficult to pronounce this pregnant truth now, considering the fact that he is also one of the Founder-Patrons of GFCH. Now this website has a colourful pyrotechnic representation of rotating-around-the-globe Cross, Crescent, Star of David, and our own Om, among other symbols. In case any of you failed to get the message, the GFCH insists, as a running commentary to the rotating symbols, that “All religions lead to God”, and “We can learn from all civilizations”. The mischief, to minds as suspicious as that of the writer, lies in the use of ‘religions’ in one pronouncement and ‘civilizations’ in the other.


The HDAS is a body of traditional mathas, adeenams and akharas, committed to protecting and propagating Hindu sampradayas. It is but natural that they are gathering under the forum of HDAS with the specific objective of collectively combating threats to dharma and dharmi on this soil. As Convener of HDAS, Swami Dayananda Saraswati is mandated to facilitate the fulfillment of this objective even if it is undefined and undeclared. Obviously this objective cannot be met if as Founder-Patron of the GFCH he is forced to declare all religions lead to God and that Hindus can learn from other civilizations. This is conflict of interest at its most telling.


The GFCH website takes great pride in the fact that Hindus participated in a Muharram procession; the question is, can HDAS take pride in the same? More importantly, what will be Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s position on Hindus taking pride in participating in rituals associated with Muharram or Good Friday? Will he speak as the Convener of HDAS or as Founder-Patron of GFCH?


The May 2006 Vatican and WCC organized inter-faith conference finds mention in the HDAS website. As the writer has observed in an earlier column, unless otherwise denied or explained, we have to assume the HDAS was represented at this conference. What did these resolutions give to the Hindus of Hindu bhumi? If anything, these resolutions have done us great injustice and disservice.


The much touted freedom of religion, like secularism, is specific to countries under the rule of kings, caliphs and governments deriving from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three Abrahamic religions are monotheist and have a long history of intolerance – Jews controlling not only all finance and trade but bleeding other religionists dry with their money-lending, Muslims persecuting Christians and Jews, Christians persecuting Muslims and Jews, and both Christianity and Islam destroying without any trace entire civilizations, religions and cultures rooted in non-Abrahamic religions.


Nazism was an eye-opener to all three Abrahamic religions; deriving from Christianity, it demonstrated to the White Christian and Jewish world in a span of just two decades what the Church and Islam had been doing across the globe spanning centuries and millennia. The concept of ‘freedom’, political freedom, freedom of religion and all other freedoms was pulled out of thin air as a post-Nazi virtue and given international and mandatory universal status and political thrust by Pope John Paul II when he addressed the UNGA in 1997. (http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1283&Itemid=1)


It is not in the purview of this column to go into details of twentieth century early history of personal freedom and its progression. The point to emphasize here is that the HDAS is not obliged to accept a principle not native to the religion or culture of this bhumi, particularly when the principle works actively against Hindu interests on Hindu bhumi; even more so when this principle has been crafted by the Church to serve its political objective of bringing the world under its domain.


The HDAS is not obliged to be politically correct either, in its aims and objectives or in its articulation of Hindu concerns. The HDAS is not obliged to look outside national borders to aspire to be recognized by the US State Department as being internationally politically correct. The HDAS must therefore resist attempts to force it into some kind of contrived bonhomie with the Vatican, WCC, Deoband and the State of Israel; the bonhomie not having yielded any tangible result for Hindus, it may be added.


Every word in these declarations and resolutions has been carefully picked; every word has a reason to be there. It is obvious that the Convener of the HDAS and the Hindus who assisted the Convener, or participated in these conferences, have taken what was given to them and have signed on the dotted line as indicated.


Hindus signed the completely one-sided Vatican resolutions in 2006 which declared –

-        Freedom of religion included the right of Christians and Muslims to propagate their religion to non-Christians and non-Muslims on Hindu bhumi

-        Freedom of religion included the right of the murderous Abrahamic faiths to convert Hindus and tribals on Hindu bhumi and forget the half-clever words which do not fool Hindu nationalists

-        There is something called ethical conversion and something called unethical conversion where a person converts out of “his own free choice”

-        Adherents of all faiths have been guilty of errors and injustice

-        We also appreciated the “humanitarian work’ undertaken by “faith communities”


The Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha has flaunted this sell-out of Hindu interests on its website. The writer re-iterates the point that Hindus who participate in these inter-faith and multi-faith dialogues and discussions are invited only because those inviting them know that these Hindus will sign on the dotted line. A case in point is, “We acknowledge that errors have been perpetrated and injustice committed by the adherents of every faith. Therefore, it is incumbent on every community to conduct honest self-critical examination of its historical conduct as well as its doctrinal/theological precepts. Such self-criticism and repentance should lead to necessary reforms inter alia on the issue of conversion.”


Let us take this resolution apart, word for word, phrase for phrase.

-        “We acknowledge” includes the three Hindus who participated in this conference

-        “Errors perpetrated and injustices committed” are euphemisms for total and near total annihilation by Islam and Christianity of entire nations, cultures and peoples across continents, which includes Native Americans, natives of Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. The crimes against humanity which is coyly worded as “errors and injustices” include genocide, Atlantic Slave Trade, invasion and occupation of continents, burning women on the stakes as witches, the Christian Inquisitions including the Goa Inquisition, Nazism and communism. The trail of the bloody sword of Islam is just as well-known.

-        “Adherents of every faith”, the cleverest and most evil phrase of all implies two things. One, Hindus have accepted to be placed in the same category as Christians and Muslims; Two, we have allowed it to be recorded that these terrible crimes were perpetrated only by the “adherents” of these faiths. This implies that the guilty were only misguided adherents, while the faiths themselves are innocent for the deeds of their adherents.


The Vatican and the World Council of Churches (the apex body of Protestants) have thus succeeded in getting Hindus to sign that the Bible and the Koran are not guilty of the crimes perpetrated by the Christians and Muslims against the people of other religions in the name of the Bible and the Koran. By foolishly absolving the Bible and the Koran of all guilt, the Hindus who went to the Vatican and signed this piece of garbage have conceded, like Gandhi conceded to the Bishop of Calcutta, that religious conversion will be permitted in independent India; only they have to be “ethical conversion”.


This is only the beginning of Hindu stupidity at inter-faith and multi-faith dialogues industry. The tragedy is that this is being done in the name of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.


(To be continued …)

The author is editor, www.vigilonline.com

User Comments Post a Comment
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at  editorvijayvaani@gmail.com
Post a Comment

Back to Top