On December 10, 2010, the Hindu American Foundation (“HAF”) published a report on caste entitled “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste.” The issuance of the report generated immediate debate and controversy. Some of the most serious concerns were (a) framing caste-based discrimination as a human rights issue, (b) the problematic aspects of an American organization making policy prescriptions for India, and (c) the potential exploitation of the report by forces seeking to weaken India / Hinduism. The report was also deeply hurtful to many professing Hindus, who felt it an act of betrayal for a Hindu political advocacy organization. This betrayal was about HAFs explicit call for the rejection of certain of our scriptures and also their demands that Hindu acharyas make certain teachings in conformity with HAF’s stated position in the report. The hue and cry over the report resulted in several definitive criticisms, including one by Rajiv Malhotra, which has already been published [See link]. This and other strong voices from various critics, have coalesced together & gathered enough strength, so that HAF has been temporarily forced to take the report offline while they ‘are working on it’.
Most importantly of all, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Convener of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha (HDAS), and Dr. Pranav Pandya, Head of All World Gayatri Pariwar (AWGP), Haridwar issued statements calling for the withdrawal of HAF’s report. They also asked for any subsequent report to be issued only with the collaboration and inclusion of a wide variety of community leaders, social workers and scholars as well as with the input and consultation of diverse Hindu acharyas and gurus. [See Below for Letters in the original]. Lamentably, HAF has refused to comply with these letters of appeal from two of Hindu society’s most eminent Acharyas. Also to be noted is that HDAS is the only apex body for Hindu Dharma sampradayas and paramparas - traditions and lineages.
This article will not go over the already well-established arguments against the report, but will instead attempt to (1) provide a summary of the aftermath of the report and certain key responses and (2) describe some of the potential far-reaching consequences of this ill-timed & ill-considered report. It will try and address what this situation bodes for the Hindu community, both in India & abroad, when one organization fills a leadership vacuum in the lobbying arena, and then overextends itself by arrogating to itself the role of a policy advisor for all Hinduism.
If HAF seriously expected to catapult itself into the role of a “Hindu Think Tank”, this report & it’s mishandling has shown up their inability to think through such big picture issues. They are hugely deficient in a core area, that of practicing traditional scholars. Neither do they even seem to have enough people with a ‘lived-in-India’ experience who would have smelt trouble at the very early stages of this project. This at a time when representational & definitional aspects of Hindu thought & practice are still fluid in the minds of policy makers who are overwhelmingly of a Westernized background, if not completely Western, as in US & other policymakers in the world bodies. As a reminder to the reader, the HAF report attempts to cast a wide net, whereby it wants to be used as a document consulted by all global leaders who are in a position to affect how Hindus and their practices will be looked at.
Letter From Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya gurukulam, http://arshavidya.org/
Letter From Dr Pranav Pandya, All World Gayatri Parivar, http://awgp.org
Report & its Aftermath
Initial engagement with HAF by the various critics was overwhelmingly by emails & comments in the blogosphere, but also via many private phone calls & conversations. There were initial attempts by HAF to engage the critics, and this did give some hope. But in hindsight, these attempts can be best described as a combination of spin & damage control, where HAF officers attempted to engage groups of critics separately & spin their rationale as to why the report was great as it stood. They at no stage showed any serious interest in engaging the ‘criticism’ as opposed to engaging the ‘critics’. Being a PR heavy organization, one supposes this comes naturally, and is not bad in and of itself. Needless to say, when it came to the substantive issues, even their few efforts to engage the substance of the criticism showed up their serious ignorance, rather disturbing under the circumstances.
This ignorance was not only of Hindu Shaastras as understood by practicing Hindus, but also an over reliance on Western Academic interpretation of both Shaastras and of Indian society. As many readers would be aware, the underlying problems with this approach are spelled out in detail in the book Invading The Sacred, a good in-depth reference. Also on view was their poorly thought out ‘game plan’ which till date has either ignored or blithely downplayed the serious criticism that they were handing a potent weapon to the many powerful forces inimical to Hinduism’s very existence. The charge made by most critics, that their report has holes that would be used to undermine Hinduism’s credibility as a force for good in the world, is still not being taken seriously or adequately addressed by HAF.
After some time it became clear that HAF seemed smugly confident of riding out the opposition on strength of its PR skills and media access. But meanwhile the controversy had begun to make its way to traditional Hindu organizations both in India & their US. From these, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, of the premier Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, thought it important enough to step in write a gentle but unambiguous letter to HAF. This letter is reproduced above.
It is to be noted that Swamiji is also the convener of the HDAS (Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha), which incidentally, would have been the appropriate organization to sign off on any report of such magnitude that affects Hindus at large. Of course, therein hangs a sorry tale of a closed-door mentality & lack of due process, as explained in the critique by Rajiv Malhotra.
At this stage, HAF is playing an interestingly sophisticated game of legal eagle whereby it seeks to hoodwink those interested that it is complying with part of Swamiji’s letter (though they don’t really have to, they point out quickly) while flouting completely the spirit in which it was written and the substance of the rest of the letter, which explicitly called for any subsequent report to reach consensus among Hindu leaders. Here (see picture below) is HAF’s legal counsel’s legalistic take on this issue (Published in India Abroad, Jan 14th):
The small smartly worded legal statement shown here (part of an uncritical double-spread story in India Abroad), from the HAF Managing Director/Legal Counsel, encapsulates the whole issue quite well, both in substance and spirit. It is a demonstration of HAFs PR skills & media savvy, appearing in a high circulation Diaspora magazine. It makes the right noises by offering token respect to the Swamiji’s stature, while openly defying the heart of the appeal in the letter. The letter from Swamiji did not ask that the report be made “temporarily unavailable online”. It asked for withdrawal until a consensus was reached among all Hindu leaders. This is NOT the course of action undertaken by HAF, despite numerous overtures from community groups and leaders to facilitate such a process of collaboration and consensus.
Instead, HAF seeks to absolve itself of any sense of responsibility beyond “keeping the full report internal”. It asserts its power and unaccountability by saying in the same breath “…we were under no obligation to fulfill his request…” It states that the report is just “kept internal” and not “withdrawn” due to serious flaws. It then attempts to be dismissive of the importance of Swamiji’s letter by letting all know that the Executive Summary is still online, and that ‘numerous community leaders & scholars around the world have endorsed the report’. Thus, the inconsistencies of HAF’s position (presenting two faces to different audiences) are revealed within a few sentences of its own Managing Director’s public statement to the press!
How Did Things Come To This?
It seems a clear-cut case of “when in Rome, do as Romans do”. As seen in its own public demeanor, HAF, as a premier advocacy organization with politicians & legislative bodies, is immersed in an atmosphere where lobbying, good PR, and a corporatized mindset are a great asset. These qualities are not bad by any means, and Hindus so far have certainly welcomed all the efforts & undeniable successes of HAF in this sphere.
But the problem arguably starts when HAF, with its inherent legalistic PR intensive focus, seems to have decided to take this huge leap from targeted advocacy in the US for the micro-minority Hindu population, to claiming the privilege of steering Hinduism itself in a global sense. This Caste Report is staggering in the scope of issues it is attempting to address, and recommendations it is attempting to give. One can’t help but speculate on the inevitable corporate strategizing that would see a “strategic growth opportunity” for HAF with ‘producing’ this type of report. This, if done successfully, would no doubt cement its place as the leading Hindu organization on the US. Most Hindus would say ‘more power to any successful Hindu organization’ since we’re all aware how woefully few we really have. But while we are cheering, many of us have woken up to the fact that it is a minefield out there, and one needs both solid homework, and a deep inner understanding of what exactly is involved in taking up any cause impacting Hinduism.
One can almost see here a lobbying organization attempting to morph into a Think tank. A lobbyist organization is more of a tactical animal, targeted to short term issues. A typical respectable think tank, on the other hand, is much like a University department, has ongoing multi year programs, and is full to the brim with acknowledged ‘Subject Matter Experts’ who have been in the ‘business’ of advising National Governments & International bodies for years, and who are hired for this very skill.
For HAF, it appears all the slick PR focus seems to have caused an almost inevitable drift towards more & more corporate style thinking. This also inevitably is accompanied by hubris & overreach. Even if all this ‘growth’ is great for HAF as a corporate organization, one disturbing fact stands out. Left behind in the dust of all this high speed maneuvering is the damage being done to the very tradition that HAF is supposed to be advocating for as its core mission. Sanatana Dharma (a more accurate word than ‘Hinduism’), is hoary, multifaceted, and complex in a way hard to grasp through superficial engagement. One needs to be especially careful if one intends to officially represent it.
One may argue that Dharmic “ends” justify Corporate “means”, but this argument has not gone well beyond HAF and its few key supporters. And these supporters are few, no matter what HAF may want to claim, when compared to the sheer size & weight in terms of both population & Shastric background that will find this merely an unsolicited interference by the unauthorized (lacking proper ‘adhikaara’), even if they be ‘our own kids’. Word on this misadventure by HAF is still spreading.
What Could Happen Vs What Should Happen
At this stage it appears that HAF promises to come back with its report ‘in a few weeks’. So far there is no indication of HAF changing its ‘closed door’ approach. This means that in their anxiety to keep tight control of the process, substantive changes in focus, tone or content cannot be expected. Critics will be left outside wringing their hands, and experts who’ve been critical will be shut out of the process. This is fair enough if HAF wants to assert their right as an independent organization to do as they please. But they risk losing their constituency of still traditional Hindus. Many traditional Hindus, including well educated ones with Lvy League degrees & business success think, with reason, that HAF’s approach here shows a great deal of pandering to trendy westernized discourse on “human rights” etc at the cost of Hindu traditions. People with enough grasp of Hindu thought & practice are keenly aware that we have a worldview very different at a fundamental level, but which worldview has historically been, and is still capable of producing a just society.
What should happen, for a best outcome, would be a maturing of the HAF leadership, based on their learning from this experience. This learning would be in two key aspects. The first aspect is to understand the views of their critics, and more importantly the core philosophy underpinning their strong disagreement with the report as originally put out, and why it is faulty in many ways. The second aspect would be to understand and admit the stark contradiction in terms of a “closed door” corporate approach to advocating changes in Hinduism, where Hinduism itself is as “open-door”, “Open-Source” a Religion and way of life as is possible, anytime, anyplace.
This maturing, in turn, would lead to a truly collaborative & consensus building approach to issues impacting Hindus in so major a way as the Caste issue. But this can only happen if wiser counsel prevails and they look beyond their current ‘do or die’ approach fixated on ‘saving’ this one report, come hell or high water.
As things stand now, this report has shown tremendous divisive potential, and seems to be turning into a greater embarrassment than all the people concerned (including critics) would have imagined only a few weeks ago. Mixed signals received from HAF so far only mean that in the coming weeks, more and more Hindu sampradayas will want to weigh in on the issue. HAF may soon find that the Hindu public will judge them more on this crucial misstep, rather than all the good work they’ve done in the past. As for Sanatana Dharma (a.k.a. Hinduism), it has been and will be called Sanatana (Eternal) for a reason.
POSTSCRIPT
There is fresh confirmation of a few more major Swamis & Hindu Sampradaya & organizational heads sending HAF open letters supporting above letters of HDAS & Gayatri Parivar in great detail. Prominent are Swami/Baba Ramdev of North India, and the ancient Maadhva Sampradaya Putthige Math Swamiji in South India. Devout and committed Hindus know what this signifies.
More activity is inevitable. Watch Medha Journal updates as more unfolds in the coming days.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by kartha_pes, 2011-05-06 19:17:40
-
- +0
-
-
written by partha, 2011-01-27 18:57:12
Yes I have read Sri Kalavai Venkat's very sad post and can sincerely empathize with his grief and disappointment.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2011-01-25 14:01:53
See:
http://denouncehaf.blogspot.com/
Writer is Kalavai Venkat (a solid writer, also featured in the book Invading The Sacred http://invadingthesacred.com ).
He resigned from the writing of the 'new & improved report' due to serious issues with HAF's handling of the re-write.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2011-01-24 15:04:19
you must've seen the dismissive take on the critics in it's latest PR release also...
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2011-01-24 14:59:16
It takes a big heart to see the human beings behind the PR machine of either a HAF, or a GM or Toyota, or the myriad corporate entities with full war chests (& believe me, public records show HAF has a good sized one). You seem to have that, I'm still fixated with the public damage they seem to be bent on doing, no matter how well intentioned.
For me, I'd criticize the machine that seems to be unaware(??) of it's own power to do bad (as well as the undoubted good in the past) to humans, forcing them to pay back in any which way possible. I really find it difficult to come to any conclusion but that HAF is interested in HAF first, Hinduism next, whereas critics have shown in umpteen ways why the report is really bad news.
HAF is just hiding behind excuses if it plays 'victim' and points at critics' manners (and impolitic asides) rather than addresing the criticisms themselves...
Oh well, I see I'm just repeating points I've made in the main article itself...
...which tells me this thread may be running it's course! Until something fresh comes up, then....
Best Rgds
-
- +0
-
-
written by synektix, 2011-01-23 04:42:51
I don’t believe there is any difference in the way you and I view the standards to which HAF should be held, and neither, I would hope, does HAF. Neither am I suggesting that criticism that is felt to be warranted ought to be withheld.
I just don’t think critics need to choose between the two extremes of pleasantries and public evisceration. I believe it is possible to be unflinching in expressing one’s differences, making the issue one of substance rather than an attack on another’s worth, competence, presumed ulterior motives, and so forth.
I am by no means suggesting that ALL the criticism has been offered in this vein. But to the extent it has, it has mainly caused bitterness and rancor; clouded objectivity; and polarized the debate when we all ought to be working together to achieve the best outcome for the common good.
Whether criticism is compelling or not has less to do with whether it is offered publicly or privately, and more to do with how dispassionately and convincingly it makes its case. If Rajiv Malhotra has credibility as an intellectual, it is not because of the epithets he may use when he is angry, but because of his incisive, well-researched and objectively presented arguments.
I also don’t see HAF’s “flair for good PR” as a bad thing, or something to be scoffed at. Good PR is the scaffolding of our everyday dealings with each other upon which all successful relationships are built. Diplomacy and the ability to forge good public relations are qualities to be applauded and supported in an organization whose stated goal is to correct misconceptions of Hinduism and Hindus in America’s host culture. PR need not necessarily equate to dishonesty or capitulation --just as a tactful person and socially adept person is not necessarily a liar.
On the other hand, as the constituents that HAF claims to speak for, we have every right to question HOW those misconceptions are addressed. Which we are doing.
As to your comparing HAF to a corporation, I am willing to be corrected, but my idea of a corporation is that of an entity whose primary interest lies in furthering itself at the expense of its competitor. How does this apply to HAF which is not marketing a product but is attempting to represent the ideals and values of a living and thinking community of individuals? Its interest is inseparable from that of its constituents. A calculated and callous indifference to their concerns would clearly be suicidal.
Let’s turn to its product, which you point out was unsolicited by the public. True enough. But often the NEED that is perceived by an entity that takes on the task of formulating a solution, results in a product that the public doesn’t WANT. Take the hybrid automobiles of today, that are vast improvements on the choices available a few years prior, but still far from being a perfect solution. If nobody took the initiative to risk delivering a less-than-perfect product, we would still be riding in horse-driven carriages.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2011-01-22 23:38:44
We may have a fundamental difference in how we see this relationship, that of HAF with it's critics. I see it as very analogous with that between a Corporation and the public strongly and negatively affected by it's products (which arguably they neither solicited for, not felt use for). Per how this relationship has evolved in the modern society, the bar is much much higher for the organization to make good to the aggrieved public. And examples abound that it is especially damaging to the corporation's brand name & future, if it's PR flatfoots the company by even an appearance of high handedness.
And HAF, while arguably may have systemic issues in other areas, they've so far showed a consistent flair for good PR towards their 'target audience'. And since they can be reasonably expected to be doing the same, one can infer that their definition of Target has changed, can one not? This seems true at least in so far as excluding critics who are not restricting themselves to private (and thus not truly compelling) criticism.
Historically, corporations (especially those finding the good fortune to be in a monopolistic situation, like HAF is, right now IMO) have had to have their feet held to the fire via campaigns, before they deigned to take aggrieved public seriously.
These campaigns can hardly be conducted via pleasantries, especially if the issues are important. The organization that blows it's PR by taking it personally, no matter how justifiable on a personal level, is essentially losing it's much-needed objectivity, and has to face the consequences.......
Above hopefully advances the discussion...
Thanks for making me think!
-
- +0
-
-
written by partha, 2011-01-21 16:01:16
You say " the long term consequences far outweigh the personal issues individuals have with each other. In attempting to judge the process (both before & after) & the report itself, the bar is always higher for the organization claiming leadership, not for the critics, don't you think?". The bold lettering is mine.
I agree.
Organizations are expected to be better than individuals in focussing on effects, in placing community good above individual aspirations etc. Yes, indeed. Especially when they look to lead.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by synektix, 2011-01-21 06:02:30
You say " the long term consequences far outweigh the personal issues individuals have with each other. In attempting to judge the process (both before & after) & the report itself, the bar is always higher for the organization claiming leadership, not for the critics, don't you think?"
If HAF had not been concerned with long term consequences they would not have taken their report offline. In fact, I am sure that if they had had any inkling of the kind of response that this report would generate, they would have undertaken this review and reexamination process before publication. We may make errors of judgment, but that doesn't make us masochists. Sometimes when one is too close to the process, and too sure of one's intentions, one assumes that others will see things as one sees it. This can be a fatal assumption for even the best of communicators.
As for setting the bar high, I absolutely agree with you -- but why not set the bar at the same height for us all? Yes HAF is an organization, but one run not by robots but by individuals with the same kind of central nervous system and sensory apparatus as its critics. We should all, regardless of which side of the debate we are on, be mainly concerned with the outcome. Which is why we should leave our shoes as well as our egos at the door.
-
- +0
-
-
written by partha, 2011-01-20 16:18:36
He finds merit in one of the good organization's objectives in the report, namely removal of caste-based discrimination in Hindu society. All the friends of HAF would advise it to actively support efforts at such removal made by both the Indian Government and Sanatanic organizations in the mother country, without expecting leadership privileges of any kind.
Of course HAF could look for and help remove such discriminative practices if present among the Hindu Americans.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2011-01-20 15:50:04
Thanks for going thru the article & giving it due consideration & criticism. On the two points you mentioned first: (1) about the image of Hinduism being affected by the way the criticism has come about, and (2) the analogy of how a child only remembers the stinging word from the parent, not the point the parent was making.
Both analogies are good, no doubt, but in this case we have an organization crafting a document with far reaching implications for those it is attempting to represent.
While I do agree with your take on human psychology being what it is, does it not behoove the organization to rise above personalities and attempt to engage the criticism of it's putative constituents in a transparent manner?
Regretfully, I do see a pattern where the power of being a 'leading organization' is being repeatedly asserted privately & in public via continuing media campaigns (even as many negotiations were attempted in good faith), but at the same time no feeling of accountability is being shown in public for the very public document that HAF chose to release on their own timing & cognizance.
As an erstwhile admirer of their unique style & efforts, it pains me (like other critics) to see them take this 'high road' instead of the 'high road' that even multinational behemoths like GM, GE, Toyota, etc have learnt to take - i.e. rise above their repeated self-justification, however warranted, and note the genuineness of the concerns.
While this doesn't excuse the lack of good etiquette in the discussion (indulged by both sides, as things got heated, IMO), the long term consequences far outweigh the personal issues individuals have with each other. In attempting to judge the process (both before & after) & the report itself, the bar is always higher for the organization claiming leadership, not for the critics, don't you think?
HAF is just HAF, & Hinduism is....Sanatana Dharma......and we're just a few voices trying to make sense, and play some part we see fit....
All par for the course, I guess...
-
- +0
-
-
written by synektix, 2011-01-20 07:59:42
And that is -- the sheer savagery of the cyanide-laced speech that it generated from certain critics. I know this not as a participant, but as a witness to certain email exchanges.
The people who blind-copied me know that they can count on me to not forward it further, nor publicise who said what, and I intend to continue to be deserving of that trust. However, it bears mentioning that the whole experience reminded me of what I have learned the hard way -- that email is a Genie without a master. Once you uncork it by hitting that Send button, you lose control of its destination. It can be forwarded, blind-copied, quoted without attribution, harnessed to any number of agendas. Which is why I believe in preserving civility of discourse. When civility is lost, so is substance.
In his critique, Rajiv Malhotra points out: " Any internal reforms or changes require internal deliberations and cooperation ... " and of course, he made this statement in the context of HAF's perceived failure to seek input and feedback from the proper sources before publishing their report. But I put it to you that the Hindu image is no less affected by the way in which that internal criticism is handled, especially when that criticism plays out on the email circuit and the blogosphere, where it ceases to be internal. You have no control over who is ultimately going to read your words and what conclusions they are going to derive from it.
In this essay, you say:
"There were initial attempts by HAF to engage the critics, and this did give some hope. But in hindsight, these attempts can be best described as a combination of spin & damage control ...where HAF attempted to ...spin their rationale as to why the report was great as it stood. They at no stage showed any serious interest in engaging the ‘criticism’ as opposed to engaging the ‘critics’. "
Let me tell you about something I've observed over the years that my daughter has yet to outgrow. And that is --when she provokes me to use very harsh words because of something she did or did not do, it is my HARSH WORDS that she remembers and persists in feeling bad about. Not what SHE DID to provoke my outburst. Coming to think of it, I think I might be the same way myself. Along with 99.99 percent of the human race.
In the emails that I read, one writer uses the word "idiot" almost as a stand-in for conventional punctuation marks throughout the message. Another is provoked into using a sexist put-down. Abusive epithets are used in reference to someone's integrity and intellectual worth. A lynch mob mentality is stoked with calls for nothing less than the resignation of several HAF officers. How exactly is this conducive to a framework for constructive engagement?
As one who had been preparing to share my own differences with HAF, I watched this with growing sorrow and dismay. I don't know about you, but I would find it hard to "engage" with someone who not only called me an idiot, but reiterated it in a way that suggested it was the next best alternative to repeatedly bludgeoning me with a blunt object.
Unsubstantiated speculations regarding HAF's "motives" in writing this report were floated. It is one thing to say that there are naively presented portions of the report that could further the aims of missionary interests. It is quite another to plant the idea that HAF did so deliberately with no motives other than self-serving publicity and attaining lap-dog status with US Congress. This conclusion seems completely at odds with the issues that HAF has shouldered in the past and my personal experience of the idealism of its officers.
Back when National Geographic published its infuriating "special" issue on Untouchables, HAF founder Mihir Meghani was one of the few people I knew of other than myself who wrote a strongly worded rejoinder to the article. It can be found at the following link:
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030604.htm
As RM noticed in his critique, even a cursory reading of the report reveals major contradictions in the message. It reads like a composite of inputs without adequate reconciliation of the final message and without a clearly articulated action plan emanating from it. Should the most visible authors of that content be forced to shoulder such a heavy barrage of condemnation on that account? Should we be cutting them some slack, when after all, they have taken the report offline and appear to be undertaking a conscientious review?
When I finally did read the report for myself, it struck me that while we fault HAF for so perfunctorily addressing the good work that has been done while going into lurid details of the abuses perpetrated -- our analysis of the report follows exactly the same mindset. Which is to say, we have not seen fit to mention a single thing that is RIGHT about that report in the spirit of friendly and positive engagement.
Beyond the contradictions and the apologies and the calls to "reject" certain teachings that are not really being taught, this document is less of a peremptory policy directive than the articulation of an ideal. And a honorable ideal, at that. Whatever be its applicability or usefulness, it is clear that one of its goals is to assert that caste discrimination is not a Hindu commandment, as is widely believed, and to this end they provide pertinent quotes from several scriptural sources. They also provide a more nuanced perspective of present-day political ground realities not readily found in mainstream media coverage in the US. They indicate that those ground realities are exploited by political AS WELL AS MISSIONARY FORCES and they clearly state their opposition to the latter.
I think the more experienced members of the Hindu activist community have a tremendous responsibility not only to be vigilant and apply corrective checks and balances by means of input and debate, but also to do so in a balanced manner. Let us not follow the "mutually assured destruction" model of conflict resolution. Let us control our rush to judgment, let us be magnanimous, let us be supportive. We need to be mindful of the legacy and the example we set for the next generation of Hindu activists and image builders.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Let me apologize first for my late arrival. I am late by many months. Due to continuous extra workload, I was away from writing and even visiting my site. So I missed your note. Even though late, glad that I am here at last.
After going through your article about HAF, my first thought was about the effect of chaos on the thinking of even an apparently sane sounding organization. This cerebral chaos, I suspect, may have the roots in the following grounds:
1.Intellectual confusion between Varna, a fundamental concept defining the Hindu society and caste, an imposter and a virus infected on all modern communities-religious or otherwise. The Varna “is not a social arrangement or segregation; it is rather a statement of how any society is arranged.” Its identity not necessarily transferred by birth but gained by functional performance. Present-day-Thuglaks and vested interests refuse to understand such differentiation
2.Any result-oriented discussion on matters akin to the above ought to be carried out by a religious forum that has representation of all thought lines and approval of Spiritual Teachers.
3.HAF, being just a socio-semi political association formed in a foreign land and with compulsions to stay attuned to an alien society, does not have the necessary authority or competence to issue such diktat that encroaches on the belief, sentiments and training of more than a billion people. Yet the fact that they issued such a strange decree is going only to prove that they want to publicize their chaotic thinking and irrefutable stupidity. It is also a foolish case of overreaching and going beyond the brief.
One final question: Why don’t the HAF take up the cases of caste systems in the Semitic religions and the Modern societies?
Thanks to you for letting me know about this issue.
Kartha