I agree with your point, this country belongs to everyone irrespective of religion yet rss keeps on drawing religious discrimination,it's a pity for a country as big and diverse as ours , humara desh itni choti soch ka nhi tha kabhi, kuch log apne fayde ke liye iss desh ko barbad karne par tule hai,par ye desh hai veer jawano ka ,koi kuch nahi kar sakta , hindustani zindabad
This nation Hindustan/ bharat/ india belongs to everyone who respects it....
I think many traditionalist Hindus would not even find the RSS as being Hindu at all. The RSS does not believe in the Veda or the śāstras. Rather, it believes that Hinduism is some vague ethnic identity. Its philosophy is not Vedic, but more in line with western post-enlightenment values. Traditional Hindus, who call themselves Vaidika, and who have called themselves with this term for millennia, reject them as being heretics who claim to support Hindu interests, but at the same time reject Hindu theology.
As for Sikhi- a lot of people within the Sikh community do not seem to acknowledge how deeply the early Sikh employed Advaita Vedānta in order to understand Sikhism. The early commentaries on the Gurbani for instance were all written from the standpoint of Advaita darśana. Indeed, much of the Guru Granth Sahib would be unintelligible without prior familiarity with Vedāntic terms.
I’m Christian, so I don’t have an axe to grind about this particular matter. I’m just stating what I believe to be evident based on what we know about early Sikh tradition. Whether or not such an interpretation is true to the Gurbani is not is a different matter, for which we’d have to appeal to early Sikh tradition. The reality is that Advaitic formulations of Sikhism have enjoyed popularity even during the time of certain Gurus themselves. And it’s not just one exegetical tradition- it’s a plurality of them, each of which can claim to trace their origins to within the early Sikh community.
i read your article great work, but actually your urge of distinction from "hindu" is really something which i did not understood, actually the word hindu really does not belong to a religion, it belongs to the place that starts from "sidhu" the indus river specifically indicating the area of indian subcontinent. And yes, that the "sanatan dharm" is indeed a way of life and not something like just a religion. Actually Buddism itself as a religion was started by Gautam Budh around 2,600 years ago when corrupt practices had started within "Hinduism", while the roots "Sanatan" traces back to harappan civilisation around 5000 years ago (pashupati seal, yoga etc). And yes your religion is indeed a very beautiful religion and specifically talking about that selfless work "SEVA" is something which i think everyone should practice because it is indeed a work of humanity. And about that point of different faith and respect , true , 100 precent but ignoring all this first we all are humans and the topic about which u are talking about with that repect "indian first" and according to me there should be no ill between people living within same geography just because of they are following different faith.
Akshat Ji, thank you for reading the article with care, and for your kind words about seva. You say we are all human first. I agree, and the Guru says the same: one Father, and all of us children of the One (Sorath, Mahalla 5, Panna 611). So I will answer you plainly and with respect.
You ask why I want the distinction. It is not an urge of mine. The article gives the reason near the start. Guru Nanak Sahib says the Shabad is the Guru. For a Sikh, the Guru guides how he understands his life. No organisation can take that place and give Sikhs a name they have declined.
On the word Hindu. You are right about where it came from. The Persians used it for the land beyond the Sindhu and the people there. But the article asks a question you have not answered. If the word means only this land, then Indian and Bharatiya already say that. Why must it be Hindu? And the word was already the name of a religion in the time of the Gurus. In Bhairo, Guru Arjan Sahib places Hindu beside Musalman, compares their fasts, pilgrimages and prayers, and says the Guru’s path is neither Hindu nor Musalman (Bhairo, Mahalla 5, Panna 1136). Five hundred years ago the word named a faith, and the Guru’s own words place the Sikh outside it. I wrote more on the two meanings in Which “Hindu” Do You Mean?
On Sanatan and Buddhism. You say Buddhism began when corrupt practices had entered Hinduism, and that Sanatan goes back five thousand years. The article expected this answer, and it does not escape the test. It shows what the test was for. The name is drawn wide enough to take in every faith born on this land, and each faith is then told it was inside all along. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas, animal sacrifice and caste by birth, and founded a separate Sangha. Nobody in the Buddha’s time used the word Hindu for a religion. Age is not ownership either: an older neighbour does not own a younger one. And calling Sanatan a way of life does not answer someone who declines the name.
On Indian first. I agree there should be no ill will between neighbours of different faiths. The article says so in its first lines. It is not against Hindus. It is against one claim. You may use words as you wish. My objection is to an organisation that uses this word to decide, on behalf of Sikhs, who Sikhs are. Respect between faiths means accepting what your neighbour says about himself. To tell a neighbour “you are really one of us” is not respect. A Sikh can love his Hindu neighbour and still say plainly: my Guru is Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and my faith is not a part of yours.
Thank you again for writing, and for the courtesy of your disagreement.
I agree with your point, this country belongs to everyone irrespective of religion yet rss keeps on drawing religious discrimination,it's a pity for a country as big and diverse as ours , humara desh itni choti soch ka nhi tha kabhi, kuch log apne fayde ke liye iss desh ko barbad karne par tule hai,par ye desh hai veer jawano ka ,koi kuch nahi kar sakta , hindustani zindabad
This nation Hindustan/ bharat/ india belongs to everyone who respects it....
Loved your writing ✨
I think many traditionalist Hindus would not even find the RSS as being Hindu at all. The RSS does not believe in the Veda or the śāstras. Rather, it believes that Hinduism is some vague ethnic identity. Its philosophy is not Vedic, but more in line with western post-enlightenment values. Traditional Hindus, who call themselves Vaidika, and who have called themselves with this term for millennia, reject them as being heretics who claim to support Hindu interests, but at the same time reject Hindu theology.
As for Sikhi- a lot of people within the Sikh community do not seem to acknowledge how deeply the early Sikh employed Advaita Vedānta in order to understand Sikhism. The early commentaries on the Gurbani for instance were all written from the standpoint of Advaita darśana. Indeed, much of the Guru Granth Sahib would be unintelligible without prior familiarity with Vedāntic terms.
I’m Christian, so I don’t have an axe to grind about this particular matter. I’m just stating what I believe to be evident based on what we know about early Sikh tradition. Whether or not such an interpretation is true to the Gurbani is not is a different matter, for which we’d have to appeal to early Sikh tradition. The reality is that Advaitic formulations of Sikhism have enjoyed popularity even during the time of certain Gurus themselves. And it’s not just one exegetical tradition- it’s a plurality of them, each of which can claim to trace their origins to within the early Sikh community.
Eh, Aryan is a better term and due to the emphasis on action/war Sikhi is more Vedic than Hindu mat.
i read your article great work, but actually your urge of distinction from "hindu" is really something which i did not understood, actually the word hindu really does not belong to a religion, it belongs to the place that starts from "sidhu" the indus river specifically indicating the area of indian subcontinent. And yes, that the "sanatan dharm" is indeed a way of life and not something like just a religion. Actually Buddism itself as a religion was started by Gautam Budh around 2,600 years ago when corrupt practices had started within "Hinduism", while the roots "Sanatan" traces back to harappan civilisation around 5000 years ago (pashupati seal, yoga etc). And yes your religion is indeed a very beautiful religion and specifically talking about that selfless work "SEVA" is something which i think everyone should practice because it is indeed a work of humanity. And about that point of different faith and respect , true , 100 precent but ignoring all this first we all are humans and the topic about which u are talking about with that repect "indian first" and according to me there should be no ill between people living within same geography just because of they are following different faith.
Akshat Ji, thank you for reading the article with care, and for your kind words about seva. You say we are all human first. I agree, and the Guru says the same: one Father, and all of us children of the One (Sorath, Mahalla 5, Panna 611). So I will answer you plainly and with respect.
You ask why I want the distinction. It is not an urge of mine. The article gives the reason near the start. Guru Nanak Sahib says the Shabad is the Guru. For a Sikh, the Guru guides how he understands his life. No organisation can take that place and give Sikhs a name they have declined.
On the word Hindu. You are right about where it came from. The Persians used it for the land beyond the Sindhu and the people there. But the article asks a question you have not answered. If the word means only this land, then Indian and Bharatiya already say that. Why must it be Hindu? And the word was already the name of a religion in the time of the Gurus. In Bhairo, Guru Arjan Sahib places Hindu beside Musalman, compares their fasts, pilgrimages and prayers, and says the Guru’s path is neither Hindu nor Musalman (Bhairo, Mahalla 5, Panna 1136). Five hundred years ago the word named a faith, and the Guru’s own words place the Sikh outside it. I wrote more on the two meanings in Which “Hindu” Do You Mean?
On Sanatan and Buddhism. You say Buddhism began when corrupt practices had entered Hinduism, and that Sanatan goes back five thousand years. The article expected this answer, and it does not escape the test. It shows what the test was for. The name is drawn wide enough to take in every faith born on this land, and each faith is then told it was inside all along. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas, animal sacrifice and caste by birth, and founded a separate Sangha. Nobody in the Buddha’s time used the word Hindu for a religion. Age is not ownership either: an older neighbour does not own a younger one. And calling Sanatan a way of life does not answer someone who declines the name.
On Indian first. I agree there should be no ill will between neighbours of different faiths. The article says so in its first lines. It is not against Hindus. It is against one claim. You may use words as you wish. My objection is to an organisation that uses this word to decide, on behalf of Sikhs, who Sikhs are. Respect between faiths means accepting what your neighbour says about himself. To tell a neighbour “you are really one of us” is not respect. A Sikh can love his Hindu neighbour and still say plainly: my Guru is Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and my faith is not a part of yours.
Thank you again for writing, and for the courtesy of your disagreement.
Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.
Gurjit
There shouldn't be enmity on a personal level but Sikh Raj is different than Hindu Raj which itself varies by region.