I am an atheist, but was Hindu by birth in a family that studied the dharma and followed it to its best. My father refused to do kanyadaan in my second marriage (in spite of the priest insisting that proper marriages have one), because a kanyadaan can be done only once for each daughter. This was later endorsed by the head priest of the temple where my father in law works. My mother-in-law does the full bells and whistles of made (special Brahmanical rules for purity that involve bathing, pure clothes, avoidance of touch of impure people - including other Brahmins not currently in that state, and more). I grew up knowing half the Gita by heart and I dare say I can still recite along - simply from hearing it so much. I grew up immersed in Hindu philosophy discussions under a man who had devoted his retirement to the study of religion and philosophy. I dare say I have a passing knowledge of what is respect for Hindu traditions and what is an insult.
This can be a long and varied debate, but the bottom line is, Brahmins cannot rule as per Hinduism. Sanyasis cannot chase material pursuits, including wealth and power. Whether a religious state is desirable is an entirely different debate as is you not minding because you "trust" them, but Brahmins in ruling positions in the government is already a mockery of Hindu beliefs.
Uma Bharti, for example is a self declared Sanyasi (is there any other kind?). Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, Sakshi Maharaj or even Yogi Adityanath are some more.
A Sanyasi is one who has renounced Maya Moh. A sanyasi who desires votes that lead to a position of power is not a sanyasi, but a fraud and an insult to Hindu beliefs. Sanyas is not a joke. At least not for those claiming to respect Hindu traditions.
Sadhus are ascetics. They have dedicated their life to the pursuit of moksha.
The duplicity is extensive. For examples, the torch bearers of Indian nationalism are the creation of an organization that chose to not fight India's colonizers, choosing instead to focus on fighting the Muslims of the occupied Bharat, which now is the very breath in their lungs, since they don't have to risk anything to stake a claim. How can an entity that choose to abstain from fighting for freedom claim to be the real heir of the resulting free identity?
Where do the traditions of the RSS come from? I am not aware of Hindu traditions of shorts as uniform. It could be argued that dress changes with time, but shorts are still not accepted as traditional wear among the Hindus of India. On the other hand, shorts are a common garment in uniforms in the west.
The views of the RSS commonly echo Christian and Islamic beliefs, including lack of importance to caste (in theory), condemnation of women as "fallen" - a common theme and usual first assumption for any RSS supporter seeing a woman they do not like. The Artha shastra actually recommends a more severe punishment on one who insults a prostitute, but then that isn't what the supposed Hindu nationalists respect, is it? They see a prostitute as a bad woman and in fact call women they don't like prosititutes.
Hindu nationalists have a severe contempt for sex. RSS Pracharaks must be brahmacharis (abstaining from sex and marriage), which is probably what caused Modi to dump his wife and pretend to never have entered Grihasthashrama. It is a good fantasy, but the stages of life don't have a "rewind" button. A grihastha - man who marries and sets up home with wife can no longer be considered Brahmachari.
Speaking of Brahmacharis, RSS is full of bachelors in the land of the Kama Sutra, which is devoted to desire. Marriage (and bearing children) is a responsibility in life according to Hindu beliefs (also why Hindu parents tend to obsess over it). An organization of bachelors is basically one that prevents the natural cycle of life.
How can such apabhransh (violation/impurity) be considered representative or even respectful of Hinduism?
I understand many followers of the current cartel in power think of this blog as an unreliable and biased source. They are urged to ask their parents, gurus or anyone whose knowledge on Hinduism they respect the following questions:
- Is it acceptable for a sanyasi to rule, campaign, or even prefer one government over another?
- Is it possible to become a brahmachari after entering grihasthashrama?
- Why do Hindu parents pressure their children to marry and tend to not approve of decisions of extended bachelorhood?
Hear the answers from an authority you trust - which is likely not me - and decide for yourself if you are being told the truth about the religion of this landgrab or you are being conned by using your love for your UPBRINGING to serve political goals of cunning strategists.
I do not believe that a religious state is compatible with India's constitution. To disregard the constitution is as good as a conquest of India by a completely different rule, which is what I believe is going on. However, I believe in democracy and it will mean that citizens wanting a religious state must also have voice. But perhaps citizens who want a Hindu Rashtra need to ask themselves whether what is being advertized is actually even respectful of Hinduism, let alone being an ideal Hindu rashtra.