The American “I” and the Hindu “We”

Balancing Individualism and Dharma in Hindu American Families

By Dr. Mohini Shinde

What does it mean to raise children who feel fully American—yet remain deeply rooted in Hindu values?

Across the United States, millions of Hindu families live at the intersection of two powerful worldviews. One celebrates independence, self-expression, and personal choice—the American “I.” The other emphasizes dharma, family responsibility, spiritual grounding, and collective well-being—the Hindu “We.” For children growing up in this environment, identity is not divided into separate compartments but experienced as a constant, often quiet negotiation between these perspectives.

Hindu American children move fluidly between worlds. In school, they are encouraged to think critically, speak confidently, and define themselves as individuals. At home, they are guided toward respect for elders, commitment to family, moral discipline, and an understanding that life extends beyond the self. Neither set of values is inherently in conflict, yet misunderstandings frequently arise when expectations remain unspoken. What parents see as responsibility, children may perceive as pressure. What children experience as independence, parents may interpret as detachment.

For parents, this duality is both hopeful and unsettling. They want their children to thrive in an open and competitive society—to pursue careers, express opinions, and participate fully in American life. At the same time, they hope to transmit a heritage shaped by continuity across generations: language, rituals, festivals, reverence, and a sense of belonging to something larger than individual achievement. The challenge lies not in choosing one path over the other, but in learning how to integrate both consciously.

In The American “I” and the Hindu “We”, Dr. Mohini Shinde explores this integration through lived experience, cultural observation, and contemporary understanding of family dynamics. The book examines how Hindu identity evolves across generations, especially among second- and third-generation families. It looks at parenting styles shaped by Western psychology and traditional expectations, conversations about education and success, and the ways children interpret religious practice while growing up as a minority in a pluralistic society.

The discussion extends beyond the home. Schools, peer groups, media, and social narratives influence how young people understand themselves. Festivals must be balanced with academic calendars. Faith is sometimes reduced to stereotypes. Temples and community organizations attempt to reinforce what families alone cannot always sustain. Grandparents adjust to changing roles in nuclear households, while parents navigate conversations they themselves never had growing up. Each of these forces shapes how the “I” and the “We” either harmonize or drift apart.

Importantly, the book does not frame American and Hindu values as opposing choices. Individual confidence need not negate collective responsibility. Personal freedom does not erase spiritual discipline. Adaptation does not require cultural loss. Instead, Dr. Shinde presents a framework in which both perspectives coexist—strengthening identity rather than fragmenting it.

Written for parents, educators, community leaders, and young adults alike, these pages offer an invitation to reflection and dialogue. By naming the dynamics between the American “I” and the Hindu “We,” the book guides families toward clarity, understanding, and harmony—so that the next generation may grow not divided between worlds, but enriched by both.

For more information or to buy this book, please visit www.deshvideshpublishing.com.

Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist and rising figure on the far-left flank of American politics, made national headlines by defeating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the June 2025 Democratic primary—one of the most stunning political upsets in recent city history.

But far from ushering in a new era of grassroots progress, Mamdani’s ascent threatens to fracture the Democratic coalition, destabilize New York City’s economic foundation, and unravel hard-won governance norms.

Mamdani’s political identity is deeply shaped by his transnational roots. He is the son of acclaimed Indian-born filmmaker and activist Mira Nair, known globally for her socially conscious films like Salaam Bombay!, Monsoon Wedding, and The Namesake, which explore themes of identity, migration, and diaspora. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a Ugandan-born academic of Indian descent. With familial ties linking India, Pakistan, East Africa, and the progressive elite, Mamdani represents a unique cultural lineage—but one that often appears disconnected from the practical realities of governance and economic development in New York City.

Despite his diverse background, Mamdani’s strident views on India’s leadership, Hindu nationalism, Israel, and American foreign policy have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Many in the Indian-American and Jewish communities view his positions as not only divisive but overtly antagonistic toward democratic allies and traditional American values.

Questionable Ethics in College Admissions

The recent article in The New York Times revealed that in 2009, Zohran Mamdani marked “Black or African American” on his Columbia University college application—despite being of Indian and Ugandan-Indian descent, with no African-American heritage. Critics argue this was a deliberate attempt to benefit from affirmative action policies intended for historically disadvantaged groups. Notably, the application form included an “Other” option, which would have more accurately reflected his complex background. By selecting a racial identity that did not apply to him, Mamdani’s action raises serious ethical questions about honesty and opportunism—particularly troubling for someone who now presents himself as a champion of social justice and equity. This decision reveals not just a lapse in judgment, but a willingness to manipulate racial identity for advantage—undermining the very values of fairness and equity.

A Platform Rooted in Ideological Extremism

Mamdani’s signature policies—rent freezes on hundreds of thousands of units, fare‑free buses, and city‑run grocery stores—sound progressive, but they mask a deeper commitment to government control over markets. Critics warn this kind of socialist experiment undermines economic efficiency and business investment.

Grocery stores: Mamdani proposes five city‑operated markets (one per borough). But producing food cheaper through government-run stores ignores thin profit margins and high logistics costs. Yale economists argue such ventures create bureaucratic inefficiencies rather than genuine consumer savings

Rent freeze: His proposal to freeze rent-stabilized apartments may appeal to renters, but real estate leaders fear capital flight once profits are capped, potentially damaging the city’s $100 billion real estate ecosystem.

This agenda pits ideological purity against pragmatic governance. Similar historic interventions in other nations have triggered investment pullbacks and job loss.

Anti-India, Anti-Modi, and Hostile Toward Hindu Sentiment

Zohran Mamdani has drawn significant criticism from Indian-American communities—especially Hindus—for his frequent, pointed attacks on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and what he routinely labels as “Hindu nationalism.” While democratic discourse welcomes healthy debate, Mamdani’s rhetoric ventures far beyond principled disagreement and into dangerous demagoguery that alienates one of the most civically engaged, economically productive, and culturally cohesive immigrant communities in New York.

Mamdani’s public record includes statements denouncing India as an “authoritarian Hindu supremacist state,” betraying not just political opposition to the BJP-led government but a deeper ideological animus toward Hindu identity itself. His repeated failure to distinguish between the Indian government and the global Indian diaspora—or between Hinduism as a deeply spiritual religion and any political misuse of it—has created deep rifts among South Asians who once viewed him as a possible bridge-builder.

He has vocally supported resolutions condemning the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the abrogation of Article 370—two major reforms that received widespread support within India, including from moderates and many Muslims. Yet Mamdani’s blanket condemnations suggest a myopic and hostile worldview in which the lived realities of over a billion Indians are flattened to fit a Western ideological script.

Comparing Modi to Netanyahu: A Dangerous and False Equivalency

In one of his most inflammatory public statements, Mamdani went so far as to compare Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming that Modi should be viewed as a “war criminal” just like his Israeli counterpart. Such comparisons are not only diplomatically reckless but factually indefensible, considering the democratic mandates under which both leaders were elected and the vastly different geopolitical contexts of their respective nations.

To equate India—the world’s largest democracy—with an apartheid regime narrative exposes Mamdani’s extreme ideological lens, one that selectively targets democratically elected leaders in the Global South while downplaying or ignoring the broader complexities of governance, national security, and public consensus.

False Claims About Gujarat Muslims: Outrage from Community and Analysts

Mamdani further courted outrage when he falsely claimed that “only a few Muslims remain in Gujarat” after the 2002 riots. This egregious assertion was swiftly debunked by political analyst Omer Ghazi, who responded:

“Mamdani’s statements are not only provocative and false, [but] insult the 6-million-plus vibrant Muslim population in Gujarat by denying their existence. This shows Mamdani will lie through his teeth for his ideological goals.”

Indeed, Gujarat’s Muslim population today exceeds six million, with thriving communities across cities like Ahmedabad, Surat, and Vadodara. By spreading disinformation, Mamdani insults both the victims of 2002 and the millions of peaceful Muslims who continue to live and thrive in the state.

Backlash from Hindu-Americans and Liberal Critics Alike

Mamdani’s statements have been sharply condemned not only by conservatives but also by liberal Indian-Americans who see his agenda as dangerously divisive.

BJP MP Kangana Ranaut responded strongly, stating that Mamdani “sounds more Pakistani than Indian,” referencing his tendency to echo Islamabad’s rhetoric about Kashmir and Indian Muslims.

Even self-identified liberal and New York-based Indian-American educator Indu Viswanathan was unsparing in her criticism. In a widely shared tweet, she said:

“I question his integrity because he blatantly lies, and he blatantly lies because he will be rewarded for lying. His lies fit neatly into a narrative that he can ride to the mayor’s office. The ease with which people are willing to reduce entire groups of New Yorkers to immoral actors, unless we acquiesce to their narrative about us, is the kind of bullshit that no real New Yorker would or should put up with. Nor should anyone who believes integrity still matters in public life.”

Viswanathan further described Mamdani as “a projection of an illiberal, anti-intellectual left-wing authoritarianism that has sunk its teeth into progressive politics,” reinforcing the perception that Mamdani’s rise represents not progressivism but ideological extremism cloaked in social justice rhetoric.

A Fractured Candidacy that Undermines Inclusion

Mamdani’s approach has led to growing alarm among Indian-American Democrats who see his politics as exclusionary, doctrinaire, and ultimately corrosive to coalition-building. His failure to honor cultural distinctions, religious sensitivities, or the legitimacy of diverse political opinions within the South Asian community undermines any claim he might have to true representation.

Instead of uniting diverse constituencies, Mamdani appears committed to sowing division—pitting Hindus against Muslims, Indian-Americans against their own heritage, and progressives against other progressives unwilling to toe his hardline agenda.

Backlash from Business + Finance

Wall Street and real estate sectors have reacted sharply. Following his primary victory, developers and landlords expressed panic; some are reportedly relocating operations out of New York .

Economists fear a mass exodus of capital—banks, hedge funds, tech firms—moving to lower-tax states like Texas and Florida. Without corporate presence, the city’s tax base and job market could hemorrhage. A Time analysis described such outcomes under socialism as “impractical, economically harmful”.

Concerns About Governance and Experience

Running a city with a $100 billion budget, 330,000 employees, and innumerable stakeholders demands seasoned leadership—but Mamdani lacks it. By contrast, former mayor Rudy Giuliani cited the inherent difficulty in New York governance, cautioning that such an unequipped individual would struggle to deliver.

The left-leaning New York Times editorial board warned against voting for Mamdani “He is a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance. He favors rent freezes that could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing. He wants the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing.”

Alienating Crucial Democratic Constituencies

Mamdani’s outspoken positions on the Israel–Palestine conflict have drawn fierce criticism from within the Democratic Party.

His use of the phrase “globalize the intifada” was condemned by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and prominent Jewish politicians as historically insensitive

Even NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand criticized his rhetoric before apologizing—as euphemistic as it may sound, this alienates vital pro‑Israel Jewish voters .

If Democrats become associated with Mideast controversy or perceived insensitivity, the party risks shifting support toward Republicans in key swing states—compromising broader national strategy.

Antisemitic Undertones and Pro-Intifada Stance

Mamdani has repeatedly drawn outrage for his anti-Israel positions, which many Jewish leaders and organizations have condemned as bordering on antisemitic rhetoric. Most notably, his endorsement of the slogan “Globalize the Intifada” sparked national backlash. While his defenders argue that the phrase is meant as a call for Palestinian solidarity, critics point out that the Intifada refers to violent uprisings marked by terrorism against civilians—including suicide bombings that killed hundreds of innocent Israelis. For many in the Jewish community, Mamdani’s use of the term is not only tone-deaf but dangerous, as it appears to normalize violence in political discourse. He has also publicly backed the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which mainstream Jewish groups—including the Anti-Defamation League—have called antisemitic in both intent and effect. His stance risks inflaming tensions in one of the most diverse cities in the world and further isolates a deeply committed segment of Democratic voters: Jewish New Yorkers, many of whom feel increasingly unwelcome in a party that tolerates such rhetoric.

Heightened National Backlash Risk

Mamdani’s amplified nationalist and sectarian controversies have made him a prime target:

• Former President Trump called Mamdani a “communist lunatic,” even threatening deportation despite his naturalized citizenship.
• Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem raised alarms about his candidacy, citing national security concerns and suggesting federal investigations.

These national-level confrontations would turn a New York mayoral race into a polarizing hotbed—draining party resources and inviting Republican provocations. The backlash could further weaken trust in Democrats among suburban swing voters nationally.

Internal Party Conflict and Electability

What began as a youthful insurgency threatens to tear the Democratic Party apart:

• Centrist and establishment Democrats—like Cuomo and Bloomberg—have launched efforts to block Mamdani, seeing him as a spoiler in the general election.
• Labor unions and progressive activists have rallied behind him, creating a split that may lead to voter abstention or independent challenges in November.

A fractured base means declining turnout and organizational breakdown—vital for combating Republicans and maintaining power in local and national seats.

Weak Economic Foundation and Fiscal Risk

New York ranks among the most complex municipalities in the nation, with fractured finances and looming service boycotts. Yet Mamdani proposes to massively expand the city payroll—childcare workers, transit staff, grocery employees—and enforce a $30 minimum wage by 2030, funded via millionaires taxes and corporate levies.

But raising $10 billion in such taxes could fail amid state legislature resistance and corporate flight. Moreover, ballooning an already bloated workforce strains pension obligations and pension liabilities, making long-term fallout likely. Time warns against the “nationalizing utilities” blueprint as fiscally unsound.

Damage to National Democratic Brand

New York sets the tone for the national Democratic narrative. Electing a socialist mayor—especially one mired in ideological controversy—risks associating Democrats with radical policies. This could:

• Drive moderate voters toward Republicans
• Trigger targeted GOP campaigns (as witnessed)
• Destabilize Biden’s messaging on common-sense progressive governance
  

Mamdani’s rhetoric and platform don’t cohere with the post‑Biden Democratic identity, which emphasizes responsible budgeting and inclusive pluralism.

The Stakes Are Too High

Zohran Mamdani’s rise represents more than a left‑wing insurgency—it’s a decision point for New York City and the Democratic Party.

• His ambitious, ideology-driven policies risk undermining private-sector growth, public services, and governance infrastructure.
• His inflammatory rhetoric over Intifada and Israel threatens key Democratic constituencies and opens the party to national backlash.
• His limited experience and management inexperience raises doubts about execution.

Mamdani’s candidacy could dismantle the delicate coalition that Democrats have painstakingly built—from labor to professionals, minority communities, and moderates. New York needs reform—but not a radical takeover that prioritizes ideological purity over practical solutions, administrative competence, and coalition unity.
A re-examination of Mamdani’s suitability is overdue. New York—and the nation—deserve leaders who can translate progressive ideals into effective governance without jeopardizing stability or diluting the broader Democratic vision.

About the Author:

Dr. Mohini Shinde

Dr. Mohini Shinde is a professor of religions of India and has taught Hindu religion and world religion in several US universities before her retirement. Her research was on religion and politics in South Asia. In her research engagements, she lived several years in India where she studied vedas and upanishads. She lives in California with her husband.

People widely celebrate Rabindranath Tagore, a towering figure in literature and the arts, especially on his birth anniversary on May 7. Born on May 7, 1861, Tagore was not only a seminal figure in Indian culture but also a beacon of intellectual and artistic achievement globally.

In 1913, Tagore became the first Asian to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature, making his legacy particularly notable.

Tagore received this Nobel Prize for his book “Gitanjali,” a collection of poems he personally translated from Bengali into English. Officials bestowed the prize for Tagore’s profoundly sensitive, fresh, and beautiful verse, which he used to express his poetic thought in his own English words, making it a part of Western literature. This recognition was not just a personal achievement but a moment of great national pride for India, serving as a bridge between Eastern and Western literary traditions.

Tagore’s work extends beyond poetry; he was also a philosopher, educator, painter, and composer. His songs, known as Rabindra Sangeet, are an integral part of Bengali culture to this day. Tagore’s ideas on education and internationalism remain deeply influential, as he envisioned a world where humanity transcended geographical and cultural boundaries.

People around the world celebrate his legacy, especially in India and Bangladesh, where they observe his birth anniversary with great reverence. Educational institutions, literary societies, and cultural groups often organize readings, performances, and discussions to honor his contributions to literature and society.

Thus, remembering Rabindranath Tagore on his birth anniversary not only honors his personal achievements but also celebrates the rich and enduring impact he has had on the world stage.

 Tagore has been the subject of numerous books and articles. Therefore, rather than simply restating the obvious in this article, we will delve into a few topics that haven’t received as much attention as others.

Tagore’s interaction with world leaders 

Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) Indian poet, novelist and playwright. He is the first Indian winner of a Nobel Prize. Photo: In 1920, Rabindranath Tagore visited the Netherlands and was photographed (a ‘quick snap with artificial light’) in the building of the Vrije Gemeente on the Weteringschans in Amsterdam.

Tagore was an extensive traveler; his travels helped him develop a deep appreciation for diverse cultures and philosophies. Over his lifetime, he visited more than thirty countries on five continents. His works reflected these experiences, emphasizing universal humanism over nationalism. Tagore met with several prominent figures and leaders across the globe, including Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Romain Rolland, and H.G. Wells.

Tagore’s interaction with Mahatma Gandhi

Deep mutual respect and thoughtful disagreements marked the relationship between Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi, two towering figures of Indian history and culture. Their interactions encompassed a wide range of discussions on various aspects of Indian society, politics, and the path to independence from British rule.

1. Mutual Respect: Tagore and Gandhi held each other in high esteem. Tagore famously bestowed the title ‘Mahatma’ on Gandhi, which translates to “great soul,” a term that became synonymous with Gandhi’s identity. Gandhi, in turn, revered Tagore as “Gurudev,” or “great teacher.” Their respect was evident in their personal correspondence and public acknowledgements of each other’s contributions.
2. Philosophical Differences: Despite their mutual respect, they had significant philosophical differences, particularly concerning the means of achieving independence and the nature of a post-colonial Indian society. While Tagore promoted a more individualistic and artistic approach, emphasizing education, freedom of thought, and cultural development, Gandhi often centered his approach on mass movements and a strict code of personal and communal discipline.
3. Nationalism and Internationalism: Tagore was critical of some aspects of Gandhi’s Swadeshi movement, which advocated the boycott of foreign goods. Tagore believed in a more inclusive and international approach, fearing that extreme nationalism could lead to isolation and xenophobia. He was wary of the potential divisiveness of strong nationalistic fervor and often advocated for a more universal and humanistic approach.
4. Views on Modernity and Tradition: Gandhi’s vision included an idealized version of an ancient Indian village society that was self-sufficient and free of industrial influence. In contrast, Tagore was more open to embracing modern ideas and technologies that could enrich Indian society without compromising its cultural identity.
5. Personal Interactions: Their personal interactions often involved exchanges of letters discussing these themes. Tagore visited Gandhi at his ashrams, and they engaged in dialogues that were both personal and philosophical. Their disagreements were public but respectful, contributing to a broader discourse on the future of India.

The relationship between Tagore and Gandhi illustrates a profound dialogue between two different visions for India, each influential in its own right, and their legacy continues to influence discussions on ethics, governance, and cultural identity in India and beyond.

Tagore’s interaction with Albert Einstein

Tagore’s interaction with Albert Einstein is one of the most fascinating intellectual exchanges in history, bridging the worlds of science and literature, East and West. Their conversations delved into the nature of reality, truth, and beauty, offering a rare glimpse into how two great minds from seemingly disparate fields could find common ground and yet respectfully differ.

Tagore and Einstein met several times during the early 1930s. These meetings were characterized by discussions on fundamental questions concerning the universe, the nature of truth, and the pursuit of science and art. Not only did their dialogues reflect their personal philosophies, but they also underscored the intellectual climate of the era, marked by a growing questioning and exploration of the boundaries between different disciplines.

The most famous of their discussions took place in 1930 at Einstein’s home in Caputh, near Berlin. Their core debate revolved around the separation of human perception and beauty from human experience, as well as the independence of truth from humanity.

Einstein’s View: Einstein believed in an external universe independent of human perception, rooted in objective truths that scientific methods could ascertain. He argued, “If there is no human being any more, the Apollo of Belvedere no longer remains beautiful. “No longer by itself, anyway.”

Tagore’s Perspective: Tagore, on the other hand, held a more human-centric view, arguing that truth and beauty are human interpretations of the universe. He believed that truth is a human construct, deeply intertwined with human perception. He stated, “This is a human world—the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man.”

The dialogues between Tagore and Einstein were significant because they highlighted the possibility of profound respect and mutual inquiry between individuals rooted in different intellectual traditions. While Einstein approached the conversation from a scientific realist standpoint, Tagore presented a perspective grounded in relational realism, which sees the universe through the lens of human interconnections.

Scholars continue to study and appreciate the Tagore-Einstein conversations for their depth and open-minded spirit, symbolizing a bridge between the sciences and the humanities and between Eastern and Western ways of thinking about the world.

Tagore’s interaction with Romain Rolland

Tagore’s interaction with Romain Rolland, another luminary of the early 20th century, is a remarkable chapter in the story of cultural and intellectual exchanges between the East and West. Romain Rolland was a French dramatist, novelist, and essayist, and like Tagore, he was also a Nobel laureate, celebrated for his deep humanism and commitment to international cultural exchange.

Romain Rolland was one of the Western intellectuals who greatly admired Tagore and his philosophy. Rolland was deeply involved in Europe’s cultural life and was an ardent advocate for peace and non-violence, which resonated with Tagore’s own ideals. Their interactions were part of a broader dialogue between Western and Eastern intellectuals during a time when there was a significant interest in Indian philosophy and spirituality in Europe.

Tagore and Rolland shared a common belief in the power of art and culture to foster international understanding and peace. They discussed various issues related to nationalism, universalism, and the role of culture in shaping society. Both intellectuals were critical of aggressive nationalism and believed in a more inclusive view of humanity that transcended national boundaries.

Universal Humanism: Both Tagore and Rolland promoted the idea of universal humanism, which connects people beyond their national or cultural identities. They held the belief that cultural and artistic exchanges, emphasizing shared human values, could foster true understanding among nations.

Critique of Nationalism: Tagore’s skepticism of nationalism, particularly in its more aggressive forms, found a sympathetic ear in Rolland. Tagore expressed concerns about nationalism leading to parochialism and conflicts, while Rolland’s anti-war stance, especially during and after World War I, aligned with Tagore’s views on the destructive impacts of nationalistic fervor.

The correspondence and personal meetings between Tagore and Rolland enriched both their worldviews. Rolland’s respect for Tagore was evident in his writings and advocacy of Tagore’s work in Europe, which helped introduce Tagore’s literary and philosophical ideas to a broader audience. Tagore’s interactions with European intellectuals, such as Rolland, validated his belief in the universality of his message and the relevance of Indian thought to global issues.

Their interaction is a testament to the power of intellectual and cultural exchange in fostering mutual respect and understanding between different worlds. It highlighted the role of intellectuals and artists in bridging divides and promoting a vision of humanity that is inclusive and compassionate. This legacy of dialogue continues to inspire those who seek to bridge cultural and ideological divides through understanding and empathy.

Through these interactions, Tagore not only represented India on a global stage, but also brought back valuable insights and ideas that contributed to India’s cultural and educational reform. His conversations and disagreements with leaders like Gandhi highlighted his belief in a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to understanding human progress and governance.

Celebrating Tagore Today

Events across the globe celebrate Rabindranath Tagore’s birth anniversary, honoring his diverse contributions to literature, art, and philosophy. Communities and cultural institutions worldwide organize a variety of activities, from elaborate poetry readings that breathe new life into Tagore’s verses to vibrant musical performances inspired by his compositions. Art galleries curate special exhibitions showcasing his paintings, inviting viewers to delve into the visual aspect of his creativity.

Theatrical groups stage adaptations of Tagore’s plays, highlighting his innovative contributions to drama and performance art. Educational forums and workshops explore his educational philosophies, drawing lessons on how they might inform contemporary teaching practices. In addition, digital platforms offer webinars and virtual exhibitions, making Tagore’s work accessible to a global audience and fostering a digital dialogue around his enduring relevance.

Such commemorations not only honor Tagore’s legacy but also serve as an introduction to his work for those yet to discover the depth of his genius. Participants from diverse backgrounds unite in appreciation of a visionary who championed the universal values of love, empathy, and interconnectedness by engaging with his creations and ideals. These events underscore the timeless nature of Tagore’s contributions, demonstrating how his ideas continue to resonate and inspire in today’s world. Through these global tributes, we reaffirm our commitment to carrying forward Tagore’s vision of a world where creativity and humanism flourish in harmony.

By Dr. Mohini Shinde

Udhayanidhi Stalin, the sports minister of Tamil Nadu made comments about Sanatan Dharma that sparked a wave of controversy. He has accused Sanatan Dharma of being a regressive ideology that divides people on the basis of caste and religion. He has also called for it to be eradicated. He also compared Sanatan Dharma to “malaria” and “dengue,” and said that it should be eradicated. He also argued that Sanatan Dharma is based on the caste system and discrimination.

Let us examine these claims and set the record straight about Sanatan Dharma by refuting Udhayanidhi Stalin’s false statements. We will discuss the history of Sanatan Dharma and explore how it has evolved over the years to become the religion practiced by millions of Hindus all over the world. By the end of this article, readers will have a better understanding of Sanatan Dharma and why Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments are incorrect and baseless.

Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Comments on Sanatan Dharma

Recently, Udhayanidhi Stalin, the sports minister of Tamil Nadu, who calls himself atheist,  made very derogatory comments about Sanatan Dharma that have caused quite a stir. In his statements, Stalin portrayed Sanatan Dharma in a negative light and made sweeping generalizations about its practices and beliefs. However, it is clear that Stalin’s comments are misinformed and lack a proper understanding of this ancient religion.

Firstly, it is important to note that Sanatan Dharma, also known as Hinduism, is one of the oldest religions in the world. It has a rich history and encompasses a wide range of beliefs, practices, and philosophies. It is a diverse and inclusive religion that emphasizes personal growth, spirituality, and the pursuit of truth.

Stalin’s comments seem to misinterpret various Hindu practices and traditions. He seems to view them through a narrow lens, without taking into account their historical and cultural significance. It is crucial to understand that Hindu practices are deeply rooted in symbolism and metaphor, and cannot be reduced to simplistic or literal interpretations.

Furthermore, Stalin’s false claims about Sanatan Dharma only serve to perpetuate misunderstandings and stereotypes about Hinduism. It is essential for public figures like him to engage in fact-checking and gain a comprehensive understanding of a religion before making public statements.

What is Sanatan Dharma?

Sanatan Dharma is a Sanskrit term that is often translated as “eternal religion” or “eternal law.” It is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of Hindu beliefs and practices, but it is also used by some to refer to Hinduism as a whole.

Sanatan Dharma, also known as Hinduism, is an ancient religion that originated in the Indian subcontinent. It is a complex and diverse religion that encompasses a wide range of beliefs, practices, and philosophies. Sanatan Dharma is not just a religion, but a way of life for millions of Hindus around the world.

At its core, Sanatan Dharma emphasizes the pursuit of truth, self-realization, and spiritual growth. It is a religion that recognizes the interconnectedness of all beings and teaches the importance of living in harmony with nature and the universe. Sanatan Dharma is characterized by its rich mythology, sacred scriptures such as the Vedas and Upanishads, and a plethora of rituals and festivals that celebrate various deities and their divine manifestations.

One of the key principles of Sanatan Dharma is the concept of dharma, which can be understood as one’s moral and ethical duty. It is believed that by following one’s dharma and living a righteous life, individuals can attain spiritual liberation and ultimately merge with the divine.

Sanatan Dharma is a religion that has evolved over thousands of years, absorbing influences from various cultures and civilizations. It is a religion that is adaptable and inclusive, accommodating a wide range of beliefs and practices. Despite its diversity, Sanatan Dharma is united by its underlying principles of tolerance, acceptance, and the belief in the ultimate divinity of all beings.

In this article, we will delve deeper into the misinterpretation of Hindu practices by Udhayanidhi Stalin and address the false claims he has made about Sanatan Dharma. It is crucial to shed light on the true essence of this ancient religion and debunk the misconceptions propagated by uninformed individuals.

Comments completely baseless and wrong

The comments made by Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatan Dharma are completely baseless and wrong. These claims are not supported by facts. Sanatan Dharma is a diverse and pluralistic tradition that has embraced a wide range of beliefs and practices over the centuries. It has also been a source of great spiritual and cultural inspiration for millions of people around the world.

Stalin’s comments are also deeply offensive to Hindus. Sanatan Dharma is the oldest living religion in the world and is held sacred by millions of people. To accuse it of being regressive and divisive is simply not true.

It is important to note that Stalin’s comments have been widely condemned by Hindus and non-Hindus alike. Many people have pointed out that his comments are harmful and could lead to increased religious polarization in India.

Misinterpretation of Hindu Practices by Udhayanidhi Stalin

Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments about Sanatan Dharma not only display a lack of knowledge but also a clear misinterpretation of Hindu practices. It is essential to address these misconceptions and shed light on the true nature of these ancient traditions.

One of the main misinterpretations made by Stalin is the reduction of Hindu practices to simplistic or literal interpretations. Hinduism is a religion deeply rooted in symbolism and metaphor. Its rituals, ceremonies, and customs are designed to convey profound philosophical and spiritual concepts. For example, the idol worship in Hindu temples is not the worship of the physical idol itself, but rather the recognition of the divine presence it represents. It is a way to connect with the divine through tangible forms.

Furthermore, Stalin’s comments seem to ignore the historical and cultural significance of Hindu practices. Hinduism is an ancient religion that has evolved over thousands of years, absorbing influences from various cultures and civilizations. It is a complex and diverse religion, with numerous sects, traditions, and philosophical schools. By overlooking this diversity, Stalin fails to recognize the richness and depth of Hinduism.

It is important to understand that Hindu practices cannot be dismissed or misunderstood based on superficial observations. They require a comprehensive understanding of the underlying philosophy and symbolism. By misinterpreting these practices, Stalin perpetuates stereotypes and perpetuates misunderstandings about Hinduism. It is crucial for public figures like him to engage in fact-checking and gain a more nuanced understanding of a religion before making public statements. Only then can we have a more informed and respectful discussion about Sanatan Dharma.

False Claims Made by Udhayanidhi Stalin

Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments on Sanatan Dharma are not only misinformed but also perpetuate false claims about this ancient religion. Stalin seems to have a limited understanding of Hindu practices and traditions, which has led him to make inaccurate statements. One of his false claims is the portrayal of idol worship in Hindu temples as the worship of physical idols themselves. In reality, idol worship in Hinduism is symbolic and represents the divine presence it represents. It is a way for devotees to connect with the divine through tangible forms.

Additionally, Stalin’s comments overlook the historical and cultural significance of Hindu practices. Hinduism is a religion that has evolved over thousands of years, absorbing influences from various cultures and civilizations. It is a complex and diverse religion with numerous sects, traditions, and philosophical schools. By disregarding this diversity, Stalin fails to recognize the depth and richness of Hinduism.

It is important to address these false claims made by public figures like Udhayanidhi Stalin because they contribute to misunderstandings and perpetuate stereotypes about Sanatan Dharma. Before making public statements, it is crucial for individuals to engage in fact-checking and gain a more nuanced understanding of a religion. Only then can we have informed and respectful discussions about Sanatan Dharma, setting the record straight and dispelling misconceptions.

Importance of Fact-Checking Before Making Public Statements

In today’s digital age, public figures and leaders have a significant influence on shaping public opinion. With the power of social media and the speed at which information travels, it is more important than ever for individuals in positions of authority to fact-check before making public statements. This holds true for all topics, including religion.

The importance of fact-checking cannot be overstated, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like Sanatan Dharma. Making false claims or spreading misinformation about a religion can have serious consequences. It can perpetuate stereotypes, fuel religious tensions, and create division among communities.

When public figures like Udhayanidhi Stalin make uninformed comments about Sanatan Dharma, they not only display their lack of knowledge but also risk misleading others. It is crucial for leaders to take the time to educate themselves about different religions and belief systems before making any public statements. This means engaging in thorough research, consulting with experts, and seeking a diverse range of perspectives.

Fact-checking is not just a responsibility; it is a moral duty. It is essential for public figures to prioritize accuracy and ensure that their statements are based on truth and evidence. By doing so, they can contribute to a more informed and respectful discussion, foster religious harmony, and promote understanding among communities. In this age of misinformation, fact-checking has become an invaluable tool in upholding the truth and setting the record straight.

The Congress Party’s silence

The Congress Party’s silence on the recent comments made by Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatan Dharma is indeed very bad for maintaining world peace and harmony`. Stalin’s comments were highly offensive and divisive, and they have the potential to incite violence and hatred against Hindus.

The Congress Party is one of the oldest political parties in India.. By remaining silent on Stalin’s comments, the Congress Party is not only sending a wrong message to its own supporters, but it is also undermining its own credibility as a champion of peace and harmony.

The world is already facing a number of challenges, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, the climate crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The last thing we need is more division and hatred. The Congress Party has a responsibility to speak out against all forms of intolerance and bigotry, including Stalin’s comments on Sanatan Dharma.

By remaining silent, the Congress Party is also failing to stand up for the millions of Hindus around the world who are facing persecution and discrimination. Hindus are often the targets of violence and hate crimes, simply because of their religious beliefs. The Congress Party has a moral obligation to speak out against these atrocities and to defend the rights of all Hindus.

The world needs peace now more than ever before. The Congress Party can play a vital role in promoting tolerance and understanding between people of different faiths. By speaking out against Stalin’s comments and other forms of intolerance, the Congress Party can help to create a more peaceful and harmonious world.

It has a long history of promoting tolerance and pluralism

About the Author
Dr. Mohini Shinde is a professor of religions of India and has taught Hindu religion and world religion in several US universities before her retirement. Her research was on religion and politics in South Asia. In her research engagements, she lived several years in India where she studied vedas and upanishads. She lives in California with her husband.

Swami Vivekananda, an Indian spiritual leader and philosopher who believed that self-belief and faith were closely connected. He famously said, “You cannot believe in God until you believe in yourself”. This statement encapsulates the idea that before we can have faith in something larger than ourselves, we must first understand our own worth and have faith in ourselves. Let us explore why Swami Vivekananda believed that self-belief and faith go hand-in-hand and how this belief has impacted his teachings.

The Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda

Swami Vivekananda was a spiritual leader and philosopher who emphasized the importance of self-belief and faith. Born in India in 1863, Vivekananda studied Vedanta philosophy and became a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. He later traveled to the United States, where he gained widespread recognition as a speaker and advocate for Indian culture and spirituality.

One of Vivekananda’s core beliefs was that every individual possesses the spark of divinity within themselves. He believed that through self-realization, people could unlock their full potential and achieve their goals. To do so, however, they needed to cultivate self-belief and have faith in themselves.

For Vivekananda, faith was not simply a matter of belief in a higher power but a deep trust in one’s own abilities and potential. He believed that faith in oneself was essential for success in any endeavor, whether it be spiritual, intellectual, or material. By believing in themselves, people could overcome obstacles and achieve their goals.

In Vivekananda’s view, self-belief and faith were closely intertwined. Without faith in oneself, it was difficult to cultivate the confidence and courage needed to pursue one’s goals. Conversely, by developing faith in oneself, individuals could cultivate the self-belief needed to overcome challenges and succeed.

Swami Vivekananda’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of self-belief and faith as key components of personal growth and achievement. By cultivating these qualities, individuals can tap into their inner strength and achieve their highest potential.

Understanding Self-Belief and Faith

Understanding self-belief and faith is essential in order to fully grasp the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Self-belief refers to having confidence in one’s own abilities, worth, and potential. It is the belief that you are capable of achieving your goals and overcoming obstacles. On the other hand, faith involves trust and belief in something beyond ourselves, whether it is a higher power, the universe, or a divine force. It is the belief that there is a greater purpose or plan at work.

Swami Vivekananda believed that self-belief and faith are closely connected because they both involve trusting in oneself and in something beyond oneself. Self-belief is the foundation on which faith is built. When we believe in ourselves and our abilities, we are more likely to have faith in the greater possibilities and potentials that lie ahead. Similarly, having faith in something beyond ourselves can also strengthen our self-belief. When we trust in a higher power or divine force, we realize that we are not alone and that there is a greater plan for us.

Understanding self-belief and faith allows us to tap into our inner strength and unlock our full potential. It empowers us to take risks, overcome challenges, and pursue our dreams with confidence. Swami Vivekananda’s teachings remind us of the importance of cultivating both self-belief and faith in order to live a purposeful and fulfilling life.

 The Connection Between Self-Belief and Faith

 Swami Vivekananda believed that self-belief and faith go hand-in-hand, as they are two sides of the same coin. Faith in God requires the individual to have faith in themselves, their abilities, and their potential. It is only when we believe in ourselves that we can fully trust in God’s plan for us. This connection is critical, as faith alone cannot sustain a person if they do not have the self-confidence to persevere through life’s challenges.

Self-belief also provides us with the courage and determination to face any adversity and strive for excellence. When we believe in ourselves, we can tap into our full potential and find purpose and meaning in our lives. This inner strength can also help us overcome our fears and doubts and push beyond our limits.

 Having faith in oneself and in God can help us navigate the unpredictable nature of life with more ease and grace. This connection can provide a sense of security, purpose, and comfort that can help us face our trials and tribulations.

 Swami Vivekananda recognized the crucial connection between self-belief and faith and the benefits they provide together. Believing in yourself is an essential component of having faith, and this combination can provide us with the inner strength and motivation to overcome any obstacle that comes our way.

 The Importance of Believing in Yourself

 Believing in yourself is crucial for personal growth and success. It is the foundation upon which all achievements are built. Swami Vivekananda recognized the immense importance of self-belief in shaping one’s life and reaching one’s full potential. When you believe in yourself, you develop a strong sense of confidence and resilience. You become aware of your own worth and capabilities, which empowers you to pursue your goals and dreams with determination.

 Believing in yourself allows you to overcome obstacles and setbacks. It gives you the courage to take risks and step out of your comfort zone. With self-belief, you develop a positive mindset and are more likely to persevere through challenges. Even when faced with failures, you have the inner strength to learn from them and continue moving forward.

 Believing in yourself attracts opportunities and positive experiences into your life. When you have faith in your abilities, you exude a sense of self-assurance that is attractive to others. People are drawn to those who believe in themselves, and doors of opportunity often open up as a result.

 In essence, believing in yourself is not only essential for personal growth and success, but it is also a fundamental aspect of leading a fulfilling and meaningful life. It allows you to tap into your inner strength, embrace your uniqueness, and live up to your true potential. So embrace self-belief and have faith in yourself, for it is the key to unlocking a world of limitless possibilities.

 How to Cultivate Self-Belief

Cultivating self-belief is an ongoing process that requires patience, perseverance, and self-reflection. Here are some strategies to help you cultivate self-belief:

1. Identify and challenge limiting beliefs. Recognize any negative beliefs or self-doubt that may be holding you back. Challenge these beliefs by questioning their validity and replacing them with positive affirmations.
2. Set achievable goals. Break down your goals into smaller, manageable steps. Each time you accomplish a goal, you will build confidence and belief in your abilities.
3. Celebrate your successes. Acknowledge and celebrate your achievements, no matter how small they may seem. This reinforces a positive mindset and helps build self-belief.
4. Surround yourself with positive influences. Surround yourself with people who uplift and support you. Avoid negative influences or people who undermine your self-belief.
5. Practice self-care: Take care of your physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Engage in activities that make you feel good about yourself and boost your confidence.
6. Visualize success. Visualize yourself achieving your goals and overcoming obstacles. This helps reinforce positive beliefs and builds self-confidence.
7. Learn from failures. Embrace failure as an opportunity for growth and learning. Analyze what went wrong, make adjustments, and try again with renewed determination.
8. Seek support: Reach out to a trusted friend, mentor, or coach who can provide guidance, encouragement, and accountability on your journey to cultivating self-belief.

Remember, cultivating self-belief takes time and effort. Be patient with yourself, and continue to believe in your abilities and potential. With persistence and dedication, you can cultivate self-belief and unlock your true potential. It’s important to understand that self-belief isn’t a fixed trait that you either have or don’t have. Instead, it’s something that you can cultivate and grow over time. By implementing these strategies, you can develop a stronger sense of self-belief and faith in yourself.

When you believe in yourself, you can accomplish great things. Self-belief gives you the courage and confidence to take risks, pursue your dreams, and overcome challenges. Without it, you may be held back by fear, doubt, and insecurity.

In addition to helping you achieve your goals, self-belief can also enhance your overall well-being. When you believe in yourself, you’re more likely to experience positive emotions such as joy, pride, and satisfaction. You’re also more resilient in the face of adversity and less likely to suffer from depression or anxiety.

By understanding the connection between self-belief and faith, you can start to cultivate both of these qualities in your life. With time and practice, you can learn to trust yourself, have faith in your abilities, and live a life that’s grounded in purpose and meaning.

This thought-provoking quote by Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu was first said around 500 B.C. and has now been echoed by others in various ways down through the centuries. In similar words, Aristotle said, “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom. A famous declaration from the Upanishads, “Tat Tvam Asi,” or “Thou Art That,” encapsulates this profound spiritual truth. It conveys that the individual self (you) is not separate from the ultimate reality (that).

Of course, the fundamental truth is that you possess the greatest wisdom. You will have a deeper understanding of the world once you have that information.

Knowing others and knowing things is all well and good, but knowing yourself and knowing what makes you “tick” is an essential prerequisite for all greater and deeper knowledge. It is the road to enlightenment.

This phrase expresses a profound philosophical concept that originates from ancient wisdom and has roots in various cultural and spiritual traditions.

“Knowing others is wisdom” implies understanding people’s motivations, emotions, and actions, which can lead to effective communication, empathy, and negotiation skills—qualities often associated with wisdom.

“Knowing yourself is enlightenment,” which refers to deep introspection and self-understanding. Enlightenment is often associated with a profound, comprehensive understanding of oneself and one’s place in the world, which can be transformative. This knowledge includes understanding your strengths, weaknesses, desires, beliefs, motivations, and emotions and how these shape your actions and reactions.

When you achieve enlightenment, you not only understand yourself but also how your actions and thoughts affect others and the world around you. This level of self-awareness often leads to a more balanced, meaningful, and fulfilled life.

This kind of self-realization is a central concept in many philosophical and religious traditions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism, where enlightenment is a significant goal. It is also a cornerstone in psychology, especially in humanistic psychology, which emphasizes personal growth and self-actualization.

However, it’s important to note that the journey of self-discovery and understanding others is a lifelong process that requires patience, reflection, and honesty.

Concept in Hinduism

In Hinduism, the concept of knowing oneself, often described as “self-realization” or “self-knowledge,” is pivotal in attaining spiritual enlightenment, also known as Moksha. The “self” here refers to the “atman,” which is the individual soul or consciousness, understood to be the eternal, unchanging essence of a person.

Hindu scriptures, especially the Upanishads, elaborate on this idea, asserting that the realization of the unity of Atman (the individual soul) with Brahman (the ultimate reality or universal soul) is the path to enlightenment. This realization leads to a state of inner peace, freedom, and eternal bliss, transcending the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

The process of attaining this knowledge involves self-inquiry, meditation, moral living, and often the guidance of a guru. It is an inward journey that peels off the layers of ego, illusions (Maya), and ignorance (Avidya), leading to the realization of one’s true divine nature.

However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the diversity within Hinduism; interpretations may vary among different philosophical schools, traditions, and practices.

“Tat Tvam Asi” or “Thou Art That

“Tat Tvam Asi,” or “Thou Art That,” is a key teaching from the Chandogya Upanishad, one of the oldest Upanishads, a set of philosophical texts in Hinduism. This Sanskrit phrase is one of the four Mahavakyas, or “Great Sayings,” of the Upanishads.

“Tat Tvam Asi” is often translated as “You are That.” Here’s what each of the words means:

“Tat”: This means “that” in Sanskrit, and it refers to Brahman, the ultimate, unchanging reality of the universe, according to Hindu philosophy. Brahman is the eternal truth and bliss, which are the source of everything, the ultimate cause, and the supreme goal of all existence.

“Tvam”: This means “you” in Sanskrit, and it refers to the Atman, the individual self. Atman is the innermost essence, the soul, or the self that is eternal and divine in every being.

“Asi”: This means “are” in Sanskrit. It represents the unity or non-duality between “Tat” and “Tvam.”

Therefore, “Tat Tvam Asi” asserts the fundamental unity of the individual’s soul (Atman) with the ultimate reality (Brahman). It expresses the idea that our true self is not this body or the ego but the divine and eternal reality.

Understanding and realizing “Tat Tvam Asi” can lead to Moksha, or liberation, a central goal in Hinduism. Moksha is liberation from the cycle of birth and death (Samsara), and it comes from the profound realization that the individual soul and the universe’s ultimate reality are one and the same. This realization is not merely intellectual but experiential and is often achieved through self-inquiry, meditation, and ethical living.

The teaching of “Tat Tvam Asi” offers a foundation for non-duality, or Advaita Vedanta, one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization. It promotes the understanding that there is no separation between the self and the rest of the universe, leading to a state of complete peace and fulfillment.

About the Author

Dr. Mohini Shinde is a professor of religions of India and has taught Hindu religion and world religion in several US universities before her retirement. Her research was on religion and politics in South Asia. In her research engagements, she lived several years in India where she studied vedas and upanishads. She lives in California with her husband.

On January 30th, 1948, Hindu extremists Nathuram Godse assassinated Gandhi ji, the most well-known proponent of nonviolence in the world.

• Where there is extremist ideology, innocent people will always be killed
• Religious fanaticism in our day and age is a danger to world peace
• Due to the allure of the future, we are currently being forced backwards
• The wall of solidarity that had expelled our oppressors has developed communal fissures. The webs of restraint that had held it all together are being broken by wheels that have been set in action and are silently whirling

Editor’s note

It has been 75 years since we have lost our beloved Gandhi ji. On January 30th, 1948, Godse assassinated Gandhi ji, the most well-known proponent of nonviolence in the world. This tragedy serves as a reminder that the road to independence was not easy and that there will always be people who seek to sow conflict and division. Where there is extremist ideology, innocent people will always be killed.

Here is an article by Dr. Mohini Shinde, Hindu Scholar who was born and finished high school and college education from the same town as Nathuram Godse, who killed Gandhi ji. 

Please read her views on Gandhi’s assassination.

Raj Shah

Managing Editor

“I am a Hindu and I believe in rebirth. I pray to god that I am reborn with Gandhi so that I can kill him again.” Nathuram Godse, the man who, in a cruel twist of irony, brought about a violent end to  the most prominent advocate of nonviolence in the world, said as much. He said this calmly, like a man who fully believed in his ideas and was assured of his conduct, rather than with a raging passion that clouded his judgment. Nathuram Godse was a violent, murderous, and fanatical religious fanatic. a man who invoked passages from the Bhagavad Gita to defend his behavior. A man who undermined all India and Hinduism stood for, including tolerance, democracy, and secularism. Certainly, let’s construct a temple for him!

Religious fanaticism in our day and age is a danger to world peace. We support the idea of religious acceptance. We issue strongly worded declarations denouncing the Taliban and ISIS. We have read carefully written essays warning against combining politics and religion. We are thoughtful, contemporary people who prefer to imagine secularism as an ethereal good circling above our heads.

But repressed demons have emerged from our murky underbelly and entered primary school textbooks, public statements, and parliamentary debates. The webs of restraint that had held it all together are being broken by wheels that have been set in action and are silently whirling. State legitimacy is being conferred on voices that require opposition. Due to the allure of the future, we are currently being forced backwards.

Mahatma Gandhi was a symbol as well as a human being. He spread the value of nonviolence throughout the world. He forced the colonial powers to submit via shame. He had faith in humanity and the idea of a tolerant people bound together by the concept of India.

He had faith in something more profound than religion. Sadly, once the British Empire faded into history, politics underwent a dramatic change in nature that made it difficult to tame. In his later years, Gandhi was a lonesome man, engaged in a solitary conflict, and battling for a philosophy.

India hadn’t yet accepted its own identity. The wall of solidarity that had expelled our oppressors has developed communal fissures. Hindu radicals viewed Gandhi as a traitor to Hindus, who were ‘his people’ by accident of birth. Instead of giants, there were groups of irate minions fighting. Gandhi was trampled by the ants at his feet because he held fast to a higher ideal.

Famously, Godse emphasized his admiration for Gandhi’s integrity. He was a failed politician, he said, but “I used to admire him as a saint because he always told the truth, which was not easy.” He was at conflict with Gandhi’s philosophy. And shooting him over it was acceptable. Godse rationalized murder by giving it a reason and a lofty objective. Godse committed terrorism.

He felt alone and distant immediately after the murder. He had been a member of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, both of which he had derived inspiration from, and both of which went to great measures to distance themselves from possibly the most despised man in the nation at the time. Later, Gopal Godse, his own brother, confirmed to the fact that Savarkar and the RSS were not entirely blameless for the conspiracy.

Nathuram Godse never quit the RSS, he revealed. A Hindu Mahasabha member named Digambar Badge testified against Savarkar, whose approval, he claimed, allowed the Mahatma to be killed.

Today marks 67 years since the murder of our country’s founding father in broad daylight. Faces are coming out of the shadows, and in a nation governed by positive forces, they now have the audacity to finally reveal who they really are.  Faces are coming out of the shadows, and in a nation governed by positive forces, they now have the audacity to finally reveal who they really are.

Hindu radicals from all over the nation have been celebrating November 15 as “Maryrdom Day” since Godse’s hanging on that day. In Maharashtra, plays that praise Godse’s crime play to full audiences. Everything has now come to light in the open.

The Hindu Mahasabha is preparing to step up its operations by bringing Godse’s philosophy of religious hatred to Hindu temples across the nation after the Uttar Pradesh state police foiled their attempts to construct statues of Godse at many designated locations. “We have a committed group of young people who are filled with nationalistic zeal and who are willing to risk being arrested to erect Godse’s statue at the Raj Ghat, but we don’t want to operate that way. A leader of the Hindu Mahasabha stated, “We simply want to promote the concept of ‘Akhand bharat’ (united India), which was Nathuram Godse ji’s primary goal.

What message are we conveying when we elevate a terrorist? When so many of our nation’s great leaders have statues in their honor at the very least, why should a temple be constructed for Godse, a murderer? Will the murderer of Gandhi’s words soon be found in the literature that our children read in school? Will his radical program get more supporters and emerge?

What distinguishes one terrorist act from another? If Godse had been a Muslim, would he have been hailed as a martyr? We must comprehend that terrorism is not a religious issue. Whatever the motivation, murder is never justified, and this is something we must all realize.

The way to do it is definitely not by constructing temples. How deep will we go before the darkness engulfs us and suffocates us?

About the Author
Dr. Mohini Shinde is a professor of religions of India and has taught Hindu religion and world religion in several US universities before her retirement. Her research was on religion and politics in South Asia. In her research engagements, she lived several years in India where she studied vedas and upanishads. She lives in California with her husband.

DisInfo Lab, a company with the motive of unveiling fake news, just came out with its own research report titled, “Operation Tupac – Decoding The Longest War” in response to the USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom) report where USCIRF labeled India as a “Country of Particular Concern’ (CPC)” and clubbed India with known terrorist countires like China, North Korea, and Pakistan.

In the introduction of the report, DisInfo Lab listed a few events which took place throughout the world, but mostly in the US.

Here is a list of those events:

• The statue of Mahatma Gandhi was vandalized in the US and he was labeled as a child rapist, racist, and casteist; the campaign was spearheaded by an organization.
• A three-day conference was held on “Dismantling Hindutva” in September 2021 from the US.
• The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) blacklists India on the pretext of fascism, religious freedom, and oppression of religious minorities.
• An online boycott campaign is launched in the Middle East to boycott Indian products and is further supported by Pakistani troll machinery.
• In the US, a campaign is launched on ‘Caste’ by an innocuous organization gaining prominence.
• A series of seminars and conferences are held by some concerned individuals in the US on ‘Rising Fascism’ in India.
• A toolkit that was prepared for farmers’ protest for some unknown reasons mentioned to dent India’s soft image of tea and yoga.
• Organizations that lobbied USCIRF to blacklist India in 2018-20, also lobbied during 2013-14 when there was a different government in India.
• Several organizations in the name of helping India, raised funds during the COVID-19 crisis and failed to deliver any help, duping millions of Indians.

All these events seem unrelated to each other, but if you go deeper into each event and the people behind them, you will notice that they are interconnected and intertwined in some places and that they were all carried out by a handful of organizations, including the same set of people.

The Unite d States Commission on International Religious Fre e dom (USCIRF) blacklists India on the pretext of fascism, religious freedom, and oppression of religious minorities.

USCIRF Report

Main arguments condemning India:

CAA, cow slaughter and Kashmir conflicts

Note the hypocrisy:

India: CAA | US: Lautenberg | Israel: The law of return

India: Restricts cow slaughter | US: bans dog slaughter

Note the irony:

India: fighting terrorism in Kashmir, while the US has already banned most Kashmir terror groups

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Algeria, etc. are ranked higher in religious freedom according to these ’eminent’ experts from USCIRF.

US Politics

In “The Unending War, Part 1” published by DisInfo Lab, it was noted how a handful of anti-India organizations based in the US and Pieter Friedrich campaigned against Indian-origin US politicians and publicly leveled unsubstantiated allegations against them. They targeted presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard and campaigned against her in different parts of the US intending to derail her election campaign. The same group again disrupted a campaign for Gabbard where she was addressing a group of people through a webinar. Pieter along with some supporters broke into the hall and raised placards with the title “TULSI, Mascot of India’s KKK.”

This anti-India group also targeted other Indian-origin US politicians from the democratic party such as Preston Kulkarni, Amit Jani, Sonal Shah, Padma Kuppa, and Raja Krishnamoorthi. Kulkarni was appointed as the new Chief of External Affairs of Americorp under the Biden administration. Friedrich launched a signature petition against Kulkarni’s appointment and accused him of receiving funds from the RSS-affiliated entities for running his campaign.

Friedrich and Shaik Ubaid also targeted Shah and Jani, President Obama and President Biden’s prominent campaign leaders. They created political pressure on the democratic officials. As a result, both of them were left out of the President Obama and President Biden administration. Other Indian-origin US politicians targeted by this group are Kuppa and Krishnamoorthi.

Most recently, US diplomat Atul Keshap, who was appointed head of the US-India Business Council, was publicly chastised by Friedrich. Furthermore, Friedrich has also started a signature petition to remove the recent appointment of Shah to the Homeland Security council.

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Algeria, etc. are ranked higher in religious freedom according to these ’eminent’ experts from USCIRF.

Let us talk about Discrimination.


The US must first get its own house in order before it gets “particularly concerned” about India.

The US Constitution famously prohibits any religious test or requirement for public office. Still, almost all of the nation’s presidents have been Christians. In the history of the United States, there have only been two Catholic presidents, one black president, and we still have to elect a woman president. If there is any discrimination in the US within people following Abrahmic faith in electing the presidents, they have no right to talk about discrimination in India which has elected Muslim, women, Sikh, and Dalit as presidents, vice presidents, and prime ministers of India.

As per the PEW research report, nearly half of Americans (46%) say there is “a lot” of discrimination against black people while about 3 out of 10 see a lot of discrimination against Hispanic people (30%) and Asian people (27%). The birth of organizations like BLM (Black Lives Matter) is the result of widespread discrimination against black people especially after 200+ years of independence and 50+ years of passing The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A survey conducted at Northwestern University in Chicago reported that 23.7% of the respondents complained of discrimination based on race and religion. The rates were highest among African Americans at 70.7%, followed by Asians (45.9%), and Hispanics (25.3%).

According to an article in the Washington Post, African Americans are dying at higher rates due to the coronavirus. There’s an assumption that African Americans are immune to the flu. When they show up at hospitals with signs of infections, they have to deal with biased white doctors. Ethnic discrimination is being experienced by a large proportion of non-white surgical residents as well as medical school graduates.

Would the USCIRF dare to put the USA on such watch lists? If the answer is no, it has no right to be concerned about other countries, especially India.

A survey conducted at Northwestern University in Chicago reported that 23.7% of the respondents complained of discrimination based on race and religion. The rates were highest among African Americans at 70.7%, followed by Asians (45.9%), and Hispanics (25.3%).

The list of Organizations who Oppose Indian American politicians and who feed false information to USCIRF.

The list of Organizations to Oppose Indian American politicians and feeding false information to USCIRF.

• Ambedkar International Center
• Ambedkar King Study Circle
• American Muslim Physicians of Indian Origin (AMPI)
• Association of Indian Muslims of America, Washington DC
• Boston South Asian Collective
• Chicago Desi Youth Rising (CDYR)
• Coalition Against Fascism in India
• Coalition of Seattle Indian Americans
• Dalit Solidarity Forum in the U.S.
• Friends of South Asia (FOSA), San Jose, California
• Hindus for Human Rights
• India Civil Watch International
• India Foundation, Michigan
• Indian American Alliance Against Caste
• Indian Muslim Council (IMC), Morton Grove, Illinois (www.imc-usa.org)
• Indian Muslim Education Foundation (IMEFNA), North America
• International Service Society, Michigan
• International Society for Peace and Justice
• Justice For All
• National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSAO)
• Non-Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI-SAHI), Michigan
• Progressive India Collective
• Sikh American Heritage Organization, Wayne, Illinois
• South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
• South Asian Left Activist Movement
• South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD), Greater Vancouver, Canada (sansad.org)
• Students Against Hindutva Ideology
• Supporters of Human Rights in India (SHRI)The Coalition for a Secular Democratic India (CSDI), Chicago. Illinois
• Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, Michigan

About the Author
Dr. Mohini Shinde is a professor of religions of India and has taught Hindu religion and world religion in several US universities before her retirement. Her research was on religion and politics in South Asia. In her research engagements, she lived several years in India where she studied vedas and upanishads. She lives in California with her husband. The views expressed here are author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Desh-Videsh
Media Group or any of its employess or the owners.

Looking through the Hindu lens at abortion in the wake of the Roe versus Wade reversal

From the earliest times, Hindu scriptures have clearly denounced and condemned the practice of abortion unless the life of the mother was in danger due to a complication in pregancy. Hinduism believes the fetus is a living entity, a conscious being who deserves to be protected. Hindu scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta, meaning “womb killing” and bhroona hathya, meaning “killing the undeveloped soul.”

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, India’s greatest scholar, philosopher, author, cultural ambassador, and spiritual leader, said on the subject of abortion:

They are killing the baby in the womb. How cruel! In this age of unwanted population, man is losing his compassion. When you kill a living entity, even an ant, you are interfering with its spiritual evolution, its progress. That living entity must again take on that same life form to complete its designated life term in that body. And the killer must return to pay for damages.

While talking about abortion, Swami Kamalatmananda of the Ramakrishna mission stated, “No human being has the right to destroy the fetus. If having a baby is economically and socially problematic, one can very well take precautions to avoid such unwanted birth rather than killing the baby. Precaution is better than destruction.”

There has been and still is much debate and discussion on abortion. Is it right? Is it ethical? Is it humane? Is it legal? Recently, the US Supreme Court reversed the Roe versus Wade verdict which was in existence for more than 50 years. In India, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which was passed in 1971, took both sides of the argument into consideration. After the act was passed in India, there was no discussion or argument on the subject. The act stated that an abortion can be performed until the 20th week of pregnancy if:

• A woman has a serious disease and the pregnancy could endanger her life.
• A woman’s physical or mental health is endangered by the pregnancy.
• The fetus has a substantial risk of physical or mental handicap.
• A woman contracts rubella, commonly known as German measles, during the first three months of pregnancy.
• Any of a woman’s previous children had congenital abnormalities.
• The fetus is suffering from RH disease.
• The fetus has been exposed to irradiation.
• The pregnancy is the result of rape.
• A woman’s socio-economic status may hamper a healthy pregnancy.

Hindu Beliefs on the Life Cycle

Being the oldest living religion in the world, Hinduism holds a unique view of the fetus or the unborn child. Hindu philosophy believes that the life cycle begins long before conception. The unborn child, the fetus inside the mother’s womb, is the beginning of the journey of the soul, the journey as a living being. Abortion means killing the soul that was supposed to live its life. Since Hinduism propagates the doctrine of reincarnation, it holds that the fetus is an unborn soul waiting for its new life. An act of abortion violates the wish of God, and is therefore a crime according to the Hindu religion. 

Hindu Scriptures on Abortion  

A popular Rig Veda hymn appeals to protect the fetuses.—- The Kaushitaki Upanishad compares abortion to the act of killing one’s parents. —- The Atharva Veda says the fetus slayer, termed brunaghni, is the greatest of the sinners. The Gautama Dharmasutra and Apastamba Dharmasutra indicate that abortionists become “outcasts.” In this sense, the Dharmasutras consider abortion equivalent to killing one’s husband and slaying a learned scholar – a Brahmin. The Manava Dharmashastra goes as far as forbidding the water libation to those “who have caused an abortion…” According to the Garbha Upanishad, the soul remembers its past lives during the last month the fetus spends in the womb. In the Mahabharata, it is mentioned that Abhimanyu learned about the Chakravyūha (a type of battle formation used to surround enemies) while in his mother’s womb.

Dharma and Karma 

Hinduism reflects a perfect picture of unity in diversity. There are so many idols, so many rituals; yet the essence, the driving principles remain the same. It is these principles that unite the Hindus under the great canopy of Hinduism. Dharma in Hinduism represents the duties and responsibilities of human beings and their way of life. Karma refers to the principles of ethics and morality that follow a law of cause and effect — one good deed results in virtue while one sin results in the vice. The core of Hinduism, also called Sanatan Dharma, teaches its followers to be righteous, ethical, and to always follow the path of good deeds.

Such high morals of Hinduism naturally condemn the act of abortion as against its principles of Dharma and Karma. Moreover, abortion is principally against the Hindu bioethics that describes it as unethical and sinful.

Ahimsa or Non-violence

Mahatma Gandhiji, the biggest promoter of non-violence, clearly stated in his writings, “It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.” Apart from its spiritual foundations and preaching, the prodigious religion of Hinduism also supports the value of Ahimsa, or non-violence. Abortion, according to Hinduism, violates the values of non-violence, as it is the killing of an unborn child inside a mother’s womb. It is an unethical and sinful act that will create a burden of virtue on the person(s) doing this. It should always be opposed in all forms.  Ahimsa — non-violence — teaches that it is wrong not only to kill living beings, but also to kill embryos. Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and, therefore, practice ahimsa. All life is sacred because all creatures are manifestations of the Supreme Being.

Preserve Life

Hinduism believes in the ideals of protection of life and laws of inheritance. According to Hindu philosophy, the unborn fetus is a soul that is ready to come into this world as a new life. The parents have certain responsibilities and obligations toward this unborn child which are also related to their ancestral duties. Abortion is detrimental to their ancestors and against the values of Dharma and Karma.

Abortion may have legal authorization, but a true believer of Hinduism should never resort to this procedure which is viewed as being as bad as murder. It takes away the life of a yet-to-be-born child, breaking the continuity of reincarnation while going against the morals of Dharma and Karma. A devoted Hindu should always consider the religious essence and ethics before opting for abortion.

About the Author
Dr. Mohini Shinde is a professor of religions of India and has taught Hindu religion and world religion in several US universities before her retirement. Her research was on religion and politics in South Asia. In her research engagements, she lived several years in India where she studied vedas and upanishads. She lives in California with her husband.

The views expressed here are author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Desh-Videsh Media Group or any of its employess or the owners.