The Dharma Manifesto

by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya

  [10] “The structure of the earth, in its natural variety and diversity . . . Seas, mountain ranges and rivers are the most natural boundaries not only of lands but also of peoples, customs, languages and empires, and they have been, even in the greatest revolutions in human affairs, the directing lines or limits of world history.” Johann Gottfried von Herder, from Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind (1784). Available at the Internet History Sourcebooks Project (www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1784herder-mankind.asp).

  [11] For a more detailed explanation of the concept of Volksgeist, see the writings of the German philosopher and critic Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803).

  [12] Life Comes from Life: Morning Walks with A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1979).

  2. APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

  Dharma Nationalism

  The Dharma Nationalist political formulation is categorically very dissimilar from the anger-based politics that many modern Americans have found themselves being increasingly turned off by. It is quite true that, in general, there tends to be a good deal of anger, confrontation, compromise, and self-interest when it comes to many people who get too deeply involved in mainstream political action. The entire bloody history of the ideological wars of the twentieth century is a testament to just how much destruction and suffering can be wrought upon humanity in the name of one man-made, and thus inherently flawed, ideology or another.

  Dharma, however, while encouraging all people to be actively involved in the sociopolitical realities around them, is never based upon anger, conflict or artificial division, but upon a vision of positive and spiritually-based social change. Dharma spirituality is based upon the principles of humility, simplicity, devotion, and compassion, among other ethical behavioral guidelines. Being predicated upon such a positive foundation, Dharma, when translated into the sociopolitical realm, is also based upon the cultivation of spiritual virtues and social ethics.

  Being a spiritually-based philosophy, Dharma views the best way of changing society as being, first and foremost, endeavoring to change the individual within the inner core of his being. This means spiritually and ethically. We seek to first change people’s spiritual awareness, which in turn has a consequential effect on society that is both tangible and immediate. Man’s external reality, which is an integrated phenomenological matrix of social, environmental, cultural, perceptual, and even genetic constructs, is predicated upon the internal reality of the individuals who are subject to such objective constructs. The external social reality confronting man in his everyday experience is a reflection of an internal spiritual reality.

  What we have seen repeatedly is that when a person radically transforms himself inwardly, at the deepest level of his personal consciousness, the outward repercussions of such personal change are both immediate, and powerfully effective in improving his social environment. Any society, after all, is composed of myriad individuals, all of whom in turn affect their society in terms of their own level of consciousness.

  If the majority of people in any society are given to materialistic, selfish, and conflictual consciousness, it will be impossible to have a society in which spiritual, loving, and compassionate values reign. When, on the other hand, we raise ourselves to a higher, more compassionate, and more constructive level of consciousness and behavior, others who come in contact with us are similarly influenced to surrender to their higher, atmic selves. The positive chain reaction then has a palpable impact on the sociopolitical reality around us. A lifestyle saturated with spiritual goodness is infectious! Moreover, a society of people who are spiritually oriented produces a governance mandate that works in the interests of its people.

  On a more practical level, who we vote for, what organizations we support, and what political decisions we make should certainly be aligned as much as possible with our understanding of Dharma. Dharma informs all of reality. Being the Natural Law of all reality, there is no aspect of the human experience that Dharma cannot be applied to…and this includes the political realm. Before we vote or engage in any form of political activity, we must always first ask ourselves, “What would Lord Krishna’s advice be in the Bhagavad Gita on this particular issue?”

  All truly positive and constructive sociopolitical change, however, first begins with compassionately reaching out to others and helping them to progress along their own personal journey toward higher awareness and spiritual enlightenment. The root of all social compassion is spiritual compassion.

  Reconciling Spirituality with Political Activism

  It sometimes seems that the dual worlds of spirituality and political engagement are mutually exclusive concerns. The Eternal Natural Way (Sanatana Dharma), on the one hand, offers us a profound vision of harmony, truthfulness and spiritual unity. Politics, on the other hand, often seems to be predicated upon seeing natural divisions among people, and maneuvering among such social divisions in order to achieve a practical strategic end. How can we reconcile being engaged in the world as sociopolitical activists, along with the inevitable subsequent recognition of the inherent and natural differences between individuals and diverse peoples, while also being on a spiritual path the goal of which is to transcend the egotistical mistake of mere identification with the social and material world? There are several thoughts that we need to reflect upon in this regard.

  First, it is important to understand what exactly is meant by the word “ego” (ahamkara in Sanskrit). Ego is a false, or illusory, sense of self that arises from identifying with things, people or situations that are actually alien to the true, spiritual self (atman). To act out of ego is to act out of a mistaken identification with an artificial self. Thus, the term aham-kara means literally “I maker,” or the artificially constructed self. When we act out of a sense of illusion (maya), or a false identification with what we are not, we are then acting egotistically. Of course, there is a natural and necessary causal correspondence between living egotistically and subsequently acting out of selfishness, self-centeredness, envy, unjustified anger, lust, hedonism, and related forms of behavior. One’s inner identity dictates one’s outer behavior. If we identify with our natural, spiritual self, then we are acting in a spiritually whole and healthy way. When we identify with the artificial construct of our ego, then we are acting in a manner that is fragmented, illusory and unhealthy. In summary, to act out of any sense of false identity, coupled with the attendant emotions and motivations of selfishness, and so forth, is to act out of ego (ahamkara).

  Second, while it is true that ultimately we are not merely these bodies that we are currently inhabiting, and that we ultimately transcend materiality in our spiritual essence as pure atman (soul), we are nonetheless spiritual beings having a distinctly material experience. While the spiritual realm is possessed of infinitely more substantial reality than is the empirical realm, the empirical does have its own legitimate reality, and attendant natural laws, structural integrity and rules that need to be taken into account.

  Dharma philosophy asks us to realize our ultimate spiritual identity while also simultaneously acknowledging the fact that we are currently situated in a material world with its own inherent laws that need to be respected. So, while it is egotistical to identify solely with the body at the expense of spiritual self-realization, it is not egotistical to acknowledge the concrete material facts of characteristic differences in human beings, natural social hierarchies, unavoidable inequalities among all people, and genetic inheritances...just as long as we also recognize the fact that, ultimately, it is the spiritual atman that informs, and is superior to, the material body. This is how a person can very easily be both a spiritual practitioner and a political activist at the same time. In fact, I would argue that the only way to fully understand the metaphysical meaning behind the many natural differences between people that we encounter in the world around us is precisely through a proper
understanding of Dharma — or Natural Law.

  Third, both the metaphysical and physical principles of this world are a manifestation of Dharma, and are thus a reflection of the Eternal Truth. It is precisely the laws of nature that are responsible for the social alterations that have resulted in the existence of many different political positions, and in the inherent superiority and inferiority of these different stances. We must have the philosophical discernment and moral vision to acknowledge distinctions in sociopolitical beliefs, and to side with those that most uphold the ideals of Dharma. We must be able to minimally acknowledge, for example, the following sociopolitical realities:

  a) Evil, tyranny, radical materialism, greed and psychopathology are very real factors currently inhabiting many of the institutions of power in our world, such as the media, academia, and the financial and political realms, and that such tendencies contrary to Natural Law must be overtly combated.

  b) The vast majority of people in any given society are innocent in nature, and are only lacking morally courageous leadership and compassionate guidance in order to have the strength to veer toward the good.

  c) Dharma offers the most compassionate, logical and workable solutions to combating tyranny, giving the common people a true voice, and forming a society that is based upon justice, natural order, healthfulness and spiritual culture.

  To acknowledge these concrete sociopolitical realities is not an expression of ego. Rather, it is an inherent expression of the yogic wisdom and the innate powers of discernment that are the very fruit of spiritual practice, which is in turn an expression of Dharma. To be a devotee of Truth means having the ability to accept that Truth as it manifests in each and every sphere of experience — including the political.

  Again, to identify ourselves with the reality of our given situation, either spiritual or material, is to live in accordance with Dharma. To misidentify ourselves with a mistaken assumption within any given situation is illusory, and thus is a state that arises from ego, and to act in such a way is to live in opposition to Dharma. To merely acknowledge the fact that Dharma reflects the highest form of truth, human organizational principles, and worldview accessible by human life on this Earth is not a reflection of ego, but is a reflection of compassion toward all beings. We have a duty to Dharma to preserve reality and to honor truth in all spheres of human endeavor. To honor what is true is not egotistical. It is Dharmic.

  Through the practice of yoga spirituality and meditation, we attain the ability to access our inherent wisdom (jnana-buddhi) as well as the power of discernment (viveka) necessary to guide us both in our spiritual growth, and in our social, political, economic, and cultural decisions in the material world. From the perspective of the self-realized sage, and from the eternal and transcendent vantage point of Dharma, there is no separation between our spiritual and our so-called worldly concerns. Both must be predicated upon truth. In other words, the greatest political leader is the self-realized sage, the philosopher (to paraphrase Plato), the Chakravartin. Moreover, we are called upon to uphold truth in both the spiritual and the political realms. For the wise person, they are one.

  Anyone who claims to be a spiritual person while simultaneously proclaiming a disdain for sociopolitical activism truly misunderstands the nature of the spiritual and the political.

  What We Stand For

  1. Dharma Nationalism stresses quality over quantity, both philosophically and in all practical policy decisions.

  2. Dharma Nationalism strives always for order over chaos; beauty over ugliness; harmony over conflict; the natural over the artificial; the Absolute over the relative.

  3. Our orientation is toward the Eternal, rather than merely toward the illusion of materialism.

  4. We fight for the unity and integration of our people over social discord and fragmentation.

  5. The natural and organic takes precedence over the artificial and technological.

  6. We support freedom, national sovereignty and decentralization over tyranny, forced union and centralization.

  7. We uphold the values of hierarchical diversity over that of radical egalitarianism. Truth, freedom and depth are expressed vertically, not horizontally.

  8. We espouse firm morality over relativistic ethics.

  9. We demand the abolition of all incomes unearned by work. All incomes and wealth must be earned through personal creativity, hard work and positive ingenuity.

  10. The private takes precedence over the public.

  Neither Liberal Nor Conservative

  “The biggest victory of the system is to have persuaded everybody not of its qualities, but of its fatal character. The system does not claim to be perfect; it claims that there are no other alternatives. Hence, if one cannot dream of a better world, then there is nothing that can be done.”

  Alain de Benoist[1]

  Both modern progressive liberalism, and the reactionary response to liberalism in the form of conservatism, are highly flawed manifestations of conflict-oriented, controlled politics. We thus reject them both. Dharma Nationalism is neither liberal nor conservative in the normative sense of these terms. Some of our positions will undoubtedly seem conservative to some people, while other positions will seem liberal. Rather, the Dharma Nation concept transcends such terms by integrating and surpassing the best of both flawed notions. Dharma Nationalism is a radically new way of understanding politics that is based upon eternal principles and a common sense approach. The Dharma Nation concept is the ultimate alternative.

  Reaction, Revolution and Dharma Renaissance: The Case of “Hindu” Nationalism

  “Every major question in history is a religious question. It has more effect in molding life than nationalism or a common language.”

  Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953)

  The following section will examine the unsuccessful Indian social movement known variously as “Hindu” nationalism, or “Hindutva.”[2]

  The overtly political aspects of the ongoing Hindu renaissance that has been haphazardly developing for the last approximately 135 years, along with its repeated failure to secure its self-stated aim of instantiating Rama-rajya (Dharmic rule) on the political scene, are crucial topics that very few Hindu intellectuals have addressed in an ideologically cogent and politically mature manner. Some of the few intellectual leaders who have, in fact, addressed this issue in a truly systematic and well-formulated ideological way include Dr. David Frawley (Sri Vedacharya Vamadeva Shastri), Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup and Dr. Koenraad Elst. I have also written about this topic very extensively, but have only begun releasing a limited number of my writings on this matter to the general public starting in early 2011, The Dharma Manifesto being the ideological dénouement of these writings. The following are a few thoughts on the current state of contemporary Dharma politics on the South Asian subcontinent, with an emphasis on the specific case of what is often termed “Hindu” nationalism.

  As we will see, the primary stumbling block that has relegated the greater Hindutva movement to near irrelevancy in both ideological development and engaged political action has been:

  1. Its preponderance of reactionary thinking and action, rather than a proactive cultivation of a more revolutionary outlook and practical strategy to both gain political power and to consequently govern the Indian nation-state along purely Dharmic principles.

  2. The lack of the divinely-bestowed spiritual empowerment that is necessary for any self-described religious-based movement to secure meaningful success.

  By the time the British and other European powers began the incremental process of colonial domination in India and the rest of South Asia in 1757, much of the Hindu community in north India specifically had already experienced hundreds of years of genocidal religious cleansing at the hands of the Mughals and other Islamic invaders before them. Without doubt, the establishment of European rule over India directly saved H
induism (and, arguably, much of Vedic spiritual culture that served as the ancient basis for the later phenomenon of “Hinduism”) from inexorable extinction at the hands of Islam. If the British had not assumed the administration of India when they did, Hinduism would most likely not exist today, and all of present-day India would be an Islamic state. All followers of Dharma must be eternally grateful to the British for this inadvertent rescue of the non-Islamic elements of Indian culture.

  During the more liberal atmosphere of the British Raj period (1857–1947), history witnessed the beginning stages of a budding, if often very confused, and ultimately self-abnegating, Hindu renaissance with the emergence of such neo-Hindu movements as the Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission and Hindu Mahasabha, as well as such Hindu leaders as Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), Bhaktivinode Thakura (1838–1914), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920), Arumuga Navalar (1822–1879), Gedong Bagus Oka (1921–2002), Sister Nivedita (1867–1911),[3] Annie Besant (1847–1933),[4] and many others. As a result of the rediscovery of their Vedic heritage on the part of many nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Hindu intellectual leaders, a new sense of political activism in the name of a rediscovered “Hinduism” cautiously developed with the nascent political theories of such people as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966) and Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1889–1940).

  The culmination of this new movement, which was decidedly devoted to a Hindu identity politics, has resulted in the overwhelmingly dominant role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (founded in 1925) and its greater Sangh Pariwar family of front organizations over the realm of Hindu politics in India for the last 85 years. The overtly political manifestation of the Sangh Pariwar movement was eventually manifested in the later Jana Sangh political party. The party operated under this name from 1951 until 1980. It was founded by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee (1901–1953), who was subsequently murdered by the Indian National Congress Party regime in 1953. Since 1980, the party has been known by the name Bharatiya Janata Party.[5]