Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A(Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D
Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V.(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
This article was written at Lahore on 6 November 1900
I shall consider myself fortunate if by reading this article some Aryans come to realize that all the vile and vulgar allegations made against Shri Krishna are wholly unfounded and false.
Man has the tendency to bow before the superior strength and ability. When he finds some man being more capable than himself and is unable to understand its reason he is drawn to him. He begins to believe that the man with the superior capability is the primeval man having unique qualities and powers the like of whom no one can ever create nor can he be ever destroyed by anyone. However, the educated and spiritually advanced communities, even though their adulation of their heroes borders on worship, do not forget the distinction between the heroes and their maker, but the communities which are caught in the net of darkness because of the lack of education cannot make such a distinction. However loudly people may denounce hero-worship, the fact remains that no community is free from this failing. There is no system of education which does not promote hero worship. The people proudly say that they worship only one God also have their own heroes whom they worship.
In the Vedic Sanskrit the word agni has been used for one Supreme God and in the ancient Sanskrit literature in general it has been used for scholars, seers, mahatmas and enlightened souls. The word deva or devatas means God in Sanskrit, though it is also used for a great man. The English word ‘God’ stands for the Supreme being, but into plural form it is used for gods in general. The followers of Islam call Prophet Mohammed Noor-e-Illahi (Light of God), Jesus Christ is regarded by Christians as the Son of God and Buddhists use the word ‘Lord’ while referring to Buddha. Similarly, Aryans regard Shri Ram and Shri Krishna as incarnations of God. Adoration and worship of enlightened souls, learned men and seers has been the practice among the Hindus since the Vedic times.
In Aryavarta Buddhists were the first to express doubts about the existence of God and it was the Buddhist teaching which was responsible for the worship of God being replaced by the worship of man among the people of this sacred land. This idea of incarnation spread like the forest fire. The Puranas also dealt with this theme and their pages were filled with stories of incarnations. The idea of incarnation began to pervade all religious thinking. Scholars and experts in metaphysical speculation so manipulated that all the prevailing religious doctrine, whether good or bad, were attributed to God. The accounts of the lives of great men were so molded that the people of other communities and countries began to treat them as false, artificial and profane.
The injustice that has been done to Shri Krishna by the excessive enthusiasm of the poets for him does not find a parallel in the literature of any other country. They created all kinds of misconceptions in the minds of the people about him. Tulsidas also waxed eloquent in the praise of Shri Rama but he did not raise him to the level to which the devotees of Shri Krishna did, the reason perhaps being that Shri Rama was not given like Shri Krishna the title of preceptor. Shri Rama was turned into tragic hero by the malice of his stepmother Kaikeyi and the poets placed on his head the crown of filial and fraternal love. But such a crown best adorns the head of a person who leads a completely religious life. In other words, his total personality should be such that crown should be fit him fully and should also have a good effect on the people. Although Shri Rama’s life was examplary, there was a great difference between him and Shri Krishna. Shri Krishna is not only considered as the ideal of true love, romance and bravery but also as an ideal preceptor. He was born at a time when the boat of the Vedic religious was getting sucked into the whirlpool of barren metaphysical speculations and the doctrine of renunciation and religion seemed to have lost their moorings. At such a time Shri Krishna had to give a discourse on religion. He was therefore looked upon as a great preceptor and there is hardly anyone among our countrymen who has not been influenced in a greater or lesser degree by his discourse. Everyone swears by Shri Krishna, cites his utterances and quotes him as an authority. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the religious firmament of India is even today radiant with the teachings of Shri Krishna.
Hardly twenty years have passed when we were studying in Government schools and when Shri Krishna was considered as the doer of all those unsacred things which are shown in Krishnalila or Rasalila. Shri Krishna then was perceived by us as being prone to self-indulgence, craving for sensual pleasures and crooked. Enemies of the Aryans religion has spread such misinformation about Shri Krishna that instead of harbouring feelings of love and devotion for him in our hearts, we felt a sense of shame on his account in the presence of others, and developed nothing but hatred for him.
Then I heard my inner voice saying, “How is it that while some people associate Shri Krishna with frivolity and vulgarity, others hail him as the author of such a great work as the Gita? As regards the seriousness of the subject, quality of teachings, simplicity or language, and message of love and devotion, the Gita is par excellence and its language and style are unique.” The moment I heard this I further thought: “One who expounded morality and taught the lesson of Gita how could he be indulgent, wanton and sensual as depicted in Krishnalila? Was it not likely that those who attributed such undesirable acts to him might have been misled by the crude symbolism of poets? It could not be believed that Shri Krishna could be such as he had been depicted. It was evident that the poets had taken liberty and depicted Shri Krishna in whatever manner they wanted and in course of time they fell completely under his spell.
Now of course no educated person believes that Shri Krishna was such as he is depicted in Krishnalilas., no educated person now associates Shri Krishna with those shameless and obscene antics with which ignorant masses associate him.
The source of all the legends about Shri Krishna current among the common people is the Puranas which are fully relied upon by the Hindus. Therefore if we want to get at the truth the first thing to do is to examine to what extent the Puranas can be treated as historical works and how reliable are their contents.
Although references to various events connected with Shri Krishna’s life are found in almost all the Puranas, a systematic and detailed description of this life is contained in the Brahma Vaivarta Pruana, Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana and Brahma Purana. The Mahabharata and Harivansha Purana also contain a good amount of material relating to the life of Shri Krishna They have so pierced him with the arrows of their petty and vulgar imaginations that his personality has totally changed and as a result most of the Aryans considering him impure and sensual have developed an aversion to him. It is the result of Pauranic literature that so many educated Aryans have fallen into the net of Muslims and Christians. Often even educated and well-meaning people are heard saying the Shri Krishna is at the root of all the misfortunes of this sacred land, and that it was he who by his perverse teachings caused the way of Mahabharat which proved utterly tragic for the country.The wild and fanciful stories of the Puranas have so befogged the minds of the people that it seems to be impossible for them to differentiate between the truth and untruth.
Professor Wilson, who has translated the Vishnu Purana into English, believed that it contains some material relating to a period as late as the 10th century A.D. Nevertheless, the Vishnu Purana is older than the Bhagavata and some other Puranas. But as regards the Bhagvata, there is a controversy as to which of the two Bhagavatas- Shrimad Bhagavata and Devi Bhagavaata- deserves to be included among the eighteen Puranas. European scholars however believe that Shrimad Bhagavata was written in the 13th century. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that Vishnu Purana is older than the Bhagavata, and as it contains less adulation it is more reliable….
We all assume that Buddhism came into existence after Shri Krishna. Hindus believe that Shri Krishna was born during the age of Dwapara and that the battle of Mahabharata was the beginning of Kaliyuga. European scholars believe that Shri Krishna lived around 1000 B.C. , and as regards Buddha it has been found by research that he was there around 500 B.C. Hence the conclusion is that wherever traces of Buddhist teachings are found in the Vishnu Purana and Mahabharata those portions belong to the post-Buddhist period and hence cannot be considered 10 authentic. Similarly, according to the Sanskrit literature before the spread of Buddhism idol worship did not exist in India, nor was there any tradition of constructing temples for idols.
It is therefore right to say that those portions of the Vishnu Purana and Mahabharata which contain references to idol worship were added later. I am quite certain that the pre-Buddhist Sanskrit literature contains no references to incarnations nor any evidence of the worship of Trimurti – Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh. Caste distinctions too at that time were not so rigid as they came to be afterwards. Keeping in mind their limitations we can know a great deal about Shri Krishna from the above two books. As regards the caste distinctions, I may mention that Maharashi Vyas, the author of Mahabharata, was a Shudra, which shows that one’s caste was not considered as something very important. However, it is clear that Shri Krishna was born at a time when the Vedic religion existed in its pristine purity. The caste was determined by vocation and not by birth. A human being was not worshipped as God. The doctrine of incarnation had no place. Idol worship had not come into vogue and the Trimurti- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh – had not taken shape to be worshipped.
There is a belief among the Hindus that the war of Mahabharata marks the beginning of Kaliyuga and the Krishna was born in the Dwapara age. It is also believed that the Kaliyuga commenced some 5000 years ago and according to the computation of astrologers the Kaliyuga started 4996 years ago.
Kalhana, the author of the history of Kashmir, Rajatarangini, states that in the 653rd year of Kaliyuga, a king named Gauda was ruling Kashmir, while Yudhishthira and Kauravas were living in a forest. Gauda ruled for about 65 years, so Yudhishthira must have been there around 2400 B.C., that is to say, about 4300 years ago.
It is learnt from the Vishnu Purana that King Parikshita, the grandson of Yudhisthra, ruled 1015 years before king Nanda. And the first ruler of the Nanda dynasty ruled 100 years before Chandragupta who had ascended the throne of Magadh in 315 B.C. at another place the Vishnu Purana fixed the period of Parikshita as 1200 Kaliyugi year, that is 1900 B.C.
It is learnt from the Mahabharata that in those days the winter solstice occurred in the months of Magha because Bhishma died when the sun moved southward. But nowadays winter solstice occurs on 24 December. According to astrologers this shifting of the winter solstice day took 11 place at least 3426 years ago, which means that the Mahabharata was took place at least 3426 years ago if not more.
Commenting on this view of astrologers, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in his book Orion, says that the period when the winter solstice fell in the month of Magha must have been quite ancient period. Besides this, the old Sanskrit literature contains references to almost all the heroes of the Mahabharata on the basis of which European scholars believe that the war of Mahabharata took place much before the creation of all this literature. The Ashtadhyayi of Panini mentions the names Yudhishthira, kunti, Arjuna and Vasudeva. Preofessor Goldstucker holds that Panini live much before the Brahmanas and Upnishads were written. Swami Dayaynand agrees with him on this….
Some scholars are of the opinion that the whole story of the Mahabharata is imaginary and that all the events mentioned in it are unreal. Some other scholars consider the Mahabharata war as a fact but its heroes as imaginary. In my opinion both these views are wrong, the reasons for which are as follows:
1. The genealogies of both Krishna and Arjuna are fully known. Several persons belonging to their families ruled over the kingdoms mentioned in history
2. The entire corpus of Sanskrit literature refutes both of the above mentioned views.
3. The story of the Mahabharata and the names of its characters are well known to the masses for centuries and even in those areas where there has been no literacy at all. Several places also bear the same names as those of the characters of the story. This had not been possible this had not been possible if the names were imaginary.
4. Various writings relating to the Mahabharata found in the Sanskrit literature also confirm many of the events mentioned in it.
5. If the story of the Mahabharata is considered to be true, then there seems to be no reason to suppose that the names of its characters are imaginary. However, if these names are imaginary then the question arises – what were the names of the real characters of the story?
6. The fact that Krishna is considered an incarnation of God also confirms that Krishna was not the name of any imaginary person.
7. Those opposed to our viewpoints do not furnish any proof in support of their contention. Some writers argue that since the system of polyandry was not there in the Aryans society at that time, the story of Draupadi marrying the five Pandavas is a concoction and has no truth in it. But those who have read the Mahabharata know that this incident has been mentioned as an exception with some purpose.
Thus in the face of such strong evidence the opinion held by some persons that the story of the Mahabharata is imaginary cannot be accepted, nor can it be believed that Krishna and Arjuna were imaginary characters.
The entire Vedic literature is opposed to the doctrine of incarnation. The Vedas loudly say that God never assumes a physical form. The European Scholars such as Max Weber and Monier-Williams and Romesh Chandra Dutt also agree with the view that the doctrine of incarnation came into vogue after the Buddhist period, and that before that nobody in India believed in idol worship or in the doctrine of incarnation.
Even though Shri Krishna was not an incarnation of God but only a human being, he was a model human being. He was a great teacher, a great warrior and man of great learning. His life is an ideal for us. We can derive much advantage from his teachings. In my view students should make a careful study of the life of Shri Krishna as atheism of Europe is upsetting the minds of the younger generation and waning them away from the fundamental truths of Hinduism and leading them towards the Western way of life.
Hindus should firmly adhere to their ancient religion and try to make progress according to its teaching. They try to save Hindus from the neo-Vedanta and the dogma of renunciation and also warn them against European materialism.
Thus the only conclusion of Shri Krishna’s teachings is that man should discharge his duty, whether worldly or religious, honestly, sincerely and steadfastly. Only then can he gain true knowledge and attain moksha. In the battlefield Krishna told Arjuna that his supreme duty as a warrior was to wield arms and kill others, If need be even his own kith and kin. On occasions Krishna himself used weapons, fought numerous enemies and shed blood. How could such a person teach the Hindus of the twentieth century, who are by action neither Brahmins nor Kshatriyas, to abandon their families and children, discard their social duties and without leading the life of a brahmachari or a householder and without studying the Vedas start practicing yoga and retire to the forest with the object of becoming Brahma themselves? According to Krishna’s teachings, it is the duty of a Kshatriya, until he earns the right to be called a Brahmin, to fight against his enemies, and if in order to uphold religion, righteousness and truth, he has to take up arms and risk his life he should not hesitate to do so.
In discharging our duties we should not let false pity or other worldliness comes in our way at all. If an aggrieved person adopts an attitude of indifference and false pity, then one day justice will disappear altogether from the world and such an attitude will also amount to cowardice. It is rightly said that when one is unable to take recourse to any other means he adopts this kind of attitude. Often people praise Christianity on account of its teaching that if someone slaps you on your cheek turn to him the other also. But you please ask them whether anybody has ever acted upon it or how far even the Christians themselves follow it. Nature teaches us something contrary to this. These things are only said. No capable man can be so coward. Those who make an undue criticism of Krishna’s teachings and hold him responsible for the war of Mahabharat and the harm caused by it should at least think what is the meaning of his philosophy. It some thief or robber enters your house what will you do? Will you take pity on him and let him take away your valuables or will you try to safeguard them by causing him harm? Did dharma enjoin that Arjuna should have fled away from the battlefield and betrayed the confidence reposed in him by Yudhisthira and other kings who had joined him with their armies? And was it the duty of Krishna also to flee along with Arjuna? I cannot understand how the people who make such absurd criticisms of Shri Krishna can be called protectors or propagators of religion. They only talk about dharma but do not whether their dharma is beneficial to society or not. Their only concern is that their discourse should interest their audiences. I do believe that this very false sense of pity and other worldliness has ruined the Hindus, effaced their name and fame and rendered them completely misfit for this world. If even now the Hindus do not want to come out of the clutches of such beliefs in accordance with the modern Western education and the Gita, then any thought about their progress is meaningless and it can never be realized. Those believing in such things can make neither material progress nor spiritual, for in the spiritual world also that person alone can make his mark who puts his step on the spiritual ladder after achieving success in all the tests. Those people cannot enter the spiritual world who do not care about the tests and rules of the world. Spiritual success is attained only by those who, by performing their multifarious duties at the lotus feet of Parabramha or the Supreme Being.
In these pages I have penned the life story of a great soul who pursued dharma during his lifetime and following the rules of dharma destroyed the enemies of dharma and justice.
The term Krishnaism has been coined by those English-educated Hindus who, notwithstanding their English education, profess that part of the Pauranic Hinduism which is popularly known as Vaishnavism. Perhaps in the entire corpus of Sanskrit literature one would not find even a single word indicating Shri Krishna’s association with any creed or religion as in the cases of Jesus Christ, Prophet Mahammad and Buddha. The English-educated devotees of Shri Krishna have tried to rectify this omission in the Sanskrit literature by inventing a new creed after the name of Shri Krishna which they call Krishnaism. Even by a little study of the Sanskrit literature one comes to know that Krishna neither ventured to found any new religion nor preached any scuh religion as could be known in the world after his name. Jesus Christ, Prophet Mahammad and Buddha each founded a new religion which came to be named after them. Although at 15 present there are numerous sects among the Hindus which are named after some great men, there is no evidence in the ancient Sanskrit literature to prove that such sects existed in ancient times. In the literature of Krishna’s time there is not even a trace of such evidence. A special characteristic of the ancient Hindu religion is that its foundation had not been laid on the teachings of any human being.
Truly speaking, the early Hindu literature is the soul of the religious philosophy of the world. It is replete with precious religious thoughts the like of which are not found in any other literature of the world. Moreover, the exponents of these thoughts were expounded by whom. No one of our great men tried to initiate any new teachings; rather all of them described themselves as the followers of the supreme knowledge contained in the Vedas. No one tried even in the least to say that such and such an idea was his and that he had come in the world to propagate it. No one ever claimed to conceive any original idea, nor anyone ever thought of progagating any new religion. The entire series of the Brahmanas and Upanishads are a testimony to this. From the teachings of Upnishads it is not clear at all as to who were the originators of those teachings. At some places in the books of history and other subjects the names of rishis, seers and learned men are mentioned but by the manner in which they have been mentioned it is clear that several rishis bore identical names. As a result, it is impossible for us today to determine which Manu was the author of Manusmriti. The ancient Aryans considered God as the first guru and true preceptor, so they never try to found any religion in their own names. From their writings it seems that they considered it adharma and sinful to do so. Taking part in religious discussions was considered proper by them but propagating any new religion or preaching any new ideas in their own names was considered quite improper.
Whenever the ancient Hindu rishis and seers preached anything they said they were doing so as desired by their forebears or as enjoined by the Vedas and Shashtras. They never dared to expound anything new themselves. Only in recent times this trend has started. Now in someone’s name a new religion or sect is started which in fact lessens that person’s importance. This is true especially in the case of Shri Krishna who never tried to propagate any new religion. I have already observed in the preceding chapter that there is no evidence of Shri Krishna having ever tried to impart any religious teaching to the common man. Therefore it is futile to consider him as the founder of any religion. I want to state that it is not correct to attribute every shloka of the Bhagvad Gita to Shri Krishna. However, even if it is so accepted, the conclusion is only this that whatever he preached to inspire Arjuna to take part in the war is contained in the Gita. If only because of this Krishna Maharaja can be considered the founder of a certain religion, then why should Bhishma Maharaja also be not given the same credit as his teachings are in no way less profound and true than those of Krishna Maharaja? Can anyone tell me which such a teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is as is not there in the Upnishads or brahmanas or even in the Vedas written earlier than the Bhagavad Gita? Then what is it that we should propagate as Krishnaism excepting that which is contained in the Shrimad Bhagavat or Brahma Vaivarta and which casts a slur on the pious life of Krishna Maharaja? If the teachings of the Shrimad Bhagavat are called as Krishnaism it will do not credit to Krishna Maharaja. In my view to attribute the teachings of the Shrimad Bhagavat to Krishna maharaja is not at all proper because from the ancient books it no at all proved that Krishna Maharaja ever preached such things as are contained in the Shrimad Bhagavat.
In my view Krishna Maharaja did not found any religious creed which should propagated in his name. Therefore the use of the term krishnaism is incorrect and improper. If krishnaism means only that message which Krishna Maharaja gave to Arjuna and his other relative at the right time and which emphasizes selfless action, then there is no harm. There is no doubt that the message of selfless action has not been conveyed so effectively and lucidly by words of any rishis and seers as by the words of Krishna Maharaja. Although the different chapters of the Gita deal with different themes, the message of selfless action is there in the whole book. In the Mahabharata too Krishna’s utterance on various occasions emphasizes only selfless action. As he dwells on the different aspects of dharma and enumerates the different ways and techniques of pursuing it, he invariably ends his discourses with an emphasis on non-attachment. Not only Krishna Maharaja’s words but also his actions are an exposition of non-attachment. They refute the notions of false sacrifice and renunciation and uphold the philosophy of action without any desire for fruit. This was the objective for which Shri Krishna worked throughout his life. Whenever he was called upon to give guidance in regard to anything he emphasized the principle of selfless action. Every person who came in his contact on any occasion was inspired by him to act without desiring for the fruit. Whether He was in the company of friends or relatives, or was answering questions asked by his devotees or was sitting in a state assembly or was participating in yajnas and other religious ceremonies or was fighting with enemies, he always kept this principle in mind. Even he was wounded by the arrow of a hunter and was in the throes of death, it was this lesson that he gave to the hunter.
In the Mahabharata too Krishna Maharaja in his conversations emphasized the same teachings. After the end of the war when Yudhishthira expressed his desire to give up the kingdom and retire to the forest, Krishna Maharaja again, through his teachings, brought him round to the course of action and even encouraged him to perform Ashwamedha yajna. Counseling Yudhishthira, he said, “O Yudhishthira, you have defeated your external enemies and now it is the time for you to get ready for that battle which every human being has to fight alone. In this battle you yourself have to realize the unlimited power of the mind and use the weapons of action and meditation, as no weapon made of steel can be used in this kind of battle. If you do not become successful in this, then it will be ominous for you.” He further said, “Renouncing the kingdom and other worldly things will not bring forth your liberation, rather you have to renounce all such as tie a person with his body. Let our enemies enjoy that happiness that is derived by giving up materialistic things while remaining entangled with inner desires and weaknesses. A man meets with his real death when he becomes a slave to worldly pleasures and starts differentiating between himself and others. Such a man who while ruling over a vast kingdom does not harbor any worldly desires in his mind nor craves for worldly pleasures is not at all bothered about the opinion of others about him. On the other hand, a man who renounces the world and in the guise of a sage lives in a forest subsisting on fruits but craves for materialistic things wanders about with death hovering over his head all the time. Therefore it is not proper for you to think of renunciation without first discharging your duties. Renunciation in the real sense means that a person should have complete control over his mind and should subdue his desires. Such a person, though living in the world and ruling over a kingdom, is a true sannyasi and the monarch of his heart.”
How beautiful are these words! Are they pearls which shine so brightly that even the most sharp and powerful eyes cannot look at them? No, they are not pearls. Pearls are after all made of clay. They cannot appease one’s hunger or quench one’s thirst. They cannot relieve one’s sorrow and distress. Even by possessing the most precious pearls one cannot get rid of his troubles, pains and sorrow. Was there any dearth of pearls with Mahamud Ghaznavi? Has the Czar of Russia not got plenty of them? But can anyone say that despite having so much pearls Mahmud was happy or even the Czar is happy? In fact, the entire wealth of the world, including all the gold, silver, diamonds, pearls and jewels, is much less precious than the words and thoughts of Krishna Maharaja. They have that nectar in the search of which Alexander, who possessed a large amount of pearls, met with his death. This is that elixir for procuring which even the greatest of the kings and emperors lost their lives. This is that nectar by drinking which a man is liberated from the cycle of birth and death and by acquiring which pearls become like mud for him. This is that prescription by which all the sorrows, diseases of the sick, restlessness of the restless and troubles of the troubled soul disappear in the same manner as a wild deer runs away on getting the scent of man. This is that knowledge which transforms this sea of world which is full of sorrows into a pool of peace and a place of happiness and frees the man from all his bonds and leads him to the lotus-feet of God by touching which his soul is blessed with eternal peace and happiness. Dear reader, this is that teaching which tells us that duty must be performed for its own sake. This is what mirror which reflects the true form of religion. This is a divine ordinance which, being universally applicable, gives full freedom to all human beings to think about themselves.
O descendants of Aryans, can you really understand and follow these teachings? Have the iron chains of slavery, anxiety of livelihood, false sense of prestige, barren philosophy of meaningless renunciation and sacrifice, worship of the Mammon, education received in return for a few rupees and a plethora of false beliefs rendered your minds and hearts fit enough to understand this supreme truth which is the essence of all the philosophies of the world? Krishna Maharaja should be born again with the sweet melodious notes of his flute and should make the descendants of Aryans realize to what extent they have strayed from the path of dharma. The mother India should produce at least ten such sons as, keeping before them this paradigm of dharma, may try to ascend the ladder of dharma without bothering about the riches or poverty, friend or foe and life or death.
Their conviction should be so strong, their faith so unshakeable, their will so resolute and their intellect so incisive and brilliant that they should care neither for pleasure nor for sorrow, neither for comfort nor for discomfort, and neither for success nor for failure.
Yes, there is a great deal of talk about religion. There are also debates and discourses about it in plenty and donations are liberally given to promote the cause of religion. But the sad part of the whole thing is that our life is not guided by dharma. Dharma does not visit such people as do not invite it. Dharma is so jealous that it does not want its devotees to look at anybody else than itself. It does not stop them from eating or drinking or enjoying luxurious or earning money or producing children or having wives. What is wants is that whatever is done should be done for its sake, in its name, and that it should be dedicated to it. It does not say to its devotees that they should not love anybody nor serve their country or the community. Rather it says one may love people as much as one wants but it should be done so in its name, for its sake and should be dedicated to it.
Dharma does not make anyone its partner in its kingdom, nor does it give anyone a place equal to itself. It means that it wants to be all-powerful. It does not like anyone’s company, nor does it want its devotees to feel hesitant in obeying its dictates. Hence only that person can follow dharma who is ready to follow it without caring about his physical comforts or riches. When such a person eats or drinks or gives charity or performs a yajna he does so because Sri Krishna wants him to do so. Unfortunately, now there is no dharma in this country. This is the reason why the people of this country are suffering so much. Everyone develops his own idea about dharma and a hope to achieve salvation by worshipping a god of his own imagination. Not only this. He even invite others to follow him and declares that whoever disagrees with him is a kafir. But if one goes through the writings of the religious people of ancient times, then one can realize that dhrama is derived from the Vedas. At present it is very difficult to understand the Vedas because people do not know the meaning of the words used in them, and it is not possible for a dim-witted and parochial person to study them, let alone drink their nectar.
Krishna Maharaja says to Arjuna: “O Arjuna, remember that a man’s physical body is destined to die. Then why should one be afraid of dying or killing? Stand up and fight. Do not be afraid of dying or killing. Whatever your duty you must do it.”
The truth is that a truly religious man is he who in the discharge of his duty is neither afraid of dying nor of killing, and for whom all worldly considerations are insignificant before his duty.
O my co-religionists, put your hands on your hearts and think how many people in our community are such as can be called religious in accordance with these principles, and also how many are such as are eager to become truly religious by following them.
Is not our religion today a religion of convenience? How many of us are prepared to bear troubles and hardships for the sake of religion? Do thousands or even lakhs of Hindus no sell their religion for such trifling things as money, women, jobs, etc? Can any one of us honestly say that he is ready to face all kinds of troubles for the sake of his religion? Alas, in this country today neither there is religion nor are there religious people. There are only empty talks. Our 21 religion, our patriotism, our love for the community and our altruism are like empty envelopes containing neither notes on our objectives nor letters dealing with our true desires. May be, someday some great man, by his life and actions will bring home to us the real aim of religion and holding the hand of this misguided community lead it onto the right path