The Swastika: A Sacred Symbol Misconstrued

The swastika, an ancient symbol of auspiciousness and good fortune, is deeply revered in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. This symbol now often mistakenly associated with the Holocaust and Nazi Germany, has a history that predates its misattribution to the Nazis by thousands of years. Its origins and meanings are deeply rooted in ancient cultures across the world, where it symbolized positivity and well-being.

Ancient Origins:

1. Etymology and Meaning: The word “swastika” is derived from the Sanskrit svastika, meaning “good fortune” or “well-being”.

2. Cultural Significance: The symbol dates back to the Neolithic period, as early as 10,000 BCE, and has been found in artifacts from the Indus Valley Civilization (2500–1700 BCE), ancient Greece, and pre-Christian Europe. It was often associated with the sun, movement, life cycles, and auspiciousness.

3. Religious Importance: In Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, the swastika remains a sacred symbol representing peace, prosperity, and spiritual progress. It is commonly seen in temples, homes, and rituals in India and other parts of Asia

Cultural Significance of the Swastika:

1. Hinduism: The swastika symbolizes prosperity, good luck, and the sun. It is often used to ward off misfortune and is associated with Lord Ganesha, the remover of obstacles.

2. Buddhism: The swastika represents the auspicious footprints of the Buddha and is a symbol of universal harmony and prosperity.

3. Jainism: It is the primary holy symbol, representing the seventh Tirthankara, Suparsva, and is used in all Jain temples and ceremonies

However, its association with Nazi ideology has led to widespread misconceptions, causing harm to the religious sentiments of these communities. The Nazi Party used the Hakenkreuz, not the swastika, but James Vincent Murphy’s mistranslation of Mein Kampf popularized the term “swastika” in this context, leading to confusion.

The Nazi Party never referred to their symbol as the “swastika.” They used the German term Hakenkreuz, meaning “hooked cross,” which was distinct from the Sanskrit svastika that symbolizes auspiciousness in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Adolf Hitler adopted the Hakenkreuz in 1920 as a nationalist emblem, tilting it by 45 degrees and embedding it in propaganda materials to represent Aryan identity and racial superiority

James Vincent Murphy’s Mistranslation:

1. James Vincent Murphy’s English translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf popularized the term “swastika” instead of Hakenkreuz. This deliberate choice conflated the Nazi symbol with the sacred swastika, leading to widespread misunderstanding.

2. Murphy’s translation played a significant role in associating the Nazi regime with the swastika, despite its ancient and positive origins unrelated to fascism or genocide.

The conflation of the swastika with Nazi ideology was a result of linguistic mischief and historical distortion. Recognizing the distinction between Hakenkreuz and svastika is essential to reclaiming its ancient cultural significance.

South Asian Americans, particularly Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, face a complicated relationship with the swastika due to its misassociation with hate. Targeting the swastika can be seen as an attack on their religious identity.

Under American law, hate crimes are defined as acts motivated by bias against a person’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Targeting the swastika under the misconception that it is a Nazi symbol can harm the religious sentiments of Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. This action could be considered a hate crime under American law, as it involves intentional harm based on religious bias. and intentionally harms the religious feelings of innocent individuals.

Federal Hate Crime Laws

1. 18 U.S.C. § 247: This statute prohibits the intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of religious real property because of its religious nature. It also covers crimes motivated by the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of people associated with the property.

2. Shepard Byrd Act: This act makes it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury or attempt to do so because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.

State Laws

1. Washington State: RCW 9A.36.080 defines a hate crime offense, including defacing religious real property with symbols derogatory to the associated faith.

2. California: Laws prohibit terrorizing with symbols, including the swastika, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony.

Targeting the swastika with the intent to harm religious sentiments should be seen as a hate crime under these provisions, especially when it involves defacing religious symbols or property. It is crucial to distinguish between the sacred swastika and the Nazi Hakenkreuz to avoid misdirected harm against innocent religious communities.

The conflation of the sacred swastika with the Nazi Hakenkreuz has led to significant misunderstandings, particularly within Jewish communities. This misconception not only unfairly targets Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains but also undermines the shared values and historical symbiosis between Jewish and Hindu communities. Education and dialogue are essential to rectify this misunderstanding.

Historical Symbiosis Between Hindus and Jews

1. No Persecution: Jewish communities have lived in India for over 2,000 years without facing persecution—a rare exception in global history. India provided refuge during times of crisis, including World War II.

2. Shared Values: Both Hinduism and Judaism emphasize family values, spirituality, and community harmony. This shared ethos fosters mutual respect.

Call for Education

1. Oregon Initiative: In 2021, the Oregon Education Department officially recognized the distinction between the swastika and Hakenkreuz, emphasizing education to prevent cultural insensitivity.

2. Jewish Advocacy: Organizations like the American Jewish Committee have clarified this distinction to promote understanding.

Conclusion

Jewish communities must understand that targeting the swastika under misconceptions about its connection to Nazism harms innocent religious sentiments of Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. Recognizing its sacred origins fosters mutual respect and strengthens the historic bond between Jews and Hindus—a relationship built on shared values and tolerance.

अग्निपथ योजना एवं विरोध

 अग्निपथ योजना का बहुत विरोध हो रहा है। जो समर्थन कर रहे हैं उनसे सवाल पूछा जा रहा है कि इन शर्तों पर क्या आप अपने बच्चों को फौज में भेजेंगे? तो इस सवाल के जवाब में एक प्रतिप्रश्न है - अब से पहले जब ये नियम नहीं थे, क्या आप खुद फौज में भर्ती होने गए थे? या आपने पुराने नियमों के तहत ही अपने बच्चों को फौज में भेजा? यदि नहीं तो आपके सवाल में ईमानदारी नहीं है।

एक दुसरा प्रश्न है, फौज से बाईस से ले कर पचीस वर्ष की उम्र में बाहर आया युवा बेरोजगार क्या करेगा? उसके पास कोई शैक्षणिक या व्यावसायिक योग्यता नहीं होगी क्योंकि योग्यता हासिल करने वाला वह उम्र तो उसने फौज में लगा दिया।

तो इसका उत्तर साथ लग कर ढूंढिए। मेहनतकश युवा दो प्रकार के हैं - १. वह जिन्हें लगता है और आत्मविश्वास है कि वे शैक्षणिक या व्यावसायिक क्षेत्रों में कामयाब हो सकते हैं, २. जिन्हें ऐसा नहीं लगता। तो प्रथम वर्ग के कितने छात्रों को फौज में सिपाही के तौर पर भर्ती होने के लिए जाते हुए आपने देखा है? जो आपका मूल प्रश्न है, वह उन्हीं छात्रों से संबंधित है जो शैक्षणिक या व्यावसायिक सफलता का आत्मविश्वास रखते हैं। जो दूसरा वर्ग है उसमें भी आत्मविश्वास है परन्तु वह किसी अन्य प्रकार का है। वो बाहुबल पर भरोसा करने वाले हैं। इसी दूसरे वर्ग से युवा सेना में सिपाही के रूप में जीवन की शुरूआत करते हैं। तो जितने अग्निवीर चार वर्षों की सेवा के दौरान योग्य पाए जाएंगे, वे सेवानिवृत्त नहीं होंगे, बल्कि वे स्थाई नियुक्ति पा जाएंगे। बहुत से अन्य केंद्रीय पुलिस बल और राज्य पुलिस में आरक्षण का लाभ हासिल कर के स्थाई नियुक्ति पा जाएंगे।

तो अग्निवीर योजना से नुकसान किसको होगा? उन्हीं को जो न शैक्षणिक या व्यावसायिक सफलता का आत्मबल रखते हैं और जो चार वर्षों में फौज में अपनी उपयोगिता सिद्ध कर पाने का आत्मबल भी नहीं रखते। तो ऐसों के लिए आपके मन में सहानुभूति है?

आत्मअनात्मविवेक : Atma - Anatma Vivek : The Wisdom of Atma and Anatma

आत्मानात्मविवेक:

Atma-Anaatma Vivek

The Wisdom of Eternal and Non-Eternal

दृश्यं यर्वमनात्मा स्यात् दृगेवात्मा विवेकिन:।

आत्मानात्मविवेकोऽयं कथितो ग्रन्थकोटिभि: ।।१ ।।

संसार के संपूर्ण पदार्थ दो प्रकार के हैं - आत्मपदार्थ व अनात्मपदार्थ। परंतु हैं क्या ये आत्म पदार्थ और अनात्म पदार्थ?

जो सदैव बना रहे और कभी उसके स्वरूप में विकृति न आए, ऐसे पदार्थ को आत्म-पदार्थ कहते हैं। और सदैव का मतलब हमेशा, सृष्टि के अनंत काल तक। आगे जानेंगे कि ऐसा तो एक ही पदार्थ है, परमेश्वर। बाकि तो कोई पदार्थ सदैव रहने वाला नहीं है, सो वो अनित्य है और अनात्म - पदार्थ है।

इस संसार को कौन चला रहा है? ईश्वर? नहीं, धर्म। ईश्वर सदैव द्रष्टा भाव में रहते हैं। कर्ता भाव में तो कभी कभी ही आते हैं। इस संपूर्ण सृष्टि को धर्म धारण किए हुए है। आपके सत्कर्मों का सुफल और कुकर्मों का कुफल आपको धर्मानुसार ही प्राप्त होता है। संसार धर्मानुसार चल रहा है, ईश्वर उसके निरपेक्ष द्रष्टा हैं।  सृष्टि को द्रष्टा भाव से देखने वाले परब्रह्म परमेश्वर ही आत्मपदार्थ हैं।

तो आद्य शंकराचार्य महाभाग ने इस छोटे से ग्रंथ को क्यों लिखा? क्या प्रयोजन है उसका? आत्म-अनात्म विवेक विकसीत होने से आपका क्या भला होगा?

तो इन प्रश्नों के लिए इस ग्रंथ ने ये प्रश्न किया कि मनुष्य के कष्ट का क्या कारण है?

जवाब आया कि शरीर धारण ही कष्ट का कारण है। जैसे आपके हाथ न हों तो हाथों में दर्द होगा क्या? नहीं न। परंतु सारे कष्ट हाथों में ही तो नहीं होते। शरीर से आठ प्रकार के ज्ञान होते हैं - १. रूप, २. रस, ३. गंध, ४. शब्द, ५. स्पर्श, ६. सुख, ७. दुख, ८. मोह। तो भौतिक शरीर के तो पांच ही ज्ञानेंद्रिय हैं, बाकि तीन का क्या? तो उसका उत्तर यह है कि वेदांत मत में शरीर के तीन आवरण हैं - १. स्थूल शरीर, २. सूक्ष्म शरीर - इसमें होते हैं - पंच कर्मेंद्रियां, पंच ज्ञानेंद्रिया, पंच तन्मात्राएं, आत्मा और मन। तीसरा होता है - कारण शरीर। अज्ञान को ही कारण शरीर कहते हैं, परंतु क्यों, वह आगे देखेंगे।

अब प्रश्न ये है कि शरीर क्यों धारण करना पड़ता है? इसका उत्तर यह ग्रंथ यह देता है कि पूर्व जन्मों के  किए हुए कर्मों के फल को भोगने के लिए ही शरीर धारण करना पड़ता है। ऐसे कर्म जिनका फल भोगना शेष रह गया है। इस संदर्भ में ही कर्म के तीन भेद बताए गए - पुण्य कर्म, पाप कर्म और मिश्र कर्म। पुण्य कर्मों के फल देवादि योनि प्राप्त कराते हैं, तो पाप कर्म कीटादि योनि। मिश्र कर्मों से मनुष्य योनि प्राप्त होता है।

Contempt notice to Mr. Markandeya Katju.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Markandeya Katju was issued a notice (vide order dated 11.11.2016, to show cause as to why proceedings for Criminal Contempt of the Supreme Court be not drawn up against him. The order can be seen here http://sci.nic.in/FileServer/2016-11-12_1478947169.pdf

Mr. Katju being a retired judge was "requested" by a "notice"  to appear before the court vide the Court's order dated 17.10.2016. The context for the same is as follows (as contained in the order dated 17.10.2016):

"A Former Judge of this Court Justice Markandey Katju in a blog published on Facebook has expressed an opinion that the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2016 passed by this Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1584-1585 of 2014 needs to be reviewed in an open Court hearing. Such a view coming from a retired Judge of this Court needs to be treated with greatest of respect and consideration. We, therefore, reproduce herein below the blog published by Justice Katju in Facebook and convert the same into a suo motu review petition."

 I would urge readers to pay particular attention to the line “Such a view coming from a retired Judge of this Court needs to be TREATED with GREATEST of RESPECT and CONSIDERATION."

After reproducing the contents of the blog, the order proceeded as follows:

 

 "We issue notice to Justice Markandey Katju, former judge of this Court and request him to appear in Court in person and participate in the proceedings on 11th November, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. as to whether the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2016 passed by this Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1584-1585 of 2014 suffers from any fundamental flaw so as to require exercise of the review jurisdiction."

A perusal of the language shows that on 17.10.2016, the Court only "REQUESTED" the former judge to appear "IN PERSON" and "PARTICIPATE" in the proceedings. Was it open for the former judge to refuse to accept this request cannot be answered conclusively since the request was made through a "NOTICE" and both the terms are in sharp conflict with each other. While request is respectful and compliance thereof depends upon the recipients will, notice is a command intended not to be ignored and mandatorily complied.

It is also curious that something that merited GREATEST of RESPECT and CONSIDERATION, how could it be deemed contumacious at the same time? It’s like hot and cold in the same breath.

Although Mr. Katju is the most aggressive advocate of Right to Freedom of Expression, so much so, even indulging himself in testing waters to the most extreme extents, he mysteriously chose not to speak anything on this notice. His blog containing opinions on all issues big and small (the latest one being on demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes), is deafeningly silent on the issue beforehand.

Now when Mr. Katju appears before the court on 11.11.2016, the following order is passed:

 (i) The Review Petition drawn on the basis of Mr. Katju's blog is dismissed.
(ii) Extracts from two of the relevant blogs are reproduced, which are as follows:

“But the statements of PW4 and PW 40 were hearsay evidence. PW4 and PW40 do not say that they themselves saw Saumya jumping off the train. And hearsay evidence is inadmissible in evidence vide Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, except in certain limited circumstances e.g. a dying declaration or opinion of an expert. None of those limited circumstances existed in this case. So how could the Court rely on this hearsay evidence? This was a grave error in the judgment, not expected of judges who had been in the legal world for decades. Even a student of law in a law college knows this elementary principle that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.” 

In RE - THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES” dated 18th September, 2016 : “Justice Gogoi, who is in line to become the Chief Justice of India on the basis of seniority, has shown that he does not know an  elementary principle of law, namely that hearsay evidence is not admissible (see paragraph 16 of his judgment in the Soumya murder case).”

The court then proceeded to observe as follows:

"Reference to the author of the judgment must necessarily include the other members of the Bench. Prima facie, the statements made seem to be an attack on the Judges and not on the judgment. We therefore, issue notice of contempt to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be drawn up against Justice Markandey Katju and he be appropriately dealt with"

(The order dated 11.11.2016 can be accessed here http://sci.nic.in/FileServer/2016-11-12_1478947169.pdf"

The portion "Reference to the author of the judgment must necessarily include the other members of the Bench." is very intriguing. What would have been the effect of "including" reference to other members of the bench is unclear.

The issue has now assumed great importance. Previously it concerned merits of only one particular case. Now since proceedings have been drawn up on a blog, the case has begun concerning each and every citizens right to freedom of expression as far as criticism of judgments of the Courts are concerned. The precedent created by the final order of the proceedings shall be followed by all courts below. No advocate of the right to freedom of expression has trained gun either way as at the time of writing this blog

Before anyone proceeds to formulate her / his opinion the following legal provisions and precedents must be kept in mind. I must hasten to add that the list is not exhaustive, but is only indicative.

1. Article 124(7) of the Constitution of India reads thus:

"(7) No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India."

2. Explanation (i) to Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 defines "Acting", but that is confined to Order IV only. However a consideration of the same would not be without benefit. It reads thus:

"(i) ‘acting’ means filing an appearance or any pleadings or applications in any court or tribunal in India, or any act (other than pleading) required or authorised by law to be done by a party in such court or tribunal either in person or by his recognised agent or by an advocate or attorney on his behalf;"

3. S.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines Criminal Contempt of Court as follows:

"(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"

Independence of Judiciary

Before venturing to write further, I owe a confession. None of the writings below are my original and are drawn upon various sources. Although to my disappointment, it has been my firm belief that after Chanakya we never had a single original political thinker born in the country.

So much so, we have not even been able to draft a quality legislation post independence, that could withstand the test of time. As an example I would like to cite Companies Act, 2013 that was legislated after lots of deliberations and considerations, notified in August 2013, required to be amended to some extent in 2015. It still required another wave of amendments in 2016 and the list of amendments itself resulted in a voluminous compendium. This speaks loudly about our legislative capabilities.

Jurists and authors of repute have found two aspects of "Judicial Independence":
1. Freedom from bias; and
2. Freedom from external control.

1. Freedom from bias has been highlighted as follows:

"the independence of the judiciary is something which is precious to every single member of the community. You must be able to go into court and know that the person sitting in judgment is neutral – not on one side or the other – coldly applying the law that applies to your case."

[Sixth Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Relations Between the Executive, the Judiciary and Parliament (2007 HL 151)]

2. Freedom from External Control has been



Now considering how the Supreme Court of India has approached Independence of Judiciary, the following questions arise in my mind.

A mind that fears reduction of salary or alteration of conditions of service, is by implication bound to be enticed by offers of post retirement employment. Viewed in this context, if fear of reduction of salary of judges or altering conditions of their service tends to create fear in the minds of their lordships and thereby amounts to impinging upon "Independence of Judiciary", the obverse must also be true.
Seeking to tempt the judges by post retirement appointments to various tribunals and commissions must necessarily amount to State attempt to influence "free conscience" of their lordships. This too must be held to be contrary to the principle of "Independence of Judiciary".

What if the highest court of a country (not necessarily India) rules that fear of retirement affects the free conscience of the judges and tantamounts to impinging upon "Independence of Judiciary".

What course would be left with the Executive and the Legislature except confrontation with Judiciary?

Aruna Shanbaug

Just read the story of Aruna Shanbaug once more. A story of struggle, achievement of dreams, sudden shattering of life, dreams and everything the soul possesses. The man behind this tragic story, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki, is virtually left scot free. What he receives is a "Pat on the wrist" punishment and he becomes clean, changes name and still is reported to be on staff of some hospital.
While our human rights activists found out the real story behind Gujarat, Ayodhya and all, Aruna Shanbaug did not receive the mercy of the daniels of human rights. The only human right claimed for her by a next friend is "DEATH".

 I wonder if somebody finds out the culprit again and let us find some way to bring him to justice so that Aruna gets the foremost human right "JUSTICE" before she bids farewell to all of us. Its race against time. We will never be able to spare us, our conscience will never be clean if we cannot ensure justice to Aruna.