Wednesday, 1 April 2015

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY angle dropped by CBI and Courts: Supreme Court notice to LK Advani, top BJP leaders in 1992 Babri Mosque demolition case
March 31, 2015
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from senior BJP leader L K Advani and others on a plea against dropping of criminal conspiracy charge against them in the Babri mosque demolition case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu issued notices to the BJP leader and the CBI on a separate plea filed by Haji Mahboob Ahmad, one of the petitioners in the Babri mosque case. Ahmad, in his plea, has alleged that CBI may dilute its stand in the wake of the change in the government at the Centre.

Earlier, the CBI had moved the apex court against Allahabad High Court's verdict on dropping conspiracy charge against Advani and 19 others in Babri mosque demolition case. During the brief hearing, CBI today sought time for filing a fresh affidavit on delay in filing the appeal and on the merits of the case.

The court allowed the plea of the probe agency and granted four weeks time to file the response.

The apex court had earlier pulled up CBI for the delay in filing an appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict. CBI has challenged in the Supreme Court the May 21, 2010 order of the high court, which had upheld a special court's decision to drop the charge against the leaders.

In its verdict, the high court had upheld the special CBI court order dropping conspiracy charge against Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi. The others against whom the charge was dropped included Satish Pradhan, C R Bansal, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Sadhvi Ritambhara, V H Dalmia, Mahant Avaidhynath, R V Vedanti, Param Hans Ram Chandra Das, Jagdish Muni Maharaj, B L Sharma, Nritya Gopal Das, Dharam Das, Satish Nagar and Moreshwar Save.Bal Thackeray's name was removed from the list of accused persons after his death.

The Babri Mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992. An unruly mob had scaled the dome of mosque with hammers, hooks levelled off the entire mosque in few hours. Hindu fanatics reportedly destroyed numerous other mosques within the town as well.

The bone of contention revolved around access to a site that was traditionally regarded by the Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished to create the mosque. The history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site resulted in the long-standing Ayodhya dispute.
CBI had chargesheeted Advani and 20 others under sections 153A (promoting enmity between classes), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505 (false statements, rumours etc circulated with the intent to cause mutiny or disturb public peace) of the IPC.
It had subsequently invoked charges under section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC which was quashed by the special court whose decision was upheld by the high court.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear on Tuesday a petition, which claims that with the BJP in power, CBI may not make adequate efforts to get conspiracy charges restored against party leader L K Advani and others in the Babri Masjid demolition case. The plea has been filed by Haji Mehboob, a petitioner in the title suit representing the Muslim community in Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case.
Mehboob, 77, has said his fears stem from the fact that Rajnath Singh, an accused in the case, was now Home Minister and his ministry had administrative control over CBI. Also, another accused, Kalyan Singh, was now Governor of Rajasthan.

Mehboob, who said his house was among the many burnt in the violence that followed the demolition, has requested the court to let him intervene and argue as a party in the case irrespective of CBI’s appeal since the agency’s intentions were doubtful. He said his petition ought to be heard on merits to ensure the matter is not botched up.

“One accused of the said criminal trial, Shri Rajnath Singh, is a cabinet minister and the leader against whom there is a charge of serious omission. One other accused (Kalyan Singh) is Governor of a state. Although CBI is technically under the office of Prime Minister but for all practical purposes, the Home Minister is also an important authority,” stated the petition.
The plea that said due to the change in political scenario, litigation policy of the Centre and statutory authorities had changed their stand. “There are reliable reports… CBI may not seriously press the said petition in its true intent and spirit,” it said and added: “It is necessary that a public spirited person takes up the issue to test the impugned judgment of Allahabad High Court in the judicial scrutiny before this Court”.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice H L Dattu Monday for an urgent listing and he agreed to hear it with the main matter Tuesday. The main matter relates to CBI’s appeal against decisions of a special CBI court and High Court to drop criminal conspiracy charge against Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar, Murli Manohar Joshi and others.

Monday, 23 March 2015

The Satanists in Theosophical Society and ARYA SAMAJ revival
The Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj of Aryavarta, also sometimes called Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj of India, and abbreviated as Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj was a Theosophical Society from May 22, 1878 until March 1882. It was also part of the Arya Samaj.

In 1875 Swami Dayanda Saraswati founded in Mumbai the Hindu reform movement Arya Samaj. In the same year, the Theosophical Society was founded by Madame Blavatsky and Henry Olcott in New York.

Olcott met Moolji Thakurshi (Moolji Thackersey) already in 1870, but they lost contact with each other. In 1877 Olcott wrote to Thakurshi, and described the Theosophical Society and its goals to him. Thakurshi replied to Olcott, and told him about the Arya Samaj. He described its goals and gave Olcott the address of its president in Mumbai Hari Chand Chintamani (Hurrychund Chintamon). In the following exchange of letters, they illustrated the positions of their own societies, and noted the agreements between them. Chintamani then became a member of the Theosophical Society, and Olcott began a correspondence with Dayananda Saraswati.

It was suggested to unite the two societies, and the proposal was accepted at a meeting of the Theosophical Society on May 22, 1878 in New York. The Thesophical Society changed its name to the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj of Aryavarta, often abbreviated as Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj. A branch of the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj was founded in June 27, 1878 by Charles Carleton Massey in London. Its name was the British Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj of Aryavart.

In December 1878, Blavatsky and Olcott travelled to Mumbai, where they arrived in February 1879. They met Hari Chand Chintamani, and founded the first theosophical lodge in India. They moved the headquarters of the society to Mumbai.

There were however tensions between the two societies, and on March 26, 1882 Dayananda spoke about the Humbuggery of the Theosophists, Olcott replied to Dayanandas charges in The Theosophist in July 1882 in an article titled Swami Dayanand's Charges.

Humbuggery of the Theosophists [A Tract based on a Lecture given by Swami Dayananda Sarasvati]
[The following translation of the pamphlet is reprinted from The Life and Teachings of Swami Dayanand Saraswati by Bawa Chhajju Singh, Lahore, 1903, pp. 519-531.  In an introductory paragraph, Singh wrote that Swami Dayananda "delivered [in Bombay March 1882] an exhaustive lecture on the 'Theosophical Society,' and had the following tract, embodying the substance of the speech, distributed among the people . . . . "  (p. 518).  The tract was originally issued in Hindi.  In July of 1882, Colonel Olcott published a rebuttal to Swami Dayananda's charges.  Another translation of this tract can be found on pp. 556-560 of Harbilas Sarda's Life of Dayanand Saraswati:  World Teacher, Ajmer, 1968.  - BA Editor.]
Shri Swami [Dayanand] and the Arya Samajists had been led to believe from the previous letters and actions of the Americans [Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky] that the well-being of Aryavarta would, to certain extent, be promoted by them, but that impression of his has proved unfounded, because: -
1.  They said in their first letters that the Theosophical Society was to be regarded as a branch of the Arya Samaj, but subsequently they changed their mind (and did not declare their Society as a branch of the Arya Samaj).
2.  They said that they were coming as students,  to understand and embrace the Vedic Religion, and to acquire a knowledge of Sanskrit. They have not only failed to keep their promise, but have become disbelievers in any and every Dharma whatsoever. They never studied any Dharma in the capacity of an inquirer, have not yet commenced studying Sanskrit, nor is there any hope of their ever doing so.
3.  They gave the Swami the assurance that income from fees, paid by the members of the Society, should belong to the Arya Samaj, and that a good number of books should be presented to the Samaj. They never kept their word: on the contrary, the seven hundred rupees sent to Harish Chandra Chintamani, they pounced upon and never said so much as a word about the "engulphing!" They not only did not present any books to the Samaj, but actually went so far as to unblushingly realize Rs. 30 for a book they presented to Babus Chhedi Lal and Shiv Narain, who had spent hundreds of rupees in giving them a reception and in providing for them conveyances, lodgings, etc. (at Meerut): yes, this the Colonel and Madame H. P. Blavatsky did. Again, the Lahore, Amritsar, Saharanpur and other Samajes gave them each a handsome reception, but they never put any value on the same. And the Swami also benefitted them as far as his leisure would permit, but instead of feeling grateful to him, they are bare-faced enough to assert that they gave the Swami much assistance.
The Swami, however, asserts that the assertion is unfounded. And if they did assist him, why won’t they declare, how? As they will not specify the nature of the services they alleged to have rendered to the Swami, nobody can be expected to give credence to what they say.
4.  At the outset they admitted in their letters, and after they had arrived into India that they were believers in God. But subsequently they, in utter disregard of their previous professions, both declared, in presence of the Swami and many other gentlemen at Meerut, that they did not believe in God. Is not this a contradiction of what they said at first? Upon this declaration, on their part, the Swami said: "You prove that belief in God is wrong, and I will prove the contrary. Whatever is found to be the truth, let that be believed in." They would not agree to this too.
5.  When they were about to come into Aryavarta, they got it printed, in the columns of the Indian Spectator, dated 14th July, 1878, that they were neither Buddhists, nor Christians, nor Brahmans, believing in the Puranas, but that they were Arya Samajists. Now they have, in contradiction of what they said before, got it published that they had been for years Buddhists, and are Buddhists even now. Is not this cunning and trickery? And it is evident from their letter of January, 1880, that they were believers in God. Only eight months after this declaration, they affirmed at Meerut that both of them were atheists. Was not this conduct on their part deceitful?
6.  On their arrival here, they agreed that the Theosophical Society should be a branch of the Arya Samaj, but subsequently they came to assert that neither the Central Society was a branch of the Arya Samaj, nor the Arya Samaj a branch of the Central Society, but that the Vedic Shakha (Branch) was common to both. Now, in defiance of their previous declarations, they have got it published that their Society never became branch of the Arya Samaj, and that theirs is an entirely separate body, having nothing to do with the Arya Samaj. Is not this one of their objectionable freaks?
7.  When they founded their Society in Bombay, they enrolled the Swami among their members without the Swami having ever asked them to do so, and without their ever having previously consulted the Swami on the subject. When they first met the Swami at Meerut, in company with Moolji, the Swami asked them why they had put him down as a member of their Society without his permission, and requested them to strike his name off. The Colonel assured the Swami, in reply, that such a thing should never be repeated in future, and that they should strike his name off. Afterwards, when they met the Swami at Kashi, it was discovered that they had not struck off his name yet. Then the Swami wrote them a strong letter, asking them to strike off his name. They wired to know, in reply, what they should write (in place of the words - member of the Theosophical Society). The Swami answered by wire, telling them to write Vedic Dharma Updeshak instead, as desired by him at the very outset, adding that he was neither a member of their Vienna Society, nor of any other similar Society: he was a follower of the Vedic Faith which he could not give up to associate with anyone. But, in spite of that Madame Blavatsky, while at Simla, wrote him such an objectionable letter that no upright man could approve of its tone and spirit. Was this worthy of them? The Swami never wrote to them, nor personally authorized them to make him their member, but, for all that, they did make him one. Was not this shameful?
8.  Their promise at Meerut that they should never henceforward ask any Arya Sabhasad to become a member of their Society, they broke, for only two days after the promise had been given, they did their best to persuade, during the journey, Lala Chhedi Lal, who accompanied them as far as Umballa, to identify himself with their Society. They further sent him a letter from Simla, advising him to accept the membership of their Society.
Seeing them having recourse to such deceit and fraud, the Swami delivered a lecture at the anniversary of the Meerut Samaj, declaring, in the course of his remarks, that it was not necessary for a follower of the Vedic Religion to become a member of their Society, for the principles which the Arya Samaj believed in, were not professed and believed in by the Theosophists. It was this remark which made Madame Blavatsky write from Simla the objectionable and untruthful letter she did, and the Swami also answered it as it deserved.
After that the Swami came to determine that on his visiting Bombay, he should come to an understanding with them on every point. This determination of his was exactly the determination of the Bombay Samaj also. When the Swami reached Bombay, many Arya Sabhasads and the Colonel also received him at the Station, and when the Swami had arrived at the place fixed for his residence, he had a long talk with the Colonel, informing him (at the conclusion of the conversation) that there were many things yet to be talked on. The Colonel made no clear reply to this. When he came to the Swami to have a talk about Rev. Cooke, the Swami once more told him that it was high time that a conversation (discussion) should take place between himself and him. The Colonel answered that such a discussion should come off (ere long), (but finding that the matter was being delayed), the Swami sent, through Pana Chand Anandji and Rao Bahadur Pandit Gopal Rao Hari Desmukh, word to the Colonel that he (or Madame Blavatsky) should come for a conversation, and that, in the event of his still evading the Swami’s request, the real facts should be proclaimed. Pana Chand brought back the answer to the Swami that Colonel Olcott would come for a discussion on 27th March, 1882. The Colonel, however, failed to keep his promise: on the contrary, he left Bombay for Jeypur, from which place he wrote to the Swami that he had been unable to see him and that Madame Blavatsky would have a discussion with him in his (Colonel’s) place. But Madame Blavatsky too never came.
Seeing how matters stood, the Bombay Arya Samaj had a notice issued, announcing that the Swami would deliver, on the following day, a lecture on the relations which originally existed between the Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society, and those that existed at present between the two Bodies, showing, in the course of the lecture, their conflicting nature. Madame Blavatsky had one clear day to come and have a friendly discussion, but she did not come, and so the Swami delivered his lecture.
Noticing the lecture they wrote in their paper, the Theosophist, that the Swami delivered his lecture without having previously informed them of his intentions. Is not this an untruth? In the lecture, the Swami read out their letters, showing how the former professions and actions of the Theosophists differed from their present:  how they said one thing and did quite another. They professed to be trying to promote the well-being of Aryavarta, but they appeared to be only doing it harm. For instance, the Swami dissuaded them several times from writing stories of evil spirits, demons and fiends in the Theosophist, for, as he said, these things were untrue and opposed to science, and what was untrue and unscientific should not be allowed to go into papers, for the great reason that the Theosophist had a circulation in this country as well in Europe, and (if it contained such stories) the Westerns would think that the people of Aryavarta believed in what was foolish and nonsense. They have not heeded the Swami’s counsel up to the present time. In their first letters, they gave the Swami the assurance that they would follow and believe in what the Swami should teach them. Can those professions of theirs be regarded as sincere?
9.  The letter addressed to the Rev. Mr. Cooke was written by the Colonel with his own hand, and it was dictated by the Swami. In this he put down, deliberately and of his own accord, the expression, which religion is "most Divine"? (i.e., which religion has the greatest connection with the Deity!) as a translation of the Swami’s words. The expression "most Divine" expresses anything but the Swami’s meaning. When, after the Colonel’s departure, the Swami had the letter read out and translated to him, he found that it was incorrect. On the Colonel’s again coming to the Swami, the latter had the expression expunged and put down, in its place, the words: "When the discussion between you and me takes place, it will become evident which religion is of Divine origin, and which not." In spite of this the Colonel had the wrong letter printed. Was this worthy of him?
Among their principles are the following: -  "(We are) Theosophists, or believers in God; the Society does not levy any fees; no religion is higher than this; Christianity should be always opposed; He who is unborn, Who has been created by none but Who has created all, that is God." To charge a fee of ten rupees now and to praise whatever "creed" forms the subject of their lectures for the time being - is not all this after the fashion of flatterers and begging-bards?
It is not all necessary that any more should be written for the wise. What has been said above will enable everybody to understand the real facts. The object aimed at in issuing this pamphlet is to point out that nothing but harm can come to Aryavarta and to the Arya Samajes by keeping up a connection with the Theosophical Society. For what their real object is, they alone can tell. Were they pure-minded, why would they do such deeds and write such letters? When they are such dangerous atheists, so unfaithful to their word, and so selfish, Aryavarta and the Arya Samajists and other Aryas had better give up the hope that they will do any good to the country.
A further illustration of their chicanery may be given, one of the many (that may be given). At first they lauded and extolled the Swami, but when the Swami would not be caught in their snare, they commenced talking of Koot Hoomi Lal, a person whom nobody has seen or heard of. If they fail to compass their selfish end through his assistance, they might call him Gotra Koot Hoomi Singh. They assert that Kote Hoomi appears to them, and works wonders. "Here," say they "is his photograph; letters and flowers fall from above, and things lost can be found." All those assertions of theirs are wholly untrue. For not to speak of others, Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky themselves, on their arrival at Bombay for the first time, had their clothes, etc., stolen, but could never find them, in spite of their taxing the resources of the Police to the utmost of their power. Why did not they get the stolen things brought to them by the power of their magic? And when they were unable to recover the same, who can put faith in what they allege they accomplished at Simla?
When the Swami had a talk with Madame Blavatsky on "yoga," at Meerut, Madame asserted that she practised yoga as taught in the Yoga and the Sankhya Shastra. On the Swami’s desiring her to explain the methods of the yoga recommended by the Shastras, no answer whatever was forthcoming. In other words, it is only mesmerism or the juggler’s art which they can practice. Those who practice yoga, though but to a small extent, they are always the same externally and internally, and in their dealings they are upright. The dealings of these people are marked by deceit and falsehood. If they knew yoga ever so little, they would not be such dangerous atheists, unbelievers in God. That they are wholly ignorant of yoga, is proved by the single fact of their having no faith in God. Hence the certain conclusion from all this is, that their contradictory professions and doings do not deserve to be put any faith in, and the best thing is, therefore, to keep aloof from them.
Swami Dayanand's Charges by Colonel Henry S. Olcott President of the Theosophical Society.
In sorrow, not in anger, I take up the task of answering certain charges recently made against my colleague, Madame Blavatsky, and myself, by Pandit Dayanand Saraswati Swami. The duty is trebly unpleasant since I am compelled to prove, alike to the members of the Arya Samaj and Theosophical Society, the fact that the Founder of the Samaj is either suffering from so grave an impairment of the memory, as to make him unfit for further public service, or has been totally misled by our mutual interpreters. The facts, that I shall present, admit of no other alternative; and I, as one who is sincerely interested in the spiritual and moral welfare of the Aryas, deplore the act of the Swami in publicly dishonouring the names of two persons who, whatever their imperfections and shortcomings, were at least his staunch and unselfish allies. We might have even passed over the offensive language used in his lecture at Bombay on the 26th of March - in fact, had decided to do so, as the editorial paragraph in the May number of this magazine fully shows. But, as though possessed by some evil spirit, he repeated his insults and misrepresentations over and over again in lectures, and in handbills in the Hindi and Gujarathi languages. Our best friends - who, at the same time, are true friends of India - now call upon us to set the case as it really is, and thus once more show the public that - no matter what may be said against us - the Founders of the Theosophical Society have held inflexibly, from first to last, to one straight course and one plain policy. I invite Arya Samajists to patiently read what follows, promising that I shall not imitate the extreme language of the Swami - who publicly called us liars and cheating jugglers, - but leave the Swami of 1882 to be judged by the Swami of 1878, 1879, 1880, and 1881. Epithets would lend no additional strength to the condemnation that the Swami’s own documents stamp upon his recent lectures and handbills.

I may properly ask the reader to take into consideration before passing on to my proofs, one or two psychological facts. Firstly, I note that the minds of those who have studied and practised Yoga science, are continually oppressed with the conviction that a profound secrecy must be ever maintained as to the esoteric instruction given them. It is the most difficult thing in the world to get a Yogi, or even a Yogi’s Chela (pupil), to say what he has learned, or where, or when, or of whom. And, so far does this instinct of caution go that they will deny point-blank all knowledge of Yoga or Yogis if, in their opinion, the asker or the public is not fit to be taught. A glance at Swami Dayanand’s history and utterances shows that his mind is so pre-occupied, and, if we bear this in view, we shall understand certain things which would be otherwise incomprehensible. And, again, the reader will note this very important point, viz., that the retention of Yoga powers - the Siddhis, or peculiar psychical faculties developed by training - for any length of time unimpaired, exacts that the Yogi shall periodically retire to a solitary place, for new training. If this is not done, the Yogi, little by little, becomes like common men, and, indeed, often develops the traits of violent anger, unsteadiness of purpose, even recklessness of language and actions. Nature is, in fact, taking her revenge for the restraint under which the Yogi had been keeping her. Now, with this hint in mind, let the reader turn to the chapters of the Swami’s unfinished autobiography contributed by him (October and December, 1879, and November, 1880) to these pages, and to the report of an interview between him and ourselves at Meerut - when Yoga Vidya was discussed (Theosophist, December, 1880), and see what bearing, if any, this has upon the case at issue. That the Swami practically knew Yoga appears from his own confessions; and, knowing it and having of necessity the ability to recognize Yoga phenomena when shown, and Yogis when met with, he was in 1880 competent to give an opinion upon the phenomena of Madame Blavatsky. He said, when asked by me, that they "were phenomena of Yoga. Some of them might be imitated by tricksters, and then would be mere tamasha; but these were not of that class." If he now says that these same phenomena are produced by "electrical wires under ground," or in some other unscientifically absurd way, his friends are put in the painful dilemma of either believing him to have turned falsifier for a motive, or to have lost his memory. Another example of his change of mind is the fact that when he first visited Bombay to preach, he was a professed Vedantin, scouting the idea of a personal God (as some of his Vedantin members will testify to), and was entertained on that account by Vedantins, whereas he now preaches a religion quite opposed to Adwaitism. So, too, his different expression of views at different times about the Shraddha ceremonies for the dead.(1)  These are all symptomatic - to use a medical term - of either a concerted policy of mystification, or a disturbance of mental equilibrium, perhaps resulting from overtraining in Yoga Vidya. I sedulously keep aside the alternative that my late colleague has lost all moral principle, and has deliberately taken to malicious falsification of the facts of history; it would shake my confidence in human nature. But whatever the cause, the case is none the less a hateful injustice towards us, and my present duty none the less disagreeable. Having said this much by way of preface, I will now pass on to the issues of fact.

As all the meat of a nut is packed into the shell, so the whole pith of the Swami’s lecture against us is compressed into the handbill above mentioned. His points are numbered from 1 to 9, and are as follow: -

Point I. - That "from the former correspondence and actions of the Founders of the Theosophical Society, the Swami and his Samajists had concluded that Aryavarta would be under certain obligations to the Society, but this conclusion proves false." And, for the reason, that we now deny what we said in our letters, viz., "that the Theosophical Society is made a Branch of the Arya Samaja."

Point II. - That whereas we wrote that we "were coming to follow the eternal Vedic Religion," and to study the Sanskrit, after coming here, we have "believed in no religion, do not now, nor are likely to believe in any hereafter."

Point III. - That whereas we had written that the fees collected by our Society "would be given to the Samaja in addition to the present of many books," we took back and pocketed Rs. 700 that we had sent to Hurrychund Chintaman; while, instead of presenting books to the Samaja, we "shamelessly charged Babus Chedi Lall and Sheo Narayana for a book presented to them," when these gentlemen had actually expended "hundreds of rupees" for our entertainment. And this we were not ashamed to do, though the Samajis of Saharanpur, Amritsar, and Lahore had received us with all their heart, but got no thanks from us in return. "From what Swamiji says," it is plain that "they have not at all supported him, and if they have, why do they not make the thing public?"

Point IV. - That "first in their letter, and afterwards here, in the presence of Swami and all" we had expressed our belief in a personal God (Iswar), but when we afterwards met him at Meerut we denied such belief.

Point V. - That in the Indian Spectator of 14th July, 1878, we published that we "were neither Buddhists, Christians, nor Bramhans (i.e., believed in the Purans), but were Arya Samajists." But now we say that for many years we have been Buddhists. And he asks "Now, is this not fraud and treachery?" Again "the note of Magha of Samvat 1936 [publish the note, please, if it does,] proves their belief in Iswar," but six months later, at Meerut, we declared our disbelief.

Point VI. - "After coming here and admitting that the Theosophical Society was a branch of the Arya Samaja," we "afterwards said that neither one was a branch of the other," and that the Society was never a branch of the Samaja.

Point VII. - That when we established a Society of our own in Bombay, we, "without the knowledge of Swami," and of our "own free will, put his name in the list of members." Afterwards, we, with the late Mr. Mulji Thakersey, "first saw him upon the subject at Meerut," where he "demanded" our "reasons for doing so," and told us to strike off his name. Then "Colonel Olcott answered that they (we) would not do any such thing hereafter, and would strike out his name." But up to the time we met again - nine months later, at Benares - it was not done. Whereupon Swami "wrote a strong letter" to insist upon it, and we asked, by telegram, "what to substitute for it" [presumably the "it" means his membership of our council or his chieftainship of our branch called the "Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj,"] and he replied, by telegram, that we "should write him as a Vedic Preacher." He asks if this is not "shameful."

Point VIII. - That notwithstanding we had taken a resolution at Meerut not to tell any Samajist to become a member of our Society, we tried to win over Babu Chedi Lall, whereupon the Swami felt constrained to lecture to the Samajists upon the subject, and tell them that "none of them need join the Theosophical Society since the laws of the Society were not like those of their Samaja." When the Swami came of late to Bombay he had a long conversation with Colonel Olcott, whom he told that he wished him to "remove his (Swami’s) misunderstanding on many points." I evaded an answer. Again, when I went to consult him upon the Cook affair, the Swami again pressed the matter. Finally, he sent me word, through Mr. Panachand Anandji and another gentleman, a man of distinction, that if I did not come and discuss with him "he would deliver a public lecture on the subject." This message Mr. Panachand delivered, but I replied that I would come to the Swami on the 27th March, 1882. Instead of which I went away to Jaipur and wrote from there that as I could not come, Madame Blavatsky would. But she never did. So Swami did give the lecture, read our notes, and "said that it was true that they (we) said one thing, but did another." Instead of good, we are doing harm to India. For instance, "notwithstanding the Swami’s remonstrance," we still "continue speaking of ghosts and spirits" in our journal, which "does harm to the country, as it is against science, and the journal having a wide circulation, the people of Europe and others would think that the Indians are foolish enough to believe in such things."

Point IX. - That the late challenge to Mr. Cook "was dictated by the Swami to the Colonel," but I, instead of writing that if Mr. Cook should discuss the merits of Christianity and Vedism with the Swami, the public could judge for themselves "which religion is divine," inserted the word "most" before "divine." This without his knowledge; and notwithstanding his telling me to strike out the word "most," the incorrect version was published. That in the rules of our Society we have "publicly admitted that "Theosophist" means a believer in Iswara, that the Society exacts no fees, tolerates all religions, should always be against Christianity, and that it should believe in that Iswara who is unborn, made by none, but who has made all things." Whereas, now, we go against all these former statements, disbelieve in Iswar, charge the fee of Rs. 10, and say that that religion is the best which we may, at the time, be lecturing upon.

That the present handbill is issued to warn the Arya-Samajists and all Aryavarta against keeping up relations with us; such "atheists, liars and selfish persons" cannot be expected to do any good to the country. Failing to catch the Swami in our snares, we have now found out a certain Koot Hoomi, who comes to us, speaks to us, &c., &c. "Letters and flowers fall from the ceiling, and he finds out missing things. All these and other things are false." When Madame Blavatsky talked with Swamiji at Meerut on the subject of Yoga, she said that she performed the wonders of the Yoga science by the system of the Sankhya. Where upon Samiji put her questions on Yoga as by this science, but she failed to answer a simple one. In short, "they are like mesmerists or sorcerers, but they know nothing about Yoga. He who had studied Yoga even a little would act truthfully in word and deed, and would run away from falsehood." The document winds up with a Sloka setting forth that the wise man will not stir a step aside from the path of justice.


First, then, I enter a general denial; the indictment is unfounded in almost every particular, and for those who know my character, it would perhaps suffice for me to leave the case there, and offset my word of honour against each and all of these charges. For, those which are not absolutely false, are based upon such gross perversions of fact, and so mix up dates and occurrences as to be in reality scarcely worthy of notice. Still, that we may not be charged with either an evasion of the issue, or concurrence in the mutilation of documents and suppressiones veri upon which the case rests, I will cite my proofs seriatim. A brief historical note must be first given.

In the year 1870 I made the voyage from New York to Liverpool, and met on board two Hindu gentlemen of Bombay, the late Mr. Mulji Thackersey and his friend, Mr. Tulsidass. I heard no more of them until late in 1877, when from an American gentleman I learned that Mr. Mulji was still alive. The Theosophical Society had then been in existence just two years, and the design to come to India to live and die there had already been formed in my mind. I wrote to Mr. Mulji an account of our Society and its plans, and asked his co-operation and that of other friends of Aryan religious philosophies. He responded, and introduced to me Hurrychund Chintaman, President of the Arya Samaj, "a man of learning, for a long time Political Agent at London of the ex-Gaekwar," and author of a commentary on the Bhagwat Gita, "a book full of Aryan philosophy and Aryan thought"; a man who "will be a capital helpmate to our Society," and would give me any information I might need "about Oriental publications." (2)  At the same time he spoke to me of "a renowned Pandit, Dayanand Saraswati, the best Sanskrit scholar, and now travelling through India to teach people the Vedic doctrines in their true light, and ....... their forefathers’ faith which seems to be the foundation of all religions and civilization."

Now, I had reason to believe that I had been taught something, at least, about that "true light" - i.e., esoteric meaning - of Vedic doctrine, and so I naturally concluded that an Aryan Swami, who was trying to lead his people back to the true light out of the darkness of superstition, was a Yogi-adept, our natural ally and a fit teacher for our members. This opinion was strengthened by the tone of a pamphlet issued, August 25, 1877, by the Lahore Arya Samaj as a memorial to Dr. G. W. Leitner in favour of the Veda Bhashya. It contained as well the Swami’s defence of his Bhashya against the attacks of his critics, in which he quoted approvingly the opinions of Max Muller, Colebrooke, Coleman, and the Rev. Mr. Garrett upon the God of the Vedas - an impersonal, all-pervading Principle. No document ever put forth by the Theosophical Society, nor by Madame Blavatsky, or myself, could - unless my memory is at fault, in which case the publication of the letter by any one who has it would set the matter at rest - have conveyed any other view of the beliefs of the Founders respecting the personality of God. In Isis Unveiled, as in all subsequent publications, it has been said that we could conceive of no God endowed with the attributes and limitations of personality; and that, with the Vedantin Adwaitis, the Arhat mystics, the ancient Mobeds of the Zardushtian period, and all other representatives of the "Wisdom-Religion," we recognized an eternal and omnipresent Principle (called by many different names) in nature - the source of motion and of life.

In writing to our Bombay friends we took great care to make these views clear - as will be seen in the documents which follow, and when we received from them the assurance that the principles of our Society were identical with those of the Swami and his Samaja, we joyfully entertained the proposal for an amalgamation. "I requested this" (the amalgamation) - says Mr. Hurrichund (letter of April 22, 1878), "for two reasons: first, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that the TRUE LIGHT can only be had in the East, and that the Aryans were the first to make a satisfactory progress in the study of the science of Psychology, why not adopt an original name rather than have recourse to a new-coined word; and, second, because ........ all institutions in the work, which have one and the same object, should have one common name throughout." This view appearing reasonable, and we, Founders, having no conceit of leadership, but being more than willing to unite with any body - especially an Aryan one led by a Swami-Adept - that was fitter than ours to head this movement for a revival of the Wisdom-Religion, we acted without delay upon Mr. Hurrichund’s proposal, and passed the act of amalgamation. It must here be observed that in my letters to the Swami I speak on behalf of the Society as a whole, and do not offer myself individually as his Chela. I was already the accepted pupil of a Mahatma, and receiving instruction. But our members at large were not so favoured, and for them I begged the Swami to take up the relation of Teacher. He being in the world, actively at work, I naturally inferred that he would be freer than our Mahatmas to come into relations with such of our members as had not taken the vows of celibacy and total abstinence that I had. And the Adept-Brothers, whom we knew, having refused to instruct any member but an accepted Chela, these members, both in America and Europe, were then most anxious to find such a Teacher. To our eager questions about the Swami, our Teachers gave us the invariable answer: - "He was a Chela, he was a Yogi....... He is a good man. Try him and see. He may be very useful to your American and English members." What we learned of Swami, later on, just after our arrival in India, we are not at liberty to divulge. Mr. Hurrichund (who was endorsed over to me by the Swami as an honourable man and the channel for our correspondence) even suggested that the Swami might come to Europe and America on a preaching mission, and this idea I hailed with joy, though advising delay until the necessary elements of success were provided. He said that meanwhile Swami’s instructions to our Theosophists would "be of the second section of Indian philosophy," as "no real Muni or adept will ever disclose the secret of the third (our 1st) section - the genuine and highest knowledge - to any one unless he is thoroughly satisfied of the merits and aptitude of the recipient; and this knowledge to be given to him in person....... and not in writing;" moreover he told me that while the Swami was "a Sanskrit scholar and a great ADEPT in the ancient literature and Vedic philosophy of the Aryans," he had no "knowledge of the modern scientific development of the West."

And now that it has been shown in what light the Swami, the Arya Samaj, and the President of the Bombay Samaj were presented to our view, the reader is asked to examine the points of the Swami’s charges in connection with the following


Extracts from the first official letter of the President of the Theosophical Society, Colonel Olcott, to Pandit Dayanund Saraswati, Founder of the Arya Samaj, dated New York, 18th February, 1878, (not included in Swami Dayanand’s recent publications).

........... "Orientalists, so called, who acquire Sanskrit and other old languages, forge and mutilate the Vedas and other sacred books in translating them. We wish to print and circulate correct translations by your learned Pandits, with their own commentaries on the text. To counteract the drift of Society towards materialism, we would expound the doctrines of old upon man’s soul and spirit, show that difference there is between them, and what are the limitations and potentialities of each. We would teach the truth about man’s origin and destiny, and the relative importance of this life and the future one. We would show how the highest degree of wisdom and happiness may be reached here upon earth. To the Christians we would prove whence their doctrines were derived, what part of them is error, what truth. To science we would show the true nature of matter, force and spirit, and how far their doctrine of evolution has been carried by Eastern philosophy. The ‘Spiritualists’ we would convince that their phenomena are full of danger to the investigator and the ‘medium’; being caused by low beings, some of the elements and not human, others human, but evil and earth-bound. See, respected teacher, the vast, the solemn, the important field of labour we are traversing. Will you honour us by accepting the Society’s Diploma of ‘Corresponding Fellow’? Your countenance and favour will immensely strength us. We place ourselves under your instructions. Perhaps we may directly and indirectly aid you to hasten the accomplishment of the holy mission in which you are engaged; for our battlefield extends to India, and from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin there is work that we can do. We labour to establish a true Brotherhood of Humanity, in which the supreme tie of kinship will be the love of truth. Dogmas, creeds and theologies, we aspire to help sweep away, for by whatsoever people created, or, by whatsoever authority supported, they are dark clouds across the sun of spiritual light.

You, venerable man, who have learned to pierce the disguises and masks of your fellow-creatures, look into our hearts, and see that we speak the truth....... If you will take us under your guidance, we beg that you will notify our Brother, Mulji Thackersey, who has charge of your diploma, awaiting your decision........

IN BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY I subscribe myself,

President of the Theosophical Society.

It is but too apparent from the above that the actual character of the Swami had been misrepresented to us. This language is addressed to a typical Aryan Adept and Swami, to whom all men and religions were alike interesting, and in whose heart prevailed the feeling of Universal Brotherhood. Observe that there was now no idea of the amalgamation of the two Societies, but he was offered the Diploma of a Corresponding Fellow of our Society. He answered thus: -

Pandit Shyamji Crishnavarma’s translation of Swami Dayanund’s letter, dated 21st April, 1878: (3)

"Hail! It is to you, my noble-minded Brothers, Members of the Theosophical Society, including the honored President, Mr. Henry S. Olcott, the worthy Secretary, Madame H. P. Blavatsky, that I, Dayanund Saraswati Swami, want to convey my benedictions. You are endowed with prosperity and adorned with stainless virtues, you are for the eternal and true religion, you are inclined to get rid of false doctrines, and you have every desire to worship only one God. I enjoy here perfect happiness, and always wish you the same.

I FEEL EXCEEDINGLY HAPPY TO RECEIVE THE DIPLOMA YOU SENT ME from the hands of the kind-hearted gentlemen, Messrs. Mulji Thakersey, Hurrichund Chintamon and Toolsidas Yadavaji. Though we [Aryans] have been separated for the last five thousand years, and though you, our beloved Brothers, have been living in America, while we in Aryavarta, the time has fortunately come once more for correspondence and interchange of ideas, resulting in mutual friendship and welfare. Oh! all this change has come about by the grace of that Lord of the Universe, who deserves all endless praise, who is omnipotent and all-pervading, who stands as a mine of all good qualities, namely, truth, knowledge, all-joy, justice, and mercy; who is infinite, undivided, unborn, immutable, without destruction; who is the prime cause of creation, protection, and destruction; who is naturally accompanied by true qualities and actions; who is unerring and all learned.

"I undertake with great pleasure to keep correspondence with you in future; you can forward letters to me through Messrs. Moolji Thakersey and Hurrichund Chintamon, and I shall do the same; I am prepared to give you every possible aid that lies in my power. I hold the same opinion regarding Christianity and other religions as you do. As God is one, men cannot but have one religion; it must be borne in mind that the true religion should be no other than the one consisting in the worship of, and obedience to, the Supreme Governor; it must be in accordance with the Vedic views, and at the same time beneficial to all human beings; it must be worthy of being followed by men, learned and deserving confidence; it must stand the test of logical maxims, and should not contradict the laws of nature; it must be accompanied by justice and impartiality; it must be pleasing to every heart and must brighten itself with truth, so as to produce happiness. It is my firm belief that all other religions, different from the above-mentioned, are meant to serve the selfish motives of mean-minded and ignorant persons. To give life to a dead man, to heal leprosy and other diseases, to uphold a mountain, to pound the moon, and all other wonders of the world betray irreligion, and are sure to give rise to many misfortunes; they are averse to true happiness, as mutual contradiction plays a prominent part in all of them. I always pray to the Supreme Soul that the true religion, practiced by the Aryas from generation to generation may, by the grace of the Almighty and human efforts, eradicate the so-called wonders, and prevail amongst all the people....... We shall be very happy to keep correspondence, to do some service to the people. This will suffice for the present, as long lectures are of no avail to the most learned persons."

And, now, turn to the Swami’s Point VII., and see whether or not it is answered, and whether he ever accepted fellowship in the Theosophical Society. As to his acceptance of a place on the General Council, we shall see further on.

On the 22nd of February - four days after writing the first letter to the Swami - I addressed to Mr. Hurrichund the enquiry contained in the following extract. This, in course of mail, must have reached him on or about the 22nd of March, and in ample time to be forwarded to Swami before he wrote to me on the 21st of April: -

Extract from Colonel H. S. Olcott’s letter, to Hurrichund Chintamon, Esq., dated New York, 22nd February, 1878: -

"Will you not oblige us by explaining to me the exact differences between the Bramho and the Arya Samajees? As nearly as I can understand them, the former accepts the doctrine of a personal God, capable of being moved by supplications and propitiated by promises, while the latter is a Society which teaches the existence of an Eternal, Boundless, Incomprehensible Divine Essence, too great to be made personal, too awful to be even apprehended by the finite mind. Tell me, my Brother, if I am right; or, if not, wherein consist the differences in the two. With such a Samaj as the latter (if as I depict it), the Theosophical Society has the closest kinship. In fact, so far as its religions department of work is concerned, it is an Arya Samaj already without having known it..... If the Arya Samaj is what I fancy, I would be proud to be admitted a member and proclaim the fact in the face of all the Christian public. Send me all necessary documents, that I may understand just what it teaches."

This definition of the views of the Arya Samaj was duly accepted as correct by Mr. Hurrichund, and so the matter was by us considered settled beyond cavil. But to make it impossible that there should be any obscurity about the subject, I sent to Mr. Hurrichund the following: -

Extract of a letter to Mr. Hurrichund Chintamon, dated New York, 29th, May, 1878: -

............ "We feel highly honoured not alone by his (Swami Dayanund Saraswati’s) acceptance of our Diploma, but also by the very kind phrases in which he communicates his decision to us...... I have ventured to send you, for publication, a brief exposition of Theosophical views to avoid any possible misconception, in India as to the same. We want to be open and candid in coming before a new audience, so that those may be attracted to us who are in accord with us, and these who oppose us may do so with all the facts before them."

Extract of a letter from Colonel Olcott, to the Editor of the "Indian Spectator," dated New York, 29th, May, 1878:

......... "We understand Buddhism to really mean the religion of Bodh or Buddh [Wisdom] - in short, Wisdom-Religion. But we, in common with most intelligent Orientalists, ascribe to the popular Buddhistic religion only an age of some twenty-three centuries - in fact, not so much as that. As we understand it, Sakkya Muni taught the pure Wisdom, or "Buddh," Religion, which did antedate the Vedas; for when the Aryas came to the Punjab, they did not bring the Vedas with them but wrote them on the banks of the Indus. That "Wisdom-Religion" is all contained in the Vedas; hence the Aryas had it, and hence, as has been said, it must have ante-dated the Vedas. It was a secret doctrine from the first; it is a thousand times more so now to our Modern Scientists, few of whom are any wiser than Max Muller, who calls all in the Vedas he cannot understand "theological twaddle!" Being a secret doctrine - comprehensible fully but by the brightest minds, the priests of every creed distorted it......... It is this Wisdom-Religion which the Theosophical Society accepts and propagates, and the finding of which in the doctrines expounded by the revered Swami Dayanund Saraswati Pandit, has led us to affiliate our Society with the Arya Samaj, and recognize and accept its Chief as our supreme religious Teacher, Guide and Ruler. We no more permit ourselves to be called Joss-worshipping Buddhists than Joss-worshipping Catholics; for in the former, no less than in the latter, we see idolators who bow down to gross images, and are ignorant of the true Supreme, Eternal, Uncreate Divine Essence which bounds all, fills all, emanates everything, and, in the fullness of cycles, re-absorbs everything, until the time comes for the next one in the eternal series of re-births of the Visible from the Invisible. You see, then, that we are neither Buddhists in the popular sense, nor Brahminists as commonly understood, nor certainly Christians..... The Theosophical Society prays and works for the establishment of a Universal Brotherhood of races. We believe it will come about in time." ......

The same idea is conveyed in my letter to Piyaratana Tissa, a learned Buddhist priest: -

Extract of a letter from Colonel Olcott, to the Reverend Piyaratna Tissa Tirunanasee, dated New York, 19th August, 1878: -

........... "We have formed a close alliance with that reformatory religious society called the Arya Samaj, whose Chief Pandit, Dayanund Saraswati Swami ...... labours to restore the purest form of ancient Aryan philosophy, and sweep away the corrupting idolatry and superstitions which have so long smothered the sacred truth...... We, the leaders of the Theosophical Society, believe in the Incomprehensible Principle and the divine philosophy taught by Sakkya Muni. We see in every human faith some portion of the Truth, and that is the spark from which the light must spread, if at all. That one portion of Truth is the common ground upon which men of all creeds can meet. It is upon that common ground that we build our Society."......

Kindly couched as the Swami’s letter was, it yet outlined views of a personal God, which could not be accepted on behalf of a Theosophical Society proper, having no official creed, and whose two chief Founders could never subscribe to them. Personally, any member had a perfect right to believe in a God of any description, and to be respected in that belief, but no one member had any right to make the whole Society responsible for his private belief. So, to clear up the matter, the following letter was sent: -

Extract of a letter from Colonel Olcott, to Mr. Hurrichund, dated New York, 23rd August, 1878: -

....... "It is my imperative duty to the Cause, as President of the Theosophical Society, to come to a perfect understanding with you as President of the Arya Samaj. In the eyes of my Fellows, you stand for the present as the representative of Indian Esoteric Wisdom - for they see in you one who would not have been chosen to such a high responsibility in such a Society as they regard the Arya Samaj to be, unless you were thoroughly versed in every branch of Indian philosophy. In short, they naturally clothe you with attributes of right only possessed by our revered Swami." ......

Then came the Rules of the Samaj, translated for us by Pandit Shyamaji, and they were duly printed for the use of our members. What their effect was may be inferred from the following: -

Extract of a letter from Col. Olcott, to Mr. Hurrichund Chintaman, dated New York, 24th September, 1878: -

"Either we have been especially unfortunate in misconceiving the ideas of our revered Swami Dayanund, as conveyed to us in his valued letters to me, or he teaches a doctrine to which our Council, and nearly all our Fellows, are forced to dissent. Briefly, we understand him as pointing us towards a more or less personal God - to one of finite attributes, of varying emotions - one to be adored in set phrases, to be conciliated - one capable of displeasure..... I cannot worship him in such a guise. The Deity of my spiritual perceptions is that Eternal Principle which I understood you to say, was what the Arya Samaj recognized as contradistinguished from the personal God of the Unitarian Bramhos. Relying upon this view of the case, I united with our Sister H. P. Blavatsky to carry through the Council the vote of affiliation and allegiance. When! along comes the Swami’s letter speaking of a God whom at least Brother Chrisnavarma’s translation points to us as a Being of parts and passions - at least of the latter if not the former, and at once we two are taken to task. Protests from every side, a hasty reconsideration of the former sweeping vote of affiliation, the adoption of a resolution to make the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj, a Vedic Section instead of the whole body in a transformed shape, and the consignment to the flames of the whole edition of the proposed circular and preparation of a revised introduction to the "Rules of the Arya Samaj" - these thing followed. Perhaps it as well as it is, for we keep a broader platform for men of various creeds to stand upon, and our work for and with the Arya Samaj, is not to be affected in the least. We will be just as zealous and loyal as heretofore, will send the Initiation Fees the same as ever, and continue to regard the revered Swami as dutifully and our Hindu Brothers as affectionately as though this shadow had not passed athwart our horizon. I wish you would define to me somewhat more clearly just what is the doctrine of the Arya Samaj respecting God and the divine inspiration of the Vedas. I understood you to say (and certainly that is my own idea) that the Vedas were written by Rishis in a state of spiritual illumination and inspiration to which every man may attain who passes by initiation through the several phases of self-conquest and exaltation to the condition of seership and adeptship ....... I must frankly apprize you that you cannot count upon many more Fellows to follow a lead right towards the Orthodox Christian ambuscade from which we have so thankfully escaped ..... What we want to teach these Western people is the ‘Wisdom-Religion,’ so called, of the pre-Vedic and Vedic periods - which is also the very essence of Gautama Buddha’s philosophy (of course, not popular Buddhism). This religion you seem to have taught both in your letters and your books, and I certainly gather from the revered Swami’s defence of his Bhashya against his critics that this is the identical religion he propagates. But this does not agree with the tone of his esteemed letters to me - at least as I have them in the English translation......"

Could any thing have been more frank and open? But no answer was returned, either from the Swami or his Bombay agent; the latter writing me (30th September, 1878,) that we would come to an understanding about all matters when we should meet at Bombay. He also notified me that he had duly forwarded all my letters to the Swami, who was then travelling in the North-Western Provinces.

During the two years antecedent to the alliance with the Arya Samaj and formation of the link-branch of the "Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj," or Vedic Section of our Parent Society, no fees had been exacted of our members. I had defrayed the expenses myself. But now, with the view of assisting the Arya Samaj, our General Council re-imposed the Initiation Fee of five dollars (£1, or Rs. 10), and these were duly remitted to Mr. Hurrichund from New York and London. In this way some Rs. 609 were sent. At last, in February, 1879, the Founders arrived at Bombay, and a number of painful experiences followed, which having been discussed in the newspapers of the day, I need not dwell upon at length. Suffice it to say that the Samaj had never received a penny of the money remitted, that we recovered it from Mr. Hurrichund under pressure, and on the 30th of April met the Swami face to face for the first time at Saharanpur, North-Western Provinces. Our much lamented and staunch friend, the late Mulji Thackersey, was with us, and acted as interpreter in the long and animated discussions that ensued between the Swami and ourselves at Saharanpur on that and the following day, and then at Meerut on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th of May. I have notes of all these conferences in my Diary for the year 1879, the entries being written, as is my custom, on each day before retiring to sleep. They bring the facts vividly to mind, and I am, therefore, not left to my memory to recall them, as would otherwise be the case. My entry for the day of the first conference says: -

"Swami came to the Dak Bungalow at 8 a.m. Defined Nirvana and Moksha as H. P. B. has. His God is Parabrahma. I described to him the phases of Western Spiritualism." The next day’s entry reads: - "Conference with Swami. He agreed to the new Rules of the T. S. Accepted a place on the Council. Gave me full proxy powers. Recommended the expulsion of Hurrichund. Admits the reality of all Western phenomena [Mediumistic] and explains them as H. P. B. has. Is not a sectarian. Approves of other sectarian sections in the T. S."

This is clear enough certainly: he perfectly coincided with our views upon all the points that had been mooted, and, in proof of his concurrence, accepted the office of Councillor of our Society. This, he has since denied on more than one occasion, and our conduct in using his name against his wishes and "of our own accord," has been stigmatized as cunning and unprincipled. But I know well that there are some partisans who would be quite ready to challenge my Diary, rather than conceded my veracity; so I will call the Swami himself to the stand. Here is a lithographed fac-simile of one of the two papers given me at Saharanpur by him, after accepting the office of Councillor. It was intended to serve as a general proxy, under which, at all meetings of the General Council at which he might not be personally present, I should cast his vote as Councillor. And the second clause also gave me a general authority to represent him in the issuing of orders, or transaction of business arising in connection with our link-branch, the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj. If words mean anything, this documents means just what is above stated. Here it is: -

Further evidence of his conscious and willing membership of our General Council is to be found in the following reply by Mrs. Gordon, wife of Colonel W. Gordon, B.S.C., to an official enquiry as to the circumstances of her initiation as a member of our Society: -

"Glenarm, Simla, June 19, 1882.

"Dear Colonel Olcott,
"I was initiated into the Society on the 17th December, 1879, by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, in the presence of yourself, Madame Blavatsky, and Mr. Damodar. At the same time, he explained to me at length the rules for the practice of Yog Vidya.

"Faithfully yours,
(Signed) "Alice Gordon."

The main complaint in Point VII. is thus effectually disposed of, and with it various reiterations that have been made in the course of our relations during the past three years. As to the answer sent by Swamiji to our telegram, in answer to our question whether he wished his name stricken out of the Council-list, its text was as follows: - "Benares City, 14-4-80. Announce as accepted, in American correspondence." I have no copy of the dispatch to him, or I would gladly print it; but, if I am not mistaken in its character, then this reply means that in our American correspondence we might continue to use his name as a Councillor. And nothing in it about a Vedic Preacher!

One of the points made by the Swami, - for brevity’s sake omitted above - was that he had signed a certain diploma sent to him from America. This he did, and that diploma is that which has been issued to all who preferred to be enrolled in the link-branch of the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj, and to none others. If the original vote of amalgamation had not been rescinded, it would have been the general diploma of the Parent Society; but, as it turned out, it was only used as above stated. In September, 1878, a circular letter was addressed by me, to members, from the New York Head-quarters, promulgating the translation by Pandit Shyamaji of the Arya Samaja Rules, for their information. In it I stated: "The observance of these rules is obligatory upon such Fellows only as may voluntarily apply for admission to the Arya Samaj; the rest will continue to be, as heretofore, unconnected with the special work of the Samaj..... Those who join the Samaj will, of course, be expected to comply as strictly as practicable with its rules, including that of the contribution of the fixed percentage of monthly income." And to show what we expected of the Arya Samaj upon the strength of Mr. Hurrichund’s representations - I added: "Fellows will observe [in Rule IX.] that, equally with the Theosophical Society, the Arya Samaj has a separate class of ‘ascetics,’ who aim to acquire spiritual, rather than secular, wisdom, power and advantage, and to devote themselves in an especial manner to the promotion of the Society’s work." That the programmes of the two Societies were identical, we were further assured by our very talented and esteemed brother, Shyamaji, who, in a letter, dated at Bombay, the 5th July, 1878, says our "aims and objects are not only identical with those of our Samaja, but, &c., &c.," The reader will then bear in mind that there was correspondence about two diplomas; one that of Corresponding Fellow, the other the new diploma of the link-branch.

That we re-affirmed on coming to India the independence of the Theosophical Society proper in its relation with the Arya Samaja, can be shown by every document ever issued by us subsequently, and by every lecture of mine, in which the topic was discussed. I even went to the trouble of writing out a lecture, in which the conflicting rules of the two doctrines were quoted, and the eclecticism of our programme was unmistakably shown. I delivered it first on the 6th September, 1880, before the Meerut Arya Samaj, when Swamiji was himself present, and, later, before the Samajis of Amritsar, Lahore, Multan, Cawnpur, &c.  But I need not rest my case even upon this, since, again, I am able to cite the complainant to testify for the defence. In a letter of date July 26, 1880, the learned Swami wrote me as follows: -

Extracts from a letter by Swami Dayanand to H. S. Olcott, dated 26 July, 1880:-

......................"You will please to circulate in the Theosophical Society, as I shall in the Arya Samaj, the fact that neither the Arya Samaj, nor the Theosophical Society, is a branch of the other, but that the Vedic section of the old Theosophical Society is a branch of both the Theosophical Society and of the Arya Samaj; and that this Vedic section, which is like an intermediary, links both the Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society together. It is not proper that this fact should remain secret, for it is but right that the exact position of the members of the Vedic section of the Theosophical Society and of the Arya Samaj, should be rightly understood, told and published. No doubt will then remain in any one’s mind after the publication of this fact, and the true position being properly known, it will delight all. What I have told Mr. Sinnett is all right, for I do not consider it proper to see and show such matters of ‘tamasha,’ whether they be done by sleight-of-hand, or by Yoga power; because no one can realise the importance of Yoga and have a true love for it, without the practice and teaching of Yoga by himself personally. But they (the witnesses) are only thrown into doubt and astonishment, and are all the time desirous of examining those who exhibit them, and of seeing the "tamasha," leaving aside matters of improvement. They do not endeavour to acquire it themselves. I have shown no phenomena to Mr. Sinnett, nor desire any thing to be shown to him, whether he be pleased or displeased with me, for if I were to be ready to do that, all fools, as also Pandits, will ask me to show to them similar phenomena by Yog, as I may have shown to him. It is also, because, I would have been pestered with this worldly ‘tamasha’ affair, just as Madame H. P. Blavatsky is. Instead of enquiring after, and accepting from her scientific and religious information, by means of which the soul, being purified, acquires happiness, every one who goes to her asks for the exhibition of ‘tamasha.’ For such reasons I neither encourage directly or indirectly such things. But if one wishes, I can teach him Yog so that by its practice he may himself experience Siddhis.

"I now communicate to you a piece of news that will please you. It is this: A will, appointing eighteen persons - in which, of course, will be yourself, Madame Blavatsky, and sixteen eminent persons of Arya Samaj of Aryavarta, - will be sent to you in a registered cover and to the rest, so that, hereafter, there may be no confusion, and all my things will be appropriated by you, all for the public good, and this body will be recognised as my representative. Therefore, you will please to take very great care of the paper, so that it may afterwards be useful for very great purposes ..... And another thing is that after I have published a circular about the relation between the Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj, [a copy of] it will be sent to you. On seeing it you will be much pleased."

I think, the intelligent reader will see that all misunderstanding must have been removed from the Swami’s mind respecting the connection between our two societies, and will attribute the tone of his recent lectures and handbills to a lapse of memory due to the engrossing cares of his public duties. I think, also, that his expressed views with respect to the exhibition of Yoga phenomena strongly bear out my remark, at the beginning of this article, about his feeling obliged to carry on the policy of secrecy in regard to the mysteries of adeptship. No stronger proof of his entire confidence in the good faith and honourable disposition of the Founders of the Theosophical Society, could have been given by him, than his choice of them as co-trustees under his last will and testament.

The document, last referred to in the above letter, was a handbill, or proclamation, to the public, which the Swami had printed and circulated. It ran as follows: -


Swami Dayanand’s Circular of 1880:


As many people began to question me and others, as to the correct relation between the Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj, and considered the latter a Branch of the former, it has become of the highest importance for me to issue the present circular, with a view to clear the matter, for, if it be not done, misconception may arise in the minds of people, which might lead to unfavourable consequences.

After an exchange of information of Rules, &c., of the two Societies by means of correspondence between Babu Hurrichund Chintamon, the then President of the Bombay Arya Samaj, on one hand, and Colonel H. S. Olcott, Saheb Bahadoor, (?) President of the New York Theosophical Society, and Madame H. P. Blavatsky, on the other, I received a letter in the month of Chaitra of the Vikrama era 1935, asking for instructions in the Archaic Vedic Religion of Aryavarta, - to which I replied with the greatest pleasure that I would comply with their request as far as I could. Afterwards they sent me a diploma as it was then intended to make the Theosophical Society a Branch of the Arya Samaj of Aryavarta; when this diploma was returned to New York, a meeting was held, in which many members most cheerfully accepted the new arrangement, while many others deferred action until they knew more of, and thought well over, the matter.

Owing to such a diversity of opinion, my advice was asked, as to what should be done. In my reply, I said that, if in Aryavarta itself many people reject the rules of the Arya Samaj, while a few only accept them, what wonder is there if, in New York, people should adopt this course, and, therefore, those who, of their own accord, would accept the rules of the Arya Samaj, would be the followers of Vedism, and those, who would not, might remain simple members of the Society, as it was not desirable that the connection of the latter with it should be cut off. (4)

This reply I forwarded to Babu Hurrichund, with a request to transmit its English translation to its destination. But he did not do so. And, notwithstanding, that the reply was not thus received in due time, the very same arrangement, as proposed by me, was carried out in New York, that those who would regard the Vedas as divine, sacred and eternal, might be reckoned as the members of the Vedic Section, which was to BE A BRANCH OF THE ARYA SAMAJ, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS SECTION WAS ALSO TO BE A BRANCH OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, AS IT WAS, BUT A PART OF IT. Of course, neither the Arya Samaj, nor the Theosophical Society, was to be considered a Branch of the other, but only the Vedic Section of the Theosophical Society - of which Colonel H. S. Olcott, Saheb Bahadur, Madame H. P. Blavatsky and some others were members (5) - is a Branch of both the Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society. And it is proper that all good men should understand it in this light and improper to view it in any other mark. How very phenomenal is the fact, that just at the very time the Arya Samaj was founded in Bombay, the Theosophical Society was established in New York! The very same objects and Rules, as defined by the Arya Samaj for itself, were also adopted independently of the latter by the Theosophical Society for its own part; and, moreover, before the receipt of my third letter, the very same proposal made by me in it, as to the Vedic Section and the Theosophical Society, was also carried out! What? Are not all these results the effects of Divine Providence? And are not these beyond the power of ordinary mortals - that the very same events happening here on this hemisphere should also take place on the other, at its antipodes, i.e., Patala (America)? I offer millions on millions of praises to that Almighty God, by whose power these miraculous occurrence have come to pass, namely, that after five thousand years a bond of brotherhood should be formed between religious men of Aryavarta and those of Patala (America) in connection with the ancient, well-examined Vedic religious practices! Oh! Almighty, all-pervading, merciful, just Paramatma! Mayest Thou strengthen all religiously disposed, learned men all over the world in the Vedic Religion as Thou hast done this! So that mutual antagonism may die out, and friendly feelings, arising among all peoples, the spirit of doing injury to others may be vanquished, and a desire for mutual benevolence may spring up, &c., &c.

The document closes with a lengthy ascription of praise to God for effecting the union between the long-separated sons of the common Aryan Mother.

Points I., II., IV., V., VI., and VII., are now disposed of. Points III., VIII., and IX., remain in part, uncovered. The facts as to the first, not above stated, are briefly as follow: - The Rs. 609-9-4, recovered from Mr. Hurrichund, were taken by us on our trip to the North-Western Provinces in April, 1879, - two months after our arrival in India - and at Saharanpur, through the interpretation of Mr. Muljee Thackersy, offered to the Swami for the Arya Samaj. He refused to accept the money, saying - as Mr. Muljee interpreted him to us - that our Society needed it, and that he was even in favour of having his whole Samaj contribute towards our Society’s expenses. He mentioned his wish that the subscriptions should be graded according to the monthly incomes of the Samajists. As regards the disposal of our proffered donation to his cause, his views are seen in the following excerpt from the official report of an extraordinary Council meeting held by him and ourselves - he sitting as a Councilor - at Saharanpur: -

Extract from the Minutes of a Council of the Theosophical Society held at Saharanpur, North-Western Provinces, on this 30th day of April, 1879: -

"Resolved - that any available funds of the Society be appropriated to defray
the cost of the journey of the present Committee from Agra to Sharanpur and return."
The Council then adjourned.

(Signed) Mooljee Thackersey,
Recording Secretary pro tem.

(True Copy.)
G. K. Deb.

This motion was put by the Swami, and seconded by Mr. Muljee. The Rs. 609 were properly accounted for in the Treasurer’s Report for the twenty-nine months ending April 30, 1881, and the item will be found on page 1 of the "THEOSOPHIST" Supplement for May, 1881. The account in question - officially audited - shows that over and above this Rs. 609, and all other income, the Society had received from the two Founders the sum of Rs 19,546-3-1, as their private contribution towards its expenses. I have mentioned this only for the information of such as may not have seen the Financial Statement above referred to. The only promise of a gift of "many books" that could ever have been made, must have been a conditional bequest of the private libraries of Madame Blavatsky and myself, in the event of our lives being lost on the voyage out from America to India. We never sold Babus Chedi Lall and Sheo Narayana the book referred to. But Mr. Muljee Thackersey, who had brought his own private copy of Isis Unveiled with him to read, as chance offered, did sell it to the gentlemen named and received and spent the money, as he had a perfect right to do. If our kind hosts at Meerut "spent hundreds of rupees" in entertaining us, we were never aware of it until now. We were put up in their private residence on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th of May, 1879 - when the book affair occurred; we ate the same vegetable food as the family, and if our entertainment cost "hundreds of rupees," then one must need a princely income to live at Meerut! But that we did receive from our friends there a welcome so hearty and affectionate, as to lay us under most lasting obligations - is true. And the same remark applies to our fraternal receptions at Lahore, Amritsar, Multan, Cawnpore, Allahabad, Benares, and elsewhere by Arya Samajists, who treated us everywhere with the utmost kindness, and a hospitality so generous as to force us sometimes to protest. If our gratitude was not warmly enough expressed, our words must have ill translated the feelings of our hearts.

The charge in Point VIII., that we improperly influenced members of the Samaj to join our Society, may well be regarded as answered by the Swami’s own circular of July, 1880, in which the Link-Branch is recognized as a Branch of the Arya Samaj, and, therefore, we were only asking some two or three good Samajists to enter that Branch to promote the interest of their own Samaj, as well as of our Society. It was after that visit to Meerut that we learned of the Swami’s pronunciamento - after the fashion of the Mussalman Caliph Omar’s at Alexandria - that no Samajist should join any other Society than his own; for, as he said to the Meerut Samaj, if that other Society professed the same principles as the Samaj, to join it was useless, inasmuch as they were already in the Samaj, while if its principles were different, then they should not join it anyhow!

No threatening message of the kind alleged in Point VII. to have been sent me by Swamiji, through Mr. Panachand, was ever delivered to me by that gentleman; nor - as he has himself assured me - was it ever confided to him for delivery. I was told that Swami wished to see me, and I replied that I would come with pleasure, if I could find an hour’s leisure time. But I never found it before leaving Bombay (February 17th) on my annual official tour, nor have I found it since. The fact is that such a thing as an idle day or an unoccupied hour has not been seen by me since, in 1875, I joined Madame Blavatsky in founding the Theosophical Society, and from present indications, I doubt if I shall ever see one until I die - in the harness!

Certainly, we do speak and write much about "ghosts and spirits," and treat them as scientific questions. Moreover, I may say that I have not found among "the Indians" one in a hundred, who is not "foolish enough to believe in such things" as phenomena of some kind. The entry of April 30, 1879, in my Diary, would seem to show that Swamiji entertained the same opinions respecting them as ourselves; while his letter of July 26, 1880, proves that he believed himself then able to produce the phenomena of adeptship before Mr. Sinnett.

The charge in Point IX., as to the insertion of the word "most" before the word "divine," is too trifling to dwell upon at any length. There were two copies made of the Swami’s challenge to Mr. Cook, to discuss, in one of which the "most" originally written there, was stricken out while, by an oversight, in the other the change was not made. The reading preferred by the Swami will be found in the pamphlet, entitled "The Whole Truth about the Theosophical Society" (page 29, line 7), of which 5,000 copies were printed by public subscription and circulated gratuitously throughout India and other countries.

I shall say no more, in reply, to the affirmation in the concluding para. of the "bill of indictment," that Madame Blavatsky, having failed to entrap the Swami with her "tamasha," has now taken refuge under the Himalayan adepts, as she possesses no psychical powers of her own, than to refer the reader to the report of the famous interview between Swamiji and ourselves at Meerut ("THEOSOPHIST," December, 1880), and to print the following certificate from the two learned gentlemen who kindly served us as interpreters on that occasion: -


President of the Theosophical Society, Bombay.

In justice to you and your learned colleague, Madame Blavatsky, we cannot help contradicting the statement in the May number of the Arya, made on the authority of the Bombay Gazette, that "the Pandit of the Samaj (meaning Swami Dayanand Saraswati) informs the public, that neither Colonel Olcott, nor Madame Blavatsky, know anything of Yoga Vidya..... that they may know the art of clever conjuring," for, in the month of August, 1879, when both of you were staying here at Babu Chedi Lall’s bungalow, Swamiji, who was also at the time in the station, stated before us and several other witnesses, including many Arya Samajists, on two different occasions, that the phenomena performed by Madame Blavatsky, were the result of, and produced through, the agency of real Yoga power, and not that of "clever conjuring." Therefore, we cannot believe the statement of the Arya quoted above to be correct, since a learned and wise man, like Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who has taken upon himself the duties of a Teacher and a Reformer of India, cannot be expected - even though he may be on terms of variance with you - to contradict himself so palpably.

As regards the Arya’s statement about you, we have nothing to say, for we do not remember to have heard Swamiji acknowledging that you yourself knew Yoga Vidya practically.

In conclusion, we have to add, that as we had to perform the duty of interpreters between yourself, Madame Blavatsky and Swamiji at the time, we are in a position to certify that the account of the discourse, about Yoga Vidya, between yourself (Madame included) and the Swamiji, which appeared in the "THEOSOPHIST," is, to the best of our knowledge, true and correct.

We are, Sir,
Yours sincerely,

Judge’s Office, Meerut.

Head Master, Normal School.

Meerut, the 16th June, 1882.

I might largely swell this narrative by printing a number of confirmatory documents, but our case is already made out, as every candid mind must admit. No consideration, short of the absolute necessity to clear up once for all this unhappy controversy, would have moved me to say even a single word in answer to the recent attacks upon us. As was remarked above, I cannot permit myself to believe that a man so learned, and so patriotic an Aryan as the Swami Dayanund, has been actuated by dishonourable motives. He and we have scarcely ever exchanged an hundred words, except through interpreters. It must be that our ideas have been mainly misunderstood by him, and such portions of our conversations as he did understand have slipped his memory. He may have never known the contents of the letters which passed between his Bombay agent, Hurrichund, and ourselves, if that faithless person suppressed them (as there is too much reason to suspect he did); and thus our views about Parabrahma may have been quite unknown to him before we met in person, and what has transpired since been forgotten. I cannot say. And since we have had to depend upon third parties to interpret his oral and written communications to us, I shall most assuredly abstain from putting any harsh construction upon conduct which, at first sight seems not only indefensible, but incomprehensible. Now, that the documents are filed, and the case stated as fairly as lies within my power, no doubt the Swami will himself be glad to have the errors into which he has inadvertently fallen thus corrected, and the consistent course of his loyal allies vindicated to a large extent by what he has himself written in friendlier days.


(1)  See the first pages of Swami’s "Sattyartha Prakasha," on the necessity for Shraddha ceremonies and compare with what he says now. - H. S. O.

(2)  This work was sent me by the author and in it (see Preface, p. viii.,) we read the following: - "In Hindustan, as in England, there are doctrines for the learned, and dogmas for the unlearned; strong meat for men, and milk for babes; facts for the few, and fictions for the many; realities for the wise, and romances for the simple; esoteric truth for the philosopher, and exoteric fable for the fool." This fitted in so exactly with our own knowledge of all religions, that it was no wonder we were led to believe Mr. Hurrichund was the very treasure his friend Mulji depicted him. Our disillusioning came after we personally met the man at Bombay and looked under his mask. - H. S. O.

(3)  Pandit Shyamji Crishnavarma, who has now become so widely known among European Sanskritists and Orientalists, and who is now in Oxford, will certainly recognize his own translation and recollect the original as a letter in his own handwriting, a genuine document in short. - Ed.

(4)  This shows that when we had learned what kind of a God the Swami was preaching, we had even offered then to break the alliance. - H. S. O.

(5)  Not active, but official, members, as the Founders are ex-officio members of every Branch, not being allowed, under the Society’s rules to favour any religion or sect to the prejudice of any other represented in any other Branch. Neither has ever attended the religious meetings of the Samaj, as a participant, while, as for Madame Blavatsky, who was upbraided for her absence by the Swami, she plainly told him that she was his friend and staunch ally, but not his follower. - Ed.

[Reprinted from Extra Supplement to The Theosophist,
(Bombay) July, 1882, pp. 1-9.]

Aryan Supremacist Mohandas K Gandhi and Fascist friend Mussolini

Mohandas K Gandhi and his Fascist Friend Mussolini

Selected Letters Of Gandhiji
To Romain Rolland

December 20, 1931

S. S. Pilsana
20 Decemher 1931

Dear Friend and Brother, I had your cable.1 I shall duly get the letter referred to by you.

You will please write to Tolstoy's daughter2 and satisfy her as to Bolshevism. General Moris and Madame Moris were extraordinarily kind to us all. We felt as members of a family immediately we reached their house. Mussolini is an enigma to me. Many of the reforms he has made attract me. He seems to have done a great deal for the peasantry. Of course the iron glove is there. But allowing that force is the basis of Western society, Mussolini's reforms deserve an impartial study. His care of the poor people, his opposition to over urbanization, his attempt to bring about co-ordination between capital and labour seem to me to demand very careful attention. I would like you to enlighten me on these matters. My own fundamental doubt of course abides in that these reforms are forced. But that is true even of democratic institutions. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini's ruthlessness is the motive of serving his people. Even behind his bombastic speeches there is a ring of sincerity and burning love for his people. It also seems to me that the bulk of the Italians like Mussolini's iron rule. I do not want you to trouble to answer this at once. Do please take your own time. Needless to say I do not propose to write publicly just now about these matters. I have simply put these things before you as one knowing infinitely more than I do of them.
And now about your projected visit to India. I feel that if you came during the cold season i.e. between January and March, you could easily bear the climate and probably even benefit by it. Of course you could fly but I would advise the ocean route. If you will seriously consider the proposal, a tentative programme can be submitted to you. With deep love,

M. K. Gandhi

1 This telegram has not been found.
2 The reference is to Soukhotin Tolstoy, whom Gandhi met in Rome on December 13, 1931.

Who are the SCHEDULED CASTES? Do they have a Religion?

The Scheduled Castes are a distinct ethnic (not religious) minority, who are a distinct minority which has been separated from the body of Hinduism for more than 3500 years by societal acts of ex-communication and discrimination.

The Manusmriti has been written by the invading Aryans from Central Asia (including Iran) around 1500 B C E and the indigenous Dravidians have been ex-communicated from the organized body of society being organized by the Aryans.

The ex-communication of the ethnic Dravidian minorities by Manusmriti, has been causing recurrent/successive offences to the Dravidian ethnic minorities for more than 3500 years.

The Scheduled Caste being made religion-specific is an Act of the State now taking over the similar acts of ex-communication and discrimination against the body of Dalits based on their personal choices.

The change of religion does not change their Social, Economic and Educational status and they also suffer the same social, economic disabilities on par with their counterparts in other religions. While the privileges of statutory benefits, reservation in education and employment have been extended to Dalits in other religions, the Government has denied the same privileges to Muslim and Christian Dalits. It is a gross violation of the Indian Constitution's article 14, 15, 16, 25 and Art.18 of the universal declaration of Human Rights (UNO). Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The constitutional validity of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 inter alia, on the ground that it violates the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution of India and was, therefore, outside the scope and ambit of constituent powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution as provided under Article 368 of the Constitution. In addition, certain directions or suitable orders are sought for permitting the Petitioner to submit a detailed proposal to make the appropriate amendments in the Scheduled Caste Act.

The Government of India passed the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 in 1950.

There were contrary provisions in the said State Act which has continued to divide the ethnic minorities known as Scheduled Castes  on religious lines.

The above-mentioned dubious provisions of the said Act is based on attempts made by certain Aryan supremacist leaders who were active from 1930 to 1950.

The people of India are made up of various races and ethnicities including invading Aryans (from Persia/Iran and Central Asia), Dravidians, Negroid and other indigenous tribes and castes.

India is a secular country, where all Citizens have equal rights irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Codified Hinduism was based on being included in the Chaturvarna (Four-caste) system since at least 1500 BCE i.e. 3500 years.

Codified Hindu society EXCLUDED certain groups of peoples and branded them OUTCASTES and UNTOUCHABLES, and ex-communicated them from the Body of Hinduism based on the teachings of Bhrigu codified in the Manusmriti (Laws of Manu).

The group of peoples known as OUTCASTES and UNTOUCHABLES thereafter were forced to take decisions like Migration to other countries along the SILK ROUTE, and converting to other religions like tribal religions, Christianity and Islam across the centuries.

The OUTCASTES/UNTOUCHABLES/DALITS are an ethnic minority which has been subjected to discrimination by believers in Aryan supremacy across the centuries, who believe deeply in the Caste system.

The UNTOUCHABLES were identified by the British ruling over India as a DISTINCT MINORITY needing protection under affirmative action and were known since 1890s as Outcastes, Depressed Classed, and finally  as Scheduled Castes in 1935.

The Scheduled Castes were not classified by the British Government based on their religious beliefs till 1936.

The British Government made a plan to withdraw from the Indian sub-continent from 1918 onwards and planned to formulate a Constitution for India, which would also include safeguards for minorities including Sikhs, Parsis, Indian Christian, Muslims, and Scheduled Castes.

Dr B R Ambedkar as leader of the Scheduled Castes gave various proposals for empowering the Scheduled Castes from 1920 onwards, which were strongly opposed by an Aryan supremacist leader named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patil, K M Munshi and C Das were upper caste Hindus who believe in the Aryan supremacy theory propounded by Bhrigu in Manusmriti (Laws of Manu).

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in his thirst for fame, strongly opposed giving political power to the minorities including the Muslims and Scheduled Castes from 1930 onwards, and was the most important person who led to the partition of India.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi strongly opposed the proposals of Dr B R Ambedkar in giving political power to the Scheduled Castes before Independence of India.