Twitter Thread-Tweet 1

Labelling temple entry for previously denied Hindus as wrong implies it was a concession; it was their inherent right, not subject to request but a pre-existing entitlement. Their faith, devotion, and co-trusteeship of the sacred abode of the deities are equally profound as that of any other adherent.

Tweet 2

Simultaneous consideration of these two matters does become imperative, for they collectively underscore a circumstance wherein devout Hindus find themselves barred from fulfilling their sacred duties—both as lay devotees and serving priests of the deity—solely on the basis of their Jaati lineage. The absence of agency in determining their place of birth cannot be permitted to diminish their Adhikara. If Adhikara were predicated upon Dharmic Gunas and Sadhana, it would be understandable. However, the present circumstance transcends Guna, rendering it inherently Adharmic.

It is noteworthy that Indic Modernists (IMs) do not advocate for the removal of individuals who have inherited priestly responsibilities. The IM stance vehemently opposes disqualifying others from assuming such responsibilities based solely on their Jaati. The essential criteria such as Sadhana, Anushasana, and Tapasya could remain consistent across all candidates. Describing this standpoint as a concession is inappropriate; rather, it signifies the acknowledgment of an equal prerogative for all as fellow Sanatanis.

Furthermore, within the Hindu Samaaj, there exists an aspiration for these institutions to be privately managed for the collective benefit of the Hindu masses. It is crucial to establish that this institution is not the exclusive property of any individual; rather, it is the sacred domain of the deity to whom unwavering allegiance is pledged. Consequently, the institution is ideally positioned to function privately, exempt from governmental control. This emphasis on private trusteeship, however, does not absolve the trustees from being accountable to the Hindu public.

Tweet 3

I invoke Ishvara Krishna himself, whose authority on matters pertaining to Dharma stands preeminent:

"Chāturvarṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇakarmavibhāgaśaḥ tasya kartāramapi māṁ viddhyakartāramavyayam" (Ch 4 Verse 13)

This verse underscores the importance of Guna Karma, emphasizing innate qualities as the decisive factor.

Additionally, consider the following verse:

"AadyaH, abhijanvaan, asmi, kaH, anyaH, asti, sadrshH, mya,

Yakshye, daasyaami, modishye, iti, agyaanvimohitaH" (Ch 16 Verse 15)

This verse encapsulates the notion that a person attempting to assert their high birth as a qualification for participating in yagnas is delusional, owing to their asuric nature.

For further elaboration, refer to this insightful discourse:

Swarajya Video on Does Bhagavad Gita Support Caste

Tweet 4

Dharma, inherently dynamic, transcends temporal constraints and has consistently undergone evolution. While Shruti remains an enduring pillar of Dharma, the Smritis are subject to transformation over time.

A pertinent historical example is the Cholas' perception of the Pallavas as a Golden Age, inspiring the construction of the Thanjavur temples mirroring Mahabalipuram's architectural essence. This creative reinterpretation culminated in the magnificent Brihadeshwara, illustrating the fluidity inherent in Dharma. The contemporarisation of Dharma is, therefore, an inherent facet of Dharmic, Hindu, and Indic Modernity. It is not a novel concept but rather a nomenclature attributed to a perpetual process that has consistently existed.

The paradigm wherein what was considered heterodox in the past becomes orthodox in the future further accentuates this dynamic nature. The liberation of temples, a matter of significance for both Modernists (pejoratively called Raitas) and Traditionalists, invariably assumes a socio-political dimension.

Assumptions that individuals lacking the opportunity to fulfill sacred duties were content in the past or present to forgo such duties warrant scrutiny. These individuals, integral to the societal fabric, were akin to threads yet to don the wool, emphasizing the untapped potential within the intricately woven tapestry of cultural continuity.

Tweet 5

The concept in question goes beyond contemporary religiosity; it finds no parallel in the Vedic society which exhibited no such ossification, fostering a dynamic milieu wherein individuals exercised freedom in selecting their vocations based on their inherent Gunas. The Vedic ethos, thus, endorsed a fluidity of occupations aligned with one's innate qualities.

IMs, in many respects, aspire to rekindle this ancient ideal recreated in a contemporary setting. This aspiration is not a novelty; rather, it embodies a deliberate reenactment of antiquity tailored to the demands of the present era.

Exposition on Cyclic Time Part 1

Exposition on Cyclic Time Part 2

This means that while cycle shifted wrongly in the later periods, we are now restoring the cosmic balance by again going to the Vedic side of the circle while at the same time moving in linear time to achieve modernity (both in tandem)

Tweet 6

Tweet 7

Tweet 8

Rationality, equality, freedom, responsibility, republicanism, reform are not solely Western Protestant values. These values existed concurrently in many societies, including in India.

The degeneration in Dharmic values also played a significant role in our civilizational decline, marked by what I term as the "Panipatization of Hinduism" — a break up into myriad fragments.

It is not for us to say that a scholarly class will dispense the knowledge and that it should trickle down to the rest. Such a stance, in my view, exhibits a notably Catholic and Western strand within traditionalism. The notion that only designated arbiters possess authority over tradition, leaving the common population devoid of agency or lived experience to access Dharma, is fallacious. While the Guru is important, it is more as a guide than to intercede with the Devatas. The practice of Sadhana is an individual journey.

Tweet 9

Tweet 10

Tweet 11

Tweet 12

Any deities that have been worshipped over time by a subset of the community can be seamlessly embraced by the broader Sanatani Samaaj. Nothing should stop a Bhakta or a Purohita from connecting with a deity, provided they possess all other qualifications unrelated to Jaati, otherwise adhering strictly to scriptural tenets or regular practice. Also, differentiating Sampradayas from Jaatis could offer a more logical structure for organizing Sanatani society. This could help build a sense of community in a contemporary world, permitting entry based on established guidelines and eschewing hierarchical verticals in favour of parallel horizontals.

I fully agree on maintaining the diversity without losing a common sense of Sanatani unity. A parallel Sanatani identity must remain without in any way diluting the diverse Sampradayic micro-identities. Full freedom of practice must certainly be upheld as an eternal right.

Tweet 13

There is no place for a socialist state in many activities of life, particularly within the domain of Dharma. On that, I fully concur. The acceptance of these rights though is pivotal for temples to be in a non-state non-socialist privatized arena. This is the most important roadblock that remains in the way of temple decontrol being granted to Sanatanis.

Tweet 14

Taxing inheritance is a flawed idea because we are all an outcome of our circumstance. While Karma provides a rationale for our place of birth, it concurrently imparts the wisdom that, having understood our circumstances, we possess the agency to take action in the present.

Critiquing state socialism while simultaneously advocating for state-provided aid is inherently contradictory. One's stance can either be in favor of an expanded state or a minimized state, but the simultaneous endorsement of both positions is inherently paradoxical.

Tweet 15

All modernists cant painted with one hue. I am an Indic Modernist and I do believe in the sacredness of Dharma. We are also Sanatani stakeholders; our ideas also have value and we are proposing these ideas for implementation in the country of our origin (Bharatvarsha) that we also deeply cherish.

It is our divine responsibility to reinstate the Cosmic order by reviving the essence of our sacred values. Failing to do so would not only be a disservice to ourselves and the devatas but also to Dharma and our original ancestors, who would unequivocally endorse such restoration.

Indic Modernity and Indic Traditionalism can have a vibrant discussions and differences. But need not be against each other. It is our collective responsibility as Modernists, Conservatives, and Traditionalists to collaborate and work together.

How VD Savarkar and RSS won by Abhinav Prakash for Hindustan Times

I want to conclude this thread by affirming that I harbor no personal animosity nor harbour any ulterior agenda. As Indic Modernists, our concern lies deeply with our religion, faith, philosophy, and culture, acknowledging the foundational influence of our civilizational Dharmic roots on the bedrock of the Indian state. Our divergence lies solely in the means we advocate.

It is my sincere aspiration that this thread serves as a catalyst for more profound conversations, fostering the construction of bridges between traditionalists and modernists.

May we propel forward from this discourse armed with enhanced comprehension and increased engagement, all for the greater benefit of Dharma and Bharata.

Subscribe now