On Non-violence Principle
Ref. A line by a Christian who is, or whose ancestors were, Hindu:
“What is the difference between Saudi Arabia’s stance on Hindu temples in SA and the VHP’s stance on Mosques in India? If both stances are equally fundamentalist, then what is the difference between Sanghis (the Hindu nationalists) and the Jihadists except for the circumcision?”
Many also ask such question.
Skand987’s answer is provided below:
There is a gulf of difference. Below is the explanation.
Can you say, “Water flows, and a poison also flows. Therefore, there is no difference between them, do not drink water?”
When a criminal runs away from police at an illegal 80 mph speed, the police has to chase him at a speed higher than 80 mph. The police’s speeding is not a crime.
If you see Saavadhaan India shows, you will see that many criminals or gangs have been caught by cheating them by their victims in the same way the criminals cheated the victims. Even police also help the victims to enact the drama to catch criminals.
In Mahaabhaarat, Kauravas were wicked, and Pandavas were good—living per dharma.
When Arjun said, out of confusion, that he does not want to fight, Krishna said he must fight. Why? Because, himsaa–violence is a means that can be also be used for good; for punishing the criminals, asuras and demoniacs.
While Islam uses himsaa–violence to do demoniac things against the kafir, the Hindus use himsaa–violence to counter the demoniacs.
Ahimsaa—non-violence is not an absolute principle per the Vedic dharma scriptures.
अहिंसा परमो धर्मः ।
धर्म हिंसा तथैव च ॥ says a Vedic scripture.
The Jainism, Buddhism, and Gandhism totally neglected the second line.
All religions are not equally good. Some are really bad. At below link is an article that show how to compare religions objectively with universal criteria.
If you compare Vedic dharma with Islam, you will see that Vedic dharma has the potential to cause peace and prosperity at any level from personal to global. Islam is totally opposite to the Vedic dharma.
When it is so, the Vedics need to protect their country, dharma and culture against the anti-Vedics and demoniacs. All the means can be used as necessary per a situation to do so.
Fundamentalism by itself is not bad. A saint or a sadhu is fundamentalist on the fundamental principles of dharma (righteousness). In contrast, a satanic person, or an asura, or a demoniac is fundamentalist on the principles of adharma (unrighteousness.)
Therefore, before blaming, or hating a fundamentalist, please find out what are the fundamental principles of the so called fundamentalist.
If you still have question on this matter, I will answer, as long as you communicate rationally.
jai sri Krishna!