I was informed by a friend of mine that he is deluged with a forward quoting an article in tennews that Corruption in India is because of Hindu culture, its religion and worship practices.
The article bases its conclusions on the practice of people offering to God in Temples for favors received, instances where those closest to Kings betrayed the King for Money and that a Politician, J.Jayalalithaa, the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu coming back to power despite corruption charges.
No doubt Corruption is a serious virus and has to be eradicated in full.
I thought initially that this article in question is a well meaning one.
But I find that corruption is used as a tool to denigrate Hinduism and Hindu Culture.
I am informed that the article is being forwarded with regularity to young Indians.
The article seems to be by SHANTONU SEN and it is claimed that it was written 6 days ago.
A comment to the post states that,
thisarticle appeared on some blogs 5 years ago. Now it appears as a New Zealander’s view. Tennews please share the source.
but since many Indians are taking this seriously… Observations on corruption are, sadly, correct.’
Which is true?
The name SHANTONU SEN is Bengali.
Is he a Naturalized New Zealander or a pseudonym for India/Hindubaiter/
As this article seems to have been written, in the Catherine Mayo style, to denigrate Hindu culture rather than addressing the issue of corruption, let me answer point by point.
‘There’s a brand of Christianity I’ve often come across in churches and around the interwebs. I’m going to call it Transactional Christianity.
When you enter into a transaction, you pay an agreed amount and receive a predetermined item or service in return. It’s a fixed equation, backed by terms and conditions: if you pay A, you get B. And if what you get isn’t to your satisfaction, you can usually get your money back.
Many people apply this kind of formula-based thinking to God.
- If I pray the sinner’s prayer, I’m home free for all eternity.
- If I read the Bible dutifully and have regular “quiet times”, I can expect God to look after me.
- If I attend church regularly, I’ll feel like I’m right with God.
- If I give my ten percent, I’ll reap a harvest of material blessing.
- If I regularly pray for protection over my family, I can expect perfect health.
Now this is all well and good when everything’s going according to plan and all the transactions are proceeding smoothly. But this kind of thinking has a flip side: when things don’t work out the way they’re supposed to – when something goes wrong with the transaction – we’re forced to look for an explanation. When we pray fervently for a friend to be healed but they still succumb to cancer, we’re left with questions like “Did I pray hard enough?” or “Did I have enough faith?” Or when, in spite of our efforts to spend regular time in prayer and Bible study, we still find ourselves dry and thirsty and unable to hear God, we begin to wonder what we’ve done wrong, what sin or issue in our life is blocking our direct line to heaven.
And so it is that this very common breed of Christianity often leads to guilt and an unspoken feeling that we must be missing the mark and somehow need to do better. We know that God can be relied upon to keep his part of the bargain – that’s what it says in the terms and conditions, right? – so the problem must lie with us.
The basic problem with a transactional approach to Christianity is this: God does not conform to our notions of how He should behave, who He should bless and how, and what He should do to reward us for honouring our end of the deal.’
The above quote is from the following Link.
The link is from a Believer in Christ.
251. A king who thus duly fulfils his duties in accordance with justice, may seek to gain countries which he has not yet gained, and shall duly protect them when he has gained them.
252. Having duly settled his country, and having built forts in accordance with the Institutes, he shall use his utmost exertions to remove (those men who are nocuous like) thorns.
253. By protecting those who live as (becomes) Aryans and by removing the thorns, kings, solely in-tent on guarding their subjects, reach heaven.
254. The realm of that king who takes his share in kind, though he does not punish thieves, (will be) disturbed and he (will) lose heaven.
255. But if his kingdom be secure, protected by the strength of his arm, it will constantly flourish like a (well) watered tree.
256. Let the king who sees (everything) through his spies, discover the two sorts of thieves who deprive others of their property, both those who (show themselves) openly and those who (lie) concealed.
257. Among them, the open rogues (are those) who subsist by (cheating in the sale of) various marketable commodities, but the concealed rogues are burglars, robbers in forests, and so forth.
258. Those who take bribes, cheats and rogues, gamblers, those who live by teaching (the performance of) auspicious ceremonies, sanctimonious hypocrites, and fortune-tellers,
259. Officials of high rank and physicians who act improperly, men living by showing their proficiency in arts, and clever harlots,
260. These and the like who show themselves openly, as well as others who walk in disguise (such as) non-Aryans who wear the marks of Aryans, he should know to be thorns (in the side of his people).
Manu Smriti is one among the numerous texts on Ethics in Sanskrit and we have innumerable Regional texts .
The following are from the Bible.
“You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.
2 Chronicles 19:7
“Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.”
“For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
A gift in secret subdues anger, And a bribe in the bosom, strong wrath.
“For the company of the godless is barren, And fire consumes the tents of the corrupt.
‘Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
Compare these and decide which is more elaborate .