Rousing Call to Hindu Nation: Swami Vivekananda

swami-vivekananda- Narendranath


Rejuvenated glorious Bharat

“It is only the Vedic religion which considers ways and means and lays down rules for the fourfold attainment of man, comprising Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Buddha ruined us, and so did Christ ruin Greece and Rome! Then, in due course of time, fortunately, the Europeans became Protestants, shook off the teachings of Christ as represented by Papal authority, and heaved a sigh of relief. In India, Kumârila again brought into currency the Karma-Mârga, the way of Karma only, and Shankara and Râmânuja firmly re-established the Eternal Vedic religion, harmonising and balancing in due proportions Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Thus the nation was brought to the way of regaining its lost life; but India has three hundred million souls to wake, and hence the delay”.

“When a man has begun to be ashamed of his ancestors, the end has come. Here am I, one of the least of the Hindu race, yet proud of my race, proud of my ancestors. I am proud to call myself a Hindu, I am proud that I am one of your unworthy servants. I am proud that I am a countryman of yours, you the descendants of the sages, you the descendants of the most glorious Rishis the world ever saw”.

Rousing Call to Hindu Nation or Swami Vivekananda’s Rousing Call to the Hindu Nation (1963) is a compilation of Indian Hindu monk Swami Vivekananda’s writings and speeches edited by Eknath Ranade the leader of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The book was published in 1963, in the birth centenary of Vivekananda.

Rousing Call To Hindu Nation[Dounload PDF]

Continue Reading

With the reference of Sabarimala case to a larger bench status of women entry in sanctum automatically stayed

No Sabarimala entry for women after referring the dispute to seven judges Bench by Supreme Court

By a majority Judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala W.P. (C) No.373 of 2006, Supreme Court allowed women to enter in the sanctum sanatorium of Sabarimala Temple. But with reference the matter in the following reviewing judgment, the binding effect of the Order passed in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala W.P. (C) No.373 of 2006 has been questioned and doubted, thus automatically touched the status quo ante without saying so in a 3:2 Judgment.

In that case, there shall be a restriction as it was before the passing of the Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala W.P. (C) No.373 of 2006




Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. its General Secretary And Ors.

1. Ordinarily, review petitions ought to proceed on the principle predicated in Order XLVII in Part IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. However, along with review petitions several fresh writ petitions have been filed as a fall out of the judgment under review. All these petitions were heard together in the open Court.

2. The endeavour of the petitioners is to resuscitate the debate about – what is essentially religious, essential to religion and integral part of the religion. They would urge that ‘Religion’ is a means to express ones ‘Faith’. In the Indian context, given the plurality of religions, languages, cultures and traditions, what is perceived as faith and essential practices of the religion for a particular deity by a section of the religious group, may not be so perceived (as an integral part of the religion) by another section of the same religious group for the same deity in a temple at another location. Both sections of the same religious group have a right to freely profess, practise and propagate their religious beliefs as being integral part of their religion by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It matters not that they do not constitute a separate religious denomination. Further, as long as the practice (ostensibly restriction) associated with the religious belief is not opposed to public order, morality and health or the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India, the section of the religious group is free to profess, practise and propagate the same as being integral part of their religion. The individual right to worship in a temple cannot outweigh the rights of the section of the religious group to which one may belong, to manage its own affairs of religion. This is broadly what has been contended.

3. Concededly, the debate about the constitutional validity of practices entailing into restriction of entry of women generally in the place of worship is not limited to this case, but also arises in respect of entry of Muslim women in a Durgah/Mosque as also in relation to Parsi women married to a non-Parsi into the holy fire place of an Agyari. There is yet another seminal issue pending for consideration in this Court regarding the powers of the constitutional courts to tread on question as to whether a particular practice is essential to religion or is an integral of the religion, in respect of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community.

4. It is time that this Court should evolve a judicial policy befitting to its plenary powers to do substantial and complete justice and for an authoritative enunciation of the constitutional principles by a larger bench of not less than seven judges. The decision of a larger bench would put at rest recurring issues touching upon the rights flowing from Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is essential to adhere to judicial discipline and propriety when more than one petition is pending on the same, similar or overlapping issues in the same court for which all cases must proceed together. Indubitably, decision by a larger bench will also pave way to instil public confidence and effectuate the principle underlying Article 145(3) of the Constitution – which predicates that cases involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a bench of minimum five judges of this Court. Be it noted that this stipulation came when the strength of the Supreme Court Judges in 1950 was only seven Judges. The purpose underlying was, obviously, to ensure that the Supreme Court must rule authoritatively, if not as a full court (unlike the US Supreme Court). In the context of the present strength of Judges of the Supreme Court, it may not be inappropriate if matters involving seminal issues including the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess, practise and propagate its own religion, are heard by larger bench of commensurate number of Judges. That would ensure an authoritative pronouncement and also reflect the plurality of views of the Judges converging into one opinion. That may also ensure consistency in approach for the posterity.

5. It is our considered view that the issues arising in the pending cases regarding entry of Muslim Women in Durgah/Mosque (being Writ Petition (Civil) No.472 of 2019); of Parsi Women married to a non-Parsi in the Agyari (being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18889/2012); and including the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community (being Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2017) may be overlapping and covered by the judgment under review. The prospect of the issues arising in those cases being referred to larger bench cannot be ruled out.

The said issues could be:

(i) Regarding the interplay between the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.

(ii) What is the sweep of expression ‘public order, morality and health’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

(iii) The expression ‘morality’ or ‘constitutional morality’ has not been defined in the Constitution. Is it over arching morality in reference to preamble or limited to religious beliefs or faith. There is need to delineate the contours of that expression, lest it becomes subjective.

(iv) The extent to which the court can enquire into the issue of a particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be determined by the head of the section of the religious group.

(v) What is the meaning of the expression ‘sections of Hindus’ appearing in Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

(vi) Whether the “essential religious practices” of a religious denomination, or even a section thereof are afforded constitutional protection under Article 26.

(vii) What would be the permissible extent of judicial recognition to PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such religious denomination?

6. In a legal framework where the courts do not have any epistolary jurisdiction and issues pertaining to religion including religious practices are decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code or Article 226/32 of the Constitution the courts should tread cautiously. This is time honoured principle and practice.

7. In this context, the decision of the Seven Judges bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt) (1954) SCR 1005 holding that what are essential religious practices of a particular religious denomination should be left to be determined by the denomination itself and the subsequent view of a Five Judges bench in Durgah Committee, Ajmer vs. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. (1962) 1 SCR 383 carving out a role for the court in this regard to exclude what the courts determine to be secular practices or superstitious beliefs seem to be in apparent conflict requiring consideration by a larger Bench.

8. While deciding the questions delineated above, the larger bench may also consider it appropriate to decide all issues, including the question as to whether the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 govern the temple in question at all. Whether the aforesaid consideration will require grant of a fresh opportunity to all interested parties may also have to be considered.

9. The subject review petitions, as well as the writ petitions, may, accordingly, remain pending until determination of the questions indicated above by a Larger Bench as may be constituted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

CJI. [Ranjan Gogoi]

J. [A.M. Khanwilkar]

J. [Indu Malhotra]

New Delhi

November 14, 2019

Minority Judgment passed by justice  Nariman and Justice Chandrachud has no binding effect.

India is a Hindu Nation

Hindu Nation

India is as much a Hindu nation as England and America are Christian nations

Understanding Bharat from a Mimamsa Perspective 

A wrong argument: That by virtue of its majority being the deciding factor in a democracy, India is a Hindu nation.

The correction[Mimamsa]: We the people of India have descended from a common Hindu patriarchy and then we adopted multiple ways of prayer system for our salvation and peace. For the administration and management of the wealth pertain the Hindu Rastra(Nation), we commissioned a set of secular rule and judicial system in the country.

For the political unity and emancipation, we adopted from the west the pattern of parliament for Indian State headed by an elected President, to be advised by Prime minister- in- cabinet.

The soul of Nationhood [ Bidhi Bakyam]: We worship Mother India(Bharat Mata) by chanting Vande Mataram and establish equity and justice through Satameva Jayate [ सत्यमेव जयते in Deva Nagari script, taken from Mundaka Upanishad ].

It is said [Salpa vistaram]

“Even a cursory perusal of our history shows that, since times immemorial, Hindus have grown up as the true children of this soil. To them, it is more than a motherland, a holy land. Generation after generation, the flower of their heroic manhood have offered their life-blood in defence of her freedom. They have held aloft the banner of her sacred religion and culture.

They wrote her holy books, the Ramayana and the Maha Bharata, the Gita and the Vedas. They produced great saints and rishis who set up the highest standards in each and every walk of national life. Therefore, without a shadow of doubt, Hindus are the real builders of the national life of this land, its real nationals. In a nutshell, this is Hindu nation.”

Again it can be argued

[Purba Pakshya]

Constitution of India does not recognize any form of nationalism that there should not be any Hindu nation, Muslim nation, Sikh nation, Buddhist nation or Christian nation. These expressions or thoughts are antithesis and abhorrent to the Constitution of India. The Constitution, as already stated, has created one nation called India. In our constitutional philosophy, there is only one ism that is Indianism. All other isms are sworn enemies of Indianism. Any person claiming to be Hindu nationalist, Muslim nationalist, Sikh nationalist, Buddhist nationalist or Christian nationalist is not only working against the Indianism but against the very though of India. In India, there can be forces, which can be bracketed into two groups only, Indians, who are for India and communals/extremists, who are enemies of India. If India, which is created by its Constitution, which we the people have given to ourselves, has to survive, then it is only Indianism, which has to be there and all other isms have to disappear from the firmament of the country called India.

It appears that in terms of Constitution of India, which guarantees all the rights, which include right to practice and profess ones religion and faith, there was no requirement of bringing in expression secularism in the preamble of the Constitution. This expression has evoked sharp reaction from a section of population and divided people of the country into different pigeon holes of different isms. A very serious and potential threat is posed to the very existence of the idea of India by the fringe elements, who take cover under various types of isms other than Indianism. India is not a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or Christian India. It is India, which is born from the bosom of unrelenting struggle of millions of people, who, as already stated, were subjected to untold sufferings and miseries by external aggressors. India is a land, which is not only inhabited by people belonging to different religions, faiths, colours, castes and creeds but it also has different geographical dimensions and constraints. This heterogeneous conglomerate is and will be held together by one theme and one concept of being one nation called India, which is born from the bosom of Constitution.

The Constitution has created State called India. The State comprises of different organs, viz. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Each organ of the State has to perform its constitutional duties within the boundaries delineated by the Constitution itself. When the Constitution itself is threatened, which, in turn, poses potential threat to the very existence of State, then the organs thereof cannot display ostrich syndrome but have to stand up and perform their constitutional duties and obligations so as to ensure that the Constitution and the State created by it, does survive. It is this constitutional obligation, which has impelled upon the conscience of constitutional Court to perform its constitutional duties.

The concept of Indianism or Bharatiyata is the soul of the Constitution. All other isms, in essence, pose a potential threat to the soul as well as the conscience of the Constitution. India and Indians are unique in the whole world as they resemble to different colours of a bright rainbow.

The Arbitrator

[Madhyastham ]

The Constitution, which is given by the people to themselves and has created the State called India, which State comprises of three principal organs, viz. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, the affairs thereof are to be conducted in accordance with the spirit and mandate of the Constitution itself. The discussion made in this order would show that the State has no religion. Thus, no office in the State can be occupied by any person and no Legislative Body can be controlled by any organization by invoking the mandate of the people on the basis of religion. Person/s and organization/s, who does not believe in the Constitution of India, by using extra-constitutional methods, cannot be permitted to occupy the high constitutional/political Offices and/or Legislative Bodies. Article 356 of the Constitution of India provides that the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of a State or otherwise if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen, in which the Government of a State cannot be carried in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, he, by issuance of Proclamation, may assume unto himself all or any function/s of the Government of the State and all or any powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or anybody or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State; can declare that the power of Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament. The President’s further power is to make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, goes a long way to show that the Government, in all circumstances, has to be carried in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, any person/s and organization/s can assume any constitutional Office and/or a secure berth in Legislative Body only when such person/sand organization/s believes in and conducts its affairs strictly in accordance with the mandate contained in the Constitution. If any person/s and organization/s, in the process of securing high constitutional Office or place in the Legislative Bodies, act in cruel disregard to the constitutional mandate, then the constitutional and statutory authorities have to take steps in accordance with the laws of the land to stop the forward progress of such people. Besides these authorities, the Election Commissioner of India, in terms of article 324, is under constitutional obligation to ensure that person/s and organization/s, who, practice and profess their thoughts, which are outside the purview of Constitution and which constitute potential threat to it, are halted in their tracks in the manner which not only secures but safeguards the unity of India. The Election Commissioner of India, besides taking recourse to the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act can also issue administrative instructions in this behalf.

The facts and factors: the issues that  Den-e-Islam was given to the Muslim Umma of Arabian Nation and in the same way in the city of Constantinople( CE 325 ) Christianity was delivered through the Emperor Constantine of Roman empire to a group of worshipper ( without any socio-political capacity) headed by local Bishops.  Shiks, Buddhist, Jains, Ram Krishna religion of Belur math followers of particular Holy men and they are not aligned to the concept of Hindu Nation. Parishes migrated from Iran due to Muslim persecution and settled in India and protected by the Hindu kings.

Bal Thackeray `s oversimplified version of Hindu Nationalism such as, “According to me all nationalist minded persons are Hindus and the people of all worship would be called Hindus” and “Hindutva is nationalism. All those who are opposed to Hindutva are anti-nationalists” can be tested or denied on the basis of leading more correct appreciation of sense.

There could be several version of Hindu nationhood which can be debated but can on be denied in the core and again it can not be stopped for further inquiry.


Indira Gandhi mentioned Veer Savarkar as remarkable son of India

Prime Minister Smt Indira Gandhi wrote a Letter in favour of Veer Savarkar in 1980

By a letter addressed to Pandit Bakhle, secretary of Swatantrayaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak, dated May 20, 1980, Indira Gandhi wrote, “I have received your letter of the 9th May 1980. Veer Savarkar’s daring defiance has its own important place in the annals of our freedom movement. I wish success to the plans to celebrate the birth centenary of this remarkable son of India.”




MAY 20.1908

Dear Shri Bakle,

I have received your letter of the 8th May 1980.

Veer Savarkar`s daring defiance of the British Government has its own important place in the annul of our freedom movement. I wish success to the plans to celebrate the birth centenary of the remarkable son of India.

Yours sincerely


Indira Gandhi

Indira Gandgi mentioned Veer Savarkar as remarkable son of India

An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers : A local DNA

Rakhigarhi became an archaeological hotspot when Amarendra Nath, former director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), undertook excavations at the site in 1997. The ASI team unearthed a fire altar, parts of a city wall, drainage structures as well as a hoard of semi-precious beads. The village is a 5,000-year-old site that showcases continuity from the Harappan age to the present times.

DNA sample taken from a skeleton of a woman studied and and found that the woman was not descended from Iranian group. Again it reveled that the present day people of Rakhigarhi are in continuation of the DNA found from the skeleton. The study directly connected present day South Asian people with the population of old Indus valley civilization.

The Team

A team led by geneticist David Reich at Harvard University and archaeologist Vasant Shinde at Deccan College in Pune, India, decided to try the promising technique with Indus specimens. They sampled more than 60 skeletal pieces, including numerous petrous bones, before they were able to extract ancient DNA from one.

Summary of study

The study reports an ancient genome from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). The individual we sequenced fits as a mixture of people related to ancient Iranians (the largest component) and Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers, a unique profile that matches ancient DNA from 11 genetic outliers from sites in Iran and Turkmenistan in cultural communication with the IVC. These individuals had little if any Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today. The Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC derives from a lineage leading to early Iranian farmers, herders, and hunter-gatherers before their ancestors separated, contradicting the hypothesis that the shared ancestry between early Iranians and South Asians reflects a large-scale spread of western Iranian farmers east. Instead, sampled ancient genomes from the Iranian plateau and IVC descend from different groups of hunter-gatherers who began farming without being connected by substantial movement of people.

The study have shown that the ancient South Asian farmers[Read Indian] represented in the IVC[4,000 and 3,500 years ago] had negligible ancestry related to ancient Anatolian[Turkey] farmers, as well as an Iranian-related ancestry component distinct from sampled ancient farmers and herders in Iran.

So the the woman[DNA] not originated from Iran , rather her origin is local.

Read the study :

Veda Samhita Shakh and their Geographical Distribution

Akhanda Bharat

Vedic Samhitas are divided into multiple Sakhas. Sakhas are actually schools. Kanva Sakha and Bajsanehi Sakha of Yayur Veda are same in Mantra collections, the only differs in Swar gram or pronunciations. Both have 40 chapters. a particular group of people reads a particular Sakha.

According to the Mahabhasya of Patanjali, there were 21 shakhas of Rigveda, 9 of Atharvaveda, 101 of Yajurveda (86 of Krishna Yajurveda and 15 of Shukla Yajurveda, according to later authorities) and a 1000 varieties of chanting of Samaveda. ’ Above Samhitas were available at the time of Patanjali .

Two different Vedic shakhas might share one or more texts amongst themselves. Conversely, the distinction between two shakhas of the same Veda might result from the use of a different Samhita text, and/or a different Brahmana text, and/or different Kalpasutra text and so on. For e.g., the Baudhayana and the Apastamba shakhas use the same Taittiriya Brahmana, Taittiriya Samhita and Taittiriya Aranyaka but follow different Kalpasutras. On the other hand, the Shankhayana and the Kaushitaka shakhas use the same Samhita and Shrauta Sutra but their Brahmanas have slightly different readings and their Grhyasutras are quite different.

A group or a community of people who study a particular shakha in its entirety (Samhita + Brahmana + Aranyaka + Kalpasutra + any additional texts) and perform its ritual constitute a ‘charana’. For instance, Brahmins who study the Taittiriya Samhita/Brahmana/Aranyaka together with the Kalpasutra of Apastamba say – “I follow the Apastamba charana’.

In certain cases, we have instances of ‘mixed shakhas’. For instance, the followers of Shakala shakha have adopted the Kalpasutra of Ashvalayana. The Ashvalayana shakha, which had the now well-known Ashvalayana Sutra, has in turn lost oral traditions of its Samhita. Likewise, the Kaushitakins of Kerala often use the Samhita of Shakalas.

Presently following Sakhas are available in the Indian subcontinent though some are near to extinct.  and it is read in a particular region < Such as Kanva Samhita of Yayur Veda is available in Gokarna and Assam region, Vaidiks are available here who are practitioners or this Sakha.


  • Sakala RV:  Previously Sakala Sakha readers were available in Sialkot [Pakistan] and it was collected there.  Several practitioners are available in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, and Tamil Nadu and to some extent in Uttar Pradesh. Nambudiris of Kerala recite even the Brahmana and Aranyaka with accents. Accented manuscripts of Brahmana and Aranyaka are available to this day.
  • Shankhayana Rigveda: Gujarat and parts of Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Oral tradition extinct, only manuscripts of Samhita are extant. Ritual lives in a very fragmentary condition
  • Bashkala RV: All Sakal Mantras are available in Baskal Sakha. The Difference is Chapter arrangement.  Reders are available in Kerala, Rajasthan, Bengal and Assam as a living tradition, but have never been verified. The Samhita exists in manuscript. Nambudiris of Kerala are said to follow this Shakha of RV as far as the Samhita is concerned but studies of their oral tradition do not seem to bear this out.
  • Ashvalayana RV: Manuscripts of the Samhita have been found in Kashmir, Maharashtra (Ahmadnagar) and Patna (Bihar). In parts of central and eastern India, Shakala RV texts are often attributed to Ashvalayana. For instance, the Aitareya Brahman is often called Ashvalayana Brahmana in West Bengal. Oral traditions extinct although the followers of Shakala Shakha in Maharashtra often term themselves as Ashvalayanas because they follow the Kalpasutra (Shrautasutra + Grhyasutra) of Ashvalayana.
  • Paingi RV: Exited in Tamil Nadu, in and around Andavan. Oral traditions lost but Brahmana texts rumored to exist. Pangi rahashya Brahman has been mentioned by Adi Sankara, but it is not available in book form now.
  • Mandukeya RV: Magadha and eastern and central Uttar Pradesh. Possibly lower Himalayas in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.  Brhaddevata and Rigvidhana mentioned it. Mandukya Upanisad is available to us. 


  • Madhyandina YV: Currently found all over North India- Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and even Maharashtra (up to Nashik), West Bengal, Assam, Nepal. Along with Taittiriya Yajurveda, it is the most prevalent Vedic shakha. Followers of this school were found in Sindh (Pakistan) in the 19th century but became extinct after Hindus were ethnically cleansed by the Muslim majority after 1947.
  • Kanva YV: Currently found in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh. In Orissa, the followers of this shakha follow a slightly different text. Epigraphic evidence shows that they were once present all over India, as far as Himachal Pradesh and possibly in Nepal.
  • Charaka YV: Interior Maharashtra, adjacent parts of Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh. Followers of this shakha now follow the Maitrayani YV shakha, having lost their own texts.
  • Maitrayani YV: In Morvi (Gujarat), parts of Maharashtra (Naskik/Bhadgaon, Nandurbar, Dhule). Earlier, they were spread all the way east up to Allahabad and extended into Rajasthan and possibly into Sindh.
  • Kathaka YV: The oral traditions became extinct possibly a few decades ago. They were found in central and eastern Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, possibly west Punjab and NWFP. In later times, they got restricted to Kashmir, where all their extant manuscripts have been unearthed. Recently, the entire Hindu minority was cleansed from the Kashmir valley by Islamists, and so the shakha might be deemed extinct completely now.
  • Charayaniya Katha YV: Existed in Kashmir.
  • Kapisthala Katha YV: Found in West Punjab around the time of the invasion of Alexander. Also in parts of Gujarat. Only a fragmentary Samhita and Grhyasutra text exist, and followers of this shakha are said to exist at the mouths of Narmada and Tapi rivers in Gujarat.
  • Jabala YV: Central India, around the Narmada region. In Maharashtra, there still exist Shukla-Yajurvedin Brahmins who call themselves ‘Jabala Brahmins’, but there is no knowledge of the existence of any texts of this shakha.
  • Taittiriya YV: Buddhist texts and some versions of Ramayana attest their presence in the Gangetic plains but currently they are found all over Southern India. The Taittiriyas are themselves divided into numerous sub-schools. Among these, the followers of Baudhayana and Apastamba were found all over South India (including Maharashtra), while the Hiranyakeshins were found mainly in Konkan and Western Maharashtra. The Vaikhanasas have a more eastern presence- around Tirupati and Chennai. The Vadhulas are present currently in Kerala and earlier in adjacent parts of Tamil Nadu. The Agniveshyas, a subdivision of the Vadhula immigrants from Malabar, are found around Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu. The Apastamba, Hiranyakeshin, Vaikhanasa and Baudhayana schools have survived with all their texts intact.


  • Kauthuma SV: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu (tradition revived with the help of Brahmins from Poona), Kerala, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar (tradition revived a century ago), West Bengal (tradition has been revived recently). There are numerous varieties of Kauthuma chanting. This shakha is the most vibrant tradition of Samaveda.
  • Ranayaniya SV: Orissa (manuscripts available, status of oral tradition not known), Maharashtra, Karnataka (the Havyak <you mean havik?> community for instance), Uttar Pradesh (till recently in Bahraich and Mathura), Rajasthan (till recently in Jaipur). The existence of this shakha was endangered till recently, but it has been strengthened with the help of institutions like the Kanchi Kamakoti Matha.
  • Jaiminiya/Talavakara SV: Two distinct sub streams- the Namudiri recitations in Central Kerala, and the recitations of Tamil Nadu Brahmins in districts adjacent to Kerala and in and around Srirangam. The survival of these schools is endangered.
  • Shatyayaniya SV: Said to have been prevalent in Tamil Nadu and parts of North India. The shakha is no longer extant.
  • Gautama SV: Said to have been prevalent in Tamil Nadu and in Andhra Pradesh till the 17th cent. C.E. Many followers of the Kauthuma school in Andhra Pradesh still call themselves ‘Gautamas’.
  • Bhallavi SV: Said to have been prevalent in Karnataka and parts of North India


  • Shaunakiya AV: Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Coastal Andhra Pradesh, Avadh region in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh. Only Gujarat has maintained the oral traditions, and the shakha has been resuscitated in recent times in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and in Andhra Pradesh.
  • Staudayana AV: According to Majjhima Nikaya, followers of this shakha lived in Koshala (central and eastern Uttar Pradesh). The shakha is completely lost.
  • Paippalada AV: Followers are currently found in parts of Orissa and adjacent areas of Bihar and West Bengal and recite the Samhita in ekasruti (monotone syllable). Epigraphic and literary evidence shows that they once thrived in Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and parts of Gujarat, East Bengal and in Tamil Nadu as well.
  • Devadarshi AV: According to literary evidence, followers of this Shakha once lived in coastal Andhra Pradesh. Other AV shakhas said to have been prevalent in that region were Shaulkayani and Munjakeshi. The shakha is completely lost.
  • Charanavaidya and Jajala AV: Perhaps existed in Gujarat, Central India and adjacent parts of Rajasthan. According to the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, the Samhita of the Charanavaidya shakha had 6026 mantras.
  •  Mauda AV: The readers were existed in Kashmir, in 1980 due to terrorism libraries were burnt and readers were expelled from the valley. Their Gurukulas were destroyed.

Final Assam citizens’ list published on the National Register of Citizen website : Check Status by ARN numbers

Bharatiya Nari

This is just a consolidated list where all applicants from a family who have the same application receipt number (ARN) can check their status together online through their ARN numbers. Those who were at the risk of being excluded were able to check their status earlier in the supplementary list

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is the register containing details of all Indian citizens. After conducting the Census of 1951, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) was prepared by recording particulars of all the persons enumerated during the 1951 Census.The NRC will be updated as per the provisions of The Citizenship Act, 1955 and The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. As such, eligibility for inclusion in updated NRC shall be determined based on the NRC, 1951, Electoral Rolls up to the midnight of 24th March, 1971 and in their absence the list of admissible documents issued upto midnight of 24th March, 1971. [Govt of Assam website]

Check Assam NRC List 2019 online:

To check your name in the NRC list online, keep your Application Reference Number or ARN handy.

Step 1: Log on to any othe following website: or

Step 2: Check on the link that says, “Supplementary Inclusions/Exclusions Lists (Final NRC) status”

Step 3: Punch in your Application Reference Number (ARN) to check if your name has been added to the final NRC list.

Result for all NRC applicants as per Draft NRC & Supplementary List of Inclusions and Exclusions

ABVP swept DUSU elections bagging three seats NSUI got one.

Akshit Dahiya (President), Pradeep Tanwar (Vice President) and Shivangi Kherwal (Joint Secretary) emerged victorious from the ABVP, the student wing of BJP. On the other hand, Ashish Lamba (Secretary) won from Congress-affiliated NSUI.

Dahiya garnered 29,685 votes, Tanwar won with 19,858 votes , while Lamba, the sole winning NSUI candidate, secured 20,934 votes for the post of Secretary.

UP Govt extend the tenure of Special Judge SK Yadav, hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case

The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday informed the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman that it has complied with the Apex court’s order to extend the tenure of Special Judge SK Yadav,  set to retire on September 30, 2019, hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case,till April next year.

“We are satisfied. However, we have received a fax from the special court judge, in which, the judge, points that he will remain under the administrative control of the High Court,” the bench said. The apex court had in an order on July 19 this year, directed the extension of Justice Yadav’s tenure until the trial is completed in six months, likely by April 30 next year.

Justice Yadav is hearing the criminal case on a day-to-day basis. in this case senior BJP leaders — Advani, Kalyan Singh and Murli Manohar Joshi — are involved in the demolition of the disputed structure in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

Bombay High Court refused to quash FIR against Gautam Navlakha in Koregaon-Bhima violence

Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Navlakha seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him by the Pune police in January 2018 after the Elgar Parishad held on December 31, 2017, that had allegedly triggered violence at Koregaon Bhima in Pune district the next day.

The bench agreed and extended the protection from arrest to Navlakha for a period of three weeks to enable him to approach the Supreme Court in an appeal against the HC order. Navlakha and the other accused were booked under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. while rejecting his petition the Court observed :

“Considering the magnitude of the case, we feel a thorough investigation is required,” a division bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre said. The case is not without basis and absence of material,”