Although Upadhyaya has named his so-called philosophy as Integral Humanism and put forth some ideas under its heading, the interchangeable use of the words-Integral Humanism, Bharatiya Culture, our culture, Indian tradition, Dharma, Laws of nature and many other terms takes away the very purpose of propounding Integral Humanism as a new unique philosophy. This is the source of confusion for every man who thinks that Integral Humanism has something concrete to say.
At the root of every tenet of Integral Humanism lies, not a philosophy of new origin, but an unwritten indulgence of interchangeability of related but distinct terms. And in the usage of such terms in such a manner leaves no room for opposition, for only that which is clearly defined is that can be clearly opposed. And to makes matters worse, 'concepts' like Dharma, Chiti: vague blanket terminologies which are not clearly delineated are used indiscriminately. Indiscriminately, not in the sense of excessive usage, but in the sense that there is a lack of understanding of the terms.
So to fight back such muddled ideas, one needs to arm oneself with the clear and the correct definitions of the same words which were used to muddle and confuse.
It is obvious that an analysis of a situation/concept under the prism of Dharma implies that for every 'is' there is an 'ought'. The same examples which Upadhyaya cites to illustrate Dharma can be used in a different philosophical context to a different end. If Dharma is thought to mean 'a system of ethics and morality', the question immediately arisesmorality and ethics by what standards? And Dharma, in this context only becomes a loosely defined entity, not a fully defined abstraction to base one's actions upon.
Finally, what does one make of Dharma? It is the proof of the functioning of a mind. Nothing more, nothing less. That which tells one, if the actual situation at hand is one of religious intolerance, then the ideal condition is that man live without any such conflict. That which tells a man that even if thousands of people oppose the abolition of slavery, slavery is an ignominious notion. More precisely, it implies valuation. But valuations by what standards? And more importantly valuations to what ends? Such answers are not implicit in the usage of the term Dharma. That, precisely is the nature of the word-Dharma. And such being the nature of the word Dharma, it opens up itself to subjective interpretations. The task before a philosophy therefore, becomes the explication of Dharma in clear unambiguous and objective terms, for it to be of any value.
A consequence of a subjective interpretation of Dharma is Integral Humanism. Therefore, one finds Upadhyaya giving examples for the explanation of the concept of Dharma (Chapter 2) and later on utilizing the same percepts in his interpretations of the individual and society along bizarre patterns of communism and socialism. And this shows through blatantly in his economic and 'social' theories (Chapter 3 and Chapter 4). And so if one has to agree with Integral Humanism, in its fullest form, one has to agree with communism and nothing less.
It is because of such reasons that the BJP becomes
"...vulnerable... because of the many slimy, venomous creatures that hide in the Sangh Parivar's underbelly"And why exactly are these slimy venomous creatures able to find refuge under the Sangh Parivar's underbelly? Because of ideological corruption. Because of ideological incompleteness. Because of that ambiguous foggy quagmire of ideas that Integral Humanism is. And because of the fact that evil always raises its voice when there are no other voices.
(Tavleen Singh, India Today Dec 14, 1998)
And because of the fact that people like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and countless others support and sustain this party inspite of the knowledge that what they do is wrong. It is the guilt of the supporters of BJP that feeds these 'slimy venomous creatures'. Their guilt that these slimy venomous creatures have accomplished what they couldn't have done themselves. That uncertain nagging feeling that it is these creatures not them who are 'truly fighting for Indian culture and tradition'. It is the same guilt that makes Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee support those who demolished the Babri Masjid, the reason being given that the demolition crew did it for preservation of 'Indian culture and tradition'.
"It is Adharma!" you cry passionately, "to destroy a place of worship belonging to a different religion, and set up a temple there"
"Isnt it Adharma", they sneer back at you, "that Babar destroyed many temples and built mosques in their place?"
You stand, unable to answer their question. They move on.