The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
But it seems you and ShauryaT are trying to take the discussion toward developing a Hindu Constitution a.k.a New Dharma Shastra.
RamaY, I don't know what ShauryaT's intent is, but speaking for myself, the drift of some of the recent posts in this thread seemed to be about what it takes to make a mental shift from WU to locally known ideas and concepts, since WU is definitely not a standard Indians need to base their reality on. In this context, csaurabh mentioned how the rules of the republic could be inspired by local thoughts and culture and customs instead of mimicking the rule books of countries that push WU as the only alternative. Definitely not trying to write any dharma shastra or anything of that kind.
BTW, I just pulled those 4 points out of a bag as an example of what "basic truths" would have to look like in order for people to buy it, in the sense they correspond to realities everyone can relate it, to the point of it being universal truths, but as matrimc's response shows, it is not all that easy to do such things even when the "truths" have sufficient evidence to back them up. At some point, you have to make the jump to define what the purpose of the exercise of making such "ethical rules", and as Shiv has explained in previous post, that can vary widely from person to person, and that is where there is likely to be serious disagreement...is it possible to have consensus on such fundamental questions?
Tuvaluan wrote:
Is it possible to have consensus on such fundamental questions?
Even if we see sceintific way, Bharat (India didn't exist then) had such a consensus from at least 5000BC (Pre Mahabharata times) till 1857; even during Islamic conquests & rule, the Hindu population had a consensus on what the fundamental questions and foundations Bharat has been built upon.
I recently got a warning for defining Bharat in Modi dhaga as being OT, so I request you to google for meaning of Bharat.
That consensus has been carefully broken into peaces & confused since 1857. There are many culprits for it.
I am visiting/posting on this thread after a long time, so please excuse if I have missed a lot of discussion.
Tuvaluan wrote:The "axioms" of reality are likely to be staring us in the face and it may be based on obvious "truths" we all know:
1. It is an infinite universe in size
2. It is an infinite universe in time.
3. It follows from 1 and 2 that earth will be around far longer than the human race -- we know that most planets die in a few million years anyway.
4. The human race needs to follow rules that allow it to survive as long as possible.
Why is universe infinite in size and time? I would imagine that it is obvious that universe cannot be infinite in time and space.
And why will earth be around for more time than human race or vice versa? I would assume that its possible that earth can outlive human race and human race can outlive earth(but since humans have no discovered any other suitable habitat other than mother earth, humans will die along with earth if earth dies).
Tuvaluan wrote:
Of course, the more fundamental question then is why should rule 4 be required at all -- my view is that the longer the human race survives, the more likely it is going to be able to enjoy this planet until its eventual death. But then if the human race ends up blowing itself up, nothing really happens to the universe…it will still carry for a few 100 billion years more whether we all exist or not.
So any rule or policy should have the property that fits in with 4, and this means that the rules themselves cannot be rigid and unchangeable but must change themselves along with the context of reality if they end up contradicting rule 4. If we view "dharma' in this context, then it obviously cannot be imposed top-down in practise, as that concentrates power at the top and makes it more likely that rule 4 will be violated. Just my 2 annas.
Why is top-down system violating your rule 4? Infact, any worthwhile system will be top-down only. Bottom-up are movements which happen once in a while and influence the top. They are exceptions. But, in regular happenings, top-down hierarchy is the norm. Of course, the top needs to be in touch with the bottoms to not become a target of bottom-up revolution. In democracy, bottom-up revolution is managed through votes instead of guns. But, after the elections, it is back to top-down system. It seems to me that all functioning systems have to be top-down in hierarchy.
I don't understand why you say that top-down systems violate Dharma.
Tuvaluan wrote:
Just to emphasize what 1 and 2 really mean -- this is one of a 100 billion galaxies that have existed for billions of years, and this galaxy is a 100 million light years away and contains about a 1000 billion stars (never mind planets). All of the confusion abounds because our puny minds cannot really comprehend this vastness and draw the right conclusions from our insignificance.
Universe is quite vast compared to many of its elements. True. All of its elements are individually insignificant. True. But, all these elements together form the universe and as such all the elements have their own importance.
Tuvaluan wrote:The word "proof" is being bandied about quite arbitrarily -- mathematical proofs are derived from the fundamental axioms that construct a frame work and other "truths" that can be derived from these axioms.
Foundations of Mathematics is an area that defines what a proof means from logical principles. I request you, if you haven't already, to read the book by Tarski. In a short book of 100 pages he nails what it means for something to be proved without any recourse to semantics. The prerequisite is that one has to assume Peanos axioms of natural numbers.
Peano axioms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Peanos axioms)
In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, also known as the Dedekind–Peano axioms or the Peano postulates, are a set of axioms for the natural numbers presented by the 19th century Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. These axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of metamathematical investigations, including research into fundamental questions of consistency and completeness of number theory.
Is it possible to construct different kinds of logic starting from another set of axioms? That is what navya nyAya proposes (which was developed in 11th century in what is now Bengal/UP/Bihar) and is an active area of research in India and elsewhere. For navya nyAya, one needs to assume certain axioms which are propounded in vEdas.
There are several kinds of logic as well. I do not want to make a mess of it right now but please look up the following in Wikipedia and follow the references there of.
1. Model Theory
2. Proof Theory
3. Type Theory
Type Theory is very close to (if one is a computer programmer) objects and their types and type polymorphisms. Model Theory is more linguistic in nature.
ShauryaT wrote:I think we have to move beyond this eternality debates, ultimate realities, etc and use our entire civilizational experience and post 2-3 constructs based on which a new framework can be based.
Think of the words of the pre-amble as these high level constructs. Think of the constitution as an exposition of these 2-3 constructs. The words today are sovereign, democratic, socialist, secular, republic. One can take the articles of the constitution to test if in concept they are true to preamble. This is not about what is eternal, a constitution is not but should be long lasting.
What are these 2-3 constructs based on which you would want a redefinition of our laws. To ensure that these laws confirm to the high principles of a new preamble. Yet at the same time, provide a new framework and at the same time stays true to the high principle of our heritage.
None of the words today have that connection to our past or experiences.
Agreed.
I think we will need to junk all of those words ( sovereign, democratic, socialist, secular, republic ), and replace it by simply 'Dharmic Rashtra'.
Democracy will be retained, but only as a vehicle to serve Dharma. It is neither necessary not sufficient for this purpose- Indian monarchy often did just fine. By the way, North Korea calls itself a 'Peoples Democratic Republic' and we know what that is. Just saying words will not do.
What is needed is principles for the govt. and the individual
niti ( governance ) should be based on niyat ( policy )
niyam ( rules ) should be based on nyaya ( justice )
netritva ( leadership ) qualities should be nurtured
the government should include not only 'the system' but also people who run the system should be brought up properly to understand the differences between Indic thought and WU. Top down laws must go, a better system drawn from shastras must be evolved.
Individual should maintain a balance between dharma, kama, artha and moksha
Link between govt and individual should be through participatory democracy, but it need not be the only way. This notion of 'government' also applies to all top down systems such as private corporations, govt offices and so on, where the link will take a different form.
Govt. should follow 'minimum government', 'maximum governance'.
We are talking about a timeframe of around 50 years here...
I think most of all we need a change in education and awareness. Macaulay stuff will not do.
That consensus has been carefully broken into peaces & confused since 1857. There are many culprits for it.
I am less interested in the culprits or their deeds, not that I disagree with the claim. However, speaking for myself, the more interesting question is what those concepts were and how they can framed in a way that is understandable. If the claim is that there is great value hidden in there, then it should be spelt out clearly in a place where people are likely to "get it" like this thread. Clarity begins at home.
The prerequisite is that one has to assume Peanos axioms of natural numbers.
Those axioms are specifically only for the framework of natural numbers, and don't apply to planar geometry, for example, that was my point. if people are going to bandy about the word "proof" the first step is to specify what exactly you are assuming as a framework, and then speak of "proving" something based that. AFAICT, no one has specified any framework and yet speak of definitive proofs. That is all less than illuminating and sounds bogus. Maybe there is something here, but the cart is before the horse when people talk of "proofs" in a field that is anything but precise.
There are several kinds of logic as well. I do not want to make a mess of it right now but please look up the following in Wikipedia and follow the references there of.
1. Model Theory
2. Proof Theory
3. Type Theory
Type Theory is very close to (if one is a computer programmer) objects and their types and type polymorphisms. Model Theory is more linguistic in nature.
Yes, I am aware of those topics -- none of these topics are relevant to what is being discussed here, which is very far from mathematics or linguistics - this is about human experiences and perception.
The claims being bandied about here are about subjective human interpretations of their reality bound by some "common axioms" for which people are claiming there is "proof". It all sounds like utter nonsense unless someone can state clearly what these "universally accepted truths (or axioms)" first, before we start talking about proofs of this and that.
Why is universe infinite in size and time? I would imagine that it is obvious that universe cannot be infinite in time and space.
something that known to be at least a 100 billion years old and take a few 100 billion years to go from end to end at the speed of light is practically infinite for beings that have a life time of less than a 100 years. humans can't even preserve knowledge across a few thousand years so far, so all this hair splitting is beside the point.
I already mentioned the reason for this line of thinking a couple of posts earlier. I am not trying to come up with some alternate dharma or anything -- just demonstrating that "axioms" based on well known and universally accepted facts are insufficient to convince people as "axioms" of reality. Your hairsplitting as to what infinity means etc., demonstrate my point that it is impossible to come up with such axioms even among a group where people have reasonably close views of reality, so it only gets worse as relative frames of reference of individual realities get further apart.
Will answer your question and Tuvaluan's "aaraaya koodathu" (aaraayamal chutney yeppadi varum?)
as time permits - but for now suffice to say that the substrate is hinged on the understanding that the acted and
acted upon exist in an asymmetry of time, space, energy, etc. As others have pointed out the language and
structure of this forum make it difficult to explain this in detail, but lest it not be an excuse, will make an effort
answering this in a better way as I can formulate them.
One key point I do want to reiterate is that much of the language we use is still stuck in a framework structured
around belief - truths (satyam), jananam, anantham... my understanding is very much further from belief
and frameworks built on faith. It relies on action and their consequence, more so on the pramanas and the
pondering of the order (Rta) that exists as the warp and woof of the Universe. This order has no other substrate,
the unchangeable comes from the very fact that along multiple dimensions we are powerless to change the reality
of what this is, as the observations have already pushed to the past those realities that have collapsed,
whereas along other dimensions we have the choice of risking the ride of the ever-changing, or forcing the change
upon it, thereby establishing the future. Like I said, the language causes a limitation in transmitting this understanding...
I would seriously caution jumping to policy and prescriptions... the dual task at hand is to once for all save what
we can of the past from the factual aberrations of the two colonial periods, the other is to avoid new myth making
about a glorious past, adopt the traditions that we can from others including WU and projecting for a future that
betters not just one nation, but humanity as a whole.
A new universal that is always uncomfortable of being a universal - so to speak. In this it is my suggestion that the
civilization basis of Bharat be first set right. The current structure of India for all its faults can wait a remedy,
there is at least in my opinion enough light and hope even with what is in the current state of India.
Tuvaluan - There are no final answers, just final answers about the nature of our questions:
The mami will not give her chutney recipe that easily... the rest are all just claimants!
In the meanwhile there is such hope - the old spent lion was taught a lesson or two in historic facts, by the younger patient, humble and superior intellectual lion.
Please to enjoy Manjul Bhargava's interview:
Tuvaluan - There are no final answers, just final answers about the nature of our questions:
The mami will not give her chutney recipe that easily... the rest are all just claimants!
My view is that there is no chutney or a recipe for that chutney -- you just go with the flow and do things to create change. All of these talks of truth etc. etc., are all purely subjective interpretations of reality and keep changing as perception changes, so there cannot be any universal truth that can be commonly comprehended.
What you mention about action and change is intuitively understood by a lot people who figure it out in their own unique ways, and term nowadays is apparently "self-realization" which basically means that you have to actually be in the present and fully aware of your surroundings, and perform actions to affect any change/consequence in your (limited) reality -- this is a restatement of your action-consequences lingo. These concepts and ideas already exist but they are of use only in a personal context, nothing beyond that. I think this is all going OT so I will stop and let the train go where it was meant to.
csaurabh wrote:
Another elephant in the room is that now a whole lot of young women have grown up with the idea that women are absolutely exactly equal to men in every way, not taking into account whether 150,000 years of hunter gatherer farmer life has exactly prepared them for the type of mental and physical stress associated with most jobs. That is another mess. Sure it has some positive results and broke a good many stereotypes but it has also led to a lot of harm. To paraphrase a quote from a website, women have sacrificed almost all of their real power on the altar of absolute equality. They have exchanged the good qualities of women for the bad qualities of men.
The worst part is that biologically women have a type of physical strength and mental attributes that is suited for their role in childbearing. And apart from just child-bearing, child rearing is equally important - so "family" and "home" become important. Modern "universalism" is driving women to become part of the "productive workforce" (paid slaves) as if child bearing and rearing are not productive work. Home work is considered unproductive. The equality nonsense is driving down fertility and making people do a toss up between number of working hours (earning capacity) and maintenance of population size and demographic profile.
If you look at old hunter gatherer societies, or even agricultural societies or even trade classes - women may have been "at home" but they constantly contributed useful "work" in terns of food processing, mending of tools, caring for the sick education etc. Pulling all women into "paid employment" and making human lives dependent on someone else' enterprise is what modern societies are doing - ensuring that women who have children or are sick or caring for the sick are actually poorer because they can't do "paid work". Poverty has been defined around money; money has been made the most important commodity to acquire, and the definition of poverty has been linked to lack of money. This is an utter disaster.
Interestingly, when women join workforce, it doesn't necessarily mean that families become richer.
Simple economics:
If women also join workforce, then the labour pool increases. If labour pool increases, then the wages will drop for the labours collectively because of simple supply and demand. Unemployment increases if women also join workforce. So, from a family's point of view, the income would remain same even though both women and men are working now. If there only men were part of work force or if only women were part of workforce, then the incomes would still be same.
Who benefits if women join work force?
Corporations and Governments who hire labour force.
Who loses if women join work force?
All labour force - because the collective wages go down and unemployment increases.
Women - because they have additional burden of earning money and taking care of family.
society - because marriages break due to more stress on both genders.
Tuvaluan wrote:
Why is universe infinite in size and time? I would imagine that it is obvious that universe cannot be infinite in time and space.
something that known to be at least a 100 billion years old and take a few 100 billion years to go from end to end at the speed of light is practically infinite for beings that have a life time of less than a 100 years. humans can't even preserve knowledge across a few thousand years so far, so all this hair splitting is beside the point.
I already mentioned the reason for this line of thinking a couple of posts earlier. I am not trying to come up with some alternate dharma or anything -- just demonstrating that "axioms" based on well known and universally accepted facts are insufficient to convince people as "axioms" of reality. Your hairsplitting as to what infinity means etc., demonstrate my point that it is impossible to come up with such axioms even among a group where people have reasonably close views of reality, so it only gets worse as relative frames of reference of individual realities get further apart.
No, it is not hairsplitting. Because the word 'infinity' or 'forever' is used very lightly. No, universe is not infinite just because it is much much bigger than its individual elements. Infinite means infinite. It does not mean large or very old. If you wanted to say that universe is much larger than human beings, then you should say that.
Abrahamic religions actually believe that the universe is infinite in time. Because they seem to believe in eternal heaven and eternal hell. So, according to them, universe is infinite in time. In Hindhuism, the basic axiom is jaathasya dhruvam mruthyu i.e. everything which as a manufacture date will have an expiry date.
So, there cannot be any object which is infinite in time because all objects have a manufacture date. Infact, in Bhagavadh Geetha, Krushna declares that He has become the time(which is also the word for death in Sanskruth).
In the following video, Oppenheimer quotes Krushna from Geetha.
In Sanskruth, the word used is 'Kaala'. Kaala means time. It also means death. In short, time is death. No object is eternal in time. Every object has to die in time. Further, every object dies in time all the time i.e. there is a constant change in all objects even if minute.
@Tuvaluan - Entirely possible within the framework of SD. Multiple schools that held similar thoughts...
I would even dare say, those ideas exist because the framework of SD preserved it for you to rediscover them.
johneeG wrote:
Abrahamic religions actually believe that the universe is infinite in time. Because they seem to believe in eternal heaven and eternal hell. So, according to them, universe is infinite in time. In Hindhuism, the basic axiom is jaathasya dhruvam mruthyu i.e. everything which as a manufacture date will have an expiry date.
What is judgement day then? Abrahamic religions follow linear time with singularities on the day of judgement.
All of them neither dare ponder the nature of the universe nor god(s), it is to be taken as a matter of faith!
SD the answer is more complicated and depends on the schools you prescribe to...
but given your personal inclination for Bakthi marga I will carry this argument no further than to say -
You are only one path within SD, please do not make the mistake of thinking yours is the only path.
Finally, if you going to use Oppenheimer, please follow the latest discoveries of his declassified writing etc.
Your arguments on women in the workforce is hogwash, not worthy of debate... every assertion you make can
be both supported and torn down depending on other factors within most societies... so impossible to make policy.
Whereas straight forward things like no fault divorce, etc. have done more damage to all that you seem to care about.
Finally, even my grandmother knew that the best was to not deplete scarce resources is to educate and have a working women workforce.
That my friend is the strongest contraception known to man!
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 24 Jan 2015 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
Tuvaluan - Entirely possible within the framework of SD. Multiple schools that held similar thoughts...
I would even dare say, those ideas exist because the framework of SD preserved it for you to rediscover them.
The fact that "personal discovery" is the way to understand this framework only says that this is a personal thing, not something that can be codified in society based in consensus -- there are other ways for people to understand how to do the "right thing" in various contexts that can be arrived at independently.
^^^We are having a tangential discussion - the codes of Sruti and Smriti are based on actions and their consequences not your or anyone else's personal perceptions or beliefs. Everyone I have met who makes the arguments you make have either never read the pramanas or the Smriti, leave alone recited the Sruti, then it is only possible to come to ordinary conclusions. To use your own analogy - at least try making chutney and fail once. Then you can say no chutney no recipe, perhaps you have... then...
Consider this thought experiment - you are on a spaceship, self sufficient till your expiry date and on a journey to the unknown - do you need any codes?
Now alter this, you are on a spaceship with 20 people, self sufficient till all your expiry date is reached and on a journey to the unknown - do you need any codes?
If we are having a tangential discussion, then clearly me reading the pramanas or smriti is not going to fix things.
If your thought experiment is meant to suggest that there need to be social codes for some sort of order to get things done, that is all obvious and every group or society comes up with their own codes based on their realities to ensure survival of the group, and ensuring that individuals do not subvert the interest of the group -- this holds in saudi arabia, USA and India.
The claims made here is that there is something special about SD that sets it apart from other codes of living, and that this is being practised by hindu groups in India and has nothing to do with their individual gods or religious beliefs -- yes, I can see that is mostly true by observation of various social groups in India.
The question that I thought was being discussed was whether this common codes of living by the various groups, most of whom have not read pramanas or smriti or sruti to any great degree, and yet magically manage to live amicably with other groups of hindus who may not have too much in common. If there is any useful the pramanas or whatever have to say, then hand waving and comparing to making chutney is less illuminating than being able to spell it out without pretending that there is some magical aura and secret handshake that stops one from spelling it all out. Surely, if people ignorant of smriti and pramanas etc. can practise SD by living it, then all these texts and recitations are not necessary to understand SD as you claim they are.
^^^
Last post - those who set the system are long gone, their genius alone has held it together till now despite the ravages...
To ignore all the facts before you and focus on the practice, broken as it is, and considering that to be genius is like
the chap on a sinking ship, suggesting that rearranging deck chairs is critical to continung to live like always,
forgetting that the damage has long been done and the designers are long gone.
Your request to have it spelled out means that you desire to see if there is a genius left there after all...
but without that tease, why would you desire at all?
I have heard this exact (near) argument from other poster here before - hence respectfully ranchodas is the best strategy!
Chillax and watch the Bhargava link above - you might even enjoy it!
shiv wrote:
It turns out that there is a paradox. While everyone dies inevitably and unavoidably, everyone who is born seems to want to live as long as he can. Should one aspire to simply accept the end result and die right away or go with one's senses and try to live? There is a definite Hindu aspect to the answer and there are answers from other religions as well.
Picking up from my last post, human societies have, from time to time, arrived at definite "action plans" based on what purpose life is thought to exist.
Let me leave out modern "Western Universalism" initially - I will come back to it later.
Hindu thought did not put man on top of the heap - but simply as part of the universe. From Hindu thought there is no divine purpose to human life. A purpose for human life for Hindus has been given to us by our forebears. To cut a long explanation short - the ideal life is to be spent understanding that human life is transient and one must perform certain duties in this transient life. The purpose of these duties are ostensibly altruistic but they have a deeper selfish goal - in which one gathers "punya" towards the overall goal of not ever being reborn and being one with the unity that creates, exists and destroys. The duties of dharma center around this goal. It is interesting that these duties seem to demand the exact opposite of unfettered "individual freedoms" advertised as part of western Universalism. Dharmic duties include avoidance of excess of anything - excess greed, excess sex, excess food, excess fun, excess ownership of things and a general. To a person accustomed to the bodily pleasures of WU - this whole business sounds like a massive wet blanket and a drive to stop ambition to gain more and more. However that is probably a misreading. Other than Brahmins who are supposed to be this way all the time, Kshatriyas and Vysyas are supposed to have ambition and desire - but gain must always be accompanied by other family duties as well as sacrifice and charity. Also the grabbing and enjoyment are restricted to one phase of life. Other aspects of Hindu duties demand a respect of animal and plant life - but let me move on here.
Catholic and Islamic thought give man a God who gives the orders. You follow the orders, and God gives you rewards later, in heaven. Both Catholicism and Islam have moral rules - and both discriminate against unbelievers. Morality need not be applied to those who don't believe. Unbelievers can be punished, killed and discriminated against. Also in both religions, man is supreme - sitting on top of all other life forms.
It was protestant Christianity that broke away from the austere restrictions of Catholic Christianity. Protestant Chrsitianity gave humans permission to enjoy themselves. Priests could marry, couples could divorce, men could own property and become rich. But Protestantism retained the same discrimination against unbelievers. Protestant Christianity was "more liberal" than Catholicism, but just as jihadi when it came to treatment of colonials and other animals. Capitalism itself was the offspring of Protestant Christianity where Christian moral objections to excess wealth and indulgence were removed. God and country were being served by work, creation and looting.
Western Universalism is an evolution of Protestant Christianity by "secularization". All religious restrictions have been removed. Western Universalism is now about excess in all its forms. The beast that we now see has some parallels with Hindu society and some salient differences. Hindu society did not need to break away from any Church to allow sexual freedoms, divorce, polygamy or polyandry. Or even homosexuality and transsexuality and transvestitism. A drug culture was not disallowed by any God, but not encouraged. On the other hand Hindu society asked for voluntary avoidance of excess. In other words - India had a percentage of people who were "voluntarily poor" - or at least not very wealthy in terms of material possessions. I am not talking about the usual "poverty" that people talk about. I refer to sadhus, mendicants and Brahmins and others. None of these can exist under the rules of WU. Poverty is neither allowed nor tolerated.
If I start dissecting the detail - there are a lot of other things that WU is doing. Some of it is familiar to Hindus. Some is simply bad from the dharmic viewpoint. In theory, all Indians have the choice of embracing WU fully, or including some aspects of a dharmic life. But the word "choice" is a funny one. If you go to a restaurant and see a cake and an ice-cream side by side you have a choice. if you see only cake and are unaware that ice cream can be obtained, it is not a choice. Educated Hindus have forgotten modes of existence and modes of life allowed under Hindu culture. We are taught that Hindu culture is superstitious and archaic. Christian and Islamic culture are a no no although they are "more progressive" than Hindus (which is untrue) but "modernity/Western Universalism" is the way forward. Unless this fog is cleared from educated Indian minds - the only choice that Hindus get is WU.
ShauryaT wrote:Another question usually asked is "who" decides these high principles, well it is "coded" in the shrutis validated by our experiences. We will have to take such 2-3 high principles and construct our frameworks around them. To me they are, Satyam, Ritam, Yagnyam.
I think another way is to start with what we know and proceed from lesser truth to greater truth.
It does open the can of worms "what you do mean by 'what we know'?" In some sense we know Satyam, Ritam, Yagnyam. But in another sense, these are just words to us, secondhand information.
Doc, all those things are fine. The rub is the argument that Republic of India's cinstitution needs to be modified so that dhArmicA get more privileges than others. There is something wrong with that but I am unable to put my finger on it. Without being able to put my finger on it I am left with no counter argument to such a plan of action.
Same with preserving the recently perverted cast system. It is better to take it down completely as in constructive destruction. But then who will do it? Definitely not those who benefit from the status quo. Restoration of status quo ante - varNAshrama of the hory past - is long past.
Setting up long lasting institutions is a pipe dream and also devoid if any benefits to anybody.
We end up with chArvAka motto only.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 25 Jan 2015 06:28, edited 1 time in total.
matrimc wrote:
Sne with preserving the recently perverted cast system. it is better to take it down completely as in constructive destruction. But then who will do it? Definitely not those who benefit from the status quo. Restoration of status quo ante - varNAshrama of the hory past - is long past.
Could you point me to resources about what is perverted about the caste system and the sources from which information has been gathered before 1947?
For example - are there any records of lead having been poured into the ears of lower "caste" people for having overheard the Vedas?
On the general topic of "not being able to put one's finger" on something, I suggest that the topic of "caste", an alien word be addressed. European saw a social system in India which they dismissed straight off and gave it a name - "caste". For a country that is accused (by European "Historians", philologists and Orientalists) of lacking in historiography, does it not surprise anyone (as it does me) where these people found evidence of all the "caste" excesses that Hindus are accused of promoting in 5000 years of Hindu history.
I mean, just look at the sophistry. On the one hand you accuse a people of some egregious "caste" excesses and then say that these people maintained no records, so records cannot be found. How different is this from cooking up stories about Hindus? What is ignored in this made-up sociology of "Indian castes" is that everyone lived and worked together in an environment that gave every person a place in society.
I think that before we talk of hi falutin goals like changing the constitution we need to extricate ourselves from a post colonial mental mess that makes us observe and judge ourselves from a European Christian moralistic viewpoint.
In India jatis are important. People speaking the same language, who look like each other in terms of dress and skin colour often form extended families/communities that are a tight knit social supporting group. Some aspects of this behaviour gets termed "racism" and "profiling" and "bigotry". We have to judge whether these accusations carry weight because they are the way "Europeans " saw Indians. Fact is that you can (after living some year in India) look at a person and state just by his looks what is "community" (jati) might be and what the cultural characteristics (dress, diet, family customs, usual professions. We are told, in our education that this is wrong. But why is it wrong? Why must anyone feel guilty or apologetic?
Let me relate an anecdote from a couple of months ago.
I grew up in a civilian "walled colony" of a large (government run) industrial unit and that colony was somewhat like armed forces residential complexes with a mix of people from all over India. I was a kid, but the adults were colleagues and friends and a tight knit group. My own parents could simply go out of town for a few days leaving us kids in charge of neighbours. Our neighbours were a diverse bunch. On one side we had a Gujju family - whose descendants are still close to me. On the other side was a TamBram (Tamil Brahmin) family. Diagonally across the road was a jovial young doctor from Punjab. Next to his house was a Mahrashtrian. a parsi next to that and 3 houses away was a family from Andhra.
We would have monthly parties in each house. Everyone accepted the language differences and enjoyed the cuisines - eating "theplas" and "dhoklas" one day and "upma" the next. Jokes would be exchanged about language issues. the new Andhra couple got a red blooded Maratha maid and the lady of the house, knowing only Telugu asked the maid to follow her using the Telugu term for "Come with me". It happens that the Telugu term is "Raandi". the maid blew her top thinking that she was being called a whore ("rundy"). But we all know and accepted - that fellow is Tamilian, this guy is Parsi. That chap is Maharashtrian and the Sardar is over there, the Bong family is moving out etc. Each family had an cultural identity. It was a "melting pot" of a different sort. Cultural identities were retained and respected.
A few weeks ago people from the Tam Bram family next door visited me. they live in Canada and have now been there for 40 years. We talked bout old times and then discussed what people were doing. I discovered quite by accident that this couple (whom I have known for over 40 years) were uncomfortable if I said things like a Gujju boy or Bong family. In India these cultural references are normal. they are not racist. But after 40 years in Canada - it appeared that these people now thought that I was some casteist racist type chap who was saying badbad things like "Gujju" or "Bong" . I thought that was curious. It appears tome that for these people "melting pot" means everyone has to shed his cultural identity and take on an identity dictated by someone else. Weird stuff. But those people - who have known me from when I was a little boy were now looking at me like aliens. Only - they had become aliens.
Doc saheb: Ap tO mahine kE bAt kar rahein hain. The same was true when I was 14 year old - more than 40 years back. I will tell you more about caste perversion that has crept in a couple of decades after independence in a moment. for now I have to entertain a couple who are keeping Saturday evening tiffin only with no onions. My wife is busy making an alternative to something she had already cooked for dinner. But then I hear that they have stopped the practice of not eating onions since it is difficult to follow while they are not at home.
shiv wrote:
A few weeks ago people from the Tam Bram family next door visited me. they live in Canada and have now been there for 40 years. We talked bout old times and then discussed what people were doing. I discovered quite by accident that this couple (whom I have known for over 40 years) were uncomfortable if I said things like a Gujju boy or Bong family. In India these cultural references are normal. they are not racist. But after 40 years in Canada - it appeared that these people now thought that I was some casteist racist type chap who was saying badbad things like "Gujju" or "Bong" . I thought that was curious. It appears tome that for these people "melting pot" means everyone has to shed his cultural identity and take on an identity dictated by someone else. Weird stuff. But those people - who have known me from when I was a little boy were now looking at me like aliens. Only - they had become aliens.
Unfortunately these notions have spread to India as well, especially in big metro cities.
I had a close friend at college who was a Kumaoni language speaker from Delhi ( 2nd gen immigrant ). But somehow, he was not comfortable with his own identity at all. For instance, he insisted that the Kumaoni language was 'only a dialect', even though to me, it seemed like a rather different language in its own right. He would get upset when called a Kumaoni and insisted that we call him a 'Delhite'.
I used to wonder where these notions came from but now I understand. It comes from education and upgringing - if people say 'you are a dialect' day and night, eventually you will internalize this in your mind and repeat the same thing. One thing I remember observing about the Kumaoni language is that it used the Sanskrit word 'chakshu' instead of Hindi 'aankh'.
This feller was also completely okay with Sonia Gandhi becoming PM of India ( this was a distinct possibility at the time, MMS had only been in office a year ). We are all human onlee, and Indian citizens too, you see, so what is the problem? Another WU construct. We are all human yes, but we also have our differences, and these differences should be respected. On top of this Hindi, Hindu, India mess we also have WU on top of it in which we become 'american citizens' or even 'world citizens' .
When people say that India as a nation was formed in 1947 they are both correct and wrong. It is correct if you look at it from a WU perspective. It is wrong if you look at it from a civilization perspective and not through artificial western notions of westaphalian nation state, citizenship, passport, etc. One might take the opposite view and say that India has no identity. That is wrong too.. the identity is there, but it is deep down and not very well defined.
shiv ji:
I want to say something quickly. I used the word "perverted" in a nuanced way as opposed to "perverse". The former is a change in the status quo by not a very friendly (or even an adversarial) external agency where as the latter is the nature of the status quo. In the particular case of our current discussion, a non-perverse varNAshrama dharma has been perverted into what is popularly known as the "Caste system" by the western universalism, an adversarial external agency.
Footnote: Be assured that I do understand the the origin of the word "caste".
shiv wrote:
Catholic and Islamic thought give man a God who gives the orders. You follow the orders, and God gives you rewards later, in heaven.
shiv saar I cannot tell you how much this attitude annoys me. Thanks to WU this attitude is not confined to Christianity and Islam but this 'delayed reward function' permeates every sphere of our existence. First there is a rat race to give an 'exam' that promises some future benefits. but then it turns out you have to give a further 'exam' to get more benefit. Then you have to give some further 'exams' to get a 'job' and a 'career'. Then the same rat race is played out with hikes and promotions. Always always the attitude is something like this: I'll do X so that I can get to Y and then I'll do Z ( repeated over and over ). Some people play this game all their life. And sometimes, when they get into positions of real power ( due to seniority based promotions or such crap ), they have absolutely no idea how to handle it because they have no experience beforehand in really doing anything other than 'follow the system'. Those who don't follow the system are misfits and rebels. Many of them can't channel their inner rebellion into something constructive, because all their life they have been brought up with the same thought: Conform, and you will be rewarded.
Compare that with the sublime thought: karmanye vadhikaraste ma faleshu kadachana
This one sentence is worth more than a shelf of WU style self help books.
csaurabh wrote:
Compare that with the sublime thought: karmanye vadhikaraste ma faleshu kadachana
This one sentence is worth more than a shelf of WU style self help books.
While Adhyatmik knowledge can be our guide and a personal objective, I will submit in a counter framework rooted in Dharma, it has little place in the formal constructs of the state.
IOW: This new construct has to be focused on the other three puruSharthas and thought of as a continued evolution of our dharma smritis.
I think its important to note we can comment on mental colonization only in the light of hindsight. One of the things noted in 'Durbar' that struck me was that India was not called a license raj in 70s-80s. It was considered perfectly normal at the time.
Similarly no one at school actually told me: 'You are getting a Macaulay education. It is meant for training clerks for the British empire.' I picked that up somewhere on the internet later on and my first reaction was shock and bewilderment 'Wait, that can't be right. I got the best education ever, since everyone always told me so.'
Prologue chapter from Durbar ( I believe everyone should read this book ). Quoting in full.
Author's note
When I was sixteen years old, I first became aware of being a foreigner in my own country. It happened on a train. The incident remains so fresh in my mind that I can almost smell the pine scented air that came through the open windows of the second class compartment with its frayed green Rexine seats. I was coming down from Simla at the end of the summer term in St Bede's college and with me were other girls from my college. We were on our way home to Delhi for the holidays. At a station on the way to Kalka a group of boys entered our compartment. They were what we called 'Hindi-speaking types' and they tried to attract our attention by making cheeky remarks and singing romantic songs from Hindi movies.
We ignored them at first but when their efforts to draw our attention became a nuisance someone in our group stood up and reprimanded them in English. She told them they had no manners and they had been so badly brought up that there was no point trying to teach them any. They clearly did not understand a word of what she said but when she finished her lecture on etiquette one of them said with a sneer on his face in refined Hindustani, 'Angrez chale gaye, apni aulaad chhod gaye.' ( The English have gone but they left their progeny behind. )
The other girls were not bothered by this remark but it troubled me enough to remember it more than forty years later. At the time I looked around at the girls I was travelling with and became aware of how very 'foreign' we were. We wore Western clothes and talked of Western things in English. In the train compartment that day we had been discussing a new record by Elvis Presley and a new Hollywood film. Those who brought books to read on the long train journey were reading Georgette Heyer and Agatha Christie. I liked to think of myself as a more serious reader and had brought with me a beautifully bound copy of the first Russian novel I ever read. It was 'And Quiet Flows the Don' by Mikhail Sholokhov that my roommate, a woman of high literary tastes had gifted me for my birthday that year. I read it zealously without understanding the story or its context, and without finding it strange that I should be reading a Russian novel without having read an Indian one even in translation. If I had been asked to name a single book in Hindi, Urdu or Punjabi that I had to read, I would have to admit that I could not read any of those languages and the only Indian author I had heard of was Munshi Premchand. It was the way it was the first decades after the British Raj ended.
The best schools were those that taught Indian children to be British and they did a good job. I left Welham Girls' High School speaking fluent English, and with a head filled with English literature and poetry, but without being able to speak more than basic Hindi. I relearned Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi only after becoming a journalist and now write Hindi well enough to write two columns a week. But it saddens me that I never learned Sanskrit. This language that is the key to India's civilization and her ancient texts was mocked in the little English world I grew up in.
If my foreignness had been an individual flaw it would not have been worth mentioning at the beginning of this book. It becomes important because people brought up just like me have ruled India since 1947, perpetuating a twisted continuance of colonial rule. I would go far as to say that my generation of Indians was possibly more colonized than those who lived in colonial times and our tragedy was that most of us lived out our lives without ever finding out.
This memoir begins in the summer of 1975, when Indira Gandhi used the Emergency to declare her younger son, Sanjay, as her political heir. That summer I first met Rajiv and his wife. He was a pilot in the Indian airlines and a devoted family man with a small circle of friends. In this circle were the privileged scions of businessmen and former ruling princes. And there were those of slightly humbler origin whose parents had been in government service and the army. What bound them together was often that they had been to the same schools, spent summer holidays at the same hill stations and shared the same cocoon of privilege that kept out India's realities. They belonged to a tiny class of Indians who, like me, had grown up without any awareness of the country in which they lived.
If someone had said, when I first met them, that Rajiv would one day become prime minister and that his closest friends would become the most powerful men in India, I would have laughed at the improbability of people so removed from Indian political and cultural realities ever being in such a position. Yet, this is what happened. Rajiv was given a unique opportunity to make the sort of changes that could have made India a very different, more confident country. But because he was only an elected prince surrounded by people who could not have been more distant from India's complexities, he ended up leaving as his political legacy only his Italian wife and their children.
India's oldest political party did not hesitate before accepting this legacy gratefully and since the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is revered as India's royal family, its example was emulated. Today there is almost not a single political party in India that does not practice hereditary democracy of a peculiarly Indian kind. Legislative assemblies have turned into private clubs with limited access except those who consider themselves entitled by birth. There are political families in other democracies but outside the Indian subcontinent the widow or children of a political leader do not automatically claim the dead man's legacy as if it were their birthright. This distortion of democracy may not have happened if Mrs. Gandhi had not introduced it in that long hot summer of the Emergency.
Durbar has been difficult to write. I started to write it soon after Rajiv Gandhi died. I knew him well from the days when he was not a politician and found myself in a unique position to tell the story of how a prime minister with the largest mandate in Indian history ended up as such a disappointment. Not just because I happened to be a part of the same tiny social set in which he moved, but because my career as a journalist, that so changed the way I saw India, ran almost parallel with Rajiv’s career as a politician. I believed then that he had failed India but when I started to write the book I realized that he was not the only one who had let India down. An entire ruling class had. A ruling class to which I belonged.
As the story unfolded it became as if a mirror of my own life, a memoir not just of the short life of Rajiv as a politician and how the seeds of dynastic democracy were sown, but of my own as a journalist. I discovered how much the clear lens of journalism had changed my understanding of the country in which I had lived all my life. And this fundamentally changed the way in which I saw the people I had grown up with. I saw how aloof they were from India, how foreign her culture and history were to them, and how, because of this, they had failed to bring about renewal and change. I saw how my life as a journalist opened up doors that made me constantly ashamed of how India has been betrayed by people like me. I believe that it is because India was let down by her ruling class that she failed to become the country she could have been. If we had been less foreign and more aware of India’s great wealth of languages and literature, of her ancient texts on politics and governance and her scriptures, we would have wanted to change many things. But we failed and instead brought up our children, as we had been, as foreigners in their own country. Fascinated by all things foreign and disdainful of all things Indian.
A new ruling class is slowly replacing the old one. A newer, rougher breed of politician has come to control the levers of power. The sons of peasants and peons and the children of castes that were once considered untouchable have ruled some of India’s biggest states. But in emulation of the old ruling class they teach their children English and send them to Western universities. There would be no harm in this if they did not also bring them up removed from their own languages and culture.
The possibility of an Indian renaissance, that as the first generation of Indians to grow up in post-colonial India should have been ours to ensure, recedes further and further away. Dynasty, a political tool in the hands of the ruling class, has become the catalyst for a new colonization of a country whose soul has already been deeply scarred by centuries of it. This is the main reason why an expanding and increasingly educated middle class is becoming disenchanted with democracy and democratic institutions.
saurabh - thanks for posting that. One of the things that has driven me for the last 25 years is to discover why I was such a foreigner in India even before I went abroad. Ludicrously, my medical education (apart from o_n_e s_i_n_g_l_e ) subject made me ready to fit straight into a hospital in a western country. It was routine for us to simply get out and start work in the UK or USA and most of us had no difficulty whatsoever in doing that. And because of our great success in the west and the instant ability to earn 10 or 20 times what we might have got in India - it gave us a great sense of self esteem that we were not only better than locals in the west, but better than everyone in India. You can raise that sentiment to the power of 10 for those who were graduates of the so called "prestigious, "top" colleges" as I was. These colleges did nothing but train us to fit into some foreign land.
Even today we have Indians suffering from this malady - I think old BRFites know how many wars I have had with this mindset. Indians are like a twin-clown show where one says to his partner "You are an idiot" and the partner replies "yes I am". We train our kids to become foreigners and so many succeed in that dream that they shine abroad and then look back and think that everyone back in India is a backward, foolish moron - a fact that is often acknowledged by those who remain in India.
The signs of colonization are everywhere - and I think the only favour I can do for my country is point out when I see it. Of course it causes anger and resentment when I point it out to an adult. It is always easier when I can say my own experience and "third party" examples like children writing an English essay "It was a bright sunny summer morning". Only mad Indians enjoy bright summer days. In India you look for the cool shade of trees or a welcome shower of rain. Not so in Billayat where the sun shows itself for 2 days a year in some places.
One line of investigation I am now getting into is based on my feeling that the cruelty allegedly shown to lower castes people by upper castes has been greatly hyped up and exaggerated by taking a few examples and stating them as general "Hindu" social rules. With Indians learning about "Hindus" from the Brits I think we have all picked up a huge cock and bull story. It has taken decades for me and meeting thousands of people of every possible jati to realize that the jati relationship is nothing like the slave/feudal relationship that it is accused of being.
I see this entire visit from the point of view of series of f'ups by US in its relationship with India. It is apt to name some
- its treatment of devyani khobragade
- Its embassy staff and its organizations flouting Indian laws
- Its less than honest follow up on nuclear deal, Hyde act etc
- Its treatment of Indias elected chief minister, now PM on flimsy grounds and in disrespect of Indian supreme court
- its handling of terrorists named in 26/11
- Its continuous support of Pakistan despite its terror policy
In the current geo-political dynamic, it was imperative for US to do this visit and restore some (not all) semblance of normalcy to this relationship.
To above specific question of what to make of Obama's speech, my impression is that this type of address would have been very, very different if it was not for Modi's shrewedness to proactively dent the imaginary moral high ground American leaders tend to take towards Indians and if it was not from the above mentioned context.
Having said that, it was a fine balance between Obama the person, and Obama the US President.I absolutely have no qualms against Omaba the person and think his personal views of India are mostly benign.
As President, he is MMS of US in terms of originality (or lack thereof).
- first off, his usage of Telepromoter and pretending to speak impromptu does not engender trust. You either speak your mind/thoughts impromptu or read so at least we know you are being careful of what you say. Teleprompting gives an impression that you are acting and trying to be more natural than you really are.
- "Indians don't care about women" narrative is massively punctured by comprehensive display of women power in areas it is least expected. Even then, true to his form, does equal-equal on women rights. We all know that violence (specifically rape) against women in US is much more common than in India.
- Electricity - that is a tad over the top. Despite US, India will get there. Fear has always been that US will play spoilsport in undermining Indian interest. The value here is in US being not negative rather than being benignly positive. There is a difference.
- Global Warming - BS continues. US is the largest contributor by far and is hardly in position to lecture anyone. least to India. Painted himself less than honest there.
- highlighting Indian constitution being lengthiest due to India being a complex, massively diverse, democracy stymied pointing any fingers in that direction and any 'institutional' deficiencies.
Overall, a much better speech than my expectation. I expected much more condescending tone and infringing on Indian domestic issues. Thank you Obama.
Shaurya - sorry that speech is too long and too dull for me to be able to listen to it all. I tolerated 10 minutes and there was nothing there. Were you referring to Ombaba's remarks about religious freedom (as reported in the papers)?
Can someone explain to me what "religious freedom" means? I don't ask this as "bait" to trap answers in a web of rhetoric, but to try and get people to say what they think it means and then proceed to see if anyone - from POTUS down has any idea how the words "religion" and "freedom" can be joined together.
shiv wrote:
Shaurya - sorry that speech is too long and too dull for me to be able to listen to it all. I tolerated 10 minutes and there was nothing there. Were you referring to Ombaba's remarks about religious freedom (as reported in the papers)?
Indeed too long and dull. However, the point to note is the continuous reference to "shared" values and common frameworks. Most elite Indian would not find anything wrong with the speech as such, due to their complete concurrence and nothing different that they can offer as a reference to a different set of values, principles and framework.
The religious remarks are the only the thing the political editors pick because of Modi. Grasping the ends of straws to ding Modi on something.
However, the reference to religion as in religious freedom, as shiv ji asks, itself points to a deep rooted (perhaps not that deep) negative perception about Indians (as in Hindus).
Religious Freedom (should) refers to freedom to practice your faith. Indian pluralism and Hindu polytheistic society offers that freedom readily. However, when that is extended to monotheists, that door is shut. So, basically, it is the usage of freedom and denying the very same at the core of it. That is a contradiction in extending that freedom to 'propagate.'
How in the world these richard heads can think of lecturing Indians?
shiv wrote:Can someone explain to me what "religious freedom" means? I don't ask this as "bait" to trap answers in a web of rhetoric, but to try and get people to say what they think it means and then proceed to see if anyone - from POTUS down has any idea how the words "religion" and "freedom" can be joined together.
Without resorting to technical and legal jargon, it simply means the freedom of an individual to practice their faith in private without fear and the freedom to "speak" about it in public, subject to law and order.
The above covers organized and unorganized "religions", private and public practices of religion or belief, the ability to propagate and convert or not. The concept of religious freedom can be part of a "secular" or non-secular state, such as the UK.
Satya_anveshi wrote:However, the reference to religion as in religious freedom, as shiv ji asks, itself points to a deep rooted (perhaps not that deep) negative perception about Indians (as in Hindus).
Religious Freedom (should) refers to freedom to practice your faith. Indian pluralism and Hindu polytheistic society offers that freedom readily. However, when that is extended to monotheists, that door is shut. So, basically, it is the usage of freedom and denying the very same at the core of it. That is a contradiction in extending that freedom to 'propagate.'
How in the world these richard heads can think of lecturing Indians?
If I am a faithfool and ardently following the commandments of Prophets, I don't have freedom to practice what I want. I have to 'rebel' against my faith and take a huge leap to do something different. Most people won't even do it or we can say they are unable to exercise that "freedom." Most such societies are by and large of single faith by huge margin.
In such a situation, the freedom to propagate only means it is one way traffic and in essence denying the very privilege that you used.
