The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[Agnimitra]

This weekend edition in Andhrajyothy paper has an article about an Indic Vidyalaya in the model we envisioned.

Could you shed more light on the envisioned model? TIA.

[RajeshA]

IMO, in current times and place, universal franchise is essential.

Universal franchise is an oversold concept, entirely ineffective on its own. Any "system" works on the strength of the institutions it builds and supports. Instead of a bottoms up approach to the concept, we made it a top down approach. Until 73/74th Gram Sabha/Nagar Palika amendments, by PVNR the third tier of governance was not even recognized. Fianancial authority is still withheld from this layer as we do not have an overall system with checks and balances to make the system accountable to the lowest levels. Because we have not thought through and imported the "system" universal franchise is sold to us as some type of "freedom" giving mantra from "feudal" and "caste" oppressions and a way to progress and modernity. Universal Franchise works best at the local level. As one goes up the order, its value exercised in the same way as the local level diminishes. If universal franchise is to be effective in the country as a tool of governance then it has to be made to work at local levels. Ask the voters only question that they can answer, JP Narayan used to say. What escapes me however is "why" was this issue the defining issue for someone like JLN. It is one more of his hair brained romanticisms with high ideals that have little to do with realities or a diagnosis of issues. My issues stems for romanticizing the concept. For all practical purposes, India is not a "functioning" democracy, 1987 anti-defection bill effectively made our MP's and MLA's hired watchmen (using Modi's term). Universal franchise is only a means to end but if the entire system is not through then you will just sail with the wind, as evidenced in our polity.

Was there a great outcry from the Hindus due to "universal franchise"?

Here is how Savarkar says it in his Speech at 19th Session at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) in 1937 now transcribed in 'Hindu Rashtra Darshan'

Let 'one man one vote' be the general rule irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion. If such an Indian State is kept in view the Hindu Sanghatanists will, in the interest of the Hindu Sanghatan itself, be the first to offer their wholehearted loyalty to it.

'Friends ! We wanted and do want only that kind of unity which will go to create an Indian state in which all citizens irrespective of caste and creed, race and religion are treated all alike on the principle of one man one vote. We, though we form the overwhelming majority in the land, do not want any special privileges for our Hindudom; nay more, we are even willing to guarantee special protection for the language, culture and religion of the Mohammedans as a minority if they also promise not to infringe on the equal liberty of other communities in India to follow their own ways within their own respective houses and not to try to dominate and humiliate the Hindus. But knowing full well the anti-Indian designs of the pan-Islamic movement, with a link of Moslem nations from Arabia to Afganisthan bound by their recent offensive and defensive alliances and the ferocious tendencies of the frontier tribes to oppress the Hindus out of religious and racial hatred, we Hindus are not going to trust you any longer with any more blank cheques. We are out to win Swarajya in which our स्वत्व along with the स्वत्व of all other constituents will be safe.

So it was not just a JLN project. I was the conviction of Hindu Mahasabha as well.

Each stakeholder in the Rashtra should have a say in who should lead him. A Dharmic worldview cannot on the one hand hold out that everybody has the intrinsic capacity for self-realization, but then deny one the right to express it in the temporal world.

Can one deny that every human has a sense of self-interest? No. But often these are skewed by an imposed identity and allegiances. So one can make a legitimate argument of whether the citizen has his identity and allegiance in harmony with that of the interests of the unit for which the governance and rules are being established, including on the Rashtra level, but one cannot question the right of those whose identity and allegiance are in harmony to vote based on their qualifications!

To a large extent in fact the society, which tries to marginalize the voices of those whom they think of having "insufficient qualifications" to have a say in the system, is responsible for the situation for this outward lack.

In fact one can hold them partly responsible even for some section having got a skewed identity and allegiance, but involving them is a much more risky undertaking, and perhaps that needs to clarified on an individual basis how far the alienated identity and allegiance affect their ability to relate to the Rashtra.

The issue of effectiveness of the system has absolutely zero to do with the principle of universal suffrage and everything to do with the implementation of democracy.

[Atri]

See.. hence I warned about Varna system.

It is a dharmaarthik system, bandhujan (socio+politico+economic system). I do not know about its effect on adhyatmika path and etc. Personally applying varnashrama to adhyatma is deracination and adharma. It is strictly dharmaarthik and NOT kaama+Mokshik..

In Dharmaarthik spectrum one has to answer such question.

Ideally citizens should give more attention to their immediate surrounding. If decentralized polity comes in place, then for a huge nation like India, one has to find a very fine and mercurial balance between two evils - Corruption and National security.

In decentralized polity, corruption is not centralized because power is not centralized. hence people are more in charge of things, hence for some period corruption is less. However over period of time, as happened in post gupta India, ordinary folks start thinking that national security is duty of professionals (kshatriyas). dharma-yuddha code of conduct leaves non kshatriya component untouched. So as long as janta is paying their taxes and kshatriyas are doing their jobs everything is fine. When first an second line of kshatriyas falls, janta appears clueless (remember muslim period until rise of vijaynagar and marathas). it took 300 years for people to reorganize and wage a total war. In Indic polity, brahmana-vaishya-shudra are not expected to wage wars. its not their department.

OTOH, the current unitary state approach with immense power located at certain systemic power centers and key people there behaving like maai-baaps of janta gives rise to immense problems which are facing.

Ideal is to have decentralized polity which centralizes in response to internal and external security stimulus. As long as it works, it fine. Its tough when it collapses.

The job of Bhagiratha is to find the dynamic golden mean and make a system to move either way as per necessity. Of course one has to trust gods and Time that those on this golden mean do not get corrupt OR develop misplaced sense of self-righteousness (as many brahmins did in medieval times).

[RajeshA]

Bharatiya Rashtriya Bhasha

I have earlier often spoken of the need to have a Bharatiya language as Bharat's Operating System (Atri garu's words) if Bharat hopes to be able to position itself as an independent civilizational pole in the world, and I have long favored Sanskrit 2.0 to take up that role.

Cross-posting a post by me from the "Link Language for India" Thread

The only way to preserve diversity in India is to provide the people of India with a platform which ensures its preservation.

What we have built today in the form of ethno-linguistic states is an acknowledgement of this diversity among the major ethno-linguistic groups, but within the region of authority of these ethno-linguistic groups we have allowed a process of reckless homogenization to the detriment of all smaller ethno-linguistic groups. One could even say, we have thrown the sheep to the wolves.

Now the problem is that the concept of federalization that we have started with the Center-State paradigm with respect to linguistic issues, we have failed to pursue the principle any further. Every ethno-linguistic group in India should have been given the authority and resources to preserve its literature, its stories, its music, its songs, its linguo-cultural heritage. However for all minority ethno-linguistic groups within the various states this has not been assured.

It is true, that within a certain region, the people need to deal with the administrative system in a standard medium, so as to make the functioning of the state run smoothly, but that in itself is no reason to emasculate the lingual heritage of a people, to let it die.

Each ethno-linguistic group should have the fundamental right to preserve its culture and the state needs to ensure that through the provision of suitable laws, their implementation, provision of resources and sufficient infrastructural encouragement.

However in order to get there, there is a need for various parties to understand a few principles

1. "Principle of Respect for One's Language" - One has a right to demand respect for one's ethno-linguistic autonomy from a higher level of political authority, only if one is willing to give the same level of autonomy to ethno-linguistic groups within one's own sphere of political authority. If a state wishes that its language be given due respect by the Central Govt. then it too should respect the language of the various ethnic minority groups within the state, and provide the group with the resources to maintain their own language.
2. "Principle of Need for Upward Compatibility" - Every individual should be empowered to be upward compatible with all levels of cultural-political environments of which he is a part of. As such it is important to enable the citizen to learn all of the following languages: "Four-Language Vertical Integration Formula"!
   
   1. Community-Language for (e.g. Tula, Toda, Maithili, Brij, Haryanvi, ...)
   2. State-Language (e.g. Bengali, Marathi, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, ...)
   3. National Language (e.g. Sanskrit 2.0)
   4. Mandatory Foreign Language (e.g. English)
3. "Principle of Need for Cross-Peer Administrability" - One needs to work together with one's peers with whom one shares an environment, a common language being an essential feature of that environment and an essential condition for smooth working. Again every granular environment has peer granular environments which all share a higher environment. It is the higher environment's responsibility to be able to administer the granular sub-environments with minimum level of problems arising out of linguistic incompatibilities. The environment may be a village, a state, the nation or the world.
4. "Principle of Recognition of Linguistic Dominance" - If we go about creating a federal structure consisting of regions of various levels of political granularity like nation, states, districts, tehsils, villages, etc., there would be some dominant ethno-linguistic group with a smattering of minorities in the given region. Even as it is important that minority rights be accepted, ethno-linguistic minorities would have to agree to recognize the dominant status of the majority ethno-linguistic group and thus to allow the official language of that political granularity level to be based on the language of the dominant group. Depending on the size of the minorities, the official language may have to concede some space to the minority languages as well and to integrate some part of their vocabulary into its own vocabulary and structure.
5. "Principle of Linguistic Neutrality" - In environments where it is not possible for some dominant ethno-linguistic group to politically assert its claim to define the official language of a certain region of political granularity over the objections and potentially resistance from other ethno-linguistic groups, all the linguistic stake-holders should agree to adopt a neutral language as the common official language. Neutrality can be accepted based on the "Principle of Equal Disadvantage in Learning". If all ethno-linguistic groups must exert a more or less equal effort in learning the language, then it could be considered neutral. Such a language can come from various sources - a foreign origin, a common ancestral classical language, or a language of small ethno-linguistic minority from among the group such that a maximum number of people among those concerned would have to exert themselves.
6. "Principle of Common Cultural Space" - When there is a need to have common language mediums applicable across various ethno-linguistic groups, the commonality should be searched for in some common platform which allows the reproduction of the linguistic psyche of the various ethno-linguistic groups involved rather to be searched in an equally foreign language, a language too alien to reproduce the thought patterns of the people involved.
7. "Principle of Classicism" - When there is a need to have common language mediums applicable across various ethno-linguistic groups, then one should also try to adopt a language through which much of the past glory of a culture and its literature can be made accessible. It is also important to choose a language where its rules of grammar have been written down.
8. "Principle of Linguistic Purity" - It is obvious that with time languages change. New technologies, new scientific research, new paradigms of organization, new forms of cultural expression, new products for consumption, all necessitate an enlargement of vocabulary. Many of these novelties may arise in other language spaces. If the foreign words or expressions have an etymology based on functionality or references to nature, then it may be possible to reproduce those foreign words using a similar etymological process in one's own language. However if the etymology was culturally based, it would be much more difficult to reconstruct the words or expressions in own language. In this case, one should simply import these foreign words into one's own language. Unless some foreign word or expression has no equivalent in the own language, or one wants to express some nuance which can only be expressed through the use of the foreign term, the foreign word or expression should be discouraged in the own language.
9. "Principle of Love for Vernacular Language" - Every individual should feel proud of his mother tongue, so much so that the individual should try to preserve his own family's particular variant of his mother tongue. One should be cognizant that the official language of the area may not be the vernacular language, and if the moment is opportune, then one should always try to converse in one's own mother tongue.
10. "Principle of Consideration for Protocol" - One is often confronted with situations where multiple contexts are applicable - work place language, language of the political unit, languages of the higher levels political granularity, presence of community members, presence of guests from other language spaces, etc. Everyone has to make a call which language to speak based on all these factors. An understanding of such protocols in society does help.

Just a little effort to bring some clarity to the confusion!

Disclaimer: I do not wish to bring the Language Wars here. I also do not wish to participate in any discussion of this subject matter here, as for that we have the "Link Language for India" Thread in GDF. This post is only for the purpose for referencing a context when I mention it.

[RajeshA]

Bharatiya Rashtriya Bhasha

September 10 every year should be celebrated as Sanskrit Day!

Rajesh

I think the general feeling is that the Europeans are trying to rob India of our Sanskritic heritage. On the one hand they discontinued Sanskrit in Indian schools as the medium of teaching and introduced English instead making English defacto the standard by which an individual's progress as apt for civilian administration, scientific work, academic life, and business could be measured. On the other hand they were also complicit in taking away many Sanskrit texts to Britain, etc. The Europeans also took an overly keen interest in studying the Sanskrit texts in the past 250 years. As Sanskrit's popularity has receded in India compared to earlier times, in the West many Sanskrit schools are coming up!

So over the last 200 years, one sees a shift of Sanskrit from India to the West.

But we Indians also have had our role to play in this. Here is something N.S. Rajaram wrote in Indiavine on April 28, 2005.

Here is what I found. In December 1949, Ambedkar, supported by Professor Nizamuddin raised the issue of making Sanskrit the national language. He was supported also by a large number of memebrs from Tamil Nadu. Ambedkar was also the first to sign it on 12 December 1949. Two days earlier, on December 10, at the working meeting of the All India Scheduled Caste Federation meeting, he explicitly stated that Sanskrit should be the national language. He was oppose mainly by North Indian members, mainly B.P. Maurya (though he later regretted it).

Ambedkar expressed his disappointment at a press conference the same evening. Many of the positions taken by AMbedkar would be denounced today as "Brahminical."

The issue was debated among the Congress members from 20 to 25 December 1949. Vote was taken on December 25, with 77 in favor of Sanskrit and 77 against. Satyanarayanan, who was presiding over the Congress party members did not cast the deciding vote. The result was a deadlock and with that (and Rajendra Prasad favoring Hindi over Sanskrit) Hindi was adopted.

This was reported in The Hindustan (Hindi edition of The
Hindustan Times).

There must be others who are more knowledgeable on the issue.

Rajaram

Many such decisions by certain individuals in our past really cause civilizational tremors through time!

Rajesh

X-Posting from "Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth"

I tried to find the following report, but somehow it did not really work out. I got some free-flow text from the this site. Since I consider the following report very important, I decided to format it, correct the various spelling and grammar mistakes, add a table of contents and uploaded it to scribd.



REPORT OF THE SANSKRIT COMMISSION 1956-1957

It is actually a litany of broken promises! But the reason I find the document crucial is because it in fact shows that we could have had Sanskrit as India's Rashtra-Bhasha.

I touched on this topic earlier.

The move to have Sanskrit had support in three crucial quarters, during the discussions in Constituent Assembly and within the Congress:
1) Scheduled Castes: B.R. Ambedkar was strongly in favor of making Sanskrit as India's National Language.
2) Muslims: Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (formerly Muslim League) made a strong appeal to have Sanskrit.
3) South India: Many Tamil members were also in favor.

Here I reproduce a part from the above report (Page 133):

As already indicated, the Constituent Assembly did not give a smooth sailing to the Bill on Hindi asthe Official Languages. The majority which decided such a vital issue was one of the narrowest. During the few stormy days of the Constituent Assembly's discussion of this question, the impasse was sought to be solved by some members by proposing Sanskrit as the Rastrabhasa; and the late Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, who as the Law Member, was piloting the bill, was also reported to have favoured that proposal. In the course of the discussion of this question in the Assembly, several members, including some ardent protagonists of Hindi, paid due homage to Sanskrit. Apart from all this, the onlyother Indian languages for the adoption of which as the Rastra bhasa a regular amendment was moved, and discussion on which took a good part of the time of the Assembly, was Sanskrit.

As Shri Naziruddin Ahmad, advocating Sanskrit, put it on the floor of the House, a language that is adopted for the whole country, where so many languages are spoken, should be impartial, alanguages which is not the mother-tongue of any area, which is common to all regions, and the adoption of which will not prove an advantage to one part of the country and a handicap to all otherparts. The late Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, who moved the amendment seeking to replace Hindi by Sanskrias the Official Languages, observed in the Assembly, that, if Sanskrit was accepted, "all the jealousies, all this bitterness will vanish with all the psychological complex that has been created ............. there will not be the least feeling of domination or suppression of this or that". Thus, neutrality (or notbeing the spoken language of any section) has been urged as the first criterion of a National Language. That is why efforts were being made to create in Europe quite a new languages like Esperanto, to be used as the International Language perfected for this very purpose of all-India use through all these centuries, why throw it away? The neutrality of Sanskrit is not a mere negative quality; it is also the positive virtue of having grown by incorporating into itself elements from all other languages of the country. In this respect again, Sanskrit, which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is a synthesis of the best in all the cultural constituents of India, can truly claim to have been developed and enriched by every part of India.

I am trying to collate more information on the the proceedings in the Constituent Assembly and within Congress Party itself regarding the proposal of Sanskrit as India's National Language.

I think that one vote by President Rajendra Prasad which clinched the choice in favor of Hindi, really changed the whole course of world history (if I may be so bold as to say that)! I am trying to retrace the steps! If Sanskrit had been adopted, English would not have been necessarily continued after its foreseen initial 15 years! Sanskrit would have been the only language!

However the report deserves to be read regardless of the above reason!

Rajesh

However it seems the much more crucial vote was about the choice between Hindi and Sanskrit to become India's official language. What I get to hear is that the vote was tied at 77 each and the President Rajendra Prasad broke the tie by voting in favor of Hindi.

So iffy history is:
a) With Sanskrit as the second official language beside English, English would not have not continued after its initial 15 year transitional period. Sanskrit would have become India's sole official language.

b) I am today convinced that had it not been for India having English as a national language, as medium of instruction, as the business language, English would never have become the world's lingua franca, and I say this fully cognizant of the facts that the Anglo-Americans won the Second World War, America has the Hollywood and Music machines, and Britain had colonies around the world! It was India which gave English, a former colonial language, legitimacy as an acceptable language by former colonized people, and so many former colonies kept the languages of their colonizers. The fact that India was the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Third World, in fact really helped the Anglo-Americans to better stake their claim as the donors of the international language. Without an anglophone India, English would have remained just the language, which is a tad more spoken than many other languages like Spanish, Mandarin, French, German and perhaps even Sanskrit! English would simply have been just one of the many, a bit more equal than the rest, but would never have enjoyed its current dominance!

c) Without English as the world's defacto international language, the power equations in the world would also have been quite different!

d) India would have been recognized as an independent civilizational pole ages ago!

Rajesh

Judgment passed in New Delhi on 4th October 1994
Judgement of India’s Supreme Court on Sanskrit

This landmark judgement of India’s Supreme Court rejected the charge that the teaching of Sanskrit was “against secularism” and stressed the need to promote the language in the educational field.

__________

Some people were really thinking of throwing out Sanskrit altogether from education system of India, and called Sanskrit study as unsecular, and claimed that if Sanskrit was to be taught, then Persian and Arabic needed to be taught in a similar manner.

Some Shri Santosh Kumar had brought up the case in 1989!

Rajesh

Published on Aug 10, 2007
By tilakshri
Bheemayanam: A Biography Of Dr Ambedkar In Sanskrit: Sulekha Blog


Canto 18 of Bheemayanam is devoted to Ambedkar’s efforts in later life to secure for Sanskrit common cultural space and labour with regional languages of India. In Canto 4 Joshi feelingly writes about how as a high school student, Ambedkar was prevented from sitting in the Sanskrit class because of his birth in the Mahar caste).

Years later, in 1923, Ambedkar had gone to Bonn in Germany and stayed there for a period of three months with the intention of registering at the university there which had a chair for Indology and Comparative Linguistics headed by Professor Hermann Jacobi (1850-1937), who was the leading German Indologist of his times holding the chair from 1889-1922. It seems that Ambedkar wanted to study economics and Sanskrit in Bonn (see Dhananjay Keer, Dr Ambedkar Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1995: 49; see also Maren Bellwinkel-Schempp, Roots of Ambedkar Buddhism in Kanpur. Reconstructing the World: Dr. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India edited by Johannes Beltz and Surendra Jondhale. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; forthcoming). For reasons not clear, Ambedkar could never materialize his dream of studying Sanskrit at Bonn.

Decades later, we find Ambedkar still interested in Sanskrit. A dispatch of the Press Trust of India (PTI) dated September 10, 1949 states that Ambedkar was among those who sponsored an amendment making Sanskrit as the official language of the Indian Union in place of Hindi. Most newspapers carried the news the next day, i.e., on September 11, 1949 (see the issue of Sambhashan Sandeshah, a Sanskrit monthly published from Delhi , June 2003: 4-6).

Other dignitaries who supported Dr Ambedkar's initiative included Dr B.V. Keskar, then the Deputy Minister for External Affairs and Professor Naziruddin Ahmed. The amendment dealt with Article 310 and read: 1.The official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1 of this article, for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for the official purposes of the union for which it was being used at such commencement: provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise for any of the official purposes of the union the use of Sanskrit in addition to the English language. But the amendment was defeated in the Constituent Assembly due to the opposition of the ruling Congress Party and other lobbyists.

If Ambedkar had succeeded, the renewed interaction between Sanskrit as the national language and speakers of other languages would have initiated a sociological process of upward and downward mobility. While rulers, pilgrim centres, and temple complexes used to be the traditional agents of such interaction, the state operated broadcasting agencies, school textbooks, and the film and music industry would have emerged as new agents facilitating that interaction.

Ideally therefore, Bheemayanam should have included a separate canto on Ambedkar’s efforts to employ Sanskrit to interpret, supplement, and re-describe the constitutional and legal reality; while in the pragmatic day-to-day affairs that task would be left to regional languages. Indeed, available epigraphical evidence tends to support the kind of task-sharing that Ambedkar had sought for Sanskrit and regional languages derived from Prakrit. Thus, while the genealogical account found in many inscriptions is in Sanskrit, the 'business' portion (i.e. details of the land grant etc) are in a given regional language (see Rajiv Malhotra, “Geopolitics and Sanskrit” Sanskrit Studies Journal, vol 1 (2005): 1-37.

It is likely that Ambedkar would have distanced himself from the misconceived notion prevalent today that the masses and their languages must reject Sanskrit on the assumption that it traditionally served as an instrument of oppression. The following factors would support Ambedkar: (1) Buddhists in classical India re-appropriated Sanskrit to preserve their canon; (2) the Kushana rulers deployed Sanskrit as an instrument of polity and administration. These factors reveal the power of Sanskrit to bring people together and i ts capacity to be the premier instrument of religious, cultural, social, political, and constitutional expression in the public life of India .

Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock has gathered epigraphical evidence suggesting the presence of a uniform idiom and aesthetics of politics homogenous in diction, form, and theme characterize all of India thanks to Sanskrit. Furthermore, the pan-Indian use of Sanskrit for public social, cultural, and administrative texts was not instituted through political or religious force, coercion or revolution (see Sheldon Pollock, “The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-1300: Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the Question of Ideology” IN Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language edited by Jan E.M. Houben, 197-247, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996).

More recently, in an effort to invert traditional notions about Dalits and Sanskrit (regarded as the preserve of upper castes), Pollock has instituted three fellowships each year (starting from 2010) in Sanskrit at the Columbia University, New York reserved only for Dalits. It is a fitting tribute to Ambedkar who had enrolled as a graduate student at Columbia on a scholarship offered by the Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad of Baroda receiving a doctorate in Political Science there.

Regardless of the pros and cons of caste-reserved scholarships, the basic idea of promoting Sanskrit among people to whom its study was barred for so long is most commendable (as Koenraad Elst has observed on the RISA-L newsgroup) since it is a welcome departure from the predominant tendency among neo-Ambedkarites and secularists to disparage and malign Sanskrit as ‘communal’: purging Tamil of Sanskrit terms, ridiculing use of Sanskrit words in Hindi, phasing out Sanskrit teaching (as was done in Nepal under Maoist pressure even while its Hindu kingdom was still extant).

Bheemayanam is a befitting tribute to the father of the Constitution of India. It was released at a public function in Pune marking the Rakshabandhan Day (August 28, 2007) which is also as the Sanskrit Divas since 1969 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi instituted the Sanskrit Day to coincide with Rakshabandhan in recognition of Sanskrit as the cultural lingua franca of India in response to a request made by the delegation of the members of India’s parliament led by Dr Karan Singh.

Rajesh

X-Posting from "Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth" Thread

Could Sanskrit have been India's Official Language?

I touched on this issue earlier. A little history from September 10, 1949:


copied from here!

NEW DELHI, Sept. 10.— India's Law Minister, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, is among those who have sponsored Sanskrit as the official language of the Indian Union. One of his supporters is Dr. B.V. Keskar, India's Deputy Minister for External Affairs, another Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Questioned about this move, Dr. Ambedkar asked a PTI correspondent this evening, "What is wrong with Sanskrit?"

The Amendment will be taken up by the Constituent Assembly when the question of official language is considered by the house.

Other signatories are Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal), Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras), Mr. G.S. Guha (Tripura-Manipur and Khasi States), Mr. C.M. Poonacha (Coorg), Mr. V. Ramaiah (Pudukkotah), Mr. V.I. Muniswamy Pillai (Madras), Mr. Kallur Subba Rao (Madras), Mr. V.C. Kesava Rao (Madras), Mr. D. Govinda Das (Madras), Dr. P. Subbarayan (Madras), Dr. V. Subramaniam (Madras), Mrs. G. Durgabai (Madras) and Mrs. Dakshayani Velayudhan (Madras).

The amendment reads:

310A 1. The official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause one of this article, for a period of 15 years from the commencement of this constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union, for which it was being used at such commencement: provided the President may, during the same period, by order authorise for any of the official purposes of the Union the use of Sanskrit in addition to the English language.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use of the English language after the said period of 15 years for such purposes as may be specified in such law.

Consequential changes substituting Sanskrit for Hindi have also been suggested for the rest of the articles. — PTI


___________________


I think September 10th every year should be celebrated as Sanskrit Day!

Rajesh

Rajesh gaaru,

National Sanskrit Day is observed on 5th September, eventually, Teacher's Day

http://www.indianchild.com/importantday ... it-day.htm

All the article tells us is why September 5 is celebrated as Teacher's Day, but why is it also celebrated as Sanskrit Day?

In case, September 5 has no real reason to be Sanskrit Day, the day should be shifted to Sept. 10. Besides being together on Teacher's day, the value of Sanskrit Day is subsumed. School-children get busy only to do something nice for their teachers and completely forget that it is Sanskrit Day! I guess I smell a conspiracy everywhere!

However if Sept. 10 becomes India's Sanskrit Day, then that has some high significance! It is the day some Constitution makers declared that Sanskrit should be India's official language! Nothing came out of it, but it has strong symbolic value, and tells Indians what could have been! That day should not go unnoticed.

[RajeshA]

Agenda

I undertook the exercise of formulating a Preamble not necessarily because I am of the hope that it would become a Preamble to the Constitution of India one day. That would be day-dreaming. I undertook it just so that we on this thread can relate to some vision of how it could be!

I do not think that one would be able to make India into a Hindu Rashtra or Dharmic Rashtra any time soon. So basically it comes down to what laws one could get passed even within the confines of the present constitution. I mentioned a few earlier:

1. Law for Protection of Indigenous Culture
2. Law for Restricting of Foreign Funding for Religious Purposes in India
3. Law for Protection and Progress of Women in Bharat
4. Law for Promotion of Religious Harmony
5. Law for Preservation of Linguistic Diversitiy in India & Promotion of Sanskrit as Bharatiya Rashtriya Bhasha
6. Law for Promotion of School Education on Indigenous Contributions to World Culture [2]
7. Law for Universal Military Service

[RajeshA]

In decentralized polity, corruption is not centralized because power is not centralized. hence people are more in charge of things, hence for some period corruption is less. However over period of time, as happened in post gupta India, ordinary folks start thinking that national security is duty of professionals (kshatriyas). dharma-yuddha code of conduct leaves non kshatriya component untouched. So as long as janta is paying their taxes and kshatriyas are doing their jobs everything is fine. When first an second line of kshatriyas falls, janta appears clueless (remember muslim period until rise of vijaynagar and marathas). it took 300 years for people to reorganize and wage a total war. In Indic polity, brahmana-vaishya-shudra are not expected to wage wars. its not their department.

I do think we should have a system of conscription for a one-year military service. Earlier I did not think of this as practical considering how big Indian population is and having a system of mandatory conscription would be very taxing on India.

But now I think we should invest in it. Every Indian male after his 10th class or 12th class, depending on how he wants it, should be required to serve in the military if he wishes to do any graduation in India. Without this service, nobody should be allowed to do graduation, unless one gets a reprieve for medical reasons. Also no government job should be entertained for somebody who has not done this service.

There should be an increased emphasis on inculcating a Bharatiya Sanskriti PoV during the training as well.

This training should be available to Muslims and Christians in India as well. It is however possible that Muslims may choose to not avail of it because of the heavy civilizational emphasis during this training, but that is their choice. "Vande Mataram" should for example be an intrinsic part of it.

If somebody is interested, the training should be extended by a year.

Besides the Bharatiya Sanskriti training, of course one should lay emphasis on all physical, psychological, skills and leadership training as well.

Instead of MNREGA, why not offer something like this!

In time to come, we will need people with a basic training.

[ShauryaT]

Ideal is to have decentralized polity which centralizes in response to internal and external security stimulus. As long as it works, it fine. Its tough when it collapses.

Atri ji: Do not think you are saying this but to be clear, Unitary/Federated has nothing to do with a united response to threats. In a federated model the common defense is in the hands of a federal unit and assistance can be sought for internal emergencies. Common defense is the essence of a federated model. A unitary model simply seeks to retain ALL control at the center. This control allows them in their minds push through the ameliorative agenda set in the constitution. What our constitution has done is essentially kept a unitary model for all practical purposes, allowed the federated model to co-exist, at the pleasure of the center for EVERY bill passed by every state of the union (article 200 provides this control) has a central veto. The problem of erstwhile India was a lack of a strong state (of ANY kind) post Gupta periods, till regional states were strong enough to challenge. Inability to organize in response to a common threat and the lack of recognition of this threat is what has been the bane of our system. Unlike the west, where there were always two orders around which people could organize the state and the church, in India, if the state fell or was weak, the people lost their organization power. Sita Ram Goal has documented about 10 issues that have hampered the Hindu response to Islamic invasions. I do not think, the federated model has anything to do with a united response but it is about a governance model, which at the end of the day, is based on a value system. The value of the current Indian model screams at me - Citizen - I do not trust you or more like Guwhati, I do not trust you. Delhi has to learn, how to beg (being harsh on purpose) and not dictate.

Ideally citizens should give more attention to their immediate surrounding. If decentralized polity comes in place, then for a huge nation like India, one has to find a very fine and mercurial balance between two evils - Corruption and National security.

Multiple responses are needed here. One is better checks and balances, a hard separation of powers between different governing units will go a long way towards reducing corruption and improve overall governance. Checks and balances by the MLC on IAS officers of the local municipality? Both these issues are not devoid of the value systems that need restoration. At heart is also, our understanding of the role of government, its limitations and expectations. My personal preference is to provide qualifiers, by way of Varna to essentially figure a way to bar wealth for those who seek to wield power. The two cannot be allowed to mix. Even the most evolved of all "modern" systems struggle with this issue. We have the answers, only need the courage to access them.

On Security, the biggest issue of organization is already solved by way of the republic. But, in order to increase security we will have to instill the old warrior codes back into our polity and instill seeds of expansion. The only difference is expansion today is in more dimensions than just boots on the ground (in fact we know this from past experiences). People make up a mental image of a kshatriya as a man with arms - A kshatriya fights with all he has got. More importantly, it is important to know, what one is fighting for and what are the ideals one is willing to die for. Democracy and Freedom are not what inspires us. Loot, riches and conquest does not. It is a dharmic code that we fight for. I am not referring to what a "soldier" fights for, which are very different (Soldier and State is a good read here), I am referring to what a nation fights for and seeks to propogate. Until, we do not figure this, we will be content with securing our current borders and a defensive mindset. We are still at a nascent stage in all of this but the candles for expansion should be lit in the mind at least.

On internal security, the answer really comes down to empowering local wards and grams. Local communities if empowered can handle security - safeguards can be put in place to check any excess. It is down to plain dumb governance issues.

The one area that still confounds me is the issue of "organization" of our temples and sampradyas. They can create the ideological backbone to many issues. The Hindu Acharya Sabha is a great start by Swami Dayananda Sarasvati along with sponsorships of sabhas by the VHP - but they need a way to attract more talent on Dharmic/Arthic issues wedded to policy matters in a "modern" framework.

[Agnimitra]

Corruption versus Equilibrium

It is a dharmaarthik system, bandhujan (socio+politico+economic system). I do not know about its effect on adhyatmika path and etc. Personally applying varnashrama to adhyatma is deracination and adharma. It is strictly dharmaarthik and NOT kaama+Mokshik..

In Dharmaarthik spectrum one has to answer such question.

Ideally citizens should give more attention to their immediate surrounding. If decentralized polity comes in place, then for a huge nation like India, one has to find a very fine and mercurial balance between two evils - Corruption and National security.

Atri ji, I am having difficulty understanding how varnashrama can be purely dharmaarthic and not holistic across purushaarthas. Unless you mean that the "legal" modalities of varnashrama should be confined to the aarthic sphere only. But even in that case, the system rests on the personal decisions made by selectors or evaluators based on their knowledgeable insight into the personalities of others. As a rough analogy: These days many dynamic corporates are using I/O psychology to maximize productivity as well as employee satisfaction. They are willing to pay well in hiring qualified I/O experts. I/O psychology is by far the highest paid psychology line of work. So the integrity and wisdom of these people determines the quality of the system, and they evaluate each prospective employee -- or existing employees as their careers evolve -- on an individual basis. they also counsel and guide employees so they evolve in their lives and careers, and always achieve a "flow" state in their work rather than stagnate, or bite off more than they can chew. This is best achieved by an analysis of not just their work-life but also their off-work hours and pursuits. It is a bit controversial in its application, and usually depends on employee consent.

My thoughts about your point on the balance between "corruption" and "security" and its relation to "centralization versus decentralization" or "social versus personal":

The "personal" can be categorized into two: (a) private adhyAtmika or psychological attitude to life's transactions, and (b) the egotistical aspect driven by biological dominance-service mode w.r.t. other entities.

The "social" can be categorized into two: (a) business, and (b) pleasure.

The above 4 can be put into columns. the rows are the 4 purushaarthas:



Source: Corruption versus equilibrium

On an aarthic (money) level, varnashrama should be regulated as per sound economic as well as psychological principles of sanity, and executed by individuals as a matter of satisfaction of duty (kartavya). Duty is based on the spiritual realization that "my honour is more important than my material freedoms" to do this or that. This would be the balance position, and it inherently depends on making sure that the drives of individuals involved are sane.
Money would lead to corruption of varnaashrama if:
(a) Money and its laws became a personal worldview, where everything is reduced to a "calculation"
(b) Money becomes a personal obsession of self-worth w.r.t. the rest of society, which leads to hysteria of delusions of grandeur or of envious cries of "injustice".
(c) Money becomes an instrument of social networking, whereby segmentation takes place and the rich hang out only with the rich or wannabe rich, and the not-so-rich have their own circles. Actually the most fulfilling association is when people from different economic and even educational backgrounds can share something together deeply.

On a dhaarmic (religiosity) level, varnashrama should be an adhyatmic subject only, and regulated by one's own efforts along with a knowledgeable friend/guru, knowledgeable psycho-spiritual treatises (shastras) and good association of similar introspective individuals. This would be balance, based on the spiritual realization that "the path of dharma is walked alone". Varnashrama is corrupted at the dhaarmic level if:
(a) A person is hung up on being like some particular varnic attribute and engages in self-deception or social hypocrisy. He/she could be hung up on this varnic attribute based on what his/her parents said, or other factors. One then tries to conduct one's living based on this deception of self and inevitably of others.
(b) If dharma is made an egotistical thing based on identity politics rather than true 'asmita', then it will lead to injustice to one's fellow men (including one's own children) who may have another varna.
(c) If dharma is used for social networking and associations then it lends itself to institutional power and inevitably distorts politics. It corrupts the healthy separation of church and state.

On the kaama (appetites) level, varnashrama finds balance based on a philosophy of humanism, of enjoying the good things in life in moderation, developing one's own unique tastes, and sharing that joy with one's fellow men. That would be balance. Varnashrama would become corrupted by kaama if:
(a) The senses and sense objects are exploited via a business model - exciting the need for them and creating a market for things beyond healthy limits, etc.
(b) At a spiritual level if one's only sense of fulfillment is through the senses and one has no experience of meditation, especially a disembodied state.
(c) If lusts are made the foci of one's social life, then it leads to obsessions and addictions.

At the level of moksha (liberation, release), varnashrama finds its balance in society only in the social/cultural area, via etiquette and decorum. This is where one is comfortable to be who one is, and allow others to be who they really are, while being open to being corrected and correcting others. This requires a cultural decorum and understanding of difference/opposites that is emphasized a lot in Bharatiya Sanskriti. The harmonious and heart-warming relations of humility, service, and duty between different varnas is described everywhere. Thus, moksha is only in terms of devotional service to society in a co-operative and harmonious manner. Moksha ideas corrupt varnashrama if:
(a) It is used in business cartels to subvert the laws of economics and free oneself from continuous innovation and development, or to free any business from its natural cycle of growth and death by extending its life by false methods.
(b) At an adhyAtmic private level if it is made a "godly" obsession and becomes an infatuation expressed in pseudo-bhakti or reclusive pseudo-yogic pursuits that are of no use to society. This deracination is all too common in Indic traditions.
(c) At a level of ego when a particular personality is made the focus of salvation and intrapersonal relations are ordered around some sense of "closeness" to that personality. This is Abrahamic deracination.

Thus, I think varnashrama is actually an observation of how one conducts the 4 purushaarthas across the psycho-social spheres of life. If varnas themselves become formalized into social divisions and their relative value perception became a psychological obsession, leading to personal insanities, dissatisfaction or delusions, then that's the worst case scenario.

[Atri]

Carl ji, I am not qualified to talk on Moksha because I lack the quintessential "anubhuti" - The "pratyaksha pramana"...

Furthermore, I fail to realize how a profession of a grihastha can have any effect on his adhyatmika progress.. We have story of dharma-vyadha who is shudra by profession and an accomplished brahmajnani. Why unnecessarily say that he is real brahmin adhyatmikaly, because anyone who has attained moksha is brahmana (so says atri smriti).

Why such unnecessary complications. The inclination of person is based on three gunas. The saamkhya concept of triGuna prakriti can take care of what you want to say without invoking varna OR ishwara. everybody's prakriti is made up of unique combination of three gunas which determine their nature. And nature provides the driving intellect behind karma he performs which in turn has reciprocal effect on guna-composition. There is no need of varna here. India has suffered a lot due to this.

if an when one starts seriously thinking about varnashrama and its feasibility, it would be recommended to keep it limited only to dharma and artha (socio-politico-economic) related matters of sajjana grihastha (dharmik earning householders) section of society.

[Agnimitra]

Furthermore, I fail to realize how a profession of a grihastha can have any effect on his adhyatmika progress.. We have story of dharma-vyadha who is shudra by profession and an accomplished brahmajnani. Why unnecessarily say that he is real brahmin adhyatmikaly, because anyone who has attained moksha is brahmana (so says atri smriti).

Ah, I got what you meant to say now. I definitely agree with this.

What I meant was that the ethics he applies to his profession or any other aspect of life - including moksha - has an effect on his dharma. Its not necessarily the job itself, but the reasons and the way its done.

Also, I don't think anubhuti of moksha in its highest sense is needed to ratiocinate ethics of purushaarthas in our scope of interest (physical world), because an action's consequences on other purushaarthas can be sufficient evidence to work with. In that sense only, I agree with your idea that varna can be discussed purely w.r.t. the finite world.

[ShauryaT]

if an when one starts seriously thinking about varnashrama and its feasibility, it would be recommended to keep it limited only to dharma and artha (socio-politico-economic) related matters of sajjana grihastha (dharmik earning householders) section of society.

I agree Moksha is out of scope for public policy purposes. However, on the matter of Kama, especially as it relates to Samskaras and some parts of VanaPrastha stage, there may be scope for public policy to play a role. But, some other time, on these nuances as it is decidedly not serious at this stage.

But, let me posit this, while fully acknowledging that it is pre-mature. A dharmic society is not possible without Varna Dharma in society, which in turn is not possible without state support.

[brihaspati]

I will repeat : the aberrations and abominations we see in our current age - comes from the overemphasis on specialization in all aspects of life and living. We have forgot the importance of all round development and balance. Overemphasis on one guna, one purushartha, insistence on supreme importance of specializing on one aspect of life (whether by action or otherwise) that can be used to distinctly categorize humans for life or for extended periods of time. Thus communists insist on the "party's" right to regulate all else that moves, some insist that "right" to regulate others or be regulated comes from one's "varna", and so on.

B ji: I hear you and your skepticism is well warranted. However a couple of points. The quintessential difference between other philosophical systems and ours is the unique route of explaining the outer world by looking within. The purusha sukta is an example of the same. These methods are the basis of adhaytmik vidya. Power, Knowledge and wealth need regulation. It is the essence of the Varna system. Devi Durga, Sarasvati and Lakshmi symbolize the same. Our civilization can throw away this leaning at its own peril.

Yes, hence I am neither rejecting it nor accepting it as a final solution. I want to point out the interim-ness of the solution. Power, and wealth cannot regulate themselves while certain types or modes of knowledge can. The problem is - that even though the three cannot regulate themselves, they can regulate those who have them - with a dynamics that goes beyond apparent human control.

Once wealth, for example is accumulated, it has its own dynamic, that can regulate its owner or keeper. Same is even more true of power. So if you let it concentrate in the hands of a subset - that subset will be controlled by wealth or power. These two have a dynamic of their own in perpetuating themselves if not ever increasing concentration of themselves - over and above any rules, regulations, philosophy, values you invent as to be supposedly followed by the "owners". If you cannot rely on the voluntary adoption of self-regulatory processes by the "wealthy" and the "powerful", you will have to create an institution or entity with even greater power and wealth to impose such regulation.

In the process you create a more attractive body/structure/organization to encourage seekers of wealth and power to get concentrated there. As soon as you create special structures of influence that can give "power", to people who cannot be free of all desires [that in itself has a problem - because at some stage that desireless person also has to implement things through people who are not-so-free of desires] - you create ever increasing and overlapping networks of privilege and power - maintained solely for the sake of maintaining power, and any or all material privileges that come with such power.

This is the reason, I seek to make elements that can give "power" - distributed, in such a way that no single person or subgroup can claim monopoly over those elements. This has been the repeated reason for our fall - teh chink in the armour - over-specialization. It goe sto the point where, people think that their supreme specialization is so important that everything else can be trashed and dumped for the sake of maintaining that special status.

We have people from the super-dooper section of SD society, expected to be philosophically advanced, ritually trained, repositories of intellectual leadership - all by birth and claimed on a basis of an usually unverifiable theory of good action in a past life - pushing for AIT and doing everything possible to bolster foreign imperialist ideologues hell-bent on political and neo-imperialistic subjugation of Indian society, or writing tomes of profound research as to why his eminence thinks beef was the favourite of ancient Indians, or why after discovering India he feels he would have been better off being born a Muslim, and on and on. In the historical narratives we have citations of such sooper-dooper group members, volunteering info to invading Islamic armies on wealth or women in hiding, or going out on expeditions to crush temples and idols to prove his devotion to the sultan.

Now why did they do it - from their supreme position - by birth privileged to have the greatest of wisdom and knowing what is best for the society? They could only have done it - if they could have been able to detach themselves from the rest of their society - intellectually, and justified their own actions to themselves - as consistent with their focused purpose of carrying on the rituals, and the "wealth" carried in their blood and genes, or maintaining the "traditions" within the narrow confines of their families and clans, and after all - theyw ere meant to be intellectuals, that was their supreme purpose. To preserve that tradition of intellectualism, all else could be dumped. They could sell off their land, people, because they felt detached - allowed the elaborate reasoning to feel detached. I have been offered a similar logic even on this forum w.r.t why the poster felt any from that "intellectual" class was merely being "neutral" and "objective" when they support AIT.

Same happened to mercantiles - who could sell off their land, people too - because after all their highest concern by their varna-dharma was to trade and transact finance. If perfection and development of single varna-pravritti and varna-guna was the sole life-goal - why should they care about teh consequence of their actions on others? Profits are the sole concern.

I am not saying that this callousness is sourced by the single, explicit, exclusive, individually allocated varnas - but rather that the system allows itself and is eminently suited to be used as a cover to pursue very selfish motivations. With damaging consequecne for the overall culture from which we find even thousands of years not enough for recovery.

[Pranav]

Why such unnecessary complications. The inclination of person is based on three gunas. The saamkhya concept of triGuna prakriti can take care of what you want to say without invoking varna OR ishwara. everybody's prakriti is made up of unique combination of three gunas which determine their nature. And nature provides the driving intellect behind karma he performs which in turn has reciprocal effect on guna-composition. There is no need of varna here. India has suffered a lot due to this.

This one can agree with. The Varna concept has a lot of baggage and misunderstanding associated with it. Why not just talk about "Tri-Guna Prakriti" as you call it. Varna is an intermediate mental category between the basic Tri-Gunas and their manifestation in terms of an individual's inclinations and capabilities. One doesn't have to use the Varna concept.

[Pranav]

We have people from the super-dooper section of SD society, expected to be philosophically advanced, ritually trained, repositories of intellectual leadership - all by birth and claimed on a basis of an usually unverifiable theory of good action in a past life - pushing for AIT and doing everything possible to bolster foreign imperialist ideologues hell-bent on political and neo-imperialistic subjugation of Indian society, or writing tomes of profound research as to why his eminence thinks beef was the favourite of ancient Indians, or why after discovering India he feels he would have been better off being born a Muslim, and on and on. In the historical narratives we have citations of such sooper-dooper group members, volunteering info to invading Islamic armies on wealth or women in hiding, or going out on expeditions to crush temples and idols to prove his devotion to the sultan.

Now why did they do it - from their supreme position - by birth privileged to have the greatest of wisdom and knowing what is best for the society? They could only have done it - if they could have been able to detach themselves from the rest of their society - intellectually, and justified their own actions to themselves - as consistent with their focused purpose of carrying on the rituals, and the "wealth" carried in their blood and genes, or maintaining the "traditions" within the narrow confines of their families and clans, and after all - theyw ere meant to be intellectuals, that was their supreme purpose. To preserve that tradition of intellectualism, all else could be dumped. They could sell off their land, people, because they felt detached - allowed the elaborate reasoning to feel detached. I have been offered a similar logic even on this forum w.r.t why the poster felt any from that "intellectual" class was merely being "neutral" and "objective" when they support AIT.

What happened is that people from Jatis which were traditionally into learning, could easily enter and be successful in the colonial education system. As they learnt the skills that were necessary for serving the colonial masters they also became indoctrinated by colonial ideologies and theories.

It is true that the world of letters was until recently dominated by the Jatis that were traditionally into learning. But nowadays you find the same behavior even in people from other Jatis who have gone through the same indoctrination. Individuals like Kancha Illiah, Shekhar Gupta and so many others are not from traditionally "learned" Jatis.

[member_20317]

I am writing this mainly to highlight my own concerns that I would request others to give some thought to:


1)
If an old and established system is to be subverted then one can expect the fifth columinists from all sort of classes. It is just that an antagonist (5th column) using his brains will be many times more destructive then the antagonist restricted to just some equipment & space.

If certain varnas have been more destructive then others then such a scenario was equally well balanced from the other components of that very varna. The case of Chatrapati Shiva ji comes to mind. The locals brahmin community was not accomodative but the one in Kashi was. Ok there was some money involved too but that does not say that brahmins at Kashi could have lied to the larger community about the then prevalent norms and its basis in the local traditions. For every Nehru there was a Raja ji too. Nehru got the support of some interested quarters so he got the flying start that we wish other had. Still if we manage to check these interested quarters from furthering their moves now, we will get the right sort of material to lead us.

This line of thought can be used at some later date when the demographics would have changed to undermine our links within the community. For example some outsider could use this line of argument to say that only Rajputs were fighting in reality and all else were just whiling their time. In fact something to this effect can be heard from Khalistanis who will often make superiority claims on behalf of Sikhs which are designed to drive Sikhs against others. Such claims can easily be used to justify an identity based militancy.


2)
Another thing that we have to realize is that the basic reasoning for having the kind of legal system we have is that ‘different customs of different peoples should be recognized’. Now seen from this angle ideas like ‘Secularism’ should actually be there in the constitution. That Secularism is a redundant concept without Christianity is well known to a few and can be taken to the masses. But how would one counter the EJs in case they actually are successful in their propaganda. Is there any Plan B to save the Dharmic _s_ if the Dharmic project is not successful. I would suggest a real assessment of its worth as an Insurance. The insurance company is a rotten company but then that is the case today. Tomorrow is another day and we should have something in the structure that we can use later on in case we have to sue for peace.


3)
Another thing that I remain concerned about is the typical line taken by well-informed Hindus, to the effect that they do not have a first hand experience of Kaivalya so they would not want to bring that into the picture. You see Moksha is a Purusharth, perhaps this forms the real basis of everything human. Despite its importance, it is equally so that such matters can get very controversial and can easily be used to further divide people and to insert useless argumentations in the discourse. However right now what we are dealing with are not two schools of thought in heated debate. Rather the conditions are more representative of a situation where the local traditions in this regard are in absolute retreat. OTOH the new pernicious ideas are coming in which use the same medicine in a different branding to get successful or otherwise misuse the medicine like a poison to get political control. The net result remains a case where the link between the teacher and the seeker gets undermined. In such trying circumstances it is understandable that the conservative Indics try to try to shelter themselves and the few seekers they get from the heat of this all. But at the same time we cannot let a larger majority go under without even having been informed of how they are being robbed. For this we need to inform without enforcing. Inform whatever little is known. Not to establish a practice but to destabilize the attack. My view is that it be treated like the OIT vs AIT fight. OIT may or may not win but the AIT must not. Just the same way our people must at least once get to know what they stand to lose if they are not maintain an arm length distance with the more gratifying presentations.


Basically a normal BRF member is a well educated man but it is only a miniscule part of India. And if certain ideas cannot be dealt with here for reasons like sensibilities then I fear for the day sense would have lost completely.

[RajeshA]

if an when one starts seriously thinking about varnashrama and its feasibility, it would be recommended to keep it limited only to dharma and artha (socio-politico-economic) related matters of sajjana grihastha (dharmik earning householders) section of society.

But, let me posit this, while fully acknowledging that it is pre-mature. A dharmic society is not possible without Varna Dharma in society, which in turn is not possible without state support.

ShauryaT ji,

perhaps you may like to elaborate your standpoint by explaining your views on the following questions:

1. According to the system prevalent in India in the last centuries, it was easy to tell the "Varna" of somebody - his parentage determined his Varna. You are of course of the opinion, that one can do it on the basis of Karma through which the Gunas are expressed. Could you further elaborate how the Varna determination process is supposed to function? Who is going to do it? At what age would one have to get "Varna" tested?
2. Can one change one's "Varna"? What would be the procedure for that if possible?
3. Can one have multiple "Varnas"? How would that be regulated? Would the people accept this system of regimentation?
4. Can modern society, in your opinion, be neatly divided according to the Varna system? Would it need reorganization if not? What kind of reorganization?
5. If "Varnas" are supposed to be used in society, then to what end? What concrete benefit would accrue from that, as opposed to the modern structures or to a different reform of them based on justice?
6. In a Varnic society, would there be a hierarchy of Varnas? Why would the people who are relegated to the lower Varna accept a hierarchy?

[Rudradev]

Cross-posting a post I made in the GDF, which Rajesh A ji thought might be relevant here.


I would caution very strongly against applying such categories as "Capitalist", "Socialist", "Liberal", or even "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" to anything within the Indian system. Not just because they are foreign, but because the very assumptions from which these classifications derive are completely disjointed from an Indian worldview.

For example, there is a pernicious idea that the traditional Vaishya Dharma, or the relationship of Indian mercantile classes to wealth, is essentially "capitalist." This could not be further from the truth. "Capitalism" is a form of sophistry developed by the apologist Adam Smith to philosophically justify the accumulation of wealth as a natural outcome of Protestant work ethic, in the face of pre-existing memes in Western materialism that glorified poverty. Socialism is a response to Capitalism that re-establishes the glorification of poverty without the earlier tone of overt religiosity. This entire back-and-forth proceeds across a playing field whose geography is dictated by the contours of Western Materialism. The precepts of Western Materialism themselves could not be further removed from the way in which Vaishya Dharma regards the concepts of wealth and prosperity.

Indian Vaishya Dharma is nothing at all like Capitalism, because in our view, the accumulation of wealth is itself a task consonant with divinity; there is no sophistry required, and nothing to apologize for. To cast one thing in the mold of the other, is like asking Pt. Bhimsen Joshi to sing Raga Maalkauns in "F sharp minor, allegro moderato". It's meaningless.

It's well known that Hindu civilization produced a nation with a quarter of global GDP share, even as late as the 1750s when Islamist colonialism and plunder had shafted us for a thousand years ( I wonder what the figure would have been in Skanda Gupta's day.) History as written by Abrahamic Materialists will attribute this simply to the fact that India was blessed with natural resources and a convenient location on many trade routes; meanwhile, it will characterize the Indian people themselves as lazy and detached from worldly reality, as opposed to the hard-working Europeans whose enterprising spirit made them colonial masters of the planet.

The truth, of course, is that Indians have always had a civilizational sense of what constitutes a healthy relationship with artha. It is one of the purusharthas, an aim of human existence whose fulfillment enhances an individual's proximity to the supreme. Artha-shastra, or economics, is the science of managing God-given resources, and hence an entirely noble pursuit. The idea of wealth as an abstraction of these resources is a concept sparked by divine inspiration, and wealth itself a manifestation of divinity. Some observers correctly allude to this when they mention that Lakshmi is worshiped in India, but it would be entirely wrong to conclude that such traditions have anything to do with "capitalism."

While this view of artha is what continues to inform many Indian businesspersons and business families as they go about their work today, it is not what defines any discussion of economics at the social or political levels... not even, sadly to say, in India. Those discussions are completely overwhelmed by the Neo-Abrahamic worldview of wealth, wherein an imposed dialectic of "development vs. social justice", "capitalism vs. socialism", "rich vs. poor" underlies any argument made by *both* sides of the debate.

I say "Neo-Abrahamic" here because to give credit where it is due, the original Abrahamics-- the Jews-- have always had a healthier relationship with the concept of wealth, much more like our own albeit with different philosophical grounding. Together with the fact that Jews don't engage in predatory conversion, this trait is a saving grace of their civilization which will make the Hebrews quite possible for Indic civilization to co-exist and even cooperate with, in the long run.

With Christianity, Islamism and Marxism, the very notion of wealth has been twisted into something so vastly different that it is quite incompatible with the way India has traditionally regarded prosperity, and the way in which we need to regard it once more in order to achieve success on our own terms.

Beginning with Christianity, a new dialectic of Western Materialism was imposed upon all social, political and historical narrative. By controlling this underlying dialectic, religious institutions in Christianity and Islam assured their own supremacy over the debate at both ends, and positioned themselves as ultimate arbiters of justice between the opposing camps. Later on, the youngest of the Abrahamic spawn... Marxism... may have done away with "God", but it still held on to this fundamental philosophical mother-lode from which both "Capitalism" and "Socialism" sprang, under the name of "Dialectical Materialism". That's how powerful it is, as a lever for the control of historical narrative... and therefore, of history itself.

So what are the principles of this dialectic, and how are they incompatible with Vaishya Dharma?

1) The Transference of Responsibility:

In the Indian view, karma ensures that ultimately, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. For this reason, the accumulation of wealth, the pursuit of Vaishya-dharma, the generation of artha are noble pursuits as long as they are conducted as all good work must be; i.e., without falling prey to the egotistical temptations of raaga (craving) or dvesha (repulsion.)

Karma has no place in the neo-Abrahamic worldview; for, if individuals were to be considered ultimately responsible for their own actions, how could any institution claim a privileged position as the authoritative narrator of history (including the authentication of specific "divine interventions")? Also, what need would there be for messiahs, prophets and revelations if individuals were capable of achieving their own salvation?

For this reason, Western Materialism transfers the "responsibility" for sins to the object of raaga/dvesha... wealth itself... from those who succumb to these foibles. Hence, "money is the root of all evil." Hence, Jesus "threw out the money changers from the temple".

In the final analysis, the promise that the power-brokers of Neo-Abrahamism hold out is that of "salvation" by an external "saviour". The Christian Judgment Day, its Muslim equivalent, and the Marxist revolution to bring about a "stateless society" are all manifestations of this empty promise... follow us, and we will bring about change, because there is no way you can hope to save your puny selves. Individual responsibility has at best a limited temporal role (to live a life free of doctrinally-mandated "sins") , and no ultimate role at all. The Transference of Responsibility is therefore fundamental to all Neo-Abrahamic doctrine, and in its economic form, manifests as Western Materialism.

2) The Fetishization of Poverty:

The concept of the "beautiful poor" is something that the Church, the Ulema and the Marxists have always held out to less deprived classes as a romanticized ideal of the human condition. This can be observed in century after century of cultural references from the neo-Abrahmic world, such as in literature or poetry, wherein the poor are invariably romanticized as somehow "noble", "simple", "honest", "good" and otherwise characterized by an idyllic homogeneity.

From the Christian point of view, the "beautiful poor" represent an opportunity for the "haves" to achieve salvation through that most insidious of socio-economic processes: "charity". The rich were told that to go to heaven, they had to give money away to the poor: Jesus even spoke some sage words about how it was easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven (this has to be one of the worst mixed metaphors in the literature of Western civilization, but anyway.)

Charity, as defined in Neo-Abrahamic doctrine, is a terrible thing for any society. It isn't the same thing as upliftment; in fact, it is the enemy of upliftment. When pursued for its own sake ... as the power-brokers of neo-Abrahamic civilizations have invariably mandated... Charity fosters dependency, and ensures the need for more Charity in turn, generation after generation. The power-brokers of Neo-Abrahamism, be they Church, Mullahs or Socialist Parties, are the only real beneficiaries of Charity. They alone retain the power to grant approval, salvation or absolution to the "haves" who hand over their wealth to the "have-nots". It is through their agency alone that the mechanics of Charity must be implemented.

Everyone from the early Christians to the modern Left has needed a "beautiful poor" as the objectified focus for their programs of "charity". It is integral to all of their schemes that the poor be kept poor for exactly this purpose.

Consider what Aatish Tasseer has said about Arundhati Roy in this regard:

I don’t think she’s a friend of the poor at all. She would like to doom them to a permanent state of picturesque poverty. They are beautiful to her–the poor–beautiful, benign and faceless. And that is exactly how she wants them to stay. Let me say also that it is not the poor who animate her politics. Oh, no! The people who get her into the streets are the new middle classes. This class, still among the most fragile in India, people who have newly emerged from the most dire conditions, are despicable to her. She mocks their clothes; their trouble with English; she hates their ambitions; when India wins the cricket and she sees them celebrating, her skin crawls; she wants, more than anything, to do these people down. And it is her overwhelming hatred of them that allows her to be a friend of movements that are seemingly far apart. The jihadists, the Maoists, the Kashmir movement, the anti-development people…they’re all her friends. Anyone who can prove a credible threat to the future of India is a friend of that woman. I would go so far as to say she has a prurient fascination with the enemies of India. And where do they love her? In Pakistan, and in the faculty rooms of Europe and America. No surprise there.

Also, this business of pretending she’s a lone voice in the wilderness. What rubbish! At least have the good grace to admit that not one thing she says is provocative or new; it is perfectly banal. And we know how well the universities Europe and America reward this bogus cant!

Because they fetishize poverty, and use Charity as a mechanism to reinforce their own power... the power-brokers of Neo-Abrahamism are fundamentally against upliftment. Of all social classes, they hate the rising middle class the most.

3) The Absolution from Guilt:

The Fetishization of Poverty is one side of the Western Materialist coin, facing the poor; on its other side is the promise of Absolution from Guilt, offered by neo-Abrahamic power brokers to the rich.

By maintaining a "beautiful poor" class, the neo-Abrahamics are able to justify Socialism. By offering Absolution from Guilt, the neo-Abrahamics relieve Capitalists of any qualms they may feel about the accumulation of wealth, and yet maintain a philosophical environment in which people who become wealthy automatically feel guilt that needs to be absolved. Invariably, the process by which the rich are offered Absolution involves the same old scam... some form of Charity... in which neo-Abrahamic power-brokers always play a central and privileged role.

In Vaishya-Dharma a clear distinction is made; it is not money, but raaga/dvesha that is the wellspring of adharma. Wealth itself will not make you evil simply by possessing it. In Western Materialism, wealth itself carries a taint; yet, that taint can be removed by the intercession of neo-Abrahamic institutions on behalf of a doctrinally-mandated "saviour."

This is what turns Capitalism into essentially a justification for greed... a means to accumulate wealth with as much dvesha as you like, as immorally as you wish... because the Church, Ulema or Party will absolve you of that guilt ultimately. It is this strange, self-perpetuating cycle of guilt and justification that has enabled the West to countenance colonialism, imperialism, slavery, and genocide as acceptable methods of material expansion. In Neo-Abrahamism, there is no need for personal responsibility in your pursuit of artha because, no matter how much suffering you cause to others in acquiring it, you will eventually be absolved by the intercession of an external "saviour." The only caveat is that you must "keep the faith"... i.e., admit the supremacy of the neo-Abrahamic power brokerage concerned.

*****

The entire dialectic of Western Materialism, then, is rooted in philosophical assumptions that have no basis whatsoever in Indic thought. This is why it is not simply meaningless, but dangerous for us to transplant notions of "right", "left", "liberal", "conservative", "socialist" and "capitalist" into considerations of Indian society, politics and economics. If we internalize this nonsense, we are implicitly granting credence to the very streams of thought whose adherents pillaged our prosperity for a thousand years.

A debate premised on Western Materialism is exactly what has spawned the "pro-poor" sophistry that the INC instrumentalizes as a justification for its platform of plunder. Our insistence on buying into the terminology of this debate ultimately condemns us to what is known, with infinite irony, as a "Hindu Rate of Growth".

[Atri]

Can I blog this rudradev guruji. Of course by your name. If you are not blogging it elsewhere.

[ramana]

X-post....

That's a tour de force of a response, Rudradev ji. You should consider fleshing it out and publishing it, if you already haven't done so...

Couple of minor points-

1. It is extremely critical to 'label' the category of individuals who believe in a particular doctrine - in this case those who believe in the Western Materialistic dialectic, with its associated attributes of 'Fetishization of Poverty' and 'Absolution of Guilt'. Whether for disparagement or other purposes, you need convenient labels that affords the problem to be easily recognized. Recognition of the problem is half the solution, and these labels morover need to be easily understood by your audience...it is in that context that I usually find the 'left wing' label most useful. In your construct, it could be replaced probably by 'believers in Western Materialism Dialectic'. Over a period of time, it would be good to identify a smaller phrase perhaps with some Sanskrit etymology - that achieves the same purpose, but this is certainly a great beginning.

2. While we criticize the reductionist, non-integrated view of "wealth vs poverty" that characterizes Western Materialism based debate - we also need an alternative Indic approach that can serve as counter-ideal. If State or Religion as Intermediary in this Transference of Responsiblity is not the best approach - what is the alternative we could look at? Poverty cannot be wished away - so what then is the solution? This might need to be fleshed out in greater detail - probably what that would involve is greater responsibility being assumed by each wealth creator as regards the affect of his / her wealth creation on society and community.

[Agnimitra]

LOL awesome! Whoever blogs that please post the link here so we can share it.

[Rudradev]

Thanks Atri ji and Carl ji.

Actually I did put it on my own blog here:
http://indospheric.blogspot.com/2013/03 ... stern.html

Feel free to share!

[brihaspati]

If I am not entirely wrong, both ravi_g and rudradevji point out at least one common point of concern : that a critique of the older Indic memes related to varna-categories might destroy both insights as well as real strengths inherent in the memes.

Related to the vaishya-varna-dharma as an illustration:

(1) I did not criticize the power of the model of the four varnas as a model, while trying to point out the limitations imposed by the constructed model. The problem is more with a lack of balance in the practices of the varna in applied social, political life. If the pure pursuit of wealth becomes an overweening goal - to the detriment of the other values represented as purusharthas in one applicational arena of life, then it does have disastrous consequences for the society as a whole, and eventually for even the pursuit of vaishya-dharma.

Yes historically, the back-calculation estimates a high GDP. But once we go deeper - the narratives show a preponderance of stories and references to Hindu/Jaina/Buddhist merchants from Gujarat (for example Jagadu in Jagaducharita) going out with 1000 ships for trade to the western Arabian sea in the period before the fall of Gujarat to the Sultanate. Within a 130 years, we no longer find references to such names as leaders and owners of such fleet and going out to trade to Hormuz. These names are now more Islamic, and the fleet sizes are also smaller.

What separated the two phases? The lovey-dovey protection of Islamist penetration by a ruling Indian non-Muslim merchant elite politician-ruler nexus, and allowance of them to grow institutionally as represented in the infamous Pattan-Somnatha grant - so favourite of the Thaparites. Here a Muslim merchant is bestowing property for a mosque and to carry on "dawa" (invitation to Islam) as witnessed and under the protection of a string of merchant elite's specifically listed in the Sanskrit version - and a wish being expressed that Islam dispels the darkness of the land and the merchants own overlord in the Gulf spread his sway over the host land in the Arabic version.

So the net result of this merry dance was not only the replacement of the leadership of the "vaishya" class in the maritime trade, and even the scaling down of the maritime trade even in Muslim hands. What prevented the mercantile elite in the heyday of heir power - to commit this suicidal step ?

(2) in many other such historical examples : we see the vaishya-dharma was unable to prevent both exterior (outside the varna-group) as well as eventual negative effects on the interior (inside their varna-group).

If we say, that in this case all blame cannot be given to one varna, the other varnas failed in their duties - it shows the weakness of a single varna in not only protecting society as a whole, as well as not being able to protect themselves. In turn it shows that if a "varna" fails to contribute to strengthen the functioining of other varnas - it will eventually destroy the varna itself - under the exclusive varna model. This however is a passive reading of the situation.

On the other hand we must look into the possibility that the very pursuit of excellence within one's own varna goal - whatever and however be it defined for that phase of historical conditions - whether that itself can actively and not just passively - create destructive factors for the entire society?

The Somnath-pattan incident provides an important clue : it shows that there is a real danger in allowing exclusive focus on singleton varna-goals to be defined, because it creates the psychological framework to remove guilt from causing serious damage to society by claiming the right - say in this case - the highest aim specific to the varna being wealth and hence profits from the foreign trade with the Gulf, which had become Islamic by this time, and the need to pamper the "other side" to keep the profit flow going.

(3) If single varna-goals are allowed to take supreme importance to the exclusion of other aspects, it can and usually leads to severe damage to society as a whole, with groups taking shelter behind excuses for non-action because it was not their varna-goal to take up other roles.

(4) wealth and power often go hand in hand : but as I said in earlier posts, they have a tendency to determine how people possessing them will behave to perpetuate wealth and power in the same hands. If wealth (one side-effect of vaishya varna dharma) and power ( one side-effect of kshatrya and brahmin varna-dharma) are allowed to be eventually usurped by varna-specific claims - each can pursue their respective claimed varna-targets to the damage and destruction of the varna-targets of the other - and in the process destruction or damage to the soceity as a whole.

(5) That this problem was seen early enough appears even in the early-recorded period starting with Buddhism : the setthis were in tussle with the local kings, and perhaps were instrumental in creating larger empire concepts to maintain foreign trade and and long-distance trade networks. This in turn ultimately led to neglect of local production economic interests and concentration of both political intrigue and banking-financing in the Buddhist monastery network that ultimately clashed even with the empires they helped initiate and who in turn provided them with protection for expansion. This went so bad that Buddhists in now Pakistan - who were also rich merchants - collaborated in secret with the Caliphate against the rural and larger society.

(6) We need to consider from the viewpoint of long term revival and strength of our society, and hence broaden the base of of our capabilities while at the same time learning from the almost seemingly inevitable slide towards absolution of responsibility towards society and "dharma" as a whole under the exuse of varna-specific specialization.

Even on the forum we often heard about a certain justification for hobnobbing and conceding to the Gulf islamist moves on India under excuses of gazillions of investments and financial benefits. one even claimed that such Islamic investment would make India a sooperpower, and conflict or war or confronting or restricting the "dawaists" and Islamicn institutional spread would harm trade, financial growth and prosperity and destroy "trade".

Note that the west we criticize for their skewed representation of the "evil" wealth, never show any hesitation in combining both financial as well as military and power objectives - simultaneously. However, the reason that Indian such voices shout so loudly on such arguments, makes me very very weary about reviving the varna-system as exclusive supreme-specialization constructs.

The varna-model is not a bad model, and fits most of the needs of easy social dissemination - if only we make them a balanced and inclusive target for everyone. Allowing for the fact that not all of the varna-targets would be achievable in the same degree for everyone, yet it will take away the monopolization of varnas, their mutation according to conveneience of powerful groups, or absolution of responsibility towards society and rashtra as a whole when opportune.

[ShauryaT]

Varna is useful to a societal structure, where knowledge, wealth and power need an element of control. To understand it fully, one will have to come to grips with the fact that SD systems do not pursue the efficient or maximization of resources as the ultimate goal for society. As explained earlier, the ultimate goal is to uphold ritam, satyam and yagnam. So, anyone claiming to a higher varna has to show a higher level of sacrifice to earn that privilege. The only way to earn such a privilege is through works. The recognition of these works will have to be by society and its governing organs.

If there was a measure for knowledge, service, philanthropy at par with economic and power measures of a system things would be in somewhat of a balance. We will have to define, what these Varnas mean for us, for our times and figure a way to put them to use, in our world – keeping in mind the guidelines, principles and goals of the eras past and its failures. Here is an attempt.

Brahmin: Those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit and sharing of knowledge and have renounced the pursuit of Artha – wealth and power, governed by law. Their well being and comfort is society's responsibility. These people would be barred from certain positions of power and shall not be allowed to accumulate wealth. They shall be accorded a level of respect and there shall be a way to measure their services to society. Certain positions in society and the state are reserved for them. E.g: Judges

Kshatriyas: Those who have chosen to serve society through state and state sponsored/recognized organs and have renounced the pursuit of Wealth, governed by law. Their well being and comfort is what society can afford to pay for their upkeep. They shall be accorded a level of respect and there shall be a way to measure their services to society. Certain positions in society and the state are reserved for them. E.g: Executive Leadership, Armed Services,

Vaishyas: Those who have accumulated wealth but have chosen to dedicate their wealth in the service of society, retaining back only up to a certain value. Since wealth is already measurable, it is relatively easy to determine, what levels of wealth would be enough (the old benchmark was what was needed for three generations). They would earn the right to be part of certain bodies of government. E.g: Rajya Sabha

Shudras: They pursue all purusharthas and perform according to their ashrams and their nature. They shall not be allowed to hold certain positions in state organs. E.g: Judge, Rajya Sabha seat, Armed Forces, executive leadership at certain levels.


1.

According to the system prevalent in India in the last centuries, it was easy to tell the "Varna" of somebody - his parentage determined his Varna. You are of course of the opinion, that one can do it on the basis of Karma through which the Gunas are expressed. Could you further elaborate how the Varna determination process is supposed to function? Who is going to do it? At what age would one have to get "Varna" tested?


The idea of automatic hereditary varna was a corruption at worst and the outcome of a certain economic order at best. Genes and the environment one lives in can be influencers to pursue a certain line of work, however the claim of belonging to a varna has to be ascertained through works. These works have to be demonstrated. What demonstrations are accepted can vary depending on what society deems to be appropriate for each varna. Entering military service, becoming a cop, fireman, teacher, Approved NGO’s and philanthropic deductions, years of service in certain type of organizations and levels served at, etc.

Each organization/entity would have to determine the “eligibility” of individuals. The society/state can set the standard for organizations. E.g: A person running for local office many also be a farmer or a trader and a position at the level of the council may not require someone to eschew ALL of his wealth to serve.

2.

Can one change one's "Varna"? What would be the procedure for that if possible?


One can change Varna through works. A soldier after discharge may decide to become a business person - a shudra and later a vaishya through philanthropy. Organizations of the state or other state recognized organizations could determine procedure. I see the process no different for a set of criteria for any position, where for certain positions in certain organization varna qualifications are added.

3.

Can one have multiple "Varnas"? How would that be regulated? Would the people accept this system of regimentation?


There could be some exceptional cases, for multiple varnas at the same time, but do not see a use case? I can envision transition scenarios. Say a lawyer working for private clients, transitioning to an attorney general a kshatriya position, transitioning to a high court judge and then transitioning to executive leaderhip. But, each of these may have their own “entry” qualifications. For example, to qualify for a position of a high court judge, one ought to be a Brahmin for at least 10 years amongst other criteria. So, maybe this attorney general has to teach for a non-profit for 10 years, before applying to be a judge.

Ask the people, do they want those in power to hoard wealth, do they want those who have wealth to have power. Do they want knowledge to be used for personal arthic goals and then to be mixed with state organs. If, control for knowledge, wealth and power are not the key aims of SD society then I do not know what are Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Durga for?

4.

Can modern society, in your opinion, be neatly divided according to the Varna system? Would it need reorganization if not? What kind of reorganization?


It is a division based on service. Higher Varnas are there because they have chosen to eschew some of their pursharthas and earn the privilege to serve and in turn get higher respect and status and value. Reorganization is only for those who have chosen this path.

5.

If "Varnas" are supposed to be used in society, then to what end? What concrete benefit would accrue from that, as opposed to the modern structures or to a different reform of them based on justice?


As mentioned earlier, the corruption inherent in mixing knowledge, wealth and power has to be controlled. The varna system is a way to control these elements through a hard separation, enforced by law and supported by society. Most modern structures – as in western structures do not have counter balancing objectives of Kama and Moksha. Renunciation is not their highest ideal. Sense enjoyment is the only thing they pursue, as opposed to sense control. The purpose of a dharmic system is to uphold universal truths, natural orders, and is premised on the idea of sacrifice as its highest ideal. The end is to achieve a just dharmic society.

6.

In a Varnic society, would there be a hierarchy of Varnas? Why would the people who are relegated to the lower Varna accept a hierarchy?

It is more like a trade off than a strict hierarchy. The higher the sacrifice the higher the varna. Shudras are not sacrificing ANY of their purusharthas and are free to pursue them in their full glory. Why will Mukesh Ambani – a Shudra complain? If he is being debarred from public office then it is rightly so. He would have to shed his wealth for the public good, instead of hoarding it. Now, no one is asking him or forcing him to shed his wealth, however if he desires to influence the policies of the state using his wealth then means of control will have to found for the larger good. He will be accorded the “vaishya” tag, when through his works, he is able to use his wealth for the public good – meaning not-for-profit. When and if he is able to shed all his wealth, he may be allowed to run for office, and if he so desires, he could renounce both wealth and power to serve society by becoming a teacher and become a Brahmin and only then be in a position to apply for positions reserved for Brahmins.

Since, we do not have such a structure in the current era and due to the long periods of corruption of the Varna system, we will have to figure our way out and many such scenrios and what ifs need to be answered. But, the intent is clear. A varna based order is to serve society. The problem comes in when those who are accorded this privilege then turn around and abuse their privileges. This is where society would have to be careful and correct things. This is where a loktrantra polity can come into play. Ofcourse none of this is possible without a measure of arthic self sufficiency of society at large, dharmic education and acceptance of dharmic ideals, objectives and values.

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT ji,

thank you very much for the elaboration. The concept makes a lot more sense now for me.

However I have some further questions:

7) Re: Brahmins: Would all R&D become public service and be state sponsored? How would Intellectual Property Rights be dealt with?

8 ) What kind of framework should there be to allot positions of responsibility to the various individuals from various Varnas? You have indicated that universal suffrage is not ideal.

9) Since one receives bigger responsibilities (power) at the Rashtriya level depending on one's service in terms of knowledge, military service and philanthropy, one could say that the Individuals in the Varnas would enter competitive self-promotion and try to show their service in the best possible light. So one could have Brahmins take credit for the work of others. Often on papers, the professor's or research team's head's name is added and he gets to take credit for the research regardless of his actual contribution. Also military generals may start wars to show their heroics. In fact they could enter into agreements with the enemy through which in a managed conflict they come out looking like heroes, and in return make promises to the enemy detrimental to the well-being of the Rashtra. Or Vaisyas may adopt illegitimate ways to increase their wealth so that later on they can be seen to be doing more philanthropy.

10) You have spoken of knowledge dissemination, military service and philanthropy as the qualifiers for the higher Varnas. Shudras you have somehow explained off as those who do not qualify for higher responsibility. Why is that? Isn't a road-worker helping building a highway also contributing to the nation? Why is simple but hard work being looked down upon in this Varnic framework? Can't one say each is contributing in his own way?

[member_20317]

Varna as a concept gives rise to some of the following points of decision (specifically avoiding putting 'vs.' in between and treating these as one single continuum with anda coming after murgi and murgi/murga coming after anda):

(1) Specialization - Diversification
(2) Nature - Nurture
(3) Classification - Declassification
(4) Pride - Exclusivity
(5) Diffusion - Concentration
(6) Expansion - Consolidation

Kuch miss kiya? ::shrug

Personally for me I am not as concerned about bringing it back in its old form to reclassify our present condition.

But I am greatly interested in understanding the methodology/rationale involved in achieving this classification from a strictly Vyavahaaric POV. As between natural persons. Much in the same manner as the Gunas and Doshas getting understood as separate but not exclusive. The rationale employed was great and even then the misuse could not be stopped.

Now think of a situation where no rational thought is given to the classification process and people are merely classified on the basis of their latest political beliefs or worse still not even recognized for their political beliefs. So as things are the public interaction is restricted to these two ideas to classify and understand people. Invariably presented as a 'vs.' situation. As is this is the thought process.

We have to shift till the interaction is yanked out of this rut and put back on track as a guide to the thought process. Will take time.

Very thin ice!

[ShauryaT]

But I am greatly interested in understanding the methodology/rationale involved in achieving this classification from a strictly Vyavahaaric POV. As between natural persons. Much in the same manner as the Gunas and Doshas getting understood as separate but not exclusive. The rationale employed was great and even then the misuse could not be stopped.

No system, i repeat No system can survive lack of political control and unwillingness to change and adjust with times. we have only two choices. We either concede that greed is the underlying driver for all systems and the limited control of this greed is the extent of social control or accept SD's premise that man is inherently spiritual and moral and different people develop differing capabilities that can be used to serve society. We will have to either accept that sense gratification is what leads to happiness or true happiness lies in sense control. Misuse is always possible in ANY system. The ossification and abuses of Varna intensified with the rise of Islam in the country and into a tailspin since 1871. Hereditary varna by default actually made a lot of sense in a certain type of economic order. Amongst many things, it guaranteed employment but in it were also sown seeds for other ills. The corruptions were due to a loss of political control and intermixing of knowledge with wealth and power and by those in power for wealth and for those with wealth for power. The control systems stopped functioning. The value systems of society were challenged. The defensive mechanisms and organizations were weak. Fragmentation of political authority along with fragmentation of ideological authority made us weak. However, even in a fragmented form ALL varnas did their part to resist the foreign invasions and some did betray but yet we survived. Betrayal itself becomes possible when governance is weak or is failing and ideological moorings are lost.

[ShauryaT]

7) Re: Brahmins: Would all R&D become public service and be state sponsored? How would Intellectual Property Rights be dealt with?

Why should all R&D become public service or state sponsored only. IPR is a way to protect investments made by privte entities for the purpose of profit. Why should that work any differently than today, with appropriate adjustments as deemed necessary. I think the confusion stems from the role of government. Ideally, a government ought to cede maximum economic activity in the hands of private enterprise, unless warranted otherwise. If a Brahmin working as a scientist, say in a non-profit university, invents something, then that invention automatically belongs to the state and the state can decide what to do with it as it sees fit.

8 ) What kind of framework should there be to allot positions of responsibility to the various individuals from various Varnas? You have indicated that universal suffrage is not ideal.

Universal suffrage on its own, I find it to be an oversold concept, especially as one goes up the ladder of state structures. It is a separate discussion. You can apply universal suffrage in a Varnic system too. If you go back to the definitions of Varna, it is not about "allotment" of positions to individuals but about creating benchmarks to hold certain positions of the state. It is about asking for a sacrifice in exchange for reserving a category of positions. It is about the promotion of non-economic values of service by way of knowledge, wealth and power to be denoted at par or at a higher order than someone who has not given this sacrifice. Not everyone is able to and the number of people who would be willing to do so, would be a small percentage of the population. This small percentage would become the elite and being the elite, there has to be way to control their powers.

9) Since one receives bigger responsibilities (power) at the Rashtriya level depending on one's service in terms of knowledge, military service and philanthropy, one could say that the Individuals in the Varnas would enter competitive self-promotion and try to show their service in the best possible light. So one could have Brahmins take credit for the work of others. Often on papers, the professor's or research team's head's name is added and he gets to take credit for the research regardless of his actual contribution.

Why presume that the simple value of Astyeya does not apply Brahmins?

Also military generals may start wars to show their heroics. In fact they could enter into agreements with the enemy through which in a managed conflict they come out looking like heroes, and in return make promises to the enemy detrimental to the well-being of the Rashtra.

Again, why presume that military is not subservient to the state and its structures? The state itself is led by Kshatriyas in the executive role, but all varnas could play a part in a Lok Sabha type of setup and maybe Rajya Sabha is reserved for the higher varnas as that being of specialists (the word higher has to be read in context of higher level of sacrifice and not status). If Parliament has the power to declare war, then why would that change in a Varnic system? Also, these generals are prohibited by law to accumulate wealth, so the only reason for them to collude with the enemy is a lack of ideological belief in their chosen path or a massive corruption in the entire system, where order is broken. I still do not understand, why did you raise the point?

Or Vaisyas may adopt illegitimate ways to increase their wealth so that later on they can be seen to be doing more philanthropy.

Again, why presume that other organs of the state led by other Varnas will allow this to happen?

10) You have spoken of knowledge dissemination, military service and philanthropy as the qualifiers for the higher Varnas. Shudras you have somehow explained off as those who do not qualify for higher responsibility.Why is that?

Because these higher positions - some reserved for higher varnas, come with higher responsibilities for society and the shudras have not offered the sacrifices yet to qualify. Remember, anyone can qualify through works.

Isn't a road-worker helping building a highway also contributing to the nation? Why is simple but hard work being looked down upon in this Varnic framework? Can't one say each is contributing in his own way?

In the examples, I have provided, Mukesh Ambani is at the same level as far as Varna is concerned with the road worker. So, how is that looking down? Similarly, A Doctor, plumber, farmer, double Phd Pharma company scientist ALL are shudras. They pursue their purusharthas, fulfill their ashramas. Part of VanaPrastha requires one to payback to society by way of service. So, all are contributing. However, if there is a desire for a higher sense of service then the ask is for a higher level of sacrifice. This higher level of sacrifice will be recognized and rewarded appropriately by the state and society.

Also, think about control of knowledge, wealth and power in context of a society. Examples are only there to drive this point.

[RajeshA]

7) Re: Brahmins: Would all R&D become public service and be state sponsored? How would Intellectual Property Rights be dealt with?

Why should all R&D become public service or state sponsored only. IPR is a way to protect investments made by private entities for the purpose of profit. Why should that work any differently than today, with appropriate adjustments as deemed necessary. I think the confusion stems from the role of government. Ideally, a government ought to cede maximum economic activity in the hands of private enterprise, unless warranted otherwise. If a Brahmin working as a scientist, say in a non-profit university, invents something, then that invention automatically belongs to the state and the state can decide what to do with it as it sees fit.

ShauryaT ji,

this is what you wrote:

Brahmin: Those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit and sharing of knowledge and have renounced the pursuit of Artha – wealth and power, governed by law. Their well being and comfort is society's responsibility.

So I asked the question, whether pursuit and sharing of knowledge is something common for society or whether there is going to be a division of private sector Brahmins and sarkari Brahmins? From your response I believe you suggest that Brahmins too would be separated into private-sector and sarkari!

8 ) What kind of framework should there be to allot positions of responsibility to the various individuals from various Varnas? You have indicated that universal suffrage is not ideal.

Universal suffrage on its own, I find it to be an oversold concept, especially as one goes up the ladder of state structures. It is a separate discussion. You can apply universal suffrage in a Varnic system too. If you go back to the definitions of Varna, it is not about "allotment" of positions to individuals but about creating benchmarks to hold certain positions of the state. It is about asking for a sacrifice in exchange for reserving a category of positions. It is about the promotion of non-economic values of service by way of knowledge, wealth and power to be denoted at par or at a higher order than someone who has not given this sacrifice. Not everyone is able to and the number of people who would be willing to do so, would be a small percentage of the population. This small percentage would become the elite and being the elite, there has to be way to control their powers.

9) Since one receives bigger responsibilities (power) at the Rashtriya level depending on one's service in terms of knowledge, military service and philanthropy, one could say that the Individuals in the Varnas would enter competitive self-promotion and try to show their service in the best possible light. So one could have Brahmins take credit for the work of others. Often on papers, the professor's or research team's head's name is added and he gets to take credit for the research regardless of his actual contribution.

Why presume that the simple value of Astyeya does not apply Brahmins?

Why presume that it does? If on the basis of a Higher Varnic's contribution one wants to assign them bigger responsibilities which also gives one more power, than there is a motivation.

Every system can get corrupted. The only thing stopping this is the level of transparency, accountability, checks and balances built in into the system. So there is no need for expectation of corruption, but the system of checks and balances still need to do its work.

Also military generals may start wars to show their heroics. In fact they could enter into agreements with the enemy through which in a managed conflict they come out looking like heroes, and in return make promises to the enemy detrimental to the well-being of the Rashtra.

Again, why presume that military is not subservient to the state and its structures? The state itself is led by Kshatriyas in the executive role, but all varnas could play a part in a Lok Sabha type of setup and maybe Rajya Sabha is reserved for the higher varnas as that being of specialists (the word higher has to be read in context of higher level of sacrifice and not status). If Parliament has the power to declare war, then why would that change in a Varnic system? Also, these generals are prohibited by law to accumulate wealth, so the only reason for them to collude with the enemy is a lack of ideological belief in their chosen path or a massive corruption in the entire system, where order is broken. I still do not understand, why did you raise the point?

Well any system which does not sufficiently reward its servants is also often susceptible to abuse by outside powers. You're trying to create a system of selfless higher Varnics who don't have any need for homes, better homes, education, better education for their kids, a better lifestyle. You are willing to simply wipe this reality away. Communism has already tried that, and didn't really work.

A Higher Varnic need not accumulate wealth by himself. What about his family and kids? Other powers could just promote their own Manchurian candidate and tell him that instead of being funded directly, his kids would get something transferred to their bank accounts. After all the kids are free to follow their own "Sudra" lifestyles! Right?

Furthermore, the question is how one Kshatriya is chosen over the other for some position! If it is based on some impression or determination of his "heroism and sacrifice", can't that be manipulated easily?

Or Vaisyas may adopt illegitimate ways to increase their wealth so that later on they can be seen to be doing more philanthropy.

Again, why presume that other organs of the state led by other Varnas will allow this to happen?

Why not presume? After all they may not be "experts" enough to determine any abuse!

10) You have spoken of knowledge dissemination, military service and philanthropy as the qualifiers for the higher Varnas. Shudras you have somehow explained off as those who do not qualify for higher responsibility.Why is that?

Because these higher positions - some reserved for higher varnas, come with higher responsibilities for society and the shudras have not offered the sacrifices yet to qualify. Remember, anyone can qualify through works.

Well you've restricted "works" to only include "knowledge dissemination, military service and philanthropy"! Why not include "hard physical work" as an equally significant contribution?

Isn't a road-worker helping building a highway also contributing to the nation? Why is simple but hard work being looked down upon in this Varnic framework? Can't one say each is contributing in his own way?

In the examples, I have provided, Mukesh Ambani is at the same level as far as Varna is concerned with the road worker. So, how is that looking down? Similarly, A Doctor, plumber, farmer, double Phd Pharma company scientist ALL are shudras. They pursue their purusharthas, fulfill their ashramas. Part of VanaPrastha requires one to payback to society by way of service. So, all are contributing. However, if there is a desire for a higher sense of service then the ask is for a higher level of sacrifice. This higher level of sacrifice will be recognized and rewarded appropriately by the state and society.

Also, think about control of knowledge, wealth and power in context of a society. Examples are only there to drive this point.

It is still looking down upon Shudra! How does it matter if Ambani is considered a Shudra or not for a road-worker? He is investing "hard physical work" and society is saying it means less than those who have given money, or have done some intellectual blah-blah or simply managed to come up the ladder of military service through seniority and never faced an enemy!

You say doctors, plumbers, etc. are all Shudras. They pursue their Purusharthas. Well aren't the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas you spoke of not pursuing their Purusharthas and fulfilling their Asharams? So how are they different from Shudras?

You speak of "higher level of sacrifice". But you are defining what a higher level of sacrifice is, without giving a criterion! I find this arbitrary! Where do we find in the scriptures that a Shudra's contribution is to be considered less?

[Agnimitra]

No system, i repeat No system can survive lack of political control and unwillingness to change and adjust with times.

That's true, but to make varnashrama a daivi varnashrama (asuras also once perfected varnashrama but it did not please Vishnu) something more than political controls and willingness to change is required.

Bhishma's role in MBh was similar to a judicial aspect of civilization - and his judgment did not confine itself to the letter of the law, but its spirit. Hierarchies of service and privilege can be daivi only in the presence of a Fourth Factor, indicated by the Grandsire on Kurukshetra. A year back in a previous post on GDF I had posted this verse:

ब्राह्मण्यं दुर्लभं लोके
राज्यं हि सुलभं नरैः ।
ब्राह्मणस्य प्रभावाद्धि
रथे युक्तौ स्वधूर्यवत् ॥

"It is difficult to attain brahminhood in this universe,
While sovereignty of any kind may be acquired with relative ease.
It is only through the puissance of a brAhmaNa
That we are yoked to a fine Chariot like well-broken animals."

Sovereignty involves acquisition and management of land, capital, and people, harnessed to realize the fullest civilizational potential, materially and spiritually. The soft and hard power of a brAhmaNa is of a different class from these three. It is of a different class from even the general class of "people" resources. It cannot be "managed" or "acquired" by sovereign administrators like the other three factors.

It is the "puissance" (tapasya, i.e., power born of Right Penance) of this class that really harnesses the general class of people to the Chariot of the Lord. Otherwise they are nothing but beasts of burden for a material social enterprise (subtle, or sometimes quite gross).

BG says that vidya-vinaya-sampannam is the brahminical quality (complete with knowledge and "humility"). But this "humility" aspect is a tricky thing. How can it be measured? It can lead to hypocrisy or self-denigration, which is different from humility. From the Mahabharata again:

नरत्वं दुर्लभं लोके
विद्या तत्र सुदुर्लभा ।
शीलं च दुर्लभं तत्र
विनयस्तत्र सुदुर्लभः ॥

"Human birth is rare in this universe,
Attainment of knowledge and wisdom is even harder.
To then build a noble character is even harder,
And harder still is to attain deep and humble supplication after all that."

we have only two choices. We either concede that greed is the underlying driver for all systems and the limited control of this greed is the extent of social control or accept SD's premise that man is inherently spiritual and moral

Very important point, I agree. If man is basically good, then there has to be some "feedback", either biofeedback of some other kind of feedback where it is possible to measure the voice of his goodness even when he is acting out on an immoral impulse.

The corruption of varnashrama is not always a conscious calculated move based on a lack of philosophical agreement or willingness. Rather, most of the time it is due to subconscious desires. Even cynicism about its philosophical ideals is born of those subconscious movements. These movements override the basic goodness of his conscience, and in fact he uses his conscious mind to justify his wrongdoing and find motivators in his environment for doing so (and "adapting" to it).

Therefore, some vidya has to be there as part of a spiritual process that can find a man's true voice even when - and especially when - he is going astray. Some psycho-spiritual process and its technology.

Therefore IMHO its not possible to implement daivi varnashrama without putting a standard and tested spiritual process in place first. One can implement a sort of varnashrama using purely political control, pragmatic philosophy and moral hectoring, but that will not be daivi varnashrama and it won't please our Lord.

Having said that, we can still discuss the practical implementation of varnashrama in the vyavaharika sphere (from the POV of sovereignty rather than brahminhood, to use Bhishma's terms). But to handle the possibility of corruption, it is an adhyatmik subject and has to be spoken of in the context of an adhyatmik process IMHO.

[member_20317]

Carl ji

The brahmin will wait for no clearance. Does no need to. It is only in the Vyavaharik sphere that Varna inspired classifications need to be understood by the mango man. That understanding too is required only with respect to the essence of the thought process that brought up this kind of identification of different gunas and varnas.

Say for example we have a normal run of the mill abrahmic (including every flavour or derivative of it in broadest possible sense) with us and we cannot ever agree on anything. Now instead of looking at his abrahamism would it be helpful to look instead at the gunas, varnas. Unfortunately this may seem patronizing to the abrahmic but from a dharmic guys POV this opens up the course to the understanding of the mutual differences. Also at the same time a dhamic guy does not necessarily has to be an Avrodha in the abrahmic guys longing for his own identity which is certainly different. The reverse would off course apply just as well ie. if the abrahmics wish too apply it.

Does the resolution achieved in the observation and its link with the classification, suggest something of an 'original' thought. Something that we can yet apply.

And not just limit the excercise to gunas/varnas. Extend it to the whole gamut of traditional understanding.

[ShauryaT]

You speak of "higher level of sacrifice". But you are defining what a higher level of sacrifice is, without giving a criterion! I find this arbitrary! Where do we find in the scriptures that a Shudra's contribution is to be considered less?

I will post the criterions again, for it is clearly stated what aspect of their purusharthas they are sacrificing. Each generation has applied Varna and its classifications to societal needs based on the context they lived in (if you read some dharma shastras of yesteryears, you will get some ideas). Not everyone can sacrifice and no it is not like communism - far from it. I am not sure how is it even close to a communist idea, which reduces man down to a piece of resource to be managed with superimposed notions of equality. Far, far from it.

Brahmin: Those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit and sharing of knowledge and have renounced the pursuit of Artha – wealth and power, governed by law. Their well being and comfort is society's responsibility. These people would be barred from certain positions of power and shall not be allowed to accumulate wealth. They shall be accorded a level of respect and there shall be a way to measure their services to society. Certain positions in society and the state are reserved for them. E.g: Judges

Kshatriyas: Those who have chosen to serve society through state and state sponsored/recognized organs and have renounced the pursuit of Wealth, governed by law. Their well being and comfort is what society can afford to pay for their upkeep. They shall be accorded a level of respect and there shall be a way to measure their services to society. Certain positions in society and the state are reserved for them. E.g: Executive Leadership, Armed Services,

Vaishyas: Those who have accumulated wealth but have chosen to dedicate their wealth in the service of society, retaining back only up to a certain value. Since wealth is already measurable, it is relatively easy to determine, what levels of wealth would be enough (the old benchmark was what was needed for three generations). They would earn the right to be part of certain bodies of government. E.g: Rajya Sabha

Shudras: They pursue all purusharthas and perform according to their ashrams and their nature. They shall not be allowed to hold certain positions in state organs. E.g: Judge, Rajya Sabha seat, Armed Forces, executive leadership at certain levels.

The above divisions are not arbitrary, they are based on works and a clear exchange. A music teacher has a choice to work in private industry or work in a public enterprise in pursuit of musical knowledge and its propagation.(assuming, society deems music a valid pursuit of knowledge for the public good). If a music teacher is willing to do such a thing and sacrifice his Arthic pursuits, which he is entitled to pursue, the least society can do is recognize this contribution and sacrifice and care for his needs, as the state deems fit. The musician who chose to work in this public enterprise, say a recognized school is a Brahmin. The musician, who has not renounced his arthic pursuits in his chosen field and say works in bollywood is a shudra.

The other issues you have brought in presumes that a Varna based division means no other rules may apply and ALL other issues of corruption, nepotism go away. No such presumption made. Many other aspects of checks and controls are still needed. Governance models need to be tweaked. What it does do is provide a framework to control the three most important aspects that go into the well being of society, which are knowledge, wealth and power. It establishes the supremacy of Yagnya over greed.

In massa land, there is still trouble with the issue of the intermixing of money and power. Knowledge is still not given its due place, until commercially exploited - save for its philanthropic culture, that saves the day. A shudra is not being looked down upon but a kshatriya, brahmin and vaishya are getting new found respect lacking in the "modern" world, which revolves around wealth.

A road worker has no way on earth to be considered the equal of a Doctor in today's world. However, through his works and sacrifices this road worker can become a fire man, a public service and gain the respect of society as higher than that of a Doctor, who has not sacrificed the pursuit of Artha at all. If we choose to remain a society that only values and measures wealth then all this dharmic state business is nonsense. A secular state works just fine.

As far as scriptures are concerned, I rather not open up those can of worms. The literature set is vast and you will have to come up with your own read of it. The purusha sukta's definition alone is used by MOST as the basis for the four divisions in society. There are people who justify hereditary varna based on the BG. But, please, please do not open up that can. One will have to come up with one's own read of scripture and then come up with new frameworks to uphold dharmic principles of satyam, ritam and yagnam. I do not think the way out is to say see look here, this scripture says this. The problem is we have 8,000 of them and then we have 8 million interpretations of the same.

SD views IMO accepts the idea of differing capabilities and contributions and hence differentials in status. However, its definition of status is not based on wealth, it is based on the ideas of renunciation. Everyone has equal opportunity but not everyone can accomplish all goals or the same goal. I have no illusions that the ideas will not be met by intense opposition and disagreement. I am myself open to other models of using chatur varna in society or not but after all the education about culture, etc, one will have to live an SD life and this life's values would have to be protected with the force of law.

[Agnimitra]

Brahmin: Those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit and sharing of knowledge and have renounced the pursuit of Artha – wealth and power, governed by law.

Why the mutually exclusive division? Is it possible to truly understand and gain knowledge without getting one's hands dirty, getting some practical experience in artha, kama, rajaniti, etc? Or are Brahmins in your model supposed to remain in ivory towers high above society?

Moreover, previous dharmashastras do state that a Brahmana can take up any of the occupations of other varNas. Something to think about.

[member_20317]

Dharmarths can work for the initial ritualistic/business/services training of everybody.

Military training may have to be managed outside of the Dharmarth establishments.

[ShauryaT]

Why the mutually exclusive division? Is it possible to truly understand and gain knowledge without getting one's hands dirty, getting some practical experience in artha, kama, rajaniti, etc? Or are Brahmins in your model supposed to remain in ivory towers high above society?

You tell me. Are there sanyasis out there with Brahma gyan and aspects of inner sciences, who have never dwelled in artha, kama, rajniti? Are there academics who teach outer sciences and arts who do not pursue artha, let alone rajniti. Kama is not restricted for all Brahmins. I do not think the model presented itself has mutually exclusive divisions. A brahmin, who has renounced artha, may technically qualify for positions reserved for some kshatriya. But at a practical level see few jumping over for those positions and they may not qualify due to other factors. So, the mutual exclusivity gets into the picture due to practical consideration more than design. What examples you have in mind that make this an issue?

There has to be a a way for those invested in knowledge for the public good to be recognized in society and there has to be a way to use their contributions without the corruptions of wealth and power.

What you have stated in an earlier post, I have no disagreement with VarnAshrama is useless without aspects of Daivi and Brahma gyan to act as anchors in the mix. Almost the entire "practicing" layer of Brahmins today involved in teaching and propagation of SD would be Brahmins - supported, respected by society and state and with the backing of law. I believe, this would be a welcome step in their state of affairs.

I get the general aversion to the creation of categories but then suggest a model where wealth, power and knowledge are regulated for maximum benefit of society. The only other model is to let the state assume more and more functions, as has happened in Europe and increasingly in the US.

[Agnimitra]

^^ Got it. Also, varna goes along with ashrama, where "ashrama" can be roughly translated as phases of life. So, say, a Brahmana could experiment with artha and kama in one phase of his life, whereas in another phase of life his core competency of consolidating and then teaching knowledge may be fully realized. Am I understanding you right?

You tell me. Are there sanyasis out there with Brahma gyan and aspects of inner sciences, who have never dwelled in artha, kama, rajniti? Are there academics who teach outer sciences and arts who do not pursue artha, let alone rajniti.

Yes, these also exist, but IMHO their realizations and ability to teach may have inherent limitations in its direct application based on their life experience. The greater the specialization and division, the more risk of losing depth. Even if pragmatics demand specializations in education and vocation, at least conceptually there should be an emphasis on holism and chaturvarna in each individual, so that specialization is not made to look more inherent than it really is. It is just pragmatics versus inherent nature.

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT ji,

again thanks for your detailed reply. One more question!

11) What really is the need of the State to intervene in this process?

Can't a society which is "Dharmically Awakened" itself choose to look for leadership among those who have already devoted their lives in the service of the Rashtra through "knowledge dissemination, military service and philanthropy" or may be through some other service, and those who have made sacrifices of aarthic pursuit? In fact we have had politicians, who have even made sacrifice of grihasthic pursuits, who have remained brahmcharis - ABV, NaMo, Ralph Maino Gandhi , etc.

[RajeshA]

Freedom of Religion

One of the major strengths of Islam is actually Christianity. Christianity is Abrahamism 2.0. Islam is Abrahamism 3.0.

How can Christianity really complain about a further revision! It itself is a revision! Of course Islam has the "Seal of the Prophets", the Khatam an-Nabuwwah, so they can prohibit further versioning, but Christianity doesn't have it and they can't prohibit Islam. Islam recognizes Jesus and all the Christian prophets - Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. The Muslims say Allah is the God of Abraham, and Christians call the God of Abraham - Jehovah, so they are both the same thing. Christianity has absolutely no intellectual tools to call Islam "evil". The Anti-Semitism has some basis in Jews being the reason for Jesus's Crucifixion but there is no theological rejection of Judaism either. There is an overall Christian acceptance of Abrahamism, any Abrahamism, because that is its mythological and theological basis too.

The West came up with "Freedom of Religion" which actually was a way to find to some peace between Catholicism and Protestantism. But under "Freedom of Religion" they were forced to accord the same rights to Islam (and others).

So basically "Freedom of Religion" which was a Western need created by the schism in Christianity, and "Christian Tolerance for Abrahamism", are the shields that Islam uses to proliferate internationally without any hindrance.

In India the same framework - "Freedom of Religion" and "Christian Tolerance for Abrahamism" too have been imposed by the British first and then by the Nehruvian-Secularists - and the Hindus were made to believe that Secularism is basically "sarva-dharma sambhava", even though it is very questionable whether Abrahamism can be considered Dharma or whether it is in fact Adharma. But that intellectual freedom was not provided to the Hindus - to make a judgment based on the available facts and analysis whether Abrahamic religions deserve to enjoy this "Freedom of Religion" or not from a purely Hindu perspective. For such freedom it is a requirement that a movement shows that it is not Adharmic.

Trying to force Dharma and Adharma to coexist is not only a conceptual impossibility but is actually adharmic in itself. It is like asking Justice and Injustice to coexist. It is like asking Matter and Anti-Matter to give each other a peaceful hug!

Dharma is the only intellectual and spiritual framework capable of withstanding Islam.

Internationally speaking, Western Atheism, Christianism, Marxism, Chinese Legalism, African and South American Nativism, none can really withstand Islam. Only True Dharma can!

So in Bharat, each religious movement would have to show its Dharma-Conformance both in scripture and dogma as well as in practice to enjoy the full freedom that the concept of "Freedom of Religion" really provides.

Follow-up post!

[RajeshA]

Freedom of Religion

X-Posting something from the RajivMalhotraDiscussion Group, which I found relevant. The discussion here is about digestion of the Hindu, but it also speaks about some Hindus' thinking about religion, and how and why they favor "Freedom of Religion".

"ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti" is often quoted to mean that Hindus accept all religions as different ways to the same truth.

Phil Goldberg has quoted this expression to suggest that Hindus subscribe to sameness and hence do not object to treating Hinduism as a deli by other religions.

Following is the verse in Rig Veda where this quote comes from. There is no way such a meaning can be ascribed to it.

Rigveda: 1.164.46 (Mandala or book 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46):

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

Source: "The Rigveda", Translated into English by Ralph T. H. Griffith (1896)

Proposition: All religions are equal - This formulation is understood to mean equal in some particular sense and not in the sense that all religions are identical.

Response: Since it is self-evident that any two religions have some noticeable differences, "equal" cannot mean identical. It can mean equal in some particular sense. All religions are equal as religious entities in the same sense as all individuals are equal as legal entities. When the truth is held self-evident that all people are created equal, it does not follow that they have the same weight, height, physical features, IQ, ...Rather, what is meant is that no individual is entitled to a privileged position. Nor does it mean that one person cannot be picked in preference over another based on differences. Thus, what Hinduism is saying is that all religions are equal in the sense that they all make truth-claims and none of the can claim its truth-claims to be true and there proceed to null-doze all others to be false.

"All religions are equal" acquires the same revolutionary force which the cry "All me are created equal" had on the lips of those who stormed the Bastille.


Proposition: All religions are One - If ultimately everything is Brahman, and all there is Brahman, then any differences between religions is superficial and perceived as real because of ignorance. Therefore, all religions are one when one looks beyond their superficial differences.

Response: The idea of oneness in "All religions are one" has been made one with the idea of oneness of Brahman. The two have been collapsed into one claiming that the collapse is justified by non-duality ideas of Advaita. Advaita does not say that manifestation of the Universe and differentiation of things manifest are homogeneous in ultimate reality. The key element to remember when talking about ultimate reality is not the "oneness" but the "indescribability", not its unity but ineffability.

If the ideas of oneness are not the same, then what do Hindus mean by oneness in saying "All religions are One"? Hindu idea of oneness for religions is an idea of tolerance. Hindu idea of tolerance is as much connected to Hindu theism as with Hindu non-duality.


Proposition: All religions are the same - This formulation is understood to mean that all religions are means to the same end, furnishing men with different but partial insights into nature of reality of equal value.

Response: This position holds that all religions are merely paths and do not have any truth associated with their particulars. Thus, differences in particulars of the religions is irrelevant to the ultimate truth. They merely are different paths to the same goal or destination and hence ultimately false.

This is at best an extreme position even for Advaita which asserts the dependent reality of Saguna Brahman and the Universe which are not false but relative truths. Besides, Hindus who are non-Advaitins certainly do not accept that their path is false.


Proposition: All religions are essentially the same - This formulation suggests that, upon careful enquiry, one finds that the essence of all religions is the same. Their differences are only superficial.

Response: A generality of all religions has been postulated called the essence with all religions as particulars of this general essence. Problem with this is that an essence is posited but we are not told what the essence really consists of. At a minimum, there needs to be an argument cannot but be based on a common, general essence. This has not been done either.


Proposition: All religions have an abiding sense of the Universal - Thisthere is an abiding sense of the Universal, then this Universal has to exist independent of the religions it abides in. Why? Many religions have a known beginning and some have disappeared. Therefore, what is abiding is not the particulars of religions but the Universal essence that is contained in all of them.

Response: This argument suffers from not establishing that there needs to be a common abiding sense of the Universal. It also fails to offer any indication of what this shared sense of Universal is.


Question: Can the Hindu position be "All religions are true?". If so, what is its intended meaning?

Response: Yes, it is the Hindu position. It is best understood as the diametric opposite of "My religion alone is true and all else are false." The intended meaning is "Each of the religions may be true or false. When Hindus use words like same or valid or equal or equally true or One, they are not suggesting Homogeneity. Because of the metaphysical nature of essential claims of a religion, there is no way of ascertaining its truth or falsity. Thus, one cannot be designated as truth and the rest designated as false."

Source: All Religions Are: Equal? One? True? Same?: A Critical Examination of Some Formulations of the Neo-Hindu Position
Arvind Sharma
Philosophy East and West
Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 59-72
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press

Vedic Sukti(segment) 'Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti' which is part of Rig Veda Mantra 1-164-46 expressly talks of One Divine Existence which is omnipotent and omnipresent. "Truth is one but sages call it by different names". Some of these names are Agni, Yama, Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Divya, Suparna, Garutmana, etc., referring to the same supreme reality having different attributes. Mr.Phil Goldberg's linking of the above mantra to show sameness of Hinduism with others is totally rediculous and misplaced. Like ekam sad...there are hundreds of other confirmatory hymns/innumerable examples not only in the four Ved Samhitas but also in the other Arsh literature proving Oneness of Supreme reality. Atharvaveda 13.4.16 unequivocally declares "Na dviteeyo na triteeyash chatturtho na pyuchyatay Ya aytam devam ekvratam Veda" i.e., God is One and Only One, without a second, neither third, nor fourth, nor fifth, nor sixth, nor seventh, nor eighth, nor nineth nor tenth, in fact Only One. Seen in Broader perspective, there is no dichotomy between One supreme reality and many Vedic deities. God is the master of all creatures in the universe. Some people like his one quality and action while others like other ones. Depending on the quality or action one likes, He is remembered by that name only.

Source: "WHO IS GOD?" which discusses about - Attributes of God Based on the Vedas and its Comparison and Contrast with those in Abrahamic Faiths and Later Hindu Scriptures
By Dr.Sudhir Anand
Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.,
Published by Vaanprastha Saadhak Aashram, Arya Van, Rojad, Gujarat.

"An interpretation of Veda must stand or fall by its central conception of the Vedic religion and the amount of support given to it by the intrinsic evidence of the Veda itself. Here Dayananda's view is quite clear, its foundation inexpugnable. The Vedic hymns are chanted to the one Deity under many names which are used and even designed to express his qualities and powers. The Vedic rishis ought surely to have known something about their own religion, more, let us hope than Roth or Max Muller and this is what they knew."

Sri Aurobindo further states "We are aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence. This hymn they say was a late production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorant fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, sky-worshippers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies. But throughout the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions: Agni or Indra or another is expressly hymned as one with all the other gods. Agni contains all other divine powers within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names of others as well as his own, or most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the universe, attributes only appropriate to the Supreme Deity. Ah, But that cannot mean, ought not to mean, the worship of One; let us invent a new word, call it henotheism(coined by Max Muller) and suppose that the Rishis did not really believe Indra or Agni to be the Supreme Deity but treated any god or every god as such for the nonce, perhaps that he might feel the more flattered and lend a more gracious ear for so hyperbolic a compliment! "But why should not the foundation of Vedic thought be natural monotheism rather than this new-fangled monstrosity of henotheism?" Well, because primitive barbarians could not possibly have risen to such high conceptions and, if you allow them to have so risen, you imperil our(western) theory of the evolutionary stage of the human development and you destroy our whole idea about the sense of the Vedic hymns and their place in the history of mankind. Truth must hide herself, and it is the fundamental point, commonsense disappear from the field so that a theory may flourish! I ask, in this point, and it is the fundamental point, who deals most straightforwardly with the text, Dayanand or the Western scholars?"
Sri Aurobindo again remarks "Immediately the whole character of the Veda is fixed in the sense Dayananda gave to it; the merely ritual, mythological, polytheistic interpretation of Sayana collapses, the merely meteorological and naturalistic European interpretation collapses. We have instead a real Scripture, one of the world's sacred books and the divine word of a lofty and noble religion."

Source: Sri Aurobindo on "Bankim-Tilak-Dayananda" published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry.

It seems Sri Aurobindo's exposure of the distorted approach of some of the imperial scholars and their camp followers (especially of the last two centuries) has not made any dent on a section of pen pushers. I can only say that Mr.Phil Goldberg has much to learn about ABC of true Vedic tradition. Evidently, there is absence of clear understanding or else, he would not have generalised 'that Hindus subscribe to sameness' on the basis of his reported interpretation of Ved mantra in question.

I think we also have to look at minds that are conditioned by the teaching and the social constructs that the teaching implies.

A Hindu mind seems to have two characteristics that are important in this context. One the ability to accept different ways, and the other to act from a sense of generosity. These are civilization-ally more advanced than mono cultures of thought and hierarchical political control. Over the years, it has turned into a passivity. This passivity was leveraged to great advantage by Gandhiji, but it has also led to a glorification of non violence. The non violence of Gandhiji was very powerful, it s not afraid of confrontation or of being violated.

When such a mind confronts the aggressive and predatory mind, it fails to value itself. Rajivji's analysis of difference anxiety is spot on. In my behavioural work self-hate of being Indian reveals itself often. The predatory mind will always look for ways to attack, to leverage weakness, to use cunning and advance its agenda. It will use propaganda to project it's strengths. The difference respecting mind will seem weak, it will try to pacify. We are in a vicious cycle here

Dear Raghu,
Your comments below are very insightful. Many of your comments really caught my attention. I will take up two of them for discussion here.

In my behavioural work self-hate of being Indian reveals itself often.

This is so uncanny. I am no behavioural expert like you but have for long maintained that Indians suffer from an acute case of collective dhimmi-tude combined with the Stockholm Syndrome. I have seen enough evidence of the same in my personal debates with fellow Indians on national as well as nationalist matters. Moreover, most of those who pass for diplomats, political commentators and television anchors in India suffer from similar weak mindsets.

Can you, for the benefit of all of us, give us a few pointers on how, in our limited capacity as amateurs (as contrasted with behavioural experts), can we best help fellow Indians climb out of these depths of self-debasement they are mired in?

The difference respecting mind will seem weak, it will try to pacify.

To cite an old example, this tendency to ''pacify'' is what made Indira Gandhi give away to Bhutto all the gains of the 1971 war with Pakistan. To cite a recent example, we have all also observed with frustration how Kamal Hasan publicly degraded himself before jihadis who opposed his recent film. (Ironically the film carries a Hindu/Sanskrit title, true to the degraded-dhimmi-cowardly mindset of the self-loathing Hasan. For those who are unaware, *Vishwaroopam *is one of the names of Lord Krishna, taken from the battleground where he preached the Gita to Arjun).

The tiger and deer metaphor comes to mind. It is the nature of tiger to be predatory. Deer is better off understanding this and behaving accordingly. Let us suppose that the deer in this particular forest often try to befriend the tiger and show overtly that they accept tiger's way of being.

Whether the deer behaved this way out of true generosity to the tiger or because of their difference anxiety from below is not relevant to the outcome. The outcome will be a happy tiger who finds that it is much easier to feed in this forest.

If one of the deer is smart and recognizes the problem, its solution to protect the deer too will be independent of whether the deer behaved this way out of generosity or because of difference anxiety from below.

It is not dharmic behavior for a deer to sacrifice itself to a predator. It is not dharmic to keep quiet when fellow innocent deer are being preyed upon. It is self-deception to parlay difference anxiety from below as generosity. The only solution is to make all the deer realize that the tiger is a predator. That is how the vicious circle is broken.

The deer self-sabotage because they have lost comfort being in their own skin. The way to fix the problem is to let the deer develop a group identity. Identity cannot be developed for the deer if they cannot see themselves apart from tigers.

"Impacting the Hindu diaspora in North America" by Timothy Paul in the International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 26:3 Fall 2009, pages 129-133

Excerpts:

Step 1: Build a sambandh or relationship with the Hindus

A believer in Christ and a Hindu enter into a relationship with one another that is authentic and sustainable.

Step 2: Help Hindus connect to Jesus via Anubhav or experience

Hindus interact with and certify religious truth in two ways, either traditionally or experientially. Since Jesus is not a part of Hindu tradition, no amount of our sharing about the Christian tradition will impact them. The better way to bring the gospel to Hindu people is by experiencing Jesus.

Step 3: Help develop Bhakti or devotion to Jesus

Bhakti means devotion or worship of a specific deity and it is the heartbeat of how Hindus respond to God. It is how Hindus would naturally respond to a experience positive initiatory experience of Jesus

Step 4: Connect the Vedic notion of sacrifice to sacrifice of Jesus

Vedic sacrifice was powerful and central to Hindu practice for many centuries. Sacrifice is an ideal that still lives in Hindu world view. Hindus who are living in authentic relationship with Christ followers and experiencing the reality of Jesus by answered prayer and worship need to be introduced to the core truth of the gospel, namely the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and his glorious resurrection and Lordship.

Step 5: Bringing Exclusivity to Jesus

It is unnecessary for Western believers in Christ to compel Hindus to become like them by adopting their religious traditions. They can follow Christ as Hindus, becoming Christ bhaktas, or devotees of Christ. Our challenge is to help them grow into an exclusive relation- ship with Jesus without condemning them along the way. It is much, much better to speak positively about the fullness of Christ and subsequent surrender of our hearts to him without even mentioning other deities.

Summary:

Hindus commonly begin to respond by accepting Jesus as a god that they, as high caste Hindus, can pray to, surrendering to the power of his name. This usually happens after they have an initiatory anubhav, or experience. All of their other deities are still very much a part of their life at this point. Then, as they begin to worship Jesus and give him thanks, surrendering to his love, he gradually becomes the highest or primary deity that they pray to, although the other deities are still a part of their lives. In fact, it seems that Hindus grow to love Jesus before they come to know him in an exclusive relationship, just the opposite of western believers who accept him as their Lord and Savior and then learn to love him. The next stage of response happens as Hindus plumb the depths of the death and resurrection of Christ, balidan. They may find that in light of the awesome love and power of Christ and the cross, they have no further desire for other deities in their lives, and they surrender to his sacrifice; Christ is all that they need.

1) In order to shield the Hindu from any Abrahamic tricks of sameness, etc. what in the end really is useful is to understand the definition of 'Dharmic'

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

2) As far as 'Freedom of Religion' is concerned each religious movement would have to show its Dharma-Conformance both in scripture and dogma as well as in practice to enjoy the full freedom that the concept of "Freedom of Religion" really provides. One of the most important criterion is how far the tenets of the religious movement and the organization emphasizes control over the individual.

3) Superficial sameness based on some notions among Hindus cannot serve as the basis of allowing "Freedom of Religion" in Bharat.

[ShauryaT]

^^ Got it. Also, varna goes along with ashrama, where "ashrama" can be roughly translated as phases of life.

Regardless of Varna, Ashrama dharma applies to all, except those Brahmins, who have taken and have been allowed to take Sanyas. If Varna dharma is the anchor of SD, then Ashrama Dharma is its sheet anchor. I will expand on the role of the state here later but since it is largely individual focused the role of the state is largely supportive and environmental. The area where hard laws come into play for Ashrama dharma are civil laws. These need to be supportive of Ashram dharma. Will elaborate later as time permits.