The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[RajeshA]

AbhiJ ji,

I believe "Andaman" has been the traditional name of the island. It is not something given by the British.

[ShauryaT]

If one reduces Sanatan Dharma to only Varnic social divisions, and appreciates none of its other myriad treasures, it is indeed rich then to claim to be "true to SD view, its principles, its ethos"! All one is then married to is Varnic social divisions, but not Sanatan Dharma, and if one were to consider Sanatan Dharma as Purusha, then Varnic social division concept, as we understand today in hindsight, would surely be that Purusha's excrement, not really part of Purusha.*

Only a deracinated individual can speak in this manner of the Purusha. Even the excrement is part of prakriti. I think you are an entirely non-practicing name sake Hindu for if you had any interest in dharmic practices, you would realize the reason I am not referring to Purusha Sukta is because it is the single most biggest citation used by real "traditionalist" of which, I do not consider myself one, to be responsible for the hereditary and jati based interpretations of Varna. But, what will a non-practicing internet hindu, such as yourself would know about this world? You are a master of spin and have finessed the art of lying. I have neither said anything of the sort to reduce SD to Varna based social divisions nor written in that way. I do not shy away from misuses of Varna but have the temerity to extricate its principles and propose some current world uses. Read my words carefully and if you were honest, it did be clear that I am referring to social constructs of SD. But, you have pre-determined the meaning of my words to mean something that I have not said at all, I would have given you the benefit of doubt, but not anymore. You simply excel at lying and are insincere.

I sought to move on to issues of Ashrama Dharma, but no a namesake deracinated Hindu such as yourself has a problem even with that. I will be only wasting my time in clarifying your misinterpretations, but I am convinced you are not interested in the correct interpretation but is someone who is deeply uncomfortable with SD - all of it and not just Varna, regardless of your protestations, for as soon as the details come out, you start howling, as in the case of marriage or Ashrama obligations. You are not even comfortable in the idioms of SD, forget its concepts and practices. I will be looking forward to your howls, when SD’s views on role of man-woman, inheritance laws, role of families and many traditions and practices of SD, that contribute towards a dharmic life and some of them needing state protections are spelt out. You will howl because you are not a practitioner but an outsider. A dharmic state being a secular one is an oxymoronic concept. But, hold on, for as soon as those words are spoken, you can only think of Iran!

Neither the Purusha Sukta Verse 12, nor Bhagavad-gītā Chapter 4 Verse 13, speak of social divisions when speaking of Varna.

It is verse 13 not verse 12 of the purusha sukta and BTW all 24 verses are to be used together in a yagna, but then a non-practicing internet Hindu would not know, would he? For his motive is only to spin, not practice, learn and understand.

The verse is here brahmanosya mukhamasit bahu rajanyah kritaha uru tadasya yadvaishyaha padhyagam shudro ajayata

You desire to spin 4.13 of the BG, in your deracinated mind – without a single support statement from ANY established interpreter of BG from ANY tradition, now please spend some time to spin this away and claim they have nothing to do with social life of humans!

brahmana-kshatriya-visam
shudranam ca parantapa
karmani pravibhaktani
svabhava-prabhavair gunaih

samo damas tapah shaucam
ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam
brahma-karma svabhava-jam

sauryam tejo dhrtir daksyam
yuddhe capy apalayanam
danam ishvara-bhavas ca
kshatram karma svabhava-jam

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam
vaishya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma
shudrasyapi svabhava-jam

sve sve karmany abhiratah
samsiddhim labhate narah
sva-karma-niratah siddhim
yatha vindati tac chrnu

yatah pravrttir bhutanam
yena sarvam idam tatam
sva-karmana tam abhyarcya
siddhim vindati manavah

sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah
para-dharmat sv-anusthitat
svabhava-niyatam karma
kurvan napnoti kilbisam

I guess, Sri Krishna is talking about some voo doos above and not human society. I suggested you read chapter 18 for details on 4.13 but no, as long as your spin is not caught, you shall continue on this mode. There is no penalty for lying on BRF now, is there? Do not worry, I have more verses from "Sruti" that you will have to spin more, once you are done spinning the above. You should be ashamed of yourself as a Hindu, to try to spin your way out of everything instead of being honest to yourself. You reject our smritis and shastras as if they were ALL misinformed, when Sri Krishna himself blesses them. The way out is to be open about the faults of SD – even in Sruti but it is done by first immersing yourself in its sciences and arts. You cannot do an ill informed purva-paksha of SD too and expect practitioners to take you seriously. If you are honest, you can even reject parts of Sruti or all of it and make your own Adhatmik literature as the Nastikas have done and I respect them the same nevertheless.

Soon Bharat and indeed the world would understand Sanatan Dharma's egalitarian beauty and perfection!

If one is not convinced about SD's universal principles then one should not talk about it at all and start a thread on the same. Being ignorant or worse lying about a single verse from a single book to spin your way out based on your perceptions and ignorance is a bit too much for practicing Hindus. If one is not comfortable with idioms of SD then why talk about defending it? If one is not convinced of the egalitarian and ethical concepts of SD, then why even come to the table. If one is willing to use one verse in one scripture to justify and ignore the next one or worse, use one verse from a book to spin his way out and "ignore" other verses from the same book - displays insecurity and ignorance. We practitioners learn from many gurus, assimilate this knowledge and reject some, based on our own temperaments but are honest about these approaches. We openly declare who’s versions we follow and who's we do not. So, who's version(s) of SD, do you accept as your gurus and who's do you reject? When a Savarkar claims that use of Varna should be done away with, it is an opinion that someone can respect or reject. When you claim that ALL of our shastras that talk of Varna have misinterpreted Purusha Sukta and there is no support for social division in society, it is a lie. Further, you go on to insult them as being morons. You fool no one. Name me ANY established SD guru, who claims such and I will personally contact and confront their opinions within 24 hours. Who are these gurus you subscribe to? I hope you do have some gurus, for that is how SD is learnt – or is it just Google!

However at this stage, you are not even able to refer to ANY SD practitioner or his works to support your cases, because you have not made it your own. You are deracinated because you seek a "secular" society not a dharmic one, without realizing that this spells the death of SD, as we know it - just like JLN planned. One cannot even do a simple Namaste, for even that simple greeting has our version of god in it. But, what would you know of these things. For even our dear secularists, who make policy know this difficulty and hence the "official" approach of secularism in India is not a divorce between the state and god but equal respect for all faiths.

MKG, who you have decried in the past, was asked from where does he read the message of Ahimsa into the BG, he said it comes from his heart. He was not afraid to reinterpret, but his heart was that of a Hindu immersed in our systems, its challenges and faults. He embraced all of it as his own. Get some courage and make all of SD your own, instead of focusing on spin.

[ShauryaT]

For example you would not have insisted on reinstitutionalizing varnic social divisions, a system that failed utterly to protect the Rashtra from the Islamic and then the British onslaught, both ideological as well as physical, a system where the people put their varnas before the interests of the Rashtra, a system where not everybody was brought onboard and trained to resist the invaders!

You are doing the same mistake of attaching state and organization failure and an ideological failure of SD at the footsteps of Varna, who's social-economic practices of the time, in the form of Jatis is certainly not the type of practice of Varna, I am advocating but never mind, you simply recoil at the word, without understanding it and worse seek to interpret things based on what seems "convenient". This way you will neither convince SD's detractors not its practitioners.

Who do you think fought the muslims after the Rajputs fell? Let me ask you something. Have you read the works of KS Lal the most authoritative works on the issue of varnas and Islamic invasions? Is this what he informs us the case was? Have you tried reading into ethnographical studies of the majority of Pakistani muslims? Where do they come from? What Varna they claim they belong to? Is it true? If true, what was their history - just surrendered or did they fight for SD before falling? Have you tracked the rise of the Sikh panth - of mostly Jats and non-kshatriyas. Did they not fight? Everyone fighting all the time is a nice utopian idea. There are some legitimate issues of SD that have contributed towards the fall of the Indian state(s) but varna is not one of the major ones. Have you gone through the works of Sita Ram Goel, the most established of non political sources on the the causes for defeat of the Hindus? What do you think happened in the siege of Vienna of 1529 that was different, when Ghori attacked India, once he conquered the Ghazni empire in the 12th century? Why were the Rathors and Chauhans at logger heads and not able to sink their differences to meet a common enemy - both were kshatriyas. Blaming all ills at the doorstep of Varna is a favorite curse exercise of the marxist historians, why are you falling for the same trap?

[ShauryaT]

Carl ji: I will have to respond some other time, after the mind is sufficiently calm. Sorry.

[ShauryaT]

I have been trying to go back and read ShauryaT ji's posts in this thread, and increasingly I see why the "traditionalists" always have one trait common to all of them: almost picture-perfect surety in the "rightness" of their so-called "proper" approach. no matter how strongly I feel about my own opinions, I don't have the arrogance to pretend that my way is the best and brightest way, but the "traditionalists" have no such qualms. They'll happily and merrily advertise that deviation from their "proper" path leads to "falling" from the "uttama-patha". The sheer arrogance is jarring. sorry if I offended anyone.

Devesh ji: The fault is entirely mine. After 25 years of questions, fears and doubts, there comes a time, when the fears and doubts disappear. Surety of purpose can come across as arrogant and in that I have to learn more.

[ShauryaT]

B ji: This was typed earlier, not in anger

some of the elements of your post that involves strict control of "sex", and other aspects involving social responsibilities such as childrens duty to maintain parents, etc. - reminds me of the problem I had when I had explored the origins of our "values" - or so-called "hard values" that are pushed for as principles.

If what you demand is actually "SD" - no consensual sex at 16 - nothing until 21, then most of our ancestors had been breaking SD, for most of existence of SD in India. Almost of us are descended from SD breakers then. It is perhaps important for a certain period of segregation in sexual terms in early childhood and adolescence - even this might actually vary form person to person. Some mature earlier than others - and its also about mental maturity. But fixing it for ever is a "hard value" that is being sought to be established as a timeless principle.

Whenever we do that - we inevitably land up in a situation where the hard value is opportunistically used by the powerful to create guilt, and thereby provide a means of control, exercised selectively. Every religion, dharma sastra, or texts that try to make such things into "everlasting principles", inevitably land up in the twisting position of having to justify deviations from this principle by the powerful.

Two separate aspects. Exercising the use of dharmic principles for a rashtra is asking for laws which govern as accepted behavior for our times – not forever.

Let me quote something, which will articulate I hope, where I am coming from:

SHOURIE introduces Hinduism by quoting Gandhi's advice that texts like the Gita should be looked upon
"as the works of poets," which "have been through centuries of interpolation, distortion, deletion and
distillation," and are thus in so unsatisfactory a state that they require a revised edition. In closing
SHOURIE points out that orthodox Hindus and Jains "abused and detested Gandhi precisely because they
could see, as the 'moderns' never could . . . how he was completely overturning the doctrine [of the entire
corpus] even as he insisted . . . that he was firmly rooted in the tradition. Like a true revolutionary, he
looked into his people's psyche. . .found out the notions that were holding them in thrall and . . .led them
into struggles which would commence the process of transforming those notions."

I agree with this passage that we need to undergo a process of transformation and much of the works of say a “Vyasa” or “Valmiki” are to be looked upon as works of poets, in fact one such guru compared them to works of Shakespeare.

With this Gandhian inspiration to reappraise and demystify philosophy, SHOURIE translates theological
questions into questions of the present world, baring aspects of the basic Hindu texts "which for centuries
have provided convenient rationalizations for. . .and helped reinforce. . .the ruling class and which, unless
jettisoned, will continue to do so, whatever the ruling class of the day." He underscores the core concepts:
that Brahman alone is the ultimate reality, without parts, a pure consciousness; that man is not a being of
flesh and blood but is Atman, a non-corporeal self which is one with Brahman; that the empirical world of
wood and stone, with its manifest diversity, must necessarily be non-existent, and man's existence has no
reality or worth. It follows, then, SHOURIE argues, that the individual's inability to deal with the
vicissitudes of life is a reflection of inadequate faith and knowledge—a failure to comprehend his identity
with Brahman. The resulting sense of inadequacy, he contends, saturates the individual with guilt, forces
him to camouflage his acts, drives hypocrisy into his being and makes him ready to follow authority. The
proposition that man is not an effective agent for changing the man-made world strengthens the inertia of
the oppressed and rationalizes the callousness of the rulers. In SHOURIE’s view the basic flaw in Hindu
philosophy lies in the fundamental proposition "that one soul is the same as another, that all are
Brahman," while at the same time the texts differentiate between the various castes and equate outcasts
with "dogs or swine.

Jettisoning the rationalizations of some texts that rationalize hereditary jati, various practices that discriminate and also those not valid anymore is a necessary exercise. A divorce from application of SD in people's social lives is not.

However, the point you made was in context of your issues with “hard” SD. I will stand by the principle of Brahrmacharya as it makes eminent sense. Ashrama Dharma and family life is a life of SD lived not just whiled away in innate rituals. SD has always been less philosophy and more practice. I will not comment on actual practices of some eras to justify or decry, as due to life span, socio-economic orders, external pressures, ignorance on why there was early child hood marriage – it is an era that is gone now. We will have to determine appropriate ages, based on our times but upholding the principle.

My pleading is to uphold the principles and adjust and let us not make any apologies for what SD has always been a complete way of life. Keeping it in the “Brahma Gyan” domain only has been my whine with my gurus.

Two of the women of Mahabharata had "premarital" sex. Satyabati's tryst with Parashara has been represented often in euphemistic ways - the so-called non-contact, immaculate conception route. This in itself shows how every ideology that tries to reconcile hard values with reality of even their most iconic figures - ultimately is forced to invent absurdities to maintain their claims of "hard values".

However if we are skeptical about the immaculate conception claims about Satyavati, we do see that it was premarital - since just the coming together of the two even if interpreted as Gaandharva, would imply a divorce later without which she could not have formally married a prince. Or she had two hubbies. So accepting the premarital label is the least problematic one. If you make this illegal - the whole legitimacy of one of the most iconic dynasties of Indian narrative - becomes founded on breaking of SD.

Nothing is perfect. To claim itihaas and all its characters as perfect is absurd. More absurd is to claim the works of the poet Vyaasa, is depicted as is and the complete unvarnished truth. Itihaas has a role. Within the 8 million stories we have, you will find a precedent for something or the other, does that mean, every precedent is a valid one or even the dominant one? Your mind accepts Satyavatis tryst with Parashara in a manner that most Hindus would explain as works of higher gods. I read new stories of how Kunti and Madari conceived too. You tell me, who is more deluded, the one who accepts these stories as the complete truth and applies current world perceptions to the past or the one’s who accept these words as works of poets, to communicate a higher message?

Hard values sought to be made into a timeless universal principle, almost surely represents an agenda of control by an interested subgroup. Because it is dependent on power and agenda of control under subgroup or personal power - it will always be broken by members of the propaganda team, and elaborate exceptions will gradually be found and accumulate. Complicating and problematizing the whole ideology of which the "value" claims to be part of.

I cannot disagree with this and also, have not advocated timeless laws. By definition, they are time and space bound and have to operate in a given context.

[brihaspati]

ShauryaT ji,
it is indeed true, that most humans most of the time - cannot surpass and leave behind the mental tendencies and attitudes they are born with or which they develop in a dual interaction of nature and nurture. Much of the "varna" model is a good and simple robust classification of observed human society in the past.

What I find of unease in your exposition :
(1) you appear to take the textual version as both rationally and observationally or empirically verifiable - as well as divinity imposed or required. The problem is that if the principles have been deduced from empirical observations - then they might not reflect universal or timeless principles. On the other hand imposition by a supra-human authority makes it even more suspect, since we are told to assume that the supra-human authority has the best interests of the human follower in his/her mind. Ground experience almost always shows that any form of superiority-claiming authority cannot refrain from selfish interests for a very long time.

(2) making universally and forever applicable laws out of empirical observations may act well for simple stuff in life ["dont chew the leaf of that poison tree - you will be sick/or die"]. However such a procedure has a tendency to apply what seemed to have worked for a particular group, at a particular period, at a particular historical period - forever into the future for all peoples, places, and times. This is the route for the Abrahamic.

(3) The varna is a good and simple model for simple societies. But making it a rigid application one everyone at all times, will inevitably introduce the abuse of power and perpetuation of undeserved privileges. In the process, it will create paralysis due to alienation or dis-identification with the whole society [you can hide behind your subidentity and not put in the effort to win over the cooperation and efforts toward sthe common cause from other subidentities].

Commitment is very important, and being uncompromising on certain positions - is desirable. I know the huge problems in motivating people with not the right mindset [nature- in-born varna]. However, the approach you seem to be going into may not create the basis to incentivize people joining in. We do need to create trust in the generic "Hindu" that he/she is not becoming cannon fodder for an elite project - that will only perpetuate the elite's arrogance and abuse of power - within the society itself.

[brihaspati]

ShauryaT ji,
I am personally a hard-value person in many aspects of life. I have been told it is a sign of limitation of "imaginations" or the sign of a fanatic. But avoiding sleeping around - was a natural and innate choice for me. Until around 16 I would be intolerant of others "sleeping around" or "deviant" sexuality. Then I decided that getting so affected by what they did, only showed my own weakness that I gave a huge importance to sex.

I began to "preach" to those who followed me that sex/sexuality was onlee one aspect of life. It was necessary but should not overshadow all other aspects. There has to be a balanced approach to life - so that nothing overshadows all else. When an individual gets too obsessed with correcting something in himself he thinks is wrong, then he is making the issue more powerful that it should be made into.

I tested myself early on by dropping anything I liked too much, food, people, dress, habits - to see if they had started "possessing" me. I have periodically gone without my most favourite items of food or taste or clothes etc., even the nature of the bed, comforts, etc. Tested it on sex too. I know now that nothing of those sort possesses me. So that I can go into all of that without getting touched. On the other hand, a constant awareness of why I am doing or saying something, and figuring out underlying hidden motivations or thoughts - makes me incessantly in a state of quest.

I think this was the original idea of the desired spiritual evolution of the human journey while in physical body - as intended in SD.

My struggle with hard values has been shaped in the backdrop of this evolution. In each of the major organizations I have worked, I had been roundly disliked by a section for my "rigid" values on sex, money, substance abuse, and a more vague but well- recognized feature in some humans - "neechata" . The very use of the word shows that consciousness of hierarchy exists deep inside - and shows the remnant sparks of a "birth" class/varna that looks "down" upon what it sees as rejectable/undesirable/detested character traits. I am unable to compromise on unfair use of money, sexuality, and I absolutely detest "neecha" tendency individuals. The reason also all these orgs put me in charge of treasurer posts, organizing women, among other regular org tasks. But it also meant huge problems within orgs - it is also true that most people who are honest and self-controlled on the above arenas are usually also not "effective" enough in the day-to-day survival and fight for expansion/competition with other orgs. This also isolates you from the general society. [The family of a bribe-taker and the xetended family or kin who take pride in the consumption material displayed/shared.gifted by the bribe taker - are equal participants in teh crime of bribery].

General society appreciates "bhoga" - and they would like to "bhoga" without putting in the effort. Hard values makes it problematic for the majority of the society.

I understand your principles - but you have to come to a compromise - if you want to bring in the flood.

[brihaspati]

Shaurya T ji,
I will illustrate with a funny bit from my own growing up. When I was a young boy [probably 8-9 years] my dad repeatedly told me how keeping a comb by men was a sign of a "loose" character - because as he pointed out to me in public transport - guys would take out their comb in front of the mirror above the "ladies" seat, and do their kesha-vinyas while staring at the b****. So keeping a comb or keeping hair that was not "military/crew" cut was a sign of moral degeneracy for the 8-9 year old boy - ashamed becuase he had requested that his monthly haircut be postponed a little to let his hair grow a bit - since his classmates had mocked him as a "daaku" from provincials who "slept on woven beds" before his fist had silenced them.

Then I got used to the crew cut - it was also useful, since I had very fast growing very thick hair.

Fast forward to uni - 1st year - dad complains - can't you keep a comb, and can't you grow your hair a bit longer? You look like the rag-tags who came from [the same provincials of childhood fame] in the Maoist rally! I reminded him of the chat we had on a bus when I was 8-9 years old. At first he could not remember, then doubted if this was what he had exactly told, then laughed and said - I should not be so serious with everything in life. There was a context to what he said - at that time - he was scared that I would grow up to be the foppish kids he saw all around him. But now this spartanism was no longer necessary and I should groom myself "normally" according what most young men of my age did around in society.

I said - that a value remains a value - always applicable. If paying attention to my appearance was bad as a child it remains so as an adult. Because you did not exemplify using a child - you showed it on grown up men. If you adjust your principle from time to to time - then do not claim it is a "followable" or imposable value - it is merely a convenient tool to be used tactically or strategically.

I still cut my hair short. And I still live a Spartan personal lifestyle. For I really found all the appearance stuff completely meaningless. My dad stopped haranguing me on the negative aspects of "sex" after this - because on his sounding me out on a "prospective" choice of his for a DIL - I had said, if sex is a crime and absolute moral fall before marriage - it remains a crime and moral fall after marriage - because such a serious crime cannot suddenly become "puuta pavitra" overnight simply because society gives its stamp on it. If the criminality of sex/sexuality becomes conditional on recognized authorities [parents/priests/state-law] then the criminality itself is a construct of the human mind and not anything intrinsic in the act of sex itself - and hence is not an universal principle or value.

[Agnimitra]

it's not just "suspicion" of the "traditionalists". it's something much more visceral.

devesh ji, I hear you. But at some point we have to create the right atmosphere for a meeting of minds. Ignoring those dishonest people who hide behind the label of 'traditionalism', I believe there is a right and honest 'traditionalist' approach, too - one that demands that an idea be ratiocinated in a way that it demonstrates "continuity" of some sort with past versions and rudiments. A bit like "innovations" and "improvisations" in a raaga must still prove that they meet the basic coordinates of the raaga. If the varNashrama theme is one of the raagas of Veda, then any new improvisation and application must square with past versions by showing how principles are abstracted, what the changed coordinates are, and then show how it is in the same relative ratio with those new co-ordinates as described by the raaga's rudiments.

So while historical injustices have created visceral motivations, we have to find a platform for a genuine meeting of minds. In "'Louder' dialogue: Right foot forward", I suggested:

Its not that visceral, detrimental partisanship doesn't exist. Its just that its possible for someone to have a partisan view as an aesthetic rather than a visceral propensity. And there lies the rub. In casting suspicion and following it up with wrangling and cavil, one can reduce an aesthetic proposition to a visceral threat. That's an important datum for "strategists" right there.

I believe ShauryaT ji is NOT arguing for the backdoor legitimacy of jAti based social divisions playing a role in implementing varNa. I think he has made that clear, and I have no reason to doubt that. He has an aesthetic commitment to a Vedic theme. He is demanding a more shaastra-backed level of discussion on varNa, sexuality and other such subjects. This is actually an important component of debate, and I value it.

My suggestion was that public education and dharmic sansthas are two separate jurisdictions in which two different dynamics of thought can have fair play. The former is linked with law, economics and government. The latter is tied in with society, homes, families and castes. Based on demographics in any administrative area, the two strands can intertwine to more or less extent.

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT ji,

after all those "compliments" you have given me, I hope it has helped you to get rid of the excessive aggressive energies and that you feel better and can regain your composure!

You have of course raised many interesting points across a broad spectrum of issues. As time permits I'll take them up in due course and offer you my "spin"!

Just in case you think, there is more scriptural evidence which would crush my conviction of Sanatan Dharma as an egalitarian system, I'll be glad if you could provide it!

[RajeshA]

Continuing from "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

I sometimes bring the points you make in "Understanding Islamic Society" over here, because where as over there one can try to analyze "Islamic Society", I feel this thread is a more natural thread, if one wishes to offer any transformative suggestions.

....

Carl ji,

There are however many concepts and categories in Dharmic discourse which can prove especially dangerous to Islam at the doctrinal level, but again the "secular" system in India has shielded the Islamic society from these as well and not allowed the emotionality to rise.

So an interesting scenario would be when Islamic society receives the full blast of Dharma in discourse! It is important that one introduces a huge number of essential categories and concepts of Dharma in Islamic discourse and force Islam to deal with these.

As mentioned earlier, Islam would try to react to these in its traditional way of discrediting these concepts and principles, but if this mechanism of Islam is forcefully switched off, as has been proposed through Bharatiya Sanskriti Studies, then these categories, would linger on in Muslim society in India and pose a doctrinal challenge to Islam.

This has not been the case till date. Till date, Islam has only been forced to deal with the superficiality of Sanatan Dharma - the Murtis, the Shivlingams, the naked Sadhus, the cow pooja, reverence for animals, the widow life and the caste system, as well as the degenerated Hindu Samaj with phenomena like female foeticide, bride burning, etc.! All this, Islam has been able to harness to project its moral superiority, but it has successfully been able to shield itself from all the philosophical, spiritual and scientific aspects of Sanatan Dharma and Bharatiya Sanskriti.

It is the later that needs to be injected into the discourse in Islamic society and force it to deal with it without allowing it to use its traditional tools of distortion and abuse.

The ideological framework which forces the others to use its categories to think about the world, basically wins the tussle!

[RajeshA]

I believe ShauryaT ji is NOT arguing for the backdoor legitimacy of jAti based social divisions playing a role in implementing varNa. I think he has made that clear, and I have no reason to doubt that. He has an aesthetic commitment to a Vedic theme. He is demanding a more shaastra-backed level of discussion on varNa, sexuality and other such subjects. This is actually an important component of debate, and I value it.

I too think he is consciously trying to distance from the varNa-jAti equation by making an argument for guna-based varNa understanding.

However I do think that our subconscious urges do push us towards various proclivities e.g. towards preservation of the varNa system through any means necessary. I do not blame him for this, but I cannot discount it. It is natural.

However I have tried to show why any formalized labelled social divisions no matter how well argued as being well-meaning, guna-based, merit-based would follow an inescapable dynamic and end up as hierarchical, hereditary and discriminatory. brihaspati garu has also gone into it at places.

However if the outcome of this inescapable dynamic is laid bare, then the wall between the subconscious and the conscious begins to fade away, and then one does ask how strong is the intention to break the varNa-jAti equation and to propose a "reformed" view of varNa, and whether it is all old wine in a new bottle!

[RajeshA]

Being a deracinated fake Hindu not immersed in scripture and practice, I have a little request to the gurus.

I am looking for references in Śhruti (Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, ...) which speak of the Dharma of various "Varnic social divisions" - i.e. brahmin-dharma, kshatriya-dharma, vaisya-dharma and sudra-dharma! Mind you not karma, but dharma!

I would appreciate any help.

TIA

[brihaspati]

^^as with every Sanskrit word - there is a layering of interpretation based on context. So dharma can sometimes be used merely as "particular characteristic/property" in association with a particular varna in a certain passage.

[Agnimitra]

However I have tried to show why any formalized labelled social divisions no matter how well argued as being well-meaning, guna-based, merit-based would follow an inescapable dynamic and end up as hierarchical, hereditary and discriminatory. brihaspati garu has also gone into it at places.

However if the outcome of this inescapable dynamic is laid bare, then the wall between the subconscious and the conscious begins to fade away, and then one does ask how strong is the intention to break the varNa-jAti equation and to propose a "reformed" view of varNa, and whether it is all old wine in a new bottle!

RajeshA ji, I agree with this. I said in a previous post: "We need to measure the works that spring from the "innate nature", rather than works that spring from a "conditioned nature". Most people without a psycho-spiritual process act out according to a conditioned nature. So if someone is conditioned by a family that respects certain behaviors, he/she tends to adopt that identity and duplicate those behaviors, even if it means suppressing other innate tendencies. A person keyed up with "pride in one's roots", privileged access to sources of knowledge, etc will "naturally" take to it - especially if there is no parallel process of spiritual self-discovery and self-determined decision-making. If we confuse varNic "guna-karma" with such conditioned nature... then it eventually just ties varNa back into jAti."

Once in a conversation with RamaY ji, he had mentioned how robust this system of conditioning was, and that in the end "caste shall triumph". I think this is one way of thinking, and usually its undercurrent is one of fighting a losing battle against time or an external enemy, and therein falling back on caste segregation and conditioning. But I do believe that a spiritual process if discovered and made widespread via education and culture, can change the very undercurrents of society. Those undercurrents shape circumstances. Moreover, apart from changing the karmic undercurrents, it also unleashes much greater abilities in individuals and society as a whole, and thereby one retains the advantage in the fight for survival also.

[RamaY]

^ Carl garu,

There are two parts to one's life - (1) Initial conditions and (2) Security and Opportunity

In a self-aware, self-confident and self-sufficient nation, all its citizens get all basic human necessities and get almost equal opportunities to progress. Then the social organization based on individual temperament, interest and capabilities is what matches with Varna system. Here the initial conditions of the citizens, a.k.a birth has very limited impact and importance.

In the absence of such affluence, the living conditions and opportunities are driven by the initial conditions where Varna becomes one with Caste/Kula/Jati system. This is where Bharat currently is, thanks to Islamic and Christian "civilizational" contributions.

There is no way anyone can remove the mix of Caste with Varna unless they achieve affluence first. That is why I strongly suggest Bharat focuses on this first and foremost.

Once Bharat becomes self-affluent then it will go back to Varna system where Caste is nothing but who one is - a continuation of their lineage irrespective of their Varna.

Irrespective of how we call it (I posted the names of Varnas in different Dweepas) as long society exists, Varna system exists. It's correlation with Caste system is proportional to poverty (did i get this right?).

[Agnimitra]

RamaY ji, yes I agree that there is a "fallback" coefficient that can progressively tie varNa (and all culture in general) to jAti and biological structures during aarthic attenuation. I don't think we can peg it to "poverty" in an economic sense alone, but that is a big factor, no doubt. Other factors could be degree of isolation and threat perception to culture. (E.g., Jews in the diaspora used caste as a method to preserve their culture when the Israeli rashtra didn't exist, even though they may have been prosperous at times.)

I think in order to mediate and work out this relationship between biological diversity and consciousness, we need to map out the way varNa and other aspects of dharma can be implemented as applications for different socio-political conditions. you mentioned a condition of "affluence" and "poverty". But we need to refine that. In a previous post way back on the Ambedkar thread, I had jotted down some conditions:

1. a condition of power, of prevailing over others and expanding,
2. a condition of transfer of power or handing over power or being overtaken by another,
3. a condition of flourishing on its own (could be in isolation or in partnership or as subordinate to another),
4. a condition of normalcy,
5. a condition of emergency,
6. a condition of being in danger of dying,
7. a condition of becoming non-existent or fossilized,
8. a condition of being a mechanical (non-conscious) liability rather than an asset,
9. a condition of being a cause of uncertainty, which complicates decisive action with cloudy details or sham profundity,
10. a condition of being inimical to life or survival in general,
11. a condition of treachery, of being a trojan for dispersion while appearing to be benign or helpful,
12. a condition of total chaos and dispersion.

Then the logic would be to observe behavior and assign a condition to a particular facet of national life, and then work according to a formula for that condition - to change it, maintain it, etc.

[RajeshA]

For example you would not have insisted on reinstitutionalizing varnic social divisions, a system that failed utterly to protect the Rashtra from the Islamic and then the British onslaught, both ideological as well as physical, a system where the people put their varnas before the interests of the Rashtra, a system where not everybody was brought onboard and trained to resist the invaders!

You are doing the same mistake of attaching state and organization failure and an ideological failure of SD at the footsteps of Varna, who's social-economic practices of the time, in the form of Jatis is certainly not the type of practice of Varna, I am advocating but never mind, you simply recoil at the word, without understanding it and worse seek to interpret things based on what seems "convenient". This way you will neither convince SD's detractors not its practitioners.

Blaming all ills at the doorstep of Varna is a favorite curse exercise of the marxist historians, why are you falling for the same trap?

Never do I put the blame on the brave men of Bharat who defended their country putting their lives on the line. Never do I raise a finger at any "kshatriya" who tried to protect India the best they could! I am also aware of the many thousands of "brahmins" who were specifically targeted by the invaders.

Despite that my complaint is directed at the intellectuals of the day, who did not venture out of India, who did not do an analysis of the growing might of Islam, who did not appreciate the gravity of fall of Persia to Islam, who did not understand the consequences of the conversion of Turks to Islam, who did not intellectually deconstruct the ideology and memes of Islam, who did not comprehend the strength of Islamic memes, even after Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sindhudesh, who did not galvanize the rulers of Bharat to respond collectively to the threat!

There simply was not a single Chanakya then!

So the fact that the political leadership of India collapsed at that time, that is secondary. The primary responsibility lies with the intellectuals of the day. So the question is what was so important that the intellectuals of the day did not do their duty! What were they busy with otherwise? I would call it self-obsession. And self-obsession is one of the major traits of a system built around varnic purity, for that way all the energies are expended upholding that rather than responding to challenges.

In fact one reads that the crowning of Shivaji itself was not being accepted by some 'intellectuals' because of his "unsatisfactory varnic antecedents"!

Many sections of society did fight, BUT many sections did nothing. In the rural areas life went on as if nothing had happened. And why? Because many were simply conditioned to think that it was not their duty to fight or they were not told that this time regime change meant something far more threatening to their way of life.

The common people started to fight back, for example in Punjab, because of the slave trade and because many women were kidnapped, which had not been a common phenomenon till then. So many of the Bharatiyas who did pick up the sword did so when their own families were threatened, when their own families were getting sold. It was not for the Rashtra that they became fighters initially.

So the common people were neither mobilized for the defense of the Rashtra nor were they ever trained to do it earlier. And why not? Because to fight was not their "varNa"!

So I consider the dearth of intellectual leadership and keeping the common folk out of the suraksha framework, a huge failing and I give Varnic social divisions the blame for this.

Of course this is criticism in hindsight but it is criticism of those lacking foresight!

[RajeshA]

MKG, who you have decried in the past, was asked from where does he read the message of Ahimsa into the BG, he said it comes from his heart. He was not afraid to reinterpret, but his heart was that of a Hindu immersed in our systems, its challenges and faults. He embraced all of it as his own. Get some courage and make all of SD your own, instead of focusing on spin.

Now that is interesting. Where have I decried MK Gandhi?

You are deracinated because you seek a "secular" society not a dharmic one, without realizing that this spells the death of SD, as we know it - just like JLN planned. One cannot even do a simple Namaste, for even that simple greeting has our version of god in it. But, what would you know of these things. For even our dear secularists, who make policy know this difficulty and hence the "official" approach of secularism in India is not a divorce between the state and god but equal respect for all faiths.

You have forgotten a category or two!

There are of course "traditionalists" who like to retain all the evolutionary changes that have taken place in their ideological framework over the years as well as in its implementation in society! Others have referred to you as being one. Then there are "reformers" who accept the religious framework as it stands but say that the society should deprecate certain practices, making them congruent with current thinking on ethics. Then there are "secularists" who cannot wait to throw off their religion underpinning their civilization for a variety of reasons, shame for it being one of them, atheism another.

But you're forgetting a very important category: What about "fundamentalists"?

Considering that Sanatan Dharma goes back to the dawn of human civilization itself, that kind of fundamentalism would mean reaching quite a bit back. It is going back to the Rishis themselves and to try to understand their message! And I don't think the traditionalists really have that message anymore, at least not on the question of varNa! "Fundamentalism" on this issue however need not detract from the fact that one can still remain a traditionalist as far as culture, rituals and other spiritual and philosophical endeavors are concerned.

The current "traditionalists" cannot answer the question on varNa simply because they have a conflict of interest and this conflict reaches quite a long way back! And where there is a conflict of interest, you keep the parties out of it!

So lets try to get our categories and cuss-words straight!

[RajeshA]

You desire to spin 4.13 of the BG, in your deracinated mind – without a single support statement from ANY established interpreter of BG from ANY tradition, now please spend some time to spin this away and claim they have nothing to do with social life of humans!

brahmana-kshatriya-visam
shudranam ca parantapa
karmani pravibhaktani
svabhava-prabhavair gunaih

samo damas tapah shaucam
ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam
brahma-karma svabhava-jam

sauryam tejo dhrtir daksyam
yuddhe capy apalayanam
danam ishvara-bhavas ca
kshatram karma svabhava-jam

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam
vaishya-karma svabhava-jam
paricaryatmakam karma
shudrasyapi svabhava-jam

sve sve karmany abhiratah
samsiddhim labhate narah
sva-karma-niratah siddhim
yatha vindati tac chrnu

yatah pravrttir bhutanam
yena sarvam idam tatam
sva-karmana tam abhyarcya
siddhim vindati manavah

sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah
para-dharmat sv-anusthitat
svabhava-niyatam karma
kurvan napnoti kilbisam

I guess, Sri Krishna is talking about some voo doos above and not human society. I suggested you read chapter 18 for details on 4.13 but no, as long as your spin is not caught, you shall continue on this mode. There is no penalty for lying on BRF now, is there? Do not worry, I have more verses from "Sruti" that you will have to spin more, once you are done spinning the above. You should be ashamed of yourself as a Hindu, to try to spin your way out of everything instead of being honest to yourself. You reject our smritis and shastras as if they were ALL misinformed, when Sri Krishna himself blesses them.

ShauryaT ji,

I'd already "spun" that text in my mind and it had read like a beautiful treatise on pure egalitarianism in Sanatan Dharma. It was as if Sri Krishna was giving me private tuition. However out of deference for your feelings and blood pressure, I'll not be offering a translation of it on BRF for now.

Dil Mange More!

[ShauryaT]

So I consider the dearth of intellectual leadership and keeping the common folk out of the suraksha framework, a huge failing and I give Varnic social divisions the blame for this.

Of course this is criticism in hindsight but it is criticism of those lacking foresight!

References?

[ShauryaT]

It is going back to the Rishis themselves and to try to understand their message!

References?

[ShauryaT]

I'll not be offering a translation of it on BRF for now.

Dil Mange More!

When you do, please do not forget some references. There are 500+ maybe more widely read interpretations out there. Hope you have read enough of them - to come up with a new one. Also, do say, which one's you have rejected and why?

Also, if possible in the future, please do not defile the "Purusha" - we practitioners perform our yagnas using it's wisdom and although all is part of it, no need for certain axioms.

Also, when and if I see that you have a view, which is backed by informed opinion and fact, I may respond. Till then good bye.

[RajeshA]

References?

You mean references from those compromised due to conflict of interest? Do you also want pir-reviewed references?

[RajeshA]

Also, if possible in the future, please do not defile the "Purusha" - we practitioners perform our yagnas using it's wisdom and although all is part of it, no need for certain axioms.

ShauryaT ji,

I am afraid it is the "traditionalists" who have defiled the Purusha, by misrepresenting it as some divine sanction for formalized labelled social divisions. I would urge the "traditionalists" to stop this abuse of Purusha for their selfish motives of perpetuating a non-deserving privileged position. Purusha represents the Supreme Consciousness.

The notion that the Supreme Consciousness has nothing better to do in all of reality, multiverse, space-time continuum and beyond than try to set up social divisions in some place in India is really pathetic logic.

What Sri Krishna tells Arjuna is to do his Karma and he maps out how Karma derives from his consciousness which itself is based on a universal model of consciousness, the Supreme Consciousness - the Purusha, thus giving "divine" sanction for his actions.

If one were to follow "traditionalist" school of Varna, no non-Kshatriya would be allowed to defend his family from any attackers! No Kshatriya would be able to own land or have a source of income, and no non-Sudra woman would one find cooking.

[RajeshA]

Real Unity in Diversity

Continuing from "Statewide and National runup to 2014 General elections" Thread

The discussion of caste groupings not voting to particular party brings me back to what I've been thinking of over the last several months.

Rivalries and suspicions based in past actions are hard to erase. for India, this is going to be a major hurdle. the future generations will have to solve this problem, or there won't be a chance for a united Bharatiya front. the nay-sayers, psecs, and assorted haters of Hindu Samaikhyata will ultimately win the war if future generations can't figure out how to move past the suspicions and rivalries.

Across these different castes and groups, we need to find some common thread, possibly invent or develop a common "worship/prayer/aradhana" and bring them together. a unifying paradigm in religious matters might perhaps go a long way in creating a shared platform for understanding and mutually beneficial politics.

devesh ji,

this issue is of course central to the vision of a united Bharat, and so I brought it up here. Hope you are okay with it!

When we launched ourselves in India on the project of "Unity in Diversity", our leadership in fact did nothing to promote the unity, except on the political level, in the form of Union of India with its Constitution, Parliament, Union Government and the Armed Forces. Otherwise the "makers" of India simply took the existing civilizational unity in India as our start-up capital and squandered it over the years, without thinking of ways of increasing the capital value of this enterprise.

True, Indian Film Industry and Cricket came to the rescue and contributed in forging a national consciousness, but basically it was mostly without any political input and effort.

"Unity in Diversity" would functions if the national effort was a conscious effort to promote a civilizational unity endowed with a single civilizational mission while preserving cultural diversity.

Nehruvian Secularism has however ensured that no effort is undertaken in this direction. The "Secularism" itself is an expression of voidness, of negation, of washing one's hands off any responsibility of undertaking any such effort. "Secularism" simply says we are united in the idea that we need not look for any pan-Indian civilizational bonds.

The only dedicated effort Nehruvian Secularists have undertaken is imposing a thin veil of a narrative of syncretism between Hindus and Muslims and used this veil to hide the separatist Islamic sociopolitical currents in India. Some of this has also shown up in the Indian Film Industry itself but also very much so in education. But beyond this masquerade most of the efforts of the Indian political leadership has been in destroying even the legacy civilizational unity for political electoral purposes. It has been in the direction of denying Indians even the existence of the Bharatiya Sabhyata through education based on British models of Aryan Invasion Theory or keeping the focus of history on non-Indian history.

[RajeshA]

Real Unity in Diversity

We need a major programs which in fact tries to bring the Bharatiya people together. In this thread many such ideas have been proposed. The effort should be to bridge the divisions of language, ethnicity, distance and caste as well as of religion as long as we keep true to a common civilizational cohesive narrative. National unity can never come at the cost of civilizational negation. Further we need to give ourselves a common mission which goes a bit further than simply minimum dignity, survival and neutrality as sufficient goals. I did go into this a bit earlier as well: Bharatiya Nationalism viz-a-viz Indian Nationalism.

Some of the suggestions made in this regard were:

1. Language:
   1. Common National Language: Sanskrit 2.0
   2. Competitive Sports @Olympics, @FIFA
2. Caste:
   1. Egalitarian Sanatan Dharma accompanied with retiring of the application of Varna as formalized labelled social divisions as it is over its expiry date.
   2. Progressive Decrease in caste-based quota reservations for historically disadvantaged jaatis by removing the most well-to-doing jatis in any category from being labelled as disadvantaged (SC/ST/OBC). This needs to be taken over by an independent state agency outside any political control.
3. Emotional Distance:
   1. Mandatory Military Conscription for Higher Studies
   2. National Camps during Schooling
   3. Private Pilgrimage Train Services as proposed by Narendra Modi
4. Religion:
   1. A common religious identity: Sanatan Dharma (Aastikamat, Bauddhamat, Jainamat, Gurumat), Hindu Dharma, Dharmic
   2. A common civilizational identity: Bharatiya Sanskriti Studies
   3. Marriage across religious divides while retaining Bharatiya Civilizational Identity: Empowerment of Women in Bharat
   4. Progressive assimilation through the "Indic" Mechanism

Of course as we build civilizational unity in Bharat, we also need to preserve the civilizational diversity in language and culture. A large scale anthropological study of the Bharatiya people and its documentation including the better preservation of artifacts and manuscripts (through digitalization) would also preserve the civilizational richness.

[ShauryaT]

Carl ji: Something that should interest you and hopefully already with some insight.

Hypothesis: The "corruption" in the design intent of Varna was aided by the rise of Prakrits and the decline of Sanskrit amongst non-Brahmins? The process started somewhere pre-buddha?

[member_20317]

^^^
That hypothesis was part of a wider premise that I used to employ, that a competitor can only effectively exploit a pre-existing weakness. I used to work from this point on.

This wider premise takes account of the cost effectiveness that a competitor needs, to justify his intervention and also allows for, any given position, to be at once both a strength and a weakness.

Yes, you guessed it right. While I am proud of the contributions that various sub-groups and communities made and also of the basic principle that allowed for the varna vyavastha to be conceived of in the first place, I still see the Indic groups fighting the invader/usurper as only half a war.

The crucial input of skills that is required to exploit whatever luck is thrown ones way has never been proved. Now the benchmark that I am using here is the outcome and not the analysis done in scholarly studies. Even if we presume the availability of the skill set in the case of say the fighting classes, I hope you realise a much better fight could have been put up had the skills been seeded in the other varnas.

We are still at exactly the same place. Only the nature of war around us has changed. The weaponry too has changed. The imperatives remain the same.

[brihaspati]

Carl ji: Something that should interest you and hopefully already with some insight.

Hypothesis: The "corruption" in the design intent of Varna was aided by the rise of Prakrits and the decline of Sanskrit amongst non-Brahmins? The process started somewhere pre-buddha?

Only if you assume the prevalent theory that "Sanskrit" came after "Praakrit". If praakrit reprsented the remaining pool of original languiages from which Sanskrit was filtered ["samskrita"] then the association of corruption with non-Sanskritik tendencies becomes dubious.

[RamaY]

^ True.

I thought Sanskrit as the refined form of Prakruti that is used in formal/literary/scientific/law use.

For comparison, try to read a legal or scientific document compared to the English used in common conversation with all that slang.

[RajeshA]

Even if we presume the availability of the skill set in the case of say the fighting classes, I hope you realise a much better fight could have been put up had the skills been seeded in the other varnas.

We are still at exactly the same place. Only the nature of war around us has changed. The weaponry too has changed. The imperatives remain the same.

ravi_g ji,

the nature of warfare is going to move again towards the neighborhood. We have seen warfare in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Nepal, Libya, Syria, and various parts of India as well - in the Northeast, in the Red Corridor, in Kashmir, in Punjab, Hindu-Muslim riots, etc. And then we have seen terrorism. One never knows when war comes to one's neighborhood and one has to protect one's dear ones.

The power of the state to both ward off external enemies as well as to keep the peace at home is limited and based on the fickle wisdom of those in power.

Whereas I am against allowing shastra in the hands of the population, except those who have proven their trustworthiness and competence in handling shastra by having served in the security forces and law-enforcement forces, in am strongly in favor that every Bharatiya should have some (maximum for the person) level of proficiency in martial arts and basic military training. When the need arises and one can arrange money, then one can also organize weapons.

It's time we provide all our citizens with the skills, opportunities and environment so that they can secure for themselves knowledge, protection, prosperity and purpose.

[RajeshA]

I thought Sanskrit as the refined form of Prakruti that is used in formal/literary/scientific/law use.

Among the "traditionalists" there is a thinking that RV sounds are eternal, and thus nothing came before and all languages are in fact corruption of Sanskrit. KLP Dubey ji was of the view.

I don't wish to question that premise but if Samskrita means refined there must be something of which it was refined unless it is to be understood in some other way.

[RamaY]

RajeshA garu

Is it fair to put me, the ignorant, against the erudite what did I do to you

[RajeshA]

Over the colonial period in India and afterwards caste was given particular attention by all sorts of people - Missionaries, Left-Liberals, Islamists, etc. who equated "Hinduism" with "Caste-System"! There is a certain vehemence in their narrative about the caste system in Hindu Samaj, which is mostly so derisive that it is in fact done to strengthen victimization complex as well as make "caste" a more rigid social construct that it may otherwise have been.

But this narrative is not something only the detractors of Bharat can use. Bharatiyas too could use this narrative and beat up our detractors at their own game.

I propose we create three new castes in the following "hierarchy":

1. The Bharatiya Caste - the caste of civilization builders
2. The Brit Caste - the caste of looters
3. The Baki Caste - the bheekmanga caste, mostly residing in Bakistan and Bradford.

If we persevere with this terminology, it would make Bakis really squirm because there are really no bigger casteists than the Bakis, even though they pretend that Islam has solved the casteism in society. No only Bakis really are completely immersed in caste, and Islam only magnifies caste-based contempt towards others. Often the Bakis used to see themselves as Ghazis and thus Kshatriya caste, and the Indians were to them baniyas and shoodras, whereas brahmans were to be done away as a caste completely, so that there was no caste above the Baki "kshatriyas", and this is one reason for their vehemence against the brahmans, but their contempt for the baniyas is because they think that they are "kshatriyas" all being Ghazis and as such the "baniyas" stand below them and as they are the super-casteists of the world, they would of course speak contemptuously about the "baniyas". Their entitlement too comes from their thinking that the "baniyas" should pay the "kshatriyas" some tax; coupled with the concept of "jizya", their demand for "baniya's" pound of flesh is absolute. However the Rajputs and the Sikhs, the so-called martial classes, as the Brits, called them, are kindred to the Bakis. These they can consider as somewhat equal but even here not quite, because the Ghazi "kshatriyas" are the best "kshatriyas" around.

The Baki mentality revolves around castes within their society as well as towards Indians.

However the growing differential in prosperity and their own predicament of dependence on others has shaken the Baki self-image and self-confidence.

This is something we can build upon - and so we should push to put the Bakis in a formalized and perpetual inferiority complex, putting them right at the bottom of the caste hierarchy. It is nothing different than shoving their head into a pile of pig shit and not letting them take it out.

Furthermore we need to include the Brits also into that hierarchy and in fact below the Bharatiyas. It is usually through the office and services of the British that the Bakis are able to regain some of their confidence, for both the British and the Bakis consider Brits to be the masters mediating peace between two fighting factions - Muslims and Hindus. We need to turn this rhetoric on its head by embracing the Brits too in this hierarchy and telling them point-blank that they belong below us and we do not consider them anything more the common thieves and looters.

Looters can hardly give a beggar like Baki any respect, for he himself has none!

I am putting this post here, because I'd like to emphasize that we should start thinking differently - we should start thinking of ourselves as the peak of global caste hierarchy. The Brits need to be considered inferior and the Bakis the most inferior and we should let them know that that is looking at them from our casteist prism.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA garu

Is it fair to put me, the ignorant, against the erudite what did I do to you

well that is how society treats all those who happen to impress others.

[Agnimitra]

Hypothesis: The "corruption" in the design intent of Varna was aided by the rise of Prakrits and the decline of Sanskrit amongst non-Brahmins? The process started somewhere pre-buddha?

ShauryaT ji, I think it suffices to say that imposing limitations on access to Sanskrit education, and the misuse of Sanskrit as a barrier to influence and participation at the higher levels, was responsible.

Also, I disagree with the idea that Sanskrit historically preceded Prakrits and so forth. I had expressed my idea of the relation between Sanskrit and Prakrits on a post long back on the Link Language thread: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1340827

Sanskrit was/is intended to be a standardizer of the civilizational life and data - for the purpose of gathering, refining and semantically engineering, and then re-distributing the current state of knowledge back into the common Prakrits. Instead, somewhere along the way it became an artificial preserve of certain vested hereditary classes, and a means of control over society rather than a means to better inform it.

In one sense, I think its good that India has maintained its language links with the Anglosphere, which is the dominant civilization today. I say this not only because of the much talked about business advantage, but also for other soft reasons.

Let India integrate and show that we are capable of integrating very well and bringing recognized value to the global village, and that we have much appreciation for the good things of other civilizations, too. Then when Sanskrit comes out, it will hopefully have a wider acceptance just by the power of good association, with wider support -- not just pan-Indic, but Eurasian.

This wide acceptance and participation is important, not just for political reasons but also for the very nature of Sanskrit. Let's see its role and relation to the Prakrits:

Sanskrit is enriched by whichever cultures become part of its civilizing sphere. It then absorbs and distills their characteristics and then re-enriches them in return with better structure as well as a logical, standardized and hugely extensible set of rudiments. It also furnishes a specialized binding language for the devoted intelligentsia culled from these different cultural communities. Its like the water cycle - Sanskrit as the Clouds in heaven, all the rivers and oceans of the planetary sphere beneath - the Rivers being the nations, the Oceans being specific civilizational spheres, the Mountains being the heights and cutting edge of different human fields of endeavor. The Sun of the common weal is what shines upon all these individual rivers and oceans and pulls their Waters up into the clouds. In return, the clouds then drift according to the prevailing Winds of time and necessity, and once again rain down the pure distillate upon the regions. This is the process of Sanskritization - receiving and giving, within a sphere of diversity. This level of diversity and merging is described as far back as the Vedas, seven races, etc.

It follows that the greater diversity on the earth below (i.e., the wider its sphere of influence and acceptance), the more "water" it has to work with, and the more "sky" it has to move in and rain down on. So English is a good language for India to integrate on a people-to-people and business level with the world. However, that does not preclude the need for a Sanskrit. Sanskrit in its core specialty simply does not share the same playing field as all these prakrits. When its need is felt and demonstrated (within India and parts of Buddhist Asia), then it will come into its own among the sections of the West also who long for it.

So in the meantime, Sanskrit should never become the preserve of conservative or chauvinistic forces who want to use it solely to forward project past identity. The power and real utility of Sanskrit is when it is in the hands of those who want to creatively bind minds across political and cultural boundaries. IMHO, it is a new culture-creator, not merely an old culture banner. Ever since Sanskrit became an "exclusive-cabalistic" language rather than an "inclusive-by-active-selection" language, it has declined in its actual impact on India and human society in general. Purpose and method are primary. So prospective and qualified acceptors of Sanskrit must be constantly searched for, cultivated and welcomed and networked with, across all civilizational boundaries. That is true Sanskritization. Just my fond hopes.

[member_20317]

Even if we presume the availability of the skill set in the case of say the fighting classes, I hope you realise a much better fight could have been put up had the skills been seeded in the other varnas.

We are still at exactly the same place. Only the nature of war around us has changed. The weaponry too has changed. The imperatives remain the same.

ravi_g ji,

the nature of warfare is going to move again towards the neighborhood. We have seen warfare in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Nepal, Libya, Syria, and various parts of India as well - in the Northeast, in the Red Corridor, in Kashmir, in Punjab, Hindu-Muslim riots, etc. And then we have seen terrorism. One never knows when war comes to one's neighborhood and one has to protect one's dear ones.

The power of the state to both ward off external enemies as well as to keep the peace at home is limited and based on the fickle wisdom of those in power.

Whereas I am against allowing shastra in the hands of the population, except those who have proven their trustworthiness and competence in handling shastra by having served in the security forces and law-enforcement forces, in am strongly in favor that every Bharatiya should have some (maximum for the person) level of proficiency in martial arts and basic military training. When the need arises and one can arrange money, then one can also organize weapons.

It's time we provide all our citizens with the skills, opportunities and environment so that they can secure for themselves knowledge, protection, prosperity and purpose.

RajeshA ji, your reply presumes a war between belligerents supported/allowed by non-combatants, which is the standard model. My query has one more aspect that needs to be addressed. The war is between non-combatants and the belligerents represent merely the Vishesh/exceptional part of these warring parties.

I have no issues with what you have written. Mostly I do not have any issues with what ShauryaT ji has written either. But the standard model will always keep both of you divorced from each other, which is what is sought to be achieved by the opponents of both of you.

Nobody can doubt that various Indic grouping did put up a fight but as ShauryaT ji himself pointed out, even the best placed Kshtriyas could not sink their differences. So what can one realistically expect from the lesser trained varnas (lesser trained in politics and war). That to me shows the weakness of the imposed (legal/moral) specialization. OTOH the fact that other varnas/non-varnic populations, did put up a fight often after justifiably changing (Sikhs) or creatively twisting (Chatrapati Shivaji case) their religious framework shows the inherent desire of a layman to take sides and seek protection of what he perceives as self-interest.

Now in this light I as a Sanatani would believe that I am duty bound to support the natural instincts of my countrymen instead of imposing theories upon them.

Indirectly perhaps others too have pointed this out from a different vantage point. Only they allowed themselves to see it as a fissiparous tendency. I see it as a natural tendency the support of which strengthens us.

My contention is that people being allowed the freedom to work along all 4 varnas will do us a lot of good. Even here in BRF we have all kinds of people wishing to contribute in areas that they have no special training of. This is something that we should encourage.

[RajeshA]

Even if we presume the availability of the skill set in the case of say the fighting classes, I hope you realise a much better fight could have been put up had the skills been seeded in the other varnas.

We are still at exactly the same place. Only the nature of war around us has changed. The weaponry too has changed. The imperatives remain the same.

ravi_g ji,

the nature of warfare is going to move again towards the neighborhood. We have seen warfare in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Nepal, Libya, Syria, and various parts of India as well - in the Northeast, in the Red Corridor, in Kashmir, in Punjab, Hindu-Muslim riots, etc. And then we have seen terrorism. One never knows when war comes to one's neighborhood and one has to protect one's dear ones.

The power of the state to both ward off external enemies as well as to keep the peace at home is limited and based on the fickle wisdom of those in power.

Whereas I am against allowing shastra in the hands of the population, except those who have proven their trustworthiness and competence in handling shastra by having served in the security forces and law-enforcement forces, in am strongly in favor that every Bharatiya should have some (maximum for the person) level of proficiency in martial arts and basic military training. When the need arises and one can arrange money, then one can also organize weapons.

It's time we provide all our citizens with the skills, opportunities and environment so that they can secure for themselves knowledge, protection, prosperity and purpose.

RajeshA ji, your reply presumes a war between belligerents supported/allowed by non-combatants, which is the standard model. My query has one more aspect that needs to be addressed. The war is between non-combatants and the belligerents represent merely the Vishesh/exceptional part of these warring parties.

I have no issues with what you have written. Mostly I do not have any issues with what ShauryaT ji has written either. But the standard model will always keep both of you divorced from each other, which is what is sought to be achieved by the opponents of both of you.

ravi_g ji,

I do not think that I have tried to make a case for the "standard model". As I see it, there are always forces which make big strategic plans based on various fault-lines, real or perceived or even fabricated, and try to create "creative chaos". There are often external forces - vested interests or religious ideologies with a programmed mission, which use latent belligerency in the people.

That is why I wrote:

Despite that my complaint is directed at the intellectuals of the day, who did not venture out of India, who did not do an analysis of the growing might of Islam, who did not appreciate the gravity of fall of Persia to Islam, who did not understand the consequences of the conversion of Turks to Islam, who did not intellectually deconstruct the ideology and memes of Islam, who did not comprehend the strength of Islamic memes, even after Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sindhudesh, who did not galvanize the rulers of Bharat to respond collectively to the threat!

There simply was not a single Chanakya then!

So the fact that the political leadership of India collapsed at that time, that is secondary. The primary responsibility lies with the intellectuals of the day. So the question is what was so important that the intellectuals of the day did not do their duty! What were they busy with otherwise? I would call it self-obsession. And self-obsession is one of the major traits of a system built around varnic purity, for that way all the energies are expended upholding that rather than responding to challenges.

So I am in fact urging for a more thorough analysis of the "designs of the non-combatants"!