Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby member_20317 » 01 Nov 2014 15:46

Arjun wrote:Prime Minister Modi's statement
It is said in the Mahabharata that Karna was not born from his mother’s womb. This means in the times in which the epic was written genetic science was very much present. We all worship Lord Ganesha; for sure there must have been some plastic surgeon at that time, to fit an elephant’s head on the body of a human being.

A reaction from Karan Thapar
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/c ... 553304.ece
The two faces of Mr. Modi

by Karan Thapar, 1-nov-2014

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assumption that in prehistoric mythological times India had mastered genetic science and plastic surgery is irrational ... What do we expect of our prime ministers? This is not a rhetorical question and you’ll soon see why. We expect integrity, commitment, dedication, administrative expertise and, hopefully, a fair modicum of intelligence..... Ultimately, my problem with the Prime Minister’s comment goes a step further, but it could be the most critical of all. Under Article 51 A (h) of the Constitution it’s the fundamental duty of every citizen to develop a scientific temper. I can’t see how the Prime Minister is doing that by blatantly claiming medical advances on the basis of unverified myths. His views clearly and undeniably contradict this constitutional requirement. In fact, if he thinks about it I feel confident Mr. Modi would not disagree!


My view on Karan Thapar's argument: The answer to this conundrum lies in realizing that scientific temper in the hard sciences and in the social sciences are not necessarily related.

Sometimes taking a non-objective and somewhat more utilitarian view of the social sciences (more specifically history) can actually assist in promoting scientific temper among the masses in hard sciences. And since the hard sciences are far more important to mankind's progress than the social sciences - the utilitarian approach to history should be the preferred route. Perhaps this has always been the Indic way - history seems to have been the one 'science' that was never regarded as one by ancient Indians.



&


LokeshC wrote:
How is an interest in hard science a contradicting position to invoking historical/mythical facts to support hard science?

One side of the cargo cult is to find EVERYTHING in hard science in Hinduism, much like the other side of the cargo cult which is rejecting everything that is in our culture and doing EVERYTHING that the west does.


Karan Thapar is doing the latter, and accusing Modi of doing the former. Karan Thapar's requirement that an interest in hard science means rejection of any idea or any possibility, however remote, that it could have originated or independently existed in our culture is clearly cargo cult behavior of accepting everything western and thereby rejecting everything Indian.

Modi clearly does not fall in either sphere. He is a man who uses elements from both indic culture and western knowledge, with synergy and meaningfulness. A concept which Thapar is clearly not mature enough or educated enough to comprehend.



There remains a third possibility. That KT has reasonable understanding of the phenomena you are talking about, even if not clear on them. Instead he may be afraid that somebody who has never done hard-sciences and is only a Hinduism practitioner would end up, up-ending his world for good, in a manner that complies with both the hard-sciences and the social-sciences.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8217
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Pratyush » 01 Nov 2014 16:32

Regardless of what is the intention of KT. He has no right to question the beliefs of an individual. However, ridiculous they may appear to be. KT is doing 2 things, from my reading o the article.

1) Presenting himself as anti superstition.
2) Calling out Modi's comments as a result of a superstitious belief system. Which in turn will result in the perpetuation of superstitious beliefs. As he is the PM of the nation and people will follow his lead.

The second point is what I take a strong exception with. Because in a secular society no one has the right to question & regulate what an individual chooses to believe in. Subject to those belief systems not conflicting with the rights enshrined for all the citizens of this country.

I don't care about his first point. It is when it starts to impinge upon my beliefs that I will have an issue with.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 01 Nov 2014 17:07

As per Karan Thapar, "scientific temper" means leaving out anything mentioned in Hindu history or folklore. This is the classic loss of self esteem, then rebuilt by Westernization
Who else would appear like this? In India.

Image

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 803
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby csaurabh » 01 Nov 2014 18:39

Pratyush wrote:Regardless of what is the intention of KT. He has no right to question the beliefs of an individual. However, ridiculous they may appear to be. KT is doing 2 things, from my reading o the article.

1) Presenting himself as anti superstition.
2) Calling out Modi's comments as a result of a superstitious belief system. Which in turn will result in the perpetuation of superstitious beliefs. As he is the PM of the nation and people will follow his lead.

The second point is what I take a strong exception with. Because in a secular society no one has the right to question & regulate what an individual chooses to believe in. Subject to those belief systems not conflicting with the rights enshrined for all the citizens of this country.

I don't care about his first point. It is when it starts to impinge upon my beliefs that I will have an issue with.


You are falling into the 'secular' trap my friend. If your belief states that I should be killed for being an unbeliever, this belief should be questioned. This is entirely reasonable.

The problem is that everyone questions only Hindu belief and not that of other 'seculars'. And this is regarded as 'secular'.

This 'secular' word needs to be thrown into the Bay of Bengal! It literally means nothing now.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 01 Nov 2014 19:24

Arjun wrote:
RajeshA wrote: By a quirk of fate, Secularism in Europe is actually to a large extent a gift from India. The philosopher who most attacked the Church was Spinoza and his work on Ethics led to even a Philosopher Cult of Spinozists, and as it so happens, that his ideas have been considered almost a copy of Vedanta principles.

Thanks for this.

This one needs to be publicized. But what could have been the route of the Vedantic influence ?


Arjun ji,

this would be a project in itself, sort of tracing the Vedantic influence on Spinoza.

Wikipedia says
Spinoza's ancestors were of Sephardic Jewish descent, and were a part of the community of Portuguese Jews that had settled in the city of Amsterdam in the wake of the Alhambra Decree in Spain (1492) and the Portuguese Inquisition (1536), which had resulted in forced conversions and expulsions from the Iberian peninsula.


So basically Spinoza (1632) would be privy to knowledge gathered by the Portuguese through Goa post 1530, as well as what the Dutch gathered from Hindu Indonesia post 1603. Considering how his people were hounded by the Portuguese Christians, he would also be having an axe to grind against Christianity. His family business was importing (1654), and at that time importing from India and Indonesia was the big business, so it is possible that through his import business he got to know about the knowledge of the East.

May be his Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being (1963) could shed some more light on his inspiration.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Nov 2014 19:51

negi wrote:does one believe in Ganesh if one does then it is obvious he/she believes in all that we know about Ganesh , taking an elephant's head and then planting on a body is technically a grafting operation which in layman's terms people refer to as plastic surgery so yes technically plastic surgery was carried out . Those who do not believe in Ganesh obviously do not have to believe that plastic surgery happened in those times it is as simple as that. Modi was only saying that the concept was known to Indians in those times he did not anywhere say that he believed that it actually happened .
No, No negi. One can believe in Ganesh but not believe in any grafting operations were carried out. It is crazy to believe such but the concept is inspiring!

Ganesh should not be washed away under the garb of rationality. Rational people try to figure out the purpose of the topic in question, its design intent, its key messages and then do a holistic interpretation of the matter. At the same time, we better learn as a nation real fast on the importance of Ganesh and indeed all of our puraanic deities and their relevance for this "rational" world. Their design intent was to show Dharma in action through the works of these gods. NOT to convey the greatness of "scientific" achievements of the era. I can fault Modi for using a wrong analogy to convey a message. At the same time fault Karan Thapar to pick in this manner and try to wash all of our mythology as "irrational" or not adhering to scientific temper.

Modi, IMO, knows fully well what the truths are. But he desperately wants to take this nation forward and he knows sticking to "facts" is boring and uninspiring for most people. He seeks to inspire and in this process, uses poetic license to say things that will get him the desired end result. Even if in the process, he ends up creating a few myths. That for you is the power of mythology. The men who wrote the puraans knew this.

So, for me, if in the process of worshipping Ganesh to ward off evil, I build hope for a positive result, recognizing the danger at hand then do i really care, how Ganesh got his head. I can justify that too, but it will be OT.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 01 Nov 2014 20:25, edited 1 time in total.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Arjun » 01 Nov 2014 20:09

Thanks, RajeshA ji.

The Portuguese, Dutch and British had started dealings with India by the time Spinoza rose to prominence. So it could have been any one of these routes - though Portuguese and Dutch do make more sense on account of his background. That path-breaking (for Europe) Vedantic pantheist philosophy makes its appearance in Europe within decades of their first contact with India, when nothing remotely close to this has appeared for a millenia before, cannot possibly be a coincidence.

More importantly though than the precise route of Vedantic influence is the fact that Spinoza is considered the earliest propagator of a secular, anti-religious philosophy in Europe. Considering that this philosophy is practically the same as Vedanta - the implication is that Vedanta is secular and should not be bracketed into a "communal" box. Indian philosophy can be imposed on Abrahamic minorities in India, if required, to pull them further up the secularism curve.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Nov 2014 20:23

The greatness of Vedantic thought will not come from trying to establish a link -mostly based on conjecture- between European renaissance and Indian systems. The greatness of Indian systems is far better established by a largely independent process in various regions by thinking, rational, ethical and compassionate peoples, on their own journeys to find the nature of the self, without the influence of dogma or authority.

If one has to go by conjecture then trust me a quick visit to the Vatican will allow EVERY culture on earth to claim that all of Europe got their ideas from their peoples only!

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby member_22733 » 01 Nov 2014 20:35

csaurabh wrote:LokeshC that's an amazing cartoon. It explains so much!
Did you make it/ can I forward it to others?


Not my creation! it is in the public domain, so please feel free to forward.

That cartoon explains how caged colonized minds still exist in India even after the colonizer is long gone.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Arjun » 01 Nov 2014 20:38

ShauryaT wrote:The greatness of Vedantic thought will not come from trying to establish a link -mostly based on conjecture- between European renaissance and Indian systems.

Establishing the greatness of Vedanta is not the intent.

The intent is to destroy the misconception of Europe being the forerunner of secularism as a concept or indeed as full-fledged personal philosophy.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 01 Nov 2014 22:11

Arjun wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:The greatness of Vedantic thought will not come from trying to establish a link -mostly based on conjecture- between European renaissance and Indian systems.

Establishing the greatness of Vedanta is not the intent.

The intent is to destroy the misconception of Europe being the forerunner of secularism as a concept or indeed as full-fledged personal philosophy.


Much more than Secularism, the whole "Age of Enlightenment" in Europe could possibly have an Indian element.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 01 Nov 2014 22:42

OK let me ask all clever clogs and Karan Thapar who demand that hairs should be split and that semantics matter one heckuva lot

What type of surgeon might carry out an operation on a parathyroid gland? Or on the pituitary gland.

If you happen to name the speciality wrong it does not mean that the operations cannot happen.

Our sense of belief lies in hearing it from western sources. Transplants from animals to man are called xenografts. Until good synthetic heart valves were made, pig valves were used. Sheep intestine still forms part of some suture material. Pig insulin is used by hundreds of millions of diabetics. Bovine collagen is used in burns. The idea that an animal part can be used on a human being is not extraordinary. Then again, who says Lord Shiva or his wife were human?

By all means demand, and get rationality. If Shiva and Parvati were not human, but superhuman the grafting of an elephant head onto a being created ( a robot?) by them is not incredible. Those of us who read science fiction regularly come across stories that are made credible by framing them in a suitable way. We thrive on stuff like "Terminator and "Teminator 2,3.142" whatever. We pay good money to see stuff like Jurassic park.

It is all well when it is presented to us from people of the kind we expect to see great ideas and visions from. From a desi it calls for contempt. I think Modi was simply trying to inspire people to apply rationality. It is not irrational to think how a humanoid shape (with four arms mind you) can acquire an elephant head. It can be done provided the initial conditions are suitable. We are just not accustomed to doing it with black/brown man's stuff. We swallow it only when white man gives it to us.

In fact there are scifi stories that speak of stars with sentience . And if anyone bothers to try and understand what people have written about the "infinite" - the "ultimate consciousness" - the universe and all of creation are sentient. Nothing is really incredible until you box yourself into a mold that restricts your information source to one type.

Colonization of the mind, loss of self esteem followed by a regaining of self esteem by adopting western "universalism" is rampant among Indians. And Thapar is as much a sepoy as any could be.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby johneeG » 01 Nov 2014 23:05

ShauryaT wrote:
negi wrote:does one believe in Ganesh if one does then it is obvious he/she believes in all that we know about Ganesh , taking an elephant's head and then planting on a body is technically a grafting operation which in layman's terms people refer to as plastic surgery so yes technically plastic surgery was carried out . Those who do not believe in Ganesh obviously do not have to believe that plastic surgery happened in those times it is as simple as that. Modi was only saying that the concept was known to Indians in those times he did not anywhere say that he believed that it actually happened .
No, No negi. One can believe in Ganesh but not believe in any grafting operations were carried out. It is crazy to believe such but the concept is inspiring!

Ganesh should not be washed away under the garb of rationality. Rational people try to figure out the purpose of the topic in question, its design intent, its key messages and then do a holistic interpretation of the matter. At the same time, we better learn as a nation real fast on the importance of Ganesh and indeed all of our puraanic deities and their relevance for this "rational" world. Their design intent was to show Dharma in action through the works of these gods. NOT to convey the greatness of "scientific" achievements of the era. I can fault Modi for using a wrong analogy to convey a message. At the same time fault Karan Thapar to pick in this manner and try to wash all of our mythology as "irrational" or not adhering to scientific temper.

Modi, IMO, knows fully well what the truths are. But he desperately wants to take this nation forward and he knows sticking to "facts" is boring and uninspiring for most people. He seeks to inspire and in this process, uses poetic license to say things that will get him the desired end result. Even if in the process, he ends up creating a few myths. That for you is the power of mythology. The men who wrote the puraans knew this.

So, for me, if in the process of worshipping Ganesh to ward off evil, I build hope for a positive result, recognizing the danger at hand then do i really care, how Ganesh got his head. I can justify that too, but it will be OT.


Actually, this is a very interesting topic in itself. And why can't you consider Lord Ganesha's head transplantation as a form surgery? What is irrational about it?

One would consider it irrational if one does not believe in Lord Ganesha. Then, it will seem irrational. But, if one believes it, then its certainly quite rational.

Lord Shiva is called Vaidyanatha(i.e. Lord of Doctors). So, why would it seem irrational if Lord Shiva transplants a head. Infact, this is not the only instance in Puraanas where Lord Shiva transplants a head. Lord Shiva similarly transplants the head of Dhaksha with the head of a goat.

So, clearly, the story of Lord Ganesha is not a one off. There is a pattern which suggests that there was atleast a concept that animal heads could be transplanted on other species.

There is another story where Indhra's balls are transplanted with the balls of sheep. Indhra loses his balls due to curse of Gauthama when Gauthama finds Indhra with his wife Ahalya. So, Indhra's balls are transplanted with the balls of a

दृष्ट्वा सुर पतिः त्रस्तो विषण्ण वदनो अभवत् || १-४८-२५
अथ दृष्ट्वा सहस्राक्षम् मुनि वेष धरम् मुनिः |
दुर्वृत्तम् वृत्त संपन्नो रोषात् वचनम् अब्रवीत् || १-४८-२६

"On seeing the sage the lord of gods Indra is scared and became dreary-faced. Then the well-behaved Gautama furiously spoke these words on seeing the ill-behaved Thousand-eyed Indra who is donning the guise of a saint. [1-48-25b, 26]

मम रूपम् समास्थाय कृतवान् असि दुर्मते |
अकर्तव्यम् इदम् यस्मात् विफलः त्वम् भविष्यति || १-४८-२७

" 'Oh, dirty-minded Indra, taking hold of my form you have effectuated this unacceptable deed, whereby you shall become infecund.' Thus, Gautama cursed Indra. [1-48-27]

गौतमेन एवम् उक्तस्य स रोषेण महात्मना |
पेततुः वृषणौ भूमौ सहस्राक्षस्य तत् क्षणात् || १-४८-२८

"When that great-souled sage Gautama spoke that way with rancour, the testicles of the cursed Thousand-eyed Indra fell down onto ground at that very moment. [1-48-28]

Link

अग्नेः तु वचनम् श्रुत्वा पितृ देवाः समागताः |
उत्पाट्य मेष वृषणौ सहस्राक्षे न्यवेशयन् || १-४९-८

"On hearing the words of Agni, the Fire-god, the manes-gods who gathered to collect their share of offering have extricated that ram's testes, which is not yet sacrificed but tethered to a sacrificial post, and offered them to the Thousand-eyed Indra. [1-49-8]


इन्द्रः तु मेष वृषणः तदा प्रभृति राघव |
गौतमस्य प्रभावेन तपसा च महात्मनः || १-४९-१०

"Oh, Raghava, owing to the efficacy of the great-souled Gautama and his ascesis, from then onwards Indra has became one with the testes of a sheep. [1-49-10]

Link

The consist theme is: transplanting organs which are considered irreplaceable. One would generally think that replacing balls or head would not work. But these ancient Hindhu scriptures are saying that it can work.

The birth of Kauravas by Vyasa shows artificial incubation. Preserving the dead body of Dhasharatha until Bharatha returns from his uncle's house in Kekaya shows preserving dead body.(The dead body was preserved in an oil trough).
तैल द्रोण्याम् अथ अमात्याः सम्वेश्य जगती पतिम् |
राज्ञः सर्वाणि अथ आदिष्टाः चक्रुः कर्माणि अनन्तरम् || २-६६-१४

The ministers assigned for the job kept the king in an oil trough and did all the acts that were to be done therafter.

Link

Birth of Dhronacharya is also a good example of artificial incubation. There are stories where children were born only by females or by male. There are stories of cross-breeding between species. For example, Rushi Shrunga had a human father and animal mother(deer).

Human and Animal Cloning in Rig Veda & Puranas

Animal Cloning was done few years ago in modern world but human cloning is still not done successfully and it is also prohibited in almost all countries.
In Ancient India, animal cloning was done to multiply number of cows and horses.
[cloning in rigveda] In Rigveda, Rubhus are mentioned as brothers (Rubhu, Vajra and Vibhu) who brought youthfulness to their old parents. They even managed to bring back their lost skills. (They must have used ayurvedic recipes to bring back youthfulness. So much literature about such recipes exist even today but is neglected).
They even cloned a cow and a horse.

Seven different sages Kanva Medhatithi (1-20), Angirasa Kutsa (1-110,111), Deerghatamas (1-161), Vishvamitra (3-60), Vamadeva (4-33), Vasistha Maitravaruni (7-48), and Shrunu Arbhava (10-176) mentioned about Rubhus in their vedic verses.
These 7 sages belong to different generations, so it is known that Rubhus were known for their work over a long period of time.

The first work of Rubhus was to bring back youthfulness to their old parents. This is mentioned in multiple verses of Rig Veda.
1-20-4 – With their exclusive power they made their old parents youthful again.
1-110-8 – They made their old parents full of youth again by their skill.
1-111-1 – Ingenious Rubhus prepared a chariot for Indra, prepared two powerful horses (2nd being cloned from 1st), made their old parents youthful again and gave new mothers to orphaned calves or children.
1-161-7 – Oh Rubhus, with the power of your intelligence you converted your old parents into youthful state.
4-33-3 – Rubhus who made their old parents youthful again may come to our Yajna.
4-34-9 – Rubhus gave a new life to their old parents, to Aswinau, to a cow and a horse.
4-35-5 – Oh, ingenious Rubhus, you made your old parents youthful again.
4-36-3 – Oh, Rubhu, Vaja and Vibhu, your workmanship of making your old parents youthful again was praised by gods.

The second work of Rubhus was on cows and their first step was to produce a cow which yielded copious milk. (RigVeda 1-20-3).
Probably cows in that generation did not yield enough milk and to meet the demand, cloning was done.
They mention about a method where skin from cow’s back in taken and cells are multipled from it to produce a new cow (named Viswaroopa) which looks alike.

Third work of Rubhus brothers was to produce two powerful horses. First they created a horse (named Hari) and presented it to Indra. Then they produced another horse which is a clone of Hari and now both were used to yoked to his chariot (1-161-7, 4-33-10).

Before cloning, Rubhus brothers seem to have worked on living cells and their multiplication.
Sun gave ‘Chamasa‘ with Amruta to Rubhus (1-110-3) and they divided it into four equal parts.
‘Chamasa‘ here can be considered as a cell and amruta (immortal thing) makes it a living cell.
Rig Veda suggests a Chamasa having Chit or Chetana or Manas, so Chit-Chamasa means a living cell.
A fertilised egg can be called as ‘Chit Chamasa‘. It was divided into four by Rubhus, which means Rubhus evolved four animals from a single zygote or fertilised ovum.
This living cell or an embryo is prepared Twashta (God).

During the experiment, eldest brother(Rubu) said, “ we can make two cells from the original one ” (4-33-5). However, the younger(Vajra) brother said, “ We can make three” , because he observed that when one cell was divided into two, there were three cells.
The youngest brother(Vibhu) observed and said , “ We can make four ”, as second cell also can be divided equally like the first.

Next was human cloning, which is mentioned in story of King Vena.
He was a great king but became evil and corrupt. So, Mother Earth (Bhoodevi) decided that she would not provide crops to humans anymore.
A group of Rishis (Sages) killed King Vena out of anger. They removed all the evil from his corpse’s thigh.
Then they created his clone from his arm.
This clone had similar body but however, mind cannot be cloned. So, a new King who was named ‘Prithu’ was created with pure mind. He brought back Mother Earth (Bhoodevi) to her normal state and promised be her eternal guardian. This is why Earth (Bhoodevi is also known as Prithvi.

There are examples of abnormal cloning, like of Nishada in Vishnu Purana.
Nishada, though an abnormal clone, could live long and could produce children. His tribe was known after his name and King Nala (of the famous Nala-Damayanti story in Mahabharata) and Ekalavya were his descendants.

Rubhus had also made a chariot flying in air, so they were automobile engineers too.

There are many more instanced like the demon ‘Rakta Beeja’ or AhiRavana and Mahi-Ravana who produce Rakshasas(demons) who look like them from their blood drops in war. It might be cloning from the white blood corpuscles, which contain nuclei.

Link

As I said, this is an entire topic in itself and can be researched.

Now, is all this merely imagination or did they actually do all these things? Who knows! Why should one assume that they are just imaginations? Even if they are imaginations, is it not inspiring that they have such great imaginations?

Did Shushrutha or Charaka come up independently without any predecessors? Most probably there was entire system and environment which allowed advanced concepts like plastic surgery to exist. That means, there must have been advanced chemistry, physics, maths, and biology. There must have been instruments which allowed such things to exist. To build such instruments, one needs metallurgy and chemistry.

West and Islam learnt sciences when they conquered the more advanced civilizations. This is similar to mongols getting artillery after defeating the chinese. Similarly, west and islam learnt sciences of all kinds after defeating the Americans(originals ones) and Bhaarathiyas.

What Karan Thapar seems to be saying is that believing or promoting Hindhuism is equal to believing or promoting superstition and anti-Science. The irony is that many of the modern scientists have consistently taken inspiration from Hindhu scriptures. Many of the modern scientific concepts can be shown to have Hindhu origins.

I am myself sceptical about what ancient Greek records. And other non-Bhaarathiya records on Bhaarathiyas. But, since Karan Thapar seems like someone who would lap up whatever non-Bhaarathiyas say, he should pay attention to what ancient greeks and romans said about Bhaarathiyas.

What did the ancient greeks feel about ancient Bhaarathiyas?
Philostratus, in his book Life of Apollonius of Tyana, recognized the experience of Apollonius in India, he writes that Apollonius described:

In India I found a race of mortals living upon the Earth, but not adhering to it. Inhabiting cities, but not being fixed to them, possessing everything but possessed by nothing.[1]

2nd century Roman philosopher Arrian applauded India to be the nation of free people, he cites that he found no slaves in India at all,[2] and he further added:

No Indian ever went outside his own country on a warlike expedition, so righteous were they.[3]

Wiki Link


Not just biology but other sciences also have their origin in Hindhuism.
The concept of atom was taken from Hindhu sources:
Vaishesika Sutras by Kanada describe Laws of Motion & Concept of Atom

His primary area of study was Rasavādam, considered to be a type of alchemy. He is said to have believed that all living beings are composed of five elements: water, fire, earth, air, ether.
Vegetables have only water, insects have water and fire, birds have water, fire, earth and air, and Humans, the top of the creation, have ether—the sense of discrimination (time, space, mind) are one.
He theorized that Gurutva (Hindi/Sanskrit for Gravity) was responsible for the falling of objects on the Earth.
Thus, he was the first person to identify and describe gravity (much ahead of Newton) after Prasnopanishad described it around 6000 BC.
Literature of Vaisheshika

The earliest systematic exposition of the Vaisheshika is found in the Vaiśeṣika Sūtra of Kaṇāda (or Kaṇabhaksha). This treatise is divided into ten books. The two commentaries on the Vaiśeṣika Sūtra, Rāvaṇabhāṣya and Bhāradvājavṛtti are no more extant.
Praśastapāda’s Padārthadharmasaṁgraha (c. 4th century) is the next important work of this school.
Though commonly known as bhāṣya of Vaiśeṣika Sūtra, this treatise is basically an independent work on the subject.
The next Vaisheshika treatise, Candra’s Daśapadārthaśāstra (648) based on Praśastapāda’s treatise is available only in Chinese translation.
The earliest commentary available on Praśastapāda’s treatise is Vyomaśiva’s Vyomavatī (8th century). The other three commentaries are Śridhara’s Nyāyakandalī (991), Udayana’s Kiranāvali (10th century) and Śrivatsa’s Līlāvatī (11th century). Śivāditya’s Saptapadārthī which also belongs to the same period, presents the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika principles as a part of one whole. Śaṁkara Miśra’s Upaskāra on Vaiśeṣika Sūtra is also an important work.
3 Vaishesika Sutras proposed 1800 years before Newton’s Three Laws of Motion

वेगः निमित्तविशेषात कर्मणो जायते |
Translation : Change of motion is due to impressed force.
(The law stated that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.)
वेगः निमित्तापेक्षात कर्मणो जायते नियतदिक क्रियाप्रबन्धहेतु |
Translation : Change of motion is proportional to the impressed force and is in the direction of the force.
वेगः संयोगविशेषविरोधी |
Translation : Action and reaction are equal and opposite.

The Categories or Padārtha

According to the Vaisheshika school, all things which exist, which can be cognised, and which can be named are padārthas (literal meaning: the meaning of a word), the objects of experience. All objects of experience can be classified into six categories, dravya (substance), guṇa (quality), karma (activity), sāmānya (generality), viśeṣa (particularity) and samavāya (inherence). Later Vaiśeṣikas (Śrīdhara, Udayana and Śivāditya) added one more category abhava (non-existence). The first three categories are defined as artha (which can perceived) and they have real objective existence.
The last three categories are defined as budhyapekṣam (product of intellectual discrimination) and they are logical categories.

1.Dravya (substance): The substances are conceived as 9 in number. They are, pṛthvī (earth), ap (water), tejas (fire), vāyu (air), ākaśa (ether), kāla (time), dik (space), ātman (self) and manas (mind). The first five are called bhūtas, the substances having some specific qualities so that they could be perceived by one or the other external senses.

2.Guṇa (quality): The Vaiśeṣika Sūtra mentions 17 guṇas (qualities), to which Praśastapāda added another 7. While a substance is capable of existing independently by itself, a guṇa(quality) cannot exist so. The original 17 guṇas (qualities) are, rūpa (colour), rasa (taste), gandha (smell), sparśa (touch), saṁkhyā (number), parimāṇa (size/dimension/quantity), pṛthaktva (individuality), saṁyoga (conjunction/accompaniments), vibhāga (disjunction), paratva (priority), aparatva (posteriority), buddhi (knowledge), sukha (pleasure), duḥkha (pain), icchā (desire), dveṣa (aversion) and prayatna (effort). To these Praśastapāda added gurutva (heaviness), dravatva (fluidity), sneha (viscosity), dharma (merit), adharma (demerit), śabda (sound) and saṁkāsra (faculty).

3.Karma (activity): The karmas (activities) like guṇas (qualities) have no separate existence, they belong to the substances. But while a quality is a permanent feature of a substance, an activity is a transient one. Ākāśa (ether), kāla (time), dik (space) and ātman (self), though substances, are devoid of karma (activity).

4.Sāmānya (generality): Since there are plurality of substances, there will be relations among them. When a property is found common to many substances, it is called sāmānya.

5.Viśeṣa (particularity): By means of viśeṣa, we are able to perceive substances as different from one another. As the ultimate atoms are innumerable so are the viśeṣas.

6.Samavāya (inherence): Kaṇāda defined samavāya as the relation between the cause and the effect. Praśastapāda defined it as the relationship existing between the substances that are inseparable, standing to one another in the relation of the container and the contained. The relation of samavāya is not perceivable but only inferable from the inseparable connection of the substances.
The atomic theory

An interesting story states that this theory occurred to him while he was walking with food in his hand. As he nibbled at the food in his hand, throwing away the small particles, it occurred to him that he could not divide the food into further parts and thus the idea of a matter which cannot be divided further came into existence. He called that indivisible matter anu, i.e. atom. He also stated that anu can have two states – Absolute rest and a State of motion.

The early Vaiśeṣika texts presented the following syllogism to prove that all objects i.e. the four bhūtas, pṛthvī (earth), ap (water), tejas (fire) and vāyu (air) are made of indivisible paramāṇus (atoms): Assume that the matter is not made of indivisible atoms, and that it is continuous.
Take a stone. One can divide this up into infinitely many pieces (since matter is continuous). Now, the Himalayan mountain range also has infinitely many pieces, so one may build another Himalayan mountain range with the infinite number of pieces that one has. One begins with a stone and ends up with the Himalayas, which is a paradox – so the original assumption that matter is continuous must be wrong, and so all objects must be made up of a finite number of paramāṇus (atoms).
According to the Vaiśeṣika school, the trasareṇu (dust particles visible in the sunbeam coming through a small window hole) are the smallest mahat (perceivable) particles and defined as tryaṇukas (triads). These are made of three parts, each of which are defined as dvyaṇuka (dyad). The dvyaṇukas are conceived as made of two parts, each of which are defined as paramāṇu (atom). The paramāṇus (atoms) are indivisible and eternal, they can neither be created nor destroyed.[13] Each paramāṇu (atom) possesses its own distinct viśeṣa (individuality).
The measure of the partless atoms is known as parimaṇḍala parimāṇa. It is eternal and it cannot generate the measure of any other substance. Its measure is its own absolutely.

Ofcourse, knowledge of Atoms and Molecules was given through Bhagavata Purana and in Rig Veda, where cloning incidents were described.

Link

Heisenberg who proposed principle of Uncertainity was very influenced by Vedhantha. He himself noticed that his principle of uncertainity is very similar to Vedhantha. Tesla was highly influenced by Hindhuism. Bohr adopted Yin-Yang symbol as part of his family coat of arms.

In Schrödinger’s famous essay on determinism and free will, he expressed very clearly the sense that consciousness is a unity, arguing that this “insight is not new…From the early great Upanishads the recognition Atman = Brahman (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent, the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.”

Link

Infact, the concept of Gravity is hinted in Rig Vedha itself:
Image

A verse from Rigveda (1.84.15) already told us "The moving moon always receives the light from sun to shine" -
Image

Sayanacharya commenting on Rig Vedha talks about speed of Sun(light):
The fourth verse of the Rigvedic hymn 1:50 (50th hymn in book 1 of rigveda) is as follows:

तरणिर्विश्वदर्शतो जयोतिष्क्र्दसि सूर्य |
विश्वमा भासिरोचनम |

taraNir vishvadarshato jyotishkrdasi surya |
vishvamaa bhaasirochanam ||

which means “Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Surya (Surya=Sun), maker of the light, Illuming all the radiant realm.”

Commenting on this verse in his Rigvedic commentary, Sayana who was a minister in the court of Bukka of the great Vijayanagar Empire of Karnataka in South India (in early 14th century) says:

tatha ca smaryate yojananam. sahasre dve dve sate dve ca yojane
ekena nimishardhena kramaman.

which means “It is remembered here that Sun (light) traverses 2,202 yojanas in half a nimisha”

Calculation: So now we can calculate what is the value of the speed of light in modern units based on the value given as 2202 yojanas in 1/2 nimesa

= 2202 x 9.09 miles per 0.1056 seconds
= 20016.18 miles per 0.1056 seconds
= 189547 miles per second !!

Link
Link

Sanskruth text of Sayana's commentary on Sun's speed(speed of light):
Image

Hanumaan Chalisa of ThulsiDhaas talks about the distance between Sun and Earth:
Image

The works of Bhaaskara, Aryabhatta, Varahamihira and Surya-Siddhantha were lapped up by the middle-east and europe.

Magic Square' in Bhaaskara's Leelavati, encrypted in a form of Sanskrit Shloka -
Image

Pythagoras theorem by Baudhaayan, in a form of Sanskrit Shloka (stanza) -
Image

Value of PI (3.1416 approx.) by Aryabhatt, in a form of Sanskrit Shlok (stanza) -
Image

Famous knight's tour mathematical problem was solved 600 years before Euler did.
Image

When Europeans first encountered Bhaarath, they were actually fans of Bhaarath. They even had a name for this fascination for Bhaarath in Europe: Indo-Mania.

wiki wrote:Indomania or Indophilia refer to the special interest India, Indians and Indian culture has generated in the Western world, more specifically the culture and civilisation of the Indian subcontinent. During the initial period of colonialism (during the conquest of Bengal) everything about India had an aspect of novelty, especially in Britain. This enthusiasm created a brand of people who started studying everything possible about India, especially its culture and ancient history. Later the people with interests in Indian aspects came to be known as Indologists and their subject as Indology. Its opposite is Indophobia.


wiki wrote:Friedrich Schlegel wrote in a letter to Tieck that India was the source of all languages, thoughts and poems, and that "everything" came from India.[5] In the 18th century, Voltaire wrote:

I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc... It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry...But he would certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the Brahmins' science not been long established in Europe.[6]


Wiki Link

Nazis did not have direct access to Bhaarath, so they researched old Sanskruth records in Tibeth. Brits(and anglo-saxons) had direct access due to control on Bhaarath. It seems that many of the ancient Sanskruth texts are still in the control of anglo-saxons. Why? If these texts are just silly mythologies, why do the anglo-saxons need to control them?

Just look at the great temples built by Hindhus. Does Karan Thapar think that these huge temples are built just like that without knowledge of physics?

Even modern day structures are not as long-lasting as these ancient temples. Surely, they had very good knowledge of physics and chemistry to the extent that they can engineer marvelous and long-lasting structures.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Arjun » 02 Nov 2014 08:56

RajeshA wrote:Much more than Secularism, the whole "Age of Enlightenment" in Europe could possibly have an Indian element.

There seem to have been at least 5 aspects of the onset of the Modern Age / Age of Enlightenment where India played a central role:

    1. Renaissance Sciences. This was based on the bedrock of Indian Mathematics (including the decimal system, and key discoveries in trigonometry, calculus and algebra)

    2. Mercantilism as economic philosophy. The one factor responsible for lifting Europe and specifically England out of the geopolitical backwaters to emerge as a global (super)power while displacing and impoverishing India. The driver for this was the need to stop losing gold to India and stem the balance of trade by discovering a direct sea-route to India.

    3. Key Social Science disciplines including Linguistics, Comparative Religion, modern Philosophy & Sociology were shaped by the intellectual ferment following the discovery of Sanskrit and its antiquity as forerunner among Indo-European languages

    4. The Industrial Revolution was made possible by India (both acting as a captive market for British goods and as a source of capital enabling the required investment that led up to the revolution)

    5. Secularism as a concept (as initiated by Spinoza and other European philosophers) seems to have been directly influenced by Vedantic thought.

The list above does not include possible indirect contributions of Indian culture to Europe through the Greeks, Romans and later the Arabs who had historically acted as gatekeepers to Indian thought prior to the 16th Century.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 02 Nov 2014 12:24

Arjun ji,

Excellent Summary!

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Arjun » 02 Nov 2014 16:54

For those who are interested, some lesser known details on the British East India Company and how it came to dominate Indian and far Eastern trade routes:

Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 02 Nov 2014 19:31

Dr. van der Kolk: But it's true. Western culture is astoundingly disembodied and uniquely so. Because of my work, I've been to South Africa quite a few times and China and Japan and India. You see that we are much more disembodied. And the way I like to say is that we basically come from a post-alcoholic culture. People whose origins are in Northern Europe had only one way of treating distress: that's namely with a bottle of alcohol.

North American culture continues to continue that notion. If you feel bad, just take a swig or take a pill. And the notion that you can do things to change the harmony inside of yourself is just not something that we teach in schools and in our culture, in our churches, in our religious practices. And, of course, if you look at religions around the world, they always start with dancing, moving, singing …

Ms. Tippett: Yeah. Crying, laughing, yeah.

Dr. van der Kolk: Physical experiences. And then the more respectable people become, the more stiff they become somehow.


from:
http://www.onbeing.org/program/bessel-v ... in_content

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2014 05:39

A_Gupta wrote:
Dr. van der Kolk: But it's true. Western culture is astoundingly disembodied and uniquely so. Because of my work, I've been to South Africa quite a few times and China and Japan and India. You see that we are much more disembodied. And the way I like to say is that we basically come from a post-alcoholic culture. People whose origins are in Northern Europe had only one way of treating distress: that's namely with a bottle of alcohol.
<snip>

Dr. van der Kolk: Physical experiences. And then the more respectable people become, the more stiff they become somehow.


from:
http://www.onbeing.org/program/bessel-v ... in_content

The point about respectable people becoming more "stiff" is exactly what was pointed out in the first of that series of 4 videos posted earlier about the "self". European culture encouraged people to hide their emotions. In the UK I used to notice a difference between the reaction of family members in hospital to a death depending on whether they were Italian or Indian/Pakistani versus British. The former two were more "Indian" they expressed their motion openly, cried and might be seen falling on the floor or rolling in grief. The British tended to show a very minimal reaction.

But I don't like the word "disembodied". I think it is more like being less connected with other humans in society because of too much emphasis on the individual. Humans need society as well - we are not lone individuals. "Individualism" can only go so far.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Nov 2014 07:03

Since it would be off-topic in the STFUP thread, just to point out what Ajit Doval says in his talk at the Sastra University is a different framing of the jihadi terrorism problem. (Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.) Fundamentalism is a minor side of jihadi terrorism; political Islam is the major component. Political Islam by itself is not the problem either, it can in some forms, be with you; and in others, be against you. There is a nationalist political Islam narrative that is under threat from the Salafis, from Pakistan -- strengthen that nationalist political Islam and make it our ally. It has both the ability and the desire to take on the task of taking on anti-national political Islam; it is just alienated from the mainstream.

You and I have our suspicions even about nationalist political Islam. Maybe we fear it legitimately, maybe we fear it out of our lack of self-confidence. But the cause doesn't matter. If Doval is correct, it is in India's national interest that we put aside those suspicions.

This is a very different framing than anyone in the West can give it - because their Muslim populations are relatively tiny, and they have no century-old tradition of nationalist political Islam that they can draw upon. A G.W. Bush or Obama, for example, cannot say, let us drawn upon national political Islam. India can remind itself of Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and constellations of lesser stars.

If Doval is correct, and assuming that PM Modi agrees with Doval's views, then a large number of supporters will have to change the way they behave and talk with respect to Muslims & Islam - that is, assuming that they not just support PM Modi by their votes, but are also committed to helping him achieve these goals by Doval's methods.

Also in his talk are the mentions of danda and bheda for dealing with the anti-national political Islam. (The URL of the youtube is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuSNC7qZwi0 ).

There is something he said there that is still ringing in my mind - it goes something like this: Strategy without tactics is the noise before the defeat. Tactics without strategy is the shortest way to suicide.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2014 07:17

Arun - Doval is very well informed and I can hardly pick holes in his views. he is correct, but his views in no way contradict my own views which I have had for a few years now.

The idea that Islam or Quran will somehow vanish is not mine, but I have heard that wish and IMO it needs to be dismissed as a waste of time. However the wish that islam might disappear or made to disappear is usually the first step in saying that Islam should be fought continuously in a mirror image counter jihad until it is defeated. Again, this has nothing to do with my views.

The fact that there is a political Islam recognized separately from " something else Islam" - Doval says nationalist Islam is interesting, but the fact of political Islam is well known. What is new is that there is/was an Indian nationalist Islam based in the Deoband school. This deserves recognition. Doval saying so adds weight to that fact because our knee jerk reaction is to curse Deoband. Doval points out that it was not Deoband, (a nationalist madrassa set up by the defeated Muslim soldiers of 1857), but the British sponsorship of Aligarh Muslim University as an opposite pole to Benaras Hindu University that eventually led to the formation of Pakistan

My own personal view is that I really don't care what Islam says or does as long as violence is stopped. If it is political Islam that promotes violence and not any other component of Islam, it is not possible to recognize it as long as violence continues. If stoppage of violence negatively affects political Islam more than any other part, so be it. The counter argument I have heard to this is that violence is part and parcel of the religion Islam and you calling for Islam to stop violence is the same as trying to make Islam disappear. I disagree with that and Doval's views have only reinforced my thoughts and clarified them that the main proponents of violence are political Islamists who need their asses kicked.

There will be peace if there is no violence, whether Islam (or any other faith) exists or not.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Nov 2014 09:40

Doval has his wits and ken about him - no arguments with his points. Any student of geo-politics would be at a loss if they choose not to learn from his talks.

That said, the example, to pick one, he uses of the British and how they got the Jihadis to meet their maker at the hands of the Sikhs, etc. needs to be understood for the strategic context in which the British were using terrorists as an opportunity. India, even Doval, are viewing terrorists, not terrorism, as a strategic problem with Paki-Satan as the epi-center. He may have some notion of a grander strategic opportunity, but it is unknown to us. So my humble question to him would be what is the end goal?

If the first and only step is the quiescence of Paki-Satan, then I would question the wisdom of such a myopic approach. If it is the first step, in a series of other steps coming down the road that enables regional power projection and economic and political alignment from the west to the east in Asia, etc. then there is reason to believe that some of the elements, even terrorists, could become tools to guarantee such a strategic opportunity.

Shiv speaks of the violence must end... if we listen to Doval, he says wars are a natural activity of man. I agree and add that the violence will not end and no peace will arrive at some date when Muslims (even Deobandis declare so in a fatwa, they even have one on banning beef in India if the law makes it illegal!). This business of war can occur even without religion, even when Islam becomes more tolerant. Yes, I know I am a cynic. There will be no ever lasting peace and due to scaling and current population, the impact of the legitimate human activity of war is going to only worsen.

The sane advise would be to not only pursue more offensive-defense, but also pursue a viable end goal by framing solutions as strategic opportunity.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby johneeG » 03 Nov 2014 10:59

A_Gupta wrote:Since it would be off-topic in the STFUP thread, just to point out what Ajit Doval says in his talk at the Sastra University is a different framing of the jihadi terrorism problem. (Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.) Fundamentalism is a minor side of jihadi terrorism; political Islam is the major component. Political Islam by itself is not the problem either, it can in some forms, be with you; and in others, be against you. There is a nationalist political Islam narrative that is under threat from the Salafis, from Pakistan -- strengthen that nationalist political Islam and make it our ally. It has both the ability and the desire to take on the task of taking on anti-national political Islam; it is just alienated from the mainstream.

You and I have our suspicions even about nationalist political Islam. Maybe we fear it legitimately, maybe we fear it out of our lack of self-confidence. But the cause doesn't matter. If Doval is correct, it is in India's national interest that we put aside those suspicions.

This is a very different framing than anyone in the West can give it - because their Muslim populations are relatively tiny, and they have no century-old tradition of nationalist political Islam that they can draw upon. A G.W. Bush or Obama, for example, cannot say, let us drawn upon national political Islam. India can remind itself of Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and constellations of lesser stars.

If Doval is correct, and assuming that PM Modi agrees with Doval's views, then a large number of supporters will have to change the way they behave and talk with respect to Muslims & Islam - that is, assuming that they not just support PM Modi by their votes, but are also committed to helping him achieve these goals by Doval's methods.

Also in his talk are the mentions of danda and bheda for dealing with the anti-national political Islam. (The URL of the youtube is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuSNC7qZwi0 ).

There is something he said there that is still ringing in my mind - it goes something like this: Strategy without tactics is the noise before the defeat. Tactics without strategy is the shortest way to suicide.



Ajit Doval says that Abul Kalam is a nationalist from Devbandi stream. Following is Abul Kalam's interveiw on why he is opposed to the partition of Bhaarath (some people in pakistan doubt the veracity of this interview):

November 28, 2009
Against Partition: April 1946 Interview with Abul Kalam Azad
From Covert Magazine

THE MAN WHO KNEW THE FUTURE

by Matbooat Chattan Lahore

Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan’s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far — neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches — except for Kashmiri’s own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT

Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?

A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.

Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].

A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.

A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.

If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.

Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.

We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:

1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.

The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.

The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.

The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.

I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.

A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.

Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.

If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.

After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.

The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.

The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.

The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.

In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.

Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.

In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.

Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?

A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.

Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?

A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.

Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?

A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters

link

Doval saar is right that there are two streams: Aligarh stream and Devbandi stream. But this should not be talked in terms of nationalist and anti-nationalist because both Aligarh and Devbandi are not nationalist and have nothing to do with the nation of Bhaarath.

But, Devbandi school seems to have been setup to re-establish the Mughal rule which was defeated by the brits. Were the Mughals nationalist? Was Aurangzeb nationalist?

The only Mughal who may have had some track-record of tolerance towards Hindhus was Akbar. And Akbar created a new religion called Dheen-e-Ilahi. And Akbar was declared as an apostate of Islam by the sufis and clerics.

In the rest of the Mughal rule, islamism continued to increase. During Jehangir's rule, Guru Arjan Singh was killed by the Mughals. During Shah Jehan's rule islamism was severe and Ahmad Sirhindi was flourishing. In Aurangzeb's period, the islamism had reached its fanatic heights. After that, the Mughal rule crumbled due to islamism and maladministration.

Maraatas and Sikhs were rising as independent powers. Jats and Raajpuths had revolted against the Mughals. Nizam had declared independence and EIC were in control of the southern coasts. During this time, it was Waliullah who flourished in the Mughal domains. Waliullah invited Abdali to attack Bhaarath to stop Maraatas and Sikhs.

Abdali did so. Maraatas were defeated. Maraatas remained confined to central Bhaarath after that. Maraatas had already weakened the Vangal by raids. This allowed the EIC to defeat Vangal easily. South-Bhaarath was left to Nizam, Hyder Ali and EIC. In north, Abdali also retreated and this gave space to the rise of Sikhs.

EIC gained rapidly through its naval force. It controlled entire coast except the west coast which was under Tipu and Maraatas. Maraatas recovered from the Panipath defeat and decided to consolidate in south. Tipu and Nizam were the natural targets. Tipu became priority because of his jihadh in Kerala region. Tipu became priority for the EIC also because of the possibility of Napoleon allying with the Tipu using western coast. So, Tipu was attacked by the 3 forces: Maraatas, EIC and Nizam. Tipu lost. And eventually, conquered.

That left, Maraatas, Nizam and EIC in south. Through Vangal, EIC was looking to expand into north. Oudh (Awadh) was the natural target. Luckily for the EIC, Maraatas disintegrated and the Maraata territories fell into EIC's lap. Using Maraata forces and territories, EIC was able to expand into the north. Awadh was the first casualty.

Then, eventually, the EIC tried to defeat the Sikhs who were rising as powerful kingdom. Sikhs lost the war and ceded lot of territories. Meanwhile, EIC was busy neutralizing the left over Maraata rulers who could revolt. So, it annexed the kingdoms which did not have a heir.

So, everyone realized that EIC was the biggest threat. So, everyone grouped together to fight the EIC in 1857. Was it nationalist of the muslims to fight against EIC? More than nationalism, it was just pure tactic/strategy. EIC had to be defeated because they were the biggest and immediate threat. For this purpose, the lesser threat were made into allies. This was the logic used by both Hindhus and Muslims.

Some Hindhus believed that its better to use EIC to finish off the muslim kingdoms.

Anyway, 1857 was a victory for the EIC. After that EIC imposed 20 yrs of famine on Bhaarath to crush the possibility of any future revolts.

According to Doval: After the defeat of 1857, Devbandi(who were fighting against the EIC to save the Mughals) established an institution to fight the EIC. EIC said,"hey, why fight us? we are just temporarily here. But, you have to defeat the kafirs who are your real enemies. We will help you do that by giving you weapons and other training."

So, Devband was supported by the brits and unleashed on the sikhs who defeated this devbandis.

Now, the EIC had weakened sikhs further.

EIC gained control on most of the Bhaarath directly or via puppet rulers. So, EIC now used Sikhs, Maraatas and Muslims forces to attack the Afghans. The badlands of Afghanisthan were too much for the EIC and they declared the Afghans as martial race and withdrew.

It was around this time that Aligarh was set up by Syed Ahmad Khan. Devband represented a stream which was fighting against the EIC to restore the Mughal rule(or Islamic rule). Aligarh represented a stream which accepted the brit rule and was loyal to the brits as long as brits gave favours to Muslims above the Hindhus.

This started an interesting trend. Devbandis and Aligarh started acting as bad cop and good cop to win favours from the brits compared to Hindhus. Division of Vangal was one such action. But, it backfired bigtime for the brits.

By 1900s, the Bhaarathiya independence movement was at its peak and it was becoming increasingly difficult for the brits to keep control. The rebellions were spreading all over and the brits were spread thin. The greatest fear of the brits was a revolution of british indian army.

Then, Gandhi landed in Bhaarath in 1915 and was hailed as the prophet of non-violence by the brit supported media.

In 1919 during the first world war(where control on middle-east oil was the prime motive), Turkey came under the attack of the brits. Devbandis saw the attack on Turkey as an attack on Islam and waged war against the brits. Gandhi launched Khilafath movement to take control of this by leading it peacefully instead of allowing it to go violent. Soon it merged with other rebellions and became a larger non-cooperation movement. The movement was phenomenal success and was hurting brits.

And the Turks were defeated. Brits used internal revolt to replace the Khalipha. Soon, Brits replaced the Turks with Arabs as the new topdog of islam. This was a big movement for the west. Now, the west had got control on islam.

Gandhi promptly rolled up non-cooperation movement because it had served its purpose of stopping the rebellions from becoming violent. And if the non-cooperation movement continued it would seriously threaten brits. There was great persecution of those who participated in non-cooperation movement. Many nationalist congressmen were persecuted by the brits.

Gandhi was allowed to get control on congress.

Aligarh was already loyal to the brits. Now, devbandi would also become loyal to brits because Arabs were the allies of the west.

The difference between Aligarh and Devbandi schools is their attitude towards westernization. Aligarh school welcomed westernization to a limited extent. Devbandi school opposed westernization.

Devbandi schools and like were opposed to partition because they believed that it would weaken the muslims by dividing them. And it would be setback to malsIc domination of Bhaarath(compared to Mughal rule).

Aligarh movement is what we call: moderate muslims.
Devbandi movement is what we call: fundamentalist muslims.

Both are political movements aimed at islamic domination. They differ on specific tactics. Even here, they seem to have come to reconciliations mostly.

Ajit Doval's talk also says that fundamentalism is not wrong in itself because fundamentalism merely means going to fundamentals.

So, what are the fundamentals of Islam?
Here is a picture that I found on twitter, I don't know how correct or wrong it is. But, its interesting:
Image

This image claims that there are no verses in Quran about reciting Shahada(Mohammad is the prophet and allah is the god). It also says that there are no verses in quran about praying 5 times a day. All these are found in Ahadiths.

So, fundamentally, jihad is the main concept. Other concepts are supporting characters which were created later(perhaps by the Turks or Kaliphas).

On the other hand, Jihad was part of the original Arabic concept. Will jihad end if all non-muslims are conquered? Definitely not. It will find some other excuse to continue to loot and enslave. One can say that the concept of jihad came out of looting and enslaving and not the other way around. Arabs were pirates who were doing piracy for many years before they established their kingdom. Their religion is just a pirate's religion which was sythesis of Buddhism, Hindhuism, X-ism and african religion. It justified loot and slavery.

This religion was taken over by the Turks and they added more concepts as their need recommended.

What is the fundamental concept? Loot and slavery.

Can Indian Muslims become nationalists?
This would pit them against India vs Islam debate. Indian Muslim as a group can become total nationalists if India becomes a muslim majority country.

Then, India would follow the path of Persia and might create a new version of Islam with elements of Hindhuism in it. Then, there would be 3 variations of islam: arabic/turkic, persian and Hindhu.

But, its Hindhus of Bhaarath who are to be blamed here because they just refuse to be defeated. They just refuse to roll-over and convert or die. This is the crux of the problem. Otherwise, the situation in Bhaarath would have been similar to situation in middle-east. Is that good thing or bad thing, is separate discussion.

The same can be said about X-ism. If Hindhus of Bhaarath convert to X-ism, initially,they would be loyal to Watikan. But, it eventually, they may revolt and develop a new variation of X-ism within Bhaarath. This new version may have elements of Hindhuism. All this process may take a long time. Say 50/100 yrs. But, thats the logical course.

The same would apply to communism also. If Bhaarath becomes a communist country then Bhaarath will develop a new variation of communism(rooted in Bhaarath's native traditions) just like china has developed its own version of communism.

But, all these exotic possibilities are not able to fructify because of adamant refusal of Hindhus to give up Hindhuism. And the Hindhuism's flexibility in continuing to survive the various assaults is truly remarkable. This is particularly remarkable because many other creeds are also flexible, yet they find it hard to survive. Most creeds are very flexible on all points except their survival and propagation. Yet, they are defeated.

There is something unique about Hindhuism which allows it to survive in various circumstances for such a long time with an intact core philosophy. The unique aspect is: Hindhuimsm is the super-set of all religions. There are natural auto-correction methods in Hindhuism. Whenever, one aspect is starting to overwhelm, it is balanced by the other side of the spectrum by Hindhuism. This allows Hindhuism to keep the balance in all circumstances and provide right mechanisms.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 803
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby csaurabh » 03 Nov 2014 21:27

Amit Shah's recent interviews are an eye opener.
It is remarkable the degree to which he has rejected WU.

Example
Why did the government deregularise diesel?

It will help reduce the price.

Yes, but only for now, because the international crude price is low. From now on it’s left to the market forces, so the price may increase as well as there are now international linkages to the market price of diesel.

We are confident that we will be able to control it.

But you have left it at the mercy of the marketplace.

If the price has been reduced, do you want to pay more?

But what about the future, when the price goes up internationally?

We are confident that we will be able to manage.

But that will take time. You are pro-reform and pro-liberalisation and want to eventually merge the Indian economy with the global.

First of all, please understand that the BJP government is not associated with any of these terminologies. The policies are made, always, on the basis of the requirements of time and for a solution of the problem. These words will not be in any book, but without this wisdom the BJP can’t function.

Like, if the World Trade Organisation says don’t buy grains from your farmers at minimum support price, then we will just not agree with them. It’s the requirement of the country to have an MSP regime. But that does not make us anti-reforms, as well.

We deregularised diesel prices because it’s the requirement of the country. That step, in your eye, is pro-reform.

You can’t bracket us in any terminology. We make policy and we will take decisions that our country wants.

But basically are you pro-reforms?

Why do you want to remain trapped in words? For us all issues are different in nature.

I will ask you a question now. We didn’t sign the WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement. Was that decision anti-reform or pro-reform?

Anti-reform.

We deregularised diesel. What is it?

Pro-reform.

Now tell me, is the Modi government pro-reform or anti-reform?

It’s a debatable subject…

(Intervenes) We are pro-India. Don’t get trapped in Western definitions. There is nothing inflexible about pro-reform or anti-reform. Irrespective of economic theories we will take decisions in the larger interest of the poor people. I can give you five more examples to prove the point.

These pro-reform and anti-reform fixed definitions are mean. No government in any country can run on static definitions of economic thinking. The (last) government tried to run in an inflexible way, that’s why a mess was created.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 03 Nov 2014 21:42

A_Gupta wrote:(Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.)


Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2014 21:54

johneeG wrote:Can Indian Muslims become nationalists?
This would pit them against India vs Islam debate.

I like to stick to my one track requirement - which I have stated for a few years now and have repeated on this thread.

N.o. V.i.o.l.e.n.c.e.

Violent people like the ba$tards in Shreeman's post will have to be soosided/eliminated/jannatified until everyone gets the picture. And people DO get the picture, after a while, as Naipaul recorded when he visited Iran after the 8 year war with Iraq.

When violence ends, people can have whatever opinion they like about anything - nationalist, rationalist, sensationlist, nudist, poltergeist, fashionista whatever.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby member_22733 » 03 Nov 2014 22:24

A_Guptaji,

You have asked here (and on the STFUP thread), about building lasting institutions. There is a book that did a statistical study on businesses that lasted long vs the ones that withered away: Its called Built to last. http://amzn.com/0060516402
'
The first chapter pretty much explains the difference between the longevity of Greko-Roman instituitions vs old oiropean/Indian institutions. Our problem is that we inherited the Greko-Roman institutions, but did not inherit the reasoning and the social basis/need for them.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2014 06:39

RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:(Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.)


Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.


" We are pro-India. Don’t get trapped in Western definitions. There is nothing inflexible about pro-reform or anti-reform. Irrespective of economic theories we will take decisions in the larger interest of the poor people. I can give you five more examples to prove the point."

Likewise, don't get trapped in Islamic definitions and self-description.....

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2014 07:24

LokeshC wrote:A_Guptaji,

You have asked here (and on the STFUP thread), about building lasting institutions. There is a book that did a statistical study on businesses that lasted long vs the ones that withered away: Its called Built to last. http://amzn.com/0060516402
'
The first chapter pretty much explains the difference between the longevity of Greko-Roman instituitions vs old oiropean/Indian institutions. Our problem is that we inherited the Greko-Roman institutions, but did not inherit the reasoning and the social basis/need for them.


Thank you, Sirjee!

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2014 07:25

RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:(Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.)


Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.


The success of his strategy may depend on how muted/hidden these other narratives remain.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby member_22733 » 04 Nov 2014 07:53

A_Guptaji,

I said the first chapter was the one that contained insights. Its actually the second chapter, its called "Clock Building not Time Telling". The author has written a bunch about this topic and here is a sampling:
http://www.jimcollins.com/article_topic ... anies.html

Make the company itself the ultimate product—be a clock builder, not a time teller

Imagine that you met a remarkable person who could look at the sun or the stars and, amazingly, state the exact time and date. Wouldn’t it be even more amazing still if, instead of telling the time, that person built a clock that could tell the time forever, even after he or she were dead and gone?
Having a great idea or being a charismatic visionary leader is “time telling;” building a company that can prosper far beyond the tenure of any single leader and through multiple product life cycles is “clock building.” Those who build visionary companies tend to be clock builders. Their primary accomplishment is not the implementation of a great idea, the expression of a charismatic personality, or the accumulation of wealth. It is the company itself and what it stands for.

Take for example, T.J. Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. Brilliant, self-assured, technically sophisticated, and guided by a fierce “take no prisoners” drive to win. Rodgers came to Jerry and me several years ago. “I want to go beyond the fast-growing entrepreneurial success,” Rogers told us. "I want to build Cypress into a monument company.”

“Tell me, T.J.," I responded, "what is the most important product you are working on right now?” He threw out a highly technical name. I disagreed with him.

“How can you?” he asked. “You don’t know the technology. You don’t know my business the way I do. You don’t know the market."

I then told him how David Packard, when asked to name the most important product decisions contributing to Hewlett-Packard's remarkable growth rate, answered entirely in terms of the attributes of the Hewlett-Packard organization—the importance of granting immense operating freedom within well-defined objectives, the pay-as-you-go policy that enforces entrepreneurial discipline, the critical decision to enable all employees to share in the company's financial success. David Packard was clearly a clock-building leader.

Now, whenever T.J. Rodgers is asked about the most important product he is working on, he answers firmly, "Cypress Semiconductor Corporation." By making the shift from time telling (being a great product visionary) to clock building (creating a great organization), he has taken perhaps the single most important step in transforming his hot-growth company into a visionary company that's built to last.

Achieving that transformation requires turning the world upside down and inside out, seeing products and market opportunities as vehicles for building a great company, not the other way around. In fact, only 3 of our 18 visionary companies began life with a "great idea." As we move into the 21st century and products, technologies, and markets blast through their life cycles, clock-building styles of leadership will become even more important.


Of course many of these companies sank after the tech bubble burst, but to last as long as they did and beating the market with for as many years as they did truly says that there was indeed something "different" about these orgs.

Romans/Byzantines/Brishits (in the order of succession) have that "clock building" nature. Look at any administrative/bureaucratic structure to come out of these places and you will find such a structure in there.

Infact, Malsi, Christism and any long-lasting cult (i.e. a cult which lasts much after its leader has departed) would also contain such a structure. There will be bureaucracies running, a clear chain of command accepted, a military like hierarchy, heavy indoctrination and there will be belief that "we are special", "we are here to do great things" etc.

The primary art to "convert" is coercion and deception (IOW: convert or die, convert for $$) and not teaching or consensus (IOW: "let me show you the light"). The former is any abrahamic religion and the latter has been what SD was (and has been) doing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2014 08:38

Where the west scores far higher than India is in the act of studying "others" to classify them, see their past behaviour and predict future behaviour. Typically this comes under the headings of sociology, psychology and anthropology which are big zeros in India. But these are extremely useful specialities to see what people do.

I think we have too many emotive arguments about "islam does this and that". No one on BRF can say anything that steps slightly off the "accepted line" about Islam without being beaten back into line. It has happened on this thread as well.

On the other hand, on the Pakistan thread, I am assured the west has a firm grip on Islam and Muslims. They know what to do and how to handle them. In fact more than one person stated and accepted as fact that the west can do and does things with the ummah that India cannot do.

I don't know if people recognize the contradiction here. Either the west is dominating Islam or it isn't. But the west's population is declining while Islamic populations are increasing in size. This, I am told is a formula for future defeat. To me, that means that the west is heading for defeat. if the weest is heading for defeat why don't we accept that rather than arguing that the west is dominating Islam. "The west is finished. We need not worry about it any more. WU will die" Clearly there is something amiss with that argument.

No Indian, at least on BRF has done any serious study of what happens to Islamic populations after enough fanatics are killed fighting violent jihad. By "serious study" I am not asking for a cargo cult parody of what one imagines in his mind and some blather about "This is how they will behave because quran says blabla". I am talking about studies or interviews in Muslim populations after many thousands have been killed in jihad over many years.

I suggest Naipaul's "Beyond Belief" as recommended reading here. It is downloadable as an ebook for those who might prefer that format.

Islamic populations can and do indoctrinate the vulnerable - especially young men to go an kill themselves in the war front. This is what Naipaul wrote about Iranian "Martyr's battalions" of whom "if 1400 went to the front hardly 400 returned"

A year later Abbas joined the army properly, and he was a member of one of the
martyrs’ battalions. People who volunteered as martyrs proclaimed themselves ready for
any job. They wore no special clothes when they were in ordinary battalions; they made
themselves known to the o cers by their extraordinary zeal. One martyrs’ battalion
literally fought to the death; no one survived.

Before an attack there was “a good-bye ceremony.” Someone might sing; someone
respected in the battalion, like a clergyman, a commander, an old man, or a popular
man, might address the men. This person would stand on a podium or a chair and say,
“Tomorrow we have an attack.” That was how the good-bye ceremony began. Some
people would burst into tears right then; others would cry later. Generally there was a
lot of weeping and wailing. The speaker would say, “Some of you might not come back
tomorrow. We might not see each other again. Some people will see God tomorrow.”
Then there would be music and chanting. Abbas heard this as something in the
background. Nobody could focus on it. Everybody was emptying himself of all feeling,
pouring feeling into a common pool. In that pool there was a collection of miseries and
worldly di culties and family problems, a pregnant wife perhaps, a sick baby, nancial
problems, quarrels with parents. Everything went into that common pool and was
disappearing. Joining this ceremony was like joining a ship. Whether you liked it or not
you had to go with it.


After the war there was only tiredness and sadness. Never mind the leaders. The people had all seen too much death. There were not enough men for the women - many of whom were older than average in searching for a mate.

The point I am getting at is that Islam in the past has used these tactics to win wars. After the war is won and an enemy subjugated these sad memories are celebrated as victories. But what if they don't win. What if they are defeated. The violent bunch will mostly be killed or beaten into submission leaving only a population tired of war.

Look for sociological accounts of the war in Lebanon too. Humans do not become special if they become Muslim fanatics. The same things eventually begin to hurt. Violent Islam needs to be beaten down and beaten down till there is no more violence left. When an ideology calls for violence as the solution to doctrinal differences of opinion, the only response can be counter violence. It is only when you go soft that things are likely to fail.

if a population remains peaceful because of happiness or because of hudaibiya like pretence, so what? So long as the state is maintained by suitable application of rule of law why worry?

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Nov 2014 10:50

A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.


" We are pro-India. Don’t get trapped in Western definitions. There is nothing inflexible about pro-reform or anti-reform. Irrespective of economic theories we will take decisions in the larger interest of the poor people. I can give you five more examples to prove the point."

Likewise, don't get trapped in Islamic definitions and self-description.....


+1-4+5-2

If you guys agree that several of the religious denominations are closely linked and indeed controlled by various ethnicities atleast historically... (think Sunni Islam == Soothi Arabia, Shia Islam == Persia, Protestant == Anglo-Saxon, etc. etc.), then the question arises if allegiances are to the extra-national ethnicities and their front organizations or to the nation. However, this formulation itself is counter productive as it follows the classic 'are you still a wife beater (replace with subscribing to your <religion> before nationalism), answer yes or no?' It leads to a strategic dead end. On this there could be a 'religious debate.' :mrgreen:

Again, we are confusing geo-politics with religious debates... seems this runs deep in the Indian psyche.

That some Indians who are SD thinkers want to formulate strategies for survival, more so thriving of SD civilization is legitimate. That this has to be done by denying space for non-SD traditions and perhaps the state has to play a role in this effort is a altogether separate debate from...
What are the current geo-political challenges facing India and what tools including religious can be applied to find strategic opportunity.

Thank you to several posters on this thread for providing me with fodder to understand several areas I had questions in...

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Nov 2014 11:19

A_Gupta wrote:
LokeshC wrote:A_Guptaji,

You have asked here (and on the STFUP thread), about building lasting institutions. There is a book that did a statistical study on businesses that lasted long vs the ones that withered away: Its called Built to last. http://amzn.com/0060516402
'
The first chapter pretty much explains the difference between the longevity of Greko-Roman instituitions vs old oiropean/Indian institutions. Our problem is that we inherited the Greko-Roman institutions, but did not inherit the reasoning and the social basis/need for them.


Thank you, Sirjee!


Al Qrawiyyin University Started by a Islamic woman... :mrgreen:
Think of why this is considered the oldest university that still exists by Unesco, but we find no support for SD institutions in such claims... like I said before there are Jati based groups and religious schools that are older if not as old as these other non-Western examples...

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 04 Nov 2014 14:01

Western Universalism prospers when

  • West is most wealthy
  • West has monopoly over writing history
  • West enjoys social peace

When that goes, Western Universalism too weakens. On all three counts, West is making space for others.

The point is whether India too is captive of Western Universalism or not. If we are captive, then Western Universalism can drown but will take India with it. Do we want that?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2014 14:13

Pulikeshi wrote:If you guys agree that several of the religious denominations are closely linked and indeed controlled by various ethnicities atleast historically... (think Sunni Islam == Soothi Arabia, Shia Islam == Persia, Protestant == Anglo-Saxon, etc. etc.), then the question arises if allegiances are to the extra-national ethnicities and their front organizations or to the nation. However, this formulation itself is counter productive as it follows the classic 'are you still a wife beater (replace with subscribing to your <religion> before nationalism), answer yes or no?' It leads to a strategic dead end. On this there could be a 'religious debate.' :mrgreen:

Again, we are confusing geo-politics with religious debates... seems this runs deep in the Indian psyche.


I like to ask why is the Hindu psyche so sensitive to Islam? Perhaps there are multiple reasons - one being the assertion that Hindus are inferior - an idea that received some support from the British. So this insult has been compounded by the fact of partition where some traditional areas where Hindus could travel to became "no go" areas. The Hindu psyche has been deeply hurt by Islam and there is an undercurrent of the need to take revenge on Islam. The idea that the Islamic psyche itself may be in the hurt locker does not occur to or enthuse the hurt Hindu psyche in any way, which is still busy licking its own wounds. The Brits, and western universalism has been as hurtful and insulting to Islam as it was to Hindus. Muslims too are sitting in their own hurt locker licking their wounds and blaming someone else.

WU gains from Hindus and Muslims, each looking out from their respective hurt lockers and accusing each other of the worst and lowest possible human degradations. And both sides do not see themselves as being examples of such human degradation. In the meantime the west has weaseled for itself a halo and a storyline that claims for itself the apex of all civilization.

One thing I can say as an Indian. Suppose Hindus are as smart as we hope we are. What can we do to study and understand the situation and turn things around to our benefit (at worst) and to everyone's benefit (at best)?

The most obvious thing for us is to look at Indian Muslims whom we cannot eliminate or ignore and understand that they, like us have a deeply hurt psyche. They may have been taught that Hindus are the worst kind of animal, but their own experience of constant defeat, break up of their historic empire, utter lack of achievement and the sinking of what they were proud of to below everyone else on earth has hurt Muslim psyche as deeply as Hindu psyche. The formation of Pakistan was an attempt to restore Muslim pride at the expense of Hindus and that has failed. But that is about Pakistan, We are still left with Indian Muslims. We have to have double standards and treat our Muslims differently from others who may be against us . And in treating our Muslims differently, we have to demand, and get from them a completely different standard in the way they view India the nation - if at all nationalism is suspect.

I am personally impatient with arguments that say "No that is not possible". We have to make that possible by our actions. If the west was smart in the way they played one against the other (Hindu vs Muslim, shia vs sunni, Jew vs Islam) and both both sides off to face the other, why can't smartass Hindus do a bit of that rather than viewing all Muslims from our own sorrowful Hindu hurt locker. But I don't see many "Hindu nationalists" being able to come out of their own hurt lockers the way Modi, Doval and Amit Shah have done. Advani could not get himself out, but all credit to the RSS for getting out. Hindus who cannot climb out of the Hindu hurt locker and see the hurt lockers that Muslims are hiding in will be liabilities to effective leadership.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 04 Nov 2014 14:28

A_Gupta wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:(Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.)
RajeshA wrote:
Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.


" We are pro-India. Don’t get trapped in Western definitions. There is nothing inflexible about pro-reform or anti-reform. Irrespective of economic theories we will take decisions in the larger interest of the poor people. I can give you five more examples to prove the point."

Likewise, don't get trapped in Islamic definitions and self-description.....


Amit Shah is a class of his own. I fully agree with him. But you seem to have mixed up two things.

Modi Sarkar is an active agent of economic policy and has full freedom to define and classify their actions as and how they choose. They chose their self-definition.

Ajit Doval on the other hand is looking for a strategy and a suitable narrative to receive cooperation from Indian Muslims. The initiative to back Ajit Doval's agenda remains with the Indian Muslims and does not reside with him. He is free to use his definitions for his purpose but since they don't describe his actions but rather those of others, it is merely an opinion, and not the "gospel" truth, and others don't need to accept them.

A_Gupta wrote:The success of his strategy may depend on how muted/hidden these other narratives remain.


If his strategy is based on what others say, then it stands on a very weak foundation. But if others become mute, then we return to UPA regime times, as only political correct language as defined by them was allowed.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 04 Nov 2014 14:46

shiv wrote:We have to have double standards and treat our Muslims differently from others who may be against us . And in treating our Muslims differently, we have to demand, and get from them a completely different standard in the way they view India the nation - if at all nationalism is suspect.


For that we have to define in what way Indian Muslims are different than Pakistanis, that is other than the fact that they became Indian citizens. There has to be a thick differentiating ideological line between Pakistan or Islam in general on the one hand and Indian Islam on the other.

There are two narratives one can use:

- Deenist vs. Qaumist: Deenist means the Muslim treats Islam only as his Deen - prayers and rituals. Qaumist means the Muslim considers Islam as his identity giver, determines his political interests and segregates Muslims from Hindus. Qaumist Muslims chose Pakistan. Deenist Muslims chose India. Deenists determine their political interests in terms of India. Then Indians can go hammer and tongs against Qaumist Islam and leave Deenist Islam alone. Of course then India would have to devise a security mechanism which prevents Qaumist Islam to raise its ugly head again.

- Incomplete Islamization: Just because somebody is a Muslim, does not mean his embrace of Islam is complete. He could still retain his other identities - nation, ethnicity, jati, etc. Earlier my claim has been that a Muslim is anywhere on the spectrum between Humanity and Islam. So there is also no need to demonize the Muslim. Yes he is susceptible to full Islam, but he may not be there yet.

shiv wrote:I am personally impatient with arguments that say "No that is not possible". We have to make that possible by our actions. If the west was smart in the way they played one against the other (Hindu vs Muslim, shia vs sunni, Jew vs Islam) and both both sides off to face the other, why can't smartass Hindus do a bit of that rather than viewing all Muslims from our own sorrowful Hindu hurt locker. But I don't see many "Hindu nationalists" being able to come out of their own hurt lockers the way Modi, Doval and Amit Shah have done. Advani could not get himself out, but all credit to the RSS for getting out. Hindus who cannot climb out of the Hindu hurt locker and see the hurt lockers that Muslims are hiding in will be liabilities to effective leadership.


In Bharatiyata Thread, I proposed that Hindutvavad is a negative agenda, while Bharatiyata is a positive agenda, and both are needed.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2014 17:30

RajeshA wrote:If his strategy is based on what others say, then it stands on a very weak foundation. But if others become mute, then we return to UPA regime times, as only political correct language as defined by them was allowed.


To create a nationalist Muslim narrative requires both Muslim and Hindu cooperation. That's all I'll say.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby RajeshA » 04 Nov 2014 17:34

A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote:If his strategy is based on what others say, then it stands on a very weak foundation. But if others become mute, then we return to UPA regime times, as only political correct language as defined by them was allowed.


To create a nationalist Muslim narrative requires both Muslim and Hindu cooperation. That's all I'll say.


Yes, but just as not all Muslims would buy into that narrative, not all Hindus need to buy into it either.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Nov 2014 17:55

^^^ sometimes the quickest way over a wall is a detour to the gate.

Is Doval's end state the final goal or just the starting point for the next step?

These are things you will have to consider. You only have an end-state vision, not even a plan, and no roadmap of small achievable changes that cumulatively get you to your vision. Once you have laid out your roadmap, you will see it is a task for generations, so you need to figure out how to embody this in a long-lived institution. And your goal has to both be hidden as well as be visible (think about that).


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asif.a, vijayk and 26 guests