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.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 02 Jan 2015 13:39

Excellent post LokeshC. Thank you.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2015 14:55

One of the most serious consequences of the clout of western universalism is the way it has set up an "inetrnal fight" in India between the so called conservative "Hindutva-vadis" and the so called "secular liberals". This is, actually the most confused and idiotic fight that is happening because neither side is totally clear about what their fight is all about. This should not be happening in India and I believe that it would not happen if we had a much better picture of our own past as seen by us rather than through the lens of the west, using words and concepts gifted to us by the west.

As discussed earlier, misunderstanding of the words religion is a problem - but extending from this are the twin words "liberal" and "conservative" which are misused in the most idiotic manner to refer to Hindus with no understanding on either side as to how these words came to be understood in the west, based on the Christian monarchies that ruled Europe for 1500 years after Christianity was established.

Christianity is a top down religion based on the premise that God is an absolute monarch. He owns everything and no man can have any freedom to so much as fart without God giving his permission. People could not own property and nothing could be done outside of what God, and therefore the Church said. European monarchs assumed many of the powers that "God" was supposed to have. Their chelas similarly had a little less power and that was what led to feudalism where the lord literally owned the people on his land. They owned everything and what they said had to be obeyed - punishable in any way the monarch deemed fit. Everything was top->down. Note that is situation in Europe was the exact opposite of the bottom-up "liberal" ground level freedoms of India that had existed from time immemorial. In other words there was no real comparison between the religion ruled society of Europe and the almost totally libertarian society in India. But let me stick to Europe. the words "conservative", "liberal" etc had not come into common use back then - i.e by about AD 1500

After 1500 or so Europe went through a series of revolutions that threw up "liberal" ideas. Liberal ideas were a revolt against the absolute rule of monarchs. There were arguments in favour of individual freedom and the freedom to own property. There were arguments in favour of religious toleration (meaning that Catholics should accept Protestants).

So in Europe, "conservative" meant sticking to the old "top->down" religious order with monarchs, feudal laws, no freedom to own land etc. Liberal meant change from this order. In Europe.

But how does this relate to India? Hindu society was already liberal. It was not ruled by a top-> down system. Men were free to follow their religious beliefs. People could own private property as farmers had done for ages. Heck the most backward jatis had their own areas and their own water sources. Humans were never owned by others.

So if an Indian secular liberal calls Hindutva vadis "conservative" what the hell does it mean? What is it that the Hindutvavadi is trying to conserve? Being "conservative" about Hindu-ism is to preserve secular liberal values and not have any God or form of worship forced on anyone. If conservative Hinduism is actually liberal, what are the secular liberals? The secular liberal Indians are most probably faux Western Universalistvadis.

Hindu society does not need liberation from top down religion. It only needs Hindus to be freed from the coercive laws of top-down religions. So we have the confusing situation in India where Hindutva vadis are fighting for liberalism and the liberal seculars are acting like Christian and Muslim conservatives in supporting the perpetuation of coercive tenets of top-down religions like conversion. That is not freedom of religion. That is coercion. Not freedom

What is even worse is that the Hindu liberals, who are acting like Catholic/Islamic conservatives have lost the plot with respect to Western liberalism. Liberalism in the west has moved on to allowing art and literature to be critical of Jesus and Mohammad. Indian secular liberals can't do that - which only confirms that they are actually "conservative" by definition. But these seculars hold Christian/Muslim conservative thoughts - even if they are practising Hindus. They understand that Hindu-ism has liberal doctrines and imagine that they are liberal because they are Hindus, but fail to understand that their behavior of supporting top-down coercive doctrines as part of "freedom of religion" is actually an imposition on Hindus. Hindus bear the brunt of the freedom of religion of the monotheistic religions and Indian secular liberals want to "conserve this status quo"

The first thing that should be done is to dismiss and discard the terms liberal and conservative when referring to the Indian socio-political milieu. The definition was for European societies and not for Indian society. Indians only cause confusion by copy-pasting words like "conservative" and "liberal" onto Indian society.

If you want to go by proper definitions, then Indian secular "liberals" are "Christian conservative" and Hindutva vadis are liberal. Believe it or not. No wonder Hindutva vadis suspect seculars of being "Christist" while the seculars protest saying that they are totally Hindus wearing "mundu" and "namam"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2015 14:58

vishvak wrote:Does Philosophy have historic baggage like faith can?

:shock: Deadly question.

The word "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" and should not have any baggage. But as per the articles posted by Saurabh it is clear that western philosophy has heavy baggage, and Indian philosophy is not philosophy at all by that definition.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jan 2015 18:34

shiv wrote:The first thing that should be done is to dismiss and discard the terms liberal and conservative when referring to the Indian socio-political milieu. The definition was for European societies and not for Indian society. Indians only cause confusion by copy-pasting words like "conservative" and "liberal" onto Indian society.

If you want to go by proper definitions, then Indian secular "liberals" are "Christian conservative" and Hindutva vadis are liberal. Believe it or not. No wonder Hindutva vadis suspect seculars of being "Christist" while the seculars protest saying that they are totally Hindus wearing "mundu" and "namam"
The labels that come to my mind to represent the Indian situation are the Hindutva camp are "reactionaries" and the pseudo-secular camp are "western universalists" but there are a number of folks on both sides or neither who are genuinely "Nationalist".

Having said the above, do not like the labeling process as it almost never fully captures the diversity of opinions on a spectrum of issues.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 03 Jan 2015 04:27

Some time back there were some queries on Manu Smriti and Shudras, ...


I think this link would help understand the issue better.

April 30, 2011
By Sanjeev
Manu Smriti and Shudras: Agniveer

1. Manu Smriti hails from an era when even the concept of birth-based caste system did not exist. Thus Manu Smriti nowhere supports a social system based on birth. Maharshi Manu took inspiration from Vedas (refer Rigveda 10.10.11-12, Yajurveda 31.10-11, Atharvaveda 19.6.5-6) and proposed a social system based on qualities, actions and nature of the individual.


2. This is called Varna System. Now the very word Varna derived from root word “Vrinja” means “Choice“. A similar usage happens in common used word “Varan” meaning “choosing” or “Var” meaning a husband chosen by the girl. This also shows that in Vedic system the girl had complete rights to choose her husband.


3. The biggest proof of Manu Smriti proposing Varna System and NOT Caste System is that in the first Chapter of Manu Smriti, there is mention of origin of 4 Varnas and no mention of castes or gotras. Had caste or gotra been important, Manu would have mentioned which castes belong to Brahmins, which to Kshatriyas, which to Vaishyas and which to Shudras.

This also means that those who feel proud in calling themselves Brahmins or upper-caste by birth have no evidence to prove so. They can at best prove that a few generations of their forefathers used to also call themselves upper-caste. But there is no way to prove that they were upper-castes since inception of civilization. And when they cannot prove so, what right do they have to allege that a so-called birth-based Shudra was also not a Brahmin several generations ago? And that they themselves were not Shudras a few generation ago!


4. In fact Manu Smriti 3.109 clearly states that one who eats by glorifying his Gotra or Family is considered an eater of his own vomit. Thus, as per the Manu Smriti that the self-proclaimed birth-based Brahmins or upper-castes believe in, the very act of glorifying their lineage or gotra to demand special privileges makes them deserving of condemnation.


5. Manu Smriti 2.136 states that one earns respect due to wealth, company, age, actions and knowledge in increasing order. There is no mention of family, gotra, caste, lineage and other non-factors to demand or earn respect.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 727
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 03 Jan 2015 08:03

Nice post shiv.

As far as politics go we have a tendency to do name calling like secular vs communal, right wing vs left wing, socialist vs capitalist , liberal vs conservative ( like you said ), fascist, racist, casteist, etc. without understanding what they mean. These words actually have arisen in the West and have specific meanings attached to them based on historical context.

I think we have discussed secular vs communal on 'religion' matters extensively, I will move on to socialism vs capitalism ( next post ).. this is something I have given a good deal of thought to.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jan 2015 08:10

csaurabh wrote:As far as politics go we have a tendency to do name calling like secular vs communal, right wing vs left wing, socialist vs capitalist , liberal vs conservative ( like you said ), fascist, racist, casteist, etc. without understanding what they mean. These words actually have arisen in the West and have specific meanings attached to them based on historical context.

I think we have discussed secular vs communal on 'religion' matters extensively, I will move on to socialism vs capitalism ( next post ).. this is something I have given a good deal of thought to.

Am looking forward to that.

I think we will have to make a little glossary, a check-list of words commonly used by people and media in India that should arouse our attention because they are misunderstood and misapplied.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Jan 2015 17:22

http://www.murtylibrary.com/

To present the greatest literary works of India from the past two millennia to the largest readership in the world is the mission of the Murty Classical Library of India. The series aims to reintroduce these works, a part of world literature’s treasured heritage, to a new generation.

Translated into English by world-class scholars, reflecting the highest standards of contemporary book design, and featuring elegant, newly commissioned typefaces, these volumes are a modern invitation to diverse pre-modern literary worlds in languages such as Bangla, Hindi, Kannada, Marathi, Pali, Panjabi, Persian, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. The series will provide English translations of classical works alongside the Indic originals in the appropriate regional script. New books will be added to the series annually.

This series is supported by a generous gift from Rohan Narayana Murty, computer scientist and true friend of the Indian classics.


NYTimes story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/books ... ature.html

Now, Harvard University Press, the publisher of the Loebs, wants to do the same for the far more vast and dizzyingly diverse classical literature of India, in what some are calling one of the most complex scholarly publishing projects ever undertaken.

The Murty Classical Library of India, whose first five dual-language volumes will be released next week, will include not only Sanskrit texts but also works in Bangla, Hindi, Kannada, Marathi, Persian, Prakrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu and other languages. Projected to reach some 500 books over the next century, the series is to encompass poetry and prose, history and philosophy, Buddhist and Muslim texts as well as Hindu ones, and familiar works alongside those that have been all but unavailable to nonspecialists.

The Murty will offer “something the world had never seen before, and something that India had never seen before: a series of reliable, accessible, accurate and beautiful books that really open up India’s precolonial past,” said Sheldon Pollock, a professor of South Asian studies at Columbia University and the library’s general editor.

That literary heritage can seem daunting in size. While the canon of surviving Greek and Roman classics is fairly small, the literature of India’s multiple classical languages includes thousands upon thousands of texts, many of which, as the writer William Dalrymple recently noted, exist only in manuscripts that are decaying before they can be translated or even cataloged.

The Murty Library, Mr. Pollock said, aims to take in the broadest swath of them. “We are a big tent,” he said. “As long as it’s good and interesting and important, it’s going to be in the Murty Classical Library.”

The editions, which come wrapped in elegant rose-colored covers, are intended, like the Loebs, “to be around for 100 years,” Mr. Pollock said. But to some scholars, the project also comes as a timely if implicit rebuke to the Hindu nationalists of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, with its promotion of a unitary Indian identity based on selected Sanskrit religious classics.

The series “debunks the myth of a Hindu orthodoxy as being the only classicism we have,” said Arshia Sattar, an independent scholar and translator in Bangalore. “In a strange way, the editors are creating a new canon.”


One of the books:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php? ... 0674427761
Murty Classical Library of India 4
The Story of Manu
Allasani Peddana
Translated by Velcheru Narayana Rao
David Shulman

Manucaritramu, or The Story of Manu, by the early sixteenth-century poet Allasani Peddana, is the definitive literary monument of Telugu civilization and a powerful embodiment of the imperial culture of Vijayanagara, the last of the great premodern south Indian states. It is the story of Svarochisha Manu, who ruled over the previous cosmic age and who serves here as prototype for the first human being. Peddana explores the dramatic displacements, imaginative projections, and intricate workings of desire necessary for Manu’s birth and formation. The Story of Manu is also a book about kingship and its exigencies at the time of Krishnadevaraya, the most powerful of the Vijayanagara rulers, who was a close friend and patron of the poet. The Story of Manu, presented in the Telugu script alongside the first translation into any language, is a true masterpiece of early modern south Indian literature.

The Murty Classical Library of India makes available original texts and modern English translations of the masterpieces of literature and thought from across the whole spectrum of Indic languages over the past two millennia in the most authoritative and accessible formats on offer anywhere.

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28638 » 03 Jan 2015 21:50

Comparison:

Indian civilization and culture far more than 5000 years old and far advanced.

Western universalism about 2000 years old, from the times of the Greek civilization who stole or borrowed most of their ideas from the Indians.

Therefore no comparison

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Jan 2015 23:25

LokeshC wrote:The colonized in India are no different from the colonized of Africa, for the simple reason that the act of colonizing and the reaction to getting colonized is very similar across humans, it is basic human instinct. The existence of a complex philosophy like Hinduism that integrates differences and the luck of having abundance in natural resources prevented Hindus from becoming the monsters that desert religions became.


This is an excellent point and needs a lot of TLC from the "elitist" who hate "elitism" to ensure that SD does not spout out monsters that cause the death spiral of the SD civilization. More so if intellectual support for violent and robust defense of SD is found missing it will be carried away by fringe elements to uncertain ends. The rise of Hindutva should therefore be a wake up call for those genuinely concerned about SD.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 03 Jan 2015 23:30

chakra wrote:Indian civilization and culture far more than 5000 years old and far advanced.

Western universalism about 2000 years old, from the times of the Greek civilization who stole ....


Thanks for saying all this in English :mrgreen:

PS: when u see how many lives, land and wealth has been lost by Indian Civilization there is no comparison

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3763
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

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

Postby Shreeman » 04 Jan 2015 00:44

Not this place, rightfully, nor any else.

But just an observation. It surprised me when a brutal atrocity, particularly shocking as it was, shook the conscience of the whole world media. For days, it was.

Think about just one -- thats the one I am talking about.


Now put it aside for a moment.


Bothered by the peculiar attention paid, I searched far and wide, the whole society, for the moral foundation that created it.

Not in the government, it wasnt. They were torturing and killing people in worse ways in large numbers. Their own people, sent to kill others were being locked in containers by others of the same ilk. Then taken advantage of, at will.

Not in the religion, it wasnt. They were busy looking for young children. Men in particular, to not make a particulkarly small morsel. And moving people around, to keep matters hush hush. But also a change in diet for their own hungry mortals.

Not in the media, it couldnt have been. They were getting their stories (everyone of them) auotmatically edited to add propaganda when their own personnel could find time from using the couches for casting nets far and wide.

And the individual. What of it? Poor, overworked, devoid of any social net to catch her. Fell. Morality had long stopped being a word. Replaced not by porecious metal but meaningless virtual large numbers.

What then, dear reader, of the card you set aside?

Troubling, isnt it to not see the holier than thou approach to label someone previously considered above reproach and shining beacon of treating the "hers" as more than equals not less. In theory, by the book, does not an aberration change.

Turns out the MPs, the princes, the priests, the actors, and the newsmen -- were all after one thing. Young children. And the only thing that would make it less heinous were if all faces were blackened. It was coming out, so when it blew open the labels for being the worst must already be used and out of availability. Or the gold medal match would be a no contest.

The human is a horrible animal. Rape is an attrocity. Yet, hasnt stopped. Anywhere. But where now, does the label now apply? Makes one think of rabbits, hiding in plain sight. Yet pooping on people's heads. No one notices.

And the sleight of hand that permeates your own thinking when you -- on full watch and feeling intellectual, educated, connected and well read -- think you understood what just happened. And went out of the way, to argue for one over the other. You were sold many lemons, in you basket of grapes. It is always this way.

Now, did I show you that the card you first thought of?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Jan 2015 03:17

Shreeman wrote:Now, did I show you that the card you first thought of?
Shreeman: That was an interestingly worded post. Not entirely sure, what you were getting to. Care to spell it out? Thanks.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9895
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 04 Jan 2015 06:52

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.murtylibrary.com/


I have a copy of manu charitramu - as printed by EMESCO == M.S. Co. == M. shEshAchalam and company (an old print I read ~35-40 years back) printed recently, which has a pretty long (almost 1/3 of the verse) prose summary in telugu as the preface of this telugu classic. It would be interesting to see what the inglipees xlation compares with the telugu summary and the putative original verse of allasAni peddanna. I do have other kAvyAs of ashTa diggaja from EMESCO. Are there angrezi xlations of those also, I wonder.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 05 Jan 2015 05:03, edited 2 times in total.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 04 Jan 2015 09:29

Sorry to interrupt the thread, but I wanted to put in a request. Rajiv Malhotra is writing a book on Sheldon Pollock and is crowdsourcing information from his Yahoo Group. He wants to rebut a particular point that Pollock makes. Reproducing it here below

Pollock claims that Valmiki wrote Ramayana (1) using the Buddhist Jataka tales by copying some of the stories, and also (2) borrowing the type of metre used in Jataka.

He also says that Sanskrit literature (kavya) begins only after Jataka.

Jataka tales are well known as Buddhist writings. So this puts Valmiki's Ramayana and all Indian literature a few centuries after Buddha, as per Pollock. It also makes Ramayana a derivative of Buddhist writings.

I welcome receiving any fact based and well referenced counter arguments.

Regards,
Rajiv


He is asking specifically about when Ramayana was "written". If any gurus know details, please join the group RajivMalhotraDiscussion@yahoogroups.com and contribute (OR) share here and I will be happy to be the courier boy

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jan 2015 09:31

FYI.
Frantz Fanon, the Martinique-born Algerian nationalist, was one of the most important anticolonial theorists. The aim, he suggested, was not to reject Western ideas, but to reclaim them.

“All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought,” he wrote. “But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission which fell to them.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opini ... islam.html

Basically, the anti-colonial theorist said we all have to become Europeans????

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jan 2015 09:43

Dictionary of Hindu Literature By Kuśa Satyendra, published in 2000, says without citation that

The language of the Ramayana is a form of Sanskrit which is characterized by grammatical peculiarities that distinguish from the standard grammar established by Paninean grammar. The epic represents a more popular form of Sanskrit of the period preceding Panini's work.


Was the Buddhist Dasaratha Jataka older than Panini?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jan 2015 09:47

A relevant work on the Jatakas and Ramayana:
http://www.wmich.edu/art/arthistory/pro ... antara.pdf

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 04 Jan 2015 10:28

A_Gupta wrote:Dictionary of Hindu Literature By Kuśa Satyendra, published in 2000, says without citation that

The language of the Ramayana is a form of Sanskrit which is characterized by grammatical peculiarities that distinguish from the standard grammar established by Paninean grammar. The epic represents a more popular form of Sanskrit of the period preceding Panini's work.


Was the Buddhist Dasaratha Jataka older than Panini?


Thanks. This looks interesting, thought a citation would make the case solid. Unfortunately, this is not a subject about which I know much (relative dates). I am just passing the message along

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jan 2015 11:54

A_Gupta wrote:Dictionary of Hindu Literature By Kuśa Satyendra, published in 2000, says without citation that

The language of the Ramayana is a form of Sanskrit which is characterized by grammatical peculiarities that distinguish from the standard grammar established by Paninean grammar. The epic represents a more popular form of Sanskrit of the period preceding Panini's work.


Was the Buddhist Dasaratha Jataka older than Panini?


Theodor Goldstucker - a man who did some work on Panini says that Panini mentions the Mahabharatha in his work, but has no mention/knowledge of the Atharva veda or the Upanishads - so Panini probably predated the Atharva Veda and Upanishads. In my book that I am "still writing" (because it has lost its direction) I have the data points that point to Panini having lived before 1000 BC - for many reasons:

1. Panini's life was in Gandhara and Uttaramadra. Madra corresponds to the eastern extent of the Greek "Medes"
2 . By 1000 BC the Zoroastrians were in the area where Panini lived and the language had changed. Panini lived in an era when the commonly used languge in his reagion was one of the Prwkrits.
3. By 600 BC when Panini is alleged to have lived - there was a heavy Persian influence in the region
4. The Atharva veda is said to have been compiled around 1200-1000 BC (doe to mention of Iron) and Panini preceded that

So if Panini lived before 1000 BC and knew of the Mahabharata and the Sanskrit of the Ramayana was pre-Paninian, then the Ramayana itself was before 1000 BC and before the currently accepted dates for the Buddha.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3763
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

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

Postby Shreeman » 04 Jan 2015 12:59

ShauryaT wrote:
Shreeman wrote:Now, did I show you that the card you first thought of?
Shreeman: That was an interestingly worded post. Not entirely sure, what you were getting to. Care to spell it out? Thanks.


Interpretation is subject entirely to your cultural leanings.

My own, I will agree to expose, but only when I have the direction for it or if another news event distracts sooner.

Give it some thought, then let it rest for a while.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Jan 2015 19:36

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-pa ... 751908.ece

Michel Danino:

That is indeed the whole point: if our history books did justice to genuine, well-documented and well-studied scientific and technological accomplishments, there would be no room left for the fantasisers. And it is not just mathematics, astronomy or medicine that have been blanked out by mainstream Indian historiography: chemistry, metallurgy, agricultural and veterinary science, water management and irrigation techniques, textile manufacture and dyeing, construction and transport technologies, perfumery and cosmetics, numerous crafts, and a few intriguing technologies from ice- making to weather prediction and water divining, are all equally worthy of study. They are part of India’s considerable heritage of indigenous knowledge systems, beside an equally extensive intellectual field ranging from grammar, prosody, philosophy and logic to literature, plastic and performing arts.

Any study of classical Egypt, Greece or China would naturally include accomplishments in all those fields, so why are most of our Indian historians so shy of dealing with them? I believe plain ignorance of India’s traditional knowledge systems is one factor; this attitude is largely a subconscious relic of the colonial era, which had decreed that India’s literatures were vehicles of superstition rather than of any genuine knowledge. As a result, most scholars prefer to confine themselves to an overview of literature and the arts. Yet scientific and technological advances are of equal importance; ironically, we owe the first studies of them to a few fine European scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Jean-Sylvain Bailly, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, G. Thibaut or Léon Rodet.

.....
This lacuna is what needs to be addressed. The historians behind the recent IHC petition should realise that some of the blame for the distortions they object to lies at their own door. Their resolution is titled “In Defence of Scientific Method in History,” but what is “scientific” about suppressing the genuine achievements of Indian science? If our students had substantial exposure to them, they would feel no need to let their imagination run wild.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 727
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 04 Jan 2015 21:20

Ok here is something I have been thinking about socialism and capitalism.

Both of these concepts fundamentally apply to large and very large centralized organizations. Before the industrial age, there was little need for either. See, in a decentralized world, every person is basically an entrepreneur of sorts. Consider for example running a small shop with 5 people. Now the proprieter will run the shop himself and his "employees" are usually going to be his close kin with some pitching in part time ( wives, children - no, not 'child laborers' ). Under such circumstances, the proprieter has little to gain by ill treating those who work there- thus there is no need for capitalism or socialism. Same goes for artisans, blacksmiths, farmers and so on.

Of course there had to be certain types of work involving thousands of workers such as construction of large temples. However we do not really know how these were built. Presumably, there were different types of specialists all coordinating with each other under a dharmic central authority. That is just a guess though.

Now, coming to capitalism as developed by Europeans. These organizations or 'companies' were all top down ( just like the church ) and the wealthy capitalists had no moral issue with horrifically mistreating the rank and file worker, forcing them to work under inhuman conditions. Socialism arose as a reaction to capitalism, and its basic demand is more dignity for workers.

------------------

Before going further I think we need to address the issue of 'equality' . There is a story from the Mahabharata that impressed me very much watching it on TV when I was young. It is the story of King Drupad and Drona.

Drona and Drupad grew up together in childhood. Drupad became King while Drona became a guru. One day, Drona came to Drupad and asked him for a cow 'as a friend'. Drupad said that I can give you a cow, but not as a friend. Friendship can only be among equals.

Drona was very angry with this. Later when he trained the Kaurav and Pandav princes, he asked them to capture King Drupad as Gurudakshina. The Pandavas succeeded in this. Drona was pleased to have taught him a lesson and gave half of the kingdom back to Drupad and kept the other half. Now we are equals, we can be friends.

However this did not solve the problem. Instead Drupad wanted revenge ( and it goes on ).

The moral of the story is that 'equality' is largely a mirage. Men are not equal and not meant to be equal. The desire for 'equality' in fact ended up creating a deep enemity between two friends which need not have happened at all.

Socialism and Capitalism are largely about centralization of power rather than anything to do with 'equality'. Capitalism is about putting power in the hands of the wealthy, while socialism is supposedly about putting power in the hands of 'The State' but in practice it largely boils down to putting power in the hands of those who run the State. ( Just like the Church is largely about the clergy )

Socialism and capitalism are mirror images of each other and thus just another example of Western doublethink. The USA calls itself capitalist but actually follows some socialism such as handouts to 'poor'. Communist China is now largely capitalist. Another example of western doublethink is the so called 'multi national companies'. There are no multi national companies. There are American, Chinese, German, etc. companies which outsource some of there work to cut costs and have some offices to sell their products in other countries. That's about how far it goes.

------------------

However, in the industrial age if you have do make some products such as automobiles, steel, etc. then you do in fact, need a large organization of thousands of people. How do you organize these people? Obviously, you cannot make them equal ( because they are not ). But you cannot make them unequal either, because that fosters ill treatment and resentment.

This was the sort of question deeply bothering Jamshedji Tata when he wanted to set up large industries in India. By a stroke of coincidence, he was coming back from US to India on the same boat as Swami Vivekananda after addressing the world parliament of religions. The two men had deep philosophical conversations. We don't know the whole story but it is obvious that Vivekananda had a deep influence on Jamshedji Tata. I have a special interest in this, growing up in the town of Jamshedpur- I think I have a good grasp on the Dharmic model of development thus created.

You see, the Tatas did not just create a 'company'. They also created a huge planned township with good roads, hospitals, a club, hobby centre, giving support to local schools and so on. These have nothing to do with capitalism. The capitalists would just create a factory and pay wages to employees thats about it. But it is not socialist either. They do not make any claims as to 'the people' or 'the state'. It has clearly defined job roles and hierarchies.

One of the things I used to wonder about was the puzzling arrangement of apartments and roads in the residential township. Why for example would you have a row of N types followed by M or P types, or K2s and K3s mixed together. Looking back I don't think this was bad planning or coincidence. Since different ranks would have different incomes they would be able to afford different types of apartments. But, because the 'officer' and 'worker' cadre lived together and watched the same movies and sent their kids to the same schools and so on, they would be able to bridge the gap and see that the 'other side' is basically human. I think this is why Jamshedpur has little history of strikes.

The Jamshedpur experiment ( like Shanti niketan ) was not replicated on a large scale throughout India ( although you'll find some of the concepts in Bokaro and other 'steel cities' ). This is because the nation was firmly under the grasp of the King of 'secularism' and 'socialism' who could not see past Western ideologies. Jamshedji Tata while being Parsee had a better understanding of what Dharma was all about rather than these 'secular' Hindus. Modern capitalist India shows little understanding of such things either. When 4 officers gather in a Coffee day to discuss labor issues ( I am talking about a real example here that I know about, in Bangalore ) paying a bill of Rs. 1700, I think they show a fundamental disconnect with the actual problem.

Incidentally I think Tata has largely lost the plot in this regard. It seems to ( like every other company ) mindlessly pursue profits. You know they could say to potential employees "Look we'll pay you less than other companies but we'll give you a real community feeling". I do not see anyone having the guts to say that. It seems to boil down everything in life to having a 'job' with a 'package'.

-------------------

The point I want to make is that socialism and capitalism are basically forms of exclusivism and centralization. In this way they are no different from Islam, Christianity or Communism. The Jamshedpur example shows that it is possible to have a better model of large scale organizations. Actually, I think Modi's team understands this quite well. When they say smart cities, planned townships, good roads, internet.. I understand what they are talking about.

Here is from Amit Shah's interview
http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/ex ... 141103.htm

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.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 04 Jan 2015 21:31

Only one nitpick:

The desire for 'equality' in fact ended up [getting used for] creating a deep enemity between two friends which need not have happened at all.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Jan 2015 04:41

The very brutal nature of the Industrial Revolution is exposed, IMO, in a book "Empire of Cotton", which I have not read, but for which a book review appeared in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/books ... .html?_r=0
‘Empire of Cotton: A Global History,’ by Sven Beckert

Some excerpts from the review:
Beckert’s most significant contribution is to show how every stage of the industrialization of cotton rested on violence. As soon as the profit potential of those Southern cotton fields became clear in the late 1780s, the transport of slaves across the Atlantic rapidly increased. Cotton cloth itself had become the most important merchandise European traders used to buy slaves in Africa. Then planters discovered that climate and rainfall made the Deep South better cotton territory than the border states. Nearly a million American slaves were forcibly moved to Georgia, Mississippi and elsewhere, shattering many families in the process.


The search for more good cotton-­growing soil in areas that today are such states as Texas, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma was a powerful incentive to force Native Americans off their traditional lands and onto reservations, another form of violence by the “military-cotton complex.”


Beckert practices what is known as global or world history: the study of events not limited to one country or continent. The perspective serves him well. For it was not just in the United States that planters’ thirst to sow large tracts with cotton pushed indigenous peoples and self-sufficient farmers off their land; colonial armies did the same thing in India, West Africa and elsewhere.


Beyond violence, another major theme of “Empire of Cotton” is that, contrary to the myth of untrammeled free enterprise, this expanding industry was fueled at every stage by government intervention.


Beckert has a larger ambition, however, than just telling the story of cotton; he wants to use that commodity as a lens on the development of the modern world itself. This he divides into two overlapping phases: “war capitalism” for the stage when slavery and colonial conquest prepared the ground for the cotton industry, and “industrial capitalism” for the period when states intervened to protect and help the business in other ways. ...... For example, we no longer go to war over cotton, but would America have spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting in Iraq if that country had no oil?


So, one of the key tests for India is can "Make in India" be done in a non-exploitative way? Or is the price of "development" for some the unmeasurable suffering of others?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4766
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 05 Jan 2015 04:53

It worked before the 'violent' cotton empire of Americas took over; India was the king of cotton. I suspect the profits were not as large though. Possibly an indication that it works only if greed is in check and there is a 'humanitarian' outlook.

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

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

Postby member_22733 » 05 Jan 2015 05:05

I will expand on this later, but.... the key "ism" that makes socialism or capitalism, abraham-ism or any "western"-ism is essentially "logical absolutism". Logical because their basis is "history centric" i.e. there is a constant need to "prove" their beliefs. And absolute, because it stresses that the book is what you need and ONLY what you need.

Any western-ism has evolved from these two things, logical and moral absolutism. More on it later, when I get sometime.

Socialism is the idea that everyone is absolutely equal taken to its absolute max. Capitalism is the idea that everyone is selfish and work for their self interest to the absolute max.

Truth is, even mathematically (Godel etc), consistent absolutism is an impossibility.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Jan 2015 05:09

A_Gupta wrote:So, one of the key tests for India is can "Make in India" be done in a non-exploitative way? Or is the price of "development" for some the unmeasurable suffering of others?
Also read Amitav Ghosh for a perspective of Indian exploitation by the British based on indentured laborers, use of BIA, the Opium trade, etc. It is a work of fiction but captures the historical facts in a way that is engrossing to read.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Jan 2015 06:54

csaurabh wrote:
Now, coming to capitalism as developed by Europeans. These organizations or 'companies' were all top down ( just like the church ) and the wealthy capitalists had no moral issue with horrifically mistreating the rank and file worker, forcing them to work under inhuman conditions. Socialism arose as a reaction to capitalism, and its basic demand is more dignity for workers.

------------------

Before going further I think we need to address the issue of 'equality' .

The point I want to make is that socialism and capitalism are basically forms of exclusivism and centralization. In this way they are no different from Islam, Christianity or Communism.

Very perceptive.

In fact the word "capitalism" should have given me a hint. The word is derived from the word for "head" (In fact there is a Sanskrit equivalent - "kapala - meaning skull). It is top down alright. The fact that socialism also became top down, using 20-20 hindsight is easy to see. The organization of socialism required a central coordinating force - and that is as top-down as capitalism.

Equality is always a problem. I'm not being cynical or facetious when I say that the ultimate state of "Brahman" from which all the universe is derived is the only "equal" state. The universe that we detect with our senses exists because of inequality and differences and gradients. While capitalism is "right" in accepting inequality, the fundamental problem is in concentrating on one aspect alone - that is wealth. When dealing with humans what matters is not wealth alone and capitalism makes the case for wealth alone. Health is rightly recognized as an important factor but what matters is not just physical health but psychological health. Wealth does not guarantee psychological health or even physical health for that matter. This is something that was recognized a long time ago in India when the duties and desires of man were classified as dharma, artha, kama and moksha. In particular dharma and moksha set limits on the amount of physical wealth and sensual pleasure a human must look for. But these are not top-down laws. they are duties for individuals. They are not offered as "individual choices" in that you can take it if you feel like and reject it if you don't. They are taught in childhood as a social ideal in Hindu society. But I digress.

Equality cannot be imposed from above and the idea that someone is imposing equality or that there is someone or some group that stands for equality (like the religions) is completely fake. It is a fake promise that says "Join us, we will make you equal". Equality is imposed only at the expense of something else. If you have a human population that has varying amounts of nutrition and you try and "equalize that" by providing "more nutrition" for those below an arbitrary line that you call "undernourished" - what you end up doing is putting environmental pressure elsewhere to produce more food and even as you feed the undernourished, you are creating a whole class of "overnourished" fat people. The funny thing is that there is now no top down system available to force overnourished people NOT to eat. Like kama and artha - the choice of eating less and and exercising more is left to the individual. So we have a human created issue that simply achieves equilibrium at a different steady state.

In the earlier steady state there were a moderate number of undernourished, a good number adequately nourished and a few over nourished. By forcing the overproduction of food and creating market forces to supply that food to everyone we are reaching a new steady state where there are very few undernourished and an increasing number of overnourished people. The same rules apply to wealth and money.


csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 727
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 05 Jan 2015 17:55

I just completed reading 'Durbaar' by Tavleen Singh.

This is an absolutely fascinating book. It exposes the complete hypocrisy and stupidity of Nehru-Gandhi family and the so called 'Lutyens Dilli elite'. I now understand why Modi called it the Delhi sultanate. That is exactly what they were.

It was very interesting for me personally because the period ( about 1975- 1992 ) is not in my living memory. My grandparents ( expired recently ) used to refer to all white people as "Shaheb" and "Mame-shaheb" and I could not figure out why. Now I understand. We are mentally colonized as hell.

All those looking for 'Indian post colonial literature' should read this book. Especially as Tavleen Singh cannot in any way be called a 'Hindu Nationalist' as is pretty clear reading the book. IMO she is still on the road to recovery.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Jan 2015 20:46

Agnimitra wrote:Tommy Robinson speaks at the Oxford Union, about why the EDL was formed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyzGayfI400



This video exposes the interaction between unfettered Islam living withing dar-ul-harb populated by a "law abiding" secular Christian society.

In a "top down" system like the British government and society, I just love the term "law abiding". If you think about it people are "law abiding" not because they have and intrinsic tendency to abide by the law, but because they fear the law enforcement apparatus which is all pervasive and omnipresent. For example - when I was in the UK in the 80s - the Motorway speed limit was 70 mph but many people including i would be doing 75 to 80 and we would still see high powered cars zoom past at 120. That is much more difficult now with omnipresent traffic cameras and radars that pick up your speed and flash a warning automatically. That is in addition to enforcement of the law with fines or other disincentives.

So "law abiding" is the same as law fearing. You have to be afraid of the consequences. And Britain's society, despite being Christian have secular laws. By and large people are afraid of the punishment for breaking the law.

Islam has its own laws and Muslims are punished for disobeying in exactly the same way. But Muslims follow Islamic law and other Britons follow secular law. And the Brits, who set up the "secular laws" for India initially probably have a similar set up where one is allowed to follow one's religion - the state will not interfere. But you must follow state laws. So Christians can be screwed by Muslims but Muslims can't be touched.

The situation in India is vastly more complex. We do have "secular laws" but we have a bottom up society with horizontal relationships. Arun Gupta's links above have taught me a new word to describe those horizontal (not vertcial top down) relationships - "heterarchical". These horizontal relationships encourage local solving of issues. That is why things that happen in the video in the UK are less likely in India. We have a different way of solving those issues even before the police step in. It is our "secular laws" that actually interfere with the local "heterarchical" solutions to Islamist excesses and create dilemmas exactly as those exposed in the video.

Godhra and its aftermath were IMO an extreme example of a heterarchical "local" solution. The long tamasha started only after the secular law enforcement apparatus stepped in.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 727
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Postby csaurabh » 07 Jan 2015 07:46

Left wing vs Right wing.

These terms were coined during the French Revolution. In parliament, the supporters of the King sat on the right side ( right wing ), and supporters of the revolution sat on the left side ( left wing ).

What relevance does this have for an Indian living in the 21st century?
Nothing, really.

There is a tendency to paint Indian politics in the following way: Left wing commies, Right wing BJP, centrist and moderate Congress.
In reality almost all the parties in India would fall to the left or far left on the scale as measured by how the West sees it. Maybe the BJP can be described as centrist.

You see, right wing is just a sort of abuse word thrown at Hindutva orgs ( just like fascist, communal, terrorist, etc. ) using a sort of moron logic:
What is Hindutva -> right wing. What is right wing -> evil communal Hindutva

It is simpler to classify based on pro India and anti India. The BJP is pro India. The Congress and Commies are anti India. Everyone in between are not largely pro or anti India but they are in it for what they can get out of it. They are like feudal jagirdars - just want to be king of their own hill.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2015 08:18

csaurabh wrote:Left wing vs Right wing.

These terms were coined during the French Revolution. In parliament, the supporters of the King sat on the right side ( right wing ), and supporters of the revolution sat on the left side ( left wing ).

What relevance does this have for an Indian living in the 21st century?
Nothing, really.

There is a tendency to paint Indian politics in the following way: Left wing commies, Right wing BJP, centrist and moderate Congress.
In reality almost all the parties in India would fall to the left or far left on the scale as measured by how the West sees it. Maybe the BJP can be described as centrist.

You see, right wing is just a sort of abuse word thrown at Hindutva orgs ( just like fascist, communal, terrorist, etc. ) using a sort of moron logic:
What is Hindutva -> right wing. What is right wing -> evil communal Hindutva

It is simpler to classify based on pro India and anti India. The BJP is pro India. The Congress and Commies are anti India. Everyone in between are not largely pro or anti India but they are in it for what they can get out of it. They are like feudal jagirdars - just want to be king of their own hill.

Absolutely "Right wing" and "left wing" are nonsense words in India used by colonized English speakers who have no idea of the origins of the terms.

"Right wing" - in Europe were "conservative" - who wanted to conserve the old order of monarchical and feudal rights
"Left" wing were those who were demanding change from the untrammelled power of the monarch and his chelas (feudal lords), apart from rights to own property etc.

There is no equivalent comparison for India - and it at all we must compare it is the BJP that is trying to change things - so it is the BJP that is "NOT conservative" and the Congress that is "conservative"/right wing in trying to conserve the existing system.

This is another example of deep mental colonization where we try to copy paste western concepts on our people and polity and take an enormous GIGO dump.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2015 19:46

Let me bring up a topic that has, in the past, attracted one particular viewpoint, but I now raise it in terms of Hindu morality and the way Western Universalism has approached the subject. This is about religious sentiment. Western nations, in the name of "free expression" and "free speech" allow the publication of cartoons and satire about any religion starting with Christianity. I have seen cartoons of Jesus indulging in a homosexual act with a clone Jesus. Fine. I can take the attitude - "This is OK. It is freedom of expression". Of course the West allows the publications of cartoons about Mohammad. And it is because of that we have today seen a terrorist attack in Paris, killing some cartoonists.

But strictly speaking, freedom of expression to deride a religious icon is not tolerated by Hindus. We don't like our deities to be lampooned, and although we may cheer the publication of Mahomet cartoons, this does not fit in with Hindu morality or a Hindu sense of propriety. Of course the religion of peace has reacted in the way that it does normally - by murder. But that is a different issue.

Is it really possible or desirable for us to be Hindu hypocrites, getting upset at MF Husain paintings and protesting Ganesh icons on slippers while we cheer and support "freedom of expression" in the publication of similar material about Mohammad.

I think that we need to get this clear. If we try and pretend that Hindus have some view on this, let us discuss those views here. We cannot pretend to oppose western Universalism and yet show conflicting attitudes towards satire or vulgarity regarding religious icons.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 07 Jan 2015 20:03

shiv wrote:But strictly speaking, freedom of expression to deride a religious icon is not tolerated by Hindus.


Then what was PK? Or
The very persistent existence of Secularism which is what the State supports? Or
The cartooning you point out was done by a paper that does not spare Hindus also, despite that fact that hardly any Hindu in France and any of these western journalists understand Hinduism. Is that not tolerance?

Hinduism should not be lampooned because it is superior and correct. The rest pah, they deserve each other. That it is the other way round right now only implies that relevant people should work to correct the situation. How is that a contradiction? That it is the other way round implies that our past & present, must have had something that put us in such a situation.

Right now even on the MSM there is the same lecturebazzi by the same crowd - all religions are equal, no religion teaches people to kill others, secular values are ingrained in France so they see this as a threat to their freedom of expression. What about the others.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Postby vishvak » 07 Jan 2015 20:22

If a mob of a religion is political, what then?

Can we hand over interests of country to mob politics?

In USA as it is, even presidents have to convert to particular sect for better electability.
Why Are American Politicians Always Switching Religions?

We should not import fads like these, it is laughable if it is present in parliaments of other countries.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2015 21:33

ravi_g wrote:
shiv wrote:But strictly speaking, freedom of expression to deride a religious icon is not tolerated by Hindus.


Then what was PK? Or
The very persistent existence of Secularism which is what the State supports? Or
The cartooning you point out was done by a paper that does not spare Hindus also, despite that fact that hardly any Hindu in France and any of these western journalists understand Hinduism. Is that not tolerance?

Hinduism should not be lampooned because it is superior and correct. The rest pah, they deserve each other. That it is the other way round right now only implies that relevant people should work to correct the situation. How is that a contradiction? That it is the other way round implies that our past & present, must have had something that put us in such a situation.

Right now even on the MSM there is the same lecturebazzi by the same crowd - all religions are equal, no religion teaches people to kill others, secular values are ingrained in France so they see this as a threat to their freedom of expression. What about the others.


Are you saying that Hindus do tolerate lampooning of their religious icons? Should we cheer the killing of those Hindu lampooning cartoonists or condemn their killing?

But Hindus as a rule do not publicly denigrate others' religious icons - even if you feel it should be otherwise. And they vehemently protest when Hindu icons are denigrated.

What is the Hindu view? is it the same as your personal view?

Is there one Hindu view? I believe there is and that view is to be respectful of others' sentiments.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2015 21:52

Rhetorical question before I retire

1. IF we support Western Universalism and lampoon Islam and Mohammad, will WU reciprocate and NOT lampoon Hindus?
2. If WU does not give a damn for ANY religious sentiment, Christian, Muslim or Hindu should we cheer WU for lampooning Christianity and Islam but get angry with WU for lampooning Hindus? Will they give a flying fuk for our feelings?
3. Considering that WU does not give a damn for ANY religious sentiment, what attitude should we take? Allow Jesus and Mohammad sex cartoons in India and ban any such stuff about Hindus published abroad and let NRIs deal with whatever disrespect Hindu icons get in the west or in Islamic nations

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 07 Jan 2015 22:23

Don't bother to reply tonight. Shubhratri.


shiv wrote:Are you saying that Hindus do tolerate lampooning of their religious icons? Should we cheer the killing of those Hindu lampooning cartoonists or condemn their killing?

But Hindus as a rule do not publicly denigrate others' religious icons - even if you feel it should be otherwise. And they vehemently protest when Hindu icons are denigrated.



We can leave the should part out as everybody and every group is free to do as they please.

That leaves only the characterization of the current situation in issue.

Yes I think Hindus do tolerate lampooning of their religious icons. There are quite a few here on the forum who would not shy away from denigrating others' religious icons and both they and the operators of this forum have locked them into burkha areas. Outside of this place you can see Sikhs (real ones practicing caring faithful ones, not the convert types) who have their own assessment of their history. Mostly you will find that in Ajaibghars or secreted places. Hindus (again the real ones practicing caring shradhawaan ones, not the half convert accidental types) have hidden their own beliefs and histories (or past if you may) in plain sight with varied theories.

Yes Hindus as a rule do not publicly denigrate others' religious icons. Because they insist and Hindus are too busy doing whatever they find they are best at.


shiv wrote:What is the Hindu view? is it the same as your personal view?


What is the Hindu view is not for me to define. But I can surely contribute. And why cannot it be the same as my personal view? Do you doubt my contributions? I claim through other hindus. They can equally claim through me. If I am a Hindu tied up with other hindus, can it happen that other Hindus remain untied to me at the same time.

Hope we do not end up proposing and refuting the islamist reasoning. Islam is different from muslims who become terrorists but if islam gains from these terrorists then its ok. Or the flip side of such argument - Muslims are different from Islam and any muslim not following Islam is wajib-ul-cutlet.

Though I think, I must warn you that for me Hindus are the Hindus and their history together, not merely the current particular state of existence of my contemporaries.


shiv wrote:Is there one Hindu view? I believe there is and that view is to be respectful of others' sentiments.


Sense and survival only. There is no guarantee for sentiments. If you have seen any such guarantee being held out and not simultaneously called out, please let me read about it. Some people want to bear that cross - individually and as a group. Their choice.

If in your experiment I fart in the escalator and people catch me would it be right for me to ask you - Shivji thoda aap bhi, fart kariye na, my sentiments would be saved. And even if I do that, would you be willing to do it? And even if you are willing, why the hell would you be willing? I think it would be plain crazy if you would.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kritavarman and 41 guests