Indian Core: Ideas and descriptions-I

[RayC]

Brihaspati,

I look at contributions a little differently.

What perplexes me is the feeling that is evident amongst many that anything that is not Indian is not worth the consideration and automatically, bogus and useless.

I prefer to look at such issues broad based and not through a narrow prism of chauvinism, jingoism or religious bigotry, since they are but products of fear and indicative of a sense of insecurity and lack of confidence in oneself and his civilisation. Nor do I feel that we alone have inherited the earth. I have no such fear or insecurity. I am quite confident of my country and the worth of its heritage and civilisation.

The unfortunate part is that the individual decides what contributions are fine for him and what is not. There, as I see it, hardly any commonality. In a nation that has a Constitution which declares the Nation as a secular country, I am afraid the issue of ‘tolerating’ does not arise, though at the same time, I will not hesitate to state that secularism is by no means a cover for licence and anarchy. Yet, it boils down that what is sauce for the goose does not automatically mean it is sauce for the gander.

On the positive and negative weighing up against the Core values is again an interesting issue. What is Core Value for A is not Core Value for B. Core values are different for the ‘secular’ group, the Hinduvta group, the Muslim group, the Catholic group, the Protestant Group, the Jain Group, the Buddhist group and so on. So, which is the actual Core Value that we have? For instance, for Gautam Navlakha, the so called Human Rights advocate and his ilk, the Core Value is human rights even if it means the killing of innocent and a state of anarchy. Is it for others? For Modi and his ilk the Core values are different from that Teesta Stelvalad whose husband is a Moslem and she continues to have her Hindu name and her Core Values are different as is it for those of her genre. The Core value for Ambedkar was different from that of others and so he did a mass conversion to Buddhism! And so it goes on. My own Core Value is different from many others. My core value is for unification of society, while others highlight the difference!

Given such disparity, one can only identify the values as it appeals to one and none can speak for the other.

It is not the question of excuse that it is a contribution from some entity and because it is there we have to accept it and let it continue. The question is who am I or you to dictate what one should accept or should not! Sadly, forget politicians, we ourselves decide what we shall accept or not accept.

Ever since I started following the Hinduvta and Indic posts on this forum, I became focussed to see real life (in Calcutta) and compare it with the high intensity and emotion expressed in such posts. I have stood at suburban railway stations and bazaars and I daresay, the India I saw was not the India what we find is being portrayed here with so much of emotions. People from Canning, Budge Budge and Betalpara, Pathar Pratima villages in Sunderbans would hardly qualify to be what is so disparagingly labelled as ‘western educated and sold to western values’. They speak broken English and sold to western ways. Imgaine Jeans and tops with village folks!!!!

I have interacted with Muslims from Joynagar area and I was surprised that most knew nothing of Islam except for the basic rituals. I met a Muslim girl who was the agent of Samsung or some other brand mobile yesterday. I was pleasantly surprised to find her without any hint of being a Moslem working as late as 2145 hours and she had to travel another 30 kms to go home after closing of the shop. Unheard of! The world is changing. Let us embrace and encourage with good grace and not send them back into the shell.

My maid surprises me with English words like ‘poteen’ for protein and ‘poplem’ for problem. Should I tell her to go back to ancient days, have a ‘ghungta’ that covers her face so much so that she cannot see what she is doing and dirty everything thereof and not wear blouse since it was not worn in the earlier days?

I only say let us see the reality!

Ramay

If most common live the Indic style, then how come the Indic style of Nair women of Kerala to go topless is there no more. Now, which civilisation (Islam or Christian) stopped the practice? And why? How come the good Indics accepted that?

Even when I was young, our maids never wore blouses. How come it changed? Obviously, it was the evil western influence, right? Please go and try making Indian women go topless. You will be thrashed!!! Wearing blouses is elitist? Let us not go overboard.

During the Durga Puja festival, I watched the people. A whole lot had Pathan type of silly long kurtas and loose pyjamas. Indic? And the Bengalis are very traditional of people, who break into Rabindrasangeet at the drop of a hat! Indeed, 70% are not aware what a national dress means and so they all wear jeans and T shirt and make it a national dress without realising that jeans are a dress of the labour and the lazy and nothing do with India!! Any answers?

In India, in most places Hindi is the third language in case you did not know.

Friend, China is up a gum tree because they do not know English. We are fortunate that we know and so we are doing well internationally. Are you aware of how irritated the Chinese are that we have bested them in this sphere? Check the pay for English language teachers in China!

If English is at the cost of one’s Mother tongue or the national language, the fault is of the individual and not the Government!

What are the civilisation contributions of Islam or Christianity to Indian subcontinent?

You tell me. There is enough. I am not an Ostrich and a bigot. I embrace all ideas that can make me a better man.

In Japan, they discarded their traditional dress and customs. In China, they are hellfired to learn English and are giving way to Chinese ways, in Germany, they are talking English!

Bigotry has no place.

Quit revelling in the glorious past, comprehend the murky present and leap into a beautiful future is what I would say is the answer!

[Sanku]

Bigotry has no place.

Quit revelling in the glorious past, comprehend the murky present and leap into a beautiful future is what I would say is the answer!

An excellent post RayC and very admirable statements, except that in the context of this discussion they are "not relevant", If some one says "we should be aware of our history" the response "yes the present is what we live in and that is real, history is past" is not a valid response.

Similarly to say "India has a core" and "all human beings are individual" are both equally true and correct statements.

Thus the post is shall I say "orthogonal" While correct and appreciable, takes away nothing from the previous discussion in terms of it importance..

[V_Raman]

i have been thinking a lot about this topic and ultimately i came to the conclusion that there is a singular thing that defines the indic thought process that is so different from the so called western thought process. its monism vs dualism. indic thought process is centered on this and the western world is embracing this as well. the european secularism is the start of conversion to monism. if we have preserve anything, it is this. whether you wear jeans or not, saree or not, this is what is important.

i use to laugh at jokes in tamil movies about people worshipping a milestone on the road as god. but i dont anymore. the concept is deep. i can worship anything. but i am ultimate responsible for myself. dualism actually lets you off the hook.

any dualistic philosophy is non-indic -- vishishtadvaitam, dvaitam included. the concept of conversions started there and comparisons between gods started there.

[V_Raman]

this is what is needed for indianization of islam/christianity. imagine if people pray to jesus like - oh lord, give me the strength of mind and strength of character to take the right decisions. oh lord, please help in awakening the jesus in me to be compassionate like you, and to attain eternal bliss like you.

[RayC]

Bigotry has no place.

Quit revelling in the glorious past, comprehend the murky present and leap into a beautiful future is what I would say is the answer!

An excellent post RayC and very admirable statements, except that in the context of this discussion they are "not relevant", If some one says "we should be aware of our history" the response "yes the present is what we live in and that is real, history is past" is not a valid response.

Similarly to say "India has a core" and "all human beings are individual" are both equally true and correct statements.

Thus the post is shall I say "orthogonal" While correct and appreciable, takes away nothing from the previous discussion in terms of it importance..

I have stated that if the Constitution of India has a CORE of SECULARISM, then the interpretation varies!

Therefore, there is no common interpretation!

Live with it or try to change it!

Don't crib and grouse!

All I know is that India is a kitchudi and we are sailing along!

The day you can change us from the damned jean culture that has penetrated Pathar Pratima (end of the civilised world and then the land of tigers), then come back!

And I am all against the Jeans culture and the McDonald culture and yet I find I am helpless. And yet I find that I am not in the bigoted class as many here and our views coincide to some extent!!

I am ready to accept that it takes all types to make the world!

[Sanku]

I have stated that if the Constitution of India has a CORE of SECULARISM, then the interpretation varies!

Therefore, there is no common interpretation!

The day you can change us from the damned jean culture that has penetrated Pathar Pratima (end of the civilised world and then the land of tigers), then come back!

And I am all against the Jeans culture and the McDonald culture and yet I find I am helpless.

RayC only you can go from the constitution to the McDonald.

First off, I have no wish to change the McDonald or the jeans culture, in the sense that I have absolutely no grouse against either forms of clothes or food, that part of the culture causes me no grief what so ever either.

However when the "jeans and McDonald" culture is a phrase for vapid and mindless consumerism with a total lack of awareness of greater reality and self realization, there are issues for sure. However the real reason for that is not either jeans or McDonald, the real reason is that the Indian psyche has been cleansed of the two attributes systematically by a lot of people including the GoI in a big way (as opposed the Americans who were born that way due to their particular history and geography) the population does tend to gravitate towards symbol of the same mindlessness. (since these were born in such mindlessness in the first place)

In short, we can wear jeans and eat burgers and still be mindful or wear and three piece suite from Savile row and talk in pucca accent and still be mindless.

The self awareness is a different issue than symbolism -- and as you see my post consistently argues for the need for self awareness.

Finally since you talk about the constitution -- WE are the constitution, living, its not a revealed text in the "Abhramic" mode, its is a Indian text in Smriti mode. Do we hold all Smiriti's as perpetual revealed truth? Not!! Constitution is no different. Even the so called "secularism" word that inserted into the preamble by IG was as late as 1977 and is strictly not a part since its yet not ratified.

Also India is not yet really secular, despite the fact that you think it has different "interpretations" -- so that is by itself a bad example.

Also mindless vacuum as an ideology is not same as "tolerance or secularism"

[RayC]

The day you can change us from the damned jean culture that has penetrated Pathar Pratima (end of the civilised world and then the land of tigers), then come back!

And I am all against the Jeans culture and the McDonald culture and yet I find I am helpless.

RayC only you can go from the constitution to the McDonald.

First off, I have no wish to change the McDonald or the jeans culture, in the sense that I have absolutely no grouse against either forms of clothes or food, that part of the culture causes me no grief what so ever either.

However when the "jeans and McDonald" culture is a phrase for vapid and mindless consumerism with a total lack of awareness of greater reality and self realization, there are issues for sure. However the real reason for that is not either jeans or McDonald, the real reason is that the Indian psyche has been cleansed of the two attributes systematically by a lot of people including the GoI in a big way (as opposed the Americans who were born that way due to their particular history and geography) the population does tend to gravitate towards symbol of the same mindlessness. (since these were born in such mindlessness in the first place)

In short, we can wear jeans and eat burgers and still be mindful or wear and three piece suite from Savile row and talk in pucca accent and still be mindless.

The self awareness is a different issue than symbolism -- and as you see my post consistently argues for the need for self awareness.

Finally since you talk about the constitution -- WE are the constitution, living, its not a revealed text in the "Abhramic" mode, its is a Indian text in Smriti mode. Do we hold all Smiriti's as perpetual revealed truth? Not!! Constitution is no different. Even the so called "secularism" word that inserted into the preamble by IG was as late as 1977 and is strictly not a part since its yet not ratified.

Also India is not yet really secular, despite the fact that you think it has different "interpretations" -- so that is by itself a bad example.

Also mindless vacuum as an ideology is not same as "tolerance or secularism"

I go from the Constitution to McDonald to Pathar Pratima and jeans because that is India!

Forget the so called 'elite'.

I don't daydream what SHOULD be India!

I live in the reality of existence!

I don't live in the vacuum of the esoteric!

[Sanku]

I don't daydream what SHOULD be India!

Good for you but
1) That is different from discussing about what WAS and IS India.
2) It gives you no right to diss others who want to think about what it should be.

Also it is a totally contradictory statement from saying that XYZ should do something and then say, dont daydream on what should be XYZ.

Funny really.

I don't live in the vacuum of the esoteric!

How can it be esoteric (by definition a word to describe a difficult to understand construct) and hence a presence and at the same time be vacuum?

Actually the position of whatever is, is, can far more easily be characterized as "ideological vacuum" and "meaningless action" with far greater logical basis.

[Rahul Mehta]

FYI:

You guys should look at the manifesto of Bharat Swabhiman Trust from Baba Ramdev and Rajiv Dixit (of Azadi Baachao Andolan, Swadeshi Jagaran Manch). They are second most "indic" , next only to RSS. Now I am total fan of Baba Ramdev's Yoga etc -- I have purchased over 10 DVDs now and gifted it various people including old friends in US. They are really really doing a great field contact work. In North Delhi, where a acquaintance of mine attends their meetings of North Delhi zone, every week at least 30 people show up in weekly meetings, and 100-200 when there is special event. This is a good show of numbers.

Now I am anti-BST for many reasons. Now I am mentioning BST to you guys only because their demand is to return back to Indic core. If you guys are serious about joining political movement to bring Indic core back into India, BST should not be ignored.

[RayC]

I don't daydream what SHOULD be India!

Good for you but
1) That is different from discussing about what WAS and IS India.
2) It gives you no right to diss others who want to think about what it should be.

Also it is a totally contradictory statement from saying that XYZ should do something and then say, dont daydream on what should be XYZ.

Funny really.

I don't live in the vacuum of the esoteric!

How can it be esoteric (by definition a word to describe a difficult to understand construct) and hence a presence and at the same time be vacuum?

Actually the position of whatever is, is, can far more easily be characterized as "ideological vacuum" and "meaningless action" with far greater logical basis.

It is so magnificent that one goes into raptures about what WAS and IS India.

Yet, all one finds is that there is nothing but what in modern parlance would be said to be ‘bashing’ of alien religions and finding faults with the current disposition as to how they are ruining the whole setup from the wonderful and golden days of yore!

If you notice, I have not ‘dissed’ (whatever that means since I don’t know what that means and I have checked my dictionary). I have only stated that I don’t daydream. I daresay I have prevented others from indulging in what they are comfortable with!

There is no ideological vacuum that one can indulge in. We have to work within the Constitution (unless we are Naxals or equally odd fish) and the Constitution is clear – SECULAR. The ideology of this Nation is Secularism. I am afraid, there is no choice for anyone to meander.

Ideally, India (if I were to daydream) should be a Shangrila!

[brihaspati]

RayC,
there are two different aspects working here.

The first reason for suspicion of the "outsider" religions is because of their strong affiliations and cultural identification with centres of religious and political authority based outsideof India. Moreover such external authorities have not been known to be favourable to Indian interests in the past and in some cases have been linked to covert or overt sponsorship of atrocities/hostilities or trauma on India. The suspicion remains because of the possibility of weakness of resistance if an when imperialist interests strongly linked with those faiths if they try to expand on India.

Therefore, any insistence of maintenance of their own "core memes" as distinct from indigenous ones becomes also potentially dangerous.

The second aspect is that of working out a common set of values to evaluate what should stay and what should go. Even this values system is claimed to be different for different groups. For example, most "Hindus" do not naturally have any feeling for active, violent or intensive proselytizing "conversion" of those who are not "Hindus". This means in their values system this is not a core meme. However, for the Abrahamic - this is a core meme. For them, even if Hindus do not aggressively convert the Abrahamic, the Abrahamics still have the right to aggressively convert Hindus because that is a core part of their belief system and values. In fact they go one step ahead to claim that actually Hindus should not be allowed to convert Abrahamics becuase that means taking back those who have been "saved" and "seen the light" into "fall" and "darkness".

So we see that here, even separate value systems are essentially not being respected. One way imposition of values are sought to be tolerated. Thus secularism is not able to prevent such attempts at claims of rights to change others values.

So what will the current "secular" values as described in the constitution say and how in fact it will be implemented? How does it resolve this contradiction in the evaluations system in itself ? In fact Abrahamics can get away with a lot because "secularism" as embodied in the constitution is simply not clear or precise or strong enough to deal with this common "value" aspect. It solves it by trying not to interfere at all in those who have a history of violent imposition of their own faith - the Abrahamic. This is typically done under the excuse that "law-and-order" situation will deteriorate. So if you are violent enough and also from the Abrahamic - the Indian constitution still in not strong enough to prevent that.

I have my doubts though - if it was some kind of "Hindu" majority that threatened "violence" because their "civilizational core values" are being threatened - will the Indian rashtra at all hesitate? Will it not apply its full coercive machinery to try and physically liquidate such a "hindu" threat? And many will hide behind the principle of "jaban" and "namak" to actively carry out such "liquidation"?

I will reply to your "jeans+macdonalds" theme later.

[RayC]

Brihaspati,



I totally concur.

Some of the Hindu percentage of the Indian population is immensely worried about religions having affiliation and control beyond India. That is why I keep emphasising the issue of religion as a ‘strategic weapon’ in consonance with the title of the thread that you have started, an aspect being avoided.

They will maintain their own ‘core values’ with all means available. However, what is the answer to negate that is the question. Wailing and breast beating is surely not and that is all that I see around here!

The second aspect is that of working out a common set of values to evaluate what should stay and what should go. Even this values system is claimed to be different for different groups. For example, most "Hindus" do not naturally have any feeling for active, violent or intensive proselytizing "conversion" of those who are not "Hindus". This means in their values system this is not a core meme. However, for the Abrahamic - this is a core meme. For them, even if Hindus do not aggressively convert the Abrahamic, the Abrahamics still have the right to aggressively convert Hindus because that is a core part of their belief system and values. In fact they go one step ahead to claim that actually Hindus should not be allowed to convert Abrahamics becuase that means taking back those who have been "saved" and "seen the light" into "fall" and "darkness".

Can we blame what you call Abrahamic religions for what they are doing? What stops non Abrahamic religions from doing the same? In case it is not in their religious edict, isn’t it just too bad? Being highly moral and all that just does not gel! Ride the high horse, and then be ready to suffer!

So we see that here, even separate value systems are essentially not being respected. One way imposition of values are sought to be tolerated. Thus secularism is not able to prevent such attempts at claims of rights to change others values.

No quibble on that.

Change the Constitution. Change the Govt.

So what will the current "secular" values as described in the constitution say and how in fact it will be implemented? How does it resolve this contradiction in the evaluations system in itself ? In fact Abrahamics can get away with a lot because "secularism" as embodied in the constitution is simply not clear or precise or strong enough to deal with this common "value" aspect. It solves it by trying not to interfere at all in those who have a history of violent imposition of their own faith - the Abrahamic. This is typically done under the excuse that "law-and-order" situation will deteriorate. So if you are violent enough and also from the Abrahamic - the Indian constitution still in not strong enough to prevent that.

Don’t disagree.

Change the Constitution. Change the Govt.

I have my doubts though - if it was some kind of "Hindu" majority that threatened "violence" because their "civilizational core values" are being threatened - will the Indian rashtra at all hesitate? Will it not apply its full coercive machinery to try and physically liquidate such a "hindu" threat? And many will hide behind the principle of "jaban" and "namak" to actively carry out such "liquidation"?

An interesting thought!

I will reply to your "jeans+macdonalds" theme later.

I am sure when I tell them of your views they will be delighted at Pathar Pratima! It will be more powerful than the Sunderban Tigers they face daily!

[RamaY]

RayC-ji

We have treaded this path before.

Indian was the Shangri-La before the advent of external religious-invasions. Most of India became Buddhist and then came back to Hindu fold without a drop of blood. You wouldn’t understand this aspect of Indianness as you do not want to be open about it. No amount of facts or debate can change your opinions and your posts prove that point.

While you admit the aggressive nature of Abrahamic-religions and advise others to be tough and ride the horse and prepared to suffer, you do not demonstrate that spirit when others present the fallacies in your logic and posts.

It is interesting to note that you somehow bring the religious angle into a discussion; brow-beat other posters; and then complain that others are at fault. We have seen it in Kandhamal thread, JK News thread, Civilizational thread, then future strategic scenario thread and now this thread. Good going sir!

You are most welcome to bring in your perspective, however contradictory it is, but it will help the discussion if you are a little bit courteous, especially when you are a moderator.

[RayC]

RayC-ji

We have treaded this path before.

Indian was the Shangri-La before the advent of external religious-invasions. Most of India became Buddhist and then came back to Hindu fold without a drop of blood. You wouldn’t understand this aspect of Indianness as you do not want to be open about it. No amount of facts or debate can change your opinions and your posts prove that point.

While you admit the aggressive nature of Abrahamic-religions and advise others to be tough and ride the horse and prepared to suffer, you do not demonstrate that spirit when others present the fallacies in your logic and posts.

It is interesting to note that you somehow bring the religious angle into a discussion; brow-beat other posters; and then complain that others are at fault. We have seen it in Kandhamal thread, JK News thread, Civilizational thread, then future strategic scenario thread and now this thread. Good going sir!

You are most welcome to bring in your perspective, however contradictory it is, but it will help the discussion if you are a little bit courteous, especially when you are a moderator.

I don't bring in religion. I only get astounded when the wails against alien religion swamping the purity of indigenous religion and faiths reaches the crescendo!!

If you feel I browbeat posters for cowering behind philosophical claptrap instead of catching the bull by the horns, I think you maybe right!

If you think one should extend the second cheek having been slapped on the first cheek is a wonderful idea and then wail and weep, well then, who am I to object to your views?!

I agree you tread the same path all the way!

I have tried to change the tack - strategic weapon - religion and conversion!

[brihaspati]

RayC,
I used to go regularly to the Gosaba and Basanti area, and adjoining regions. I am sure you know the area pretty well too. The IA had built and maintained a road into the region. My dad had been quite active there in his early youth when he was sent to organize peasant movements. He made me live out a couple of rainy seasons there. We can trade notes about first hand experiences of how snakes swim about as you go about your daily work. Or go from one clump of houses to the next one by boat. Or go in a mad rush at the dead of night to the dam to repair breaches in pouring rain.

I have seen the changes come and go. I personally do not find it strange that they take up jeans and tops. Culture is not defined by clothes only. They can wear the tops and jeans as much as they want. But before every dangerous outing they will still bow down before banabibi and dakshinraya. RayC I have stayed with them in their forays deep into the "khanris". Seen them face tigers also. Or even more dangerous elements - the "dakats". They killed one they captured in a very novel way - by slowly crushing his b**** (together with garroting).

What I say, cannot thrill them more than tiger encounters. But I would happily encourage them to wear what they find convenient in their work and daily life. Jeans and top is not the real problem. It becomes a problem if that jeans and top cannot be made within the country, or absorbs capital input much more than competing pre-existing clothes manufactured within the country (of equal convenience). Or that jeans and top does not stop at being merely clothes of greater convenience - but a symbol of values incompatible or unsustainable in the given society and economy.

I have had intense fights with many Indians, including my own mother, because I heavily criticized the demand that women wear "sarees". Even in formal occasions, men will appear in western formal, but women are under pressure to appear in "sarees". I always infuriated people by saying that the saree was insisted on so that women could be less free in running and be captured more easily. If men could so easily drop off their traditional costumes for "convenience", why should women be prevented from gaining "convenience". I wouldnt even mind if Indians went back to the dresses that are depicted on sculptures or artworks of pre-Islamic India. I do feel they were more adapted to the climate, more hygienic and convenient. Neither the trousers, the saree or the salwar-kameez or churidaars or chusts or kurtas or jeans were at all in use. It would also be a good motivator of taking care of the essential body forms - because there will be no way to hide pot bellies, or sagging arms or thin shoulders etc.

So for me, dresses and clothes change with time, are imposed by or made fashionable by the elite. But they should be comaptible with the climate and be a matter of convenience - rather than fashion. A shuttlecock head-to-toe covering is okay for a dry hot desert, but not for a hot humid weather - it simply is a colony for bacteria and fungi.

And as for "aabru" - I think here, the Abrahamic value should be challenged. Just because parts of the human body is seen, does not mean that the viewer has to go insane with desire. Thats an excuse for starved crazies not to even try to control themselves - an indicator of very low cultural level onlee.

[brihaspati]

RayC wrote
Can we blame what you call Abrahamic religions for what they are doing? What stops non Abrahamic religions from doing the same? In case it is not in their religious edict, isn’t it just too bad? Being highly moral and all that just does not gel! Ride the high horse, and then be ready to suffer!

I think you nicely express the problem. For you, like many others, "Being highly moral and all that just does not gel". This is indicative of he general mindset in the elite now. "morality" is something that is equivalent to riding the "high" horse and any negative consequences derived from practising morality is to be suffered or justified.

Is this the attitude that allows "corruption" to proceed? For, not taking "bribes" can be seen by some to be "riding the high horse" - especially where a lot of others are taking it, and they are deriving benefits from it. Or say, because of refusal to take a bribe, or give one, a person gets killed as penalty. For riding the high horse, he deserves what he suffered from.

We do not think that "morality" is a value to be cherished, to be protected. We do not think those who practise it should be encouraged by society and rewarded. We think - oh they deserve it, for going against the grain. Actually, I could not have illustrated one of the fundamental weakness of our society - in the way you have done by that remark. And it actually reassures me in a way. For it makes me more determined and more stubborn to see to it that things change. So many people have silently maintained their morality and suffered consequences silently. It is because so many people are moral, that we can ridicule "morality" or principles. Without them we would not have the system running.

[ramana]

Two related posts from Nukkad:

Anujan saar: Can you cite references for the forced conversion on Gandhiji? TIA.

MKG-ji did something stunning that few people realize.

You should realize that Indian independence was as much an ideological struggle as it was a political and social struggle. During the heydays of Imperialism, it was quite fashionable to find theological and "Moral" basis for perpetrating imperialism and colonialism. They were commonly justified as "White man's burden". It is in many ways quite aptly summed up by Kipling's poem

"Take up the White Man's burden/Send forth the best ye breed/.../Your new-caught, sullen peoples,/Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden/The savage wars of peace/.../Watch sloth and heathen Folly/Bring all your hopes to nought."

In essence, Kipling exhorts his countrymen and Europeans to take up the white man's burden, to civilize the half-devil and half child orientals. To wage savage wars to bring peace (wow !), even though in the short term the lazy heathen (kuffars) might frustrate progress. This interpretation served the purpose splendidly, with colonialism providing fodder for economic growth of the west, while also providing a theological basis and opportunities for the clergy. "White man's burden", not only alludes to the big task of social and economic emancipation of the orientals, but also to the "burden" of ensuring their religious (and hence moral) advancement (into Christianity).

MKG-ji, even though secular in his political outlook and beliefs made no bones to hide the fact that his ethical and moral beliefs arose from his religious conviction. He stunningly demonstrated that ethics rooted in oriental theology, gave rise to values such as non-violence and non-cooperation with evil, thereby demonstrating the superiority of eastern ethics over the (hollow) claims of refined moral and ethical beliefs of the west.

In refining his moral and ethical beliefs, MKG-ji consulted not just the Hindu holy books, but also the Koran and the Bible -- but instinctively realized that he was a Hindu. (Why ? read next post) The Christians who were (a) amazed at this stunning setback for all to see (Independence of 1/4 of humanity led by a man who based his principles on ethics is bound to be noticed by people. Especially when Europe with all their claims of ethical superiority were busy gassing the Jews and killing one another) (b) Saw a great opportunity to gain influence in India by claiming their leader as one of their own and (c) Not really familiar with the framework through which Hindu thought progresses (see next post), made several entreaties to MKG-ji, claiming that since his beliefs were Christ-like and since he himself admitted that some of his beliefs originated from the Bible, he should convert.

{ramana: I sawa beautiful icon in Berkely which depicted Gandhiji as Christ! Not being well off I put off acquiring it to find out it was sold out.}

MKG-ji famously rebuked them.(his words)

I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith. This implies the belief in the truth of all religions and respect for them. It again implies true humility, a recognition of the fact that the divine light having been vouchsafed to all religions through an imperfect medium of flesh, they must share in more or less degree the imperfection of the vehicle.

On top of it wrote things such as (his words)

"A Satyagrahi aims at conversion of the opponent's heart by making him aware of his ill will or inhuman behaviour through self-suffering. Satyagraha aims at winning over the opponent by love and gentle persuation and by arousing in him a sense of justice rather than forcing him to surrender out of fear."

He was talking of converting the west There are several accounts from MKG-ji himself about his experiences with missionaries. Some of the exchanges are remarkable, and reveal the supple intellect of the Mahatma. MKG-ji recounts an incident (so "me" in this context=MKG-ji, since these are his words)

(From a missionary) 'You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. From what you say it appears that you must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restlessness is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.'

The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied:

'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.' (Anujan's comment: this is a very profound point, more profound than most realize. Probably requiring an entire post. Please let me know if there is interest)

PS> Dont really know if I should bore the rakshaks with my rant which I intended for "see next post"

and

Well thanks for the encouragement. Let me do my bit to keep Rakshaks off the "Phorum Feedback" dhaaga

This is rant no 1, to be followed by rant no 2 (I feel rant no 1 gives background for rant no 2. I have already posted parts of rant no 1 before -- but still I repeat)

(MKG-ji's words)

(Missionary, paraphrased) "You cannot understand the beauty of our religion...Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless...How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. ...Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace."

(MKG-ji) 'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'

This is a profound point. As a background -- most non-status quo religious (except for maybe, the eastern dharmic religions), seek to sharply define what they are and why they are different and better than current prevailing practices. Same thing with Xtianity and Islam.

If I am a Jew, why should I convert ?

The rational argument could be "You need to change your worldview, and adhere to a new set of ethical and moral codes --- like not stealing, not killing etc --- to get rewarded". But then two effective counters could be (a) My own religion asks me to not steal and not kill, why should I convert to yours ? and (b) Okay, let me not steal and not kill, but also, let me not believe in your god. This is a severe weakness in religions which rely on proselyting to survive. Secondly, as ethical and moral beliefs become well understood, it becomes harder to start a religion (As in, my ethics are rooted in Indian Penal Code, why should I become a Xtian ?).

To counter that, Xtians came up with several doctrines, we shall visit one important doctrine called as "Sola Gratia" -- or the doctrine of "by grace alone". What it says is that, humans are born sinners. They are condemned to hell. No matter what you do (even if you live your life in 400% completely ethical and moral manner) you are going to hell. Now how can that be ? That is because you carry the blood of your forefathers, who trace their lineage to Adam who committed the original sin. The sin flows from father to child, through the semen, making you a sinner condemned to hell the moment you are born (this has profound implications, see footnote later, but continue reading). So no matter how moral or ethical life you live after that, you are still condemned, unless you believe in Jesus.

Thus, you cannot go to heaven, unless you believe. Your actions are inconsequential. Xtianism, in its very root, if it subscribes to this doctrine is a system of faith rather than a system of morals or ethics.

Hinduism on the other hand, takes a radically different approach. Your soul (jeevatma) gets born again and again in cycles, till you become perfect in action and in mind, till you attain salvation. It does not matter, in a sense, if you believe in a God. Adherence to Dharma takes precedence over faith (I am well aware of "Charanaagati" but thats for later). You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you were born to a sinner. You are not condemned to everlasting suffering if you *are* a sinner (Ravana goes to heaven eventually) provided you reform your ways. In this sense, hinduism, is a system of ethics rather than a system of faith.

This is what the exchange between MKG-ji and the missionary starkly brings out

Missionary: "Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless... Only he who accepts (Jesus) can have eternal peace"
MKG-ji: "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself"


Footnote:
1. This sin of the father, condemning the children to everlasting suffering has no contemporary in modern law (you cannot be imprisoned if your dad steals) or in Dharmic religions (You are not a sinner if your father is).
2. Since it is required for Jesus to be sinless, he was not created from the Semen of man. He was born of a virgin
3. If Adam didnt exist, there is no original sin, there is no automatic condemnation to hell and the theological basis of the religion collapses. Hence the much takleef with evolution.

Also explains the angst about teaching evolution/Darwinism in Southern parts of USA and the takleef with Out of India.

[negi]

You should realize that Indian independence was as much an ideological struggle as it was a political and social struggle. During the heydays of Imperialism, it was quite fashionable to find theological and "Moral" basis for perpetrating imperialism and colonialism.

This is nothing new infact since the human kind took form and settled into tribes,colonies or even countries the groups in question have always been trying to gain control of the adjoining areas and imposing one's belief on others is a natural way to achieve the same.

So while we had instances of chakravarti samraats conducting 'ashwamedh yagnas' , Ashoka and likes trying to conquer bharatvarsh in the name of integration and good governance, 18th Century witnessed the rise of the British empire that embarked upon a colonization initiative then the fact that they used theology or religion as a tool for expansion is of little relevance.

I find it really silly to attribute greatness and secular credentials to MKG by referring to some remote conversation with a unknown EJ .

People do not qualify as secular by what they say (unless Obamasque speaches qualify) their actions on ground matter and in case of MKG his secular credentials are there for everyone to see and experience .

[Atri]

Very nice posts, Anujan.. thanks..

[Paul]

{ramana: I sawa beautiful icon in Berkely which depicted Gandhiji as Christ! Not being well off I put off acquiring it to find out it was sold out.}

The thought crossed my mind before....Thousand years from now, MKG could be deified as an incarnation of Vishnu who came to Earth to free India from the Mlecchas and Turuskas and also unite Bharavarsha as one nation.

[SwamyG]

The thought crossed my mind before....Thousand years from now, MKG could be deified as an incarnation of ........

Those were the thoughts of my grandmother.....Indians treating MKG as a god.

[ramana]

Paul and SwamyG

https://www.trinitystores.com/?detail=44&artist=1

[RayC]

RayC wrote
Can we blame what you call Abrahamic religions for what they are doing? What stops non Abrahamic religions from doing the same? In case it is not in their religious edict, isn’t it just too bad? Being highly moral and all that just does not gel! Ride the high horse, and then be ready to suffer!

I think you nicely express the problem. For you, like many others, "Being highly moral and all that just does not gel". This is indicative of he general mindset in the elite now. "morality" is something that is equivalent to riding the "high" horse and any negative consequences derived from practising morality is to be suffered or justified.

Is this the attitude that allows "corruption" to proceed? For, not taking "bribes" can be seen by some to be "riding the high horse" - especially where a lot of others are taking it, and they are deriving benefits from it. Or say, because of refusal to take a bribe, or give one, a person gets killed as penalty. For riding the high horse, he deserves what he suffered from.

We do not think that "morality" is a value to be cherished, to be protected. We do not think those who practise it should be encouraged by society and rewarded. We think - oh they deserve it, for going against the grain. Actually, I could not have illustrated one of the fundamental weakness of our society - in the way you have done by that remark. And it actually reassures me in a way. For it makes me more determined and more stubborn to see to it that things change. So many people have silently maintained their morality and suffered consequences silently. It is because so many people are moral, that we can ridicule "morality" or principles. Without them we would not have the system running.

"Mislike me not for my complexion, the shadow’d livery of the burnish’d sun." is all I can say.

I am not the elite. I struggle through life on the measly pension. Never had the time to build a nest.

Corruption should not proceed. Can you do something about it? What about Laloo and his fodder, or the latest on ex Jharkhand CM or Sibhu? Or the Bofors and Quoterocchi (whatever be the spelling!) or the Swis bank accounts?

The common man does value morality. Or am I wrong?

Yes, there are people who have morality and who are doing their bit.

Sadly they are against a Wall!

[rkirankr]

I went through this thread in the last two days.
I thought to put some of my thoughts here (for whatever it is worth).
Currently there is a discussion going on about value system.
In the Indic thought , I think the value system is like every individual recognising what is his/her dharma and striving to work as per the Dharma. Previously it might have been restricted by caste but now it depends on the capability of the person to use the opportunities to the best of his ability for common good of the country. It is also an another issue whether the same opportunity is available to every one like for example a quality education.
The core value was learning from scriptures (shruti and smriti ) and try to implement the values in their everyday life. Eg being Arjuna learning or relearning from Lord Krishna and working towards achieving the goal which the society expects him to based on his position and MKG's stated influence of Harishchandra's story on his life and values(though he feels that Harishchandra might be just a myth and not practical but strives to implement the same in his life). There could be many more.
The decline in core values is not whether we are not wearing dhoti or langot and substitued it with briefs and pants. It is the weakening of Dharma and the quest to find what is dharma at a given instance, place or situation. It is now anything goes unless you do not get caught. This is from a small everyday dealings to anything of national significance.
Hence you see that there is no outcry when on 26/11 or those who shouted the loudest did not come out on voting day. One common dharma as per today's situation in India is voting. How many do it?
Now regarding religion- The Indic way of thinking was never differentiated between religious and non religious. Everything was a karma and it was his/her dharma to do it to attain the salvation. A Mahabharata induces people to think , think again and again of dharma at various points by various people. Can we envisage such an epic in Abrahamic tenets?

[svinayak]

Hence you see that there is no outcry when on 26/11 or those who shouted the loudest did not come out on voting day. One common dharma as per today's situation in India is voting. How many do it?

Dumbing down of the population using the media.

[A_Gupta]

A look back at some events preceding the partition once again. GoI act 1935 and separate electorates for Muslims seemed to have made a victory of the INC almost impossible in Bengal. That tilted the scales in favour of muslim league and eventually led to the partition. Following is an interesting blog post regarding the distribution of seats. Wonder why the INC refused to go for a coalition with Fazlul Haq like they did with the Khan brothers in NWFP.

http://dipanjanc.blogspot.com/

The situation seems to have been in the 1937 elections:

Krishak Praja Party : 36 members
Muslim League : 39 members
Independent Muslims: 43 members of whom 21 joined the Muslim League after the elections.
(This is not mentioned in the excerpts provided here.)
Congress: 54 seats.

Total seats: 250

It would seem to me that the Congress was in no position to form a ministry in Bengal
with the Krishak Praja Party.

The excerpt below:

In the elections of 1937 based on the provisions of GOI act of 1935, Congress still emerged as the largest party in the legislative assembly, followed by Muslim League and Krishak-Praja-Party. Bengali Muslim votes were almost evenly split between all-India Muslim League, which in Bengal was the party of upper-class Muslims, and Fazlul Huq's Krishak-Praja-Party (KPP), which was the party of peasants and tenants. Because of the electoral system described above, a coalition system was inevitable. Huq first approached the Congress, but all-India Congress was unwilling to co-operate with any other party in provinces where they did not have absolute majority. That forced Huq to join forces with League to form a coalition ministry, and eventually the focus of KPP-Muslim League coalition shifted from socio-economic reforms to communal issues.

complete fails to mention the 43 Muslim independents. So while ML and KPP had roughly equal Muslim votes, they had less than 2/3rds of the overall Muslim vote between them. Utterly misleading.

But these articles follow the usual trend of blaming the Congress for everything, while assuming that the Muslim parties could have somehow been appeased. The usual story - we Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, whomever were all peace-loving nice folks who could have and would have gotten along even with the unfair allocation of seats under the British that would have been perpetuated in any joint constitutional arrangement agreed to by Jinnah - but for the evil, naive, unstrategic or whatever Gandhi and Nehru.

Bah! Sometimes I wish all these writers were left to the tender mercies of Jinnah, Fazlul Haq and their ilk.

[rkirankr]

Hence you see that there is no outcry when on 26/11 or those who shouted the loudest did not come out on voting day. One common dharma as per today's situation in India is voting. How many do it?

Dumbing down of the population using the media.

Many here in the BRF do not seem to be "dumbed down". Are we in a minority? No the reason is , I find that there is an intellectual laziness in the society to think through an issue. This I have experienced when I interacted with many well educated and well employed relatives and friends.
They look for simplistic answers. It is not they are capable of , it is just seems that a tamasic envelope has covered their thinking capability.Sorry I could not find a better word.

How to get rid of that is the big question?

[Sanku]

Dumbing down of the population using the media.

Many here in the BRF do not seem to be "dumbed down". Are we in a minority?

Yes we are a minority, most folks are dumbed down in sense of awareness, one way or the other.

The tamasic thing you say is just another way of understanding the basic lack of awareness.

[rkirankr]

Yes we are a minority, most folks are dumbed down in sense of awareness, one way or the other.

The tamasic thing you say is just another way of understanding the basic lack of awareness.

Ok my question is why are we not dumbed down. There are others outside this forum too who are not dumbed down. Why?
What Iam trying to say is that the core or new core should have the ability to think independent of the psec media, macualayed intellect etc. Something like an Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda.

[shiv]

What does Indic mean?

[Rahul Mehta]

BRite-1: Dumbing down of the population using the media.

BRite-2:Many here in the BRF do not seem to be "dumbed down". Are we in a minority?

BRite-3: Yes we are a minority, most folks are dumbed down in sense of awareness, one way or the other. The tamasic thing you say is just another way of understanding the basic lack of awareness.

Heights of superiority complex and nothing more.

The forum has become hotbed to throw insults on (Indians - BRites) or rather (Indians - Elite). (Indians - BRites) are dumb, they are irrational and may be they are also 2 bit morons.

Though I am BRite, pls count me in (Indians - BRites). I will gladly accept this labels like "not aware", "basic lack of awareness", irrational and any other insults you guys want to throw.

=====

What does Indic mean?

sitakaa haraN huaa thaa.... to haraN ki sita kab hui

[SwamyG]

What does Indic mean?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Indic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indic

[shiv]

What does Indic mean?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Indic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indic

And Tamizh?

[shiv]

Let me nitpick here.

The word "Indic" is meant to indicate "Of India" (if you don't restrict it to Indo-Aryan languages)

Fine. But let me ask a question I asked long ago. Is there a cut off date before which the description "Indic" applies? Or does the word apply to today as well?

Are we Indic now? Are Indians Indic?

[SwamyG]

And Tamizh?

Ha ha..... I know you are just giving more rope to me. I remember you are quite familiar with tamilians and tamil/tamizh. I knew your earlier question was as loaded as this one. But if I keep answering you, as far as I can, I might learn what you are driving at

Yet let me state it simply. Tamizh is "yett one another" way of writing Tamil onlee. Some tamilians take pride in having the ழ.

[SwamyG]

Shiv: In other words, you are asking what is really 'native' ? How native is native.

[RayC]

Shiv: In other words, you are asking what is really 'native' ? How native is native.

A native is a native when he behave like a native!

Please explain how does one behave like a native and you shall have the answer!

[Prem]

Shiv: In other words, you are asking what is really 'native' ? How native is native.

A native is a native when he behave like a native!

Please explain how does one behave like a native and you shall have the answer!

A foreigner is the one who think, act, worship all that is non native and take pride in it .

[SBajwa]

In the Indic thought , I think the value system is like every individual recognising what is his/her dharma and striving to work as per the Dharma. Previously it might have been restricted by caste but now it depends on the capability of the person to use the opportunities to the best of his ability for common good of the country.

Again extending Core. The current developing Indian core lives in the villages, mohallas (neighbourhoods), in each state. You get the flashes of this core during

Cricket matches
Diwali/Holi/Dussehra/Visakhi/etc
Elections
Pakistan/China/USA (great game)

[brihaspati]

Who is a "native"? Interesting question! Is there any standard identification? The sense of native is strongly rooted in the place. Which means one way of identifying a native is whether elements of his culture, physiology, etc., are consistent with the geography and cumulative social historical experience of the place. Thus we look at "very fair" complexion in the deep southern tip of the Indian peninsula, with a sense of being "non-native". From the genetic adaptation viewpoint, we should expect the fine balance between melanin on the skin and the need to balance vitamin D conversion in sunlight with skin damage or melanoma - to make a native in that latitude "dark". Same goes for other types of adaptations like shape of the nose, thinness of the longbones, etc

Physiology is rather straightforward to explore. However where it comes to culture, it does then become a matter of interpretation, and cannot be done in "exact sciences method". It is possible that elements of culture external to the locality at a particular time is brought in by immigrants and are adopted by the "natives" of that period using one of two methods and reasons. Either immigrants apply force and manage to dominate and impose these elements, or the natives find these elements useful or attractive or better than similar elements in their "native" culture.

Problem is, certain things do remain curiously standing out. For example, use of full western suit and wig by some among the judiciary or executive in weather that is enough to prompt most ordinary mortals to remove as much of covering as possible. Same goes for Saudi burqa in Indian climate. Same goes for inistence on covering up the head and hair or compulsory use of the "urni/churni" etc. In the same latitude and climatic conditions, for some it is native to wear bare-back tops comparable to the western bra, and for some it is culturally unthinkable or non-native to wear anything that at least does not have significant amount of cloth in the back. So what then is "nativity" for this place and group? The weather should automatically prefer one type of clothing over the other! The one that is not suited to the local climate therefore is an adapation from non-native sources - and was adpated either under pressure to conform to some dominant group from outside, or voluntarily adapted becuase of the benefits of identification with such dominants.

We can similarly perhaps try to explore a lot of existing practices as to their origins and roots. There could have been elements that were genuinely better suited for life in that particular place adapated from external sources. On the other hand, are everything that passes for being native - really "better" than what existed before being replaced by the current practice?