I met Dr. APJ when I was in 8th standard, just
after it was announced that he would be the country's next president.
Even before that, I knew about the 'Missile man of India' since he had
studied in MIT college, where Appa teaches. So there was always a sense
of pride and familiarity associated with Dr. Kalam. During our
interaction then, I remember giving him an answer to a question that he
asked us. I also remember him saying that the answer was good, but there
could be a better answer. Apart from that, I do not remember exactly
what that conversation was about.
After roughly 12 years, I got an opportunity to meet with the
'People's president' on 18th July 2014. Even with age catching up with
him, it was a delightful meeting. I could pick his brains on two issues
which I have been discussing, and have been deeply concerned about in
the recent past.We are staying together due to the compulsions of our constitution, the English language and the Indian railways. Apart from that we have nothing in common. We have 'unity in diversity'. I used to think that unity in diversity was a great slogan and did not understand its hollowness. Unity in what? Unity in a simple minded territorial sense? Is there a unity in purpose? Isn't there a deeper and more ancient connection other than the Marxist narrations fed to us by school textbooks? Some people say that geography is the most important uniting factor. Since we belong to a contiguous landmass, we had no other choice but to be one nation. I have never been happy with this either, although the geographical unity is indeed important. Europe has geographical unity, but why is it not a single nation? The concept of EU is also a very recent one, and a owes a major debt of existence to the devastating world wars. Earlier examples of a pan-European idea and unity comes only from Wagner's Ring compositions which are still very recent. I am unaware of any such ideas in any earlier Renaissance works. Even if we suppose that a pan-European vision was expressed in Renaissance works, it is still very recent as compared to the idea of Bharata. So what makes us a nation? It is the way of life called Sanatana Dharma, which encompasses the Dharmic religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. It is the long and continuous civilization with Hinduism at its root that holds us together. The strength of the Hindu society is essential for the strength of our nation. Based on his answer, I think we share very similar views about nationhood. Since this view is coming from a former President, a patriot, a scientist, a man born into a Muslim family, no right minded person can accuse his opinions of being biased by Hindutva propaganda, majoritarianism, Saffronism or any other colour you like. This opinion is based on facts and honest reflection.
The second question:
None of the gods described in any of the religions seem to be good
enough to follow and I do not accept any of the supernatural claims of
any current religion. What is your view on religion? Is it doing more
harm than good?
His reply: What will happen if we destroy all the temples,
mosques and churches? Many people use religion as a method to separate
good and bad. So their lives will have a big emptiness. Then we may have
to build more prisons. Look at our earth, it is going around the sun,
spinning around its own axis. There is this moon fellow going around the
earth. The sun fellow is going around the center of our galaxy. It
takes a few hundred million years for the sun to go around the milky
way. All these complicated things have been happening seamlessly for
billions of years. Can this all happen just like that? Should there not
be something more powerful to make this happen for so long? Leave
religion, but there should be something more powerful making our
universe work.
My reflections: He is clearly of the opinion that religion is not the source of all evil in the planet. I completely agree with this view, unlike the new atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens etc., who argue vehemently that religion is the root cause of all evil, as if there would be no evils if there were no religion. People will still kill, rape and steal, but for other reasons. The other part of the answer which deals with this more intelligent entity keeping the universe working is not convincing to me now. This is why:
My reflections: He is clearly of the opinion that religion is not the source of all evil in the planet. I completely agree with this view, unlike the new atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens etc., who argue vehemently that religion is the root cause of all evil, as if there would be no evils if there were no religion. People will still kill, rape and steal, but for other reasons. The other part of the answer which deals with this more intelligent entity keeping the universe working is not convincing to me now. This is why:
First, a more basic question. What is our premise here? We
want to know how things work. Until we get to the simplest part of this
complicated system called the universe and explain it fully, we keep
asking questions without proposing the existence of more complicated
entities or genies.
For example, if a child asks how a building was built, it sounds more
plausible that a mason and his team worked for many days, used bricks
and mortar to construct the building, than saying that Optimus Prime
came down from the sky and raised a building from dust in a matter of
seconds. Although the second answer is more impressive and would thrill a
child more, it is simply not feasible. Also, if we belong to a tribe
that lived in caves and had no clues about building construction, the
most honest answer is to say "I don't know" instead of coming up with a
mason or Optimus Prime. Most importantly, the Optimus Prime answer does
not tell us anything about how Optimus Prime came into existence which
goes against our premise, which is to know how things work! We have not
explained anything by coming up with this Optimus Prime character. The prime mover idea, or the "all pervasive force" idea is unconvincing
to me due to this problem. It has come up with an overcomplicated entity
to explain something, without explaining how that entity came into
existence. This problem of an infinite regress is a big, big issue which
I chose to disregard during my "prime mover"/"all pervasive force" days, but which I
increasingly think is a very strong reason to say "I don't know. But
some smart and hardworking physicists are on the case". So in my view, the
infinite regress problem is a strong reason to not postulate a
super-complicated prime mover which we cannot explain in any shape or
form.
A friend asked him about extra-terrestrial life and his views on it.
His
answer: We are not alone. There are millions of stars in our galaxy,
and scientists have estimated that there are many planets like our
earth. So there could be life on those planets. Are they more
intelligent than us? I don't know, they may be. Will they contact us? I
don't know. You have to travel light years to reach other such planets
and that is very difficult even if they are technologically advanced. Man is just an atom in this interconnected universe.
My
reflections: This flies in the face of the teachings of belief systems (monotheism and secular humanism) which put man and earth at a special pedestal. Ancient wisdom
can be pretty profound, but the thoughts influenced by bronze age myths from the middle east don't make it
into the league of certain Indian or Greek ideas.
Overall impression and take away: It was an honour and
privilege to meet Dr. Kalam. He is so energetic, cheerful and sharp.
Even at this age, the way he articulates his thoughts and the way he
recalls statistics is simply astounding. He told us that he has met 17.5
million students in the past x years (I don't remember x here), a mind
boggling number and a sign of his passion to interact with students,
send a message of hope and diligence to the future generations. It is a
sign of his magnanimity and passion that he meets students at his office
on a regular basis. We spoke about many other issues like the role of
media in today's India, how his Vision 2020 is very much alive and can
still be achieved despite setbacks (Modi wave? :)) etc. I was very happy
just to shake hands with him and to introduce myself to him. As a bonus,
I was also very happy that he even chose to answer my questions. I was
thrilled by his responses to my questions. All the answers were along
lines that I had expected since I have read and heard so much of him.
The Gita-reading, Veena-playing former president is one of the
embodiments of the spirit of Bharatavarsha, a true Bharata Ratna.
Koushik's comment:
ReplyDelete"I don't know. But some smart and hardworking physicists are on the case"
Does this statement mean that you are relaxing your requirements on understanding? In going from "I truly understand" to "someone truly understands"? For surely you must then study all the stuff the physicists are saying in minute detail to understand things yourself, and are (presumably) not going to do so? So where does that leave us? Reading something like Brian Greene's book(s!) is the same, I think, as your Optimus Prime scenario. You have to take lots of things for granted, however obscure they might sound.
Of course, in all this I'm not saying the physicists are wrong. Quite the contrary. However, an error/ simplification/ improvement in our understanding cannot be pursued unless the current level of knowledge is mastered. And unless you do it, you have no way of telling what is exactly true and what is not.
My response: Kou, I agree largely with your idea. I can't claim to understand all that physicists do, but I understand their methods. To be precise, I understand that their goal is to try and explain everything. With this goal in mind, they come up with explanations that do not depend on more complicated and unexplained things than the one they are trying to explain. While genies or Optimus Prime can serve as aids to do other things in daily human existence, have some psychological utilities etc., they are ultimately not the tools that are satisfactory for this goal i.e., the goal of understanding everything. In fact they are detrimental to the goal since you have proposed this entity that you cannot observe, cannot conduct experiments to detect etc. So although I cannot understand physicists, I agree with their methods and would say that their explanations are more reasonable than others by a long shot.
ReplyDeleteWell written! I do not agree with your assumption about what most would have answered about India. I have myself given the same answer about India to many of my friends during my stay in the USA (1986-94). The cultural unity was known to most people and it is a fact that political unity as a
ReplyDeleteNation is post-British era. Even without British, this could have happened as most of the Nation-States have happened in the last few hundred years. All over the world, communities lived in small areas (like Madurai was Pandya Kingdom and Trichi Chola kingdom). You can see this all over the world. Rome and Perugia (2 hours from Rome in Today's Italy) were ruled by different kingdoms. Israel (such a tiny country) had many small settlements.
Thank you! But I've heard many (of both my generation and previous ones) say that we are united because of the British, thanks mainly to Marxist readings of our history. To some extent it has even become politically incorrect to state the ideas of cultural unity. I've seen many people be unaware or struggle to articulate it with confidence. These ideas may even warrant a separate post, but perhaps the earliest expression of nationhood comes in vishnu puranam in which there is a shloka:
Delete"uttaram yat samudrasya himAdraschaiva dakshNam |
tat bhAratam nAma bhAratI yatra santatih || "
Roughly translates to "the land north of the ocean and south of the himalayas is bhArata and its inhabitants are bhAratIyAs". Its very sad that this is not taught in school history as probably the earliest expression of our nation's cultural unity. Marxist and colonial readings have completely changed the way many of us view our own history.
Secondly, significant political unification of India happened with the Marathas also. The Maratha empire extended all the way from Deccan to Peshawar at its peak. They completely suppressed the Mughals and other sultans. When the Anglo-Maratha wars happened, the Mughals were limited to just a few royal families in Delhi, and the British had to defeat the Marathas to capture large swathes of India. Maybe the Marathas were war weary due to the decades of struggle starting from the days of Aurangzeb. Even if the British did not arrive, the Marathas would have kept India politically united for many years in the future. The Maratha empire and its resistance are also not well covered and given enough attention in school history, leading to a lot of confusion and misconceptions among generations of students.
The entire nation mourns the demise of Kalam for his multi- dimensional gem of an individual coming from a modest financial background. One such attribute is his team building. In a country where `team' effort has proved to be less efficient than `all powerful' individual his quality of team building is remarkable in the fields like missile technology, nuclear energy and related defense and nation's security. All this requires integration. Integration holds the key for any successful nation. Our past history has taught so far that we were not that successful as a united single team. There are so many examples including in Pandya dynasty. The disparate attitudes among the team players is so palpable in the present day Congress party. They unite only if they sense some tit bits or if they have share in the pie. It is this grand old party banner under which the fight for independence took place and MKG desired to have it disbanded after independence. It never happened. But people desired unity predominantly through their culture and Sanatana Dharma worked wonders which was not the case in EU. Patel ventured into integrating with devotion and determination drawing enough strength from our cultural unity. Whether the credit is for British or not, Patel owes all our respect and gratitude.
ReplyDeletePresent day INC is a sinking ship. Better not to discuss it at all. Only hope is its speedy demise or descent to irrelevance like Communist morons.
DeleteThousands of years of interconnectedness is perhaps a good enough reason for nationhood as any other may be. But there are flaws in the argument.
ReplyDeleteWhile I certainly accept this premise with qualifications, the notion that Dharmic religions are exclusive in forming the identity of India as regards to nationhood is convenient, but also arbitrary. The classification automatically excludes people from non-Dharmic faiths, which may perhaps be what you meant to imply. I'm not sure.
To draw lines in historical sands arbitrarily (in this case way back when Dharmic religions were founded) is to do great injustice to the entirety of a nations history. If we are to accept your argument about the exclusivity (and chronological importance) of Dharmic religions in the formation of our national identity, we are on a slippery slope. For then one can argue that since Sanskrit belongs to the Proto-Indo-European family of languages that certainly does not have its origins in India. Does this then mean that our national identity based on Dharmic religions is not really rooted in our own land but is an import from settlers?
At the risk of sounding nitpicky - your example shloka in the comments section conveniently forgets most of pahadi UP, Uttaranchal, Himachal, Leh, Ladakh, PoK and the North East since large sections of these territories are technically 'in' the Himalayas. Also, what of Afghanistan and the rest of Pakistan which counts as Akhand Bharat? Any claims on these lands should immediately be dismissed on that account. If one were to lay claim on some of these lands on the basis of Maratha unification, which came significantly after Turko-Mughal rule in North and Central India, could present day Pakistanis lay claim on it (as they often do) on the pretext that 'they' ruled once?
Could Israelis lay claim on all of Judaea and Samaria simply because their texts say that the land was given to them?
In my opinion, it is therefore best not to conflate national identity and religion - while there may technically be some merit to it, a lot of it is arbitrary, man made and changes with time.
I also see you have put secular humanism and monotheism on par as belief systems. This is a fallacious parity and a cursory inspection of what secular humanism is about will tell you so.
In response to Optimus Prime, Brian Greene et al. - it does not make a bit of a difference if I myself do not know everything there is to truly know under the sun. What really matters for us humans as a group is if that knowledge is arrived at by a process that resembles a scientific method. So I'm not necessarily talking only about falsifiability here, but in general the process of induction and deduction and an internally consistent body of knowledge/logic. In the event that you don't have such a template there is no chance or hope to obtain that knowledge even if you personally wanted to in the sense that Koushik says. 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid and infinitely more honest answer than positing an immaterial God outside of nature and scope of measurement, that too by design.
Thanks. Well thought out. I've also heard many of these arguments earlier.
Delete"The classification automatically excludes people from non-Dharmic faiths, which may perhaps be what you meant to imply. I'm not sure."
I do not consider Indians following non-Dharmic faiths to be different from other Indians. They have all the rights that Dharmic people have. You can trace back their ancestors' belief systems to the Dharmic fold in most cases. There are small communities from outside that escaped religious persecution or decided to settle in India for opportunities. No problem with that also. On the other hand I oppose forces that proselytize, claim that they have exclusive access to the truth, and condemn people who do not follow to eternal hellfire. There are many reasons for my opposition. These forces do not have a great historical track record to start with. It is usually geared towards ending native cultures. Right from the Christianization of Greece many many centuries ago to what is happening to Yezidis and the historical monuments in Iraq, the trail of abrahamism is too strong. In TN, I have seen how "harvesting souls" happens first hand. In this I am not saying that dharmic people are perfect. But we do have internal mechanisms through which we can correct ourselves and not blindly follow any "bada baap". An assertion of our historical bonds though dharma might go a long way for unity, national security and economic progress. Dharma is inherently pluralistic.
"Does this then mean that our national identity based on Dharmic religions is not really rooted in our own land but is an import from settlers?"
No. But this issue is a bit more complicated, involving many branches of study and my views on it are evolving. Indo-European (IE) languages and religions are highly interconnected and there have been a lot of exchanges. There have also been migrations into India before recorded history. That being said, a Proto-IE language and a primordial IE culture is merely a hypothesis. "The so called proto IE language is a funny one. It has a word for butter, but no word for milk (quoting Shatavadhani Ganesh)". The earliest IE tongue which can be classified as a real language is Sanskrit and it is perhaps the most sophisticated natural language there is. Even if there was a proto-IE culture, it reached its heights and is still flourishing only in India. After the hypothetical proto stage, dharmic traditions do not have any geographical memory of things outside the subcontinent. Right from the rigveda, the traditions are firmly rooted in the subcontinent. So you cannot purely use tenuous philological arguments and shift the core of dharma out of the subcontinent.
2/2
Delete"At the risk of sounding nitpicky - your example shloka in the comments section conveniently forgets most of pahadi UP, Uttaranchal, Himachal, Leh, Ladakh, PoK and the North East since large sections of these territories are technically 'in' the Himalayas. Also, what of Afghanistan and the rest of Pakistan which counts as Akhand Bharat? Any claims on these lands should immediately be dismissed on that account."
The shloka was just one of many examples. It does not specify borders very carefully since they may have not foreseen this discussion. But there is no doubt that all the territories you have listed here (minus Balochistan maybe) have prominent places in different Dharmic traditions and occur in other texts predating Vishnu Purana. It maybe possible that some of these territories including Kashmir (whole of it) have been irretrievably lost due to our many blunders and our repeated failure to learn from history. Although much later, Alberuni's quote from 1050 AD shows how Kashmir was a refuge for Dharma.
"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all direction... This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hands cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benaras, and other places."
"In my opinion, it is therefore best not to conflate national identity and religion - while there may technically be some merit to it, a lot of it is arbitrary, man made and changes with time."
Religions and nations are both man made, but I dont understand the reason reason to not make dharma a part of national identity. This is where the confusion between Abrahamism and dharma plays a role giving rise to unwarranted fears. There is no punishment for blasphemy or apostasy in dharma. In fact, these ideas themselves might be meaningless for dharmic people. Hindu pagans could not care less which form of divinity someone worships or if they recognized divinity at all. My parents have no problems with my nAstika leanings although they themselves are AstikAs. But one cannot also expect hindus, who have ideas of adharma, to condone all the deeds of cults claiming exclusive access to the truth through revelation. The present borders of India were decided based on the Muslim league saying that they could not live with Hindu Kafirs. And you can compare the state of minorities in the 2 nations. You may have listened to David Cameron's 2015 Easter speech where he called his country "a Christian country". I tend to agree with his assessment. The day Britain is not predominantly Anglican, it is not the same country anymore. Similar assertions about the protestant nature of USA have been made by Samuel Huntington. This is what Dawkins had to say about the same Anglicanism that killed millions of "Hindoos" in engineered famines:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/606257484341329920
and about present day Christianity (clearly ignorant about the names Hindoos are being called by Baptist and Pentecostal preachers in TN and AP): https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/624324600445341696
Maybe generalized too soon, but Dawkins seems to greatly influence secular humanists. Many do not seem to have much of an understanding of dharma and mix up dharma with abrahamisms. Also this is happening in Nepal: http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-now-muslims-in-nepal-also-demand-a-hindu-state-2113747
I see that you consciously choose to refer to the belief system as 'Dharma' instead of 'Hindu', which begets the Arab nomenclature charge almost immediately. Besides the point, just an observation.
ReplyDeleteIn your description, are you referring to Dharma as followed by people or Dharma as laid down in the texts? If one is to include the Manusmriti, as just a minor example or part of the canon that lays down the notion of dharma, the notion of pluralism almost vanishes entirely, replaced by a wretched exclusivism that has few parallels in terms of its continuity over the ages. Perhaps you have heard this argument before as well - but it is quite a simple question - does the intention of the text matter or its practice? For then one can make the same argument on the side of non-Dharmic faiths, whatever you answer may be.
And I don't see how Buddhism and Jainism and specifically Sikhism, founded as an antidote to what Nanak saw as deficiencies in Islam and Hinduism can be included in the fold of Dharmic faiths. This umbrella adoption of faiths with Hinduism as its inspiration is not something that adherents of these religions, or for that matter, objective analysis accept. Buddhism and Jainism were, objectively speaking, a radical departure from Hinduism (i.e. ritualistic, practiced Dharma and also Dharmic philosophy as laid down in Vedanta).
I was commenting on a specific assertion of yours that connects national identity to religion and a period of history associated with prevalence of a particular religion. Not really talking about rights, conversion, etc. My point was that national identity is an emergent phenomenon, not reductionist, and that taking a reductionist view of it on the basis of religion/region/arbitrary man-made ideas is unhelpful, as also simplistic. Modern-day nation states have several counter examples to prove this. The United States itself is a prime example. Calling it a Protestant country does grave injustice to the Scandinavian, German, Irish, Jewish, Italian (and Sikh and Chinese migrant workers that laid down railroads in late 1800s - early 1900s) settlers that have no patience for Protestantism and were an integral part of making the US what it is. Notionally, one could call a country Christian/Hindu/Muslim on the basis of demographics - one could argue that this is right in the case of theocratic countries. But I don't understand the inherent impulse in doing that for secular countries. Perhaps India is a 'Hindu' nation. Alright. So what? In no practical matter does a recognition of that fact result in any benefit. One could argue that a repetitive imposition of this 'fact' does much to alienate non-Hindus in the country, who do not associate their national identity with Dharma.
Unless you are advocating for a practical imposition of religion in walks of life, the recognition that national identity is based on a particular religion does nothing to advance the life of its citizens, except perhaps allowing for people to bask in glory reflected in the works of their ancestors.
I tend to sometimes (maybe clumsily) use hindu and dharma interchangeably since I don't consider buddhism, jainism and sikhism to be drastically different. Many aspects of dharma vary according to the times. I have seen deities and important symbols of buddhism, jainism and sikhism being worshipped in hindu temples. Guru Granth Sahib has very many references to rAma, govinda, etc. With time, mahAyAna buddhism also shows tremendous diversity in the form of bodhisattva images and stories of buddha involving vedic gods (some jAtaka tales). Some people even go as far as describing buddha as one of vishnu's avatArs. Even nAga worship in TN is very closely related to jaina traditions. So dharma is not limited to any single text. manusmriti is just one of several texts of the smriti tradition which can vary with time. There are some lessons we can learn from manu also, and some teachings of manu can safely be rejected since they do not apply to modern times.
DeleteFor Astikas, the shrutis (vedas + upanishads) do not vary with time. But even shrutis are classified into karma kAnda and jnAna kAnda. You do not have to look further than the gIta (BG 2.42, 2.43, 2.44) for a scathing attack on blind ritualism of karma kANda. So gIta attacking vedas makes it outside dharmic fold? Certainly not. Buddhists also attacked the karma kAnda. Even present day hindus recognize this and say that only certain sections of shrutis are apaurusheya (divinely inspired).
Ultimately dharma can be viewed through the purushArthAs of dharma, artha, kAma and moksha. moksha is loosely liberation or bliss through the knowledge of the ultimate spirituality. dharma can loosely be defined as the tradeoff between kAma and artha. From this perspective, dharmic civilization is a huge conglomeration of all these different strands which do not say the same thing and challenge each other all the time. But there is some sense of "integral unity" and mutual respect in all these traditions. Apart from certain stray incidents of violent quarrels (which IMO have been blown out of proportion), all these traditions were/are allowed to coexist, borrow from each other and flourish.
"Perhaps India is a 'Hindu' nation. Alright. So what? In no practical matter does a recognition of that fact result in any benefit. One could argue that a repetitive imposition of this 'fact' does much to alienate non-Hindus in the country, who do not associate their national identity with Dharma."
Forgetting civilizational unity has caused and continues to cause huge problems. Alienation from dharmic traditions is what caused the partition of india. This is a significant cause for the kashmir conflict. The territories that have been lost and that are a constant security threat were great seats of our civilization and significant sections of these societies have been completely alienated from their civilizational inheritance. The call for support to the khilafat movement in 1920s directly gave rise to moplah riots. Why would muslims in kerala be aroused by pan-islamic sympathy for caliphate if not by forgetting or by being unaware their own history?
Stating my earlier point again: IMO an affirmation of long standing civilizational ties would go a long way in bringing unity, improving national security and creating economic progress. There have also been historical injustices within our civilization. But I believe that we have mechanisms to correct those and an affirmation of unity would also help in setting right historical injustices.
"Unless you are advocating for a practical imposition of religion in walks of life,"
DeleteQuestion is how would you do this. I dont believe in the state imposing this on the citizens at this moment. This would cause great resentment. Even if it does not, the left-lib establishment would ensure that minorities would resent it. A great opportunity presented itself at the time of independence which was not used. There is no point in deliberating what could have been done at that time. So the only practical way I see now is to educate people about this and present to them the long standing cultural unity of India backed by evidence for the claims. At a personal level I rant here and present my ideas. There are many others doing much better work by publishing books about this. The state can do things with a carefully framed education policy. But I do not have much hope at the moment since secularists with hindu sounding names would be the biggest stumbling blocks for honest discussion. Unfortunately they have taken deep roots in politics, indian academia, media and so called 'intellectual' sphere. But I do see their influence waning very slowly.
"he recognition that national identity is based on a particular religion does nothing to advance the life of its citizens, except perhaps allowing for people to bask in glory reflected in the works of their ancestor"
Think I've given my take on this earlier and hope I've clarified the difference between dharmic ideas and abrahamisms. I will add one point this to it. Aspiring to achieve past glory can also be a strong motivation for the citizens. This is why gandhi used the term "rAma rAjya" while mobilizing people to fight colonial rule. Calls for India to once again emerge as "vishwa guru" can also be strong points to improve morale and get the nation to progress. Like you said earlier, this should be done very carefully and not be super aggressive like colonial powers or like US, China, Russia, etc.
Re. civilizational pride: The fact that we think so much into the past and so much into the future is one of the things that makes us human. Why are we even having this conversation? Arguably it is not going to change anything. Even if it does, it may only change things to a small extent or well after our lifetimes. But for some reason we are concerned about these things. and about our identity. About who we are and where we stand in the grand scheme of things. Secondly, I dont only say that dharmic ideas are the best. But I do view them very favourably as compared to abrahamism. Although I am opposed to abrahamic imperialism, this is not the only other world view to emanate outside India. Based on my reading of history I have great respect for ancient Greek thought and Japanese civilization also. Unfortunately only hindu and japanese societies have strong memories of their inheritance. Rest have been successfully eaten up by abrahamism. African societies also have pockets of traditional cultures but unfortunately they are not strong enough to challenge the onslaught on them. There is some merit in paying closer attention and taking lessons from the resistance of hindus and japanese against imperialism. On the other hand the greeks, persians, egyptians, arab pagans, latin american cultures, all folded very quickly and unfortunately.
"Idol worship upon pratisthapana and 'aham Brahmasmi' or 'Tat tvam asi' are antithetical and contradictory, but still find refuge in DDL. "
Yes, and I view this pluralism as the strength of dharma. Nobody is eternally condemning others or derecognizing their right to exist due to differences in truth claims. Different ideas are viewed with mutual respect. This is why I call myself a hindu although I am currently a nAstika and contradict both idol worship and brahman.
I refer you to the following quora question about the very claim you made regarding Sikhism - "http://www.quora.com/Sikhism/Do-Sikhs-believe-in-Hindu-deities-Do-Sikhs-ever-believe-in-Shiva-Rama-Krishna-etc"
DeleteYou will see that the references to those deities are pejorative. I don't see how you can defend that as a manifestation of Hinduism. The fact remains - it is out of the perceived injustices shortcomings and ills of Hinduism/Dharma that new religions were born. There would be no need for this to happen if people were satisfied with how things went. So I say again, there cannot be an umbrella adoption of other faiths as offsprings of Hinduism. If they indeed are, they've moved out of the house a long time ago and don't really want to live with the parent. Now one can claim that it is out of a deep misunderstanding of Dharma that this has happened. That is a claim that Judaism makes as well in regards to Islam and Christianity. There can be an influence of a religion on another, but that is not the same as saying that the religion originated the other. Jain and Buddhist cosmology, their philosophies developed independently and cannot be claimed as Hindu as a matter of convenience, neither can Sikhism be, otherwise their existence as independent religions is completely besides the point. Indian/Bharati perhaps, but Hindu/of Hindu or Dharmic origin, no.
It is good that you have accepted that Dharma is a variety of things. When something is too many things, it ceases to be any one thing coherently. That is also the reason why what I termed as the Dharmic Defense League is always accused of shifting goalposts. The fluidity of definition and the notion of Dharma helps DDL parry attacks with a simple statement - 'they don't understand Dharma' (a statement you will found uttered by religious people everywhere). Well if it really is all of those things, then who really does?
Example of shifting goalposts/doctrinal flexibility - 'Untouchability - oh no, that is not really part of Dharma. Its only unknowledgeable people that do it after a corrupt reading of Dharmic texts. I'm sorry, Manusmriti, you say? Oh, well, you know, that too is not really part of Dharma. Did I just say it is? Well then perhaps I was wrong because Dharma cannot be wrong. Idol worship, well, see it is because God is consecrated in the idol. The Chandogya Upanishad really says 'Tat tvam asi' and that all is one? But that doesn't really make idol worship wrong. What is wrong with it? The pointlessness of worshipping that which is within you from without? Well, to each his own, really.
Perhaps the coherence is not desired because you say it wont lead to pluralism - but then it ceases to be a unifying factor. You will never have the kind of unity among Hindus the way you see among Muslims (which, below the surface is not really true, but one which the Hindu right aspires to anyway) for instance because Hinduism can be anything for everybody. Laissez faire is not only bad from an economic perspective, it is also bad from your end goal perspective, which is the establishment of genuine unity amongst Hindus in regards to their religion.
It is quite convenient that you discard whatever suits you from the Manusmriti because it does not fit in with your notion of modernity. If generations upon generations of Hindus were, nay, are, discriminated on the basis of explicit guidance in an important part of Dharma, I don't see how that can count towards a larger pluralism you talk about. Doctrinal pluralism or Practical pluralism - I ask again, since you have chosen not to answer that. In both cases you will see that the prevalence of this exclusivity which really should put the claim of pluralism into perspective.
Guru Granth Sahib (http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=404&english=t&id=18587#l18587%7C): There are verses that go "God has created Maya of the three qualities; tell me, how can it be crossed over?" which are clearly inspired by older dharmic works and specifically this:
Deleteਪਹਰ ਮੂਰਤ ਪਲ ਗਾਵਤ ਗਾਵਤ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਵਖਾਨੀ ॥੧॥ पहर मूरत पल गावत गावत गोविंद गोविंद वखानी ॥१॥ Pahar mūraṯ pal gāvaṯ gāvaṯ govinḏ govinḏ vakẖānī. ||1|| Every day, hour and moment, I continually sing and speak of Govind, Govind, the Lord of the Universe. ||1||
If you say monotheism of sikhism is rebellion from Hinduism, then that is not exactly true since advaita is monism. Even Indra is a bit of a clown in puranas whereas he is the preeminent rigvedic deity. So Sikhism definitely challenges older belief systems but so does gIta.
The desire for bringing back a glorious past that was destroyed with the advent of the 'other' is the reason we have a lot of conflict. You refuse to see that politics and religion are not one and the same although politics uses religion to full effect. The politics of erstwhile Muslim nobility and creme-de-la-creme scared of losing their influence in a independent India dominated by Hindus and search for a similar 'national identity' is what (eventually) caused the partition. The Kashmir conflict is not caused by erstwhile Hindus forgetting that they were, but by two countries wanting to control that territory. The pernicious influence of pride and glorification of an ancient past and/or notions of civilizational (or other forms) of superiority ad demonization of the 'other' is what led to the horror that was Nazism. It (and not religion) is what is the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is what fuels Pakistans hatred against India. It is what precipitated the Serb-Bosnian crisis, the Rwandan massacre, the massacre of Rohingyas, the pillage of East Pakistan, Japanese atrocities against Koreans and Chinese (reference: Rape of Nanking, comfort Korean girls), the Armenian genocide. There are countless other examples that an overemphasis on national identity and associations of nationalism with religion or similar other forms of identification bring. The results are never pretty.
DeleteIf the doctrinal fluidity of Dharma makes it difficult for Hindus to be mobilized to such horrific causes on the basis of identity and the desire to re-attain a glorious past, I for one, am very happy. Needless to say, I am appalled when they are indeed mobilized to such actions to correct 'historical injustices'. Direct consequences of association of religion/glorious past civilization corrupted by the 'other'.
Entire nations have suffered the consequences of such nationalism taken to the extreme. And it always does get taken to the extreme - there is no practical way of limiting it eventually, history tells us this very clearly
What is one to do, you might ask. Abandon the notion of patriotism and nationalism? I would say no, but approach it from a sense of affinity and belonging and a sense of fraternity with people sharing this arbitrarily made piece of geography and your experience of living in it. Rather than a sense of pride associated with a glorious past that we had no role in, a more benign nationalism devoid of cultural or religious pride, jingoism and hopes of reachieving glories of the past is required.
Sure, I have accepted earlier in my reply that there can be an influence on Hinduism on Sikhism. But when you have that same text really taking prime deities in Dharmic pantheon to the cleaners, such verses are a fig leaf. Add to that the fact that the religion was founded at all, since Islam as well speaks of monotheism, not really a new idea by then.
DeleteI also find it convenient that Hinduism chooses to adopt even the Nastikas that by definition say ' 'It' doesn't exist'. This appropriation of Nastikas, Charvakas and other materialists is quite irritating, as is the appropriation of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism within the Dharmic fold. If I say that a core philosophy of a belief system is something I do not agree to, nor do I want labels associated with that belief system, I shouldn't be a subject of adoption by this belief system by saying that since our belief system is so flexible, it can also accommodate people who say they dont want anything to do with it.
DeleteReading Guru Granth Sahib made me think there are more similarities than differences in the concepts. Ideas of maya, 3 gunas, etc., are already present in advaita itself. Advaita does not explicitly condemn the things condemned by sikhism, but it says that only jnAna can lead to moksha. I repeat that earlier "prime deities" like indra are taken to the cleaners even in the puranas. Even vedas are challenged in the gita. This certainly does not take them out of hinduism. For legal purposes also hindus, buddhists, sikhs and jains are the same according to the indian constitution.
DeleteThats a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy if I ever saw one. We need to take the parts where it is inspired clearly by Hinduism as also the parts where it makes its distance from Hinduism clear and add to that the fact that ordinary Sikhs see themselves and identify themselves and are granted legal protections on the basis of being different than Hindus. In my reading, the problem as you have stated very well earlier, is that Dharma can be defined as anything and everything.
DeleteRe. legality, which precendent are you talking about, the Supreme court 2005 Bal Patil verdict on Jainism not being distinct from Jainism or the 2006 supreme court verdict on it being a distinct religion or the 2014 NCM recommendation followed by govt granting full religion status? You should look into the petitions Jain munis and prominent Jains made in this regard. As I said, they dont take lightly to being called essentially Hindus. Why Hindus are eager to adopt them into their fold as they are keen on adopting anyone else is a matter that still puzzles me. Vasudhaiva Dharmakutumbakam as well, perhaps?
Just occurred to me as I went through your earlier reply, if Dharma is so pluralistic, I wonder why it does not want alternate 'secular' narratives of our history? Why the obsession with a singular reading of history? Why this obsession with enforcing a single source of pride in our past? Why the shouting down of authors that have presented an alternate viewpoint of Hinduism (Malhotra & Batra v. Doniger)? Why the tone of ridicule or condescension and intolerance for secular humanists or Hindu sounding secularists? How is that helpful for a honest discussion on any topic in any way?
DeleteSo you dont have any trouble in combining advaitis and dvaitis into one category and call them hindus, but have a lot of trouble in combining advaitis and sikhs into one category? In any case, like I said at the outset, using hindu and dharma might be clumsy, so I will stick to the larger construct of dharmic religions of hinduism, buddhism, jainism and sikhism.
Delete"It is quite convenient that you discard whatever suits you from the Manusmriti because it does not fit in with your notion of modernity. If generations upon generations of Hindus were, nay, are, discriminated on the basis of explicit guidance in an important part of Dharma, I don't see how that can count towards a larger pluralism you talk about. Doctrinal pluralism or Practical pluralism - I ask again, since you have chosen not to answer that. In both cases you will see that the prevalence of this exclusivity which really should put the claim of pluralism into perspective."
If I understand the question correctly, I would say both doctrines and practices have pluralism. All of them have coexisted in the same land drawing from similar sources and adding their own interpretations based on experiences. Ramanujacharya rebelled against some of manu's provisions and turned into a guru for all classes of people. So what? He is considered as one of the greatest hindu gurus and not a "blasphemer" or "heretic". This is increasingly the case with buddha, mahavira and the sikh gurus who are highly revered by ordinary present day hindus. At the risk of repeating some previous points, hindus dont have a central authority. They use scriptures as guidebooks and proceed with their quest for the ultimate truth. Some of them might pick and choose from Guru Granth Sahib and at the same time from the vedas. Nothing is stopping them from pursuing that path of spirituality. So there may not be any consistency, there will be contradictions, you can prove theories as wrong, etc. But those forms of spirituality and those ideas can and do exist. This is true to a smaller extent even with rigid religions like abrahamisms also. Even though they have only one holy book, these books abound with contradictions. This does not mean the particular identity or religion does not exist.
Re Doniger: I have critiqued why her "narrative" is not really a narrative but a distortion in this post: http://anja-singam-marugupandi.blogspot.com/2014/02/i-did-not-anticipate-writing-about.html
DeleteMay only be tangentially related, but another earlier post summarizing a few points about dharmic and sanskrit studies in western universities: http://anja-singam-marugupandi.blogspot.com/2015/02/thoughts-on-western-sanskrit-and.html
Delete"You will never have the kind of unity among Hindus the way you see among Muslims"
DeleteThis could be true since if you blaspheme as a Muslim you are dead. In most cases you cannot leave that faith and continue with your merry ways.
" I would say no, but approach it from a sense of affinity and belonging and a sense of fraternity with people sharing this arbitrarily made piece of geography and your experience of living in it."
I am saying that the geography and experiences are inextricably linked to dharmic faiths. As a child I prayed 3 times a day to the river Narmada, having never seen her till I was 16 years old. A fisherman in my home district of kanyakumari knows that "shiva lives in kailasa". It helps to bind India that the jyotirlingas, shaktisthalas are located all over the country. Dr. APJ gave a similar example of a pilgrimage. That rama walked all the way from ayodhya to rameswaram gives us a sense of kinship. gandhi rallied the entire country using rama's name and by using gita. The current national integration we have is not arbitrary. IMO it is a deep emotional tie based on a continuing civilization and there is nothing wrong in recognizing this.
"So you dont have any trouble in combining advaitis and dvaitis into one category and call them hindus, but have a lot of trouble in combining advaitis and sikhs into one category? In any case, like I said at the outset, using hindu and dharma might be clumsy, so I will stick to the larger construct of dharmic religions of hinduism, buddhism, jainism and sikhism."
DeleteNo, I dont have any trouble with that. Dvaitis and advaitis are debating the inherent nature of God and its relationship to man while accepting the Vedas as a source of knowledge. I.e. their discussion is doctrinal within the framework of Hinduism. You will find that in most 'organized' faiths as well. For instance, Rabbinical traditions in Judaism, the four distinct jurisprudences in Islam, the reformation v. catholicism etc. Sikhism is distinct from Hinduism, deserves to be respected (or not) on its own merits and upon where it draws the line from other faiths.
I'll read your other posts in due time, this is really turning out to be a time sink :)
As I see it, yours and others notions of Dharma are so flexible that anything can fit into it. There is really very little I can do to debate that because there is no fixed ground upon which a position can be tethered.
"I am saying that the geography and experiences are inextricably linked to dharmic faiths. As a child I prayed 3 times a day to the river Narmada, having never seen her till I was 16 years old. A fisherman in my home district of kanyakumari knows that "shiva lives in kailasa". It helps to bind India that the jyotirlingas, shaktisthalas are located all over the country. Dr. APJ gave a similar example of a pilgrimage. That rama walked all the way from ayodhya to rameswaram gives us a sense of kinship. gandhi rallied the entire country using rama's name and by using gita. The current national integration we have is not arbitrary. IMO it is a deep emotional tie based on a continuing civilization and there is nothing wrong in recognizing this."
DeleteThere is nothing wrong in recognizing it. My very first line in my very first reply was a recognition of that fact. Where I have a problem is a. Making people that do not subscribe to this worldview bend to it - something that is inimical to dharmic ethos as you yourself point out. b. judging people as patriotic/unpatriotic/other when they choose different sources of pride, or choose to live by the primacy of the God of their religion rather than region/country, something not judged as kosher by this worldview or, choosing not to associate themselves with viraat pride at all i.e. people who have now got the 'sickular' pejorative. I am perhaps included in one of them. I do not know. c. developing opinions on the basis of these rationalization and actively acting upon them in a way the reduces the rights of these sections of society.
These are the ill effects of that pride, which, when carried to their logical end, give us the disasters I have mentioned previously.
"That rama walked all the way from ayodhya to rameswaram" - you believe in the historical authenticity of this statement, or are you saying this in a mythical/legendary sense?
In your worldview, then, much like Subramanium Swamy, a Muslim, Christian, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist, must a. accept that their ancestors were Hindus (although we already notionally know that this has to be true for almost all) b. 'worship' Bharat Ma in opposition to key tenets of their religion -- to be considered Indian.
I have said it before and I say it again, national identity is emergent, not reductionist and attempts at reductionism. Your idea of national identity leaves close to 140 - 180 million people with no option but to forcibly accept symbols of pride they don't want to accept. So while it is your prerogative to feel proud of the things you have written of quite eloquently, I request you to display those most Dharmic of qualities - tolerance and flexibility, towards allowing people to define their sense of nationalism the way the see fit.
"Dvaitis and advaitis are debating the inherent nature of God and its relationship to man while accepting the Vedas as a source of knowledge."
DeleteOK, so accepting vedas are necessary and sufficient? I again ask how will you reconcile with advaita and gita challenging karma kanda portions (most expansive part of the vedas) ? How will you reconcile with villagers in TN worshipping sudalai mAda sAmy and tribals worshiping nature without citing the vedas? They are also hindus. Puranas say the bad things about Indra as being selfish, complacent, jealous, etc. Whereas he is the primary deity of rig veda. So explicitly citing and accepting vedas are only one useful condition. Other dharmic religions clearly use hindu ideas (without explicitly citing) but do not accept certain ideas of ritualism, idol worship, etc. Even challenges to idol worship are very questionable in mahayana buddhism, jainism and bibliolatory of sikhs, etc. So are they just failing to cite shrutis and gita as a source of knowledge? Anyway definitional problems aside, I am going to stick to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh as dhArmic religions for the purpose of convenience.
"The Kashmir conflict is not caused by erstwhile Hindus forgetting that they were, but by two countries wanting to control that territory."
Does this also explain why ISIS flags were raised recently in Srinagar after friday prayers? Just some 'misguided' youths being taken advantage of by pak. army and ISI?
"It (and not religion) is what is the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is what fuels Pakistans hatred against India. It is what precipitated the Serb-Bosnian crisis, the Rwandan massacre, the massacre of Rohingyas, the pillage of East Pakistan, Japanese atrocities against Koreans and Chinese (reference: Rape of Nanking, comfort Korean girls), the Armenian genocide."
All these except the Japanese case involves abrahamisms, its prophecies, exclusivist claims and 'othering' of spiritual differences. Arab-Israeli conflict involves islamic and christian eschatology to a great extent which is why fundementalist christians from US also want to fuel it.
"As I see it, yours and others notions of Dharma are so flexible that anything can fit into it."
No. dhArmic people have a lot of freedom in spiritual pursuits and their quest for knowing the truth at the AdhyAtmika and Adhidaivika levels (inner spiritual pursuit and divine realms). But at the AdibhUtika level (outside world), dhArmic peoples have ideas of "adharma" also. The smriti traditions dont allow anything to pass. In the practice of yoga, there are ideas of yama and niyama. There are ideas like pancha mahapApAs, doshAs, etc. The violence perpetrated by terrorists on civilians is adharma. Even at the Adidaivika level, an angry god that eternally punishes someone for not having the jnyAna to realize him and follow his arbitrary diktats in one birth falls outside dhArmic conceptions of divinity. dhArmic people can use their changing knowledge along with help from shruti and smriti traditions to formulate and improve these rules. There is no central authority or concept that will condemn them for eternity in case they fail at the AdhyAtmika level (in this birth).
"Where I have a problem is a. Making people that do not subscribe to this worldview bend to it - something that is inimical to dharmic ethos as you yourself point out. b. judging people as patriotic/unpatriotic/other when they choose different sources of pride, or choose to live by the primacy of the God of their religion rather than region/country, something not judged as kosher by this worldview or, choosing not to associate themselves with viraat pride at all i.e. people who have now got the 'sickular' pejorative. I am perhaps included in one of them. I do not know. c. developing opinions on the basis of these rationalization and actively acting upon them in a way the reduces the rights of these sections of society."
DeleteI am not proposing to do any of these 3 by force. I am stating what my view is. You seem to accept and recognize it. If you do, I hope you would not feel queasy agreeing to this stronger sense of unity instead of "imposing" much weaker ideas like "now that you are born in this piece of land, you better feel patriotic and defend/work towards this land's progress". There may be people who do not agree to your imposition of this kind of national identity. Most have not even thought about these issue, but I think some are not willing to state the "stronger unity" position with confidence since they also fear another kind of name calling.
""That rama walked all the way from ayodhya to rameswaram" - you believe in the historical authenticity of this statement, or are you saying this in a mythical/legendary sense?"
I view rAmAyaNa in the sense of what it is---an itihAsa. It is somewhere in between pure history and pure myth. Similar to Jesus.
"In your worldview, then, much like Subramanium Swamy, a Muslim, Christian, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist, must a. accept that their ancestors were Hindus (although we already notionally know that this has to be true for almost all) b. 'worship' Bharat Ma in opposition to key tenets of their religion -- to be considered Indian."
No I dont agree with Su Samy's proposed solution. But I am saying that these 2 are desirable. If others think these are desirable they should be able to speak it with confidence. I feel if more people recognize civilizational connectedness, it would lead to a safer, more united and developed nation.
"Your idea of national identity leaves close to 140 - 180 million people with no option but to forcibly accept symbols of pride they don't want to accept."
You used the alienation idea earlier. But it does not hold strongly since the alienation happens more due to failure to recognize the connection. Abrahamisms explicitly preach unpalatable things towards kafirs and are unalterable in a big way. If we realize the civilizational connection, it would cause significant improvement in communal relations. If abrahamics can develop mutual respect for polytheism, paganism and idol worship based on our historical ties and curb proselytizing urges, then that will be of huge help for long-term peace. Peaceful coexistence is already there in post-independence India to some extent. But it has been a very uneasy peace that has been constantly disturbed. The forces trying to break peace have very strong ideas, many times rooted in rigid theology. These forces have very much increased in strength in recent times. We have already experienced one bloody partition and multiple problems with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan due to our own failures and taking easy intellectual shortcuts w.r.t. national identity. Recognizing deeper unity could be an antidote to "othering" and not the reverse. One man who recognized this, far from being alienated, grew to become the 1st citizen of the country.
"I am not proposing to do any of these 3 by force. I am stating what my view is. You seem to accept and recognize it. If you do, I hope you would not feel queasy agreeing to this stronger sense of unity instead of "imposing" much weaker ideas like "now that you are born in this piece of land, you better feel patriotic and defend/work towards this land's progress". There may be people who do not agree to your imposition of this kind of national identity. Most have not even thought about these issue, but I think some are not willing to state the "stronger unity" position with confidence since they also fear another kind of name calling."
DeleteAt the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam - I do not 'recognize' your position except to the extent that it contributes to what I term as a emergent view of nationality. What you are arguing is exclusivist and reductionist and does not encompass the real ( as opposed to corrupted by abrahamic viewpoints) divisions we have in any society. Nor am I imposing anything, so any objection to my imposition is moot. I don't think people are afraid in so far as they genuinely hold positions that are antagonistic to others. I see no harm in that. You paraphrasing of my position is a non sequitur from my arguments. I submit that an emergent view of nationalism rather than one based on pride at arbitrarily picked points/periods in history associated with the prevalence of one religion is much stronger, alienates fewer people and does far lesser harm than a 'strong' nationalism which leads to unfruitful consequences even though the intentions may initially be very noble.
Beyond this, I'm afraid we will be arguing in circles and can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
"I view rAmAyaNa in the sense of what it is---an itihAsa. It is somewhere in between pure history and pure myth. Similar to Jesus."
Interesting. Unless I have a completely different understanding of what you term as itihAsa, the fact that you use that to say as what resembles a matter of fact 'that rama walked..' does not really bear any influence on our discussion other than the fact that there can be unifying potential in a legend. Nor does it bear any resemblance to the controversies surrounding the historical Jesus and drawing parallels to the two is quite incredible. I refer you to Lee Strobel's book 'the case for Christ' and Simcha Jacobovici's documentary regarding the historical Jesus - you can decide who is BS'ing and how different it is terming it as an itihAsa in its entirety.
"No I dont agree with Su Samy's proposed solution. But I am saying that these 2 are desirable. If others think these are desirable they should be able to speak it with confidence. I feel if more people recognize civilizational connectedness, it would lead to a safer, more united and developed nation."
But they do. If only the DDL would hear their objections loud and clear and stop making grand claims on their behalf. Re.civilizational connectedness - I refer you to aforementioned view of reductionist v. emergent. I also find reductionist histories quite self defeating since there is an overweening emphasis on a glorious past that was destroyed by advent of the 'other', that I think arises from a tremendous lack of self-confidence in the present and worry about future prospects. That, in turn leads to over-compensation in terms of pride, etc and we have the ill effects I mentioned earlier.
"...Anyway definitional problems aside, I am going to stick to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh as dhArmic religions for the purpose of convenience"
DeleteYou may do as you please. You have also discarded inconvenient parts of Manusmriti as being inimical to modernity, so I suppose all is fair.
"Does this also explain why ISIS flags were raised recently in Srinagar after friday prayers? Just some 'misguided' youths being taken advantage of by pak. army and ISI?"
Perhaps. I am not sure I understand your implications - Does ISIS speak for all Muslims of the world? It may claim that, but does it in reality? I am sure you know enough about the history of the Kashmir conflict to know that the issue is not really 'religion' per se. In any case, even if it were, it leads to an even greater emphasis on not defining nationalism on religious grounds, euphemisms re.'civilizational interconnectedness' notwithstanding.
"All these except the Japanese case involves abrahamisms, its prophecies, exclusivist claims and 'othering' of spiritual differences. Arab-Israeli conflict involves islamic and christian eschatology to a great extent which is why fundementalist christians from US also want to fuel it."
I wonder why you leave out the Japanese solely because they don't subscribe to abrahamisms. Their atrocities in WW2 are solely based on civilizational pride carried to the extreme. So is Nazism. So is, incidentally the destruction of East Pakistan (Punjabi and PAshtun ethnic pride v. Bengali inferiority), so was the Armenian genocide and so is surprise, surprise, the reprisals against Muslims in Myanmar and Sri Lanka by Dharmic Buddhists. The root cause of the Arab-Jew conflict is not eschatological in nature, though that does exacerbate things through influence. At the risk of repeating myself on this point ad nauseam - there is no way to prevent politicization of pride, jingoism and hyper-nationalism is often the result. So if you are arguing for 'stronger unification' based on those things, you should be heedful of its consequences (unfortunately, I have seen no previous example of such nationalism that has had _only_ healthy or even benign consequences)
"No. dhArmic people have a lot of freedom in spiritual pursuits and their quest for knowing the truth at the AdhyAtmika and Adhidaivika levels (inner spiritual pursuit and divine realms). But at the AdibhUtika level (outside world), dhArmic peoples have ideas of "adharma" also. The smriti traditions dont allow anything to pass. In the practice of yoga, there are ideas of yama and niyama. There are ideas like pancha mahapApAs, doshAs, etc. The violence perpetrated by terrorists on civilians is adharma. Even at the Adidaivika level, an angry god that eternally punishes someone for not having the jnyAna to realize him and follow his arbitrary diktats in one birth falls outside dhArmic conceptions of divinity. dhArmic people can use their changing knowledge along with help from shruti and smriti traditions to formulate and improve these rules. There is no central authority or concept that will condemn them for eternity in case they fail at the AdhyAtmika level (in this birth)."
I will not comment further on this. It is clear to me that DDL will never accept that when one defines oneself in antithesis to ideas in a faith, one ceases to be part of that faith. Else, the definition of the faith is so fluid/flexible (and not pluralistic) that it reaches the point of ridiculousness. Dharma/DDL itself might want to lay claim on such folks, but as I said, the folks wont have it that way.
OK, so accepting vedas are necessary and sufficient? I again ask how will you reconcile with advaita and gita challenging karma kanda portions (most expansive part of the vedas) ? How will you reconcile with villagers in TN worshipping sudalai mAda sAmy and tribals worshiping nature without citing the vedas? They are also hindus. Puranas say the bad things about Indra as being selfish, complacent, jealous, etc. Whereas he is the primary deity of rig veda. So explicitly citing and accepting vedas are only one useful condition. Other dharmic religions clearly use hindu ideas (without explicitly citing) but do not accept certain ideas of ritualism, idol worship, etc. Even challenges to idol worship are very questionable in mahayana buddhism, jainism and bibliolatory of sikhs, etc. So are they just failing to cite shrutis and gita as a source of knowledge?
DeleteIf one forms schools of thought following a certain tradition while at least accepting the commonality of parts of the tradition, one cannot really said to be leaving the tradition. Especially true if the new tradition has an inventive concept not present in the old. Also true when the new tradition had radically different new ideas not present in the old tradition even when the old tradition inspires it to a certain degree.
If I can illustrate it with an example - It Martin Luther says 'Here I stand, I can do no other', one can argue that he is really taking a radically different idea that puts him out of the catholic order, but his core beliefs still remain the same i.e. that Christ was his lord and savior. He and other sects - Baptists, Anabaptists had new inventions - the idea of a personal God, the idea of being 'saved' - these legitimately allow for categorizing them as sects within the broader faith. Why then, you must ask is Sikhism even a religion? Or Jainism, or Buddhism for that matter? Their provenance has parts that are inspired by Dharmic thought. But their classification as separate religions (legally and notionally) speaks to the fact that they defined themselves and their radical new ideas in spite of mainstream Hinduism. Add to that the fact that members of their fold do not want to be seen as quasi-Hindus, you have your answer. Or else you can take to calling all Muslims and Christians as quasi-Jews, not just Abrahamic, for instance.
" I refer you to Lee Strobel's book 'the case for Christ' and Simcha Jacobovici's documentary regarding the historical Jesus - you can decide who is BS'ing and how different it is terming it as an itihAsa in its entirety."
DeleteIn case I wasn't clear - the BS I referred to is between strobel who presents the case for a historical Christ and Jacobovici who presents a case for none. I wasn't implying that you were BSing. Just thought I'd clarify, in case you'd wonder why I was being impolite all of a sudden.
"What you are arguing is exclusivist and reductionist and does not encompass the real ( as opposed to corrupted by abrahamic viewpoints) divisions we have in any society."
DeleteFrom my side, I've not proposed to exclude anyone. Everyone will have enough room to stay different and connected at the same time. People who want to be excluded will get excluded even if we have the kind of nationalism that you want to have. I can see where you come from, but I am not in agreement with your fears. Plus I dont understand what you mean by this: "does not encompass the real ( as opposed to corrupted by abrahamic viewpoints) divisions".
"based on pride at arbitrarily picked points/periods in history associated with the prevalence of one religion is much stronger,"
The point is not picked arbitrarily. Our civilization starts right from the start of recorded history and when we recognize human settlements as civilizations. What religion existed before the pagan elements hinduism? That is why hindus call it "sanAtana dharma" because nobody knows when exactly these forms of worship started and hinduism has no founder. There do not seem to be other forms of worship before paganism, ancestor worship and the likes, all of which have a respectful place within hinduism.
"Nor am I imposing anything, so any objection to my imposition is moot." + an earlier statement.
But are you not imposing patriotism based on an weaker idea of sharing an arbitrary landmass with others? Is this not a reductionist idea of nationalism as well? Tomorrow if china/pakistan invades and captures the arbitrary landmass of assam/rAjasthAn will you let these landmasses go? What difference does it make to you if this event happens? Should this make any difference to the assamese/rAjasthAni folks or should they accept their new, arbitrary nationality? I am not even using kashmir and aruNAchal here where there are actual quarrels between these nations. You seem to think that your idea of nationalism based on arbitrary landmasses is good enough for the 3 things I mentioned (unity, safety and progress) in the presence of very strong antagonistic ideologies and threats.
Might be a bit of an aside but will put it here nonetheless (some of the questions might be personal so you can skip some if you wish):
DeleteIn the case of indians, will you want people to learn about this arbitrary landmass's history, literature, music, languages, philosophy and art? These are overwhelmingly connected to dharma. In that case will you tell them the source of these ideas or 'secularize' them? Are they allowed to feel any pride for any of these things or just treat them as arbitrary works? Will you try to inculcate any of these (literature, music, languages and art) to your future generations? If yes, why?
Again if yes, will you try to make them confident and proud about their 'roots' and what they have inherited? Or will you introduce them as arbitrary things that you happened to be exposed to when you were a child?
re. itihAsaAs:
They are distinguished from the puraNAs for a reason I think. The 2 itihAsAs should be based on some historical characters and events. For example, krishNa I think is more than 1 person. What is done in bhAgavata is very different from the politics he does in mahAbhArata. This is just my conjecture. There is obviously no solid evidence for it. Mainstream belief is that the events described did happen as described.
"Just thought I'd clarify, in case you'd wonder why I was being impolite all of a sudden. "
:) :)
An older point:
"Re. legality, which precendent are you talking about, the Supreme court 2005 Bal Patil verdict on Jainism not being distinct from Jainism or the 2006 supreme court verdict on it being a distinct religion or the 2014 NCM recommendation followed by govt granting full religion status? You should look into the petitions Jain munis and prominent Jains made in this regard. As I said, they dont take lightly to being called essentially Hindus. Why Hindus are eager to adopt them into their fold as they are keen on adopting anyone else is a matter that still puzzles me. Vasudhaiva Dharmakutumbakam as well, perhaps?"
This is a problem that arises in India due to the non-secular nature of the constitution. Why would dhArmikAs be interested in this question? The constitution started off by declaring all 4 H,B,J,S as 1 category. Then there started a trend of minority appeasement. So one way of preventing government takeover of your religious places and educational institutions is to get declared as minority. This has got especially problematic with RTE, all of whose ridiculous provisions apply only to majority run schools! Even rAmakrishNa mission, whose founder emphatically declared himself as a hindu monk wanted minority status based on some loophole arguments. I have heard from sources that I've not verified that ramaNa Ashram in thiruvaNNAmalai also got itself declared as minority to prevent takeover by TNHRCE. In this sorry state, I actually support hindus exploiting loopholes and get their religious institutions out of government loot. Only the hindu right wants a uniform civil code. I am not sure if you would support UCC. The 'left' usually howls about alienation when talk about this comes up.
"What you are arguing is exclusivist and reductionist and does not encompass the real ( as opposed to corrupted by abrahamic viewpoints) divisions we have in any society."
DeleteFrom my side, I've not proposed to exclude anyone. Everyone will have enough room to stay different and connected at the same time. People who want to be excluded will get excluded even if we have the kind of nationalism that you want to have. I can see where you come from, but I am not in agreement with your fears. Plus I dont understand what you mean by this: "does not encompass the real ( as opposed to corrupted by abrahamic viewpoints) divisions".
What I mean is that religious people in general choose figures that their religions lionize to be inspired by. A matter of affinity in general, nothing wrong with it. The divisions when it comes to cultural affinity in that sense are real and not just corruptions due to introduction of abrahamisms.
"The point is not picked arbitrarily. Our civilization starts right from the start of recorded history and when we recognize human settlements as civilizations. What religion existed before the pagan elements hinduism? That is why hindus call it "sanAtana dharma" because nobody knows when exactly these forms of worship started and hinduism has no founder. There do not seem to be other forms of worship before paganism, ancestor worship and the likes, all of which have a respectful place within hinduism."
The arbitrariness is not necessarily chronological. My point was that a person could choose to feel proud that Sufi Islam truly took root in India, or that the Mughals (in spite of their wickedness in Hindu narratives) took Islamic architecture to new heights in India during their rule, for instance. That persons arbitrarily picked point of reference for pride could be the advent of the Chishti order or the reign of Akbar (You don't need to draw out the history of Mughal rule in India and how 'bad' it was for Bharat, I have read the Thapar-type and Jadunath Sarkar-type narratives). Another could be proud of his Parsi heritage while recognizing that India is now his/her homeland. The Bnai Menashe can have a Jewish-Indian identity that perhaps lionizes the heroes of erstwhile Israel and yet feels a deep sense of affinity as part of being Indian. Your choice is perhaps the beginning of Dharmic civilization, however amorphously defined the time period may be. The reference points could be arbitrary, but could still be completely meaningful for you and others even in the absence of your desired reference point as a source of pride. Now you can contest that saying it is not proper and anti-national, but I doubt you would get a polite response from a person you raise that objection to.
That is also what I mean by an emergent view, as a reply to that point. I would think that all of these views of nationalism are simultaneously valid and contribute more meaningfully to Indian nationalism as a whole. It is surprising, but no one that thinks of patriotism twice a year (and I would think that includes a majority, but I could be wrong) harkens back to Vedic ages to feel a sense of unity. I doubt people even understand or think about why they feel patriotic - but they surely understand shared experiences, shared landmass, shared popular culture in the present. Your view dictates to people that they _must_ feel pride in symbols, time periods you decide because that is the 'correct' view of nationalism. They cannot feel that way. If instead we embrace their viewpoints within a larger narrative of Indianness, there will perhaps be lesser strife than now. There could of course be exceptions, like separatists, I am not blind to it, that feel no sense of belonging to that landmass. They should be allowed that as long as their feelings don't translate to action that can physically, or economically harm others within the ambit of law. I have no theory of nationalism, my point was trying to reflect reality as I see it - Indian nationalism is not Hindu Nationalism at present, and it is my desire that it does not reduce to that.
DeleteOk, now for some reason, I am able to post inline again, but do look at my last reply at the bottom of this post.
DeleteRe. UCC - it is a thorny issue. I don't understand why what you term as the 'left' (which presumably includes me because you are then presumably 'right' in this argument) or liberals or progressives in general vacillate on this issue. I am for it in principle. The notion of secularism we have adopted in India is not one of equi-distance but one of adoption of faiths and concessions. That is terrible and not a true separation of religion and state.
DeleteWhy is it thorny? Now that we have a separate personal law, we cannot go to a UCC without much protest, and perhaps bloodshed. I wouldn't have the stomach to implement such a thing, and I doubt even the most staunch wing Hindu nationalist party in India does.
"So I do not make a distinction about my sources of attachment. I am equally passionate about the thought process that went into the construction of the Parthenon as much as the Rajarajeshwar Temple at Thanjavur. I usually abhor distinctions acted upon on the basis of 'isms' (Hinduism v. Judaism) or 'ness' (Indianness v. Americanness)."
DeleteI'll speak from a purely personal and individual point of view. Although your statement is consistent with your earlier positions, I doubt this could ever happen. It will definitely not happen in my case. The facts that my mother tongue is the language the cholas patronized with vigour, I've touched the pallava rock carvings multiple times, learnt kritis on chidambaram nataraja, watched a tamil movie on raja raja cholan as a child, learnt and still sing several kritis of tyagaraja who lived on the banks of the kaveri, all increase my attachment towards these things. Like I said before, I have a lot of respect for ancient Greeks and for ancient civilizational achievements (in art, literature, architecture) in general. I am also interested in comparative studies. But my attachment towards these would never equal the attachment to the ancient living tradition I am a part of. You can compare iliad and ramayana in many ways. But I doubt if it pervades general Greek life as much as ramayana pervades general indian lives. We celebrate so many festivals each year that reinforce these ideas in us. Open the engagements section of any newspaper in india on any day and you will find ramayana or gita pravachanam or something similar happening somewhere. I learnt these epics from my grandparents in my own language and not by reading english translations. So such influences and the attachment I have to these languages, the people who lived these lives, etc, makes it impossible for me to attach equal value to every work in the world. As a crude analogy, getting parents, relatives and children are also biologically arbitrary in some sense. So although people can respect every human in the world as a human, nothing can equal their love for their parents, loved ones, etc. If it does, then these would be the rarest cases. I am not sure I will even be able to imagine a world where this is the statistical norm.
Re. UCC: Forget UCC for everyone. It would be good if we did not have hugely sectarian laws like RTE and govt. control of places of worship. These 2 alone are enough for dhArmikas wanting to say that they are minorities. These are the main reasons why dhArmika leaders dont want to be encompassed into a common identity, and not some radical theological disagreements.
"I'll speak from a purely personal and individual point of view. Although your statement is consistent with your earlier positions, I doubt this could ever happen."
DeleteIt's good you speak for yourself, then.
"But I doubt if it pervades general Greek life as much as ramayana pervades general indian lives"
I am not interested in a>b type analyses. Does it matter to me that Ramayana illustrates the human condition as does the Illiad? Yes. Thats all I really care about. Everything else is a different form of expression of the same inherent impulse. I enjoy the similarities and the differences instead of worrying about whether it is part of a living tradition or not.
"So such influences and the attachment I have to these languages, the people who lived these lives, etc, makes it impossible for me to attach equal value to every work in the world"
That is in some sense natural and I am not an exception. A natural sense of affinity develops in the surroundings you grow up in. Translate that to stories that people belonging to different faiths hear from their grandparents or learn in the language of their provenance and you will see that a natural affinity for those traditions will develop. At the same time they experience being Indian, being exposed to a common set of experiences and events. And that contributes to their affinity towards India as a whole. And that is why Indian nationalism is not the same as Hindu nationalism. Nor should it be.
With that said, I think we've come full circle and I trust you understand my position on this. I certainly do yours. I doubt I have said anything to move you on the issue. The same holds for me. Good discussion, I felt, though, after many moons.
"That is in some sense natural and I am not an exception" - to the sense of affinity, and not to the impossiblity re. attaching value.
DeleteWas travelling and moving last week, hence the delay. Although I feel our positions have not changed, it was a good exchange nevertheless :)
DeletePt 2.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Sanskrit, PIE etc, to me personally it does not matter if Sanskrit, or Aryans/proto settlers came from X,Y or Z or were indigenous. It was merely to point out the arbitrariness of picking a point in historical time to start identifying with. It also does not matter that it is a sophisticated language that is superior in many respects to other languages. The core of language is communication - of practical and abstract thoughts. That happened with Sanskrit in India, (but had its root in a common tongue that emerged elsewhere), with Dravidian languages, with non-PIE languages as well.
It so happened that PIE culture flourished in the subcontinent. There is nothing to say that the same could not have happened in Transoxania, or Egypt or Mesopotamia. In other words, an accident of history should not be a source of pride, especially if that pride is only reflected and contains no contribution from oneself. All of this to say that as long as there are no harmful effects of pride in ones culture, it is all well and good. But the bottomline is that that pride is ultimately something borrowed from works that ancestors did, is not exclusive (since it often begets competitive pride from opposing/alternate ideologies), and is often a source of conflict since it is never sufficient to feel pride in the inherent qualities of the subject of the pride, but the pride always has to be in reference to an 'other' that the subject of the pride is superior to. Your comparison of Dharmic and Abrahamic faiths falls squarely into this category.
I forgot to add - Secular Humanists don't define themselves in opposition to specific belief systems. Your quoting of Dawkins is unhelpful in this regard.
ReplyDeleteThe Dharmic Defense League shifts goalposts constantly when it comes to debating core beliefs. That is perhaps why the notion of confusion with Abrahamisms emerges. Idol worship upon pratisthapana and 'aham Brahmasmi' or 'Tat tvam asi' are antithetical and contradictory, but still find refuge in DDL. While the notion of Brahman is different from the God in Abrahamic faiths, it shares a commonality - unqualified and untestable (by design) assumption. On can spawn completely consistent (with some effort) philosophies once this assumption is accepted axiomatically. Whether the acceptance is justified is another issue - but there is nothing inherently (intellectually) superior in the notion of Bhraman as compared to say YHWH. I trust you do not include Dvaita in your notion of Dharma - else the parallels with Abrahamic faiths become obvious, at least notionally.
For some reason, I am unable to reply inline so I will continue here -
ReplyDelete"In the case of indians, will you want people to learn about this arbitrary landmass's history, literature, music, languages, philosophy and art? These are overwhelmingly connected to dharma. In that case will you tell them the source of these ideas or 'secularize' them? Are they allowed to feel any pride for any of these things or just treat them as arbitrary works? Will you try to inculcate any of these (literature, music, languages and art) to your future generations? If yes, why?
Again if yes, will you try to make them confident and proud about their 'roots' and what they have inherited? Or will you introduce them as arbitrary things that you happened to be exposed to when you were a child?"
These are interesting questions and I have pondered them. My urge is to try to know everything about everything (that hopefully should not end up knowing nothing about anything eventually...). So I do not make a distinction about my sources of attachment. I am equally passionate about the thought process that went into the construction of the Parthenon as much as the Rajarajeshwar Temple at Thanjavur. I usually abhor distinctions acted upon on the basis of 'isms' (Hinduism v. Judaism) or 'ness' (Indianness v. Americanness). I hope you get the drift. I prefer not to look at the collective achievements of all humankind through a partisan, even tribal lens. So while Gopurams in Kovils constructed by Pallavas may have religious inspirations apart from royal patronage, so did the 'Madonna of Bruges' and so did the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. I try to recognize the commonalities in all instead of doing a comparison and rating them and filtering out everything that doesn't bring out my heritage as no.1. I'm not accusing you of doing that either - just trying to elaborate. I also try to distinguish between attachment/belonging and pride. For me - the second connotation of pride (related to simply being part of a group through sheer chance or feeling it for work my ancestors did) holds very little meaning. That informs my worldview in general as well. Hope that gives you a better sense of where I stand on the issue.