|
updated 29 Aug 2006 Back to Indian Politics SRK is a Hindu correspondent I met on the web. He has some interesting things to say regarding my 'Worldview', especially the parts dealing with Islam, Christianity and Indian Politics. (My introductory statements are in italics.) Note: SRK is NOT Shah Rukh Khan! :-)
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution Restricting Fraudulent Conversions Double Standards of the Church Article 370 and Jammu and Kashmir In my Worldview, I wrote: Since I may not get to Judaism, let me state here that I realize that certain passages of the Old Testament are horrendous, but the Jews have moved so far beyond that, for the most part, that it is no longer relevant. Even more important, the fanaticism of Deuteronomy was never generalized to encompass the world, as was the case with Islam. It is interesting to speculate whether Mohammed drew his inspiration from such precedents. That would be ironic indeed.
To which he replied: It is true that Mohammad drew his inspiration from the Judeo-Christian precedent, and is attested in Islamic texts themselves. His Gabriel visions were first certified by Khadija's Christian cousin, Waraqa bin Naufal, while Mohammad was plagued by doubt. Once he started his ministry, he first started out flattering Abrahamics [Jews, Christians and Muslims], even instituting prayers in the direction of Jerusalem, but they rejected him outright. This rejection resulted in an adverse review of the said Abrahamics by Mohammad (when it was not outright condemnation), and he also changed the direction of prayer (qibla) to Mecca. So, in essence, it is quite right to state that Islam is "globalized" Judaism - the entire world is "promised land" to the ummah, and infidels are merely rebellious squatters. The Islamic charge of Jews "distorting" texts is not without basis. Over years, the cruelties prescribed by Yahweh were mitigated by the doctors of the Law. But Mohammad, ever the stickler to rules, would have none of it. Here is an instance, from the Hadith, of Mohammad reinstating Yahweian cruelty: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 809: Christianity is globalized Judaism too, what with Anglo-Saxons, Greeks, Gauls, Romans, Indians, Africans et al. being recruited to the messianic side to bolster what is an essentially Jewish schism. The similarity of Mohammad's claims and behaviour to that of the established Abrahamic groups was noticed by, and confused, his Pagan contemporaries. Seeing the idol of Goddess al-Uzza broken by the minions of Mohammad, the Pagan priest lamented, not without an understated sarcasm, and an eloquent misattribution: O 'Uzza, make an annihilating attack of Khalid, For a more detailed look, please refer to The Bible Appears in Arabic from Hindu Temples by Sita Ram Goel And, by the way, when Abrahamics inflict verbal and physical violence on fellow Abrahamics for becoming "deviant heretics" they are merely repeating what people like Moses, Joshua and Jehu did, though on a larger scale. Conversion to Abrahamic doctrine is responsible for introducing religion-based conflicts into vast regions where it was formerly unknown, starting with Europe. A Julius Caesar, even while militarily conquering Gaul, would comment that the Gauls worshipped Jupiter in the form of Toutatis and leave it at that. In modern Europe, by contrast, I don't exactly see a stampede of padres declaring that the Australian's totems and the Hindu's idols are other forms of deity, and the late Pope finally "forgave" Jews of deicide "provided they didn't identify with those who crucified Jesus." How ironical, since their Pagan ancestors were merely irritated or amused by Jewish theology, but tolerated them on grounds of the antiquity and continuity of their beliefs, while the Christian descendents of these very Pagans made life hell for European Jews for a very long time. Sometimes we miss the glaringly obvious. How could one not notice that Mohammad copied from Judaism the method of slaughtering animals, circumcision, iconoclasm and the taboo on pork? Paul was ready to compromise on everything but iconoclasm in order to convert the heathens, but Mohammad was not. I guess that's because Paul had to contend with militarily and politically powerful heathens in the form of the Roman empire, whereas Mohammad never had to face a great power like Rome.
Back to Table of Contents
In my Worldview, I wrote: Many crimes have been committed in the name of Jesus, but at least Jesus did not take up arms or advise others to. On the contrary, he gave us the famous phrase, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."
To which he replied: That brings me to my second point - the above quotation about giving unto Caesar and god their respective dues, allegedly by Jesus. Allegedly, because some scholars (like Koenraad Elst) seem to think that this is to convince Romans that Christian Jews were not committing treason by looking forward to the establishment of the kingdom of god in a united Judea and Samaria, which were then part of the Roman empire. The messiah is supposed to perform frankly political functions, re-establishing the old Davidic kingdom and all, and there was the obvious need to proclaim one's good behaviour in the face of Pax Romana. This is one major reason why Christians were singled out for persecution on the basis of the religion in the otherwise religiously tolerant Roman empire, which even borrowed the deity of its sworn enemy (Mithra from Persia). Even in the fourth century, the political function of the messiah had not yet been forgotten - Julian the Apostate famously teased the Christians by proclaiming his intention to rebuild the Jerusalem temple, which would mean that he, a Pagan, was the Jewish messiah the Christians awaited! Even if we assume that Jesus did say this (as opposed to a scribe's interpolation), the context makes things clear. 1. The Pharisees pose the question: Matt.22:15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? The disciples [Pharisees] are applying the letter of the prophecy, and asking Jesus whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar. I.e. If Jesus is messiah, he must be re-establishing the Davidic kingdom, in which case it is not necessary to give tribute to Rome. If he claims messiahood however, that amounts to treason from Rome's viewpoint, and the Romans will deal with the troublesome upstart (which they finally did, and which is what the disciples [Pharisees] are hoping for). 2. But Jesus understands the loaded question: 18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? It is tempting indeed to claim messiahood and consequent prophetic fulfilment, but this is bad since it will not be tolerated by the Roman state, backed by its legions. 3. And then, gives a politically safe answer: 19.Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21.They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. So the context clarifies that this is not about the 'separation of church and state.' Jesus never had a functional state to 'separate' from his church. He was merely trying not to attract the attention of the Roman authorities. History is proof of this fact that the Church never intended to separate itself from the state if it could help it. When the Church took over the Roman state, it made sure that the king was also Pontifex Maximus - high priest. Everywhere the Church went in Europe, it tried to befriend rulers so that they could then carry out the conversion of their people by fiat. In colonial times, it made good use of the colonial apparatus for its ends. Even today in India, it is a willing tool for western powers that would not tolerate its antics at home. Judaism established a frank theocracy ever since Moses. Then, it was ruled by judges, a theocratic oligarchy. Then come Saul and David. Jewish theologians expected a theocracy, and denounced Solomon for his easy-going ways (and hence wise?) with his wives' Gods and Goddesses. It is not logical, and may even be considered blasphemy from a Jewish viewpoint, to proclaim that a Jewish messiah harboured intentions of separating his Church from his State. That's also why the observant Jews consider a 'secular' Israel merely a caricature of a Jewish state. Rendering unto Caesar and god their respective dues is truly a sound and agreeable principle, but it has nothing to do with Jesus' insight. Rather, its modern re-orientation, divorced from its original context, is a back-projection of contemporary principles on Jesus by well-meaning Christians, just as some well-meaning Hindus claim that Hindu feminism originated with Maitreyi and Gargi in Vedic times. As Koenraad Elst says in Psychology of Jesus: A similar political turn is probably the key to the story of Jesus saying: 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.' At first the Christians were very uncompromising and they refused to pay taxes: they expected the Second Coming and the destruction of the Empire. When that changed (around 55, probably because at first the new emperor Nero had raised high expectations among the Christians, or because Claudius' persecutions had forced them into compromise), they justified this change to some of their more radical followers, and at the same time assured Roman or pro-Roman listeners about the genuineness of this new policy by invoking Jesus' own authority. So, possibly this well-known episode is not historical, but a motivated insertion. In a later email, he adds: Sorry for missing the obvious again. If the quotation about Caesar and god is really about the separation of church and state, would that not make the Vatican City an illegitimate entity? From Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors. VI. Errors about Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church From the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Nature of Human Liberty: 18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.From the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Christian Constitution of States: 6. As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honour the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favour religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavour should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God. From the underlined portions, we know the Orwellian nature of the phrase 'freedom of religion' that the Church so zealously champions in Pagan lands. Same goes for words like 'dialogue' 'cultural understanding' etc. etc. The word is indeed god, but the details constitute his (equal?) partner, the Devil.
Back to Table of Contents
I had offered this opinion on the relative merits of the two religions: It's just that in the struggle with Islamic militancy, I think
the Christians are a mixed bag, who should be allies.
Although some of them are fanatical, these are far
fewer than in Islam, and on the whole they are far
more rational.
To which he replied: In the struggle with Islamic militancy, the Christian establishment will be a willing ally, once you convince it that you wield economic, military and political muscle. The Christians generally have an abiding respect for force and power, thanks to the monarchical theism they subscribe to. As we have seen, they didn't mind interpolations to be on the right side of the Romans. They didn't mind laying the blame for Jesus' death on the heads of their fellow-Jews, and even made it out as if the Jews confessed ("his blood be on our hands") to this effect. After having tasted power with Constantine, they have honed the ecclesiastical control of the alpha male into a fine art. They followed in the wake of conquering legions in the Americas, in Africa, in Asia. They collaborated with secular colonial governments. As we learnt many moons ago, they did not even mind collaborating with the CIA of secular America. This behaviour extends to the intellectual sphere as well. When influential, liberal westerners voiced disapproval over the elimination of cultures by conversion, they come up with the idea of inculturation. They did not hesitate to team up with a religiously indifferent, capitalistic west in order to confront the greater danger of militant atheism in the form of Communism. When Marxism became very strident and powerful in intellectual circles in the west, they came up with the notion of "liberation theology." Today, when science becomes powerful threatens the contentions of their myths, they try to co-opt it with "intelligent design." In India, Robert de Nobili, a Jesuit, noticed that the Brahmins were respected all over India, and promptly tried to pass himself off as a Roman brahmin, taking to Samskrit and vegetarianism, and brandishing a Veda to boot! When the brahmins remained unimpressed, they moved over to the poorer and/or disadvantaged castes. In India, they don't mind collaborating with Islamic fanatics and combating "Hindu communalism," because the Hindus are easier to pick off. When some of their churches were bombed in 2000, they first raised Cain about the RSS. However, when those responsible were found to be an Islamic group called Deendar Anjuman, they quickly buried the news, and never even apologised for "having borne false witness". The Pope apologised for the crusades to the aggressive Muslims, but never bothered about the Goan Inquisition, which was the last one to be disbanded, and lasted from 1560 until 1812! The joke is that at least the first Crusade was a just war, because Christian holy sites and populations in Palestine were subjected to Islam's patented behaviour, whereas the Goan Inquisition was sheer one-sided persecution of Hindus. Not just that, the Syrian Christians, who had been living peacefully and prosperously with Hindus for more than 10 centuries, suddenly made common cause with the Portuguese guns. Rest assured, so long as America shows the will, and has the resources, Christians will support her struggle against Islamic militancy. If India shows some spine against Islamic militancy, and stands up to Christian swearology, I have no doubt they will support her too. God is, after all, a cosmic Caesar.
Then I said: I see that you take a harsher view of Christianity in general than I do. Your comments are obviously based on much reading and thought, and they are making me think more carefully about this too. From a practical point of view, I still think it would be suicidal to take on both Christians and Muslims, since together they make up something like 3/5 of humanity, or more. The Christians you speak of sound to me like what I call 'conservative' Christians. The liberal Christians, to the best of my knowledge, take a much lighter approach to their religion, and they are much more numerous than their Muslim counterparts. They must be appealed to. That is my point. Sometimes I do wonder if I underestimate the power and extent of conservative Christianity. You are basing your experience of Christians on what you have seen in India, and also on the past. I look at my moderate and reasonable neighbors and get a different impression. But perhaps these neighbors are not sufficiently representative. It's an important question. I'll keep my eyes open.
And he replied: I fully realize this as well. Firstly, if you notice, I had mentioned the Christian establishment. This is the most powerful and effective component of Christianity, even if the liberal laity are more numerous. After all, Christianity is the organised religion in the world today. My point was not that they should be antagonised for reasons of precedent, doctrine etc. All I feel is that Pagans should first take a bold stance and show that they wield some real power. Otherwise, what is in it for Christians to make even a temporary alliance with Pagans? Additionally, I do understand that Christianity is a more complex and varied religion, with a lot more flexibility in practice, as compared to Islam. Quite a few Christians have indeed followed their conscience and reason in preference to doctrine. e.g. Fr. Tisa Balasuriya. However, Pagans have to keep the doctrine in sight while building coalitions with them. Not impossible. In fact, in Bangladesh, Christians have teamed up with the more numerous Pagans in order to make themselves heard, as members of the Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council. The Pagans are more numerous, and relatively better off in Bangladesh compared to the Christian community. Of course, the Christians come with the advantage of potentially greater publicity value in the western world. In India, by contrast, the Christians find it useful to be a standoffish 'minority,' which effectively allows them to enjoy their colonial legacy of real estate and operate unhindered under the discriminatory Art. 30 of the Indian Constitution. If Pagan parents in India simply stopped kowtowing to the 'convent' schools and their affected wog-like behaviour, it would be a great leap forward, to borrow Mao's slogan. In my experience, Christians (and Abrahamics in general) respect a level of conviction, even if they disagree with those convictions. Just look at the contrast with which Christians treat Muslims and Hindus. Hindu thought might be appreciated and valued by Unitarian Universalists and Deists, but only Muslims can receive an apology from the Pope. Only after Jews acquired their modern clout did the Pope deem it fit to 'forgive' them for their ancestors' 'deicide,' and start talking about the shared 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Real power, which is something Hindus lack, attracts all humans.
I finished this exchange with: Thanks SRK, I must say, your excellent comments greatly enrich my Worldview page. And I find it quite difficult to disagree, hence I have little by way of rebuttal. You seem to accept my one point that many Christians 'on the street' take their religion lightly; you draw a distinction between the Christian 'establishment' and the laity. What you say is surely true of the Catholic Church and of many Protestant churches (though some Protestant churches are very liberal, ordaining homosexuals as priests and so forth). Most of the 'Christians' I know are rather carefree and pleasure-loving, but as I said, I am from a 'blue state'.
Back to Table of Contents
In my chapter on Christianity I had asked: What are the different grades of fundamentalism and how many Americans belong to each?
And he replied: A related question that is relevant is: "What are the differences between 'First World' Christianity and 'Third World Christianity'?"
For example, Devotees Re-enact Crucifixion in Philippines
Ruben Enaje has been nailed to the cross 20 times Then there is History Behind Recent Hindu-Christian Clashes in Gujarat Benny Hinn is admittedly really "fringe" element within America. Even minor government functionaries wouldn't like to be caught dead with him. Additionally, there is the problem of giving to Caesar what is his: Documentation of Benny Hinn's Financial Practices But look at what happens in India: 7 Million Attend Festival of Blessings in Bangalore, Jan 2005 As Gsub used to ask, why a half-baked Jesus from a moron Swami, when the missionary is around the corner with the genuine article? Some Pagan stupidity of the Islamic kind, thanks to the PC silence of our "sophisticated" Pagans who are always indulging in sarva-dharma-samabhava and sham Advaita: "BANGALORE: The protest over the Festival of Blessings programme escalated on Friday with widespread arson and stone-pelting across the city, which left several persons injured. Normal life was disrupted as angry mobs forcibly shut down shops and blocked traffic in many areas following the bandh call given by the Hindu Jagran Vedike to protest the show by evangelist Benny Hinn. BMTC bore the brunt of the mobs ire as over 110 buses were damaged. Many private vehicles were also damaged. Agitators went on a rampage pelting stones and setting fire to buses in places across the city. Police lobbed tear gas shells and lathicharged crowds at several places. The trouble began around 6 am when a mob stopped a BMTC bus and set it on fire after forcing commuters to get off. Buses parked in the terminal were set on fire. The police were caught off guard as most of the force was at the Jakkur airfield, the venue for the programme." You probably realize that you became approximately fifty-fold richer when you set foot in India, thanks to your dollar and the exchange rate. Because of this monetary magnification, god collaborates with Mammon in our part of the world. A third-rate preacher shunned in your society, even by Christians, can easily become a powerful person in ours, with a little bit of help from the Macaulayite rags, and provided they make the right moves. Just look at the story of Teresa of Albania. What was true in Robert Clive's time about ordinary Englishmen returning as "Nabobs" after a stint in India is true today too. And here is an article which is guaranteed to make you nostalgic about the European Dark Ages: Hinn's Meet Getting Undue Publicity: Catholics 12 May 06: SRK sent me this poem: BISHOP HEBER'S HYMN Back to Table of Contents
In my chapter on Christianity I said: The DVD shows some extreme preachers saying such things as "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew" or "Homosexuals should be executed".
SRK points me to a book by Sita Ram Goel, in which Goel's mentor, Ram Swarup, offers the most basic reason for intolerant preachers:
GOD AND THE NEIGHBOUR SRK then adds: That's the reason Julius Caesar could say that Toutatis was just like Zeus for the Gauls. What Europe lost with the ascendancy of Christianity and the destruction of its native religions was not just rituals, buildings and statues (not to mention stubborn Pagans who preferred death to conversion), but its tolerance for multiple modes of worship. Not that Pagans are angels, but their conversion added 'religion' as another factor to the usual reasons humans (and indeed most vertebrate animals) enter into conflicts - females, gold (or resources) and territory (zan, zar and zameen, as it is said in Urdu). This problem starts with Moses, and continues through Jesus and Mohammad, regardless of the actual amount of physical violence involved in a given situation. Like chicken-pox, this disease can lie latent for a long period of time and, if circumstances are propitious, like secular India or medieval Europe, this disease erupts into the symptom that is chronicled as 'religious conflict'.
He finishes with this joke: THE HERETIC I would only add that it seems to me like the disease has been pretty much stamped out in the modern Western world, but who knows?
Back to Table of Contents
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution
In my chapter on Indian Politics I said: Also, the mosques and churches are tax-exempt and free from government control, while many Hindu temples are taxed and regulated by the government.
And SRK provides some important clarifications: Now, this might seem random and hardly symptomatic of a systematic discrimination against Hindu institutions, but it is not. The bedrock of the trouble is the ambiguity of Art. 30 of the Indian Constitution. You can see that the State can actually give grants to "minority" institutions, without affecting their hiring policies or religious curriculum! This would make every American secularist go ballistic about separation of church from state... But, of course, minorities have a right to administer their own institutions. This is unexceptionable. What has happened is that the right of Hindus to administer institutions is not written explicitly in the Indian constitution! This means that the State can legally interfere in the working, administration and yes, finances of Hindu institutions. In Elst's commentary it says: "When Sangh leaders are questioned on what grievances the Hindus could possibly have in a democratic state with a Hindu majority, they often mention Art.30 of the Constitution, which lays down that the minorities can set up government-sponsored denominational schools (implying the right to a communal bias in recruitment of teachers and students and a religion-centred curriculum). When the Constitutional Assembly voted this article, many delegates probably assumed that the extension of the same rights to the Hindu majority was self-understood; but in practice, this right is denied to the Hindus. This became hilariously clear in the 1980s, when the Ramakrishna Mission deemed it necessary to declare itself a non-Hindu minority (a self-definition challenged in court by its own members and struck down) in order to prevent the West Bengal government from nationalizing its schools. Art.30 constitutes a very serious discrimination on grounds of religion, and is in conflict with the professed secular character of the Indian Republic. Remember the interview of Swami Chinmayananda? Swamiji recounts: "Let me give an example. Only the other day they made a monogram for my ashram in which they inscribed the words 'Hindu Seminary'. But some of the trustees objected to this, they said the government would look at it with disfavour." The reason the trustees objected to this 'Hindu Seminary' was that they were rather more aware (or afraid) of worldly problems this would create, given that a Hindu institution does not have any legal protection from government interference in India. Declaring themselves 'Hindu' was an invitation to future goverment intereference. An example of how this nonsense 'works' — you can nominate anybody to temple boards. Can you imagine a state government nominating members to oversee the 'management' of a church? Of course, church-state separatists will see red. Some news items: It goes without saying that the money from a temple is very useful too. And this is the plight of one of the richest and most famous temples of India — Guruvayoor. Can you imagine funds due the Vatican being diverted for sewage-treatment plants in Rome, and without the Vatican's active consent? How about reducing the US budget deficit or fixing the health care system by levying a tithe on the churches? Are these not equally civic-minded projects for the public good? I don't think this will ever make it to those 'religious freedom reports' that the Dept. of State puts out every year. I will only add that I agree that this situation is quite irrational and unjust, and I would feel outraged if I were a Hindu living in India (or not living in India for that matter). Article 30 must be changed. It was incompetently written. Unfortunately, Indian politicians are salivating over all that money, with which to buy votes. Furthermore, he is quite right about the indifference of the State Department to Hindu concerns. They only care about scoring with the Muslim world by humiliating an honorable man like Modi, who is trying to do the right thing for Gujarat, and against whom nothing has been proven.
27 May 06: Later, we had a discussion about the Indian government's subsidization of Islam. Based on this document, I had misunderstood the total sum to be 280 crores of rupees a year (about $60 million), quite a large sum for India. SRK corrects me, as the number is closer to 1000 crores in all: The 280 crores are for the Haj subsidy [i.e. pilgrimage to Mecca]. Whatever goes to imams and mosques, 100 crores or 1000 crores, is over and above the 280 crores this financial year for the Haj. I think you misunderstood.
I agreed that this large subsidization makes no sense in a 'secular' country, especially considering that the money could be spent on poverty instead. Then I added: However, if some Hindu temples are also subsidized by the government, then that should not be. My impression is that the Hindu temples are rather used by the government for taxes. As in that Kerala article you sent me.
And he replied: Each individual state has its own set up for milking temples. True local autonomy! No Hindu institution or Hindus get the kind of central subsidy of the kind that goes to Muslims for the Haj. You see, Haj involves foreign travel, and that becomes a national concern. The Indian secular state does 'subsidize' Hindus, if you count coordination and infrastructure for batches that go to Kailasa-Manasarovar (in Tibet) and provides pilgrims with military escorts for the Amarnath pilgrimage. The travel costs involved are borne by each pilgrim - no railfare or airfare. No subsidy equivalent to what is given to Hajis. Another instance, infrastructure for the Kumbha Mela has to be organized by individual state governments, depending on the location. Similar case with most festivals/sites that attract large crowds - Brahmotsavam at Tirupati etc. You will see that all this essentially involves crowd management and security. Again, no subsidized trains or planes are provided to Tirupati. Special train services are often run during these times, but to mop up the revenue from increased traffic (Indian Railways are nationalized).
Back to Table of Contents
In my chapter on Christianity I said: Let us remember, though, that the gods of polytheism can be interpreted as different 'personifications of the divine', as mentioned above. But even if they aren't, so what?
SRK points out that: Well, the neo-Platonic philosophers did exactly that. The last and greatest of them, Porphyry, interprets an Orphic hymn to Zeus as follows: Now look at the wisdom of the Greeks, and examine it as follows. The authors of the Orphic hymns supposed Zeus to be the mind of the world, and that he created all things therein, containing the world in himself. Therefore in their theological systems they have handed down their opinions concerning him thus: Porphyry wrote a 15-volume work titled Against the Christians in which he attacked Christian theology. It's arguments were 'refuted' by the Church by that most effective of means - book-burning. But some of his works, like the neo-Platonic interpretation (rather like an academic lecture) of Homer's imagery regarding a mysterious 'cave' in Ithaca does survive though. It is called Cave of the Nymphs. It is admittedly difficult reading, even for a Pagan, because there is so little material surviving from that age to clarify various allusions, leave alone help us actually view the world from the ancient Greek Pagan vantage. However, it does become amply clear that Pagan philosophy has little, if anything, to learn from the 'mysteries' peddled by the myrmidons of Jesus. As Paul candidly admitted: 1 CORINTHIANS 1: But then, the believers must continue the great commission anyway: 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Well, as a Pagan I may reply that, that being the case, even the foolishness of Zeus, his multiple sexual encounters with both sexes, are obviously greater than the 'wisdom' and 'celibacy' of men, even if the man happens to be a Jew called Yeshua.
Back to Table of Contents
15 May 06: SRK provides a news item which shows how religious politics works in India: DA VINCI' UNITES INDIAN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS To which I reply: So much ahistorical brotherhood between Muslims and Christians! Naturally, this only happens when it comes to confronting the modern world, free speech, rationalism, pagans, polytheism, or anything that opposes, or seems opposed, to their mutual traditions of theological dogma! It the West, we have also seen Christian priests expressing sympathy for the 'persecution' of their Muslim brothers, notwithstanding centuries of bloody rivalry. Again, they instinctively feel a kinship in confronting the modern, rational world. Religious groups in various European nations are trying to pass blasphemy laws, which dovetail nicely with the secularist PC ban on 'hate speech', which includes truthful discussion of militant religions, all in the name of 'tolerance'. Returning to India, it goes without saying that the threat of violent protests is nothing less than a criminal action, but apparently such firebrand mullahs tend not to be arrested in India, unlike their few Hindu counterparts.
SRK continues with a revealing insight into the double-standards of the monotheistic outrage: However, Islamic or Christian 'allies' are less forthcoming when it comes to stuff like M.F.Hussain painting a naked Sita sitting on Hanuman's tail, or drain inspections like Deepa Mehta's 'Fire', 'Water', etc. On such occasions, these banning brigades become the vanguard of free speech. After all, there is a clear difference between Pagans and the People of the Book(s).
To which I reply: As for M.F.Hussain, there may have been some nudity in traditional Hindu religious art, but it had a certain spiritual dignity, which did not include Sita riding naked on Hanuman's tail. This art seems intended to provoke Hindus, but, with the Mohammed Cartoon scandal in mind, I would much prefer denunciation over censorship. (SRK provides evidence that Hussain has a double-standard on provoking religious sentiments.)
16 May 06: I am disappointed to receive this news article from SRK: GOVT STOPS DA VINCI CODE'S SCREENING My reaction is: What does freedom of speech mean if mere 'hurt feelings' can lead to censorship? And what does democracy mean without freedom of speech? All this talk of 'hurt feelings' sounds quite infantile to me. How can India resume it proper status as a great nation with political nonsense such as this? To be fair, let us remember that something similar is now happening in Europe.
As SRK says: So now you see that 'minority' is just a handy code word to sway leftist opinion in America. The more appropriate comparison for 'minorities' in India are not groups like the Coptic Christians of Egypt, but the white 'minority' in apartheid-era South Africa, or the British 'minority' before 1947.
To which I respond: I can't blame Hindus for feeling discriminated in a country where they are the vast majority. Their feelings are never treated with such respect, yet they are constantly pushed around by the antics of the 'minorities'. And I doubt the State Dept will issue any regrets: this administration would not want to hurt the feelings of its Christian base. Note: On 17 May, the Indian Central Board of Film Certification said it would 'give the movie an adult rating if the film-makers agreed to a disclaimer at the start of the movie saying it was a work of fiction'. That's better!
18 May 06: SRK sends me another article, which shows how even someone sympathetic to true secularism can miss a subtle point: VATICAN MORE LIBERAL THAN PRIESTS IN INDIA As SRK says: What this Third World author misses is that the Vatican cannot ask for State intereference in the post-Christian west without igniting controversy and bringing the adverse attention of the western media on itself, with a possible recounting of some notorious events of the Middle Ages. In India, the Church with its power and reach in the media and politics, need not fear such a reaction. All Catholic dioceses are not created equal.
24 May 06: The saga continues: INDIAN OFFERS BOUNTY ON HEAD OF DA VINCI AUTHOR And this: NORTHEAST INDIAN STATE IN TOTAL DA VINCI BAN Notice the seditious militancy of "Nagaland for Christ". It is not without reason that Hindus see some missionaries as having treasonous motives.
25 May 06: Unfortunately, now Punjab has banned the Da Vinci code. Punjab is a large state, and located in the heart of India, unlike the more remote Nagaland. And as SRK says, Christians are only 2.5% of the public! Not to mention that this is a general violation of free speech: PUNJAB BAN FOR DA VINCI CODE FILM You would think this is a medieval Christian country! No wonder Hindus are annoyed. Sixty years after Independence, they are still pushed around in their own country, by a force of external origin. It would be relatively better if Hinduism were also treated with the same respect, but best of all would be to have free speech and true separation of religion and state.
2 Jun 06: A new comment from SRK: Now you can see the real power of the Christian community in India. Hindus cannot get M.F.Hussain's or Deepa Mehta's work banned, for whatever reasons, but this 'minority' can. As is the case with that other 'minority' - Muslims - India was the first country to ban the Satanic Verses by Rushdie (completely unreadable from a literary viewpoint, btw). Muslims almost succeeded in banning Ram Swarup's Understanding Islam through Hadis but were foiled in a timely manner by Arun Shourie's activism. I am unclear on the details of Ram Swarup's case, though. And, this is but the proverbial tip of the iceberg. I therefore submit that the following statements of yours are not entirely accurate: "It isn't that the Muslims and Christians together are so powerful. It is that the leftists have managed to get the Dalits to hate non-poor Hindus and join with the Muslims and Christians." Actually, the Abrahamics are the long-established ones in this game of Pagan-baiting. The crank casteists and leftists are in many cases merely fronts for, or parasites of, the well-established Abrahamic groups. I can understand why you give the Leftists the pride of place though. That's because they are quite powerful in your milieu in America, wherein overtly religious groups cannot prosper except by co-opting some of these Leftists. But the same situation does not obtain in India, wherein the Leftists came quite late, and took up employment with the Abrahamics.
I stand corrected! At any rate, the problem is that Hindus are divided, for whatever reason.
Back to Table of Contents
22 May 06: In my chapter on the Horror of War, I made the following comment: I'm ignoring the arcane possibility of a pacifist who truly puts his faith in God, which nobody really does, despite all the lip service. Even then, one might argue that the pacifist is unethical, since faith in God is merely his belief.
When SRK read that, he wrote to me: Gandhi was that 'arcane possibility'. Indeed, Gandhi, in his declining years, started claiming authority on the basis of an irrational 'inner voice' and brought himself, his community and his nation to grief.
Later, he provided the following quotation from Sri Aurobindo: "We will use only soul-force and never destroy by war or any even defensive employment of physical violence? Good, though until soul-force is effective, the Asuric [demonic] force in men and nations tramples down, breaks, slaughters, burns, pollutes, as we see it doing today, but then at its ease and unhindered, and you have perhaps caused as much destruction of life by your abstinence as others by resort to violence." - Sri Aurobindo I responded: This shows that not all Hindu sages are pacifists!
To which he remarked: In today's culture, the trend is to extrapolate from the particular to the universal, regardless of applicability. This is usually avoided in traditional societies, where the 'equality' of all in all respects is not a given. As Alain Danielou put it insightfully, "Ahimsa is a laudable discipline for the individual, but cannot be used as an instrument of state policy" (my paraphrase). This, of course, was Gandhi's mistake. Aurobindo further diagnosed why Gandhi seemed somewhat successful: JANUARY 8, 1939 GANDHI'S NON-VIOLENCE IN GERMANY Quite perceptive, this Aurobindo! SRK went on to say: The basic reason is that not all humans are equal on the Ahimsa scale; there are aggressors, and there are their victims. So, while a sage may be individually a pacifist (like Jain monks who wear gauze around their nose and mouth to avoid breathing in insects by mistake, and sweep the ground before them to avoid trampling worms), s/he won't usually object to the Kshatriya/Governmental right to punish criminals. And, of course, Swami Chinmayananda the vegetarian swami was quite a combative character himself, when it came to reform or defense of Hindu society! A little outburst of his: Vande : So much blood has........ SRK then commented: I suspect this kind of discrimination on the basis of 'desha, kaala, paatra' (place, time and recipient) has the potential to raise the hackles of every 'universalizing' modern, even if the said moderns implicitly practice such a discrimination. See for example, the threefold classification of even the simple act of giving gifts: The gift lovingly given, when one shall say He also provided another excerpt from Sri Aurobindo on Gandhi: JANUARY 16, 1939 NON-VIOLENCE Back to Table of Contents
23 May 06: I sent SRK an article on a case of sati in India: RELATIVES ARE HELD AFTER WIDOW DIES ON FUNERAL PYRE I don't want to defend sati, but the proposed law seems like a violation of justice to me. SRK replies: Our loquacious Human Rights mongers who want suspected terrorists to be presumed innocent until proven guilty are predictably quiet about this presumption of guilt until innocence is proven. Our ever-vigilant Mandarins peddling 'fredom of expression' for all and sundry are predictably silent about this government ban on the 'glorification of Sati', but don't mind people preaching 5 times a day that Kafirs should be killed, converted, driven away, made to pay jaziya etc.etc., not to mention the 'glorification' of these acts as being divine guidance from on high. See the Calcutta Quran Petition by Sita Ram Goel. Our revolutionary leader of the National Commission of Women, Ms. Girija Vyas, would like to tell the world that Hindu wives are incapable of loving their husbands to the death. That is reserved for people who die in more fashionable ways. If a Hindu woman does take this extreme step, she must be 'pressurised... or drugged or dragged.' Stupid Hindu women! I eagerly await the slew of Freudian inferences that arise from the Hindu woman's alleged lack of romantic love coupled with the blind deification of her husband. It sure helps that the Times carefully selected what seems to be a Victorian-era picture of suitably crazed and dark Hindu savages to illustrate the article, and no other. Of course, if you look at another recent news item in the Times, you will see that the Times has not been able to find any suitable historical depictions of Saracens and Moors slaughtering Christians. Mayhap they are sensitive to the Islamic injunction against pictorial representations. This, of course, is par for the course. The Islamic Boojum must be handled more carefully than the Hindu Snark, which can be hunted apace, if only to avoid the Baker's fate. The Hunting of The Snark See also what Arun Shourie says: The Wages of Calumny Back to Table of Contents
23 May 06: In my chapter on Indian Politics, I referred to an article by Francois Gautier, on the economic distress of many Brahmins in modern day India, and how they are scapegoated by politicians, especially those from the Congress party. I passed the article along to 'Sita', a Brahmin woman and member of Congress, and here is how she responded in an email to me:
As for the article on Brahmins, (well I am a Brahmin too) I think this is divine justice in some ways although I am against any quota or reservation, even for the women in Parliament. For centuries the dalits etc were victimised, they were even denied moksha by the scriptures ( until Buddha came on the scene ) Brahmins have become so corrupted and shy of work, now that traditional role for them is over, they naturally have to seek work to fill their bellies. Whats wrong with cleaning toilets? Afterall for centuries the chamars picked their nightsoil by their own hands. I am against any notion of a caste being superior. We are all human beings, our blood is red and our tears are salty. The politicians naturally will play politics as the dalits constitute a major vote bank. If reservation at all I favour an economic basis for it, so that anybody who is below a certain level can get benefit. But who would want this, not our politicians or the bureaucracy.
Well, I'm not sure that it's historically accurate that Brahmins were 'oppressors'. I have heard that throughout Indian history most of them lived in the same conditions as other villagers, though indeed in a separate area (caste and ritual purity were taken seriously). A few, through their education, made it to powerful positions in government, but these were the exceptions. Actually, it is in modern times that Brahmins have become wealthy in large numbers, as the modern economy places a premium on education. Anyhow, after posting Sita's reaction, here is what SRK had to say:
Divine Justice? Of the Abrahamic kind! Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Then, adressing me, he said: I am really surprised that you, as an American, did not immediately ask if, given her specious logic, she was implying that your kind 'deserved' Islamic terrorism for all your past errors of foreign policy. And, you're white too, and I shudder to think of what your share of 'divine dispensation' might be in this Con-gress universe which, as Arun Jaitly put it, is the very opposite of Pro-gress. But never mind, the Congress syndrome affected even Gandhi who said similarly stupid things. As Mark Twain might have put it, your Congress correspondent and Gandhi subscribed to the same motto that 'god' seems to have: "Let no innocent person escape." Obviously, this lady is mangling the very concept of Karma. Karma attaches to the individual, and does not get passed along bloodlines. You should seriously consider writing a rejoinder to her response, because it is full of these kinds of ill-considered statements that pass for 'deep thought' in Indian circles. It is also symptomatic of the kind of illiteracy that has befallen 'Brahmins' regarding their own history and civilization, not to mention their metaphysics.
Sorry, Sita, if he seems a bit harsh. I'm quoting him anyway, because I think Hindus today could use a dose of his hard-headedness. I'll forgo the rejoinder, but I quite agree that karma is an individual matter. Of course, the problem with karma is that no matter what happens to us, it can always be blamed on the unknowable circumstances of our previous life. I prefer Indian spirituality that emphasizes detachment and liberation in the present moment. This is not to deny karma, but I see no point in dwelling on it.
27 May 06: During one email exchange, I remarked: Yes, Indian secularism is crazy. But now I understand why. It isn't that the Muslims and Christians together are so powerful. It is that the leftists have managed to get the Dalits to hate non-poor Hindus and join with the Muslims and Christians. It is caste politics. And quite a few Dalits are not so poor anymore, from what I hear. And quite a few Brahmins are, as per that Gautier article.
He replied: Ignoring your comment about Christians and Muslims for the time being, the part about Dalits being necessarily poor ("not so poor anymore") is incorrect. Untouchability is about ritual pollution, not about economic/political standing. This is something that is under-appreciated in the west, where the accent is all on economics and politics, not on pedigree or professional affiliation. By contrast, the beef-eating British king was just as untouchable as any poor Bhangi who removed excreta. Maharajahs drawing purses, pensions and titles (Sir, Rao Bhadur, His Excellency, etc. etc.) from HM Government considered themselves far above HM when it came to ritual purity! In the scheme of ritual submission to Mammon and Mars, this is, of course, completely inexcusable. Again, this was not just racism or xenophobia against the British. I remember reading something similar about Shivaji. After Shivaji's escape from house-arrest in Agra, he left his son Shambhaji in the care of some Brahmins, while he escaped in the disguise of a sanyasi. The story goes that Mughal soldiers came looking for Shivaji to this Brahmin settlement, and saw the disguised Sambhaji taking food with the other Brahmins. Since this was a serious violation of the taboo on interdining, the soldiers returned convinced that Sambhaji wasn't there! Shivaji is said to have rewarded the Brahmins later for having broken their taboos to dine with the prince. Both Saint Ravidas and Saint Kabir, the former a prosperous leather merchant (Chamar), the latter a weaver (Jhulaha) who carried on his family business, were again untouchables. But these people were not poor by any means, 'living from hand to mouth', as it is often projected. But they were people not even the poorest Brahmin would touch with a bargepole or even let their shadow fall on him. It may come as a shock to you, but ritual purity is also the reason non-Hindus are often prevented from entering some Hindu temples, even if they are otherwise decent and well-meaning people. Allowing a potential beef-eater to enter a temple gravely compromises the ritual purity of the temple. Even in the Mahabharata, we find the story of King Yayati who rescues Devayana, daughter of the Brahmin Shukracharya (who lived on alms from kings btw) from a dried well. She asks the king to marry her for being her rescuer and having held her right hand during the rescue. The king replies that it improper for a woman of higher caste (Devayani) to marry a man of an inferior caste i.e. himself! By rescuing her, he had fulfilled his duty, and there was no need for further contact between them, in the king's view. There are (and were) rich Dalits, and there are (were) poor Dalits, but both are equally untouchable for a Brahmin. No orthodox Brahmin, however poor, will dine with any non-Brahmin. Even while performing rituals for a non-Brahmin client, the Brahmin priest(s) is (are) fed first and sent off, while the rest of the group takes food with its own kind later. The ranking of a caste in the scale of ritual purity has little to do with its social, political or economic strength, in spite of the best efforts of Marxists to tease out economic and political oppression from every situation, in obedience to their creed.
Later he sent some additional information, an excerpt from an article by Koenraad Elst: Coming to the Indian tribes, we find Christian missionaries claiming that 'tribals are not Hindus because they do not observe caste'. In reality, missionary literature itself is rife with testimonies of caste practices among tribals. A spectacular example is what the missions call 'the Mistake': the attempt, in 1891, to make tribal converts in Chhotanagpur inter-dine with converts from other tribes. It was a disaster for the mission. Most tribals renounced Christianity because they chose to preserve the taboo on inter-dining. As strongly as the haughtiest brahmin, they refused to mix what God hath separated. - Koenraad Elst In another email, he sent me this article on caste practices even among some Buddhists: Garba (the smiths), Mon (musician) and Beda are victims of many violations in Ladakh. They have separate cups and glasses for drinking local beer (Chang) or tea at the village gatherings or ceremonies. They are not allowed to eat or drink from the utensils of others as they fear that they would pollute them.... The land is known for Buddhism & it is truly known that Buddhism is a casteless religion. Ladakh is known as land of lamas, each village has got a monastery treasured with statues and Thankas, but we have miles to go to lead a true Buddhist life. He then commented: Thus we are provided a glimpse of the reality behind the Potemkin village of Ambedkarite 'Buddhism'. But again, the author has to sacrifice poor Ladakhis to salvage the aggressively post-modern 'progressive' mythmaking that goes with Buddhism ('reaction against the evil brahmins!') these days. In every society of Asia that Buddhism went to, the local social structures with all their associated inequities remained unaffected, precisely because Buddhism is all about individual conduct and nirvana, and is quite indifferent to social engineering. Tell me, how many Buddhist lamas are (were) there in the Civil Rights movement? In areas where its ethics intersected with society, it seems to have had adverse effect, as in the case of the Burakumin of Japan. 'With the coming of Buddhism to Japan in the middle of the sixth century C.E. came an opprobrium against eating meat, which was extrapolated to concerns about the impurity in handling meat. As in India, this injunction came to be associated with handling dead humans as well. Consequently, anyone who engaged in related activities was, by definition, impure and to be avoided.(25) This emphasis on purity and impurity had a long history in Japan associated with Shinto, yet the Buddhist doctrines invigorated and dogmatized this proclivity within Japanese society.' Buddhism 'seems' casteless precisely because of the rules of caste observances. A renunciate, by definition, severs all worldly ties, and that includes his caste. Caste society customarily allows for perfect equality among mendicants. Buddha did not 'revolutionize' society by accepting all sorts of people into his order of monks; he was merely following existing norms. That's also why I was doubtful of your account of Swami Chinmayananda being denied temple entry on grounds of his non-existent caste. If any Brahmin had raised such an objection, I am sure SC was quite capable of throwing the book at the man, and would never have taken it lying down. Yes, butchers and drain-cleaners are never high on the social scale anywhere, but if history is anything to go by, it takes Buddhism to give their job a ritual and metaphysical odium. The Buddhist contribution to untouchability is a research topic few wish to undertake.
Later, he mentioned something else regarding the article on Ladakhis: The article is by Stanzin Dawa, a native Ladakhi, who seems to be some kind of 'progressive' activist. I guess that explains his bandying about the myth of casteless Buddhism. Even more interesting, we find from Stanzin Dawa's complete article that: 'Shia Muslim in Ladakh do not eat and drink from Buddhist family with a fear of polluting their religious sanctity. The discrimination and untouchability is not only practice d by the Shia Muslim but also by the people who professed to be Buddhist but practice against the fundamental principles of the Buddhism. The Shia's practice untouchability against Buddhist but the Buddhist's practice untouchability with their own people particularly with the Garba, Mon and Beda who are also belonging to their own faith.' He then remarks: Ha! That explains everything, especially why he doesn't probe too deeply into the historical and religious roots of untouchability, and conveniently palms off blame on the prejudices of Pagan society (or perhaps the rarefied atmosphere and high altitude of Ladakh, which makes people lightheaded?). Otherwise, he would have to face the additional fact that, for Muslims, all the Kafir Buddhists are Najis (unclean) and at the same level as urine and faeces, as we have seen before. This revelation, of course, would lead to communal disharmony in the progressive looking-glass world.
Here are some of my own views on this issue: I agree with SRK that Buddhism really doesn't involve politics, and the Ambedkarite movement in India should not be taken as representative of Buddhism in general. Furthermore, if untouchability involves only ritual purity, then it is a private matter, in my opinion, and not a violation of 'civil rights'. We are all entitled to our opinion about others. Those opinions may be unsavory, in the eyes of some, but it would take a totalitarian society to regulate our thoughts, and I abhor any kind of Sharia. What we are not entitled to, however, is discrimination in employment, and like matters. (Or are we? What about a small family business?) Anyhow, if caste is truly disassociated from poverty, at least in principle, then the vast majority of foreigners have quite a distorted picture of India! Let us also be fair and note that caste is present in some form or another in most traditional societies. Medieval Europe certainly had a sharp separation between nobles and commoners, which continued up until recent times. I agree with SRK that, when talking about India, we should distinguish between caste and socioeconomic level. The Left does spuriously conflate the two for the sake of political exploitation. At the same time, if we feel like criticizing the notion of ritual purity, because it offends our notion of 'equality', then we must admit that socioeconomic differences are another kind of inequality, which would seem to make far more practical difference. However, I don't propose any socialistic solutions, except for a moderately progressive tax, and the elimination of tax shelters for the rich, but now I digress...
5 Jun 06: SRK corrects me on one point above: You write: "Medieval Europe certainly had a sharp separation between nobles and commoners, which continued up until recent times." However, that is not really analgous to caste in the Indian sense. The better analogy would be the guilds among the commoners based on their professions, vestiges of which remain in 'last names' (or caste names?) like Smith, Miller, Fowler, Baker, Farmer and so on. There is also a bit of regionalism involved in many European last names, in addition to such professional distinctions. Royalty, of course, is royalty, caste or no caste. The kind of juxtaposition you used (royalty vs. the rest) actually has its roots in the Marxist thought categories of 'feudal lords' (precursors of capitalists) versus the 'working class' (the future proletariat). Note that there also existed a whole body of expendable SERFS below these artisan/working and peasant classes. In Marxist literature, you will often find these 'true proletarians' being presented as the vanguard of the revolution against the working class consisting of Bakers, Farmers et.al., which is described as 'petit-bourgeoisie'.
7 Jun 06: SRK has some further comments on caste: You write: "What we are not entitled to, however, is discrimination in employment, and like matters. (Or are we? What about a small family business?)" Another kind discrimination that I find abhorrent is restricting access to public facilities and resources like ponds, wells, temples and so on. This is a major cause of caste-based conflict in villages, and mostly between the so-called 'backward castes' and Dalits. However, for the Indian chattering classes any hurt sustained by a Dalit is fodder for nuanced sensationalism. When Dalits are beaten up, the assailants are invariably 'upper caste', slyly implying Brahmins/Kshatriyas/Vaishyas, when in fact they are Shudras or other 'Scheduled Castes', or even other Dalits! And here is an instance of the creative use of caste conflicts by 'India's National Magazine': "Keshappa is a Dalit and Meramma is from the upper Valmiki caste. It was to escape harm that they fled their village. Their act of daring destabilised the rigid network of caste-based social conventions in the village, but not for long. On hearing that Meramma was in a nearby village, her enraged relatives forcibly brought her back. She was abused and beaten and later sent away to relatives in another village. Keshappa dared not return to his village and has so far not been traced. Now, I'm sure all linguistically challenged westerners and culturally illiterate Indians are horrified at this instance of 'upper-caste atrocities on Dalits'. But the Devil, as usual, resides in the details. It so happens that the Valmiki caste, to which the woman Meramma belongs is a DALIT caste itself, of scavengers (i.e. excreta removers, drain cleaners, sweepers etc.)! What has happened is an inter-caste elopement across two endogamous groups of DALITS - one of scavengers and another of agricultural labourers. In the space of a single sentence, with a facile turn of phrase, an untouchable Valmiki becomes a very touchable 'upper caste'!
7 Jun 06: The following is NOT from SRK; I received it in my mailbox from someone named 'Mahesh': Often the minor divisions among the Hindu society along the caste and class lines are magnified many fold by some for their narrow political or bigotted interests. However these detractors as well as the majority of Hindus worldwide are unaware of the fact that contribution of the GIANTS from the so called backward castes to Hinduism and India is GLORIOUS, as illustrated below. All Hindus are and will be proud of this contribution. Although I personally do not believe in caste system, I am including the caste of these great souls only to make the point. In well recorded history following individuals have made great contribution to Indian History and Hinduism : As is evident, the TWO GREATEST EPICS OF THE HINDU CULTURE, namely RAMAYAN and MAHABHARAT, ARE WRITTEN BY TWO GIANTS WHO BELONG TO THE SO CALLED BACKWARD CLASSES. Also one of the greatest dynasties in Indian history was headed by so called backward class 'Mauryas'. The saints and the swords (of MawaLas) of the 'backward' class Hindus also contributed to the resurgence of Hinduism and Hindu nation when it was being dominated and crushed under the heels of foreign powers. I do know that during some periods there were atrocities perpetrated by upper class people. But can we deny the contribution of Acharya Chanakya in establishing Maurya dynasty, or contribution of Sant Ramdas and Dadoji Khondadev in inspiring Shivaji? Thruout Indian history Ramayan & Mahabharat have been revered and retold for generations by ALL hindus. Bhagavad Gita, Hinduism's holiest scripture comes from Mahabharat. All Hindus consider these as their own scriptures. If the caste and class divisions were indeed as severe as they are protrayed, then why would generations of all the 'upper caste' people hold these two epics by two 'backward' class people in the highest esteem ? No Hindu should consider himself to be a backward class or of a backward caste Hindu because we all belong to the class of Ved Vyas and Valmiki. It is time the so called backward class Hindus (like myself) recognize our contribution to Hinduism and feel justifiably proud. It is time we throw away this yoke of mental servitude of feigned superiority or inferiority of some class and caste. IT IS TIME WE CALL OURSELVES AS HINDUS ONLY, AND HELP STOP DIVIDING OURSELVES ALONG CASTE & CLASS LINES WHICH IN THE PAST HAS BEEN USED BY FOREIGN RULERS & FOREIGN RELIGIONS FOR FORCED CONVERSIONS. ALREADY ONE THIRD OF THE FORMERLY HINDU NATION HAS BECOME ISLAMIC PAKISTAN,BANGLADESH AND AFGANISTAN. THIS CANCER HAS NOT BEEN ELIMINATED YET. We must also remember that despite all the negative treatment, HARIJANS AND OTHER 'BACKWARD CLASS' HINDUS NEVER ASKED FOR A SEPARATE COUNTRY, THEY FOUGHT TO KEEP THE HINDU INDIA UNITED. Readers, plese feel free to add to this list the names of great men/
women of (so called) backward classes from your state who made great
contributions to Hinduism and India.
15 Jun 06: SRK sends another great article by Francois Gautier on the persecution of Brahmins in their Motherland:
ANTI-BRAHMANISM SHOULD STOP! 3 Jul 06: I mentioned to SRK that quite a few seemingly traditional Hindu families of my acquaintance had children married to foreigners, and this seemed rather 'liberal' to me, as any foreigner would surely be 'way out of caste'. My particular example was a Hindu man married to a Chinese woman. He replied:
Your understanding is partly correct. The Chinese woman is indeed 'way out of caste'. However, if you remember, I have already pointed out the caste rules concerning anuloma and pratiloma - a woman of a lower caste can marry a man of a higher caste (anuloma), but not vice versa (pratiloma). Most casteists would not consider this piece of inbuilt flexibility, but, as you expected, would have rejected this Chinese woman outright as being 'beneath their dignity' to accept into their family as a daughter-in-law. The pratiloma problem was the reason king Yayati (whose story we saw earlier) was hesitant to wed Devayani - a brahmin woman - and hence of a higher caste. I have read that Chandragupta Maurya, king of Magadha, who lived just after Alexander's time married the daughter of Selucus Nicator, the Greek Satrap of Alexander's Indian territories in the Northwest. Anuloma again. Also note that this system is more liberal than that of the Greeks themselves - all non-Hellas were 'barbaroi' and marriage with them was unthinkable, until Alexander (though not a pure Greek himself) challenged that concept by personal example, and encouraging his men to take wives in the conquered territories. Btw, Hindu activists should be told that people like Vyasa and Vidura are not 'low-caste', legally speaking. Their mothers may have been a fisherwoman and servant-maid respectively, but their fathers, Parashara and Vyasa respectively, were Brahmins. Perfect anuloma marriages. Also note that Vyasa, son of the fisherwoman, is considered a Brahmin, thanks to his father Parashara.
Well, I think that the particular Hindus I know are simply 'liberal', in the best sense of the word. Hindus, like Jews, are quite varied in their attitudes. This happens to people who use their brains.
Back to Table of Contents
Restricting Fraudulent Conversions
25 May 06: SRK sent me this article on a bill to restrict religious conversion by 'fraud or inducement':
Here is my reaction: This illustrates the crazy world of Indian religious politics.Let me analyze this from an American perspective.We would say that surely no one should be converted 'against their will'.But what does this mean exactly?Surely no one should be converted with a gun to his head, or some other 'severe' form of pressure.But does bribery count as a violation of someone's will?We would say no, and we only ban bribery of government officials, since they have the public trust.If a snake-oil businessman cheats you by manipulating your greed, then we say that is your fault, and you lose your money, unless the businessman actually lied to you.But then, some of this conversion may indeed incorporate 'lying' of some kind, such as telling uneducated people that Jesus cured them, when it was really just the medicine. The problem is complicated, because conversion causes major disruption in society, especially among the uneducated masses.We take a benign view of conversion, because we don't really take religion all that seriously any more.It is not a fighting matter, by mutual consent, and our social ties with our neighbors are weaker than in a 'traditional' society, so that those neighbors generally don't care what we believe.But things are different in India.In general, I view missionaries as obnoxious, especially the ones that hunt down converts from the poorest and most disaffected sectors of society, playing on people's ignorance with false promises.I feel that the would-be convert should always take the first step, but I don't know if I would want to legislate this.As for India, I think it depends on how the law is implemented.The very implementation would also become contaminated with politics.It is like banning hate-speech in Europe.The result is that, in some European countries, it is dangerous to criticize Islam.
Back to Table of Contents
Double Standards of the Church 7 Jun 2006: SRK sent an article from the pro-Hindu newspaper called the Organiser, on double-standards from the Pope regarding India, Bangladesh and Muslim countries. As SRK says, the Church has always respected power and exploited weakness. It is worth quoting in full:
BENEDICTION FOR BANGLADESH, INDICTMENT FOR INDIA! |