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! :-)

Influence of Judaism on Islam

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:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

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,
Throw aside your veil and gird up your train.
O Uzza, if you do not kill this man Kalid
Then bear a swift punishment or become a Christian.

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

Christianity and Secularism

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

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from 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.

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

Christianity vs. Islam

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

Third World Christianity

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

CNN, Friday, April 14, 2006

SAN PEDRO CUTUD, Philippines (AP) — At least 11 Filipino devotees were nailed to the cross in two Philippine villages during annual Good Friday re-enactments of Jesus Christ's final hours, organizers said.

Ruben Enaje has been nailed to the cross 20 times

Then there is

History Behind Recent Hindu-Christian Clashes in Gujarat

Hinduism Today, June 1999

There is no dearth of evidence to prove that the violence is a reaction to the organized conversion activities of the Christian missionaries in the area with means that are clearly questionable and even illegal. The single-point program of the missionaries is to convert the tribals and in doing so they are often using means that go far beyond the realm of social service. They entice with a curious mix of blind faith and allurements. The population of converted (Christian) tribals, which was just around 500 when we came to Dangs in 1948, today stands around 40,000 which is over 30 percent of the total tribal population of the area around Dangs.

The violence in Dangs began on Christmas day after some Christian youths pelted stones on the rally of the Hindu Jagran Manch and burned the jeep of a tribal participant in the rally. There have been at least 15 instances in the past three years in Dangs wherein the Christians, under the influence of their preachers, desecrated idols of Lord Hanuman, who is worshiped in this area by a large section of tribals for ages. In one incident in Gaadhvi village three years ago, they urinated on an idol of Hanuman, and later in Jharsod village they crushed Hanuman's idol to pieces and threw it away in the river.

Then there have been several instances where tension has gripped a village after the Christians publicly called Hindu Gods as Satan [the devil], again under the influence of their preachers. Another cause of the increasing tension is the refusal of the Christians tribals to contribute to the traditional tribal festivals.

In many cases a tribal who accepts Christian faith starts pressuring his brother into accepting the faith, and this often results in bloody fights over the issue...

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

(And this from a Christian group too, for take a look at their creed here.)

But look at what happens in India:

7 Million Attend Festival of Blessings in Bangalore, Jan 2005

"Apart from thousands of Hinn's followers making a beeline to the venue on the outskirts of the city (Bangalore), a galaxy of political leaders and other VIPs made their presence felt with special prayers and blessings from the controversial evangelist. Among the prominent leaders who graced the occasion with their families included former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda, central minister Oscar Fernandes, Chief Minister N. Dharam Singh and scores of Congress leaders like Margaret Alva. State Deputy Chief Minister Siddaramaiah declined to attend the meeting though some of his cabinet colleagues in the coalition government were present."

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

K Ramakrishna in Bangalore | on Rediff | January 21, 2005

The Catholic Church in Karnataka has disassociated itself from the controversial prayer and healing session organised by American evangelist Benny Hinn in Bangalore on Friday.

Archbishop Bernard Moras of Bangalore said the Church is not "directly or indirectly involved" in the Festival of Blessings programme by Binn, which has invited criticism from a number of Hindu groups in Karnataka.

"Everybody has the right to preach about Christ, but that does not mean it should have fanfare and hype. Even Jesus Christ went about preaching the good news and doing good and he worked awesome miracles. But he did it all with admirable humility," Archbishop Moras told reporters.

He said the Festival of Blessings by Hinn is attracting unnecessary publicity. The archbishop rejected Hinn's oft repeated allegation in his meetings that the Roman Catholic Church worship idols.

"External symbols are necessary for a religion. Catholicism is not idolatrous. We do not have idols. We only have statues and we 'venerate', not 'worship' saints. Worship belongs to God and God alone. The images of saints we have and venerate help strengthen our relationship with God," Archbishop Moras said.

He said the Catholic Church in India does not encourage its followers to attend the Hinn prayer meetings.

12 May 06: SRK sent me this poem:

BISHOP HEBER'S HYMN

From Greenland's icy mountains,
From India's coral strand,
Where Africa's sunny fountains
Roll down their golden sand;
From many an ancient river,
From many a palmy plain,
They call us to deliver
Their land from error's chain.
What though the spicy breezes
Blow soft o'er Ceylon's isle,
Though every prospect pleases
And only man is vile.
In vain with lavish kindness
The gifts of God are strewn,
The heathen in his blindness
Bows down to wood and stone.
Can we whose souls are lighted
With wisdom from on high,
Can we to men benighted
The lamp of life deny?
Salvation, oh, Salvation!
The joyful sound proclaim,
Till each remotest nation
Has learn'd Messiah's name.
Waft, waft, ye winds, His story,
And you, ye waters! roll,
Till like a sea of glory
It spreads from pole to pole;
Till over our ransom'd nature
The Lamb for sinners slain
Redeemer, King, Creator
In bliss returns to reign.

Back to Table of Contents

God and Neighbor

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

"In the spiritual realm there are two categories: God and your neighbour. And correspondingly there are two ways of looking at them: you could look at God through your neighbour or at the neighbour through your God. In the first approach, you will think that if your neighbour has the same needs and constitution and impulses as you have, then his God, in whatever way he is worshipped and by whatever name he is called, must mean the same to him as your God means to you. In short, if your neighbour is as good as you are, his God also must be as good as yours.

"But if you look at your neighbour through your God, then it leads to an entirely different outlook. Then you say that if your God is good enough for you, it should be good enough for your neighbour too. And if your neighbour is not worshipping the same God in the same way, he must be worshipping Devil and qualifies for conversion or liquidation.

"The first approach promotes tolerance, though it gives a plurality of Gods and varieties of modes in worship. The other approach gives one God and one mode of worship, but breeds intolerance. The one idea tries to generalise itself through conquest and calls itself the truly one, the truly universal."

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 was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

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.

In no democratic country would a majority community tolerate such discrimination, and it says a lot about the stranglehold which the secularist intelligentsia has on public discourse that this article hardly ever figures in debates on secularism and communalism. It also says a lot about the meekness of the Hindus in general and about the incompetence of the Hindutva movement in particular. Amending Art. 30 to extend the privileges of the minorities to every community including the Hindus would benefit Hindu society as a whole, would terminate a humiliating and damaging inequality, but would not affect the minorities; they retain the rights conceded to them in the present version of Art.30. No doubt some minority and secularist agitators will try to explain that equality before the law constitutes oppression of the minorities, but it should be feasible to restate the correct position in such a way as to convince most unbiased observers. At any rate, the Muslim and Christian masses would not feel affected the way they would be in case of the enactment of a Common Civil Code, and that makes the issue much easier to handle. So easy that even the BJP could do it."

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:

Atheist Marxists have won a legal battle over Hindu believers for administering some of the richest temples in Kerala.

Supreme Court holds that temple management is a secular act.

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

Greek Wisdom

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:

   Zeus was the first, Zeus last, the lightning's lord,
   Zeus head, Zeus centre, all things are from Zeus.
   Zeus born a male, Zeus virgin undefiled;
   Zeus the firm base of earth and starry heaven;
   Zeus sovereign, Zeus alone first cause of all:
   One power divine, great ruler of the world,
   One kingly form, encircling all things here,
   Fire, water, earth, and ether, night and day;
   Wisdom, first parent, and delightful Love:
   For in Zeus' mighty body these all lie.
   His head and beauteous face the radiant heaven
   Reveals and round him float in shining waves
   The golden tresses of the twinkling stars.
   On either side bulls' horns of gold are seen,
   Sunrise and sunset, footpaths of the gods.
   His eyes the Sun, the Moon's responsive light;
   His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth,
   Hears and considers all; nor any speech,
   Nor cry, nor noise, nor ominous voice escapes
   The ear of Zeus, great Kronos' mightier son:
   Such his immortal head, and such his thought.
   His radiant body, boundless, undisturbed
   In strength of mighty limbs was formed thus:
   The god's broad-spreading shoulders, breast and back
   Air's wide expanse displays; on either side
   Grow wings, wherewith throughout all space he flies.
   Earth the all-mother, with her lofty hills,
   His sacred belly forms; the swelling flood
   Of hoarse resounding Ocean girds his waist.
   His feet the deeply rooted ground upholds,
   And dismal Tartarus, and earth's utmost bounds.
   All things he hides, then from his heart again
   In godlike action brings to gladsome light.

Zeus, therefore, is the whole world, animal of animals, and god of gods; but Zeus, that is, inasmuch as he is the mind from which he brings forth all things, and by his thoughts creates them. When the theologians had explained the nature of god in this manner, to make an image such as their description indicated was neither possible, nor, if any one thought of it, could he show the look of life, and intelligence, and forethought by the figure of a sphere.

But they have made the representation of Zeus in human form, because mind was that according to which he wrought, and by generative laws brought all things to completion; and he is seated, as indicating the steadfastness of his power: and his upper parts are bare, because he is manifested in the intellectual and the heavenly parts of the world; but his feet are clothed, because he is invisible in the things that lie hidden below. And he holds his sceptre in his left hand, because most close to that side of the body dwells the heart, the most commanding and intelligent organ: for the creative mind is the sovereign of the world. And in his right hand he holds forth either an eagle, because he is master of the gods who traverse the air, as the eagle is master of the birds that fly aloft - or a victory, because he is himself victorious over all things.

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:

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

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.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

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

The DaVinci Code

15 May 06: SRK provides a news item which shows how religious politics works in India:

DA VINCI' UNITES INDIAN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS

by Krittivas Mukherjee
Yahoo News, 15 May 2006

MUMBAI (Reuters) - A powerful organization of Indian Islamic clerics promised on Monday to help Christian groups launch protests if the authorities did not ban the screening of the controversial film, 'The Da Vinci Code'.

Protest in India against the film have so far been low key, but several Catholic groups have threatened to stage street demonstrations and even to shut down cinema halls screening it.

Now, powerful Islamic clerics have joined issue with Christians, saying "The Da Vinci Code" is blasphemous as it spreads lies about Jesus Christ.

"The Holy Koran recognizes Jesus as a prophet. What the book says is an insult to both Christians and Muslims," Maulana Mansoor Ali Khan, general secretary of the All-India Sunni Jamiyat-ul-Ulema, an umbrella organization of clerics, told Reuters.

"Muslims in India will help their Christian brothers protest this attack on our common religious belief."

[. . .]

"If the government doesn't do anything, we will try our own ways of stopping the film from being shown," said Syed Noori, president of Mumbai-based Raza Academy, a Muslim cultural organization that often organizes protests on issues concerning Islam. "We are prepared for violent protests in India if needed."

Several Indian Christian groups have said they would protest against the film, with one little known Catholic organization even calling on Christians to begin a fast until death.

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

United News of India
New Delhi, 16 May 2006

Taking a cautious approach, the government has decided not to give clearance to the screening of controversial film 'Da Vinci Code' till Information and Broadcasting Ministry and Catholic church was satisfied that the film would not hurt the sensitivity of the Christians in the country.

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
Rediff, 18 May 2006

"Frankly, I believe the Catholic Bishops Conference of India has not yet accepted the lessons of the Second Vatican Council. One of the results of that historic conclave was that the infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum — the 'List of Prohibited Books' — was abolished by Pope Paul VI.

"Yet here in India the Catholic hierarchy would love to revive the Index, and possibly add to it by putting films in the list. This is a case of the Vatican being more liberal than its priests in India. The Vatican simply asked Catholics to boycott the Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Bishops Conference of India wants an outright ban. It is a significant difference.

"The Vatican is asking for a voluntary act from individuals. The Catholic Bishops Conference of India is asking for open intervention by the State machinery. Which leads to the interesting conclusion that the Vatican has greater trust in the Catholic laity than the local priests do!

"The Vatican has the right idea. Every film is nothing more than a commercial project. Spread the word and boycott it so that it flops, thus ensuring that nobody else will make anything on the same lines.

"But the only thing more mindboggling than the convoluted logic of Dan Brown's book is the Catholic Bishops Conference of India asking for a ban on a film that can be legally shown in Rome.

"It is exactly 40 years since Pope Paul VI banned the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1966. Do you want to celebrate the anniversary by creating a new list?"

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
The Raw Story, 11 May 2006

New Delhi (ENI). Some Indian Christians are so incensed with the fictional blockbuster "The Da Vinci Code" they want the government to ban it and one Roman Catholic has offered a bounty of US$25 000 on the head of author Dan Brown, leaving other members of the faithful embarrassed by the reaction.

NORTHEAST INDIAN STATE IN TOTAL DA VINCI BAN
BBC, 23 May 2006

The authorities in the north-east Indian state of Nagaland have ordered an immediate ban on both the film and the novel of the Da Vinci Code. They have expressed "serious resentment" against Indian censors for allowing the film to be screened.

The state government has issued an order to all cinemas not to show it. Nagaland is a predominantly Christian state, where over the last 150 years mostly tribal converts gave up their ancient faiths to accept Christianity.

[. . .]

The church is powerful in Nagaland, and under its pressure, the state government had to enforce prohibition over the last decade.

One of the main slogans of the state's leading separatist group, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) , is "Nagaland for Christ".

The state government has warned owners of cinemas, theatres and video parlours that under the terms of the Indian penal code, they face fines or imprisonment if they show the film.

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
BBC, 25 May 2006

India's northern Punjab state has banned the screening of the new Hollywood film The Da Vinci Code.

Chief Minister Amarinder Singh told the BBC that he ordered the ban following an appeal by leaders of Punjab's minority Roman Catholic community.

The film is to be released in India on Friday a week after the original date. Indian censors cleared the film last week after its makers agreed to insert a legal disclaimer to say it was of a 'fictitious nature'.

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

Gandhi and Ahimsa

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

(A disciple:) Gandhi writes that non-violence tried by some people in Germany has failed because it has not been so strong as to generate sufficient heat to melt Hitler's heart.

Sri Aurobindo: I am afraid it would require quite a furnace!- The trouble with Gandhi is that he had to deal only with Englishmen, and the English want to have their conscience at ease. Besides the Englishman wants to satisfy his self-esteem and wants world-esteem. But if Gandhi had had to deal with the Russians or the German Nazis, they would have long ago put him out of their way.

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........

Swamiji: When is it that blood was not there? When you were delivered, when you were a baby, was it not in blood? A nation is built in blood. A nation imbrues in blood and a nation disappears in blood.

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
"Now must I gladly give!" when he who takes
Can render nothing back; made in due place,
Due time, and to a meet recipient,
Is gift of Sattwan, fair and profitable.
The gift selfishly given, where to receive
Is hoped again, or when some end is sought,
Or where the gift is proffered with a grudge,
This is of Rajas, stained with impulse, ill.
The gift churlishly flung, at evil time,
In wrongful place, to base recipient,
Made in disdain or harsh unkindliness,
Is gift of Tamas, dark; it doth not bless!

(Bhagavad Gita: 17:20-22, Edwin Arnold's translation)

He also provided another excerpt from Sri Aurobindo on Gandhi:

JANUARY 16, 1939    NON-VIOLENCE

(A disciple:) Nama Saheb Sinde of Baroda has spoken to a youth conference emphasizing the need of military training for the defence of the country. His speech was against the current vogue of non-violence.

Sri Aurobindo: It is good that someone raises his voice like that when efforts are being made to make non-violence the method of solving all problems - This non-violent resistance I have never been able to fathom - To change the opponent's heart by passive resistance is something I don't understand -.

I am afraid Gandhi has been trying to apply to ordinary life what belongs to spirituality. Non-violence or ahimsa as a spiritual attitude and its practice is perfectly understandable and has a standing of its own. You may not accept it in toto but it has a basis in reality. You can live it in spiritual life, but to apply it to all life is absurd. It is a principle, which can be applied with success if practiced on a mass scale, especially by unarmed people like the Indians, because you are left with no other choice. But even when it succeeds it is not that you have changed the heart of the enemy, but that you have made it impossible for him to rule...

What a tremendous generalizer Gandhi is! Passive resistance, charkha and celibacy for all! One can't be a member of the Congress without oneself spinning!

Back to Table of Contents

An Article on Sati

23 May 06: I sent SRK an article on a case of sati in India:

RELATIVES ARE HELD AFTER WIDOW DIES ON FUNERAL PYRE
Times Online, May 23, 2006

Hundreds of villagers watched as Vidyawati Singh threw herself into the flames of her husband's funeral pyre. She was dead within minutes, leaving behind three children.

The 35-year-old widow's death last week has stunned India, and police investigating whether she was driven to commit sati have arrested more than a dozen villagers, including three of her brothers-in-law.

The case has also added to growing pressure on the Indian Government to pass new legislation making it possible to prosecute whole communities for failing to prevent the practice of sati, in which a widow kills herself on her husband's funeral pyre.

The present law prescribes a life sentence or death for anyone convicted of abetting sati, but convictions are hard to secure because villagers refuse to be witnesses. The proposed new legislation, due to go before parliament this summer, would automatically assume sati was committed under duress, and that the woman's family could have stopped her.

Mrs Singh threw herself into the flames because villagers egged her on, according to police in the Fatehpur district of Uttar Prades.

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
by Lewis Carroll

The Vanishing
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away--
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

See also what Arun Shourie says:

The Wages of Calumny
by Arun Shourie
quoting Swami Vivekananda

"What is meant by those pictures in the school-books for children where Hindu mother is painted as throwing her children to the crocodiles in the Ganga? The mother is black, but the baby is painted white, to arouse more sympathy, and get more money. What is meant by those pictures which paint a man burning his wife at a stake with his own hands, so that she may become a ghost and torment the husband's enemy?"

"What is meant by the pictures of huge cars crushing over human beings? The other day a book was published for children in this country (America), where one of these gentlemen tells a narrative of his visit to Calcutta. He says he saw a car running over fanatics in the streets of Calcutta."

"I have heard one of these gentlemen preach in Memphis that in every village of India there is a pond full of the bones of little babies."

Back to Table of Contents

On Brahmins and Caste

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;

Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

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.

"There was further upper caste reprisal that was swift and savage. Yerramma, a poor Dalit agricultural labourer in her mid-30s, was singled out for punishment, for her alleged role in encouraging the clandestine affair. The village had been in a ferment ever since Meramma was found in mid-August. There were rumours of revenge, and the Dalits feared that their homes would be set on fire by the Valmikis - a mode of upper caste attack that is not uncommon."

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.