The Strange Stories of “Brahminism”

There is a new and wonderful propaganda name for Hinduism – Brahminism. Of course, among circles of anti-brahmin rhetorics the name itself stems from the idea that Hinduism is an intolerant religion, invented by the evil brahmins to keep their status of “high caste”. Using that logic, they beleive that the right word for Hinduism is Brahminism. A enthusiastic verbal basher even gave me a proper defenition of the term in an internet forum recently, which I define in his exact defenition. Brahminism:  The beliefs that are created, propagated and safeguarded by the Brahmins. And by nature of being a property of the Brahmins, it is also never against them.

In short, he means that Hinduism is really a hijacked philosophy of brahmins which merely glorifies. More importantly in his belief which I say from other posts of him, it teaches caste discrimination. After all what else are brahmins capable of right? (sense sarcasm). But why would I pay so much attention to an internet dude, who is venting off his frustrations on me and my community? I wouldn’t. But it seems like certain journalists, like Rahila Gupta of The Guardian use the media like a propaganda tool with their probably zero reading of Hinduism.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/28/hinduism-tolerance-india

Indeed, its true that caste discrimination is a social evil in our nation, but how does Ms. Gupta pin it down to Hinduism?People like Ms. Gupta imagined that they’re so open-minded, that they seek to prove their *non-existing* open-mindedness by laying an accusation on a culture or religion they pertain to. But that doesn’t solve a problem like caste discrimination, it does encourage a hate-type thinking though. I have mentioned what needs to happen in India to solve the issue of caste discrimination in another article. At this space I present a paradox for ignorant journalists like Ms. Gupta who think they can fill in their spaces with opinions based on (probably) zero reading of they culture’s literature they are demonizing. India’s past Hindu culture is eclectic firstly, and I present morals from their stories which have been preserved for many eras. It makes it clear that Hinduism is neither about encouraging caste discrimination, nor a hijacked philosophy praising brahmins. Of course, much of these stories were written and preserved by brahmins whose culture was itself  literary traditions. The social evils Gupta point to have nothing to do with Hinduism, they have got to do with the general bias any society tends to develops. If anything, our literature speaks against such a bias. Here goes 3 stories:

1.  The story of Eklavya:  The story goes that an outcaste warrior named Eklavya wanted to become a peerless archer. He went to a brahmin named Dronacharya (or Drona) to learn but was rejected on the basis of his origins. However, Eklavya still insisted on regarding Drona as his teacher and creates a murti (idol) of him and practices archery in the wild, with great discipline in presence of the idol. Drona was a teacher of princes of the Kuru clan. As these young princes were out in the wild once, they saw a spectacle – a dog’s mouth had been shot by arrows with such precision and skill, that it left it unable to bark. They went and showed this to their acharya (teacher). Their search takes them to Eklavya, who had become a master archer. Drona, on learning this reprimands Eklavya, and is annoyed at his persistence in regarding Drona his teacher. Eventually, a challenge between Eklavya and Drona’s many pupils takes place. But Eklavya defeats all the princes with careless ease, including Arjuna, who was the best amongst the princes. This makes Arjuna angry and jealous. He tells to Drona his feeling of hurt in knowing some common wilderness folk was much better than he, a high-born prince who had been training for years. As Eklavya still insists that Drona is his teacher, despite being rejected. Drona asks for his gurudhakshina (a gift to a teacher after a student has learned). Here, Drona cruelly demands Eklavya’s thumb, which would not make it possible for Eklavya to continue practicing archery. Despite this, Eklavya non-hesistantly cuts off his thumb even enduring the excruciating pain and places it infront of Drona.

Interference: While many people point to this story to speak of Brahmins being cruel, they forget that the story which has been preserved by Brahmins over the centuries, actually vindicates Eklavya morally and is actually a tale against arrogance amongst brahmins and rich nobles, kings. By saving this story of Eklavya the common, unknown, outcaste forester the message actually is that a person’s true greatness doesn’t come on accord of merely his origins.

2. The story of Kaushika: In ancient India, some brahmins were migratory in their lifestyle. Such brahmins didn’t own wealth, and lived by living in the wild and at times went from house to house teaching anything they know and receiving offerings like (generally) food. They were very respected. The legend goes that a brahmin sage named Kaushika was sitting in a forest once and a crane made its droppings on him. This enraged him and he looked at the bird and it died. Such a legends exist in which people who live in a strict discipline over years are said to attain supernatural powers, thus he was able to kill the bird with his sight. However, Kaushika has still not mastered over his anger, which he understood after this incident. As he continues in his voyages, he comes to a house to ask for alms. The woman of the house delayed in attenting him and he had waited quiet sometime in the sun. The woman was actually busy with many other household chores, but the waiting had annoyed Kaushika. Finally when she did attend him, he was angry and even as he was about to pronunce a curse on her, she said that she was no crane and that his curse would have no effect on her since she was righteous! Kaushika was baffled. “How did this woman know about the crane incident?!”. The woman tells him that he hasn’t understood duty, and advices him to meet a great man named Dharmavyadha in the city of Mithila (which is present day’s Janakpur in Nepal) to be instructed in doing one’s duty. Kaushika believed he deserved the woman’s just admonition and that it would do him good. He thanks her and leaves for Mithila. At Mithila, a bustling and busy city, he finds out to his shock that Dharmavyadha was none other than a common butcherman! The smell of the meat disguists him and he stands at a distance outside the shop. Dharmavyadha later comes and addresses Kaushika saying “Good friend, I know why you have come. Let’s go home”. Kaushika is taken to Dharmavyadha’s house in which he sees children, the elderly all happy and being supported by this man who was one of great responsibility. Kaushika in the days ahead takes lessons from him on man’s calling to duty and finally leaves home to take care of his parents – a duty he had neglected until now.

Interference: This story is not very common among people, even if it is part of the Mahabhrata which is a famous epic of India. What I like about the story is not only the message, but the idea of a common man, one who worked in a butcher shop teaching an otherwise respected brahmin the calling of duty. It story tells us that spiritual greatness can be found in the most common people.

3. The story of Utanga: There was a brahmin once named Utanga, who was a friend of Krishna. Among many Indians, Krishna is considered God and in legends, he has the ability to grant boons too. He asked his friend for a boon. But Utanga said he wanted nothing and that Krishna’s friendship and presence was enough. However, Krishna insisted and he took a boon that whenever he is thirsty, he should receive water to drink. Later in his journey’s the brahmin is in a desert and is thristy with no water to drink. He thinks of his boon and an outcaste nishada with 500 leashed dogs, and clothes in rags, comes and offers Utanga water, seeing that he was thirsty. But, Utanga refuses and asks the man to keep the water. The outcaste vanishes into thin air which makes Utanga understand that he was no oridinary human, and that he was tested – and failed. Later Utanga sees Krishna and asks him if it was right to have tried him, a brahmin, to receive water from an outcaste. Krishna replies “When you invoked my boon, I asked Indra (king of the gods) to offer you amrut (the nectar of immortality)”. Since the amrut is not so easily handed to mortals, Indra came in the form of a nishada. Krishna accepted the challenge believing that his friend has transcended ideas of caste and external images of people.

Interference: The story is clear and needs no explaination in its morals. Idirectly attacks untouchability and caste segragation.

These were a few stories. There are many other stories of arrogant brahmins being taught a lesson, being destroyed – the asura of the Rig Veda, Vritra is a brahmin himself. Vritra is killed by Indra in our legends for being evil. Ravana, the antagonist of t epic Ramayana is of a brahmin family. There are villains and moral teaching in our stories based even on people who are not brahmins, but our tales do speak of brahmins in such light also, and have not been shunned by brahmins either which brings us to the point of what our culture actually represents. Our religion is misinterpretted by the sort of social stigmas that have affected our society even if there is nothing advocating it actually. Needless to say, all the burden of spreading and teaching casteism is attributed to brahmins. The question is: Why would brahmins have taken efforts to save such stories if they wanted caste discrimination to be upheld? It would be a good question to those who entertain an idea of Hinduism as “Brahminism” being nothing but a hijacked philosophy advocating something like “brahmin supremacy” or whatever. Indian legends make it clear that greatness can be found in the most common places.

        
Round 2: Regarding ‘the myth of Hindu tolerance’ by Rahila Gupta

There is no myth of Hindu tolerance in India, when India stands as perhaps the only country in history were religious prosecution was at a very low. India is multi-cultural today because cultures here didn’t die out, when they did in many other places of the world. When Siddhartha Gautama started his new school of philosophy in India, people didn’t crucify him! Instead people joined in. There are many religions which find their origins in India, Sikhism,  Buddhism, Jainism and then the eclectic Hinduism. How many “religious wars” have existed amongst these? Zero. That is because tolerance is indeed a central point in all these religions, including Hinduism. Any acts of religious prosecution have only been condemned unanimously, which is why these didn’t bloat up into the Indian version of the Crusades or anything.

As regards foreign religions, India was the single place were Jews were not prosecuted, nor were Muslim or Christian population in history. Islam reached India and had it accepted here during the time of Muhammed itself, Christianity reached India before it got popular in the Roman Empire. Ms. Gupta is ignorant that Islam is indeed “foreign” because it didn’t originate in India – simple fact. It doesn’t mean I, as an Indian think Muslims are not Indians. Surely, Muslims do have a legacy in India. Ms. Gupta’s point may be her stumbling on her own pre-conceived biases because she probably thinks that the distinguishing of native and foreign religions has got to do with discriminating Muslims. I am not aware of the article of Nitish Mehta whom she mentions, but that was in regard to her comment on religions being native and foreign.  

Regarding our history, India had been the refuge of populations that were being prosecuted – like the Zoroastrian Parsis. Even today India houses the Dalai Lama from the Communist Chinese government, the same idea of tolerance is central in Hinduism. If Ms. Gupta and India’s band of pseudo-secularists insist on judging Hinduism through a social problem like the caste system or the present day violent acts of the fascist Hindutva, but don’t judge Islam through Taliban or Christians (Hitler was a self-proclaimed Christian) through the Nazis, their bias is self-evident. Truth is, such movements are started by narrow-minded men for hate and political ends. In it, they use religion as a tool for their propaganda. It thus doesn’t justify judging a culture based on them, who are hijacking it in the political or social realm. Its ignorant to make such judgements, without seeing the trends through their history or the messages in their literature.  Further, India’s corrupt police or the fascist ideologies have to do with a hate and laziness respectively, none of which is preached by Hinduism!

Articles like that of Ms. Gupta are reasons for casteism not being seen in a perspective of coming to being solved! They put the blame on religion, even without reading anything of the religion. The truth being that such problems are social and in man’s nature to discriminate, they find resonance through discrimination on any basis; take caste, or be it race - even though ”evil Brahminism” (sic) actually has literature and stories very much against casteism. Ms. Gupta is ignorant of our real history or our still existing literature that she comments on Hindus based on events in modern India.

If casteism calls a criticism of Hinduism as from Ms. Gupta, why are there Muslim and Christian Dalits? That is because casteism is a very real problem of India, and its not solved or even correctly analysed with the sort of ideology pseudo-secular, anti-brahminists in India advocate or what Ms. Gupta has written in her article. They grossly miss the point that human societies find a basis for discriminating, and its not actually preached in Hinduism. Perhaps Ms. Gupta can educate herself on the culture she is demonizing in the British media.

Welcome to Man-Eats-Man World

There will defenitely come a time in our future when we look back to our past, which would then be today’s present-day and ponder if this was really a proper construct of civilization, or if our world was yet another concrete man-made version of the wild – an urban jungle. All of you who are able to read this entry of mine have an access to the internet, and are thus some of the financially most fortunate people of this era – that of course includes me too. But then to see what the world has become and come to as a whole makes us understand that today’s world is not really the product of an sophisticated intelligent setup. If indeed just intelligent, its just plain cruel too.

Its not really hard to understand why this world is the way it is: with mass poverty, wars, diseases, dying and what not. But despite all of it, there are many who have the opinion that these imporvished people are the way they are because they are not intelligent enough, and are not hardworking enough, that they deserve to be as they are. But one thing that needs to go to such ideologues is that if we are speaking of a world were only the intelligent, the ones whith opportunity and the innovative survive or where strong alliances and power are the rule, then we are only speaking of a Surivival of the Fittest theory like in the wilderness. The only difference being that we replace physical strength, teeths and claws with intelligence, alliances and power of other sorts. So we are basically speaking of a different kind of jungle – it becomes necessary to understand that. It may sound Utopian, but then we need to accept the harsh construct of our civilized world, which is why I type this. Most people don’t have a smooth lives, even ordinary people in cities of developing nations feel the pressure of it. No wonder that stress relieving practices like Yoga, Tai Chi etc are popular in many cities of developing and developed nations.

Its from such an understanding of our world, that one needs to do better to live decently, that this whole rat race on the world has begun. To think of it, its necessary to be part of this rat race, but its not exactly healthy, nor does it even come across as a sophisticated construct of civilization because it strangely resembles what happens in the wild! On the other hand, if you aren’t part of the rat race, you are dead. Every creature racing to its food, here position in society and for many, the basic bread.

In our society today,there are some who are well above the difficulties that many others face. These are people who are already quiet well-to-do or even very rich. They already have a stepping pad to get a good education, a good life, considerable amount of respect and all in society. It doesn’t mean they can remain lazy, but they have a good means of continuing their life in the present socio-economic status. But there are the majority in the world, who can’t even afford proper food, a shelter, who are dying and malnourished. One would think that post the two Industrial Revolutions, better manufacturing would allow more to sustain well to – but it has only brought a great difference in the levels of wealth and more struggle for a basic bread for many.

The Communists’ Voice

There is a reason Communism came into existence. Understanding the reasons for the many labour strikes, and the communist  brigades around the world actually tells us the problem. In India for instance, we presently have the Naxalites rebelling. But these guys aren’t lifting arms for nothing, rather specific reasons which can be seen in the manner companies functions. In India, there is a cheap cigarette called bhidi. The manufacturing of bhidi, like many things involves various levels, starting from the farmers at the primary levels to ultimately the big-shot sitting in his AC office room, owning his manufacturing plants. The reason for rebelling is because, the work that these farmers do at the primary level doesn’t get them enough to even eat a few proper meals to survive. Why wouldn’t they rebel? On the other hand, the head of the manufacturing unit, gets huge profits. The manufacuring of bhidi is just an example: but this is the case with much of the world. While someone needs to do the work of the farmer, his work is part of a system that doesn’t really allow him a decent life. We see how the construct of this world is only beneficial for a few – so it ends up with the same theory of Surivial of the Fittest, only replacing claws, strength and speed with economical intelligence, present status, opportunities etc. I don’t know from where you are reading this, it may be from developed nations like USA, UK or it could be from developing nations like India or anywhere. But if any person sees the world as a whole – its a hub of suffering and poverty. This is the precise reason an ideology like Communism even came to existence and got momentum.

The Capitalist Heirarchy

Capitalism encourages competition, it encourages quality – and it is thus necessary. But it also creates an heirarchy. At least today, and arguably anyday, heirarchies are quiet inevitable in such complex civilizations. But then if we really need to call ourselves a civilization – we need to have a real method to solve the issue of the huge poverty around the world. Rather, the manufacturing of the Industrial Era has given us great goods, technology which are very very useful. But its not something that is really reaching much of Earth, but only a very few who are at the top of the urban-jungle ladder. At a more global perspective, its a world that is struggling more, with more people struggling to have a roof over their head and four square meals a day. Even in cities, people are trapped in the rat race of civilization, which is necessary from their side to continue living the way they are. People slog and slog hours together, to get sustainable profits in many countries.

But then all this is necessary. People anywhere need a culture which respects hardwork, effort, intelligence in the right direction, but its not something everyone can produce to be frank. It brings us back to the urban version of Survival of the Fittest theory. Many Marxists wrongly believe that Capitalism is the problem, but it is necessary. One can’t expect to redistribute wealth and solve the problem because it makes the ones who have ideas to deride a system which gives the fruit of their effort to others to merely maintain an equilibrium in society. On the other hand, it encourages others to receive without work and be assisted by things taken as tax. There is however, another side to it which is like the story of the “bhidi farmers”. Plus, as a nation, it is necessary to even invest on the lowest class and give them opportunities – thus a mean should be understood in this aspect. So ultimately, I would think our society needs to come to respect even manual labour and make sure that basic comodities are easily avaliable. Luxury goods can be costly.

However, it does become debatable what “basic” and “luxury” mean themselves. To me, basic would mean a decent shelter, proper health, and four good meals a day, access to good education. Companies of developing nations should try and become more transparent to the problems and need to see where their efforts are going with respect to national development rather than only profit. In many places, cultures need changing, the mindsets of the masses need changing. Companies play an important role in the lives of people, thus they can also spread messages and ideas instead of only  their products. For much of the talk against the government, like in places like India, companies have hardly spread a message in interest of national development. But there are other reasons for poverty and other world problems too:

Reasons for Poverty are more severe – Limited Resources, Space & Soaring Populations

Its not only the above that are reasons for poverty. It goes much deeper than that and is actually. The question that arises is: Are the poor around the world poor because they haven’t given their efforts or because they are part of a man-eats-man world? Both the cases exist to an extent. The root of the trouble on Earth can be summed up easily – limited resources, limited space, growing populations. A poor man without the ability to sustain himself gives birth to some 5 or 6 more children, creating more poor people!

These children who are born, come into a world where they will have no benefits to education, proper health and whom their parents will find hard to support. While the ignorance in many is to think that all these kids will grow up to earn, it isn’t understood that it would be impossible to feed them in the first place. So, organizations and even the governments need to take initiatives to educate people that its better for poor families to have one or even two children, educate them, secure their future – leaving them to help their parents in their old age. This gives the family actually a better chance of getting out of the pit of poverty. It will also reduce the population explosion which causes the struggle for space and resources.

On the other hand, as our populations are less, the more we have for each person. The reason its essential for those who are in the lower part of the socio-economic status to do this is because they are unable to give their children the basic necessities, and are thus burdening the children, themselves and even the World. On the other hand, those who are capable of providing education and a healthy life need to have an average family so that the nation sees more brilliant minds. Likewise, a poor man giving his one child a proper education can educate him till class 10th or 12th and he will be able to get a better job than his father. He in turn, will be able to give his children a better education than he received, and thereby move up the socio-economic ladder steadily. Instead, if a poor man gives birth to some 5 or 6 children, who could all receive no proper education - they will be stuck in poverty, more in number too! In conclusion, children shouldn’t only be born, they should be raised. When a couple has the ability to raise their children, they don’t create a burden upon the nation.

The Power of Propaganda

More than having a political idea that strongly sticks to a particular wing, I imagine myself to be a psychologist. I believe that the group psychology of a nation or a peoples is very closely linked to how a nation progresses. Therefore to understand it and steer it to a particular mode of operation should be the ability of a good leading politician. Propagandas have existed all through history of politics actually - it is the effect of state rule. Today, it becomes more easy to spread by the state, through media and other means. What your history textbooks, media including TV news, newspapers and movies, and even what your elders thought to you may have well been propagandas. The bottom point being that propagandas aren’t necessarily wrong. But they are information that spread like wild fire among a group, they are generally propagated in a manner to be accepted, and are an account accepted by the state or a poltical party (or parties).

Furthur, what make people’s thinking sensitive to propaganda is that they are an account on peoples of the past and present and thus deal with early history’s clashes, empires, conquest, genocide, war of culturally varied groups (communities). Using such an account, which may be true, false or a truth bloated up beyond proportion, a party uses it as a psychological weapon to justify the need of current biased policies, they wish to push. Propagandas have existed perhaps since the dawn of state rule, even in the times of yore when kings and queens used to reign. But today with the media spreading them they spread quickly.

Propagandas may be factual accounts, but they may at times also be an over-exaggeration of wrongs or even a complete set of fabricated, intentionally misinterpretted lies, perpetuated and propagated by the state or a political entity. In particular cases, where the general education of the masses is low, the spread of propagandas is easier. One way to navigate across propagandas and see if they are correct in their accounts, especially when speaking of Propaganda of History is to debate and reason with their arguments, and also do the same with contrary propagandas.

Classification of Propagandas

Propagandas may be classifed in a variety of ways, but one way I would do it for the convenience of my explaination, is as follows:

1. Propaganda of History (or Propaganda of Past)

2. Propaganda of Present 

3. Propaganda of Majority Identity

1. Propaganda of History: In my above mention of Propaganda of History (POH), I have said that to navigate through these types of Propagandas on needs to reason with them and even seek evidences of the contrary, debate with contrary propagandas and be as unbiased as possible to either. In short actually, one needs to take a knowledge quest to understand what the truth of the matter may be. However, that knowledge quest may not be as easy as it may sound, and it could even involve certain information being hidden by a state, its defenitely a possibility. Furthur, from what I have see, not many take the interest and some may not be in a position to understand the cultural (including religious) and historical knowledge in order to verify the factuality of the propaganda, on whether it is a lie or the truth. Due to that, it leaves them to accept the propaganda of their political wing or cultural affliation and stand by it as the truth. Rather, their complete knowledge of that history will be a thing fed from their political party or an association. Propaganda of History is played a great deal in India and is part of identity politics. Even in the world, like the Black Supremacist ideology of Nation of Islam (NOI), propagandas come as a lash to what has happened in History. The potency of these propagandas is that they take a past episode, which can’t be erased, possibily exaggerate or even lie about them and use them viciously against another community to seek an advantage. The NOI claims no relation to Islam’s present day interprettations, but are closely associated with Black Nationalism and quiet obviously an event like Slavery in US history provides them a stepping pad, or a moral authority of some sort to spread their propaganda successfully.

2. Propaganda of Present: This type of propaganda is most popular and is used especially in times of political tension, adversity, struggle, revolution, war etc in present time. A simple example of this is a state telling its people how righteous it is in a present war, or in a policy towards another nation and that its people need to stand by that righteous cause. Again, as in case of all propagandas it could be true, it could be false. Rather, when it comes to propagandas, what this writter of this article (myself) regards as right and what the reader may regard as right could themselves find differences due to political opinions. Today, that media exists, Propaganda of Present (POP) is easy to spread. The news channels for example, obviously give us an account accepted by the state in many places. In places like China, the media is heavily controlled, in other countries it is less controlled. Ideally, it shouldn’t be controlled, but being established in the state, it is likely that atleast a small amount of influence of the state exists on the media in many places. An example of this is watching the news of Hamas, the Israel war crimes in countries like Saudi Arabia, and then the same in Israel. They would quiet surely contradict! I was in Saudi Arabia recently, I had gone to visit my dad who works there, and the media attention on the Palestine issue was huge. But that is obvious because the issue is a sensitive one for the Arabs. And though, I (an Indian) sympathize for the Arabs and their struggle for a homeland, I won’t feel as closely to it as they probably do. However, now imagine watching the news on the same issue in Israel – it would be a totally different story of terrorist Hamas being destroyed and justice being brought through war.

All that is just today. Propaganda during war is especially effective, like the lies the Japanese Empire was selling its people against the US government in the Second World War. Or the very famous “I Want You” posture of Uncle Sam, who is a personification of  USA. In time, as the lies of a government come out they may even turn to jokes, like the present Iraq War in which USA is involved. Hence ’spoofs’ of earlier propaganda postures come out from some, like the one below, which is a spoof of the original “I Want You” posture for military recruitment in USA, used since the War of 1812.

                                                                           

However, as said before, what is right and wrong are lost in different political ideas. So, the posture above could be politically offensive to some. The Propaganda of Present when not used in present war situation also includes those of nations like China or North Korea, which have Communist Propaganda against “Imperialism”. This moves into something like Anti-Westernism or Anti-Americanism, by viewing the Western nations, especially USA as Imperialist. This is because of the way these governments see the West, particularly USA today - in its foreign policy. Again, for the truth of it, like in the case of any propaganda, right or not moves into varying political ideologies and wings. For now, this kind of propaganda is especially active in North Korea. Propagandas of Anti-Americanism, which is closely associated with Anti-Westernism is also popular in many Islamic nations due to the present political scenario concerning Al-Qaeda, USA’s support for Israel as the Palestinians are homeless, and Western intervention in the M.East and other Islamic nations like Iran. 

 3. Propaganda of Majority Identity: The Propaganda of Majority Identity (POMI) is quiet lethal for society, especially for some sections of society in a nation. It is like a perversion of the nationalist identity, that segragates a majority group and builds a nationalism, defining their identity as being the only one that is suited for rule in that domain and for holding previlages. It is closely associated with a message of that majority group’s supremacy and thus their right to rule and have other privliages of society and governance. It is extremely lethal too, because it psychologically fragments a country, even leading to occassional clashes between communities and nation-wide conflicts, which is defenitely not the sigh of a stable nation. From the propaganda of Nordic supremacy, which started from the ideology of the German Nazi Party (Nazism), present day propagandas like White Nationalism in places like USA, UK, other European nations had risen, even if they are not very popular. Another example is that of Islamic Nationalism (which has also been established) in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran. It is also like the Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) in India or Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) in Israel. Basically, it is the propaganda that gives the message that the majority identity (or community) in a nation be put to power and have previlages in order for the nation to develop. There are also reasons cited for these surrounded around supremacist ideologies.

Nativity Propaganda

With the above fundamentally common classification, there is one strong type of propaganda that is what I call the Nativity Propaganda. It is the most appealling and also a dangerous one, I should add. The Nativity Propaganda is when a body, representing an early culture or religion, who also happen to be the majority at the present time, use the testimony of history to gain political advantage. It includes a history, which may be true, but also very likely bloated, including events of their suppression, genocide, injustice etc. It basically comes out as “This was our home before it was yours, who came as invaders”. The ‘yours’ being the other populations, some of which may have ruled in that domain once. Through this historical testimony that they present, they justify present unjust treatment of groups and at times, even violence against them. Nativity propagandas are particularly vicious and in many cases get a gathering from well-to-do and educated people too.

It is what has taken place in Israel in the form of Zionism and in India in the form of Hindutva. The very life of success of the Nativity Propaganda comes from the fact that it is a combination of the Propaganda of History (1) and the Propaganda of Majority Identity (3). If you are an American reading this, imagine what would happen if the Native American communities in USA grew to majority and were made to suddenly feel deeply, through a propaganda for the past Indian Wars in which their lands were usurped? It becomes a danger quiet obviously, to other groups, especially the whites. Now, USA’s present condition is much varied, the native American populations aren’t even in politics actively and have actively mixed as a people with others. Infact, there is nothing odd about USA’s history of the Indian wars. There have been numerous invasions throughout history. However, a propaganda of conquest, genocide, destruction is layed to a people of a particular native culture (ie. earliest identified) in a nation who now form the majority.

Now this is where these ideologies get their strength - the fact that history testifies a then-foreigm group as having supressed them in the past. Both India, and Israel were conquested by Islamic rulers once. But so was Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan once. But in nations like Israel and India, the earlier religious populations, to say Jews in Israel and Hindus in India have become a majority, hence a body representing the majority, not necessarily by popularity, but by self-claim arise in politics. The Jews do have a scarred history as a community, and have faced atrocities even as recently as in World War 2. However, in no case does it justify, to me, their treatment of the Palestine people today, in my opinion. In India again, there are historical accounts of temple destruction, iconolasm by Islamic rulers. The Hindutva, in many cases twists history, exaggerates it to present a demonic image of Islamic rulers. The point we need to understand is that, in India at that time, Islamic empires of various origins were already actively part of politics and the idea they have of Islamic people coming as hoards of invaders solely against Hindus is wrong, there are numerous wars of Muslim rulers against Muslim rulers too in India. In any case, I don’t deny that there were many anomosities, injustices, but still to move as a nation we need to get over this past to face the future. Divisive politics is something someone like Hitler tried, and he failed – its not a formula to success for a nation, even if it may be very fierce and moving in the beginning. Now these majority populations have youths who are especially vulnerable to this Nativity Propaganda which uses history like a weapon, to emulate the past injustices by reflecting them to the smaller communities in the country. To come to the truth of the propaganda they spread, it could well be highly biased accounts and in some cases like the earlier British Empire Propaganda of Aryan Invasion Theory, a completely fabricated. 

In India, there are two nested Nativity Propagandas. The first is of the Hindutva, claiming previlages for Hindus against groups like Muslims and the second is of the Dravidian Movement Propaganda, claiming privilages for Non-Brahmins by a supposed and exaggerated account of suppression by Brahmins, and they also support the Aryan Invasion Theory, claiming Brahmins and other upper castes of the varna system as invaders. While, I can see in history that casteism did exist and was wrong, DMK uses it like the hot iron to smash and get the best shape of. I have typed about this in detail in my article When does Discrimination become Right?

To be frank, India or any nation for that matter can only get to succeed in my opinion by getting out of the hate-shell that some propagandas trap them into. The Dravidian Anti-Brahminism propaganda is getting weaker, as people have started seeing nonsense in it. The Aryan Invasion Theory, which was a serious study matter in the colonial, has been toppled and there are even innumerous questions with new (contrary) finds. Its purpose was to divide India as a native and invader population, for the British Empire’s strategy of Divide and Rule. 

 While I agree that all have to be proud of their nationality, identity and all,  we need to be reminded of more universal challenges we face. The potency of propagandas has been seen throughout history, it is the mark of a leader to establish a Propaganda that make the people undertand in inclusivness. The mind is a powerful weapon, the way an idea sways a mass is propaganda. Its upto leaders in power to understand this, and steer people to be united.

The Concept of Demos-Hypocracy

I type this article from what a German man said recently in an online forum. I am not sure he said it to be mean or harsh. But it seems like from his statement and even those of many others (of foreigners and Indians), that they believe Democracy, which they equate to the great ideal of equality is an idea that innovated and created the whole ”actually” civilized world and before which the world with all its Empires was in some sort of dictatorship of Monarchy, and an entirely barbaric setup. This German man, who I choose not to name, said that India won’t develop because (his exact words follow) ”They don’t understand the concept of Democracy and taking responsibility“.The pity is, today Indians are taught that this fantastic ideology of “all are equal” was born in the West and that people had no voice in the rules of kings in India. In short, the legacy of being fair and just has come to be attributed to the West completely. Morality in governance has been hijacked into being a patent of the West, despite all those atrocities of the colonial era! 

Coming to earlier times when kings did rule, its a complete lie to assume that kings or rulers of any kind always dictated people completely. The people did have some good say and could threaten the power of king. Largely, things depended on the rulers themselves. As such even today in democracies like UK and USA, the people could do nothing when the government planned to war in the Middle East. The people of Britain protested sending troops to Iraq. Ultimately, troops were sent to Iraq. Where was the democracy? After all the word “democracy” comes from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule, strength). That fact tells us a great deal about how governments have exercised their power independently despite the numerous fancy names they have come under, since the dawn of civilization.

Democracy has been something the West has prided itself of, for sometime now. Even in a future, as India develops, we will be asked to believe that the West has actually educated us on how to run a nation fairly or how to govern ourselves and that we have somehow imbibed that and enriched a Western legacy. 

In colonial times, the Western governments have had a nice manner of presenting great ideals but not following them in much depth themselves. By that we need to keep in mind that the people who waged wars against the Native Americans in their own land and occupy it, were people of a democracy and spoke of equality of men. The British Empire which imposed racially biased laws and impossible taxes for things as basic as salt, leaving Indians (East-Indians) to starve to death in their own nation, were people of a democracy! I believe Demos-Hypocracy would be the appropriate term, which is hypocracy of the demos (people) represented by the government. This world is an ironic joke of Empires that have waged wars displacing original inhabitants from their lands and speak of great ideals, which are actually very simple but stanrgely enough presented in a prolix manner. But it is what the West has prided itself for, for years now.

The West, despite “creating” this form of government shouldn’t really pride itself too much. Because, I don’t see it as something they established themselves through. Everything that a Democracy stands for has been breached by empires while they established their democracies, and claimed to educate people on civilization. Democracy in its present form may come from the British to India, but the concept of people’s opinion being regarded is not new, nor is the concept of all humans being treated well. Instead, in Indian philosophy, this goes furthur to treating every sentient being (including animals) well. What the Indians need to understand is to not fall into these perceptions imposed by many.

Has India completely benefitted by the British system of governance and justice? For one, if India had a less number of staged processes in decision making, we would have gone ahead faster. Same with the judiciary system - which is why many cases, which started some 30 years ago are still pending and going on! The problem is, Indians generally failed to understand that with their cultural diversity and population they need to take a different, yet just approach to governing a nation, rather than aping the West.

Indians need to pioneer their form of governance, to have value, not follow or ape other systems. The more the Indians do the latter, they wrongly assume nation structure of India as that of Western nations. That is a great mistake, keeping in mind that European nations aren’t as populated, nor as diverse, nor with such poverty. Furthur, we are ultimately seen as being brought to order by the West and our successes directly reflect to foreigners. On the other hand, the Western civilization for all its crimes on humanity is brought to be though as open, righteous and spreaders of a philosophy of equality, leaving them to go to online forums to educate people on the Concept of Democracy. This isn’t an outlash on anyone, but its all over the internet – the pride of having established Democracy. But its important to remember that the largest democratic empire in Western civilization (the British Empire) was a Demos-Hypocracy, not a Democracy. That is what their policies to the native peoples around the world reveal. Funny, we had times in India, when an obnoxious trials of justice taking place with a British judge trialing an Indian for crimes of not paying taxes to the British government in his own country! Does such justice (sic) make sense? Not to me.

The Stage’s Play

I remember seeing a movie on Bhagat Singh: The Legend of Bhagat Singh, a Hindi movie. In that, Bhagat Singh is being trialled for some “crime” in a court of “justice”. The point being that though the British government in India had imagined itself to be the authority of justice, its very existence was everything contrary to justice. So, that court of justices, that existed through the British Raj in India, or in other colonized lands in the era of colonialism was merely a show. A show that they are civilized, a show that they stand for equality. It was like a play, were the actuality of emotions and the display have no connection to what is actually going on. There was rampant injustice, and quiet frankly even many parts of the world today face such injustice with nothing being said of it in this ‘civilized’ world.

How obnoxious is it, that people praise their governement for spreading an ideology of equality and furthur speak of educating the world on equality despite their governments’ actions? This world is indeed an ironic joke, like a miser speaking of the importance of charity or a cold-blooded murderer lecturing on compassion to all. All the speeches of man of one blood and about equality, was after they just colonized numerous natives and usurped their lands.

When does Discrimination become Right?

NOTE: This article is about India’s social structure and trends in the current thinking regarding castes in Indian society.

I had thought of typing the content of this article a lot of times, but it is only now that I find it really necessary. While it is correctly thought that the Hindutva are an ideology that can’t unite India, I believe the self-claimed Secularists of India aren’t really in path to doing that either. I can actually feel the Anti-Brahmin sentiment on a high and furthur, it being thought of as ‘okay’ and accepted, as far as reservations, policies are concerned. Indians are presented a history in which the Brahmin community has become the scapegoat. While it is generally accepted that the Hindutva do this against the Muslim community, and that theirs is a propaganda; the Marxist versions of Indian history, which speak in Anti-Brahmin overtones are taught in school and accepted as fact – which is why even the Aryan Invasion Theory is passed easily – it demonizes the Brahmins!

What the Hindutva does to Muslims, demonizing them, in their versions of History is what the Marxist historians have done to the Brahmins, in their versions of Indian history. In India, the national history presented shows the high castes as demonized suppressors and it is all that is historically attributed to their legacy. Anything praiseworthy, if mentioned, will be dismissed as a supremacist view, or a mythologized one.

How widespread is Anti-Brahminism?

The Anti-Brahmin sentiment is not something that exists merely in the policy of the Tamil Nadu state government, but it can be seen, if indeed its searched for, in the views of many in the common population. On one side, as Indians correctly understand that caste discrimination was and is one of the evils of their society, its burden is placed upon the Brahmin community as creators and propagators of casteist thinking. The fact? Most casteist violences in India have nothing to do with Brahmins, nor do brahmins assign people their caste. Caste is however, one of the social constructs in India, not created by any particular group. Further is the accusation of casteism on Hinduism – the religion, like in this articule on the Guardian by Ms. Rahila Gupta. But Rahila Gupta is not learned in Hindu literature or what their philosophy implies which is why she beleives she is “open-minded” by making such a biased judgement. Such views are common in India too. But in India to speak of another religions or their ill-effects on society would be propagating hate. Its beccause Indians believe queitly that the idea of them being tolerant or open-minded has to do with them condeming their own culture – even it if means by an half analysis. As such even if it isn’t spoken about, many non-Brahmins and even many Brahmins in their sense of unbias, within India, believe that Brahmins were the people who massacred populations in India and set themselves as the “highest”. Basically, this is what the foundation of the Aryan Invasion Theory is actually. Most importantly, this movement of Anti-Brahminism is more psychological than physical, and is not restricted to governement structures, but something people believe in quietly and not necessarily with a hatred towards Brahmins.

 The former (not so much now) Anti-Brahmin government of Tamil Nadu is merely external view of it. If views on this actually came out from communities, especially from the leaders of non-Hindu communities, we will come to see how widepsread the theory of “Evil Brahmins” actually is.  The views of Aryan Invasion Theory which has anti-Hindu overtones is actually something India agrees to and was brought by the British into our academic circles. There is however, a deep psychological factor behind the acceptance of the Aryan Invasion Theory, which is intimately connected with the self-image of Indian groups. People in India accept the Aryan Invasion Theory due to their own racial perceptions, not because of any deep study they have done on the matter, or deep probe into history. In short, it is so easy for them to believe that a darkie natives were crushed by some chariot driving whities who came like the storm. Proof of it? Zilch. Contrary the IVC has cities of such advanced engineering feats that recent researchers like Louis Flam have regarded it as great as, or even greater than Ancient Egypt. The Aryan Invasion Theory is ready for being accepted even without proof, mainly because of the self-image of many Indians who see themselves as easily colonized, due to ideas of white supremacy in which some also like to link themselves as being “Aryan”, and others like to play the discriminated card of being colonized, vindicating them in taking unfair advantages today. Further, atleast to the view of Marxist historians whose version schools have adopted, India’s past history has been reduced to nothing other than a exploitative social order. While all other societies in the world had their stigma of this sort, no country has reduced their entire past history to only that exploitative social order. Slavery of the sort that existed around the world, never existed in India – it did in China, in the Roman Empire, in Africa etc, but you will never see any of them speak of it. Sure, it seems that in our attempts to look unbiased and level-headed, we fell off the edge to justify a hate of our culture and imagine the worst of us and our past.

And thus, even though castes aren’t related to wealth our government insists on reservations. Its not the way for a country to progress, people’s cultures need to change. Irrespective of caste, people who regarded education as important and pursued it, became respected and lived well. This, and not reservations is what the government should speak of. Our government is practicing casteism in one of its worst forms that these so-called low castes are made to look like they can’t make it without reservations. Similar practice of Affirmative Action exists in places like USA for Blacks. Provisions to education from government with financial aids should exist for the poor in any country. But you can’t expect to pull people to certain jobs because they belong to a particular caste.

Caste a brahmin invention?

Thanks to Marxists, every philosophy, be it even personal is reduced to a sort of political ideology whose aim was to start a revolution. Having said that, the Marxist’s scapegoat of India (the Brahmins) are undoubtedly the responsible for all crimes and deserve criticism. Brahminism is an alternative term of Hinduism, because (according to him) Hinduism was constructed for the brahmins and put forth in a manner to keep their status. Sure, what else is expected of evil Brahmins, right? (sense sarcasm). For him Hinduism…, I mean Brahminism teaches casteism, it teaches discrimination. Of course, that’s all is its primary base which is why he thinks he needs to wave his Red flag. But no Hindu philosophy or school really teaches that sort of discrimination – it is something that comes from the very human nature of bigoted people to look down on others. Further, there is no imagined high-throne brahmins as a socity tried to keep by exploiting others, which is clear from their efforts in the Buddhist schools which regarded everyone equal. Why would brahmins have contributed to Buddhism (mentioned below) if they wanted to keep the caste system? Nice question to a Marxist.

The point is that caste was a social construct in ancient India and discrimination on that basis was a society-wide thing. Not something that was propagated, nor exclusively practiced by the Brahmin people. Furthur, even with brahmins not being a wealthy lot, we are given a joke of Brahmins hoarding knowledge, like such a thing is possible! The point is that as a culture, they were the few who regarded education important. In times when low castes like Thiruvalluvar wrote texts of profound philosophy and meaning, it got popular too. 

So a serious question should arise as to why this financially poor lot of society, who were learned though, have to be in the end of the accusation. Where were the kings who were governers of their kingdoms and had armies and mountains of wealth? Indians who have little knowledge of their history and imagine that brahmins are responsible for India’s poverty don’t face the fact that India’s poverty reflected in this modern era, can clearly be traced to the effects of the biased laws and heavy taxes of the British Empire governement and to the society structure following the Industrial Era. That is why poverty is seen in many nations today – the world changed radically and many couldn’t adapt. Furthur, they forget that the Dalits are a self-designated group consisting of various origins, who came under one label due to their poverty in more recent times - not a group that has been living in poverty since ever ago or throughout history. Its probable that Dalits, if they do trace their lineage, would come to see that 300 or 400 years ago they were not poor – many of them could have well been Hindu rulers too. Similarly, the last of the Mughal rulers Bahadur Shah Zafar, who lost all his empire to the British, have descendants who you would see running rickshaws in Agra. Sure, I guess their poverty has to do with Brahmins sucking their blood? (sarcasm). 

The treat Marxists get from demonizing the Brahmin community is to show that India’s backward society was caused by the Brahmins. By doing this, they undermine India’s past and cultural history, leaving it as nothing more than backwardness in the eyes of the general population which gives them a reason to spread their culture – anti-religious and dogmatic in its own way. A Marxist historian needs one group to be the oppressor to demonize. Its not that I do, or anyone should deny casteism done by Brahmins (or for that matter by others) towards the low castes. But the image they paint is brahmins vs. the rest, which is biased and not arrived by a true study of our history but rather by a projection of colonial slave history  as having taken place in India.

It is necessary in India to have a coherent condemning of any sort of discrimination and against anyone. Like how Hindutva has come out to demonize Muslims, and justify atrocities against them by even hyperbolizing the wrongs of Muslim rulers; India’s own band of Pseud0-Secularists have come to demonize the Brahmin community and justify and unequal treatment of them. We are seeing an Anti-Brahmin government in the state of Tamil Nadu today, and we are aware of Modi’s government in Gujrat which is in the controversy of the Anti-Muslim Godhra riots. While a Marxist will come out a zillion and one times to point the Godhra riots, the entire case of Anti-Brahminism in Tamil Nadu is neglected like an unimportant thing. In another bias, for a Marxist, a person demonizing the Muslims on accounts of rulers like Babur, Timur and Aurangzeb is playing communal, but doing similar of brahmins is “fighting against caste oppression”. Brahmins have a legacy in India, but to the mind of pseduo-secular thinkers, speaking of this legacy or being proud of it puts the person in the same ship as India’s violent saffron brigade. The pseudo-secularists who speak in anti-brahmin overtones are just divisive thinkers like the Hindutva itself, only in another costume. This is one of the primary reasons India is actually stuck in this idea of casteism, the people who claim to fight it only have their ticket to power when the problem continues to exist. 

One thing a Marxist historian version of Indian history will not tell you is that down Indian history, we can find efforts to destroy casteist thinking from Brahmins like Basva Swami too. Till today, the history textbooks being taught in school will not acknowledge their efforts – after all it jeopardizes the “Evil Brahmin’ theory, they so well worked on.

The Myth about Buddhism vs. Brahmins

If you have a Marxist version of history, philosophies like Buddhism are not understood and are vulgarly reduced to the intention of “political movements”. Again, the same accusation follows that Brahmins tried to impose caste system on the society and that Buddha came and started a political reform. If it was indeed such a great conflict, we would have seen Gautama Buddha being tortured to death, like Jesus in Western history. This is the problem when people try to project the history of one place into another, without proper understanding of the rise of a philosophy like Buddhism. 

While non-Brahmins and Brahmins were buddhists and many people (irrespective of caste) contributed to Buddhism spreading, people forget that some of the foremost disciples of Gautama Buddha were Brahmins – like Mahakashyapa. Brahmins like Kumarajiva were prosecuted in China for spreading Buddhism and a king like Ashoka had a mentor Manjushri, of Brahmin family who introduced him to the Buddhist philosophy leading him to accept it and furthur, spread it. If it wasn’t for Ashoka, Buddhism wouldn’t have probably been very famous. After the Mauryan king Ashoka adopted Buddhism, he spread to places as far as Greece in the West, Japan in the East, Russia in the North and Sri-Lanka in the South. Brahmins like Bodhidharma spread it to China in later eras, which was the origin of the Shaolin. Buddhist schools had people from all places of course, but the point here is that there was no religion-war betwen Brahmins and Buddhists, which is nothing but a figment of a Marxist’s feverish imagination of world events.

After reading all this, which you (the reader) can verify yourself, the right question would be : Why would Brahmins helped the spread of this “casteless” philosophy if they wanted to keep their “throne”? Why was there no violence surrounding these events? The point is because these were just schools or philosophy and nothing as serious and dreadful as Marxists like to imagine, in their efforts to wave the red flag.

 Even in later eras, Brahmins like Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, Nagasena and all, have promoted Buddhism. There isn’t and never was a Brahmin vs. Buddhism war going on. 

Marxist historians have tried to club the history of all nations into a common sphere, without realizing the enormous differences brought by different cultures to the development of nations. By this, it leads them to think of the Brahmins as imposers of ideas, without considering their numbers or wealth status - they become the evil merely because they are the “highest” caste. Its also a discrimination the Marxist historians are glad in displaying, as it undermines the legacy of the Hindus and of their past society.

India’s Caste Discrimination

Let the reader not think that I deny the ill-treatment of low caste groups. I know that there have been eras in which low caste people were not allowed in public places, not allowed to drink from the same wells, couldn’t do anything if they were wronged. I know these problems for low castes exist even today in a number of places of India. I don’t deny the injustice. But I do deny labelling it the fault of one community, that is what is happening in India today – even silently. For me, and from my understanding, caste-discrimination was a stigma of India which did face opposition at times. The revolution resulted in temporary change and then things eventually got back to discrimination. I want India as a nation to come out of casteism and casteist thinking and I know that the way out of it, is not by making a huge deal of caste. While we need to keep casteist thinking in watch and condemn it, even with the enforcement of law, we shouldn’t really bring out the issue of caste in opportunities of admissions, jobs and other opportunities. It encourages people to see the country in that manner. 

Hardwork pays, there are many Brahmin people of poor families who have come up since the colonial era, when the British owned much of the wealth and when every Indian was poor. Dalits like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who started from poverty didn’t need (nor did they ask) for reservations. They just worked hard and achieved their goal. Any community can make it out of their poor state, and the problem of Dalits today and their social status is not only their problem, but a national problem – a problem for India. No matter what divisions we see among ourselves, to the world we are India.

India’s Pseudo-Secularists are the root behind Casteist thinking

Caste is not related to financial wealth, so the idea of caste-reservation is itself biased and only brings back a narrow separatist thinking.

The only way India will come out of caste-discrimination is by leaving caste aside and not politicizing it. What many have done is gain by politicizing it, and then claim to fight casteism when its their ticket to power! 

We shouldn’t look at people as belonging to certain caste while they come to grab opportunities, but actually see their worth as a human, an indvidual and an Indian. India’s problems can’t be solved by demonizing one caste, it can’t by solved by giving other castes unequal advantages. India’s problems will be solved eventually by our people when they largely start valuing education, by wanting to come up, by wanting better roads, by being not-fine with lazy officials and bad infrastructure, by wanting better change – That is when India will start development in all aspects. The lack of those concerns I mentioned, is the actual problem, which many ignore to play the discriminated-card or play caste politics.

Our pseudo-secularist parties in India make groups believe they are fighting casteism when in truth they are bringing back narrow and divisive thinking by classifying people in such a manner for every opportunity. We fill our caste in college forms, how worse can it get?! And now we speak of rooting casteist thinking?

How then can India come out of casteist thinking? India will only come out of caste-discrimination when people understand the bigger picture of a world, which we as Indians, have to face out there and actually look beyond caste, religion, region, sects, creed and move forward as Indians.

Our forefathers put out the fires that scorched this nation in divisive struggles, famine and poverty. Its our job to gather the ashes and rebuild this land. The freedom struggles of our forefathers lose value when we fail to recognize our goals ahead, and instead start looking at society in terms of religion, caste and sects again.

World History is not a Mirror Image of European Colonial Past!

Just a few days ago, the Scandinavian nations came with a false and vicious accusation against the Indian society and their government in the World Conference against Racism at Durban. One, that caste system is a form of racism which Indians have ignored over years (implying our “insensitivity”) and two, that the tribals of India should be given the status of “indegeniuous people”.

In doing this, the European nations project their own history to that of a country like India and assume the worst of its people. There are people in cities, villages  and even tribal people in India, not today but since the dawn of civilization. The reason these European governments assume and impose their idea of the tribal people as being the natives, is because that is how it has been in the nations their governments once conquoered brutally. This sort of mentality is the very foundation of an automatic speculation-theory like the Aryan Invasion in India. It was the British colonials who deviced the theory. While European governments like the Nazis spread that “Aryan” propaganda decades ago, their governments still seem to hold biased ideas in order to nail a country like India as having a morally ugly past like theirs. But for what reason? I would guess its probably because they would then feel that they are somewhat better justified while reading their history of how they attacked various natives, like in the Americas, Africa and Australia.

The natives in India have lived mixed. That is, some in cities, some in villages, some in tribes. The fact European governments can’t come to accept is that a city people of India being just as “native” as the tribal ones. We will see many accusation against the Indians that are completely false and biased, in the coming years from Western nations. Indians need to be prepared to defend against these false accusations. As India gets its proximity to Western nations in communication, they will try to present a world view of discrimination existing in India as India comes up. It gives them good company while they look back at a history in which they too overthrew native peoples and occupied/occupy their land.

Another is what I call the “Tribal Natives Conqueored Hypothesis (TNCH)” of these Scandinavian government officials. It is basically a projection of European history to India in this instance.

Tribal Natives Conqueored Hypothesis (TNCH): Europe’s Projection of its Colonial Crimes into India’s Past.

It would be probably impossible for these Scandinavian representatives in the World Conference on Racism to accept a fact that the tribals, the village people and the city dwellers of India have all largely co-existed. The natives of India were all of these. The assumption that is quickly made is that natives of a country like India are “tribals”, but we see some of the greatest cities in the Indus Valley Civilization ruins today, built in a time which can only be traced to the indegenious people of India! What these Scandinavian government speakers did was project a history of European colonial past into India and furthur, probably with their racial biases, believed that the natives of a country like India would most certainly be tribal dwellers. For them to accept a history in which tribals, villages and city people lived together is meaningless because it has never happened in Western history! For them, the very idea that in one nation, city and tribal populations live, leaves them to conclude that at some point the city people invaded the natives with their weapons - like in their history of nations like USA, Australia, South Africa etc etc. The truth is: In India, you will see urban civilization since a very ancient era which obviously co-existed with tribal populations. Because if indeed there is a tribal vs. empire war in India, it would have ended in results like we see in USA and Australia – tribals vanishing almost completely and cities being established over their land. But that is not what we see in India. 

Indians have been naive to move by Western interpretations of history and hypothiesizing when Western governments like these Scandinavian governments are only ready to think the worst of India’s past even with no evidence or hint of it. Perhaps these Scandinavian governments need to be educated on the Shudra (lowest caste) empires in India’s history like the Pala Dynasty and the Nanda Dynasty existed, and understand that the “high” and “low” of caste have got nothing to do with wealth! India’s story is more diverse and large than the cultural history of a place like the Scandinavian nations or USA. The caste system was not really a heirarchy of financial wealth which gave them benefits in a city. As such, its a well known fact that Brahmins (highest caste) have been poor or moderate in wealth. Infact, a Brahmin’s lifestyle ought to be that way - in poverty as a wanderer and in search of knowledge. And its actually due to this type of non-luxury lifestyle that Brahmins had been regarded as “highest”. Caste system has of course become akin to a class bias in other societies - it is nothing close to racism though. I know a number of Marxist morons, who would think it is, but they haven’t read the history of racism – its nothing like one caste against another, but a social exploiation of lower castes in history and today in villages. If one reads Western history of racism, it really has no parallel in India.

For one important point, India was ruled by the British for a good span of 190 years. Any constructs of the past regarding wealth have all been lost. When parties like DMK come out accusing Brahmins for the poor state of numerous groups, they leave the truth behind, which is that their non-adaptability to the British era is what lead many groups into poverty. An unbiased person, can look through the economic trends before the British trading and after India’s colonial era. It is the exact era in which India had gone from riches to rags; and furthur, as Jawaharlal Nehru himself notes: “Places which were ruled by the British longest are the poorest”!

And, for N. European governments to  make such a low attack on India, which has itself been subjected to racism is meaningless. We have been shifted from racism victims to racism doers merely due to marginal national progress over the years. How many wars has India waged for its progress these years? Zero. Is there any comparision to European nations usurping the lands of various natives and stealing their resources? What these nations which accused the India society of so sharply need to understand, is that Indians never went anywhere and conqueored anyone, like they did. They might want to bring India under their colonial burden, but it ends as a meaningless accusation.

What many westeners fail to understand is that the caste system has got nothing to do with a heirarchy of wealth. Neither was there a “slave” treatment on the low castes throughout history. In trying to parallel Indian history with those of European colonial-governments these N. European speakers in the World Conference on Racism are, perhaps intentionally, defaming India in the eyes of the world to feel a company or feel more justified or absolved with their own colonial history.

Psychology of the Hindutva

In India, Hindutva is the ideology of Hindu nationalism. While there have been countless criticism of the Hindutva as one might expect, there hasn’t really been an article that seems to shed light on the origins of the ideology or the psychology behind its existence. The primary problem with the Hindutva ideology is that it is not inclusive of non-Hindus - Muslims in particular. As Indians, they obviously feel an alienation with the spread of such an ideology. I believe that the mass psychology of various groups within a diverse nation like India needs to be understood in order to move forward, understanding that is crucial to solving the problem they cause rather than merely condemning ideas. The Indian government may arrest a number of the Hindutva hate and violence propagaters but as these events get larger and larger, it only poses a communal threat to India, the secular nation. 

On other side a few among non-Hindu communities and some even in the Hindu community (Hindu born) directly associate the violence of these groups to Hindus or Hinduism itself, in a manner like this is what Hindu philosophy and modus vivendi has been about through history. I say this from many comments I have come across and also seen by browsing internet forums, its not from my own perception. Hinduism has many times been attributed to only caste discrimination and practices like Devdasi and Sati. Its an image that comes from easily thinking the worst of Hindus. Hindutva violence further, makes such biased convictions on Hindus even firmer among those who believe them. And even if we differentiate them from Hindus, they are quiet clearly associated with them by much of the population. The Hindutva could work in enlightening backward communities, educating them and all, but that they don’t do. Most importantly beyond all this, is how we are a nation but still completely divided, it will lead us to an end as we see other nations move forward, putting aside internal differences.

I will explain why the Hindutva violence problem, though evident, doesn’t come anywhere close to being solved in India.  It has got to do with the ‘type’ of Indians in the whole circle. Some causing the trouble, and others trying to solve it, yet others earning their political bread by only speaking against them. A bridge of understanding is not build, which is the reason it comes nowhere close to dialogue or a solution.

Problem of the Hindutva

To the Hindutva, the cornerstones of Indian history are events like the invasions into India, the ill-treatment of Hindus in the past and land occupation of foreign groups. Like the invasion of Muslim rulers, Hindu prosecution in the reign of some Muslim rulers, events like the Goan Inquisition, missionary activity, historians demonizing Indian past as being casteist among a few. Those that I have mentioned, and which did happen in he past of India have outraged them. They are stuck in a chapter of history and to them the present day India is probably an unfortunate construct whose thinking group is much “foreign”; due to which it is indifferent and inconsiderate of India’s ancient Hindu legacy. To them an event like Babur (the first Mughal ruler) destroying a Ram temple in Ayodhya some 500 years ago, needs vindication which they justify by doing atrocities today. That’s the 101 of Hindutva. Thus to them, India needs to be a “Hindu” nation or atleast a “Hindu dominated” nation as far as cultural, political and social aspects are concerned . While they are not necessarily against the existence of non-Hindus their violence is majorly a reaction out of a fear of Hindu culture becoming less dominant, shunned by foreign ideas in this era of modern changes. The Hindutva have thus come out to force things on a population they feel is deviating from “Hindu culture” (their perception of it).

However, the Hindutva brigades fail to see is how dynamic and changing the ancient India really was, without which we couldn’t expect so many cultures to have evolved here. Those temples of Khajuraho were built by Hindus, and treatise like the Upanishads have had world acclaim. But only because they didn’t have anything dogmatic or sectarian in them!  The Hindutva with their religion-based involvement in politics and violence are actually demonizing the names of the culture they claim to “protect”. This is mainly due to a lack of intellectual dimension within the ranks of the Hindutva itself. They want a goal, but aren’t themselves too enlightened about Hindu philosophy or the various cultures of our past. So they helplessly feel some “foreign” ideas are taking shape here which they think they need to oppose – that they do by violent attacks. While they oppose girls wearing tight shirts and jeans, they don’t understand the type of figure revealing dresses women in ancient India actually wore.

This nature of causing violence itself arises from their side as a fear-retaliation by showing a sense of brutal strength over a population. We saw this in Kandhamal, Orissa where groups converting to Christianity were attacked and made to convert back. While they claim that the missionaries were imposing forced conversions on these people on the first place, their argument fails like a flat tire the moment they used brutal violence. This is what I remarked in an online forum; that as the Hindutva does more violence against these groups, the more repelled they would feel from Hinduism and convert! Not because the Hindutva carry any message of Hinduism but because they have that identity. Its important to note the distinction I have just mentioned.

People who discuss the Hindutva Problem

There have been many articles on the hate politics of Hindutva, like the article The Power of Hate by Jug Suraiya under his section subverse in the Times of India (TOI) paper. I don’t recall the date of the article, but it was about the impact Varun Gandhi’s hate speech in Philibit, U.P. had on numerous discussions nation-wide. Similar articles only highlight the obvious problem and the impact it has on us – which is clear. It really doesn’t diagnose the problem from the root of its thinking. The reason is because none of these builds a bridge of understanding, between the Hindutva’s culture crusade and the more liberal-minded Indians. It is such a gap that makes it difficult for us to understand the reason of the problem and stop the violence of the Hindutva conclusively. This might seem like I hold some sort of sympathy for the violence of the Hindutva, but that assumption is wrong. I believe that it is only possible to stop this violence in India by building that bridge of understanding. Why? Because its part of the Nativity Propaganda of the Hindutva, based on the bruises of a religious violent past. It can only be solved by building an understanding. 

This is why perhaps all the discussions of Hindtva violence in channels like NDTV have followed this path: ” Why did you have to go an do violence?” – “This against Hindu culture and we can’t allow anyone to do etc etc” - “So that means you hit anyone? This is goondaism..” – “This is not goondaism, it is corrective violence and this is how we can protect our land etc etc” - ”What is corrective violence? India is a secular nation and is for everyone irrespective of religion, caste, creed etc etc”. – /*claps from audience*/- (hindutva member continues, understanding he is not popular) ”See, we don’t like violence also but when these people are doing these things we need to correct them” – “Who are you to act like moral police? etc etc”. And it continues. The result is:

1. Hindutvas being seen as an illiterate bunch of thugs with every point they utter.

2. And importantly: Discussion ending in no conclusion other than something general like “we can’t continue like a nation this way. We are secular and India is for everbody”. But having no effect on the type of ideology that Hindutva is already.

All these don’t really quench the spirit of the Hindutva violence. Putting an end to the violence spread by them is a necessity for this nation.

Sentiments of the Hindu Populations and Pseudo-Secularism

On the other hand, apart from the violence of Hindutva groups, many Hindus themselves feel that labelling them negatively is done more easily and in some aspects matters concerning their religious sentiments are taken for granted. I agree to this to some extent myself, as it is clearly seen in the opinions of many, including in the media. As classic examples, media displayed the terms “Hindu terrorists” time and again in the time of the Malegaon blasts which was done by a group named Abhinav Bharat, which consisted of Hindu members. The sensitivity arises due to linking the terrorist to a religion due to their religiously extremist stance. But the extremism from groups like Al-Qaeda, LeT are all labelled more carefully by the media. Another example was the proposed destruction of the Ram Setu. Indians who are reading this, will be well aware of the traditional belief surrounding the structure. Now, none opposed the destruction of that with care for Hindu sentiments other than the Hindutva.

This is why, though I am against the Hindutva stance, I am also against the pseudo-secularist stance, which fails to understand that India has been the cultural abode of the Hindus for millenia, like Saudi Arabia to Muslims, and thus there are places which are intimately connected to their sentiments which we can’t ignore, if we are being truly secular. These two ideologies, Hindutva and Pseudo-secualrism have both existed in India, citing the existence of the other as reason to exist. On the other hand, we can’t really go ahead the ideas of religion, caste as our government insists on these differences everywhere – even at filling forms in institutions. With the Ram Setu incident, a large number of Hindus may feel their sentiments being taken for granted in all this discussion of being secular. Thus does the accussation of Pseudo-secularism come upon some individuals or groups. In many instances, due to these sentiments being taken for granted in this manner, do many swing to the Hindutva side. But it is important, that we as a nation are all level-headed and don’t fall trap to such thinking. Its essential to remain truly secular, without the Hindutva nor with things like “minority quotas”.

Even in another case, the Congress Party of India, filed an affidavit to the Supreme Court in India that Ram (an important Hindu deity/mytholoigical character) never existed. Of course, there is no evidence to that claim of the Congress. There was also harsh comments by Tamil Nadu state CM Karunanidhi on Ram, marked with rebuke and sarcasm. If this had happened to other communities in India, it would have become a hugely bloated up issue of ill-treatment of minorities, but otherwise, its merely an exercise of “freedom of speech”. Thus, for the government lead by the Congress Party, the sentiments and religious issues of Hindus seems to be an unimportant matter, as shown in the Ram Setu issue. Its the hype of the minority issues, that seem to be the centre of attention. The result is obviously a part like the BJP which is Pro-Hindu, coming forward too. However, both of these stances are wrong.

The handling of terrorists is also different. A typical case of blasts by Hindutva extremists is that in Malegaon. Following the blasts, investigations were done immediately and the extremists were punished. On the occassion of catching one Islamist terrorist Afzal Guru, his sentence was prolonged. He was supposed to be hanged for his hand in plotting the 2001 Parliment blasts in India. His hanging has still not been done after 8 years. His family came forward shed some tears, and that was enough for bending our law. The leniency shouldn’t exist – terrorism done in the name of any religion requires the harshest punishment. Yet another issue is caste-based reservations, when castes in India aren’t even related to financial status.

So, secularism in India has always been a pseudo-secularism of not looking at the issue from the perspective of all. India remains to still become an actually secular nation, and I think it is in its way though. As more and more light is shed on condemning Hindutva violence, we also need to see the otherside and ask: Was the insensitivity in the Ram Setu issue correct? Was the affidavit on the existence of Ram correct? How would these issues have resonated if the sentiments of other groups were hurt in this manner?   

On the other side, the Hindutva, needs to come in terms with our history, and understand that all religion groups are equally as Indian as Hindus. Furthur, never was there anything like “Hindus”, which was a generic term to a variety of schools of Indian philosophy and religion. To relate ancient India would be hard to people today, when they have come to think of terms separate religions instead of the underlying philosophy of each school.

In ultimate conclusion, we still need to move into the idea of an India, where we are truly gone beyond these ideas of religions and other divisions in making policies. Today, we speak of going beyond casteism and have a system that takes people on those basis, thanks to the Pseudo-secularists who claim to fight casteism. While the Hindutva plays pro-hindu, other parties like the Congress play pseudo-secular, and some like DMK even anti-hindu and I have mentioned how the insensitivity from all these sides inhibits our growth as a nation. This makes us understand that there is nothing enlightening in Indian politics from either sides. When we come out of such shells, we can speak of actually progressing like a nation.

A for Anarchy…

Most of you would have seen the movie V for Vendetta, its a good movie with a political message behind it. The character “V” fights against the government, to topple it and set the state (a supposed Britain in a future) into Anarchy. I will explain in my view why Anarchy exists in some cases, but is never long lasting. There are many, especially the rich who support the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism. The main problem Capitalists face is the Government. Private companies can do a lot in a nation, help poor, create employment, better goods, more in quantity and quality than the government. But their power is restricted by the government and can’t change a country largely. The point is they don’t call the shots, the government does. And when a government is corrupt, the country suffers. Private companies are “restricted” on the other side by government imposed regulations. It inhibits their profit, and thus they don’t like it, or it may inhibit progress of the country which they as citizens don’t like either! Is it right that the government puts restrictions? The answer is: Yes and No. At times it is, at times it is not. Like for instance, in the case of the fall of the Lehmann Brothers, restrictions on giving loans would have saved USA from Recession. But on the other hand, like in India, many systems, judiciary processes, irrigation, city plan and other things are completely useless and are controlled by the Indian Government. Roads remain undeveloped, and it takes many years for private companies to start work sometimes (not talking of the process here, just starting!). So even if a private company is interested, the lack of interest in cooperation from the government leads to a mental weariness. Thus the change envisioned by them is restricted and frictioned greatly, because they are not part of The Government.  To do as they wish would mean going into the government and changing it, something that might take your entire life or even worse, kill you in the process! Now this is where Anarcho-Capitalism stems from, it is a system in which the private company owners don’t take any restrictions from the Government, rather there is no Government. It is very impractical to be honest. The rich Capitalists would love Anarchy (absence of government) because invariantly they become the authroity from there! But unfortunately for them, a government is required and furthur as I say it inevitably exists. Because, private companies are not answerable to people – ultimately they are set for profit! As nations get richer, they get more Capitalist. In a poor nation, too much exercise of Capitalism will lead one part too rich and the other too poor – that finds objection because its due to the rich exploiting the resources of the land which is seen as “common to all who stay in the country”. Furthur, without government there is no sense of a “nation” itself and thus governments will exist. The government can be considered itself a “company” but doesn’t have profit as its goal. That is why a nation where the majority are poor will have a more prominant government rule. That is, they are more on the Left-wing of the Political Spectrum.

Why do Governments need to impose restrictions?

The governments are can be like speed brakers to the Capitalists. While some of the restrictions inhibit the nation from developing, others are necessary for the safety of the nation. Companies especially foreign ones, don’t necessarily have any nationalist ambition. In other cases, restrictions are required to ensure that the companies themselves don’t topple the government! Such restrictions are like ban on manufacture of weapons. That may seem extreme, but it has happened in history. On 31st December 1600, the Mughal Emperor Jahangir agree to give license to the British East India Company, which was granted an English Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth I of England. At first it was only trade. After 157 years, in 1757 the company overthrew the Mughal government’s presence from the region of Bengal (India), in the Battle of Plassey! The region, from there on, became part of “The Company”. Now where did Jahangir go wrong? By not imposing restrictions. The company manufactured weapons, including the technology of that time. When it had the power to overthrow the Mughal government – it did! It is unlikely that anything of that sort will happen today, because Nationalism is on a hight and governments impose many restrictions on private companies, foreign and native. The British were also a Global Power at the time of the Mughals, and it was only a matter of time that they would overtake regional empires like those in India. Governments will continue putting restrictions on companies – especially in this era of Globalization because private companies from other nations are not interested in any great sense in the development of that nation, they are interested in producing quality goods for their profit. My example of government toppling is the extreme of what can happen, even otherwise some restriction is needed for Companies to not “cross limits” in a domain of the Government. In another perspective, the Government itself can be seen as a “company” with a nationalist face. People, save the Capitalists themselves, would want such a “company” to rule before any other “company”. However, when Governments get corrupt, lame and totally inconsiderate, filled with ministers who are corrupt to the last lot – people want change, they want another system of Administration. That may lead to Anarchy through war or riots, but Anarchy is not a Steady state for a nation, it is more like a Transition state between the toppling of one government and the establishment of another.

Is Absolute Anarchy possible?

Anarchists vision their idea of state as a society free from authority of any kind, a state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty. This is where they Anarchists contradict themselves according to me.  To me, they seem to speak of an Utopia, where no one conflicts. But that is not the case anywhere. Now, societies which are closest to Anarchy are like Iceland Commonwealth, in which the Goðorð system existed. In this system, the region (Iceland) was divided into numerous goðorð, which were essentially clans or alliances run by chieftains called goðar (singular goði). The chieftains provided for defense and appointed judges to resolve disputes between goðorð members. Even though Anarchist point to this, this is as close as it gets to Anarchy. Even in such a system, the obvious fact is that a ruler called a goði exists in each clan, it isn’t thus an Anarchy in the strict sense of the word. Furthur, the smaller a population more easy is it to imply such a system. In a more detailed view: this system is with government. Because the goðar rule, from that point it is similar to the way the European Union functions with smaller divisions and each division with a head. Thus, Absolute Anarchy remains only a theoretical state, not practical and it is clearly explained by the fact that the arrival of governments is inevitable.

Why is the arrival of Governments inevitable? 

All throughout history, man has lived in a society. It is the nature of man to live in a society. But as I had mentioned in my other article Is this the reason Communism Fails?, man’s existence is like a paradox. We seek to live socially, so esentially we are social beings but are selfish too. Keeping that in mind, any group of people, be it even as small as a tribe have an identity, a culture, language, religion, customs etc, or a common history. All these leads to a clubbing into their own domain (a country). In other words when Anarchists speak of complete destruction of government they are merely speaking of toppling a company which is very powerful due to the fact that it has held the resources of the land, and has a nationalist identity. A Government exist because it relates to peoples’ identity! The point when governments irk Capitalists is when they inhibit the progress of the nation and its people, at the same time impose a million (not really) restrictions on Capitalists who are working for a change, also their profit (hehe..). But the Government will always be at the higher hand, because it pertains to the identity of the people and is (atleast ideally) answerable to them, furthur it isn’t for profit. A private company is established without mistake, for profit. Furthur, since all humans have an identity and are unique, nations get formed, with governments which have their own nationalist identity. 

One would see a stronger presence of governments in poor nations because rich countries advertise Globalization, the opening up of the whole world to trade only because it benefits them. They get an opportunity to build what I call their Economic Empire. For this reason, the establishment of foreign companies that are powerful (global) is restricted by some nations and these nations become more Socialist in their approach. For a poor nation it is this approach which can bring them up, in an initial stage. Without doubt, if ever they get richer and more technologized they will be more open to Globalization and become more Capitalist.

Who makes Laws in an Anarchy?

Since there is no supreme leader in an Anarchy, who makes the laws? Agreed that laws are so basic for a society, that they needn’t be written.  Any social person identifies theft, murder, assault among other as evil to society. However, a society doesn’t only run on making laws but also by means to enforce those laws. Anarchist argue that Capitalists would make their laws and find means to enforce them, this is again like having multiple rulers in one domain. In fact, this could turn out into a multiple Mafia group struggle where they seize the resources of the land or fight over them, employ people for crimes paying them handsomely and behave like self-selected rulers. Where will people who are out of this scene of rivalry go? They will merely be pawns between many such groups! Thus, inevitably a central body with a nationalist identity – The Government, is required for such a task of law enforcement.

World Anarchy and Morality of the Powerful

The rule of the world, between nations is an Anarchy without doubt. What do we see today? An International Law exists, but no one to impliment it. And furthur, many powerful nations have warred for their own interests and caused misery to many. Just recently the carnage on the Palestinian population in Gaza by the Israeli army is more than enough proof of the state of Anarchy of the World. Infact, by default anything system is an Anarchy. Its like this, when an Anarchy is let loose what happens? The most powerful take rule! And that is what has been happening on this Earth. Furthur, I said anything is like an Anarchy because, those who can assume power, will assume power among nations. What Anarchists can’t do is topple the most powerful company with a nationalist indentity called the Government. Now, hypothetically if all Governments were removed, who would rule? Leading Capitalists of course! Is there a 100% guarantee that they won’t be corrupt or they won’t misuse their power? No.

There is always a body of power in every system. In any government, it is inevitable that some will share more power than others.  Civilians are fortunate if that power has some morals upon itself to consider their difficulties and struggles.  There have been many systems of government, but shrwed leaders can manipulate and misuse any system. In early days of Monarchy, kings may or many not give people a voice. It depended on how they saw the people, when they did consider the people, they were obviously happy. Democracy works, but even in a democracy shrwed evil rulers can and have in many cases misused their power. Finally, it comes down to one question: What morals do the induviduals in power understand?

Government Existence Criteria

To me a government can exist anyhow, it can be any system but under one criteria that the people must be happy due to the rule and they must prosper. Some nations don’t have people who are too educated, it shouldn’t matter if a single leader or a few leaders take many decisions. But if he/they do, it should be, in the interst of the nation as a whole! Many a times leaders of some nations have fooled an uneducated public. An Absolute Anarchy is meaningless because the next highest power would take the empty seat of the Government.  Since, govenments will exist, it is perfectly reasonable, that those who rule should merely be a representative of all they govern and that they should rule with their consent.

Why Keep Culture?

“It is your obsession with culture that irks me”, that is what I received in one of my chats with an online friend of mine. This guy is a fan of Marxists ideas and doesn’t seem too appreceiative of cultures. I am an Indian (East-Indian) and the approach I feel a group should take to change generally is not elimination of the culture they have, but its revival through reason. As many Marxists, he is not a “culture fan”, and I doubt he believes that our past forefathers have anything worthy to offer us, in our texts. Through my chats with him, this is one point on which we don’t agree – he isn’t a fan of religion keepers and finds it totally “barbaric”. I am not religious in any sense, I agree to Zen Philosophy – which is no religion, just a philosophy which I tend to agree with. But in giving a political view, I need to not keep myself in mind but the people in a domain (Nation or Union) because they are affected by the criterias of particular type of government. Communist nations in general don’t care about cultures, they seek their direct elimination due to their belief that various cultures bring about a division which would cause a problem to the Vanguard party ruling the state. As years pass, Cultures change and may generally become stagnant, dogmatic and barbaric. However, a group should always seek to revive a culture rather than eliminating it and embracing a completely new culture (like Communism for example) blindly.

Why should Culture be Revived?

Before destroying anything, one should, in my opinion understand the cause it arose for and the purpose it was meant to serve. Thus, before a Marxist destroys a culture claiming it to have a “barbaric origin”, he needs to ponder as to what caused the arrival of the culture, what it held or represented originally and how events shaped it to what it is today. The reason an induvidual (not only a Marxist) needs to do this is because even the culture they are bringing viz. the Marxist culture or any other culture  is also vulnerable to degradation over years, it also can be misinterpretted, changed or manipulated to become something dogmatic and leading only a few vile minded people to assume power and exercise it. Marx, in my opinion failed to analyse society from a Socio-cultural perspective as I always call it, he only analysed it from the Socio-economic point of view assuming that all cultures are alike – he was wrong. By that I mean that he didn’t consider induvidual cultures as influencing the social setup of the nation but regarded all cultures as “human-cultures” being more or less the same and made no distinction between them. Nations don’t change effectively by force and humans will remain connected to their culture, this is something Communists should understand; denying which, they deny the human psychology itself. 

Communists show a direct indifference to the culture of a people, how can they then govern a nation peacefully? Chinese culture is very vast and extremely grand, the people in China are not really happy with the stance of the Communist government that pays no interest to culture. It is a pity I should say, that they aren’t allowed to preach their cultures widely and are left to keep it dormant for the belief of the Communist party. Cultures are an accumulation of knowledge, arts and other traditions which are like a bounty from our forefathers. Losing them or shutting them up, according to me, is utter foolishness.

Traditions of a culture may be set over an era. That era has its own perceptions which arise due to various reasons. As technology changes, our knowledge changes, as other cultures are seen, our outlook changes, and as time generally passes we think differently. Thus, we may have to change some aspects of a culture to fit it in our present era. It doesn’t however mean destroying everything of the past. It includes getting a clear understanding of the culture, and why it took shape as it did, and appropriately agreeing on changes in the present or coming eras. Cultures which can change (adapt) to successive eras, without losing their identity last longest. Some aspects of a culture would have themselves risen due to some narrow-mindedness – like blood sacrifices. Now when such aspects exist, they need to be rooted out to live properly, because our cultures didn’t come like “boom” in one instant and there are many aspects that have been added by people who made changes to justify cruelness or discriminatory thinking. There could be other reasons too. However,  importantly a culture should itself have change and questioning as part of it. Contrary to what many of the dogmatic Hindutvas think, questioning was an integral part of ancient India’s culture – like in places like ancient Greece too. It explains why ”Hinduism”, which is a generic term to ancient Indian philosophies and religion, has such diversity to it even today.

How does decision on cultural changes come?

Many people tend to believe that the fact that a culture requires change would mean, it is an “incomplete culture” or “wrong”.  But it is ridiculous to believe that when the fact is that the people who are the keepers of the culture are a human population, and like any group are vulernable to degarading over time. I describe it like a teacher passing on a handful of sand representing knowledge to his disciple, in the process a few sand particles are dropped. Furthur, he passes it on to another, again a few drop. As this goes on, a disciple far in the lineage doesn’t reach much of the knowledge. In the meantime, evil minded rulers may have made changes to suit their ends to fill this space of  “dropped sand grains”. Thus in every era, it is important for the disciples themselves to “pick” some grains of sand to fill this empty space – it thereby makes culture a thing that is continually questioned and analysed on how and why aspects of it should exist. A culture should naturally change through questioning, nothing should be left as “unquestionable”. Only such cultures which adapt, last longest along with the society itself progressing.

The Communists are most against the religious aspect of culture. They would point to a religious body that causes trouble to the state, and then say that the religion should be banned in their nation! The most glad message for them would be the existence of a corrupt religious heads – it gives them the “hot iron” opportunity to change the situation. But religion to another induvidual would have nothing in connection to the behaviour of that particular corrupted religious head. What Communists don’t understand is that the induviduals of a nation instinctively identify with culture (inc. religion) and want them – and thus a ruling body needs to understand the psyche of those its ruling. The lack of this exists in nations like China, which is why people have greviances.

Why do Communists hate cultural identities?  

The reason Communists hate cultral identities is because they as a party aren’t able to handle various cultures. They believe that destroying it will solve the problem – but they are wrong. To a Marxist, there is no great opinion in the past and they feel every past society was effectively a biased system of class discrimination. So, those are the two points as to why Communists are indifferent to culture or even hate it:

1. They can’t handle various cultues, especially religions in one place. They lack the ability to make a political opinion on sensitive issues like religion and fear a riot. Thus, they ban all religions.

2. They feel no identity to the cultures they are born into, as they believe no cultures have anything to give in a grand manner. Thus, they find them unnecessary.

3. They associate culture primarily with the social problems it has caused.

Ultimately, a party with such an attitude can’t rule with people being happy in his domain. Because the people are connected to a cultural identity. According to me, Marx left some fundamental facts while evaluating his manifesto. Facts like:

1. Cultures influence people and even society, including class structure. Different cultures influence this differently. Like in example, the status of women in some cultures are better than those in others.

2. Culture (including Religion) can’t be separated from people. Note that whether it should or shouldn’t isn’t the matter. The point is it can’t be separated. The Tibet Issue in China needs no introduction.

3. As a nation becomes richer, people will have more tendency to own private property and be a company separate from a state. The thing that will from there on bind them to the nation, is the feeling of nationalism which is in a good way connected to their culture. And thus an individual will only feel exploited in a state that disrespects its culture (includes religion).

4. Capitalism, and private ownership hightens the competition thus pursuing producers to produce goods of finer quality in competition.

5. Class division is inevitable and will shape up in time in any society, even those that are set to be “classless”. Needless to say, China has a class structure today. Can the rich not ill-treat the poor? Obviously they can.

The points in red are not connected to the topic of Culture, but I still think Marx missed out on those. Continuing, People of a nation become more cultural especially when they become richer, a poor man wants to survive. Thus, as China gets richer, its Communist party’s attitude to cultural identities and religion is going face fire.

People in China want to practice Falun Gong, but they aren’t allowed to. The Communist governement is only fearful of culture because it doesn’t have the tact to deal with it – to bring a peace amongst the diversity of cultures. Because a cultural revolution is far more difficult than a politcal one. However, a cultural revolution actually lasts and makes people not only more enlightened but also leaves their culture a continued legacy. The Italian Renaissance was a cultural revolution and what it did to Italy and later Europe is a miracle - China unfortunately didn’t have time for a cultural revolution when it came into the modern (Globalized) era. I don’t deny however, that China became Communist because of the Global powers (of that time) trying to divide it. However today, if the Chinese don’t see what a grand culture they have and don’t seek to enrich their cultre, or don’t mind losing it altogether - its a pity.

Communist Perception of Culture

Communism is a recent ideology born in an attempt to correct the inequality in the social order. Marx, and even present day Communists, like even my friend are generally unappeciative of cultures because they associate it with the social problems its eventually caused through the thinking of people. When my friend sees “Hindu Culture”, I think he primarily sees the social problems that have risen due to that culture. Like Sati (immolation of widows), caste system (a rigid social structure), violence from Hindutva groups among many others. He is a poltical student (I am not), and thus his perspective is understandable. I recognize these troubles, but have an inclination to culture for the other good things it has offered us too. I see both sides of the coin, not judge it by one. 

Religious views should be apart from politics, but a religious population can’t be separated from state and thus politics. The tact in handling this should be from the ruling party which should actively spread a positive message of humanity over religious differences, and more importantly should act unbiased towards all religious groups. Communist parties lack this tact, and thus feel compelled to put a ban on religious views. Suppressing leads to unrest, like what we are seeing in Tibet today.

On the other hand, Communists today don’t see that Culture will be kept because it is one thing that humans instinctively identify as part of their identity. Humans have a habit of copying their forefathers and preserving not only culture, but also knowledge. The ability to preserve knowledge is what makes us more progressive. A chimpanzee can dig out insects for eating using a stick, it has that intelligence – but has kept using only that same trick for millenia now. In short, they don’t accumulate knowledge from their forefathers – humans do by preserving the “imprints” of their forefathers and then furthur building on them. It explains our growing technology. It is due to this ”ancestoral preservation” thinking in humans that culture is also preserved and felt as “important” –  just as how knowledge is preserved and built on. The Communist party in China shows either an indifferent attitude to culture or is against it, like in the case of practicing Falun Gong, which was recently banned. 

A nation when extremely poor, seeks to come up – at this time culture is relatively less important to the people, more important is bread. But after sometime, it will wish to regain its cultural identity. Thus without a doubt a human community will always tend to be cultural, and a ruling party that hates that culture or is indifferent to it won’t gain much popularity. This is why Communist nations seem to be in a potential disorder - with the State Army ready for going against the civilians. Such events are not exactly those of a prosperous nation. Especially as the nation develops in all other aspects and comes as a Global power, a people can’t help but revive their culture, feeling that as their identity.

How Free are You?

This is an article in which I wish to write about the idea called Determinism in Western Philosophy. In Europe, the concept of Determinism first occured in Ancient Greece. This concept existed in Eastern Philosophy many years earlier, and I will explain why Eastern Philosophy doesn’t ever come to a topic of  “Free Will”. I have eliminated the use of Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese words in this artictle for the ease of English readers. The idea of Determinism starts with the question: How free are you? This is the primary questioning of the Western  idea of “Free Will”, which seems to say that you are free to make any will. But is that true? The will of a person is actually selected by his instinct and intellect, among other factors. In other words, you would do that which is in your instinct and intellect for ALL actions within the scope of your ability.

How Free was this person?

Imagine there is a neanderthal man (only for sake of explaination!) being chased down a street by some 40 thugs, with sticks and daggers. He runs and evades them for sometime, and then ends up in the corner of a dead end. However he is unusually fortunate! Or is he? You decide. At the dead end, he finds fully loaded, mountains of guns and ammunitions to fire at the thugs who are now also tired and only walking slowly towards him to attack him. Isn’t he fortunate to have all those loaded guns waiting to be used against those thugs? But he dies. Because he never knew what a gun is or how it should be used! To him the mountains of guns, completely loaded and in full working condition were nothing more than a pile of “things”! Where was his will limited? The answer is: His Intellect. If he had identified the guns, as “guns”, he would have easily taken one out of the pile and killed all the thugs. In India, there are sages who speak of the power of the cosmos existing – its everywhere they claim! Right in front of us, but we don’t use it! Why? Because, quiet clearly we don’t identify it – in the same way the hypothetical neaderthal who died didn’t identify the guns. The power to do that is like having the power to fire the gun – its right in front of you. But we fail to fire! 

Again, if I ask: How free are you? Wouldn’t you agree that you is just as free as your instincts, the “situation” you are in, your physical ability and till where your intellect takes you? That makes sense as to why you can’t have the “Free Will” to become Superman! In short, Nature has put you in a place and from there on you are swayed to make decision based on your self-nature, which has constraints like your inclinations and your knowledge. The freedom of your will (decision) is dictated by all the above and its not really a “free” will, to rightly speak it is a “nature bounded” will. Nevertheless you do have a choice, but that choice is completely dictated by your nature, intellect, instinct etc. At some point you never chose any of these. 

For another example, let us consider a lazy man who has the free will to work hard. The question of will he or will he not work hard is dependant on his own nature or how an external influences impose them self on his nature. Say a motivating speech is done by someone. That speech reflects to his nature and how he brings it into his intellect TO influence himself. However, that secondary nature that arises after the ”inspiring speech” to him to work hard is only triggered by this primary nature of his, which is the way he perceives the event (the speech) and how it affects him. The idea of Free Will is meaningless, because any being making a choice already has a nature and makes the choice based on that nature.

Puppet Master Theory

Let us assume that there is a Puppet Master controlling everything, including us, who are like Robots (programmed) by him. Is there any meaning of speaking of free will here? If you say that there is indeed no one controling us, know that the will of the Puppet Master may itself be for us to not comprehend him. What explains as to why does one pertain to that nature to which one pertains? In other words, I am as Vivek as I am, and you are as (your name) as you are! How did we come to this nature exactly? When we “choose” isn’t that with an already existing nature WHICH limits us? I hope I put that well. What is its cause? Even if we did choose, aren’t we also then choosing within the limits of our instinct and intellect?

On the other hand, its meaningless speaking of making a decision without having a nature to oneself.  From where did it (the instinct and intellect) arise? The Puppet Master is merely a phrase to indicate that it is a cause, I speak of.

Our actions and thoughts are dictated by a certainity because any random event has a reason, so on and so forth until infintely ago – basically Causality. From the smallest action of say lifting a pencil, blinking or to running a marathon. Our actions go only as free as our instincts, intellect, abilities and how those respond to external stimuli. Infact, these factors select only a particular move (so to say), which is what we do. Think about it.

So you are undermining Free Will?

First one needs to explain what free will is or rather how free the will of the person is. At some point in the past when our traits first came to a being, they weren’t chosen, they arose. Like dominos, effects keep happening - one after the other from the smallest to the biggest. In that way, a future action is completely dependant on a previous condition. Did we choose the origin? If so, it ceases to be the origin because on what basis was that existing? For example, if you decide to enroll into say a science team or a group of guys to increase your knowledge of the world. That decision was itself done in that sitution, with your instinct or intellect at that time. You could have been forced to it, but that again comes to the nature of another being, acting as per his nature. The thing that forced you to it was perfectly synchronized, with that even in your life. 

Now we come to the next aspect of the “sphere” which is an external nature affecting, ones nature (which comes to another person as “situation” or environment). The nature of a being is so complex that it can’t be understood as effecting and working in coordination with other peoples nature, by many. But think of the nature of beings as the amount of spin on balls on a pool table. The spinning is ONE aspect, the next is speed of the ball, friction of the table, force the player is applying etc etc. All these are what say constitute our society, and ourselves and where we find ourselves to make decisions, just in analogy.

The Pool Game

Let us consider such a pool game, “in the beginning” (it can be any point in time actually), when the game is started with a force applied by the breaker. He applies a force by striking the cue ball which then goes and hits all other balls. Now remember that the “spin” is acquired by this force, which one can relate as the “Origin of the Universe” or as far as they can go back in time. When that cue is striked it gives a nature to all the balls going here and there, with their own types of spins, speeds of the spins and velocity of motion. These are an analogy to our instincts, intellect and abilities. After being striked, the balls are in various places on the table too, like the various places we find ourselves since birth. They are bounced from the cushions of the table a number of times and bounce randomly. Or so we say usually.

Was it really Random?

No, well it needs comment. Randomness is a concept of order which we can’t understand. Imagine a pile of bricks, you throw a projectile on them and they fall in a random design. Now, it isn’t really random when the exact mechanics on each brick, relating with other is considered. Furthur, there is nothing “odd” about the formation either, the only point is we think it is random due to the fact that we don’t understand the manner in which it exactly fell, brick by brick. In the same way, the world looks random because we can’t identify how the story of each person or thing, “connects” and how people meeting even randomly is synchronized! In other words, the word Random merely means, “Order, whose order we don’t understand”.

Coming back to our epic Pool Game…

Let us suppose that a hypothetical being called the ”Super Physicist Genius 1″ is standing watching this game, this being has the highest knowledge of physics of this board. Because basically the pool game is an N-body Newtonian physics problem! For him, when the cue ball is just striked, he could mentally calculate with the amount of force applied and the spin given, friction etc etc among other stuff  “where and how the balls are going to end”. This is of course possible because the multiple bodies (balls in this case) interact by basic Newtonian mechanics. In other words he makes a prediction. How can he do that? Because he knows the nature of the balls and the table and the details of the strike made by the striker (origin). 

But what are the limitations of his predictions? He has complete knowledge of the physics going on on the board but he doesn’t have knowledge of the human minds (who are playing). In other words, once a strike is made, he guages the force, spin etc etc of the balls with his “super brain”, but his prediction doesn’t see the Outside sphere. That is, he can’t say if this game would be abruptly ended by say, the roof collapsing, an player angrily storming off etc. That is because his, “brain” is restricted to the table. In the same way an ordinary physicist can predict how a ball would move about in an empty room (by basic mechanics), when we have more acting together it becomes harder, nevertheless not impossible. Since this being is quickly calculating it all mentally, I have labelled him a “Super Physicist Genius”. But his sphere of knowledge only extends till the table, not outside it.

 Now, if there was another “Super Physicist Genius 2″ whose sphere of knowledge was the whole room, and the bulilding adjoinging it, his predictions are better. Take a moment to think how his mind works, he can understand all events in these places as coordinated with each other and understands how one affects the other similar to the way SPG 1 could understand only the board. So, as far as predictions ”of the board” are concerned, he would predict all that SPG1 did but also know in advance that the roof is going to fall after a so and so move. However, even his sphere is limited, for he wouldn’t know if a lightening is going to strike and zap the whole place or whatever after another move. That is, he doesn’t know how an influence outside his sphere of knowledge is going to affect his predictions. In all this, its the spin and other factors  of the balls which are like the human nature (in analogy) and they interact accordingly to produce a result, like the balls of the pool game.

Importantly, this leaves everything in an order which we commonly don’t perceive (i.e. Random). Yet, that doesn’t stop one who is hyptothetically more knowledgeable to make predictions, as long as things outside his sphere don’t influence those events for sometime. That is the randomness isn’t absolute, but order that is not understood or measured. This concept that I explained was also thought in a similar manner by the French mathematician, Pierre-Simon Laplace. In the same way as I explained this with “SPGs”, in his thought-experiment he called the entity “An Intellect”. Basically, to draw comparision, the “Intellect” Laplace refered to is an SPG whose sphere of knowledge is the Universe or the entrity of the Cosmos. It was only later, that this hypothetical being was called “Laplace’s Demon”. 

This has been explained to a simple event such as this pool game, but on thinking it can expand to wider events and eventually ALL events. Thus, comes the idea of Determinism. The idea is very ancient in in Eastern Philosophy, which is why the idea of “Free Will” doesn’t exist in any books of Indian or Chinese Philosophy. But other ideas like Tao or Karma (an Order), have existed. Even when we feel that “this could have happened” or “if this had happened”, we are speaking of something that could have happened no other way. But I don’t deny I myself, like many others make such statements due to our humanly nature, in feeling we fell only narrow of achieveing something.  That fact of it happening no other way exists, in truth though. Not because there is no hope of stopping it again, but because the events and your thoughts were sychronized as they were in that time. Thereby, its best according to me to not dwell in it, but move forward and learn. 

Coming to human nature, if we ask a question: Why is X a murder? We come to various reasonings and events of his life, which have one by one influenced his intellect, instincts within the scope of his ability and environment and understand that X is X! Rather, there was a Sway of Nature, even his choices were made with his present state of mind, at some point of which he didn’t chose them. Thus, if we ask, “Can we blame X (for being a murder)?” The answer is “Why not?” given that we too have a nature! And its one nature against another, as simple as that. Like balls of opposite spin colliding on the pool table. The point is with X’s nature he is the opposite spin compared to almost everyone, and that too with god reason. His actions are anti-social, because society can’t exist with people dying through murderers or murdering others.

Finally, if one speaks of ones destiny. Is it a chance or is it a choice? Some may say it is a bit of both. But like above, if we come to understand why some people make some choices and others make other choices, in the same situation, or why some people end up in a certain environment and others in another we come down to a point where we didn’t chose but were put in. And thus, that nature follows all others invariably. Even when we feel in some situations that, he could have done this etc etc. We are only projecting our nature to the other person’s situation. The real fact is, we aren’t in that situation. Thus, though our destiny is shaped by the chances we get in life and the choices we make, those are a certainity. Note importantly, that we do make choices, but they are bound by our natures. 

One attitude of agreeing to determinism is “Why care, everything is determined”. Another is to understand that the choices we make are have a greater influence in the future – the Butterfly Effect. But either of these “reactions” to such a concept is itself, dictated by ones primary nature as a reaction to such an article. Thus it comes back to Determinism! In short, the fact that you would read this article and react the way you are is Determined. Causal Determinism isn’t undermining the idea of making choices, its understanding the nature of an individual’s will as being shaped by constraints on one.