What's new

European secularism a bad fit for India

It was not ideals of casteless society which got replaced, those ideals still exist, but the attempt of destroying caste which created a caste based polity.

Same difference.

Reservations were not poorly thought out and Gurumurthy never spoke about that. If you are saying the feelings of superiority/inferiority should be allowed to exist and legitimized as well as no reservations should have been given, how exactly would you suppose caste discrimination vanish? Just by wishing? That superiority/inferiority complex is what gave rise to discrimination in the first place. Also what about historic injustices and the utter destitution of the community? Was that supposed to go unaddressed? How about feudalism? Would you have rather we continued with that too?

Reservation was poorly thought out and that is what gave rise to caste based polity that further exacerbated the divide. Reservation was an british idea (Strategic response in doval's language) which was introduced in 1909 by the Morley-Minto Reforms to divide India. Abedkar only reintroduced it in a repackaged form and it was accepted because the polity in India was already aware of it due to the British insistence of debating it and implementing it.

If you revisit Gurumurthys lecture you will realise that every caste considers itself superior to the other caste. What is the need to eliminate that ? Every caste also considered the other castes inferior :P You are viewing it as a struggle between victims and oppressors rather than a social response to limited opportunity and social identity and social grouping.

The only exception was the dalit community which lay outside the caste system and even Gurumurty admits that Gandhi's approach was the best way forward where he asked other communities to not practice discrimination rather than target individuals and thereby making the community more socially evolved, aware and responsible.

The best way to address historic injustice is to end it, not recreate it as revenge (anglo saxon justice).

It is not communism to not look down at people because of accidents of birth. People can continue to have feelings of superiority/inferiority based on their accomplisments but not on the basis of the group they belong to just because they happened to be born in such.

I meant looking at society as a communist would assuming everybody is equal. They are not. The objective is to ensure equal opportunity, not enforce absurd theory of equality. (cut off the legs of a tall man to make him of average height)

Also reservations were only meant for a specific time frame for limited sections of the society. That time frame was not abided by. Also it was a hollow exercise because of lack of schools and economy to actually support it.

Instead we went the minorityism way and to bolster minorityism, SC/ST were sought to be co-opted in the scheme.

History has shown that the "limited time frame" model has failed and has now acquired a life of its own and is the new Fankenstine monster. What is the point of denying this and take a limited view of its benefits? Equal opportunity or responsibility was never explored, only reservation as a panacia to social response.
 
Same difference.

It is not.

Reservation was poorly thought out and that is what gave rise to caste based polity that further exacerbated the divide. Reservation was an british idea (Strategic response in doval's language) which was introduced in 1909 by the Morley-Minto Reforms to divide India. Abedkar only reintroduced it in a repackaged form and it was accepted because the polity in India was already aware of it due to the British insistence of debating it and implementing it.
If you revisit Gurumurthys lecture you will realise that every caste considers itself superior to the other caste. What is the need to eliminate that ? Every caste also considered the other castes inferior You are viewing it as a struggle between victims and oppressors rather than a social response to limited opportunity and social identity and social grouping.

If there was one thing all Hindu communities agreed on, it was the affirmative action for SC/STs. That was accepted without opposition because there was an acknowledgement of the wrong done. That is the Hindu Dharma way of owning up to a wrong and setting it right. Whether the British introduced it or not is not the point. The fact was SC/STs suffered from socially imposed disabilities not of their making. The Dalits were going to be given proportional representation in the parliament and that would have led to further breakdown of Hindu society. It was Ambedkar who acquiesced to Gandhi's demand that it not be implemented and in return demanded reservations for the upliftment of this section of the society. So it was a price the Hindu society agreed to pay for keeping its folks together and as a matter of justice.

Find me a Dalit society which thinks it is above the upper caste society. You talk from a position of complete ignorance. The complete mental subjugation of the SC community cannot be overemphasized. Gurumurthy is right in that during the time of British most castes did not think themselves inferior to others. Most castes. Not all castes. Do you think the untouchable would have felt superior to the Brahmin? Gurumurthy did not mean untouchables felt superior to others when he made that statement.

Every caste feeling superior to other in a more or less equal society would just be a societal idiosyncrasy but takes a malevolent form soon enough in a highly unequal society like ours. Gurumurthy's own advocacy is to get the caste leaders to give up their position of superiority. You are conveniently ignoring his solution to the problem. You can package caste oppression as a social response to limited opportunity but the devastation affected by it is real. That cannot be wished away. The building up of advantageous positions for the upper castes by exploitation of lower castes is a reality too. To continue with such without any attempt at correction would have been propagation of injustice.

The only exception was the dalit community which lay outside the caste system and even Gurumurty admits that Gandhi's approach was the best way forward where he asked other communities to not practice discrimination rather than target individuals and thereby making the community more socially evolved, aware and responsible.
The best way to address historic injustice is to end it, not recreate it as revenge (anglo saxon justice).

Just saying do not practice discrimination does not cut it. Nationalists leaders have a habit of crediting Gandhi with everything and I do not share their enthusiasm for Gandhi. Nor was Gandhi a consensual player by any means. If there was a dictator, he was one. No one follows Gandhi anyway and just merely sprouting goody goody words would not have done anything to change the society either. The reservations given to SC/ST were by no means a revenge on the Hindu society. You are looking at it very wrongly. It was not meant to be there for perpetuity either. It had time limit built into it.

Revenge though is a legitimate form of justice and was never not a part of Hindu society. LOL.

If you look at the top echelons of all political parties in India barring Dalit parties and BJP now, they are dominated by upper caste. Just look at CPM, Congress, AIADMK, it is all Brahmins on the top. So there is no basis for any revenge claim.

I meant looking at society as a communist would assuming everybody is equal. They are not. The objective is to ensure equal opportunity, not enforce absurd theory of equality. (cut off the legs of a tall man to make him of average height)

I would be the last person to advocate looking at the society as a communist. You cannot extend the argument of inequality to groups. That would be racist and chauvinistic. Individuals okay. Castes of their own are not any more meritorious than other castes.

History has shown that the "limited time frame" model has failed and has now acquired a life of its own and is the new Fankenstine monster. What is the point of denying this and take a limited view of its benefits? Equal opportunity or responsibility was never explored, only reservation as a panacia to social response

Limited time frame model failed not because it was wrong, but because the accompanying factor necessary for it were not present. Socialism killed any economic progress. So just legislating laws but not having the resources to implement them on ground means zilch. That is what happened with that model. You give reservations and then not build schools or colleges in enough number for any meaningful application of those reservations, then what is the point? If 60% of the society does not have electricity to even have a light bulb in their house then all the talks of having given reservations is bogus.

How can there be equal responsibility? You have a section of the society which is well off with huge lands and social status and families educated and you are asking the village boy from an impoverished part of society to compete with the well off society on what claims of equal opportunity? Does he have the money to take the bus to go to school? Does he have the shoes to wear? What about tuition and other supplementary that a boy from a rich society gets as compared to the poor village boy?
 
Last edited:
If there was one thing all Hindu communities agreed on, it was the affirmative action for SC/STs.

A consensus on killing jews does not make it any more right or a sensible solution. Consensus can be natural but can also be artificially created.

That was accepted without opposition because there was an acknowledgement of the wrong done. That is the Hindu Dharma way of owning up to a wrong and setting it right.

A lopsided action that rose from collective guilt ? If it was dharma then only individuals can be punished, not collective society for the mistakes of its leaders. Denying opportunity to others (upper caste this time using reservation) is not owning up a wrong, it is promoting more wrong to correct a historical wrong.

Whether the British introduced it or not is not the point.

That is the topic of this thread. European secularism. Indians borrowing western ideas that is in conflict with its real self.

The fact was SC/STs suffered from socially imposed disabilities not of their making. The Dalits were going to be given proportional representation in the parliament and that would have led to further breakdown of Hindu society.

Agreed that two wrongs do not make a right.

It was Ambedkar who acquiesced to Gandhi's demand that it not be implemented and in return demanded reservations for the upliftment of this section of the society. So it was a price the Hindu society agreed to pay for keeping its folks together and as a matter of justice.

Again two wrongs do not make a right. No matter how much a clever politician/leader negotiating it. The price extracted by threat was not a fair or sensible price. It gave no long term solution except deepen the rift.

Find me a Dalit society which thinks it is above the upper caste society. You talk from a position of complete ignorance. The complete mental subjugation of the SC community cannot be overemphasized.

I did not say that. Read my previous post again. You should know better than to use strawman with me.

Gurumurthy is right in that during the time of British most castes did not think themselves inferior to others. Most castes. Not all castes. Do you think the untouchable would have felt superior to the Brahmin? Gurumurthy did not mean untouchables felt superior to others when he made that statement.

No caste was untouchable, the out caste was untouchable. The Dalits were the untouchables, not other castes.

Every caste feeling superior to other in a more or less equal society would just be a societal idiosyncrasy but takes a malevolent form soon enough in a highly unequal society like ours. Gurumurthy's own advocacy is to get the caste leaders to give up their position of superiority.

This feeling of superiority is not sustainable so will die its natural death. There was no need to interfere unnecessarily. Gurumurthy's suggest was w.r.t caste response to dalits.

You are conveniently ignoring his solution to the problem. You can package caste oppression as a social response to limited opportunity but the devastation affected by it is real. That cannot be wished away. The building up of advantageous positions for the upper castes by exploitation of lower castes is a reality too. To continue with such without any attempt at correction would have been propagation of injustice.

I am not. I am talking about an "Indian solution" that is synchronised with its nature and ethos. Today the parsis are richer than others, do we now put extra taxes on Parsis to eliminate exploitation of others ? Today chrisitians in kerala hold twice as much land as low caste hindu, do we put extra taxes on them to prevent this "injustice" or propagation of injustice ?

Again, two wrongs do not make a right.

Just saying do not practice discrimination does not cut it. Nationalists leaders have a habit of crediting Gandhi with everything and I do not share their enthusiasm for Gandhi. Nor was Gandhi a consensual player by any means. If there was a dictator, he was one. No one follows Gandhi anyway and just merely sprouting goody goody words would not have done anything to change the society either. The reservations given to SC/ST were by no means a revenge on the Hindu society. You are looking at it very wrongly. It was not meant to be there for perpetuity either. It had time limit built into it.

Gandhi is a totally different discussion point. The last time we had a discussion the thread disappeared. No idea where it went.

Revenge though is a legitimate form of justice and was never not a part of Hindu society. LOL.

If you look at the top echelons of all political parties in India barring Dalit parties and BJP now, they are dominated by upper caste. Just look at CPM, Congress, AIADMK, it is all Brahmins on the top. So there is no basis for any revenge claim.

Congress is now dominated by christians and muslims. No clue about CPM or AIADMK, but either way they were not "born into this privilege' so what is the point ?

I would be the last person to advocate looking at the society as a communist. You cannot extend the argument of inequality to groups. That would be racist and chauvinistic. Individuals okay. Castes of their own are not any more meritorious than other castes.

Which is why we need not worry about implementing equality. Only worry about providing equal opportunity.

Limited time frame model failed not because it was wrong, but because the accompanying factor necessary for it were not present. Socialism killed any economic progress. So just legislating laws but not having the resources to implement them on ground means zilch. That is what happened with that model. You give reservations and then not build schools or colleges in enough number for any meaningful application of those reservations, then what is the point? If 60% of the society does not have electricity to even have a light bulb in their house then all the talks of having given reservations is bogus.

These are exactly what Communists says when asked why communism failed with it was such a great idea.

Point it, the final proof of the pudding is in the eating. You have provided reasons why reservation was a bad idea. Focue should have been on the things you mentioned rather than reservation and with equal opportunity the society would truly have become caste-less.

How can there be equal responsibility? You have a section of the society which is well off with huge lands and social status and families educated and you are asking the village boy from an impoverished part of society to compete with the well off society on what claims of equal opportunity? Does he have the money to take the bus to go to school? Does he have the shoes to wear? What about tuition and other supplementary that a boy from a rich society gets as compared to the poor village boy?

Equal responsibility means linking opportunity and responsibility. To ensure people understand that those with greater opportunity have greater responsibility. Look around you, do you see that ?
 
A consensus on killing jews does not make it any more right or a sensible solution. Consensus can be natural but can also be artificially created.

Okay. Now reservations for SC/ST is comparable to killing of Jews? All consensus is suspect now because you do not agree with them?

A lopsided action that rose from collective guilt ? If it was dharma then only individuals can be punished, not collective society for the mistakes of its leaders. Denying opportunity to others (upper caste this time using reservation) is not owning up a wrong, it is promoting more wrong to correct a historical wrong.

It was collective guilt because the society as a whole had participated in and reaped benefits of it. It was not just a few individuals who were practicing untouchability, the society was. It is a laugh to claim that upper castes have been denied opportunity when literally it was upper class who ruled India since Independence. When the bureaucracy is staffed by upper castes. Making Upper Castes untouchables and relegating them to the margins of the society would have been revenge and promoting wrong. Not giving reservations to SC/ST. The doctrine you are espousing here seem Christian and amoral.


That is the topic of this thread. European secularism. Indians borrowing western ideas that is in conflict with its real self.

No that is not the topic of this thread. Secularism was the topic of this thread, not reservations.

Agreed that two wrongs do not make a right

That sounds very much like the secularists argument, since they revised the history books to suit their political ideology, the nationalists should not follow the same. Different set of rules for different people as per the whims and fancies of upper castes?

Again two wrongs do not make a right. No matter how much a clever politician/leader negotiating it. The price extracted by threat was not a fair or sensible price. It gave no long term solution except deepen the rift.

It was right. There was no threat. Lower castes were free people exploited by upper castes. They had no obligation to stand by their oppressors.


I did not say that. Read my previous post again. You should know better than to use strawman with me.

There is no strawman. I have read your whole statement. You know very well I am particularly arguing about reservations for SC/ST and not about other castes. These were the untouchables I am speaking about. If you are arguing about reservations for OBCs, then we are in agreement.


No caste was untouchable, the out caste was untouchable. The Dalits were the untouchables, not other castes.

I am talking about Dalits. The scheduled castes are the Dalits and not shudras.


This feeling of superiority is not sustainable so will die its natural death. There was no need to interfere unnecessarily. Gurumurthy's suggest was w.r.t caste response to dalits

Nope. His suggestion was in respect to all castes though he did emphasis on untouchability. This feeling of superiority has been sustained for centuries now and it has only disappeared in urban centers while remaining intact in rural settings.


I am not. I am talking about an "Indian solution" that is synchronised with its nature and ethos. Today the parsis are richer than others, do we now put extra taxes on Parsis to eliminate exploitation of others ? Today chrisitians in kerala hold twice as much land as low caste hindu, do we put extra taxes on them to prevent this "injustice" or propagation of injustice ?
Again, two wrongs do not make a right.

Did the Parsis exploit others? Have the Parsis built their wealth on exploitation of Indians? Did the Kerala Christians exploit the Kerala Hindus? Then on what basis can you hold them equivalent to the caste exploiters of Hindu society?

Restitution is a legal and moral right. Hinduism does not promote forgive and forget or turn the other cheek philosophy. If it had done so Mahabharata war would not have happened.


Congress is now dominated by christians and muslims. No clue about CPM or AIADMK, but either way they were not "born into this privilege' so what is the point ?

Nope. Congress is still dominated by Brahmins. Who was Pranab Mukherjee? A Brahmin. Who was Arjun Singh, Natwar Singh, Manish Tiwari, Sheila Dikshit, Sitaram Yechury, Brida and Prakash Karat, Jayalalitha? All upper castes.

When all positions of power are under control of the upper castes, still you cry victimhood and not see the irony of it?

What do you mean they were not born into it? You mean the dynasty politics and cronyism is not a feature in Indian politics? Caste did not play a role in only Upper Castes concentrating all the power in their hands?


Which is why we need not worry about implementing equality. Only worry about providing equal opportunity.

Nope. You just want the upper castes to keep their position of privilege won through unfair means.


These are exactly what Communists says when asked why communism failed with it was such a great idea.
Point it, the final proof of the pudding is in the eating. You have provided reasons why reservation was a bad idea. Focue should have been on the things you mentioned rather than reservation and with equal opportunity the society would truly have become caste-less.

I never said focus should not have been on economics and stuff, but just by itself it is not enough just because Dalits do not have the social capital upper castes have.

Equal responsibility means linking opportunity and responsibility. To ensure people understand that those with greater opportunity have greater responsibility. Look around you, do you see that ?

Which is why it was the responsibility of the upper castes to make right the wrong they had done when they usurped the opportunities of the lower castes.
 
Okay. Now reservations for SC/ST is comparable to killing of Jews? All consensus is suspect now because you do not agree with them?

The point being consensus cannot be used as proof of something being right. I though that was obvious.

It was collective guilt because the society as a whole had participated in and reaped benefits of it. It was not just a few individuals who were practicing untouchability, the society was. It is a laugh to claim that upper castes have been denied opportunity when literally it was upper class who ruled India since Independence. When the bureaucracy is staffed by upper castes. Making Upper Castes untouchables and relegating them to the margins of the society would have been revenge and promoting wrong. Not giving reservations to SC/ST. The doctrine you are espousing here seem Christian and amoral.

The benefit you speak of is managing to keep India (Akhand bharat) at least 50% Hindus even after sustained attempts to destroy it. That part is conveniently ignored. You are grouping all "open category" into upper caste and say they inherited the govt which is true in large parts. But that was not by design. Dalit politics today seeks to extract revenge and promoting wrong. Its predecessors Dravidian politics did the same to the brahmins of TN. That was by design.

Reservation was a christian british strategic response, there was nothing dharmic about it. Dharma is always about duties and responsibilities and meritocracy, not special privileges or reservation. That is the sprit of India.

No that is not the topic of this thread. Secularism was the topic of this thread, not reservations.

Trends in secularims is religious reservation, in any case the point was about implementing british policy by disguising it as Indian just because Ambedkar negotiated it.

It was right. There was no threat. Lower castes were free people exploited by upper castes. They had no obligation to stand by their oppressors.

What do you mean there was no threat ? Ambedkar endorsed the Ramsay MacDonalds plan for reservation in electoral seats which was designed to fracture Indian polity further. (which ironically is now implemented in India as an evolution of caste politics) Ambedkar then used the Poona pact to then negotiate education & job reservation instead of seat reservation. Today they have both. Is that the social justice you were seeking ?

There is no strawman. I have read your whole statement. You know very well I am particularly arguing about reservations for SC/ST and not about other castes. These were the untouchables I am speaking about. If you are arguing about reservations for OBCs, then we are in agreement.

Even for the SC/ST, the way forward was to reintegrate them back into Indian society by social reforms which would have ensured faster action by inspiring social awareness and increasing social conscience. Instead "leaders" implemented the british strategy to divide India and today we are where we are.

Nope. His suggestion was in respect to all castes though he did emphasis on untouchability. This feeling of superiority has been sustained for centuries now and it has only disappeared in urban centers while remaining intact in rural settings.

Every caste feels superior and still respects other castes. Caste wars are rare. They learned to live with each other centuries ago.

Did the Parsis exploit others? Have the Parsis built their wealth on exploitation of Indians? Did the Kerala Christians exploit the Kerala Hindus? Then on what basis can you hold them equivalent to the caste exploiters of Hindu society?

Restitution is a legal and moral right. Hinduism does not promote forgive and forget or turn the other cheek philosophy. If it had done so Mahabharata war would not have happened.

Of course the Parsis practices discrimination. From marriages, to jobs, to social network. There is active discrimination (openly done) and then there is passive discrimination (not talked about ). Kerala Hindus get poorer grades than their christian counterparts in kerla, nor do they get jobs as easily, so is that exploitation ?

BTW Yudhisthir DID FORGIVE Duryodhan. Only he could not accept injustice to his brothers. The war was for Dharma, not for revenge.

Nope. Congress is still dominated by Brahmins. Who was Pranab Mukherjee? A Brahmin. Who was Arjun Singh, Natwar Singh, Manish Tiwari, Sheila Dikshit, Sitaram Yechury, Brida and Prakash Karat, Jayalalitha? All upper castes.

Based on population ratio, the "minorities" still dominate congress.

When all positions of power are under control of the upper castes, still you cry victimhood and not see the irony of it?

Not by design, so how is it ironic ? in any case who is crying victimhood ?

What do you mean they were not born into it? You mean the dynasty politics and cronyism is not a feature in Indian politics? Caste did not play a role in only Upper Castes concentrating all the power in their hands?

That is speculation, could be true, but could just be just as untrue. So can't really comment on this with any authority.

Nope. You just want the upper castes to keep their position of privilege won through unfair means.

What do you mean "You" ? don't make it personal.

What position of privilege ? free education ? jobs for everybody ? free land ? free houses ? multiple brides ? what exactly are the privileges ?

I never said focus should not have been on economics and stuff, but just by itself it is not enough just because Dalits do not have the social capital upper castes have.

This is the only point I agree with, but like the nadar caste (Gurumurty eg.), social capital can be built by hard work and effort in a free system. Not by unfair means, which releases negative energy into the society. (caste politics)

Which is why it was the responsibility of the upper castes to make right the wrong they had done when they usurped the opportunities of the lower castes.

That is just Rhetorics. The upper caste was just as much responsible for this mostly free and fair constitution. There is no burden of history that the upper caste needs to carry any more just to satisfy others feelings of vindictiveness and victory.
 
The point being consensus cannot be used as proof of something being right. I though that was obvious.

It was not a consensus of secular leaders, but of Hindu leaders. That should be understood as the legitimate step taken by the Hindu community for the Hindu community. To speculate it was under threat or not advisable just because it does not suit your bias is wrong.


The benefit you speak of is managing to keep India (Akhand bharat) at least 50% Hindus even after sustained attempts to destroy it. That part is conveniently ignored. You are grouping all "open category" into upper caste and say they inherited the govt which is true in large parts. But that was not by design. Dalit politics today seeks to extract revenge and promoting wrong. Its predecessors Dravidian politics did the same to the brahmins of TN. That was by design.

They were not the only ones who fought. The lower castes too were equally involved in saving Dharma. In fact a lot of people who converted were the upper castes to save their property from taxes or other benefits. In Bengal it was the lower castes who converted whereas in Punjab and other places it was the upper castes. Dalit politics has nothing to do with revenge. Dravidian politics only targeted Brahmins and not the other upper castes. It had its roots in AIT and nothing to do with Dalits.

Reservation was a christian british strategic response, there was nothing dharmic about it. Dharma is always about duties and responsibilities and meritocracy, not special privileges or reservation. That is the sprit of India.

What Dharma was followed when people were treated worse than animals for being born in a certain family? Reservation has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a modern day tool to make right historic wrongs. Dharma itself has been distorted when you go into birth based caste system. Do away with that and only then talk about meritocracy.


Trends in secularims is religious reservation, in any case the point was about implementing british policy by disguising it as Indian just because Ambedkar negotiated it.

The Indian Democracy is a British concept, so is the parliament, so is the bureaucracy, and so the law and order system. You will have to rejig India completely to eliminate all trace of British inspired institutions.

What do you mean there was no threat ? Ambedkar endorsed the Ramsay MacDonalds plan for reservation in electoral seats which was designed to fracture Indian polity further. (which ironically is now implemented in India as an evolution of caste politics) Ambedkar then used the Poona pact to then negotiate education & job reservation instead of seat reservation. Today they have both. Is that the social justice you were seeking ?

What seat reservation is there for SC/ST? It is just job and education. Ambedkar endorsed the plans being put forward by the govt of that time. He was within his right as representative of the community to endorse it or reject it. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.

Even for the SC/ST, the way forward was to reintegrate them back into Indian society by social reforms which would have ensured faster action by inspiring social awareness and increasing social conscience. Instead "leaders" implemented the british strategy to divide India and today we are where we are.

If in 2014, people still talk about castes, you are talking about 70 years back. Yes there should have been creation of social conscience, but do not put the blame on the Dalits for this lack of social conscience on the part of the society.

Every caste feels superior and still respects other castes. Caste wars are rare. They learned to live with each other centuries ago.

No they do not. No one said there were caste wars. Castes differentiation is different and superiority/inferiority is different. You can maintain your traditions, customs, unique identities, etc. ect, without thinking you are superior to others with distinctive features not mapping your own.


Of course the Parsis practices discrimination. From marriages, to jobs, to social network. There is active discrimination (openly done) and then there is passive discrimination (not talked about ). Kerala Hindus get poorer grades than their christian counterparts in kerla, nor do they get jobs as easily, so is that exploitation ?
BTW Yudhisthir DID FORGIVE Duryodhan. Only he could not accept injustice to his brothers. The war was for Dharma, not for revenge.

This is plain dishonesty. Their discrimination is only as much as being protective of maintaining their small numbers and distinct traditions which would be lost on assimilation. They were not exploitative. I am not arguing about upper caste marrying within upper caste as discrimination. I am talking about the apartheid practiced in job discrimination and denial of shared social space. You cannot equate those two.

Kerala Hindus have no initiative to correct any injustice if there is and that is on to them. Why should others emulate their dumbness. Plus it is not Christians who are exploitative of them or denying them jobs.

Nope. Draupadi never forgave Duryodhana. Yudhisthir is no ones role model and neither the main hero of Mahabharata. He is one of those anomalies that no one wishes to emulate. Dharma is doing the right. If revenge is doing the right on those occasions, then that is Dharma. Ashawathama being cursed for eternity by Krishna is revenge.

Based on population ratio, the "minorities" still dominate congress.

No they do not. What matters if foot soldiers or polling booth workers belong to Congress, the power is concentrated with the upper caste.

Not by design, so how is it ironic ? in any case who is crying victimhood ?

It is by design. Congress and CPM work on principles of cronyism. That is how only those in their close circle get to those positions. You are crying victimization of UC.

That is speculation, could be true, but could just be just as untrue. So can't really comment on this with any authority.
It is not speculation. It is what it is.


What do you mean "You" ? don't make it personal.
What position of privilege ? free education ? jobs for everybody ? free land ? free houses ? multiple brides ? what exactly are the privileges ?

It is you who is arguing that there should be no restitution. That Brahmins, Kshatriyas, etc etc should continue to hold on their wealth they earned through exploitation of lower castes.

What position of privilege? How about social status? How about land holdings? How about greater access to education and jobs because of their social status and wealth? Just check out the land holding pattern of all communities. Dalits are the people with the least amount of land, education, jobs, etc. etc. Do you think that happened spontaneously?


This is the only point I agree with, but like the nadar caste (Gurumurty eg.), social capital can be built by hard work and effort in a free system. Not by unfair means, which releases negative energy into the society. (caste politics)

Nadars were also land holders. Dalits as mentioned by Gurumurthy were the poorest among the 6 castes studied and only 1/3rd of them were land holders. Their social capital was also weakest. There was no free system. Nadars had not the same disabilities like the Dalits did. Caste politics was again devised and played upon by the upper castes.


That is just Rhetorics. The upper caste was just as much responsible for this mostly free and fair constitution. There is no burden of history that the upper caste needs to carry any more just to satisfy others feelings of vindictiveness and victory.

LOL. Yes the upper caste did contribute to creating this constitution just like the lower castes did. There is a burden of history and the upper castes are in no position to dictate anymore.
 
It was not a consensus of secular leaders, but of Hindu leaders. That should be understood as the legitimate step taken by the Hindu community for the Hindu community. To speculate it was under threat or not advisable just because it does not suit your bias is wrong.

It was a legitimate step taken by the Hindu community for the Hindu community, just not the right step. That is the whole point. I have not demonstrated any bias, but you have based on certain assumptions.

They were not the only ones who fought. The lower castes too were equally involved in saving Dharma. In fact a lot of people who converted were the upper castes to save their property from taxes or other benefits. In Bengal it was the lower castes who converted whereas in Punjab and other places it was the upper castes. Dalit politics has nothing to do with revenge. Dravidian politics only targeted Brahmins and not the other upper castes. It had its roots in AIT and nothing to do with Dalits.

No doubt. The point being fear of social rejection acted as a stronger deterrent than fear of islamic invaders and their coercive methods. In pakistan and Bangladesh most of the converts were Buddhists, not hindus. The lack of social pressures in buddhism was the weakness.

Anti-Brahminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Dharma was followed when people were treated worse than animals for being born in a certain family? Reservation has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a modern day tool to make right historic wrongs. Dharma itself has been distorted when you go into birth based caste system. Do away with that and only then talk about meritocracy.

You brought in Christian morality, I just replied in the same tone. But reservation does have its roots in British strategic response in dividing Indian polity. That is what gave rise to Muslim League too.

BTW, why are you putting the onus of doing way with distortion of caste or distortion of dharma on me ? or its it on the 'upper caste' ? its on every hindu.

The Indian Democracy is a British concept, so is the parliament, so is the bureaucracy, and so the law and order system. You will have to rejig India completely to eliminate all trace of British inspired institutions.

We inherited our political structure, but our poor attempts at social engineering was not inherited and nor was it part of our ethose. Democracy and Meritocracy was. There is no comparing the two.

What seat reservation is there for SC/ST? It is just job and education. Ambedkar endorsed the plans being put forward by the govt of that time. He was within his right as representative of the community to endorse it or reject it. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.

Ambedkar played along with the British, which is excatly what Muslim League did too. Reservation for Muslims and lower castes. If Ambedkar was right, so was Jinnah and Churchill and Simon commission.

Currently in the Lok Sabha 79 seats are reserved fro SC and 41 seats for ST :cheesy: Funny thing is that the poona pact between Ambedkar and Gandhi was exactly against this very thing and reservation in education and job was the price Ambedkar asked for, that too 15% for 15 years.

I am sure even Ambedkar will be shocked at the current monstrosity that caste politics has given birth to.

If in 2014, people still talk about castes, you are talking about 70 years back. Yes there should have been creation of social conscience, but do not put the blame on the Dalits for this lack of social conscience on the part of the society.

At this rate, people will continue to talk about caste even in 2040. I have not blamed the dalits so stop playing the victim. I am neither the spokesperson for 'upper cast' nor you for 'dalits'. Reality is that the long term strategy of creating social conscience was abandoned for short term gain of reservation as demanded by dalit leaders. So they must share the blame. There is no escaping that. (same way UC get blamed for exploiting)

No they do not. No one said there were caste wars. Castes differentiation is different and superiority/inferiority is different. You can maintain your traditions, customs, unique identities, etc. ect, without thinking you are superior to others with distinctive features not mapping your own.

Feeling of superiority is a very natural thing. Ask the koreans. It does not make anyone better or less for it.

This is plain dishonesty. Their discrimination is only as much as being protective of maintaining their small numbers and distinct traditions which would be lost on assimilation. They were not exploitative. I am not arguing about upper caste marrying within upper caste as discrimination. I am talking about the apartheid practiced in job discrimination and denial of shared social space. You cannot equate those two.

Kerala Hindus have no initiative to correct any injustice if there is and that is on to them. Why should others emulate their dumbness. Plus it is not Christians who are exploitative of them or denying them jobs.

Its not dishonesty. Meritocracy always takes a back seat to caste/religious/race/linguistic affiliations in the Indian real world.. Its as simple as that. Even in jobs. What is the ratio of christian teachers and staff in christian owned institutions in kerala or even outside kerala ? it is always disproportionate.

Nope. Draupadi never forgave Duryodhana. Yudhisthir is no ones role model and neither the main hero of Mahabharata. He is one of those anomalies that no one wishes to emulate. Dharma is doing the right. If revenge is doing the right on those occasions, then that is Dharma. Ashawathama being cursed for eternity by Krishna is revenge.

Draupadi is no role model either :P .. but Yudhistir was for his adherence to dharma. (again a new discussion) Ashawathama got punished for his crimes. Immortality was his punishment. It was not revenge.

In Hinduism there is No concept of Revenge as part of doing the right thing. That is an anglo saxon concept of justice.

It is you who is arguing that there should be no restitution. That Brahmins, Kshatriyas, etc etc should continue to hold on their wealth they earned through exploitation of lower castes.

Unless you can prove that the earnings was via exploitation, it is just Rhetorics.

What position of privilege? How about social status? How about land holdings? How about greater access to education and jobs because of their social status and wealth? Just check out the land holding pattern of all communities. Dalits are the people with the least amount of land, education, jobs, etc. etc. Do you think that happened spontaneously?

Social status does not put food on the table, nor can it be objectively measured with relation to caste. All land holdings in modern India is due to own hard work and efforts and not due to any caste privileges.

In fact in Mumbai, buildings constructed on collectors land needs to have certain apartments reserved for SC/ST :cheesy: Since others can't buy it, they get it for lower price. (though in recent times it not practised that strictly, but can be challanged in court of law)

I am not discounting the value of social capital, only that certain caste had the advantage of that capital. Certain dalits did too, like the Mahar community.

Nadars were also land holders. Dalits as mentioned by Gurumurthy were the poorest among the 6 castes studied and only 1/3rd of them were land holders. Their social capital was also weakest. There was no free system. Nadars had not the same disabilities like the Dalits did. Caste politics was again devised and played upon by the upper castes.

No idea so cant comment. But can't take your statement at face value either.

LOL. Yes the upper caste did contribute to creating this constitution just like the lower castes did. There is a burden of history and the upper castes are in no position to dictate anymore.

Why LOL ? Do the muslims or anglo Indians too carry the burden of history too ? That is just silly. In the last 800 years, I doubt too many upper caste were in any position to dictate their own history and fate, much less fate of lower castes.
 
Last edited:
It was a legitimate step taken by the Hindu community for the Hindu community, just not the right step. That is the whole point. I have not demonstrated any bias, but you have based on certain assumptions.

Considering the Western model of governance we adopted it was going to be Western model of restitution that would be adopted.


You brought in Christian morality, I just replied in the same tone. But reservation does have its roots in British strategic response in dividing Indian polity. That is what gave rise to Muslim League too.

Your arguments sounded so much like the seculars. What is sauce for the goose should be for gander too.

BTW, why are you putting the onus of doing way with distortion of caste or distortion of dharma on me ? or its it on the 'upper caste' ? its on every hindu.

Agree, it is on every Hindu.

Ambedkar played along with the British, which is excatly what Muslim League did too. Reservation for Muslims and lower castes. If Ambedkar was right, so was Jinnah and Churchill and Simon commission.
Currently in the Lok Sabha 79 seats are reserved fro SC and 41 seats for ST Funny thing is that the poona pact between Ambedkar and Gandhi was exactly against this very thing and reservation in education and job was the price Ambedkar asked for, that too 15% for 15 years.
I am sure even Ambedkar will be shocked at the current monstrosity that caste politics has given birth to.

Ambedkar played along with British. He had a legitimate reason and a moral one, upliftment of his society which was the wretched of the earth, not on the basis of hubris or for personal glorification, unlike Jinnah or Nehru or Chruchill.

Currently in the Lok Sabha 79 seats are reserved fro SC and 41 seats for ST Funny thing is that the poona pact between Ambedkar and Gandhi was exactly against this very thing and reservation in education and job was the price Ambedkar asked for, that too 15% for 15 years.
I am sure even Ambedkar will be shocked at the current monstrosity that caste politics has given birth to.

Not going to defend it but then the entire Indian political system was rotten to the bone.

At this rate, people will continue to talk about caste even in 2040. I have not blamed the dalits so stop playing the victim. I am neither the spokesperson for 'upper cast' nor you for 'dalits'. Reality is that the long term strategy of creating social conscience was abandoned for short term gain of reservation as demanded by dalit leaders. So they must share the blame. There is no escaping that. (same way UC get blamed for exploiting)

There was never any project for creating social conscience. So there was no abandoning of it. The elite in India had disdain for Indian thoughts and system. Now you are turning logic on its head. Blaming the victim for demanding justice. You are talking of people who were not getting meal a day, leave alone 2. Abandoning conscience for short term gains? If people recoil with horror at poverty levels in today's India, just imagine how worse off they were 7 decades ago. Not done. Then you also claim to have no bias?


Feeling of superiority is a very natural thing. Ask the koreans. It does not make anyone better or less for it.

It is not. At least if you are talking of Dharma. Humility was our system. You follow Koreans, I will follow ancient Indians.


Its not dishonesty. Meritocracy always takes a back seat to caste/religious/race/linguistic affiliations in the Indian real world.. Its as simple as that. Even in jobs. What is the ratio of christian teachers and staff in christian owned institutions in kerala or even outside kerala ? it is always disproportionate.

It is dishonesty. It is Christian owned institutions and they have right to employ their own. The govt gives them aid and it is the govt's fault that it has violated the secular principles of the constitution. You cannot blame the Christians for it. I expect people administering Hindu temples to be Hindus. Would that be discrimination too according to you?


Draupadi is no role model either .. but Yudhistir was for his adherence to dharma. (again a new discussion) Ashawathama got punished for his crimes. Immortality was his punishment. It was not revenge.
In Hinduism there is No concept of Revenge as part of doing the right thing. That is an anglo saxon concept of justice.

Draupadi though was central to Mahabharat, Yudhistir was not. Ashwathama was punished to be a disease ridden man for eternity. If that does not sound revenge to you but punishment, then so be it. Upper castes deserve a lot of punishment too by that measure.


Unless you can prove that the earnings was via exploitation, it is just Rhetorics.

It is not rhetoric. Exploitation, apartheid, exclusion was part of our society. It is a given.

Social status does not put food on the table, nor can it be objectively measured with relation to caste. All land holdings in modern India is due to own hard work and efforts and not due to any caste privileges.

Social status opens doors to places which provides food on the table. It is verifiable and you can pick on any statistics to see upper castes are far ahead in all social indices than SC/STs. Now unless you are subscribing to the theory of untermensch where you believe lower castes are genetically inferior people who of their own doing are at the bottom of the pyramid, I do not know how you can twist this tale. All land holdings in modern India is not due to own hard work. Much of it is ancestral wealth going back generations when exploitation was rampant. A lot of it is from land reforms and redistribution.

In fact in Mumbai, buildings constructed on collectors land needs to have certain apartments reserved for SC/ST Since others can't buy it, they get it for lower price. (though in recent times it not practised that strictly, but can be challanged in court of law)

Well I think it was necessary because in general people felt they were too good to live with lower castes. Until those prejudices live on, I have no issue with this.

I am not discounting the value of social capital, only that certain caste had the advantage of that capital. Certain dalits did too, like the Mahar community.

That could be a ratio of something like 200:1.

Why LOL ? Do the muslims or anglo Indians too carry the burden of history too ? That is just silly. In the last 800 years, I doubt too many upper caste were in any position to dictate their own history and fate, much less fate of lower castes.

Yes they do which is why Muslims are deemed not fit to get reservations. So too the Anglo Indians though they did get 2 seats reserved in LS for them. Whole of India was never ruled by Muslims. There were many Hindu kingdoms. So upper castes did have a say. Then take in the 200 years of Brit rule where the Brits left the society undisturbed and continuing with its prejudices.
 
Honestly, we didn't need the European version of secularism, which was actually a stop-gap measure to modernize and civilize Europeans, since they had violent monotheistic tendencies due to their religious influence.

The very fact that communities like Parsis, Jews and even Tibetans could seek refuge in India for centuries long before secularism came and be safe to practise what they did is evidence that Dharmic cultures are much more positive and tolerant.
 
Ignore the fool.
You seems to have zero knowledge about Kerala or Malayalis,let alone educational sector in Kerala...
yes,Majority of staffs in Christian institutions are Christians,agreed..but its very same in the case of Nair,Eezhavas,Muslims owned institutions..They all have their own caste,religious peoples in majority...So its not fair to point against Christians alone..If it gives you mental orgasm .continue then..
No Keralitie Hindus are denying jobs or opportunities just because they are Hindu..I don't know from where did you got this information??..may be from some cheap Shiva sena newspapers or blogs..who knows??
 
Considering the Western model of governance we adopted it was going to be Western model of restitution that would be adopted.

Din't have to be. The governance model were difficult to change considering political freedom was new, Social development happens independent of political though and that did not have to imitate anybody, if only social leaders were more grounded in Indian culture and in their understanding of India.

Ambedkar played along with British. He had a legitimate reason and a moral one, upliftment of his society which was the wretched of the earth, not on the basis of hubris or for personal glorification, unlike Jinnah or Nehru or Chruchill.

A legitimate reason cannot condone an illegitimate path unless there were no alternatives available and if there was stiff opposition. Tehre was wide acceptance on reforms and there were alternatives which Gandhi offered.. Jinnah or Churchill too chose to serve their own narrow constituency and are heroes among their people too.

Ambedkar complaint against gandhi was he moved too slow. He din't want evolution, he wanted a Revolution and with that comes all associated ills.

There was never any project for creating social conscience. So there was no abandoning of it. The elite in India had disdain for Indian thoughts and system. Now you are turning logic on its head. Blaming the victim for demanding justice. You are talking of people who were not getting meal a day, leave alone 2. Abandoning conscience for short term gains? If people recoil with horror at poverty levels in today's India, just imagine how worse off they were 7 decades ago. Not done. Then you also claim to have no bias?

There were multiple organizations which was involved in creating this social conscience. Bhakti movement in maharashtra started on this very premise. Varkari sampraday was all inclusive. Ravidas started similar effort in Punjab. Othere leaders were Jyothiba Phule, Shashi Bandopadhyay, VR Shinde, In Kerala there was Sri. Narayana Guru, in Bengal there was Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj, all working for the same purpose.

Gandhiji himself started Harijan Sevak sangh. Most of them were hindu elites.

Its only Mayawati and her kind who thinks Dalit empowerment started with Ambedkar and ends with her.

Poverty gets eliminated by establishing equal opportunities, like they did in rest of the world where there was caste. Not by institutionalizing caste as we have done.

It is dishonesty. It is Christian owned institutions and they have right to employ their own. The govt gives them aid and it is the govt's fault that it has violated the secular principles of the constitution. You cannot blame the Christians for it. I expect people administering Hindu temples to be Hindus. Would that be discrimination too according to you?

How can you compare a Christian school to a hindu temple ? Hindu temple is to promote Hindusim. A School is to provide EQUAL oppertunity for ALL. If such an institution practices discrimination, then what is the message ? That is twisted logic.

Draupadi though was central to Mahabharat, Yudhistir was not. Ashwathama was punished to be a disease ridden man for eternity. If that does not sound revenge to you but punishment, then so be it. Upper castes deserve a lot of punishment too by that measure.

You mean the children and grand children and great grand children of upper caste deserve punishment :coffee:

It is not rhetoric. Exploitation, apartheid, exclusion was part of our society. It is a given.

Yes, upper caste suffered it too under British and Mughal rule.

Social status opens doors to places which provides food on the table. It is verifiable and you can pick on any statistics to see upper castes are far ahead in all social indices than SC/STs. Now unless you are subscribing to the theory of untermensch where you believe lower castes are genetically inferior people who of their own doing are at the bottom of the pyramid, I do not know how you can twist this tale. All land holdings in modern India is not due to own hard work. Much of it is ancestral wealth going back generations when exploitation was rampant. A lot of it is from land reforms and redistribution.

How many people have ancestral land or wealth going back generations ? :cheesy: Land reforms was undertaken in most parts of India. Not even 0.1% of people today have anything remotely resembling ancestral wealth.

Yes many have encashed social capital. The way forward was to evolve society so that everybody had that social capital.

Well I think it was necessary because in general people felt they were too good to live with lower castes. Until those prejudices live on, I have no issue with this.

Every caste in India kept to themselves and considered themselves superior and others inferior. But yes, let us talk about equal opportunity.

Yes they do which is why Muslims are deemed not fit to get reservations. So too the Anglo Indians though they did get 2 seats reserved in LS for them. Whole of India was never ruled by Muslims. There were many Hindu kingdoms. So upper castes did have a say. Then take in the 200 years of Brit rule where the Brits left the society undisturbed and continuing with its prejudices.

Yes, various castes did have their say with the exceptions of dalits. But during british rule even Dalits had their say. IT is absurd to say the bits left the society undisturbed :woot: ............ they disturbed it more than the muslims every could.

You seems to have zero knowledge about Kerala or Malayalis,let alone educational sector in Kerala...
yes,Majority of staffs in Christian institutions are Christians,agreed..but its very same in the case of Nair,Eezhavas,Muslims owned institutions..They all have their own caste,religious peoples in majority...So its not fair to point against Christians alone..If it gives you mental orgasm .continue then..
No Keralitie Hindus are denying jobs or opportunities just because they are Hindu..I don't know from where did you got this information??..may be from some cheap Shiva sena newspapers or blogs..who knows??

So clearly the reason why the Hindu community is getting comparatively poorer in kerala is due to their own low iq :coffee:

Go fight your crusades somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
You don't know NOTHING about Kerala...
yes,There are more poorer among Kerala Hindus than Christians..agreed..
1.Hindus forms around 55% of Kerala population whereas Christians are only 20%....
2.Not all Christian groups are richer...Only the forward(as per government) Syrian Christian community..They form around 60-70% of TOTAL CHRISTIAN population of Kerala state.other groups like Latin,Dalit,anglo Indian groups are just poorer as other backward Hindu sections...Whereas MORE THAN HALF of Kerala Hindus are from economically backward sections..

@SanjeevaniButi
 
India as a dharmic society and the rule of law | India News Analysis Opinions on Niti Central

The way forward is not about going back to some hypothetical golden age or denying that we have real problems to solve today. But our problems appear unsolvable because we have failed to understand ourselves in our own language, on our own terms.

Some years ago I was out on a date with an American woman and she asked me why I came to the US. “For cultural anthropology of the natives,” I said. She started laughing but I was only half-joking. My reason to go to the US was to study American society. This was a country that dominated the world both economically and culturally in recent times. Much there was to learn, as Yoda would have said. It’s nice they gave me a scholarship.

So I loved and lived America. I participated in the American dream. Live-in relationship, shotgun Vegas wedding. Home in the suburbs with 2.5 children (apparently that’s the average) and American-style divorce. (Half of American marriages end in divorce) I volunteered for their folk festivals, skied, kayaked, became part of a conga-playing band, joined an esoteric Christian group, and ate steak. I was asked one time in my Christian group when I stopped being Hindu. I was surprised by the question. I told them I never did. I was there to learn.

One time, when working as a manager in a large software company, I was faced with an unconventional challenge. One of my employees, an engineer I will call Fred, stabbed another employee. Fred was a bright guy, a UC Berkeley grad, though quite introverted and shy. He had finally managed to get a girlfriend. He, his best friend John, and the girlfriend Sally would regularly hang out together. One day he went home a little early and found John and Sally in flagrante delicto. Fred lost it, at having been so betrayed, got a kitchen knife and stabbed John. Luckily it was a flesh wound, John was not hurt much, but Fred was in a pickle.

My manager Greg called me. I was told that Fred had to be fired because John had registered a complaint against him. Yes, of course, I thought. There is no law against sleeping with your best friend’s girlfriend and against causing the grievous hurt of betrayal. Fred could have killed himself and that would still not implicate John. But there is a law against Fred getting angry and stabbing John. I defended Fred but was overruled. Fred was fired.

What is legal and what is moral is different. In American society, the two are often conflated. There is a reason for this. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, (the Christian) God is the lawgiver. God gave the law to his people in His Book. Though this has been secularized, and the Book has been turned into the Constitution, this relationship with law still remains. Americans are law-abiding. They take the law very seriously. Law-breakers are criminal and evil.

Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Fear of the Lord has now become fear of the law. Though this is not apparent in a superficial look, America is virtually a police state. It has the highest incarceration rate in the world. While the US is only 5 per cent of the world’s population it has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Over 2 million Americans are in jail. Felons are dis-enfranchised even after their sentence is over. They can no longer vote, so lose the basic right of citizenship. The consequences of breaking the law are huge.

By contrast, India has the lowest rates of incarceration in the world (apart from few very small countries of population under 10 million). It also has one of the lowest numbers of police per capita. The police that is there is not very effective. It comes from a colonial setup that works on the behest of the powerful and treats ordinary citizens as lower life forms. India’s judicial system is also notoriously slow and inefficient. Cases drag on for years. Relatively speaking, it is a lawless land.

But, here lies the rub. Even with an incarceration rate that is nearly 20 times that of India, per capita police more than twice that of India, and an efficient judicial system, the US murder rate is higher than India’s. Homicides are usually not dramatically under-reported, as rapes or other crimes with social stigma, so are a good measure of crime. Why is it that India, with very little law enforcement, has a lower crime rate than the US with its formidable law enforcement system?

The short answer is that India is a society that does not work on the basis of law. We have no lawgiver in the sky. Indian society operates on dharma, on conscience. I am not making the case here, at least yet, that one is better than another. The American system is highly organised and well-run. It works well for many of its citizens. I am saying it is different from how India works.

How does the difference between orderliness due to fear of law and due to dharma show up in real life? Western society operates very well as long as the external organising systems are in place. It is when that external system breaks down that the problems arise. Society goes into lawlessness. The book ‘Lord of the Flies’ tells the story of stranded English schoolboys who descend into barbarity, when removed from law. Man is a sinner. In the absence of the patriarchal Government (literally from the Father, in heaven), all bets are off. Civilisation is a thin veneer.

To see this in practice, let us compare with Japan, another dharma-ordered society. When hurricane Katrina happened in New Orleans in US in 2005, the city quickly descended into chaos. Looting remained “rampant and out of control” even a year after the hurricane. By contrast, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, there was a marked absence of looting and society remained cooperative and orderly. This orderliness and mutual support was also seen in the response of village communities in India after the 2004 Tsunami.

Social theories from a Christian law-based society cannot easily be transposed to a dharma-based society. They yield nonsensical results. Unfortunately the bulk of social theory within India uses Western derived theories. Which is why Indian social problems appear permanently incorrigible and our social scientists ineffectual.

So how can we apply this understanding to societal problems like rape? Firstly, once we understand that Indian society is not law-based, promulgating more laws will generally not solve anything. Nor will increasing the number of policeman or blaming culture or patriarchy, another term we have recently copied from Western scholarship. The Pope, the same root as ‘father’ is the ultimate patriarch. Christianity is rooted in patriarchy, including the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (As erstwhile-Catholic Jeffrey Armstrong says humorously, they killed their mother so only the ghost is left). Eve, created as an appendage of Adam, is the cause of original sin. No wonder their feminists were up against the patriarchy.

This does not mean that men are not chauvinists in India or that women are not discriminated against in India. Even while we have celebrated Mother Divine we have treated women badly. There are historic reasons for this (Veena Oldenburg’s Dowry Murder is a great start to understand how the status of women in India decreased during British Times.) That historical study is useful in that it can help us craft better solutions to problems, not as an excuse for doing nothing. But when we DO something we must come up with and user our own models for understanding our society and how it works.

Some Western studies show, for instance, that pornography does not lead to increased sexual crimes. This may be true for a law-governed society where crime is largely managed by fear of law. However that may or may not hold for dharma society. We need to study it. In our own models sanskara and vichara are both very important. As we think, so we do. The development and training of good habits of the mind, sanskara, help in the cultivation of good conduct, vyavhara.

This is not about superficial ideas whether women should be ‘allowed’ to wear mini-skirts or Western clothes or not (allowed by whom?). They should be able to wear what they wish. We do not want to turn to burkha solutions. In fact, traditional Indian society was far freer with the human body and with sexuality. Heck, the sari with the waist showing is still more revealing than a T-shirt over jeans and, and many Indian men would happily attest, far more sexy. The Indian solution was neither to put women into burkhas or put ‘the fear of god’ into men but to culture the mind, to make it samskrit, so it could be disciplined. When the mind is disciplined, it does not need to put others into burkhas. That is the path to freedom, for ourselves, and for others. Yoga Chitta Vritti Nirodah is the first line of the yoga sutras. Yoga is (self) control over the tendencies of the mind.

The highest forms of our civilisation were aimed at taking us to this higher mind. It was true of our dance, our music, our art, and our architecture. It was true of our food and our systems of medicine. It was true of our entertainment, of our kirtans, bhajans and epics. This had space for both artha, pursuit of material well-being and kama, the pursuit of aesthetic pleasure, sensuous and sexy, rich and poetic. It worked when done in accordance with dharma and never completely losing sight of the aim of moksha, or true freedom.

But when kama becomes a coarse and gross titillation; when it is manipulated in advertising towards the pursuit of artha, the mind is not moved towards the higher. We import a low-grade consumerism where sultry models sell cheap gadgets and expensive cars. We make it into some kind of ‘advanced’ high culture, while it is really the primitive culture of an unrefined mind. **** is available at the click of a button but the cultivation of dharma has become an “unsecular” afterthought. At the same time we keep Victorian laws and are stuck to a Victorian morality that we call our traditions. We look up to a civilisation deeply conflicted about sin and sex and kept intact by the police force of law, without taking the time to study if it is an example worth emulating. Our media has turned into trash rags. Just pick up a recent issue of Times of India as an example. Here is a recent screenshot from Rediff, the top Indian news site.

untitled-118.jpg


“Sports” is about “Brazilian Prostitutes”, ironic when our Victorian morality makes prostitution illegal in India. And since when did it become sport? “Getting ahead” is about “Yummy Mummies”, sexualizing mothers. Then we have a photo of barely clad beach girl to “celebrate summer.”

The point is not the amount of flesh at display. Our temple dancers and sculptures had fewer coverings and greater voluptuousness. Remember, these figures were on and around our temples. The point is that we have lost the cultivation of the mind that made this openness possible in our culture.

These popular images—on billboards, in the media, in our item numbers, are no temple dance. They are simply the cheap thrills of a primitive mind. They do not help cultivate the mind but leave it agitated. Women are agitated with the unobtainable body image, all the better to sell artificial beauty aids to and men with the airbrushed unobtainable female. So instead of cultivating the mind, we have adopted cheap titillation of the mind with low quality impressions and think this is part of being “developed” and “advanced.”

Then we wonder why rapes are increasing. We are a society based on dharma, not law. Dharma rakshati rakshitaha. We repeat aped Western social science wisdom that rape has nothing to do with sex, but we have never scientifically verified this independently in an Indian setting. To top the hypocrisy, on the same few square inches of the Rediff website we have the pontification of the social scientist on how “women are being used to create ideas of Indian identity.” We do not see our contradictions.

The way forward is not about going back to some hypothetical golden age or denying that we have real problems to solve today. But our problems appear unsolvable because we have failed to understand ourselves in our own language, on our own terms. We can learn from the West. We can emulate aspects of their well-functioning systems of local government and law and marry it with dharma society to create a better world. Japan has dharma and well-functioning law, resulting in one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. But even to learn from others we must study them on our own terms. But how can we do that when our entire academic social disciplines exist on borrowed terms and borrowed theories?

We need to move forward using our own highest knowledge and combining it with the knowledge we choose to use from others. The first step of this research is in refining the chitta, our own mind, through the practices of sadhana and satsang. Without these our own tradition is incomprehensible to us, no matter how many texts we read. My own personal journey combined this sadhana with a study of the West since the shiny appearance of the success of Western civilisation had left us blinded. I travelled far and am learning every day. The more I travel the closer I find myself to home.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom