(An edited version of this interview appeared in the Indian Express North American. Sujeet Rajan interviewed me for the weekly. This came out about a month ago, but only today I was suitably lazy to do this job)

You write candidly of love and love-making; leaving windows open to the bedroom sometimes. If it is autobiographical, how difficult is it to tabulate emotions of love and love-making through poetry?

I am not sure it is always the bedroom window I leave open, for love, after all, happens everywhere. And again, I am going to keep the suspense and not own up or disown the possibility of my poems being autobiographical! I think poetry is best equipped to enclose some emotions and exhibit others, because writing of love/ love-making in prose would simply call for too many excruciating details, and in the most cautious of cases, it would require a great deal of aesthetic and choreography to get the damn scene right. And only rarely can such elaborate construction capture spontaneity, which is what love is all about.

From an artistic medium, what is best to express love: the written word, the spoken word, brush on the canvas, silence? Why?

I have done everything but paint. And well, you have left out something which I see as central to love: movement. As in dance, as in theater, and also as in all of language.

3. Is anything taboo for you to write about?

No. Except of course if someone asked me to write a poem of praise, that tends to make me nasty.

5. You were displaced from home, from Chennai, for more than three months, having been invited to a writing residence program in Iowa. What has been the experience like?

I loved the time I spent in Iowa, and I also got to travel widely across the USA. The best part of the program was getting to meet these fabulous writers from other countries. The next best was the University library and the second-hand bookstores. My novel is about the Kilvenmani massacre, and surprisingly I completed most of the research while I was here, in a foreign nation. And lastly, I did write like crazy. I wrote the 50-odd poems that go into my second collection of poetry (Six Hours of Chastity).

6. How has the West influenced your writing during these last three months?

Nothing radical happened. And the subtle changes, if any, will have to be picked out by scholars or theorists, and even in that case, one never knows how accurate it is! I am always in a state of flux, so I do believe that coming here, and being footloose and fancy-free, would have changed me in some ways, and which would change the poetry in a sense.

7. If you were to write a poem based on the experience of your last three months, what would you write about?

I am too involved with the experience to verbalize it right away. There will be a diary at some point, and trust me, there will be love poems too.

8. You are an intrinsic part of the Dalit movement; an indelible, vociferous voice for the underprivileged in India. How do you reconcile yourself to a situation where you yourself live in a metropolitan city which is removed from the caste predicament for the most part, and now are in a developed world which has only academic interest in the problem?

I don’t think the Dalit movement is a rural movement, or that untouchability/ casteism does not exist in cities. The migration to the city does erase some identities even as it allows the scope for anonymity, but the Dalit remains a Dalit for the most part. The metropolitan cities are better suited for the Dalit movement’s growth and establishment because they allow for the Dalits to carry out democratic/ public agitations/ demonstrations without fear of a backlash, of being targetted and done-to-death and crushed by oppressor castes whose violent diktat operates much more freely in the villages. Coming to the second part of your question, yes, the developed world only has a superficial interest in these issues, which is quite disappointing. However, the struggle against caste should be waged only by those who have suffered because of it, and it should be supported by those who don’t believe in discrimination. I guess here the curiousity of the West could help since it actually brings things to the world’s attention. There’s another way of looking at it: the militant and political Dalit struggle (or even literature) has hardly been effectively theorized, or documented, so the academic interest emanating from this is certainly beneficial.

9. You write, commiserate with Tamils in Sri Lanka; is it emotional baggage for you now that crisis in Sri Lanka is no longer in the news with the Tamil Tigers gone?

The Sri Lanka crisis is now in the news in a way in which it has never been before. The US State Department’s report of what happened earlier this year in the war zone in which tens of thousands of Tamils were mercilessly bombed to death by the SL Govt., the Tamil Diaspora re-mandating their right to a homeland in the North-east, people all over the world being concerned about the three hundred thousand Tamils caught in concentration camps, Sri Lanka being the second-most unsafe country for journalists all over the world–these are issues of prime importance, irrespective of whether the media in the US, or India decides to highlight it or not. I take up a cause because I am involved with it, or I empathize for it, and not on the basis of the amount of media spotlight that it accrues. I guess the Tamil issue will always be an emotional baggage until we receive the right to a life of safety and security and self-determination. I trust that now is the time for humanitarian people all over the world to actually support the Tamil cause because things have never been worse.

10. Race, religion and caste come to play the most when elections are around the corner. In that respect the United States might not be much different from India. Emancipation apart, what needs to be done in India to remove barriers for equalization?

Yes, what you describe is the typical vote-bank scenario. I believe that equalization can come about only when the oppressors also decide that it is time for them to change, it is time for them to mend their ways. There is a possibility that such a change can come about through self-directed/ self-initiated efforts, but there are not enough pointers from history which lets us reinforce this belief. Those who seek to maintain the status quo, those who work against equalization and democratization, are known to change only when their own power is questioned and challenged. So, much of the responsibility for bringing about change lies in the hands of the oppressed people, since they have to continue their resilient struggle against oppression. If they resist the subjugation successfully, and if they manage to break out of it, then equalization will come about. It can never be beyond reach. What needs to be done in India is to encourage the freedom of the press, to bring out more stories of victimization and resistance to light, and to empower women without resorting to any cultural dogma. Anyone can observe that all systems of oppression ideally go hand-in-hand, so none of us can be free until all of us are free. For instance, I would like the feminist movement in India to really take up the ideology of annihilating the caste system not just because it is discriminatory and inhuman, but also because it is based on the control of a women’s sexuality (in order to keep the caste pedigree pure).

11. Do you agree with the quota system for the backward classes in government and educational institutions in India?

It is not for anyone to agree/disagree with the quota system, what people need to concentrate on is to ensure that all sections of society achieve real growth, and that no one is left behind and marginalized. I think the decision to extend the quota system for the backward classes (here i make a distinction from the Dalits) was taken because of their abysmal presence in both state-run educational and employment enterprises. We have to become a more tolerance and more inclusive society, and affirmative action is just one way of getting there.

12. Kamala Das backed your poetry; wrote a foreword to your debut collection of poems. Why does that mean so much to you? What do you like most about her poetry?

What Kamala Das said about my poetry meant so much to me because she is a woman who calls a spade a spade, she’s forthright and outspoken and doesn’t say things that she doesn’t mean. So, when such an authentic and genuine (not to mention accomplished and fiery) poet like her encourages your work, you just gain confidence in yourself, and you channel more efforts towards writing more, representing people more. I love her poetry, because she broke the barriers against Indian woman writing on troublesome/ taboo topics; at the core of everything, she was truth-seeking. Personally, I also adore her flamboyance, her fire.

13. How do you reconcile poetry with reality? Does imagination triumph?

My poetry is rooted in my reality: the reality of the Dalits fighting against caste-atrocities and violence of the oppressive forces who want to subjugate them, the reality of women who still have to fight to assert their equality and their rights, the reality of Tamils who have to express themselves in spite of the worst kind of threat to the freedom of expression, who have to struggle against systematic genocide in their own homeland. My poetry is a product of all my multiple, coexisting realities–right now, I don’t think I outsource my poetry to imagination.

The is an update of my previous blog – “Plead Taunts to Escape Capital Punishment”

The Supreme Court has now said that considering the “peculiar” nature of the crime, the normal life sentence of 14 years for the accused was not enough.  So the Court has now ordered a 25 year life imprisonment for Dilip and his friend Manoj. Maybe the wise Justices finally wanted to show some toughness!

However, the fact remains that even after 62 years of Independence, India has been unable to throw off the curse of caste for the simple reason that there haven’t been strong enough deterrents to caste hatred or discrimination. This legal battle of the woman, whose husband and in-laws were butchered by her brother and his friends just because she married a “lower caste” and the way the Indian legal system has responded, is a case in point.

The Rise of the Rest

Global Ties Under Stress

Caste System Continues in India

Annotated Bibliography

Ilayaraja – A name synonymous with the Tamil music industry. An incomparable genius who totally transformed the role played by music in films and the perception of people towards film music.

The mid 1970s. It was during this time that Rasaiyya aka Ilayaraja entered films. It was the period when listening to Hindi film songs was considered fashionable and tamil film music was looked down upon. The fate of tamil folk music was even more worse. It was virtually non existent in tamil movies. Only Carnatic music was considered to be ‘quality’ music. Ilayaraja would forever change this trend. His style rediscovered tamil folk music and experimented with nuances of music which were totally unheard of till then. The purists who initially dismissed his music as worthless had to eat their own words. Today, his music has reached a stage where his contemporaries pale in comparison.

Raja has always had an interesting relationship with the ‘elite’ of the tamil society. His eagerness to be in their good books is a known secret to anyone that has followed him over the years. In this light, the recent conferring of the ‘Isai Gnana Mani’ award on him by the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam gains interest. The award was given away by the Jayandera Saraswati who is currently on bail for murder charges. It was apparently in recognition of Raja’s Thiruvasagam and his services to tamil music. During his acceptance speech, Raja revealed that he was asked by Chandrasekaran (Jayandera’s predecessor, now deceased) to work on the Thiruvasagam album. This is an interesting comment considering the fact that the gurus of the Kanchi mutt have never considered tamil to be a ‘pure’ language. They have gone to the extent of branding it as ‘neesa baashai’ (the language of the shudras). Also, the Kanchi Mutt follows the Vaishanavite approach of the Hindu religion and doesn’t approve the Saivite way to which Thiruvasagam belongs. All this is relatively unimportant. Our main point of concern is why would a genius like Raja stoop so low time and again.

Ilayaraja was born as Gnanadesikan (but known as Rasaiyya) in a Dalit Christian family. During his early years he was exposed to communist ideals by his elder brother ‘Paavalar’ Varadarajan who was involved with the Communist party. As a budding music composer, he assisted his brother during propaganda tours where music was used as a mode of protest. But once he started making attempts to enter the film music industry all this started to change gradually. Raja found it pretty hard to make an impression in an industry which was dominated by influences of Carnatic music. The purists refused to accept his style of music, branding him as ‘thavil party’. Needless to say, the fact that he came from a lower class background also added to this dismissal. Steadily Raja did begin to make progress and was accepted by the general public. But in order to be accepted by the so called custodians of music, he was rather compelled to change his personality. The mid 80s to early 90s saw the gradual shift of Raja towards the ideals of Hindutva. You can see this change in a lot of songs he composed during that period. A notable example is the ‘Janani Janani’ song among others. His personality also took a sharp change with the constant shaved head and beads around his neck and what not. He started doing concerts to collect funds to donate to the temple at Srirangam. It is a pity that he failed to notice that his fellowmen were still struggling to enter the very same temple! This change in attitude of his has been written about by many. A excerpt from an article about him in the Outlook magazine:

‘…despite his achievements, Ilayaraja is uncomfortable with the truth of his origins. When K.A. Gunasekaran wrote Isaimozhiyum Ilayarajavum (The Language of Music and Ilayaraja) in 2002, the composer was offended by the fact that Gunasekaran had discussed his Dalit origins. Ilayaraja sued the publisher and author for defamation. He has tried ceaselessly to merge himself into all that Hinduism holds in high regard. He is an ardent devotee of Ramanan of Thiruvannamalai and also planned to start a music research centre with the aid of the Kanchi Mutt’

It is a widely known fact that inspite of his generous donation to the temple at Tiruvannamalai, he was barred entry into the temple’s sanctum sanctorum during the religious ceremony held there.

As a composer, Raja has undeniably revolutionised music. But as an individual, he has completely failed in many respects. Why he tries to ape a group which has for centuries subjugated his own fellow beings is a mystery only he can answer. He may be excused for doing so during his initial days, but to do it till this day just baffles our understanding. Is this a case of sheer opportunism gone too far?

There is no denying that Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things has been hugely important; I often find myself discussing it with other people, both Indian and foreign, while it is a staple on reading lists covering South Asian writers in English. One of my friends, Tyler, intends to read it over the holidays and I found myself revisiting the novel; as with fellow Indian Booker winner The White Tiger (a critique of which I might put up in the near future), I was rather disappointed with The God of Small Things. Apart from the narrative style, which I found jarringly self-conscious, the novel’s implicit social commentary raised a few questions as well- as always, I am open to counter-arguments/comments/suggestions:

One is confronted by a number of difficulties in attempting to undertake a sociological, or political reading of a work of fiction- the risk of attributing too much, or too little, thought on an issue to the author of the piece, of taking topics within the text out of their fictional context or far more simply, of detracting from the aesthetic dimensions of said work. However, the commentary made on social issues in works of fiction cannot be rejected solely on these grounds- while a narrative may be fictional, it is still capable of making a potent commentary on real issues. Indeed, it is this latter consideration that informs our readings of books such as Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness or Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, the former now widely acknowledged as an indictment of European imperialism in Africa and the latter considered to be a scathing critique of Stalinist Russia. I shall briefly examine Arundhati Roy’s commentary on caste in The God of Small Things and read the novel primarily as a critique of the bigotry and taboos surrounding the caste system. It is natural that one could contend that such a reading obscures the literary objectives of the novel, or as noted above, shifts the perspective of the novel to a realm that confounds the narrative as a whole. One of the premises that I operate on is that regardless of the literary objectives of the author, he/she is necessarily answerable to the questions raised by an analysis of the real-world implications of the novel; this position is clarified below. Having established the grounds on which I shall analyze Roy’s novel, I contend that as a commentary on caste, The God of Small Things fails on two important counts: first, it imposes an artificial specificity on the novel’s consideration of caste that, while perhaps necessary for the fictional storyline, wholly confounds the critique of caste being attempted and indeed, perhaps even causes said critique to implode in on itself. The untouchable character Velutha is romanticized, prompting sympathy from the reader for his ultimate plight; however, this sympathy is motivated as much by a sense of grief at the mistreatment of Velutha the God-like figure, as a reaction to the unfairness of the treatment of Velutha the untouchable, an emotional dynamic that dulls the polemic against caste. Second, the persistent use of certain metaphors in the novel, most notably that of darkness, further confounds the critique so persistently being laid out by Roy, by further exacerbating perceived caste differences.

It is necessary that I firmly establish the basis on which I approach Roy’s text- one could contend that I hold Roy far too accountable for issues that may ultimately be incidental for her broader aesthetic project; that the caste system is in fact, merely an element of the society in which Roy’s story is set and as such, has been inserted in the novel more in order to achieve social accuracy than in order to fulfill any covert political agenda. However, I begin from the premise that as a published work of fiction, The God of Small Things is no longer merely the intellectual property of the author- its implications and interpretations now belong to the public realm and as such, it is crucial that one examine the text in light of the social context informing it and more importantly, in terms of its implications on the context in which it is read. To put it more succinctly, I cast aside any assumptions that may be made on Roy’s purpose in writing the novel, or the book’s status as a merely aesthetic work, since it is my firm conviction that by including what appears to be a thinly veiled critique of caste in her novel, Roy is ipso facto answerable to questions raised in the debate around caste. University of Chicago Professor Ted Cohen contends that stories have historically been influential in forcing us to confront real social issues- the tremendous impact of Harriet Beecher Stove’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin on the anti-slavery debate is but one example in support of this thesis. Or consider Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, a novel that sparked real political debates, polarizing opinion and even endangering the life of the author, with accusations of blasphemy being leveled at him. Rushdie’s example highlights the very real role played by fiction in fostering debate and often even engendering social friction; what emerges from this is my proposition that an author is indeed answerable to the real social issues raised by his/her work; practical considerations necessitate such a treatment. It is only when one accepts the proposition that Roy shoulders the responsibility of a social commentator on caste- and not just the less cumbersome responsibility of a mere writer of fiction- that one can move on to a socially valid engagement with Roy’s text.

Perhaps an appropriate point at which to begin an examination of Roy’s treatment of Velutha in the novel, is with a brief digression into Roy’s own critique of Shekhar Kapur’s movie Bandit Queen: Roy alleges that ‘Bandit Queen -the film, does not make a case against Rape. It makes its case against the Rape of nice (read moral), women’[1]. Roy justifiably accuses Shekhar Kapur, the director of the movie, of tempering the character of Phoolan Devi in order to make her rape appear more abhorrent to the viewer, since ‘it is of consummate importance to the Emotional Graph of the film, that you never, ever, stop pitying her’[2]. Would Phoolan Devi’s rape provoke as visceral a reaction, or prompt as much pity in the viewer if she were portrayed to be ‘nasty/perceived-to-be-immoral’ asks Roy? ‘[The rape] wouldn’t be quite so bad. You wouldn’t feel quite so sorry. Perhaps you wouldn’t feel sorry at all’ speculates Roy and therein lies one of her objections to the film: it m,anipulates the viewer and obscures the primary objection to rape viz. it is wholly reprehensible regardless of the moral standing of the woman affected.

In order to tie the discussion thus far into The God of Small Things, it is necessary that one consider the character of Velutha as sketched out by Roy in the novel; specifically, one should note the overwhelmingly positive light in which he is cast. Velutha’s dexterity and his proficiency with his hands are established rather early on in the novel: ‘He was like a little magician [as a child]. He could make intricate toys…apart from his carpentry skills, Velutha had a way with machines…[he] knew more about the machines in the factory than anyone else’[3]. Indeed, Chacko is well aware of how indispensable Velutha is to the factory, noting that ‘he is invaluable… [he] practically runs the factory’[4]. Equally important to the discussion at hand are the descriptions of Velutha’s physical appearance, with his body being described as ‘contoured and hard. A swimmer’s body. A swimmer-carpenter’s body. Polished with a high-wax body polish. He had high cheekbones and a white, sudden smile’[5]. Thus, the Paravan Velutha is described as aesthetically beautiful in a physical sense, while also being a talented worker, a proxy-father of sorts to Ammu’s children and possessing enough raw sensuality to seduce Ammu herself into a sexual tryst. The sum of Velutha’s wonderful blend of assets comes to its ultimate expression in his status as the novel’s eponymous character, the ‘God’ in the title of the book. The reader is repeatedly drawn into an aesthetic appreciation of this God of small things, a person capable of transcending caste divisions in his smoldering sensuality and all-round agreeableness.

I think one must now turn Roy’s question in The Great Indian Rape-Trick I back upon her: would the reader be as angered by Velutha’s ultimate plight, by the tragic fallout from caste dogmas, if he was not a character that constantly commands one’s appreciation and admiration? In romanticizing the character of Velutha, Roy acknowledges the importance of the reader’s emotional calculus surrounding Velutha in provoking sentiments against caste. Lest it be thought that I assume too much in positing such a hypothesis, it is instructive that one contrast Velutha’s character with that of Baby Kochamma. Baby Kochamma is known to have had her fair share of misery in life, being doomed to never be with the man that she loves all her life. However, readers rarely- if ever- pity Baby Kochamma’s plight, largely because her character is abhorrent and morally depraved in all other aspects. Baby Kochamma’s less appetizing facets are constantly emphasized in the novel, be it with the lies that contribute to Velutha’s eventual lynching, or her harassment of the twins. Regardless of Baby Kochamma’s inherent depravity, one could hardly deny that she suffers a rather tragic turn of fate as concerns the priest whom she forever loves in vain; this fact is easily obscured by her broader character failings. The point here is to emphasize that the specific treatment of a character largely dictates our reaction to his/her general plight; consequently, I believe that when one is shocked by Velutha’s tragic fate, it is motivated as much by a sense of outrage at the atrocities perpetrated against Velutha the God of Small Things as Velutha the Paravan. This has important consequences for a critical appreciation of Roy’s novel, if one is to read it partly as a commentary on caste. Just as Bandit Queen could be criticized as not making a case against rape, but against the rape of moral women, Roy’s novel seems to make a case against caste that relies on the sympathy generated by an aesthetically beautiful untouchable, rather than the far less potent, but more fundamental criticism that needs to be provoked of caste in general.

In order to clarify my position here further, it is worth briefly touching upon Kantian ethics, specifically Kant’s so-called formula of universal law (FUL): ‘So act that you can will the maxim of your action to be a universal law’[6]. Kant’s argues that in order to act morally, one’s actions need to be morally justifiable as a universal law, free from specific considerations. Thus, for example, it is not enough to say that one should act in a virtuous manner if, say a man’s life depends on it; rather, one must act virtuously no matter what, in order to lead a morally sound life free from discrepancies. Extending this notion to the issue of caste, one should acknowledge that the negative fallout from the caste system is reprehensible regardless of the specific case being considered. One can only speculate as to how visceral one’s reaction would be to the repulsive role played by caste in contributing to Velutha’s ultimate demise, had he been say a boring, run-of-the-mill person instead of the glorious character that he is portrayed to be. Ultimately, Velutha’s specific nature is irrelevant to the moral judgment that one may pass on caste. By imposing specifics on the issue of caste in the novel, manipulating the reader into confounding his/her emotional reactions, Roy obscures this basic fact and in doing so, I believe that she obscures the broader caste debate.

As troubling as this apparent manipulation of the reader is, the aesthetic hyperbole employed in the portrayal of Velutha reaches far deeper in the novel than even the argument thus far would seem to indicate. For example, consider Ammu’s reaction to Velutha in the build-up to their first sexual encounter: ‘As he rose from the dark river and walked up the stone steps, she saw that the world they stood in was his. That he belonged to it. That it belonged to him. The water. The mud. The trees. The fish. The stars…as she watched him she understood the quality of his beauty’[7]. The use of ‘darkness’ in the passage above and indeed, throughout the novel, is particularly interesting. Velutha emerges from the darkness of the river, the darkness of the forest, while his trysts with Ammu take place at the History House, which is described as being right at the ‘Heart of Darkness’[8]. It would hardly be a stretch to imagine that Roy’s use of the ‘Heart of Darkness’ metaphor is a reference to Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, with the journey into the Heart of Darkness in the forest in Roy’s novel echoing similar imagery in Conrad’s own novel. One must then recall that in Conrad’s novel, Marlowe’s journey is into the relative unknown of the heart of darkness, a journey into both the darkest aspects of human nature and the darkest parts of the world map. More specifically, the Congo i.e. the physical heart of darkness seems to be far removed from the Europe of Marlowe’s origin, a dark place not only because it harbors the unknown, but also because it fosters dark deeds that would not be accepted in civilized European society[9]; it is often alleged that Africa is presented as the counterpoint to civilized Europe.

Roy seems to do exactly that in The God of Small Things: Velutha is the God of small things, not of the big (as so often encountered by Ammu), he emerges from the Heart of Darkness, his world is that of nature, one that seems to be separate from Ammu’s sphere. He is portrayed as belonging to a separate world altogether, one in which he reigns supreme. Consequently, the moment of supreme realization, when the fabric of caste is purportedly torn apart in the novel, comes when the bodies of Ammu and Velutha unite, when these two people from seemingly disparate spheres destroy caste differences; indeed, when the reader is supposed to acknowledge that this is the union of two people, not that of an untouchable and a ‘touchable’. In his critique of Heart of Darkness, Chinua Achebe notes that Conrad attempts to implicate imperialism by pointing out that the people of Africa, seemingly worlds apart from that of Europe, are in fact very much like those of Europe at the most fundamental level: ‘What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity — like yours …. Ugly’[10]. One of Achebe’s objections to this is that Conrad seems to underline differences between the civilized European and the native African, even as he attempts to equate their human coefficient- by presenting ‘dark’ Africa as the counterpoint to ‘civilized’ Europe, Conrad is accused of further exacerbating the racial divide and emphasizing differences rather than deconstructing them. While Achebe’s critique is up for debate[11], it can be validly extended to Roy’s novel. The Paravan Velutha is presented as almost synonymous with nature and the ‘Heart of Darkness’; while this seems to enhance the magical-realist aspect of his union with Ammu, thereby elevating him further in the eyes of the reader, it further emphasizes the very differences implicit in the caste system that a valid critique would hope to dispense with. Velutha’s association with the radical communist movement further establishes his status as ‘the other’, the counterpoint to the ‘touchables’ of Ayemenem House. Velutha must be established as a part of Ammu’s sphere, his world needs to be portrayed as being her world as well if the equality in a world post-caste is to be finally enacted. By portraying Ammu’s taboo union with Velutha as a journey into the Heart of Darkness, the novel seems to indicate that Ammu journeyed into a whole new realm, when in fact, she merely tore down an invisible barrier within the same sphere. While I do not think this is as troubling an objection to Roy’s treatment of caste as a whole, given that it relies heavily on a certain reading of the text that may simply be discarded, it is still one that must be entertained in any consideration of the novel.

Given that The God of Small Things is a work of fiction, one could simply contend that Roy intended to narrate a story and the context in which she set her story-Kerala- necessitated an inclusion of caste as an integral element of the society there. As a novelist, Roy is telling a story and to that effect, is perfectly justified in manipulating the reader’s emotions as she sees fit in order to generate a certain response to her story. If such is the case though, one must desist from reading any commentary on caste into the story, accepting that no moral judgment can be justifiably passed on an issue that is simply included as part of a fictional narrative. However, Roy appears to pass a clear-cut indictment of the caste system and pronounce a moral judgment, couched in her story. In doing so, she is answerable to real-world questions on the judgments that she passes- in short, she is required to justify them, for one cannot eat one’s cake and have it too. While Rahel and Estha may ultimately only live in the imagination of Arundhati Roy[12], caste is a very real element of the society that inspires her novel and to that extent, so is her commentary on it.

Bibliography:

1. Roy, Arundhati, The God of Small Things, (Harper Perennial, New York: 1998).
2. 2. Achebe, Chinua, An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness from Heart of Darkness, An Authoritative Text, Background and Sources, Criticism. 3rd ed. Ed. Robert Kimbrough, (W.W. Norton and Co., London: 1988). This essay is also available at http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/achcon.htm.
3. 3. Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Lewis White Beck, (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis: 1959).
4. 4. Conrad, Joseph, Heart of Darkness, (St. Martin’s Press, New York: 1989).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Roy, Arundhati, The God of Small Things, (Harper Perennial, New York: 1998), p. 71-72.

[4] Ibid, p. 264.

[5] Ibid, p. 167.

[6] Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Lewis White Beck, (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis: 1959), p. 421/39.

[7] Roy, Arundhati, The God of Small Things, (Harper Perennial, New York: 1998), p. 316-317.

[8] Ibid, p. 290.

[9] Some critics have suggested that the suggestion of the Congo as the ‘heart of darkness’ is in reality an ironic commentary on the fact that even a place considered to be as far removed and ‘dark’ as the Congo is in reality merely a mirror image of the Europe of Marlowe’s time- while Kurtz finds himself committing the most atrocious acts within the Congo, Marlowe himself goes on to lie to Kurtz’s ‘Intended’ back in Belgium, an act that is perhaps equally reprehensible from a purely moral standpoint since Marlowe repeatedly emphasizes that he abhors lying. In this reading of the novel, the overt portrayal of the Congo as ‘the heart of darkness’ is not in fact a racist position, as alleged by Chinua Achebe, but in fact, an ironic juxtaposition of the Congo’s status as the overt ‘heart of darkness’ against the less obvious, but more startling status of ‘civilized’ Europe as equally a place of darkness- note Marlowe’s early observation that England too was once a place of darkness. While I subscribe to this reading of Conrad’s novel as I believe it offers a more complex, less-reductionist reading of the text, I still do not think that it wholly dispenses with criticisms of the novel as presenting Africa as the counterpoint to civilized Europe and just as Conrad’s novel must answer this criticism, so too must Roy’s. For a more detailed examination of this debate, please refer to Achebe’s critique of Conrad’s novel and rebuttals to it, noted in the bibliography.

[10] Achebe, Chinua, An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness from Heart of Darkness, An Authoritative Text, Background and Sources, Criticism. 3rd ed. Ed. Robert Kimbrough, (W.W. Norton and Co., London: 1988). This essay is also available at http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/achcon.htm.

[11] See footnote 9 for a brief discussion of this.

[12] Although The God of Small Things is reportedly semi-autobiographical, I hope that my point here is not obscured.

மதம் மாறும் தலித்துகளுக்கு சம உரிமை வாக்களிக்கப்படவில்லை; சமுதாயத்தில் அவர்கள் சந்தித்த கசப்பான அனுபவங்களே மதம் மாறத் தூண்டியது;மனதால் இந்துவாக இருப்பவன் பணம் வாங்கினாலும் இந்துவாகவே இருப்பான்;காரணம்,தள்ளிவைத்தல் முதலான கொடுமைகள் இன்னும் தீவிரமாகுமே..?

அண்மைய செய்தி:
1.நெல்லைச் சீமையில் 900 பேர் இஸ்லாமியராக மதம் மாறினார்கள்.

2.தாழ்த்தப்பட்டவர்களாலும் தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட “புதிரை வண்ணார்” இனத்து பையனுக்கு சாதி சான்றிதழ் வழங்க மறுத்து மாவட்ட ஆட்சியர் எழுதிய கடிதத்தில் காரணமாகக் கூறியது,அவர்கள் தற்போது வண்ணார் தொழிலைச் செய்யவில்லை என்பதே.

பணம் வாங்கிக் கொண்டு மதம் மாற்றுகிறார்கள் என்ற அரதப்பழசான குற்றச்சாட்டு நாகரீக சமுதாயத்தின் அவமானம்;கைநிறைய சம்பாதிக்கும் மேல்தட்டு இளைஞர்களும் இன்று மதம் மாறுகின்றனர்;அதற்கு என்ன காரணம்..?

உண்மையான- ஆரோக்கியமான விவாதத்தை ஊக்கப்படுத்த எதிர் தரப்பு நியாயத்துக்கும் மரியாதை தருதல் வேண்டும்..!

In a recent judgement regarding death sentences for murder (Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra), the Supreme Court has observed that courts will have to consider social issues like inter-caste marriage, community and religion and the circumstances in which a murder was committed while awarding punishment to an accused in a murder case.  Needless to say, selected quotes from the judgement published in leading dailies have raised the hackles of civil society, so much so that some lawmakers demanded a separate law for honour killings!!

The judges while delivering the judgement were trying to look into any mitigating circumstances for the conduct of the accused.  One such consideration in their mind was the role played by caste in society.  Depending on one’s perspective, one may approve, or take issue with the eventual decision.

On one side would be a strictly legalistic, enlightened principle of objective neutrality which would treat a murder as murder, and a cold-blooded, pre-meditated one as particularly heinous.  The natural tendency of such an approach, when confronted with the fact that the murder was in fact an honour-killing would be to be even more shocked by the depravity of the act.  A harsh sentence is deserved in such cases, it would be argued.

On the other side is to take into consideration social factors which would lead a person to such a mental state that he would commit murder.  Indeed, if mitigating factors are given due importance in ‘crimes of passion’, if the mental state of the accused is deliberated upon in almost all cases, why should the role of caste, a dogma as socially pervasive as religion, if not more, not be deliberated upon in determining a person’s mental state while committing a crime?

I do not for one moment support blatantly biased judgements of courts in numerous cases where members of the lower-castes have been victims and the accused have gotten away only too freely.  Such instances have been blots on India’s attempt to secure equal and appropriate justice to those at the lower rung of society.  My argument is instead that ‘caste’ be treated as an objective factor while evaluating the mental state of the accused especially in cases of honour killings.

Over the years, our judicial system has ostensibly followed a tailored methodology of ‘blindness’ towards social factors such as caste, race and religion.  This ostensible blindness may have allowed many a biased judge to dispense justice on the basis of his or her own closely held beliefs while seemingly maintaining an objective neutrality grounded in law.  This has not exactly endeared our legal system to the masses.  Caste panchayats continue to thrive, social issues and their consequences continue to stifle individuals without effective recourse to law.  I therefore welcome the Supreme Court’s boldness in acknowledging that social factors such as matters of honour, of social hierarchy do remain deep-rooted within Indian psyche.  What the Court must remain wary about however is, that it does not unwittingly legitimise such factors.

More information on the Indian Caste system is here. Other collections of human rights images here.

More on the Jogini or Devadasi system here.

Dalit or "Untouchable"

(source)

Brahmin, member of the priest caste

(source)

Indian caste system

Hello all!  Last year I went to Mission’s Fest and had the priviledge of hearing Joseph D’Souza speak on the Dalit’s in India.  Before hearing Joseph speak I was totally ignorant to what is going on in India and the Caste system.   I am so blessed to live in Canada and to have been born into such a great family.  The Untouchable Dalits of India are powerless to change their status. As Dalits they are trapped in a caste system that keeps them in a vicious cycle of poverty, generation after generation unable to escape. Dalits are denied access to public wells, public parks, basic medical services and education.

The Dalit people of India have been oppressed by the Caste system for over 3000 years.  They number over 250 million men, women and children.  The Caste systems is sanctioned by the Hindu religion and in entrenched in Indian society.  Each caste is linked to an occupation and represents a hierarchy of society and status.  People are born into their caste and can never change their caste identity.  It is believed that if people are born into their caste based on their behavior in a past life.  Because of this belief the Dalits are believed to deserve their oppression.  The top caste are the Brahmins.  These people are the Priests and arbiters of what is right and wrong.  They alone interpret the Hindu scriptures.  The next caste are the Kshatriya’s who are the soldiers and administrators.  The third caste are the Vaisyas who are the artisans and commercial caste.  Finally there are the Sudras; these people are the slave class.  The 4 castes are said to come from Brahma’s mouth (Brahmin’s), arms (Kshatriyas), thighs (Vaisyas), and feet (Sudras).  Beneath the four castes are the Untouchables, the Dalits, which means “crushed”, “downtrodden”, and “broken”.  They are not even considered a caste.

A Dalit is not considered to be part of the human society, but something, which is beyond that. The Dalits perform the most menial and degrading jobs. Sometimes Dalits perform important jobs, but this is mostly not socially recognized.

In India there are 250 million Dalits who do not have access to enough food, health care, housing and clothing. They also have limited access to education and employment. Officially everyone in India has the same rights and duties, but the practice is different. Education will help provide the opportunity to change the future — and transform a child’s life now and forever.

I have become a champion for the Dalit Freedom Network.  Dalit Freedom Network is a Canadian organization joining hands with a network of concerned international people who are committed to the oppressed Dalits of India and their children.  They are committed to:

• Providing quality education to Dalit children in the rural villages of India
• Imparting to Dalit children human worth and dignity, spiritual renewal and social equality
• Providing Dalit men and women vocational training skills that will enable them to achieve economic independence
• Developing public health education and disease prevention in rural areas of India
• Bringing about a Canadian awareness of the plight of the Dalit people

Please check out my page and consider supporting this cause as well.  Donations to the Dalit Freedom Network can be made directly through my page: http://darciemaines.dalitfreedom.net.  There are also a couple of great video’s that I’ve posted links to as well.

Video on the Dalits

Dalit Freedom Network video

Lately, I have been really Japanese Mentally. Ever since receiving this internship and knowing that I will have a second interview in Japanese with an actual Japanese business person is kind of frightening. I think i am very capabale of doing well in the interviewing process, but considering Japanese very strict caste system, it would be very impolite to speak with superior impolitely. So recently I have been havesting in my brain Japanese 24/7. Sometimes I find myself translating my english in my head as I speak with friends. I kind of surprise myself when I realize how much I can actually translate. Also, after reading the top 10 reasons to learn Japanese I will stay Japanese Mentally.

Caste is such an integral part of SI cinema, for both plot and culture, that I have felt compelled to educate myself on the subject matter. Obviously, my understanding will forever be limited, until such time that I develop the language skills to translate movie dialogue, as well as literature, and interact with Southern Indians enough to comprehend what it really means. In the meanwhile, I am limited to the discourse of others, on it’s contemporary significance and symbolism. Specifically, caste is a major factor in plots involving politics, and so far almost every movie that I have seen has some political flavor added. Initially, I was under the (wrong) impression that caste conflict, was between the main Varnas: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. Since that gross assumption, I have learned a great deal (more of a droplet in the vast ocean of knowledge…let it be axiomatic, from here on out) regarding what caste really means, and what the implications of this status are.

I bring this up, because the intricacies of caste dynamics are not obvious, much less explained, in South Indian movies. It is too easy to place a Western template over these categories, and use it as a basis for comprehension of the story line. I would suggest that it is for this reason, that we automatically develop a bias towards cultural foundations that are alien to our own. This goes both ways, “they” develop their own assumptions and bias based upon misunderstanding or ignorance, just as “we” do. Caste stereotyping is a plot device used in romance, comedy, drama, thriller, etc., and is much more subtle and meaningful than I had realized. Despite claims to the contrary, skin color is also a common topic used to create tension, whether it be satirical or dramatic, it is still a tacitly acknowledged divider that goes beyond caste and class.

However, I don’t believe that it is a catalyst for mass hysteria in SI, as it is in Western culture, it appears (from my limited point of view) that it is simply a matter of taste and not of prejudice. I don’t know if it is possible to simplify anything, in Indian culture, down to ‘black and white’ as was/is an excuse to abuse and enslave in other cultures.

Anyways, I bring this up, in order to point out a website that has a unique perspective on the history and culture of the caste system in Andhra Pradesh. It goes into detail on varieties of caste, class, and subcategories, therein. There is a huge amount of information, although I cannot speak to its biases or lack thereof. Nevertheless, I think it is worth reading, if you are like me, and absolutely must understand every aspect of the universe and what/how/why it functions the way it does.

http://www.vepachedu.org/caste.htm

Hallelujah, Jimmy.

Praise be to God.

Now let me review this new-found religious friend:

A franchisor spends 5 years directing a publicly-traded, near-monopoly system which openly ignores, abuses and, ultimately, lifts $20,000 directly, this year, from each franchisees’ family business annually.

With more to come in 2010.

1. He foists the idea that their business is worth 25% less than it did last year.
2. His underlings appropriate without compensation (overnight with zero warning or chance to remedy) 100% of some terminated franchisees’ life savings because of some phoney-baloney return policy BS violation while waiting 4 months after the alleged offence happening?
3. His team continues the farce of participation in a lapdog council without answering  a single reasonably phrased franchisee question, for years (“Park this” takes on a new, fairly soprano meaning).
4. He threatens termination, cuts an IndFA leader’s sales by 15% (we had no choice), refuses to deal with a lawful association, tries to bait a franchisee litigation response, etc.
5. Leads an outfit so bankrupt of ideas that they even stoop to abscond with the franchisees’ “balanced life” model and
6. Withholds any fairness $ return simply to not give credit to the franchisee group (table scraps to the help).

And we won’t even mention the link between overweening corporate arrogance and  a series of public health catastrophes.

First Week of Advent: He shows up at a dock,  taking home to his family $5,000 more a day than the franchisees who are obliged to attend these Wal-Martian meetings, and he thinks he can spin himself as “one of the guys”?

Okay…

Just a normal, crotch scratchin’, cussin’, Buds lovin’,  good ole MBA executive

Funny how a dominant, powerful franchisee association brings the sinners on home to Jesus.

What, exactly, did your teammate mean when he said:

“The natives are Restless“?

Were the franchisees or the First Nations that were the lower caste?

Yes, exactly a millennium ago.

 Then the whole Indian subcontinent was a conglomeration of small kingdoms. We belonged to a small one, may be the size of Delhi. It was independent, wedged between two powerful neighbors: the Samoothiripad in the North and some principality belonging to the area, now known as Thiruvithankur (Travancore). Our Cochin state was free from corruption. People were generally happy. One English writer described the India of those times as ‘thousands of villages’, each a republic governed by the village elders. None had money. Gold was used only for making ornaments. Wealth was measured in terms of paddy earned by each family (I am talking in terms known to me). The artisans made clothes, agricultural implements, gold ornaments; made tenements out of mud and hay or palm leaves (cobbler was unknown  as none wore foot wear). Brass and bronze works were excellent, as also wood work. Landlords enjoyed leisure and bonded laborers did the work. The latter were fed even when there was no work. All people were known to each other. Even in my childhood, thefts were limited to coconut and plantain! There was plenty of time for any leisurely activity like literature, sports and arts.

 All were happy, even though epidemics took a heavy toll of men but not animals.

Let us examine, item by item, how life was then and what we have achieved now.

1)      Life was secure then. None was worried about his future. Mostly, traditional vocations were followed, the society being caste-ridden. How will my children live after my time? The question never worried any body. Anxiety on this account was unknown then. Today, every moment we are concerned about it (of course, I am not talking about the Ambanis)

2)      All works were done manually. This kept life style diseases away. People were healthy. The rich people suffered from diabetes, B.P and heart attacks. The poor people were spared. Today, the middle class too have become rich as far as life style is concerned. We don’t exert. Remote control ensured that we need not even move. So we suffer from all diseases of the rich.

3)      The vaidyaji took care of health problems. I don’t remember ever going to a doctor. The Namboodri house stood in the middle of a spacious plot of land. We had our own well and at least one pond. No fencing, we never wounded mother Earth with the pick axe or spade. It was like a forest. Things just grew. Village people scouted for medicinal plants or mangoes in the season. They never asked us. In the month of Karkidagam (Sawan) ladies adorned the hair with “Dashapushpam” (ten flowers). After the land reforms, we too became proletariat, when our only source of earnings was taken away. The land was handed over to the tillers. Today land is fallow because none can afford to grow food. Wages are high and labour is not available in Keralam.

     I have digressed. We were discussing medicine. The vidyaji will only prescribe the medicines. If these cannot be had from the land, there is a shop selling them. Medicines, in soup form, were made at home. People may give some gift like plantain. The belief is that if vidyaji demands compensation, he will lose his ability to diagnose and treat the illness.

 When the people of the West were barbarians (say B.C1000) Ayurvedic system of medicine was well developed in India. At Rajgir in Bihar, I was shown the excavated remains of a hospital where the royal families were treated. Even today Ayurveda can hold its head high in certain fields. But the sanctity of the system was violated when it was commercialized. Now, medicinal soups are bottled and preserved, rendering them sometimes ineffective.

 Today, medical treatment is nothing but shameless exploitation of the masses. Multi speciality hospitals cater to the rich. The poor people survive by grace of God. 50% of the medicines sold in the market are absolutely useless. (It was in the newspapers.) All medicines have side effects. Fees must be deposited in advance (pity the vidyaji). As doctors are “manufactured” in thousands, who can guarantee their quality? (Merit is ignored; caste is the basis for selection of students). Each hospital should earn profit. Or else, it will be closed down. So it must be ensured that people fall ill, as frequently as possible. As soon as a baby is born it is given ten injections, to make sure that its immunity system doesn’t develop. The bird flu was unknown then. Today also desi chickens are not affected. Artificial methods have destroyed the capacity to resist diseases.

 To make people fall ill, fast food culture is deliberately encouraged. To the capitalist, a patient is also a consumer. The only aim is profit. To hell with health! We want every citizen to be in the hospital so that profit can swell.

4) Education was totally free of lucre then. I was thrilled to see rows of neatly made hostel rooms at Nalanda which was just a name until Sir Alexander Cunningham traveled in the foot steps of Huen Tsang and saw small hills covered with grass and shrubs. He suggested excavation of the area which was started in 1914. Even today, a few work men may be seen digging leisurely; it may take another hundred years at this rate, to uncover the whole township. More than four hundred years B.C, it was a beacon of learning, attracting scholars from all over the East. They did not come to get a degree and campus selection for lucrative jobs. They just wanted to learn. Among them was a young man. No body knew he was a prince. He came in tattered clothes and was emaciated like a beggar, after wandering in the forest, begging for food. His name was Gautama. He spent several years in the campus, endlessly discussing the causes of pain and misery and suffering of human beings. (At Bodh Gaya, he is depicted as  well fed and handsome- a real prince charming. His devotees want something pleasing to the eye). I admire him. I like to see Takshashila too!

 In the villages, education was the concern of guruji. There was close, personal relation- ship with Guruji and the students who stay with him. Remember the story of Krishna and Sudama who were ordered by guru patni (wife) to fetch fuel from the forest? (I am reminded of an incident I read in a memoir. An English lady accepts an assignment to teach English to the Crown Prince of Japan. She was going through some notes when she wanted the fan to be switched on. She asked the Prince and failed to understand the hesitation in her pupil’s face. Suddenly the realization came. How can anybody give orders to a Prince? Of course, the pupil obeyed.) No tuition fee.  In the end, some guru dakshina (gift) is given. That is all.

 And today? By any stretch of imagination, can you call it education? True learning should aim at liberating the brain power from the shackles of the body, so it can soar higher and higher towards the heaven, scanning the whole universe and beyond. The questions why and how should continuously and intensely torment the inquisitive mind. Learning is tapasya. (Concentrated study). Total detachment from the worldly chores is an absolute must.

 In the present system, children are being hypnotized to believe that every thing written in the text book is absolutely true. The only aim is to secure maximum marks in the examination, by hook or by crook. Whether you like a subject is immaterial. Money is the supreme god. (Lakshmi is worshiped by all, everywhere. Is there a single temple of Saraswati? I think there is one in Keralam) The best brains are hijacked by capitalism and enslaved to make more and more profit. Is there any wonder that educational standards are going down every year?

 In Russia, when capitalism was abolished in 1917, education became free. Science was made number one priority. (Here MBA is made much of because capitalists want them to work for profit).The results are there, for all to see. From the most backward state in Europe, Russia overtook the US in space research. The first man to go up in space was

a Russian. Production of electricity was taken up as the most urgent task. Heavy industry almost outpaced consumer industry. (Indian students who went to study in Moscow found soaps and blades stolen frequently).The all powerful Germans were defeated by Russians in second world war.Without heavy industry backed by S & T, this would have been impossible.

After 1956, the first science city was established in Siberia. From wilderness intended for exiling undesirable characters, Siberia became a treasure of coal, minerals etc. and fully industrialised, an achievement impossible under capitalism. Science is the instrument of this of this revolution.

 Today here we find education being converted into a lucrative industry, in which millions are invested to reap huge profits. Government schools are for the poor- no equipments, no teachers, and no books.

Order of preference of students seeking higher education is somewhat as given below:

 MBA

IIT

Medicine

Info technology

Commerce

Economics

Geology

Pure science

Geography

 Those who fail to get admission for the coveted courses, go for pure sciences. In communist Russia scientists were given maximum salary. They commanded great influence in decision making. Here in Delhi we do not have a science centre where those interested may gather together for a chitchat. Easy access to science literature is a must.

Many of you may think that modern science originated in the west. This is a total misconception .Some of the things our forefathers have recorded in so many words, are stunningly dazzling.

1) That the earth is a globe

2) Earth attracts objects towards itself

3) Earth is rotating: the sun and stars are stationary

4) Shadow of the earth is cause of lunar eclipse

5) Dalton’s atomic theory

6) that the foetus in the womb recognizes sounds and starts learning mother tongue, much before it comes out of the woumb.(Abhimanyu learned strategy of warfare, while still in Uthara’s woumb, according to Mahabharatam.I first read about it in Bhagawat puran.By sheer coincidence, actual scientific confirmation was reported in the newspapers at that period some 8 years back).

These are just a few instances. As all this is written in Samskrutam. People do not even know about it. It is a pity that we have to learn about such things from foreign sources.

Astronomy originated in India at least 5000 years ago. In Egypt too studies in this field progressed at that time. The Malayalam calendar came into existence 1184 years ago. It is based on the movement of the Sun around the equator .The number of days of each month is calculated every year, so that we are not aware of the leap year.

So, before the Malayalam era came into existence, how did they know their age? Each year was given a name. Only 60 years were given names; thereafter the names are repeated.

Each one  must remember the name of the month and Nakshatra (the name given to the group of stars where the Moon appears each day) and also the name of the year of birth , so that his age can be counted. (Like the week. If I am born on Wednesday my age will be the fourth day.) That is why sixtieth birthday is celebrated. The names of the years are repeated, after 60 years.

Two thousand years ago, an European was unable to tell his age. Intellectually, we were far ahead. The Nalanda Vishvavidyala and library were ransacked and burnt by Muslim invaders sometime in fifteenth century. That was the end of a civilization. Knowledge got fossilized in Samskrutam texts to be explored by European Indologists. If these books were available in Hindi or Dravidian languages, history would have been different.

5) Production of food grains, cloths, agricultural implements, kitchen utensils etc. was regulated according to the needs of the village.Transportation was restricted to the bare

minimum. I am not a historian. Perhaps conveyance was restricted to movement of goods.Today production is chaotic. In any society based on rational lines, the requirements will be calculated and production regulated according to the needs. In a market controlled economy, waste is inevitable. Any number of factories are producing cars. Think of the brain power used in designing. If all this is centalised (in this age it is easy) we can have the best model of cars, buses etc. Expenses on advertisement and sales can be saved. Cars will become cheap. Similarly food and other agricultural products can be produced according to requirement.There will be no shortages nor glut. Why can’t we do it? (See my article: Man is the most foolish animal in the world).

6) For sheer joy and entertainment people were engaged in cultural and sports activities. Competition was healthy and without rancour.

Today, what we saw in the cricket world is the influence of money. Before future historians, we will have to hang our head in shame!

Local festivals, drama , music etc were meant for healthy entertainment and people were not glued to their TV sets !

I don’t want to go back to AD 1008. At the same time, I want to change the system to be reorganized along rational lines. Are we not intelligent creatures?

Perhaps the greatest lie originating (and arguably, perpetuated by) Capitalism is the idea that the wealthy are wealthy because they are intelligent, disciplined, and hardworking and the poor are poor because they are ignorant and lazy. As a result, if a man in a business suit and flawless grammar knocks on your door and asks if he can use your bathroom, chances are you’ll let him. You probably wouldn’t do the same for a man in a ragged bathrobe whose grasp of the English language was sub-average. Indeed, the quality of treatment you offer people is usually determined by what social class they hail from. We make assumptions about people based on whether or not they seem to be poor, middle-class, or wealthy.

Quite simply, we’re bigots.

And not without reason either. If a person is less willing to let a homeless man into his house than a man who is (or at least, seems to be) doing quite well for himself, then the person’s fear is not completely unfounded. A wealthy man has less reason to rob you than a poor man. Crime rates, alcoholism, and drug abuse are highest among the lower classes. Likewise the poorer classes tend to have the lowest levels of education. Statistically speaking, yes, you are more likely to be mugged by a poor person than a rich one, but so what? Bigotry is never tolerable, no matter what. So what if you’re more likely to be mugged if you get a poor guy into your house instead of a rich one? You don’t know either man. Maybe the man in the bathrobe is an honest, honorable person who’s had a run of bad luck. Maybe the man in the suit is a sociopathic murderer or a con artist. Judging people according to how wealthy they are is, no matter how you look at it, wrong!

So why is it that we’re bigoted to trust the middle-class and wealthy rather than the poor? Is it because the poor are ignorant and criminal while the wealthy are intelligent and decent? Of course not! The poor aren’t poor because they’re criminals; the poor have high crime levels because they are poor. Sure the poor man is more likely to mug you, but is that because of him or the fact that he’s cold and hungry? Obviously there are those who are poor because of their own issues- all humans have a propensity towards greed and indolence. At the same time, it is ridiculous to claim that the poor are only poor because they’re lazy. It’s the poorest of the poor who have the heaviest workload. Across Africa, Asia, Latin America and yes, even Europe, Australia, and North America there are millions of those who for ten hours a day for wages of less than a dollar a day! There’s a reason we call them the Proletariat- the working class! It’s because they’re the ones doing all the actual work. They do the farming, the mining, the sweeping, the building, the cleaning, the producing and manufacturing! Why on earth would we even dare to consider these people to be lazy?

Because we’re lazy.

As I’ve said, humans are lazy. More often than not we don’t take the time and effort to investigate something for ourselves; we simply make assumptions or believe whatever our leaders and the media feed us. Since the poor are poor and unable to afford decent (if any) healthcare, we immediately assume that the poor are simply dirty. Since the poor can’t afford decent (if any) educations, we immediately assume that the poor are ignorant and stupid. Since the poor are poor and can’t always afford food/medicine/etc., many are forced into lives of crime- we immediately assume that the poor are naturally criminal. But laziness isn’t the only reason we don’t ask why the poor live in poverty.

Humans are also naturally arrogant. The idea- no, the myth- that the poor are poor because they are lazy makes us feel better about ourselves. We’re where we are because of our efforts! We’re wealthy because of our intelligence, our skill! We’re where we are because of our work-ethic, our self-discipline, and our decency!

Egotistical lies.

We’re where we are because of our own efforts and the efforts of our parents and their parents before them and because of the state of the world we live in and the class we were born into. Personal effort makes up about ten percent of it- the rest is accident of birth and dumb luck. A person pulling himself to the top from nothing is such a rare event that we make a major Hollywood film out of it. If you’re born poor, chances are you’ll stay poor no matter how hard you get unless you get not one but a whole chain of lucky breaks. If you’re born into a middle-class family, you’re probably going to stay middle-class unless you get a bunch of lucky breaks (though less than if you were poor). If you’re born into wealth and privilege than you haven’t done anything to deserve your life and don’t have to do anything to maintain it. Like I said, it really comes down to accident of birth. If you’re lucky, you’re wealthy, if you’re not, you’re poor and probably will be poor for the rest of your life. The Caste System isn’t exclusive to Hinduism.

So in short, don’t believe in the fairy-tale that the wealthy are the best of society and the poor are the worst, or that the poor are poor only because of their own efforts. We are, for the most part, fixed in our place by statistical chance- individual effort has very little effect on us.

It isn’t fair, is it? Only a sadist or an idiot could honestly state that this is an ethical system. Most of us simply shrug our shoulders and say that “life isn’t fair” or “that’s just the way things are…”. I say that when someone’s been murdered, we can’t stick our hands in our pockets and say “life isn’t fair”. I say that when any injustice has been committed, no matter on what scale, the only ethical course of action is to establish justice. Yes, life isn’t fair- but maybe that’s because no one’s doing anything about it!

 A Guide to Answer  Some of the Frequent Questions/Criticisms  Against Hinduism   - A Practitioner’s Perspective  by  Veera Skanda

 Contents

 Introduction 

1. Is Hinduism a religion or a dharma or a way of life? Rather, what is Hinduism?
2. What is good in caste?
3. Is caste determined by birth or by qualities?
4. Discrimination and exploitation – does caste create or control these?
5. Does Hinduism need to be protected by VHP and the likes?
6. Tolerance is in the Hindu philosophy but not in its religion
7. What good is spirituality if it can be understood only by few?
8. All religions worship God, preach salvation. What is so great about Hinduism?
9. Did God create man or has man created God?
10. Do gods get angry?
11. Who worships Gods and who worships devil?
12. Who is fit to preach? Hindus do not even worship God but only the forms of creation!
13. Is religion bad or the followers bad?
14. Is animal sacrifice not cruel and violent?
15. Hindu Gods hold weapons, and their stories are about fighting – how does Hinduism preach nonviolence? Also, if these wars are said to be for a noble cause, are not crusades and crescentades the same? Why then is so much fury about those?
16. Do Vedas have science? Is it not too much to claim that?
17. Hindus claim that Vedas and Agamas to be revealed scriptures, so do the Abrahamists. So how does Hinduism become any more non-dogmatic than the latter?
18. Religion is the reason for dogma, it has caused bloodshed and is anti-science.
19.  
20. How are women treated in Hinduism?
21. Superstition and religion
22. Force-guidance-handholding in religious practices
23. Untouchability
24. Single vs multiple gods – lack of clarity or better direction?

 Introduction

 This is a compilation of frequent criticism/questions on Hinduism, along with brief answers from a practitioner’s perspective. The length of these answers and the taste in which the questions are often posted hardly give scope for explaining the broad and lofty system of traditions that Hinduism has. This is an essential attempt to meet the question-and-run type criticism where the questions need profound understanding of many subjects to be addressed but discussions seldom give scope for such understanding or explanation. Most of the times, those who raise these questions hardly have authority on the subjects and concepts involved. However that is serving their purpose – to raise these fundamental questions in the minds of less aware Hindus. And in many occasions, in the light of lack of readymade answers, less patient Hindus tend to give benefit of doubt to the questioner – and this is harmful, as it paints a negative image of Hinduism to the common man and confuses believers. There are many kinds of people who raise these questions – right from the innocent to those whose intention is to malign the great tradition.

 Much of the answering contrasts the oriental and Abrahamic worldviews, for multiple reasons –

• The contrast is easily visible and that makes things easily understandable.
• The difference needs to be understood and one should understand that evaluating any tradition needs to be done within the framework of its concepts. Most of the times we tend to evaluate the oriental traditions using the concepts and terminology of Abrahamic traditions and western worldview, which is hardly sufficient to explain, understand or evaluate the diverse and lofty oriental traditions.
• Most of the criticism is done by the followers and promoters of Abrahamic systems, therefore one should understand the worldview adhered to by the critics and also the system they are criticizing.

 The answers are not really targeted to a specific audience but intended to give a quick clarification on these. Those who are interested in understanding the concepts and the core of the tradition are advised to consult classical texts, learned men and practitioners of Hinduism. The answers are also not complete in the sense that they do not address the diverse schools of Hinduism – each school has its own approach to the fundamentals. Therefore it would be simplistic even to attempt to give a blanket statement to represent the whole system. However, all the schools are broad and lofty, and though they differ in their approaches they are all based on a thorough understanding of life, consciousness and human nature – which makes them correct, all at the same time with all the differences. The material used for these answers is compiled from various sources on Hinduism, some of them online and some of them printed texts.

Question

 Is Hinduism a religion or a dharma or a way of life? Rather, what is Hinduism?

 Answer

 Hinduism is a loose word that refers to the original Indian culture, its society and its varied spiritual traditions.  There are different contexts in which one would seek to define Hinduism – spiritual traditions, social fabric, civilization. There are varied spiritual traditions native to India – Vedic-Tantric, Bauddha, Jaina, Sikh and so on. Some of these do not call themselves part of Hinduism in the sense that they do not subscribe to the Sanatana Dharma, and its Vedic-Tantric worldviews. They are however part of the same civilization and society. Thus there is a civilizational and a spiritual tradition specific demarcation.

 The need to define Hinduism arises primarily because of the need to assert a civilizational, cultural and spiritual identity and differentiate it from the totally alien worldviews like the Abrahamic traditions. Until they have invaded India, there was hardly a need for a collective definition – there are Vaishnavas, Saivas, Saktas, Ganapatyas, Bauddhas, Jainas, Srauta-Smartas, Nastikas and many more. All these sprouted from the same civilization, have coexisted with each other for millennia with the diversity of their worldviews. Their differences and diversity have only enriched the knowledge system of the civilization. The civilization that had all these systems is truly so universal in its nature, that it could accommodate virtually any worldview provided it fits into the pluralistic system and agrees to coexist with others.

 The whole thing changed with the invasion of exclusivist and intolerant Abrahamic traditions. And there came the need for the otherwise unconditional and universally accommodating society to put a definition, a boundary to preserve itself. In that sense, Hinduism is a social level definition intended for a practical purpose. However the very nature of society it represents has many aspects – civilizational, religious, cultural and social. Hinduism is not a society, a culture, a civilization or a group of religions – it is all this and more than this. It is a comprehensive system of life encompassing a collection of tolerant and pluralistic spiritual traditions, their collective knowledge system and wisdom, the society they built up, their civilization and the whole range of cultures and customs they practice.

 However when the word Hinduism is applied to a religion, one usually refers to its Vedic-Tantric traditions such as Smarta-Srauta, Sakta, Vaishnava, Saiva. This excludes Bauddha, Jaina traditions. By saying Hinduism in this context, one is referring to Sanatana Dharma, whose corner stone is the Varna-Ashrama Dharma. Dharma/righteousness is its foundation rock. The traditions such as Bauddha that do not subscribe to it fall outside its fold in that sense. However, they all have a higher level of similarity with Sanatana Dharma in their spiritual practices, their pluralistic nature and the knowledge system consisting of sciences, arts and metaphysics that they contributed to. Bauddha even bases itself on Dharma, though it does not subscribe to the Varna system.

Question

 What is good in caste? It has always been a vehicle of discrimination, a social stigma.

 Answer

 Caste system is one of the primary and defining features of Hindu society, and its armour. That is the reason its enemies have targeted it. And ignorant Hindus are buying the arguments of their enemies. If we look at facts - 

• Caste/jati is an endogamous cultural unit. Hindu society is a group of jatis. In fact the word Hindu itself is not very rigid here, any culture/religion that came from outside India such as Parsis or Jews are treated as jatis and allowed to preserve not only their religion and theology but their customs and cultural traits.
• Caste is one of the primary contributors to pluralism and coexistence in India.  Communities right from those millions strong to those that hardly have thousands of adherents, have retained their cultural identities, their uniqueness, their autonomy for millennia in India alone, and jati/caste is the organization that made it possible. Smaller and weaker communities all over the world have lost their identity and existence in front of bigger communities – even million strong communities a couple of thousand years ago are not even to be seen today. In contrast even small communities in India have retained their identity.
• Caste creates social capital, caste offers strength to the society. It is the intermediary level of collectivity smaller than nation individuals identify themselves with.
• It is the endogamous cultural unit, and preserves the cultural diversity in the society without eliminating it in the name of uniformity.

 On the other hand -

• People who criticize caste system for discrimination do not differentiate between feudal and caste systems, untouchability and hatred. They fail to see that caste has not created the feudal setup – on the other hand it had to some extent brought down the strength of feudal setup.
• People who cannot even create an organization of hundred men without grouping and classifying them, who talk loud about caste but do not even refrain from discrimination in their own lives, who cannot even avoid such breed/brand/class discrimination while choosing their pet dogs and their partners, are the ones who unfortunately get to talk about social dynamics and discrimination. They hardly have any right to give lectures about those.
• Those who had the understanding of Hinduism, those who genuinely wished for the good of Hinduism have always tried to reform the caste system, to advocate against caste-rivalry but never went against caste itself.

Question

 Is caste determined by birth or by qualities? How does it ensure social mobility?

 Answer

 There are two aspects in the caste system – jati or the cultural unit and varna, the higher abstraction. Jati is very much determined by birth. Varna is explained in two ways – one is the abstraction over Jati. Any Jati by its predominant occupation falls into one of these. The other is not a categorization but a description. Any society has four kinds of people. Its four pillars are the knowledge institution, governance and defense, commerce, vocations. This is not segregation but a commonsense description of any society.

 While evaluating caste, two things are generally ignored –

• the difference between jati and varna, and the two faces of varna
• the fact that jati is the social unit while varna is only an abstraction, not an arrangement

 In any organized society, there are two things to be ensured – social mobility and security. Protection or security in Hindu society is ensured through the jati system, both by distribution of power centers (and thereby preventing any single group from assuming the power) and by strengthening/protecting the autonomy of each group. This is not theory, but this is how the strong castes we see today have developed – by strengthening the bond between individuals and the caste unit. On the other hand the castes where individualism takes precedence over group identity have remained weak as groups.

 Varna on the other hand, is about creating synergy between individuals and groups that perform the four major social functions mentioned above.

 Social mobility is of multiple types Mobility could be at individual, group or jati level -

• Mingling of individuals and groups at different capacities, their synergy and protocol of interaction to prevent a stronger group from taking advantage of a weaker group. An individual with his merit, can move to another Varna. This depends on the merit of the individual, the eligibility to pursue the function of a Varna, the teacher he seeks and so on. Examples:

1.  
   • Many rishis born as non-dvijas, Sudras like Vidura taking up ministries.
   • Many persons with study or yoga becoming teachers today

• Through inter-jati marriage an individual can move from one jati to another. This has some regulations. In a patriarchy, a woman moves to the jati of her husband. In matriarchy, it is the other way round. There are very few matriarchic societies in India, like in Kerala. This however does not change the varna/function of the individual. Examples:

1.  
   • All inter-jati marriages.
   • Many brahmins losing their varna because of not practicing their varna dharma

• Marriage across jati results in change of caste.  In a patriarchy (most of the communities are patriarchies these days) the woman takes her husband’s jati. In a matriarchy the man takes the woman’s jati. However, the varna does not transform still, even after change of jati.
• Change of varna in case of individuals, through initiation into learning given by a learned man.
• An entire group of individuals could move to another Varna, because of the role they play in a social situation. Examples: Many non-Kshatriya jatis becoming Kshatriya jatis as they took up military defense during Muslim invasions.

Question

Does caste system not create discrimination, inequality and scope for exploitation?

Answer

People who say this, are either ignorant of the basic workings of human nature and society, or deliberately attack the Hindu society. Inequality and segregation is not created by caste system, rather they are inherent in human nature and society. What caste system aims at is not to deny that fundamental fact, but rather to address and control these to the extent possible, so that it is least harmful the society. The fact that Hindu society had survived over ages, while most societies have broken up and were replaced by different civilizations multiple times in the same duration, stands to say this. Far from the picture of oppression that is often painted against Hinduism, the fact remains that there were hardly caste level clashes in Hindu society before foreign invasions done by the Muslims and Christians (Europeans). The natural differences and discrepancy that no society could get over, is not created by, but rather kept by the caste system under check.

 Question

Hinduism is not so weak that it needs to be protected by those like Bajrang Dal or VHP. It has withstood various onslaughts over centuries and continues to survive. Why does it need to be campaigned for or defended?

 Answer

 This is one of the most common arguments, but those who do such arguments fail to answer the question – “how did it withstand those onslaughts?” It did, by defending itself from those, physically, militarily – when “fanatics” of yore fought for it. And that is what follows from commonsense – something will survive when it has warriors to defend it. Hinduism did not survive by itself while monks kept closing their nostrils. It survived because of its warriors who defended its “fabric” by the strength of their swords.

And even today, as commonsense suggests, it will survive only when it is defended. The difference today, however, is that it does not have a military to defend it. There are only these so-called fanatics!! So you either leave it to them, or take it upon yourself to defend the rare, great and tolerant system.
It retained its culture, its social fabric by the strength of its warrior class, by the blood of millions of its warriors, its soldiers. It is a naive and/or hypocritical to show the very survival of Hinduism as proof for the lack of need for its protection, because such tolerance would survive only when it is defended, when the intolerant tribes attacking it from all ends are controlled. It is very well known from whom Hinduism is trying to defend itself, for the past thousand years, continuously losing its people, its land, its culture, its fabric. Once a grand culture that spread out in many places in Asia, it is now reduced to less than a dominant Hindu nation – with even that being a secular nation where it hardly finds the leadership favorable to defend it. The continuous and fast diminution in the following of the tolerant culture and the steep rise in the intolerant tribes that are attacking it, would cause concern not just to a practicing Hindu but any tolerant and peace-loving human being.
Question

 The tolerance of Hinduism is in its philosophy, not its ritual/dogmatic part.
Answer

 There is just one Hinduism – philosophy, culture, religions are only different aspects of it. And Hinduism is evolving, synthetic, accommodating and flexible in all these aspects.

Whatever customs one sees, one should understand that they are specific to the tradition that follows those. And there are several traditions – following different customs, rituals, practices and philosophies. And a common Hindu follows any of those traditions or even remains outside those. One still very much remains a part of the Hindu society. This flexibility in Hinduism is not because of the “philosophy”, but a flexibility that comes by drawing the line between religion governance and society, and minimizing the interference of one on the other. This is the uniqueness of Hinduism – to have a comprehensive system of life and still being able to keep the various aspects of life in proper context.

 There are multiple religions in Hinduism, multiple traditions and philosophies. To call it a philosophy is in itself simplistic. It is a system in which religions, philosophies, arts and sciences have thrived, reinforced each other. Its religions have only furthered the study of sciences and pursuit of arts, and bulk of its knowledge lies in the various spiritual traditions. Unlike the west, the Hindu knowledge system is a single structure where philosophy, arts, sciences, worldviews share a common base.

 The tolerance in Hinduism therefore is not in spite of its religions, but because of the religions and the philosophies that guide them.

Question

 What good is spirituality if it can be understood by only few individuals or priests?

 Answer

 Let us raise an equivalent question. What good is science, when it is understood only by a few researchers, and when people by and large are not aware of its complex theories? The answer is simple too: because most people use it, benefit by it, though they do not know its intricacies. Scientists bring science into the hands of technologists, and the way technologists develop socially useful contrivances based on that science. Similarly seers bring religion into the hands of practitioners and teachers, who in turn package it for the practice/belief of a common man. Just the way a scientist questions and existing scientific theory, a seer questions a spiritual philosophy. Just the way a technologist uses different theories to different ends, a teacher/practitioner develops different methods/practices to suit different people and different situations. Just the way a science understood only by a few is called mainstream knowledge spirituality too is the essential knowledge for mankind.

Question

 All religions worship God, preach salvation. What is so great about Hinduism?

 Answer

 Typically people who say this, are Hindus. After all, if all religions worship God and preach salvation, then why does one need to persecute, attack, insult and mudsling the gods of other religions? Why does one need to destroy the places of worship of other religions, conduct riots, murder, arson, loot on the followers of other religions? Why does one need to create havoc, exterminate tolerant civilizations and religions if all one needs is to preach love? Why are some religions tolerant, accommodating and pluralistic while some are intolerant, exclusivist and below basic morality?

 No, all religions are not the same. Some religions preach love and salvation, while some are vehicles for imperialism in the name of preaching. For them preaching is not a matter of sharing their knowledge, because they themselves have no knowledge about divinity or even humanity.

 Here is exactly where we understand the greatness of Hinduism. Unlike the Abrahamists who have long missed the fundamentals of humanity, forget divinity and salvation, Hinduism has understood those. It has understood that organizations to preach religion are not beyond human weaknesses and they will become vehicles of imperialism just the way Church and Islam have become. It aims at expanding human mind into its higher reaches, into freedom unlike the latter that have learned only to curb it and even encourage its lowest instincts in the name of divine sanctions. That is the reason why one finds sublime spiritual philosophies in Hinduism. Not one but many philosophies coexisting, contributing to a comprehensive knowledge system, developing a wide range of theologies, spiritual traditions. Even the conflicts between those schools have only enriched them into more comprehensive and complete schools – unlike the conflicts with Abrahamists which were socio-political and military – nothing of the sort or anywhere near the profound system that Hinduism is.

 Faith is only preliminary in religion. Its higher reaches are freedom and expansion. The Abrahamic cults exhibit nothing of that sort. All they know of is to curb freedom, sanction sense and ego gratification irrespective of morality for all the “believers”, to preach hate against fellow human beings by drawing an artificial line of disbelief in the place of an existent and important line – of humanity, morality, tolerance and freedom.

 And this is where one knows of the greatness of Hinduism – it has protected the institution of knowledge, the pursuit of truth and divinity. It has not allowed the claims of such pursuit to be a vehicle for imperialism or persecution or amoral sense or ego gratification. It created institutions that allow the quest for perfection, excellence, the pursuit of truth beauty and divinity, and the result is visible in the philosophies that scale the whole range of consciousness, in traditions that train individuals to expand the limited human mind into that infinite consciousness, to realize the farthest reaches of nature, to have a first hand experience of such consciousness and salvation.

Question

 Did God create man or has man created God? Is not all this just in human mind? Even if it is said that there is a God is it that not just the same concept or entity that all the religions talk of and worship?

 Answer

The original philosophical statement goes thus: “God created man in his own image, and man promptly returned the gift”. Man created God in his mind, his thought – that is not what God IS, but that is what man thinks of God.

 In that sense, yes man created God – and it is no sacrilege to say that.
Rather, it shows the paradox, the limitation of logic. The limitation of mind
and its necessity to “create”, to imagine instead of being able to SEE what is right in
front. It is also appropriate to recollect the famous Russel’s paradox – if God
is omnipotent, He can create a rock so big that He cannot lift it. So if he
cannot create such a rock, he is not omnipotent. If he can eventually create
such a rock, he again is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it! So who
created a God who is not omnipotent? Logic (rather its limitation) and nothing
else.

And it is actually true – every person, every collectivity has its own
conception of God – and that depends on how evolved that person or group is. An
average mind thinks of God as a person, a big mind thinks of it as a concept and
only a seer as a living presence. This is why we see so much of diversity in the
theologies of different societies – in societies that worship jealous and angry
gods, such theology only represents their collective psyche. And it is not difficult to see
that the highest they can understand is an average human quality like jealousy,
anger and at most forgiving (that too, not infinitely merciful but sectarian
enough to punish all non-believers and protect believers no matter how immoral
they are). In the societies where gods are infinite, beyond these qualities but
still causing all these at the phenomenal level to fulfill the divine purpose,
such concepts show their psyche – their understanding of the vast and causal
nature of the universe in sharp contrast to the former type where the understanding is (1) anthropomorphic (2) too terrestrial and narrow.

 Thus the more evolved man is, the less he will try to impose his image on god
and the more he tries to see for what god actually is. And that is the goal of
all sadhana – to get a first hand experience, to see what is instead of create
what we think that is.

 Therefore for people who say all religions talk of the same
God or supreme or “param satta”, the answer is that – the “param satta” as defined by someone and as it exists, an attempt to know it, the modesty to declare human incapability to understand it and only describe it in the most general possible way to be as accurate as possible, is the difference. The difference is of agency between the creator and created and living forever as a subordinate of such agents (who are themselves hallucinated, have no first hand experience of divinity and hence preach jealousy, hatred and anger), and acknowledging the fact that such first hand experience is the goal.

On the other hand, those who understand that a concept like God which is beyond mental impressions cannot be comprehended with limited human consciousness, does not claim to be “the only true religion” or his concept of God to be “the only true God”. He understands that his conception, knowledgeable or naïve, is only one of the several conceptions, some of them deeper and some shallow. Such a claim only shows how imperfect and ignorant one’s understanding is, of God, human nature and consciousness.

Consciousness and mind: The whole range of consciousness cannot be reduced
to mind. Seeing the whole world with mind’s eye is one of the several levels.
It is certainly mind that causes the senses to be conscient, and senses that
cause the body to be conscient. Upwards, it works the other way – it is the
intellect that governs the workings of mind. The four faculties of consciousness
- mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), ego (ahankara) and memory (citta) are
overlapping but distinct. Mind/conscient-proper needs an external or inner
inspiration – it processes either external impressions or those impressions that
are created from actions. So it depends on which impressions one chooses to feed
mind with, and that “one” who chooses is the intellect. Intellect too, does not
get to govern mind’s functions always. Many times, it goes unwatched – most of
the times it just repeates external impressions (that senses receive from the
world) and their memories. Some other times it digs from memory the impressions of previous experiences – and depending on the gross or subtle senses are active, these can be impressions recent or old or of previous lives. As one knows himself to be subtle body
instead of gross body, his experiences and impressions will be deeper, and will
not be limited to a present life. Since gross body is specific to a life, the
impressions and knowledge that is gained without shedding mind’s identification
with the body will be limited to that life. As one’s identity happens with the
subtle body (sukshma sareera), one knows himself to be more than carnal. With
subtle body yogas (kundalini, mantra, hatha, laya yoga etc) one can achieve this
through proper use of mind and intellect. However, the causal is beyond these -
it is neither experienced with these nor known through these. For knowing it the
only way is to dissolve the mind-intellect in causal being.

Residence of knowledge: Knowledge exists not in mind but in the parama vyoma.
It only reflects on the mind when one realizes it. Mind is only the upadhi for
knowing, and the means for descending the knowledge into one’s life.

Question

Do gods get angry? Are Hindu Gods not feared for the punishment they give? On the contrary, some religions only preach love for the God.

 Answer

As for love or fear, where is love for someone who cannot tolerate your
disbelief in him? In those cases, the God is himself not an unconditional lover! The point is about what you and your God think of those who do not care about or believe in your God. Hindu Gods never punish disbelievers or anyone for that matter, just because they do not have faith – according to the Hindu traditions the one who is righteous always receives the grace of God, irrespective of his faith. One who is unrighteous, receives the rotten fruits of his unrighteous deeds no matter how much of faith he professes.

Hindus never say daiva-bheeti (fear of God). Hindus say daiva bhakti (devotion to God) and papa bheeti (fear of being unrighteous) – be devoted to God and fear the unrighteous. In Hinduism, God is not the center-stage. Dharma is. The experiences one undergoes, according to Hinduism, follows the nobility of his own actions – God is only a witness to these actions and fruits, but not the one who gives punishments. One can be righteous get liberated without any God either by following the principles of Dharma or through devotion for God or by realizing the true nature of oneself. These three, righteousness, devotion and knowledge are three major paths to liberation in Hinduism.

 This is in stark contrast to the Abrahamic worldview where faith is primary and righteousness secondary. After all, one’s righteousness is of no use if he does not announce his faith is a wrathful God. It is from here that all the nobility of Hinduism and all the evil of Abrahamics sprout, from there that the tolerance of Hinduism and intolerance, exclusivist mentatily of Abrahamics comes.

In Hinduism, it is not ignoring them that makes Gods angry. It is invoking them for a purpose and then not propitiating them that causes undesired results. There is a lot of difference. And in this, it works the otherway way – the Abrahamic god hurts you even if you do not invoke him or do not believe in him. Our gods are not like that. If you leave them alone, they will leave you alone without hurting.

 Of course, there are terrible negative effects, if the path of worship is not followed properly. However it should be understood that it is not like an anthropomorphic God getting angry but the kind of energy generated when not channelized properly, causes negative effects to the one who invoked it. It is similar to a reactor lacking proper moderators. That is why elders say that practice should be done with due guidance from a learned man.

Question

 Who worships gods and who worships ancestors and who worships devils?

 Answer

Worship of God and forms of God – many religions in fact do not worship God. They just call it God, but it is not God. In fact, contrary to what they criticize the likes of Chinese both the anti-semitic Abrahamic religions are mane-worshipers. One would observe that their places of worship are always tied with burials. There is the two world and three world theory. In two world theory, they only have man and mane, no god. What they call God, has all the qualities of a mane, and not God. He is sectarian himself, angry, jealous all that a mane is and God is not. Hindus have a third world beyond the world of manes, which is the world of Devatas – who are beyond the outward impressions of mind like anger. These three worlds are ruled by earth, moon and sun. Vasu, Rudra and Aditya. Their time scales are day, month and year respectively. Beyond this, there are many levels and worlds one has to evolve through, before reaching the divine, the formless eternal (each of these has a higher time scale).  For the Abrahamics there are no such worlds – in fact in Islam they only have month, whose ruler is moon. Their calendar does not have solar year, it has lunar months adding up to a year.

Question

 Who is fit to preach religion? Hindus do not even worship God, they worship forms of creation and not the creator.

 Answer  

 Hindus do not worship the forms of God – they worship God in those forms. This is very different from saying they worship forms. It is the axiomatic difference between seeing things as they appear and knowing things as they are. To understand this, one should understand the basic premise of Hinduism, that God is not outside His creation but is the essence of it. Thus every element of His creation is divine, and worshiping any element is essentially worshiping God. The difference in worship as one evolves is that he elevates from worshiping the form to worshiping the essence. On the other hand, those who think they are worshiping God and not its creation, are ignorant of the basic premise and essential nature of creation, and the relation between creation and the creator.

 It is the limitation of human mind to contemplate on objects first and their essence next. And the traditions that have understood this and have addressed this are the Indic traditions – in contrast to those that boast of worshiping God but end up praying to anthropomorphic entity. The Abrahamic God is not anthropomorphic only in the sense that he does not have a physical body, but is anthropomorphic in every other sense – they superimpose almost every human quality such as anger, jealousy, hatred, mercy on their God – through which basically they are projecting themselves onto their God, instead of worshiping God.

 In contrast, Hindus traditions have a thorough understanding of human consciousness, the aids needed by mind at different stages of evolution, the pitfalls in the path. They address these to perfection, by avoiding the projection of human mind over God at a stage where mind is not trained enough to see what is beyond it. They give methods to train the mind, to prepare it to see what is beyond, for man to unite with a higher consciousness. It is at that stage that they expose the mind to divine consciousness, at which stage the person is not projecting his mental image over divine but becomes a vehicle for divine consciousness to descend into life. For this reason, the Hindu seers are not hallucinated and their words are not projection of their ego. Hindu Gods are anthropomorphic (that too partly) only in the description of their physical attributes – in essence they are representatives of the deeper layers of consciousness. And in Hinduism it is not a crime to describe divine in human and animal forms, because all of them are His creation, His forms, whose essence is He Himself.

 On the other hand the Abrahamics hardly have any legacy on the subject of consciousness or training in it. Centuries after their false claims to divinity they are today stealing the methods followed by oriental traditions, including yoga and the teachings of Gita, advertising those in different terminology, and using the same to gain converts from the traditions that have developed these! Forget preaching divinity, they hardly even have morality.

One who has the understanding of these subjects and has a first hand experience of what is explained by those, is the one who has the authority to preach. One who has scaled the heights of consciousness, in contrast to those who have no understanding of any of these subjects but try to be salesmen, has the authority to preach. As people have wondered after Swami Vivekananda’s speech in Chicago, it is the oriental spiritual traditions like Hinduism that have the right to preach and teach. But not surprisingly, those who have the knowledge also have the modesty to understand and admit that they are not the “only true” ones to know it!

Question

 Is religion bad or the followers bad? If religion is itself bad, then are not all religions bad? On the other hand if it is the followers that are bad, then why blame religion?

 Answer

 There are two aspects in this – human nature and how religion attends to it. While human nature can be directed in both ways by philosophies, theories and religions, the one that succeeds the most is the one that on one hand understands the pitfalls in human nature that can potentially harm man and addresses them, and on the other hand directs it towards its highest and greatest reaches.

 Thus, the religion or philosophy that does not address the pitfalls such as sense and ego gratification, mistaking hallucination for realization, the one that does not have a methodology to train the various faculties of consciousness to avoid such false identifications and forces one into dogma instead of knowledge, is indeed a bad philosophy or religion for mankind. Its effects are often visible in the queer mix of persecution, imperialism, sense of sin.

 On the other hand the system that has comprehensive understanding of human nature and has addressed its most fundamental aspects such as morality and ego, that has devised methods to train human mind and senses to avoid any pitfalls in morality or false knowledge, that has developed various methodologies to suit men of different tastes and capabilities, is the one that is indeed a great philosophy. And Hinduism is such.

 Thus, while it is human nature that eventually causes good or bad of man, the effect of a philosophy or religion on society very much depends on how it directs human nature, what it aims at, what problems it foresees and addresses.

Question

 Is animal sacrifice not cruel and violent? How does it go well with the non-violence, one of the principles people boast of?

 Answer

 There are three aspects in this – food, violence and sacrifice:

• Food is the basis of life. Life is sustained by the consumption of life, and this is the inherent principle of nature. And sustenance of life is the highest principle. At the same time, consumption of life defeats the same principle (for other creatures). Harming any living being is against that principle. Thus there arises the need for reconciliation between the principle of consumption and the principle of sustenance. This is explained by the concept of sacrifice.
• Body is the basis for the performance of every rite, through performance of which the purpose of life is fulfilled. The rite undertaken for sustaining the body, namely consumption, is thus one of the most sacred and important ones. However, this means that only the consumption done with the sense of sacrifice, or with the sense of sustaining the body, is considered sacred. Superfluous consumption of life, is against the principle of sustenance. Therefore, meat-eating and superfluous eating as a whole is discouraged in Hinduism and not just killing of animals. Thus while explaining violence/consumption to be inherent in nature, it is sought to be minimized by the same principle that makes it inevitable.
• Hinduism, along with its offshoots, is unique in presenting vegetarianism as a virtue, though it has not prohibited meat-eating for the simple reason that majority of mankind is non-vegetarian and it is not practical to make vegetarianism a rule. However, practitioners do remain vegetarians on occasions, during the period of austerities. There are also sections of Hindus who are totally vegetarian.
• Sacrifice is typically done with edibles. One would sacrifice what one consumes subsequently, as a fruit of the sacrifice (though there are exceptions to this, which is not relevant here). Thus the whole thing comes down to what one consumes. So when the majority of mankind is non-vegetarian, it hardly makes sense to say that sacrificing an animal and consecrating it is violent – while cooking and eating it on a much larger scale is not. The animals sacrificed are too few compared to the animal eaten – so any complaint on sacrifice is simply unjust and even dishonest.
• Sacrifice of animal in a sacrifice is part of the optional rites, and not a regular rite.
• Through consecration, the animal being sacrificed is absolved of its samskaras, and is elevated to higher births subsequently.
• What sacrifice is achieving, while it has not added any violence which is not already present, is the attitude, the consecration, the sense of offering which makes man devoted. And as practice evidently shows, one’s violent nature actually diminishes as one does sacrifices, since that brings in the sense of divinity in his actions and his view of the world.
• Meat-eating – There is no evidence that sacrifices have increased meat-eating, rather India is among those countries that have minimized meat-eating even when compared to other tropical countries. On the other hand, those who show animal sacrifices as something superstitious and violent are among those who consume more meat and kill more animals – the Abrahamics for instance! After all, it becomes no less violent or cruel just because one does not cut the animal himself but gets is a nice pack after it is cooked. Therefore for any representative of a majority non-vegetarian community to talk of violence or cruelty in the most refined traditions like Hinduism is ridiculous.
• Even the sacrifice part, should be looked at in two ways. Sacrifice can be literal as well as symbolic. Literal sacrifice involves sacrificing an animal. In symbolic sacrifice, the sense of sacrifice is important and animals are not offered. In a literal sacrifice too, animals are offered as symbols of animal-nature sacrificing which man is symbolizing his evolution. In many sacrifices, animal is replaced with a pista-pasu. Thus while retaining the spirit of sacrifice sacrifices have been refined to suit the increasing vegetarianism. Since Hinduism is a living religion and not time-stamped by an “only great man”, it evolves continuously, and sets trends that benefit mankind in the coming centuries.

Question

 Hindu Gods hold weapons and their stories are about fighting and killing. How can Hinduism preach love and nonviolence? Also, if these wars are said to be for a noble cause, are not crusades and crescentades the same? Why then is so much fury about those?

 Answer

 There is no contradiction in this. First of all, the stories are full of assertions of morality and the fight of the righteous to resist and control the unrighteous. They are also stories of evolution, of the victory of knowledge over ignorance, of gnosis over nescience. And this is not a secret symbolism – each such story explicitly mentions this. They are stories also of the control of demons who, start invading the lands that are not theirs, hurt innocent men and try to establish their control over the world. Thus they are stories of controlling the intolerant, the imperial and the unrighteous, establishing peace and tolerance.

 On the other hand, crusades and crescentades (jihad) are not control of intolerance – they are themselves the invasions, done by the intolerant over people they term as non-believers. In this, they are similar to the asuric assaults on people to make them accept their supremacy and “true religion”. They are in no way similar to the wars done by Devatas described in Puranic literature, but are rather similar to the assaults done by the asuras on rishis and innocent men.

 If crusades and crescentades are anything about nobility, they would not result in eliminating tolerant cults all over the world as they did. If they were at least about valor, they would be involved in combat with armies and would not result in attacks over innocent people they way they happen to this date. Above all, they would be means to restore tolerance and in defense of a righteous cause, and they would not be means of aggression. But facts state the opposite. They have been aggression, invasion and intolerance.

The fundamental difference in the Hindu concept of “dharma yuddha” and the crescentades is that the former is about fighting for the righteousness and peace, the latter is fighting for glory and supremacy.

Question

 Do Vedas have science? Is it not too much to claim that?

 Answer

One should define what science is, and what is scientific, before going into this. Science is knowledge, but all knowledge is not science. There are specific modes of explanations acceptable in science (deductive, probabilistic, teleological and genetic).

 Going by that, traditional knowledge is not all “science”. Traditional subjects are called Sastras. Some Sastras are sciences, and go by the modes of explanation accepted in science (for instance mathematics and physics). Some Sastras do not. However, entire traditional knowledge has its framework and means for its verification. The means for acquiring and verifying knowledge are called pramanas. Each Sastra or subject has its pramanas spelt out clearly.

 Whether it is art, science or philosophy, any subject is called Sastra, because it is a methodical exposition of a subject, specifies the means to gain and verify knowledge, the means to perfection, methods of instructing the same. What is important is the framework of traditional knowledge that integrates all forms of knowledge and organizes them into a single system, instead of compartmentalizing the continuum into “exact” and specific subjects. The holistic view to world that can be gained through such a continuum, is the uniqueness of Hindu knowledge system.

 Science is found in traditional knowledge system – but it is just inappropriate to expect that ancient knowledge would have the theories that match today’s science, for the present is built over past and is always an improvement over the same.

 The other important point we often miss, is that even the traditional knowledge has a hierarchy and arrangement of subjects – each text mentions what it is to be approached for. Veda is axiomatic knowledge, and not deductive. There are subjects like tarka that are deductive. When one approaches traditional texts, this should be kept in mind.

Question

 Hindus claim that Vedas and Agamas to be revealed scriptures, so do the Abrahamists. So how does Hinduism become any more non-dogmatic than the latter?

 Answer

 Yes, Hindus hold Vedas and Agamas to be revealed by divine inspiration. However, these are the fundamental differences in this notion between Hindus and Abrahamists – 

• Vedas and Agamas are part of sabda pramana, which do not overrule but come into picture for knowledge that cannot be known through reason. This is unlike the Abrahamic religions where the revealed scripture overrules what is known through reason. Sabda pramana is clearly listed after perception and logical inference as a valid means of knowledge (and applies when the first two turn out to be insufficient for validating truth). The important feature of sabda pramana is the inability of deduction in proving or disproving it. When there is a possibility of proving or disproving a statement through perception or deduction, then such statement is not called sabda pramana.
• Vedas and Agamas are only part of the grand scheme of Hindu knowledge system, and are selectively called Apourusheya – though the other texts are equally divine and contain knowledge. Basically, Hinduism is not a system of a single book – it is a system with a grand scheme of knowledge, out of which a few texts are said to be Apourusheya.
• The Vedas are known by the seers that revealed those texts. The most important point here is that such revelation is not patented by any seer, but the seers mention clearly that the knowledge and those words are present eternally (in the parama vyoma) and can be realized by anyone who is trained enough to that consciousness. The knowledge is about impersonal (divine), the knowledge is itself impersonal, and therefore of impersonal origin. Thus no body has created that knowledge, seers have only revealed it. It is this sense of discovery and non-invention of knowledge, its eternal presence that makes it Apourusheya and not in the sense that the text is secretly revealed to a seer by God while others have to take it by faith. This is in stark contrast to the Abrahamic traditions where the text is said to be revealed and that believers have to take them to be revealed.

Question

 Religion is the reason for dogma, it has caused bloodshed and is anti-science. Religion is mistaken for spirituality, but spirituality is different.

 Answer

 Religion is not the reason for dogma, but the preliminary stages of practice of religion involve dogma to an extent. The effect of such dogma too, is limited to the practitioner’s individual life. What really caused bloodshed all over the world, is not religion but political ideology and imperialism in the guise of religion.

 Being anti-science again, is true of ideologies that call themselves religion, but not true of religion itself. There are many religions that have not only not interfered with political machinery but have contributed to a moral order, to human knowledge and well being. In oriental cultures science never was a discipline unrelated to religion – science, religion, philosophy and metaphysics all were part of a grand structure of knowledge, which is how an ideal society should be.

 Religion is not mistaken for spirituality – any religion worth its salt is means for the same. When religion ceases to be a religion, then it goes far from its goal – namely spirituality. In oriental systems, religions have always served their purpose as ladders to spiritual evolution of individuals and collectivities.

For those of you too full on Thanksgiving Turkey to move, here’s some fodder for mental exertion (its a pretty good compilation this week too, if I do say so myself):

1. A short retrospective on the stimulus, echoing a few of my own thoughts.

2. On poverty relief efforts in the BRIC (sans Russia) countries.

3. An incredible set of photographs from Afghanistan- moving, often tear-inducing, and stunning. Sometimes pictures do speak louder than words.

4. Excellent article by Umair Muhajir on the Hindi Film Industry and its rudderless direction.

5. A recently released report from the Warwick Commission on International Financial Reform; I haven’t waded through the entire document yet since its fairly long, but its rather pertinent to the times.

6. Another longish- and extremely disturbing- read, this time from Frontline, covering various instances of brutal caste-based violence. Try keeping your anger in check.

7. On a lighter note, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, here’s President Obama officially pardoning the turkey. Even the Obama haters won’t be able to resist a smile:

Enjoy the rest of the long weekend.

Smile.

I will begin with a confession: I have not read White Tiger, the novel that catapulted Aravind Adiga to international fame and made him the cynosure of the literati. I am usually terribly behind the times when it comes to new releases, often picking them up no earlier than a couple of years after the initial hue and cry has died down, leaving me free to experience the work without the suffocating crush of public opinion. So I am not coming to his next work, a collection of stories called Between the Assassinations, with any unusual biases, either for or against, although I am aware of one strand of critical response that views White Tiger as decidedly unIndian. In fact, the response to Adiga’s novel parallels the Indian response to Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire: that both the film and the novel offer just another Western stereotype of India as the home of the wretched of the earth. In the West, however, the novel (and SlumDog) was praised for portraying not a stereotype but rather “a different aspect of India.” ((One interesting review of White Tiger is by Amitava Kumar — check it out in The Hindu’s book review page.)

My most immediate gripe about Between the Assassinations is that its title bears very little relation to what is between its covers (a point also made by a reviewer for The Financial Times).  The “assassinations” the title refers to are the assassinations of Indira Gandhi in 1984 and of her son Rajiv in 1991.  Neither the assassinations themselves nor events related to the assassinations  feature in the book. Instead, there is just a passing reference to Mrs. Gandhi in one of the chapters and a brief lament about how the country has gone to hell following her demise. Perhaps that is a pedantic objection. But it points to a flaw in the overall execution of the work and suggests a lack or absence of a thematic unity to the stories themselves.

What I will grant to Adiga is that he has a real talent for spinning a yarn, for foregrounding marginal social elements and giving them centre stage,  for sketching scenes rich in local colour,  and for creating attention-grabbing dialogue — and all in a simple, even if vulgarly comedic, style.  Book piracy, ubiquitous in all corners of India through the piles of pirated books sold on the footpath, comes to life through the story of Xerox, the bookseller; the rage of the lower castes is depicted through the eyes of Shankara, who fantasizes about exploding a bomb in the classroom of a local Jesuit-run school; there is the story of D’Mello, the cane-wielding assistant headmaster; Gururaj, the journalist who goes mad; and several other tales featuring a cast of characters who inhabit the margins of Indian society: lepers, amputees, drug peddlers, drunks, half-castes, lower caste Hoykas, pornographers, labourers, house servants, communists, gurkhas, and Muslim refugees.  Its motley collection of characters does not fail to entertain.

In many ways, Adiga’s humorous sketches of the struggles of the lower classes and castes recall the tales spun by V.S. Naipaul decades ago in early volumes such as Miguel Street and A House for Mr. Biswas, the main difference being that Adiga has exchanged Port of Spain, Trinidad, and its gallery of impractical, eccentric dreamers for the coastal town of Kittur, located between Goa and Calicut on India’s southwest coast. And through the bewildering hysteria and chaos of a life lived on the margins, a picture emerges across Adiga’s 12 tales of the desperate struggles of the poor, the illiterate, the destitute, the oppressed, the fanatical, and delusional residents of Kittur against a backdrop of discrimination, caste wars, religious division, and general oppression. Hindus, Muslims, Brahmins, Kshatryias, Hoykas, and Catholics struggle in comic ways to exist side by side in this small town, resenting and hating one another, but getting by all the same.

One reviewer has commented about White Tiger that “it reads at a tremendous clip.” The same can be said about Between the Assassinations. The stories are packed with action, intrigue, plotting, and event. They protest loudly and stridently the inequities of caste, class, and power in contemporary Indian society. But I emerged from the experience  with my head in a whirl, not sure what to make of the loud cacophony that remained with me in the end.

So finally the Ayodhya Mandir/Babri Masjid or Liberhan commission report as it is popularly called, is out in the open and its contents “leaked”…(yeah right).
Rab ek hai,sab mazhab ek hain (God is one, all religions are one)
Mazhab ki ek zabaan hoti hai, aman ki(All religions speak one language, language of unity) Anekta me Ekta (Unity in Diversity) and yet our socio-political blood suckers try to divide man,his religion and his God.
Hindu,Muslim,Sikh, Isaai, apas me sab Bhai Bhai (Hindu Muslim,Sikh and Christians are all brothers) is what we are taught in school and by the time we are able enough to understand the reality of life, each of us are forced into religious segragation…Tu Muslim,main Hindu(You are a Muslim and I am a Hindu).
Every person is judged on the basis of his/her religion or caste, when in reality these people we call “Politicians” belong to the most lowest and demeaning religion/caste – the religion of hypocricy,corruption,lies, a.k.a. Politics.
Lord Raam was an avatar of Lord Vishnu, the preserver of earth and humanity, but on December 6, 1992, when the land, disputed to be Lord Raam’s birthplace saw demolition of another holy shrine(The Babri Mosque) in the name of Hindutva, Humanity died that very day and every level minded person who questioned this barbaric act and its need, breathed these two words with a sad and low voice – Hey Raam!