The chickens have come home to roost.
What goes around comes around.
As you sow, so you reap.
These were the lines that went around in my head on the evening of 11th September 2001, as I listened to the news on my radio in Delhi. A black preacher in Chicago called Jeremiah Wright apparently agreed with me. Five days later he delivered a sermon in which he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Why is this of any consequence? Because one of the members of Rev Wright's church is a man called Barack Obama. Yeah, you get the picture...
Americans are – incredibly – still not ready to accept that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a direct consequence of their country's actions. It all began in 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. A Muslim country attacked by a non-Muslim country – this was jihad (holy war). Muslims all over the world responded to the call. Moroccans, Egyptians, Saudis, Pakistanis – all came to Afghanistan to fight the infidel invader. The US was quick to seize the opportunity. The CIA funded, armed and trained these mujahideen (holy warriors). Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Besides, religion was a natural ally in the fight against Communism. They were using Christianity in Eastern Europe (Pope John Paul II was Polish). Why not use Islam in Central Asia?
In 1989 the Soviet Union finally accepted defeat and left Afghanistan. The mujahideen were jubilant. They had humbled a superpower. What were they to do now? With all their money, arms and training? Well, they could humble the other superpower too. One of them, a rich Saudi named Osama bin Laden, decided to do exactly this. With another mujahid, Dr Ayman al Zawahiri from Egypt, he formed a group called Al Qaeda ("The Base") and declared war on America. If you feed a serpent, it's only a matter of time before the serpent bites you. On 11th September 2001, the serpent bit the hand that had fed it. The tragedy was that 3000 innocent Americans paid with their lives for their government's short-sighted foreign policy.
28 March 2008
25 March 2008
Friends, Indians, Countrymen!
Don't you want India to be free from poverty? Don't you want India to be a developed country? Don't you want India to become a superpower? Don't you want India to overtake China and America? Don't you want the 21st century to be the Indian century?
Every Indian will answer "Yes!" to these questions. Then the next question is: What are YOU doing to make this dream come true? Typical answers to this question are:
A. Nothing
B. I don't have the time
C. I obey the law and pay my taxes
D. I am too busy with my job and my family
E. It's the job of politicians and bureaucrats
Obeying the law and paying one's taxes are the minimum duties of a citizen. In an ideal world, this would be enough. But we don't live in an ideal world. Our country has so many basic problems that we have to do more. And it's not enough to say that this is the job of politicians and bureaucrats. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Today we should say, "Don't talk about what others should be doing for the country. Tell me what you are doing for your country." The hard truth is we have to do something so that our country becomes a better place. It won't happen on its own.
My fellow Indians, I am not sure if you know how lucky we all are. To be born in India in the 20th century. To be Indians in the 21st century. This is the best time and the best place to be in. The greatest adventure in the history of mankind is taking place in front of our eyes. A great and ancient civilisation is emerging as a modern nation – strong and prosperous. One sixth of the human race is taking its rightful place under the sun. India is the light of the world. After centuries of darkness, she is ready to blaze forth again.
In this great adventure, every one of us faces a choice. We can either stand on the sidewalk and watch, as spectators, reading about it in newspapers and watching it on TV. Or we can be participants, we can get involved. We can be the ones who make it happen. Every one of us believes that he/she loves the country. Well, 'love' is not just a noun; it is a verb. Love is not just what you feel; it is what you do. Every one of us has to ask the question, "What am I doing for my country?" Even if you don't care about society at large, do it for yourself and your family – what kind of a country do you want your children to live in? Our destiny is in our hands. Our future is what we make it. We all have to do our bit.
Every Indian will answer "Yes!" to these questions. Then the next question is: What are YOU doing to make this dream come true? Typical answers to this question are:
A. Nothing
B. I don't have the time
C. I obey the law and pay my taxes
D. I am too busy with my job and my family
E. It's the job of politicians and bureaucrats
Obeying the law and paying one's taxes are the minimum duties of a citizen. In an ideal world, this would be enough. But we don't live in an ideal world. Our country has so many basic problems that we have to do more. And it's not enough to say that this is the job of politicians and bureaucrats. JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Today we should say, "Don't talk about what others should be doing for the country. Tell me what you are doing for your country." The hard truth is we have to do something so that our country becomes a better place. It won't happen on its own.
My fellow Indians, I am not sure if you know how lucky we all are. To be born in India in the 20th century. To be Indians in the 21st century. This is the best time and the best place to be in. The greatest adventure in the history of mankind is taking place in front of our eyes. A great and ancient civilisation is emerging as a modern nation – strong and prosperous. One sixth of the human race is taking its rightful place under the sun. India is the light of the world. After centuries of darkness, she is ready to blaze forth again.
In this great adventure, every one of us faces a choice. We can either stand on the sidewalk and watch, as spectators, reading about it in newspapers and watching it on TV. Or we can be participants, we can get involved. We can be the ones who make it happen. Every one of us believes that he/she loves the country. Well, 'love' is not just a noun; it is a verb. Love is not just what you feel; it is what you do. Every one of us has to ask the question, "What am I doing for my country?" Even if you don't care about society at large, do it for yourself and your family – what kind of a country do you want your children to live in? Our destiny is in our hands. Our future is what we make it. We all have to do our bit.
20 March 2008
Pune Restaurants
One of my friends quit his job and started a website called Tasty Khana on Pune restaurants. It's a one-stop shop for eating out. With it you can:
· Search for restaurants
· Order food online
· Book tables online
· Review restaurants
· Check out offers and
· Get discounts
Currently the site covers only Pune. Eventually it will cover other cities too.
So if you live in Pune, please
1. Visit the site
2. Register as a user
3. USE the bloody website! ;-)
4. Recommend it to all your friends
5. Ask them to recommend it to all their friends
6. Send your feedback to info AT tastykhana DOT com
And if you don't live in Pune, please recommend the site to all your friends who do live in this God-forsaken city ;-)
· Search for restaurants
· Order food online
· Book tables online
· Review restaurants
· Check out offers and
· Get discounts
Currently the site covers only Pune. Eventually it will cover other cities too.
So if you live in Pune, please
1. Visit the site
2. Register as a user
3. USE the bloody website! ;-)
4. Recommend it to all your friends
5. Ask them to recommend it to all their friends
6. Send your feedback to info AT tastykhana DOT com
And if you don't live in Pune, please recommend the site to all your friends who do live in this God-forsaken city ;-)
14 March 2008
Why Militant Hinduism? - 3
Arun Shourie on militant Hinduism:
Nor is what others do from outside the only determinant. From within India, three factors in particular will make the acquiring of that Islamic body all the more certain:
• The more biased 'secularist' discourse is;
• The more political parties use non-Hindus – Muslims, for instance – as vote banks and the more that non-Hindu group comes to act as one – 'strategic voting' and all;
• The more the state of India bends to these exclusivist, aggressive traditions.
And yet perverted discourse, even the stratagems of political parties, are but preparation: they prepare the ground for capitulation by the state to groups that are aggressive. And in this the real lunacy is about to be launched, and, with that, the real reaction.
Hence, all who are apprehensive of a Hindu reaction should:
• Get to know the non-Indic traditions;
• Shed denial – from denial of what the basic texts of the non-Indic traditions say to denial of the demographic aggression in the Northeast;
• Most important of all, work to ensure a completely fair and an absolutely firm state; and an even-handed discourse.
For their part, the Hindus cannot recline back, confident that the reaction will take care of the current pressures. They too have much to do. In particular, they must:
• Awaken to the fact that the danger does not come just from violence and money; it comes as much from the purposive use of the electoral system;
• And so, they must organise themselves for this challenge as much as for others;
• For this, they must vault over internal divisions, in particular the curse of caste;
• Be alert not just to assault by others, but also to perversions from within: the commercialisation of the tradition; its becoming a commerce with deities – 'Please get me this contract, and I will...'; its becoming ostentatious religiosity; persons setting themselves up as the guardians of the tradition, and then using the perch for self-aggrandisement...
• Get to know the tradition; and live it.
(Concluded)
Nor is what others do from outside the only determinant. From within India, three factors in particular will make the acquiring of that Islamic body all the more certain:
• The more biased 'secularist' discourse is;
• The more political parties use non-Hindus – Muslims, for instance – as vote banks and the more that non-Hindu group comes to act as one – 'strategic voting' and all;
• The more the state of India bends to these exclusivist, aggressive traditions.
And yet perverted discourse, even the stratagems of political parties, are but preparation: they prepare the ground for capitulation by the state to groups that are aggressive. And in this the real lunacy is about to be launched, and, with that, the real reaction.
Hence, all who are apprehensive of a Hindu reaction should:
• Get to know the non-Indic traditions;
• Shed denial – from denial of what the basic texts of the non-Indic traditions say to denial of the demographic aggression in the Northeast;
• Most important of all, work to ensure a completely fair and an absolutely firm state; and an even-handed discourse.
For their part, the Hindus cannot recline back, confident that the reaction will take care of the current pressures. They too have much to do. In particular, they must:
• Awaken to the fact that the danger does not come just from violence and money; it comes as much from the purposive use of the electoral system;
• And so, they must organise themselves for this challenge as much as for others;
• For this, they must vault over internal divisions, in particular the curse of caste;
• Be alert not just to assault by others, but also to perversions from within: the commercialisation of the tradition; its becoming a commerce with deities – 'Please get me this contract, and I will...'; its becoming ostentatious religiosity; persons setting themselves up as the guardians of the tradition, and then using the perch for self-aggrandisement...
• Get to know the tradition; and live it.
(Concluded)
12 March 2008
Why Militant Hinduism? - 2
Arun Shourie on militant Hinduism:
Each of these stemmed much. But over the last 200 years the feeling has also swelled that, invaluable as these responses have been, they have not been enough. They did not prevent the country from being taken over. They did not shield the people from the cruelty of alien rulers. They did not prevent the conversion of millions. They did not prevent the tradition from being calumnised and being thrown on the defensive. They did not in the end save the country from being partitioned – from being partitioned in the name of religion...
There is a real vice here. The three great religions that originated in Palestine and Saudi Arabia – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – have been exclusivist – each has insisted that it alone is true – and aggressive. The Indic religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism – have been inclusive, they have been indulgent of the claims of others. But how may the latter sort survive when it is confronted by one that aims at power, acquires it, and then uses it to enlarge its dominion? How is the Indic sort to survive when the other uses the sword as well as other resources – organised missionaries, money, the state – to proselytise and to convert? Nor is this question facing just the Hindus in India today. It is facing the adherents of Indic traditions wherever they are: look at the Hindus in Indonesia and Malaysia; look at the Buddhists in Tibet, now in Thailand too. It is because of this vice, and the realisation born from what had already come to pass that Swami Vivekananda, for instance, while asking the Hindus to retain their Hindu soul, exhorted them to acquire an 'Islamic body'.
We can be certain that his counsel will prevail, our secularists notwithstanding.
Instigating factors:
• The more aggressively the other religions proselytise – look at the fervour with which today the Tablighi Jamaat goes about conversion; look at the organised way in which the missionaries 'harvest' our souls;
• The more they use money to increase the harvest – whether it is Saudi money or that of Rome and the American churches;
• The more any of them uses violence to enlarge its sway;
• The more any of them allies itself with and uses the state – whether that of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan – for aggrandisement.
Each of these stemmed much. But over the last 200 years the feeling has also swelled that, invaluable as these responses have been, they have not been enough. They did not prevent the country from being taken over. They did not shield the people from the cruelty of alien rulers. They did not prevent the conversion of millions. They did not prevent the tradition from being calumnised and being thrown on the defensive. They did not in the end save the country from being partitioned – from being partitioned in the name of religion...
There is a real vice here. The three great religions that originated in Palestine and Saudi Arabia – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – have been exclusivist – each has insisted that it alone is true – and aggressive. The Indic religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism – have been inclusive, they have been indulgent of the claims of others. But how may the latter sort survive when it is confronted by one that aims at power, acquires it, and then uses it to enlarge its dominion? How is the Indic sort to survive when the other uses the sword as well as other resources – organised missionaries, money, the state – to proselytise and to convert? Nor is this question facing just the Hindus in India today. It is facing the adherents of Indic traditions wherever they are: look at the Hindus in Indonesia and Malaysia; look at the Buddhists in Tibet, now in Thailand too. It is because of this vice, and the realisation born from what had already come to pass that Swami Vivekananda, for instance, while asking the Hindus to retain their Hindu soul, exhorted them to acquire an 'Islamic body'.
We can be certain that his counsel will prevail, our secularists notwithstanding.
Instigating factors:
• The more aggressively the other religions proselytise – look at the fervour with which today the Tablighi Jamaat goes about conversion; look at the organised way in which the missionaries 'harvest' our souls;
• The more they use money to increase the harvest – whether it is Saudi money or that of Rome and the American churches;
• The more any of them uses violence to enlarge its sway;
• The more any of them allies itself with and uses the state – whether that of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan – for aggrandisement.
10 March 2008
Why Militant Hinduism? - 1
Arun Shourie on militant Hinduism:
"Your Hindutva is no different from Islamic fundamentalism" – a fashionable statement these days, one that immediately establishes the person's secular credentials. It is, of course, false, as we shall see in a moment. But there is a grain of potential truth in it – something that does not put Hinduism at par with Islam, but one that should, instead, serve as a warning to all who keep pushing Hindus around. That grain is the fact that every tradition has in it, every set of scriptures has in it enough to justify extreme, even violent reaction. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived non-violence and satyagraha, Lokmanya Tilak constructed the case for ferocious response, not excluding violence. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived his 'true law', shatham pratyapi satyam, 'Truth even to the wicked', the Lokmanya derived his famous maxim, shatham prati shaathyam, 'Wickedness to the wicked'.
The mistake is to assume that the sterner stance is something that has been fomented by this individual or that – in the case of Hindutva, by, say, Veer Savarkar – or by one organisation, say the RSS or the VHP. That is just a comforting mistake – the inference is that once that individual is calumnised, once that organisation is neutralised, 'the problem' will be over. Large numbers do not gravitate to this interpretation rather than that merely because an individual or an organisation has advanced it – after all, the interpretations that are available on the shelf far outnumber even the scriptures. They gravitate to the harsher rendering because events convince them that it alone will save them.
It is this tectonic shift in the Hindu mind, a shift that has been going on for 200 years, which is being underestimated. The thousand years of domination and savage oppression by rulers of other religions; domination and oppression which were exercised in the name of and for the glory of and for establishing the sway of those religions, evinced a variety of responses from the Hindus. Armed resistance for centuries... When at last such resistance became totally impossible, the revival of bhakti by the great poets... When public performance even of bhakti became perilous, sullen withdrawal, preserving the tradition by oneself, almost in secrecy: I remember being told in South Goa how families sustained their devotion by painting images of our gods and goddesses inside the tin trunks in which sheets and clothing were kept. The example of individuals: recall how the utter simplicity and manifest aura of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa negated the efforts of the missionaries, how his devotion to the image of the Goddess at Dakshineshwar restored respectability to the idolatry that the missionaries and others were traducing... The magnetism of Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi... Gandhiji's incontestable greatness and the fact that it was so evidently rooted in his devotion to our religion...
"Your Hindutva is no different from Islamic fundamentalism" – a fashionable statement these days, one that immediately establishes the person's secular credentials. It is, of course, false, as we shall see in a moment. But there is a grain of potential truth in it – something that does not put Hinduism at par with Islam, but one that should, instead, serve as a warning to all who keep pushing Hindus around. That grain is the fact that every tradition has in it, every set of scriptures has in it enough to justify extreme, even violent reaction. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived non-violence and satyagraha, Lokmanya Tilak constructed the case for ferocious response, not excluding violence. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived his 'true law', shatham pratyapi satyam, 'Truth even to the wicked', the Lokmanya derived his famous maxim, shatham prati shaathyam, 'Wickedness to the wicked'.
The mistake is to assume that the sterner stance is something that has been fomented by this individual or that – in the case of Hindutva, by, say, Veer Savarkar – or by one organisation, say the RSS or the VHP. That is just a comforting mistake – the inference is that once that individual is calumnised, once that organisation is neutralised, 'the problem' will be over. Large numbers do not gravitate to this interpretation rather than that merely because an individual or an organisation has advanced it – after all, the interpretations that are available on the shelf far outnumber even the scriptures. They gravitate to the harsher rendering because events convince them that it alone will save them.
It is this tectonic shift in the Hindu mind, a shift that has been going on for 200 years, which is being underestimated. The thousand years of domination and savage oppression by rulers of other religions; domination and oppression which were exercised in the name of and for the glory of and for establishing the sway of those religions, evinced a variety of responses from the Hindus. Armed resistance for centuries... When at last such resistance became totally impossible, the revival of bhakti by the great poets... When public performance even of bhakti became perilous, sullen withdrawal, preserving the tradition by oneself, almost in secrecy: I remember being told in South Goa how families sustained their devotion by painting images of our gods and goddesses inside the tin trunks in which sheets and clothing were kept. The example of individuals: recall how the utter simplicity and manifest aura of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa negated the efforts of the missionaries, how his devotion to the image of the Goddess at Dakshineshwar restored respectability to the idolatry that the missionaries and others were traducing... The magnetism of Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi... Gandhiji's incontestable greatness and the fact that it was so evidently rooted in his devotion to our religion...
05 March 2008
03 March 2008
"South India"
If there's one thing that gets my goat, it is the terms "South India" and "South Indians". Many people think there is one place/region called "South India" and one set of people called "South Indians". WRONG! There are four states: Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu – each with its own language and culture. There is no such thing as "South India". Similarly there are Kannadigas, Telugus, Malayalis and Tamilians. There is no such thing as a "South Indian".
It is true that there are some commonalities among the people who live south of the Vindhyas, which distinguish them from the rest of the country. For example, the four languages, though distinct from one another, belong to the Dravidian family – as against the rest of the country, which speaks the Aryan languages. Some food habits are also common – the famous idlis and dosas come to mind here. But these broad commonalities do not justify putting the four states and their people into one box and calling it/them "South India"/"South Indians". People in the rest of the country are blissfully unaware of the vast diversity and differences among these four states.
When I was in Delhi, a guy from MP asked me, "You South Indians worship Ayyappa Swamy, right?" Somehow he had heard about the temple of Ayyappa in "South India", and assumed that all "South Indians" worship this deity! Statements beginning with "You South Indians...", "Tum South ke log...", "In South India...", "South mein...", etc are very common – and very irritating. This malady will not end till we actively try to put a stop to it. Therefore I appeal to all my fellow Kandus and also Gults, Mallus and Tams to correct people whenever they make this mistake. Don't worry about offending others. Don't worry about creating a scene. Don't worry about what other will think of you. Just do it. It is important to speak the truth and dispel people's ignorance.
It is true that there are some commonalities among the people who live south of the Vindhyas, which distinguish them from the rest of the country. For example, the four languages, though distinct from one another, belong to the Dravidian family – as against the rest of the country, which speaks the Aryan languages. Some food habits are also common – the famous idlis and dosas come to mind here. But these broad commonalities do not justify putting the four states and their people into one box and calling it/them "South India"/"South Indians". People in the rest of the country are blissfully unaware of the vast diversity and differences among these four states.
When I was in Delhi, a guy from MP asked me, "You South Indians worship Ayyappa Swamy, right?" Somehow he had heard about the temple of Ayyappa in "South India", and assumed that all "South Indians" worship this deity! Statements beginning with "You South Indians...", "Tum South ke log...", "In South India...", "South mein...", etc are very common – and very irritating. This malady will not end till we actively try to put a stop to it. Therefore I appeal to all my fellow Kandus and also Gults, Mallus and Tams to correct people whenever they make this mistake. Don't worry about offending others. Don't worry about creating a scene. Don't worry about what other will think of you. Just do it. It is important to speak the truth and dispel people's ignorance.
27 February 2008
Website on Savarkar
A website on Savarkar was released yesterday. It has been built by swayamsevaks from Pune. I had attended one of the initial meetings for this project, but didn't really contribute anything. The effort was led by members of the IT milan at Aundh (which I used to attend last year). This is the same team that made the website on Golwalkar Guruji, to mark his birth centenary in 2006.
V D Savarkar is one of the fathers of Hindu nationalism. It was he who coined the word 'Hindutva'.
V D Savarkar is one of the fathers of Hindu nationalism. It was he who coined the word 'Hindutva'.
22 February 2008
Energy
"Energy is more important than talent. My equation is like this. Both talent and energy means you are an emperor. No talent and only energy means you are still a prince. Only talent and no energy means you are a pauper." – Michael Crichton
What is energy? In physics, energy is the capacity to do work. But in real life, energy is more than just the capacity for work. It is the capacity for learning. It is the capacity for life. Put simply, energy is capacity.
Crichton is right. Energy is everything. Whether you succeed or fail in life, and to what extent, will be decided by how much energy you have. Ability, intelligence, ambition, luck, money – all these help. But energy is the critical variable.
So is this good news or bad news? For those with high energy levels, it is good news. For others (like me), it is bad news. Then again, is a person's energy level fixed? Or is it possible to increase it?
Doctors say exercising regularly is the best way to increase one's energy. I never understood this. Isn't exercise an energy consuming activity? Then how the hell does it increase your energy? Maybe the same doctors can give an explanation.
But even exercise can increase your energy only to some extent. Then what? If your energy level is low, you just have to accept that you may not be able to do everything you want to do in life. It's a difficult pill to swallow.
Or you can console yourself by saying that quality is more important than quantity. It's not how much you eat, but how well you chew, taste and digest it that matters. We may do less, but whatever little we do, we can do well.
Another way of coping with less energy is to focus. Focus on what you really want, and let other things go to hell. You'll then miss out on a lot that life has to offer. But you have only one life; you might as well make something of it.
Sometimes this focus can be extreme. Like if you want just one thing, and you go after it with everything you have, to the exclusion of everything else. This will horrify people for whom 'balance' and 'all-round development' are important.
But what the hell. As I said, you have only one life. Do something with it.
What is energy? In physics, energy is the capacity to do work. But in real life, energy is more than just the capacity for work. It is the capacity for learning. It is the capacity for life. Put simply, energy is capacity.
Crichton is right. Energy is everything. Whether you succeed or fail in life, and to what extent, will be decided by how much energy you have. Ability, intelligence, ambition, luck, money – all these help. But energy is the critical variable.
So is this good news or bad news? For those with high energy levels, it is good news. For others (like me), it is bad news. Then again, is a person's energy level fixed? Or is it possible to increase it?
Doctors say exercising regularly is the best way to increase one's energy. I never understood this. Isn't exercise an energy consuming activity? Then how the hell does it increase your energy? Maybe the same doctors can give an explanation.
But even exercise can increase your energy only to some extent. Then what? If your energy level is low, you just have to accept that you may not be able to do everything you want to do in life. It's a difficult pill to swallow.
Or you can console yourself by saying that quality is more important than quantity. It's not how much you eat, but how well you chew, taste and digest it that matters. We may do less, but whatever little we do, we can do well.
Another way of coping with less energy is to focus. Focus on what you really want, and let other things go to hell. You'll then miss out on a lot that life has to offer. But you have only one life; you might as well make something of it.
Sometimes this focus can be extreme. Like if you want just one thing, and you go after it with everything you have, to the exclusion of everything else. This will horrify people for whom 'balance' and 'all-round development' are important.
But what the hell. As I said, you have only one life. Do something with it.
15 February 2008
On Hindu Nationalism
Question: What is your idea of India? What does India mean to you?
Answer: India is...
A. our 5000-year-old civilisation
B. my motherland
C. my holy land
D. a nation state born in 1947
E. a republic born in 1950
F. the territory defined by the borders of the Union of India
A secularist will tick D, E and F. But a Hindu nationalist will tick A, B and C. D-E-F is a very narrow and shallow view of India. A-B-C is a much broader and deeper conception of our nation. This is the crux of the difference between Nehruvian secularism and Hindu nationalism. There are many and varied disagreements between the two camps, but almost all of them flow from this basic difference in how one sees India. A couple of examples will make this point clearer.
Secularists accuse the RSS of being disloyal to the country since, in our shakhas, we salute the bhagwa dwaja (saffron flag) – instead of the tricolour – and sing the prayer "Namaste sada vatsale matrubhoome" – instead of "Jana gana mana". This is nonsense. The national flag and national anthem do command our devotion and loyalty. There is no swayamsevak who does not respect these national symbols. Then why do we not use these symbols in our shakhas? Because they represent D-E, whereas the bhagwa dwaja and the RSS prarthana represent A-B-C. It is our way of reminding ourselves everyday that India is not just a nation state; she is a 5000-year-old civilisation, our motherland and our holy land. The former is a small subset of the latter.
Answer F is a big problem. Golwalkar Guruji called it 'territorial nationalism'. When the BJP raised the issue of Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin, the Congress Party replied that L K Advani and Jyoti Basu are also foreigners – as they were born in Karachi and Dhaka, respectively! This is what happens if one thinks of India merely as a nation state that was formed in 1947. Historically, the land of India was naturally defined – the land bound by the seas, the Himalayas and the Indus. In any case, India is more than just a piece of land. India is our civilisation – a nation defined by its culture and its way of life. Defined, in other words, by its Hindutva.
PS: Sometimes the term 'cultural nationalism' is used. The term has a certain interpretative value, but I think 'Hindu nationalism' is more to the point :-)
Answer: India is...
A. our 5000-year-old civilisation
B. my motherland
C. my holy land
D. a nation state born in 1947
E. a republic born in 1950
F. the territory defined by the borders of the Union of India
A secularist will tick D, E and F. But a Hindu nationalist will tick A, B and C. D-E-F is a very narrow and shallow view of India. A-B-C is a much broader and deeper conception of our nation. This is the crux of the difference between Nehruvian secularism and Hindu nationalism. There are many and varied disagreements between the two camps, but almost all of them flow from this basic difference in how one sees India. A couple of examples will make this point clearer.
Secularists accuse the RSS of being disloyal to the country since, in our shakhas, we salute the bhagwa dwaja (saffron flag) – instead of the tricolour – and sing the prayer "Namaste sada vatsale matrubhoome" – instead of "Jana gana mana". This is nonsense. The national flag and national anthem do command our devotion and loyalty. There is no swayamsevak who does not respect these national symbols. Then why do we not use these symbols in our shakhas? Because they represent D-E, whereas the bhagwa dwaja and the RSS prarthana represent A-B-C. It is our way of reminding ourselves everyday that India is not just a nation state; she is a 5000-year-old civilisation, our motherland and our holy land. The former is a small subset of the latter.
Answer F is a big problem. Golwalkar Guruji called it 'territorial nationalism'. When the BJP raised the issue of Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin, the Congress Party replied that L K Advani and Jyoti Basu are also foreigners – as they were born in Karachi and Dhaka, respectively! This is what happens if one thinks of India merely as a nation state that was formed in 1947. Historically, the land of India was naturally defined – the land bound by the seas, the Himalayas and the Indus. In any case, India is more than just a piece of land. India is our civilisation – a nation defined by its culture and its way of life. Defined, in other words, by its Hindutva.
PS: Sometimes the term 'cultural nationalism' is used. The term has a certain interpretative value, but I think 'Hindu nationalism' is more to the point :-)
13 February 2008
The Varna System (contd)
We can conclude our discussion of the Varna system by making a couple of observations. Then it will be clear why the Varna system was:
A. Perfect for its time
B. Not suitable for our time.
The two key features of the Varna system were:
1. The classification of society into four classes
2. The hereditary nature of this structure.
Traditional Indian society was an agricultural society. In an agricultural society, all occupations could be grouped under the four broad heads of priest/scholar, warrior/ruler, merchant and worker. This was the perfect form of social organisation for that period; Plato had recommended a similar system in his Republic. But today we live in an industrial (or post-industrial) society – which is far more complex. Today we can no longer classify all occupations under four headings. Hence the grouping of Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra is irrelevant today.
Secondly, society needs to preserve and transmit knowledge in order to survive. In particular, knowledge related to work. How was this to be done in an agricultural society? In a society without the Internet, computers, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and above all – printed books? The only institution for preserving and transmitting knowledge was the family. That is why sons mostly followed their fathers' occupations. Today this is no longer the case. We live in the age of the mass media. We no longer rely only on the family to preserve and transmit knowledge. Hence hereditary occupational classes are no longer needed.
Why am I talking so much about a system that is not relevant for today's society? Because it is important to give the past its due. These days it is very fashionable to bash the Varna system, in the name of being 'modern' and 'progressive'. There are too many people out there criticising the Varna system who don’t bother to understand exactly what it was and why it came about. I repeat: today's caste system is not the same as the original Varna system. The former is a disease; the latter a testimony to the genius of our ancestors.
A. Perfect for its time
B. Not suitable for our time.
The two key features of the Varna system were:
1. The classification of society into four classes
2. The hereditary nature of this structure.
Traditional Indian society was an agricultural society. In an agricultural society, all occupations could be grouped under the four broad heads of priest/scholar, warrior/ruler, merchant and worker. This was the perfect form of social organisation for that period; Plato had recommended a similar system in his Republic. But today we live in an industrial (or post-industrial) society – which is far more complex. Today we can no longer classify all occupations under four headings. Hence the grouping of Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra is irrelevant today.
Secondly, society needs to preserve and transmit knowledge in order to survive. In particular, knowledge related to work. How was this to be done in an agricultural society? In a society without the Internet, computers, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and above all – printed books? The only institution for preserving and transmitting knowledge was the family. That is why sons mostly followed their fathers' occupations. Today this is no longer the case. We live in the age of the mass media. We no longer rely only on the family to preserve and transmit knowledge. Hence hereditary occupational classes are no longer needed.
Why am I talking so much about a system that is not relevant for today's society? Because it is important to give the past its due. These days it is very fashionable to bash the Varna system, in the name of being 'modern' and 'progressive'. There are too many people out there criticising the Varna system who don’t bother to understand exactly what it was and why it came about. I repeat: today's caste system is not the same as the original Varna system. The former is a disease; the latter a testimony to the genius of our ancestors.
07 February 2008
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - 2
Hedgewar studied India's long history and concluded that outsiders could attack and defeat us because of our following drawbacks:
1. Disunity
2. Weakness
3. Lack of organisation
4. Indiscipline
5. Lack of patriotism
6. Lack of character
So the only real and lasting solution to all the nation's problems was to remove these ills. Once these ills were removed, the rest would take care of itself. A nation can only be as good and as strong as its people. If the people are good and strong, the nation will be likewise.
But how to do it? How to build moral character and national consciousness? How to instill discipline and strength in people? How to organise and unite society? Hedgewar thought long and hard and hit upon the idea of the shakha ('branch'). Every day, people would get together for one hour and participate in various activities like exercising, playing games, singing patriotic songs, having discussions, etc. Over time, this would instill the required qualities in the people. In 1925, on the auspicious day of Vijaya Dashami, he invited some like-minded people to his house and shared his thoughts with them. His guests agreed to join him in his mission. Thus was born the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
"That's it? That's what this is all about? You guys get together for an hour every day and do some stuff? Is that all there is to it?" The reaction is perfectly understandable. Anybody will be incredulous. At first sight the shakha does seem to be a trivial activity. But how is character formed? Character is nothing but repeated habits, and habit is nothing but repeated actions. Also, character is formed mainly by influence – of parents, teachers and friends. So if a person is exposed to good thoughts, good words, good actions and good people for even one hour a day, it has a significant impact. The technique is most effective with children, as their character can be moulded easily.
But all this is just theory. The real test is in the real world. And in the real world, the shakha technique has passed with flying colours. In the 82 years since its birth, the RSS has grown from strength to strength. Its shakhas have produced a multitude of workers who have served society in various fields. Most of them you have never heard of, because a true swayamsevak believes in working, not in talking. Even if you do hear of them, you will not know they are swayamsevaks, because of the media's bias against us (example). Two products of the shakha system you have heard of are L K Advani and A B Vajpayee.
A journalist once asked an RSS leader, "Tell me about the social service done by the RSS." The pracharak replied, "The RSS does not do any social service." The journalist was taken aback. The pracharak continued, "The RSS does not do any social service. Swayamsevaks do social service. And the RSS's job is to produce those swayamsevaks."
1. Disunity
2. Weakness
3. Lack of organisation
4. Indiscipline
5. Lack of patriotism
6. Lack of character
So the only real and lasting solution to all the nation's problems was to remove these ills. Once these ills were removed, the rest would take care of itself. A nation can only be as good and as strong as its people. If the people are good and strong, the nation will be likewise.
But how to do it? How to build moral character and national consciousness? How to instill discipline and strength in people? How to organise and unite society? Hedgewar thought long and hard and hit upon the idea of the shakha ('branch'). Every day, people would get together for one hour and participate in various activities like exercising, playing games, singing patriotic songs, having discussions, etc. Over time, this would instill the required qualities in the people. In 1925, on the auspicious day of Vijaya Dashami, he invited some like-minded people to his house and shared his thoughts with them. His guests agreed to join him in his mission. Thus was born the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
"That's it? That's what this is all about? You guys get together for an hour every day and do some stuff? Is that all there is to it?" The reaction is perfectly understandable. Anybody will be incredulous. At first sight the shakha does seem to be a trivial activity. But how is character formed? Character is nothing but repeated habits, and habit is nothing but repeated actions. Also, character is formed mainly by influence – of parents, teachers and friends. So if a person is exposed to good thoughts, good words, good actions and good people for even one hour a day, it has a significant impact. The technique is most effective with children, as their character can be moulded easily.
But all this is just theory. The real test is in the real world. And in the real world, the shakha technique has passed with flying colours. In the 82 years since its birth, the RSS has grown from strength to strength. Its shakhas have produced a multitude of workers who have served society in various fields. Most of them you have never heard of, because a true swayamsevak believes in working, not in talking. Even if you do hear of them, you will not know they are swayamsevaks, because of the media's bias against us (example). Two products of the shakha system you have heard of are L K Advani and A B Vajpayee.
A journalist once asked an RSS leader, "Tell me about the social service done by the RSS." The pracharak replied, "The RSS does not do any social service." The journalist was taken aback. The pracharak continued, "The RSS does not do any social service. Swayamsevaks do social service. And the RSS's job is to produce those swayamsevaks."
04 February 2008
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - 1
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a unique organisation. It has a unique goal and a unique way of working to achieve that goal. Both in its ends and its means, it is unique. This is not a boast, but a plain fact. I am not saying this just because I am a swayamsevak. Once you understand the RSS fully and correctly, you will agree with what I have said.
The RSS is not a political party. Nor is it an NGO engaged in 'social service' (in the usual sense of the term). These are the two kinds of social organisations we are familiar with. The fact that the RSS does not belong to either of these two categories makes it very difficult for people to understand the organisation. Indeed, some swayamsevaks themselves are not clear about exactly what the RSS is.
Perhaps the best way to truly understand the RSS is to begin at the beginning. We must trace the footsteps of the man who founded the organisation: Keshav Baliram Hedgewar ('Doctorji').
Hedgewar was born in Nagpur in 1889. Even as a child he showed a fierce spirit of patriotism. His hatred of the British rule often got him into trouble at school. After finishing his elementary education he went to Calcutta to study medicine.
The partitioning of Bengal in 1905 had made Calcutta a hotbed of nationalist activity. Patriotic young men wanted to overthrow British rule by an armed struggle, and formed many revolutionary groups. One such group was Anusheelan Samiti. Hedgewar joined it and got involved in its activities, like making guns and bombs. But eventually the Samiti suffered the fate of all such groups: informers betrayed their comrades to the police. And one day, an accident occurred at the Samiti's secret bomb factory killing one of its members. Hedgewar was disillusioned by these developments. He finished his MBBS and returned to Nagpur.
In Nagpur, Hedgewar came under the influence of his idol Bal Gangadhar Tilak. With Tilak's encouragement, he joined the Indian National Congress and became an active member. He even organised the special session of the Congress held in Nagpur in 1920. But Hedgewar was not happy. The Congress-led freedom struggle, he felt, was negative in character. It was defined only by its opposition to British rule. It had no positive content. More importantly, the freedom struggle was not addressing the root problem: How could a small country like Britain conquer and rule a nation as vast, as ancient and as proud as India? And the British were hardly the first foreigners to rule us. They were just the latest in a long series of invaders and conquerors: from Greeks and Huns to Turks and Mughals. When the British were kicked out, what was the guarantee that we would not fall prey to some other foreign power?
The RSS is not a political party. Nor is it an NGO engaged in 'social service' (in the usual sense of the term). These are the two kinds of social organisations we are familiar with. The fact that the RSS does not belong to either of these two categories makes it very difficult for people to understand the organisation. Indeed, some swayamsevaks themselves are not clear about exactly what the RSS is.
Perhaps the best way to truly understand the RSS is to begin at the beginning. We must trace the footsteps of the man who founded the organisation: Keshav Baliram Hedgewar ('Doctorji').
Hedgewar was born in Nagpur in 1889. Even as a child he showed a fierce spirit of patriotism. His hatred of the British rule often got him into trouble at school. After finishing his elementary education he went to Calcutta to study medicine.
The partitioning of Bengal in 1905 had made Calcutta a hotbed of nationalist activity. Patriotic young men wanted to overthrow British rule by an armed struggle, and formed many revolutionary groups. One such group was Anusheelan Samiti. Hedgewar joined it and got involved in its activities, like making guns and bombs. But eventually the Samiti suffered the fate of all such groups: informers betrayed their comrades to the police. And one day, an accident occurred at the Samiti's secret bomb factory killing one of its members. Hedgewar was disillusioned by these developments. He finished his MBBS and returned to Nagpur.
In Nagpur, Hedgewar came under the influence of his idol Bal Gangadhar Tilak. With Tilak's encouragement, he joined the Indian National Congress and became an active member. He even organised the special session of the Congress held in Nagpur in 1920. But Hedgewar was not happy. The Congress-led freedom struggle, he felt, was negative in character. It was defined only by its opposition to British rule. It had no positive content. More importantly, the freedom struggle was not addressing the root problem: How could a small country like Britain conquer and rule a nation as vast, as ancient and as proud as India? And the British were hardly the first foreigners to rule us. They were just the latest in a long series of invaders and conquerors: from Greeks and Huns to Turks and Mughals. When the British were kicked out, what was the guarantee that we would not fall prey to some other foreign power?
01 February 2008
Peace of Mind
Everyone wants to find peace. Is it possible to find peace? The problem with peace is it comes and goes. Peace is fleeting. It never lasts.
The search for lasting peace is futile. Because life is war. It is a series of battles. The end of one battle is merely the beginning of another. In fact, you are lucky if you can fight your battles one after the other. Most of the times you are fighting several battles at the same time.
Some people try to find peace by staying away from the battlefield. This is silly. If you don't go to the war, the war will come to you. There is no escape from struggle. There is no refuge from fear.
If there is a path to peace, it runs through the battlefield. The only possible way to find peace is to plunge yourself in the war. If you are lucky, at the end of it all, you will find what you are looking for. Otherwise, too bad.
In any case, you will certainly find peace when you die. The most peaceful man is the dead man.
Moments of peace are so rare. Cherish them. But don't spend too much time thinking about them. The next battle is waiting...
The search for lasting peace is futile. Because life is war. It is a series of battles. The end of one battle is merely the beginning of another. In fact, you are lucky if you can fight your battles one after the other. Most of the times you are fighting several battles at the same time.
Some people try to find peace by staying away from the battlefield. This is silly. If you don't go to the war, the war will come to you. There is no escape from struggle. There is no refuge from fear.
If there is a path to peace, it runs through the battlefield. The only possible way to find peace is to plunge yourself in the war. If you are lucky, at the end of it all, you will find what you are looking for. Otherwise, too bad.
In any case, you will certainly find peace when you die. The most peaceful man is the dead man.
Moments of peace are so rare. Cherish them. But don't spend too much time thinking about them. The next battle is waiting...
28 January 2008
Freedom, Happiness and Order
Amidst all this talk of Dharma and society and order, one may ask: What about individual happiness? What about personal freedom? Is my job only to follow the rules of society (Dharma)? Don't I have any right to pursue my own happiness?
For the answer, look at any river. It is a body of flowing water, bound on both sides by its banks. As long as the banks are strong, the river flows properly. But when the banks become weak, the river spills over and floods. Its own flow is disturbed. It also causes grief to the people living near it. Such is the relationship between freedom, restraint and happiness.
Freedom does not mean absolute freedom, or the right to do whatever we like. Freedom is meaningful only when it comes with certain limits. As we long as we respect these limits, we can be both free and happy. Once we cross these limits, there is neither freedom nor happiness.
It was keeping this in mind that the rishis of ancient India developed the code of Dharma. Individual happiness can be pursued only in a stable society. If society starts falling apart, how can the individual be happy? The rules of Dharma were so designed as to strike the right balance between personal freedom and social stability.
But, as noted before, Vedic society gradually decayed. With the various invasions and conquests, Hindu society became reactive and defensive. It went into a shell. Dharma – once a living and dynamic tradition that nourished the greatest civilisation in the world – became ossified and rigid. In the name of stability and order, freedom and happiness were buried.
But that was yesterday. Today is different. After a thousand years of slavery and foreign rule we are free again. Free again to reclaim our lost Dharma. Free again to pursue happiness, virtue, beauty and Truth. This pursuit, to be successful, has to be based on our age-old tradition – one that balanced the needs of the individual with the needs of society.
Our Western-style liberals don't understand this. For them, individual liberty is everything. Dharma, society and order mean nothing to them. They fail to see the harm that excessive focus on individual liberty has done in Western societies. If we follow that path, we shall surely come to grief.
But I am an optimist. I am confident that Dharma will prevail. I am confident that Indians will achieve not only personal freedom and happiness, but also a stable and harmonious society.
For the answer, look at any river. It is a body of flowing water, bound on both sides by its banks. As long as the banks are strong, the river flows properly. But when the banks become weak, the river spills over and floods. Its own flow is disturbed. It also causes grief to the people living near it. Such is the relationship between freedom, restraint and happiness.
Freedom does not mean absolute freedom, or the right to do whatever we like. Freedom is meaningful only when it comes with certain limits. As we long as we respect these limits, we can be both free and happy. Once we cross these limits, there is neither freedom nor happiness.
It was keeping this in mind that the rishis of ancient India developed the code of Dharma. Individual happiness can be pursued only in a stable society. If society starts falling apart, how can the individual be happy? The rules of Dharma were so designed as to strike the right balance between personal freedom and social stability.
But, as noted before, Vedic society gradually decayed. With the various invasions and conquests, Hindu society became reactive and defensive. It went into a shell. Dharma – once a living and dynamic tradition that nourished the greatest civilisation in the world – became ossified and rigid. In the name of stability and order, freedom and happiness were buried.
But that was yesterday. Today is different. After a thousand years of slavery and foreign rule we are free again. Free again to reclaim our lost Dharma. Free again to pursue happiness, virtue, beauty and Truth. This pursuit, to be successful, has to be based on our age-old tradition – one that balanced the needs of the individual with the needs of society.
Our Western-style liberals don't understand this. For them, individual liberty is everything. Dharma, society and order mean nothing to them. They fail to see the harm that excessive focus on individual liberty has done in Western societies. If we follow that path, we shall surely come to grief.
But I am an optimist. I am confident that Dharma will prevail. I am confident that Indians will achieve not only personal freedom and happiness, but also a stable and harmonious society.
24 January 2008
The Varna System
My previous post might be interpreted as a defence of the caste system. Nothing could be further from the truth. My comments were about Vedic society – which was very different from today's society. The caste system that exists today bears no resemblance to the Varna system of the Vedic age.
1. During the Vedic age, there was no sense of high or low among the different Varnas. All Varnas had the same status in society. Every person was treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of which Varna he/she belonged to. This is only logical. A chair needs all four of its legs to stand properly. So all four legs are equally important. There is no sense in saying that one leg is 'superior' to another.
2. In general, a person followed his father's Varna/occupation (This is what happens even today). But if he so wished, he could always shift to another Varna. There was complete freedom to move from one Varna into another. There are plenty of examples in ancient Indian history of individuals, or even entire groups, changing their Varna. Social mobility was not just an empty slogan; it was a fact of life.
3. Ancient India was a prosperous society. Even the humblest occupation could provide a decent living – by the standards of those days. So it is not true that the Shudras were 'condemned' to a life of poverty.
A society has two conflicting needs: stability and dynamism. Too much stability will result in stagnation and collapse. Too much dynamism will result in chaos and disintegration. The ideal society is one that balances these two needs. The Varna system was a brilliant form of social organisation that succeeded in doing exactly this. Sons usually followed their fathers' occupations. This preserved knowledge, and ensured continuity and stability. But freedom of occupation was also allowed, ensuring dynamism and creativity.
Unfortunately this happy state of affairs did not last forever. Gradually Vedic society began to decay. The notion of 'high' and 'low' came into the Varna system – people were discriminated against based on their Varna. The system also became rigid and inflexible – people could no longer change their occupations. By the 7th century AD, the decay was clearly visible. The invasion and conquest by the Turks, and later the Mughals, only accelerated this decay. And the British rule was the final nail in the coffin. With the result that the caste system of today is a perversion of the original Varna system. There is no justification for it. The sooner it goes, the better.
1. During the Vedic age, there was no sense of high or low among the different Varnas. All Varnas had the same status in society. Every person was treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of which Varna he/she belonged to. This is only logical. A chair needs all four of its legs to stand properly. So all four legs are equally important. There is no sense in saying that one leg is 'superior' to another.
2. In general, a person followed his father's Varna/occupation (This is what happens even today). But if he so wished, he could always shift to another Varna. There was complete freedom to move from one Varna into another. There are plenty of examples in ancient Indian history of individuals, or even entire groups, changing their Varna. Social mobility was not just an empty slogan; it was a fact of life.
3. Ancient India was a prosperous society. Even the humblest occupation could provide a decent living – by the standards of those days. So it is not true that the Shudras were 'condemned' to a life of poverty.
A society has two conflicting needs: stability and dynamism. Too much stability will result in stagnation and collapse. Too much dynamism will result in chaos and disintegration. The ideal society is one that balances these two needs. The Varna system was a brilliant form of social organisation that succeeded in doing exactly this. Sons usually followed their fathers' occupations. This preserved knowledge, and ensured continuity and stability. But freedom of occupation was also allowed, ensuring dynamism and creativity.
Unfortunately this happy state of affairs did not last forever. Gradually Vedic society began to decay. The notion of 'high' and 'low' came into the Varna system – people were discriminated against based on their Varna. The system also became rigid and inflexible – people could no longer change their occupations. By the 7th century AD, the decay was clearly visible. The invasion and conquest by the Turks, and later the Mughals, only accelerated this decay. And the British rule was the final nail in the coffin. With the result that the caste system of today is a perversion of the original Varna system. There is no justification for it. The sooner it goes, the better.
21 January 2008
What Is Dharma? - 2
Now we can consider what is Dharma for a human being. The macro unit for human beings is society. So a man's Dharma is that behaviour which maintains the order of society. Now what is this behaviour? Firstly there are certain simple and obvious rules: don't kill, don't steal, don't tell lies, etc. Not following these basic rules will lead to the collapse of society. These rules apply to all members of society – regardless of class or age – and are called Sadharana Dharma.
Secondly, society requires some basic functions to be performed: producing food, distributing it, fighting enemies, pursuing knowledge, etc. We can maximise order by distributing these functions among different groups. Each group can then specialise in its own function, not interfering in other functions. Accordingly in ancient India, scholars/priests studied and worshipped, kings/warriors ruled and protected, merchants created wealth and workers did manual labour. These are the four classes or Varnas: Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
Thirdly, an orderly society requires people to conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate to their age. Children and adolescents must study and be celibate. Adults must earn a living, marry and have children. Elderly people can retire from household duties. And finally, one can renounce the world and try to attain salvation. These are the four stages of life or Ashramas: Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa.
Thus, depending on his Varna and Ashrama, a person has to perform certain duties and follow certain rules. Together these are called Varnashrama Dharma. If every individual observes the Sadharana Dharma (common to all) and his Varnashrama Dharma (specific to class and age), society will be harmonious and orderly. Details of both these Dharmas are given in our Dharma Shastras.
Dharma is one of the four goals of life or Purusharthas. The other three are pleasure (Kama), wealth (Artha) and salvation (Moksha). Kama and Artha must be pursued during Grihasthashrama, and Moksha during Sanyasa. But Dharma must be pursued during all four Ashramas (that is, throughout one's life).
Secondly, society requires some basic functions to be performed: producing food, distributing it, fighting enemies, pursuing knowledge, etc. We can maximise order by distributing these functions among different groups. Each group can then specialise in its own function, not interfering in other functions. Accordingly in ancient India, scholars/priests studied and worshipped, kings/warriors ruled and protected, merchants created wealth and workers did manual labour. These are the four classes or Varnas: Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.
Thirdly, an orderly society requires people to conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate to their age. Children and adolescents must study and be celibate. Adults must earn a living, marry and have children. Elderly people can retire from household duties. And finally, one can renounce the world and try to attain salvation. These are the four stages of life or Ashramas: Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa.
Thus, depending on his Varna and Ashrama, a person has to perform certain duties and follow certain rules. Together these are called Varnashrama Dharma. If every individual observes the Sadharana Dharma (common to all) and his Varnashrama Dharma (specific to class and age), society will be harmonious and orderly. Details of both these Dharmas are given in our Dharma Shastras.
Dharma is one of the four goals of life or Purusharthas. The other three are pleasure (Kama), wealth (Artha) and salvation (Moksha). Kama and Artha must be pursued during Grihasthashrama, and Moksha during Sanyasa. But Dharma must be pursued during all four Ashramas (that is, throughout one's life).
17 January 2008
What Is Dharma? - 1
I have only referred to Dharma in my previous posts, without actually defining it. Dharma is such a complex and multi-layered concept that I didn't dare write on it till I had some minimum understanding. This post is also a response to my friend's lengthy comment on the topic :-)
What is Dharma? Though 'Dharma' is untranslatable, we need some equivalent word when discussing it in English. The cliched words like religion, duty, virtue, righteousness, ethics, morals, etc, we can quickly dispense with. All these things are part of Dharma. They flow from Dharma. But they are not Dharma itself. Swami Chinmayananda translated the word as 'law' or 'essence'. These are better words. They take us a step closer to understanding what is Dharma. But even law/essence is a second order concept. The core of Dharma can best be captured by the word 'order'. Dharma is order.
Dharma evolved from the Rig Vedic concept of Rta. The early Aryans observed that nature was orderly: the sun rose in a certain direction and set in the opposite direction at regular intervals, the weather/seasons changed in a certain pattern, the plants and trees shed their leaves, flowered and bore fruit periodically, etc. They used the word 'Rta' (literally 'path' or 'course') to refer to this order in nature. At some point, Rta also came to mean 'right' or 'good'. So Rta no longer referred just to the cosmic order; it now referred to the moral order too. (How the Aryans made this philosophical leap I am not yet sure. Perhaps a study of the Vedas will throw some light)
During the later Vedic age, the word Rta was replaced by Dharma. The root for 'Dharma' is 'Dhr' which means 'to hold'. So Dharma literally means 'that which holds' or 'that which supports'. In the Mahabharata, Bhishma defines Dharma like this:
Dharanat dharmam ityahu; dharmena vidhrtah prajah.
Yat syat dharana samyuktam sa dharma iti nischayah.
'Dharma' comes from 'Dharana' (holding); society is held by Dharma.
That which has the ability to hold is Dharma indeed.
Thus Dharma is the cosmic order that holds the universe together. It is the physical order that holds the earth together. And it is the moral order that holds society together.
Dharma at the macro level means order. And Dharma at the micro level means the behaviour needed to maintain this macro-level order. The Dharma for the part is that behaviour which maintains the order of the whole. For example, for the universe to be orderly, the sun should rise in the east, set in the west and give light and energy. This is the sun’s Dharma. Similarly, for the earth to be orderly, the winds should blow, the rivers should flow, the birds should fly, the fishes should swim, etc – these are their respective Dharmas. Thus the Dharma of an entity is also the behaviour that defines its existence or essence.
If an entity does not perform its Dharma:
1. It will no longer be what it is meant to be. [Chinmaya's law/essence]
2. The order of the universe/world will be upset.
The two ideas of essence and order are intimately tied to each other.
What is Dharma? Though 'Dharma' is untranslatable, we need some equivalent word when discussing it in English. The cliched words like religion, duty, virtue, righteousness, ethics, morals, etc, we can quickly dispense with. All these things are part of Dharma. They flow from Dharma. But they are not Dharma itself. Swami Chinmayananda translated the word as 'law' or 'essence'. These are better words. They take us a step closer to understanding what is Dharma. But even law/essence is a second order concept. The core of Dharma can best be captured by the word 'order'. Dharma is order.
Dharma evolved from the Rig Vedic concept of Rta. The early Aryans observed that nature was orderly: the sun rose in a certain direction and set in the opposite direction at regular intervals, the weather/seasons changed in a certain pattern, the plants and trees shed their leaves, flowered and bore fruit periodically, etc. They used the word 'Rta' (literally 'path' or 'course') to refer to this order in nature. At some point, Rta also came to mean 'right' or 'good'. So Rta no longer referred just to the cosmic order; it now referred to the moral order too. (How the Aryans made this philosophical leap I am not yet sure. Perhaps a study of the Vedas will throw some light)
During the later Vedic age, the word Rta was replaced by Dharma. The root for 'Dharma' is 'Dhr' which means 'to hold'. So Dharma literally means 'that which holds' or 'that which supports'. In the Mahabharata, Bhishma defines Dharma like this:
Dharanat dharmam ityahu; dharmena vidhrtah prajah.
Yat syat dharana samyuktam sa dharma iti nischayah.
'Dharma' comes from 'Dharana' (holding); society is held by Dharma.
That which has the ability to hold is Dharma indeed.
Thus Dharma is the cosmic order that holds the universe together. It is the physical order that holds the earth together. And it is the moral order that holds society together.
Dharma at the macro level means order. And Dharma at the micro level means the behaviour needed to maintain this macro-level order. The Dharma for the part is that behaviour which maintains the order of the whole. For example, for the universe to be orderly, the sun should rise in the east, set in the west and give light and energy. This is the sun’s Dharma. Similarly, for the earth to be orderly, the winds should blow, the rivers should flow, the birds should fly, the fishes should swim, etc – these are their respective Dharmas. Thus the Dharma of an entity is also the behaviour that defines its existence or essence.
If an entity does not perform its Dharma:
1. It will no longer be what it is meant to be. [Chinmaya's law/essence]
2. The order of the universe/world will be upset.
The two ideas of essence and order are intimately tied to each other.
14 January 2008
The Rs 1 Lakh Car
It's here at last! I had thought it was impossible even in 2003 - when Ratan Tata first announced it. And costs would surely increase by the time the product actually came out. So I expected the Rs 1 lakh car to become a Rs 2 lakh car (at least). But wonders of wonders, they did it! Here's the fineprint:
Given the steep rise in the cost of steel, rubber and other inputs in the past few years, it's possible that the entry level Nano might not break even, though Tata made a point of saying the "one lakh" price tag in India will stay because "a promise is a promise". The car, the company says, will make money across its various models.
Many people have criticised the car, saying it will worsen the pollution and congestion in our cities. The Tatas' defence is that the Nano adheres to strict emission norms (Euro 4), and it is the governments' responsibility to provide good public transport systems in every city.
Keep the cynicism aside for now. All said and done, it is quite an achievement. Something Indians should be proud of.
Given the steep rise in the cost of steel, rubber and other inputs in the past few years, it's possible that the entry level Nano might not break even, though Tata made a point of saying the "one lakh" price tag in India will stay because "a promise is a promise". The car, the company says, will make money across its various models.
Many people have criticised the car, saying it will worsen the pollution and congestion in our cities. The Tatas' defence is that the Nano adheres to strict emission norms (Euro 4), and it is the governments' responsibility to provide good public transport systems in every city.
Keep the cynicism aside for now. All said and done, it is quite an achievement. Something Indians should be proud of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
