The Last Samurai: Quotes

Quotes from The Last Samurai:

Narrator: I say Japan was created by a handful of brave men – warriors willing to give their lives for what is now a forgotten word: honour.

Nathan Algren: They are an unusual people. From the moment they wake up they devote themselves to the perfection of whatever they do. I've never seen such discipline.

Algren: I was surprised to learn that the word 'Samurai' means 'to serve', and that Katsumoto believes his rebellion to be in the service of the Emperor.

Algren: What does it mean to be Samurai? To devote yourself utterly to a set of moral principles, to seek a stillness of the mind, and the mastery of the sword.

Katsumoto: A perfect cherry blossom is a rare thing. You can spend your whole life looking for one, and it will not be a wasted life.

Katsumoto: To know life in every breath, in every cup of tea, in every life we take. That is Bushido – the way of the warrior.

Algren: So you will take your own life, in shame. In shame for a life of service, discipline, compassion.
Katsumoto: The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.
Algren: Necessary? What could be more necessary?

Katsumoto: Do you believe a man can change his destiny?
Algren: I believe a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.

Algren: This is Katsumoto's sword. He would have wanted you to have it. He hoped with his dying breath that you would remember his ancestors who held it, and what they died for. May the strength of the Samurai always be with you.

Emperor: You were with him when he died?
Algren: Yes.
Emperor: Tell me how he died.
Algren: I will tell you how he lived.

Emperor: I dream of a unified Japan – of a country strong, and independent, and modern. Now we have railroads and cannon and Western clothing. But we cannot forget who we are, or where we come from.

The Last Samurai: Story

Story of The Last Samurai:

Japan in 1876 – For centuries Japan has been an isolated country, cutting itself off from the world. So it is still a medieval, agricultural nation. The new emperor Meiji decides to modernise his country. He opens up Japan to the world, bringing in railways, telegraph, firearms and Western suits. Not everybody is happy with these changes. A Samurai named Katsumoto revolts against the Emperor. The Emperor hires some American military officers to train his army to fight Katsumoto. One of these officers is Nathan Algren.

Nathan Algren and his colleagues go to Japan. They lead the Emperor's army in a battle against Katsumoto. The Imperial army is routed, and Algren is wounded and captured. He is taken to Katsumoto's village as a prisoner. During his time in the village, Algren gets to see the Samurai and their way of life. Gradually he is converted to their cause. He joins Katsumoto in his rebellion. In the final battle Katsumoto is defeated and killed, but Algren survives to tell the story.

RSS and Muslims

Sudheendra Kulkarni brings to our attention* a little known fact: the RSS's attempt to reach out to Muslims.

"The Rashtriya Muslim Manch is an organisation inspired and guided by the RSS to bring together nationalist Muslims. It was launched four years ago with the blessings of RSS chief K S Sudarshan. Mohammad Afzal, a Delhi-based businessman, is the national convener of the Manch. On May 11, he and his colleagues organised the finale of the Manch's yearlong nationwide campaign to pay homage to the martyrs of the 1857 War of Independence. The concluding two-day meeting at Meerut had nearly 3000 delegates from 16 states.

"Afzal says, "There are many Muslim organisations in the country. Many of them wish to keep Muslims in a ghetto, away from the national mainstream. Our organisation aims to make Muslims aware of their Indian roots. This awareness of the common bonds of nationalism that unite people belonging to different faiths is the surest way to overcome the problems facing Indian Muslims." He and his wife Shahnaz Afzal are full-time activists of the Manch, which now has eight other wholetimers. The moving spirit behind the Manch is Indresh Kumar, a senior pracharak of the RSS, deputed to work among the Muslim community."

The importance of such an initiative cannot be exaggerated.

*"Look who commemorated 1857 in Meerut" – Indian Express, 16th May 2008. Strangely the article is not available online.

Blog Squatting

I started my blog in September 2006. After blogging for more than a year I decided to make some changes to the blog. Chief among these changes were the blog URL and blog name. Since this is an India-centric blog I wanted to have "India" in the blog URL and blog name. I tried out several variations of "India" and found that all of them were taken. But what pissed me off was that all these blogs were inactive. Here's the list:
1. India.blogspot.com – 2 posts
2. Indica.blogspot.com – 4 posts
3. Indian.blogspot.com – 4 posts
4. Indiana.blogspot.com – 4 posts

I was furious. All these cool URLs had been wasted on some dead blogs. Talk about blog squatting! After 1947 we had land reforms that outlawed absentee landlords and gave the land to people who would actually use it. Today we need similar laws that will take away cool blog URLs from undeserving owners.

Anyway, there was nothing I could do about it. I had to settle for "Indian Take". The changes were made on 31st December 2007.

For the record, this was the old avatar of the blog:
Blog title = 21st Century Chronicles
Blog subtitle = A turbulent world seen through the eyes of an unknown Indian
Blog URL = http://psomax.blogspot.com
My display name = Psomax

Zero Tolerance to Terrorism

In the wake of the Jaipur bomb blasts, we are seeing the same sickening drama all over again. Sample this gem from our honourable Home Minister Shivraj Patil: "Their aim (to create communal disturbances) has been thwarted. The people of Jaipur have not allowed their nefarious design to succeed." Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have also made similar statements. This is not new. They sing this same tune after every terrorist attack.

This government seems to believe – and want us to believe – that the sole aim of the terrorists is to incite communal riots. So as long as there are no communal riots after a terrorist attack, everything is fine and we have won. It doesn't matter how many bombs go off or how many Indians are killed. All that matters is that there should be no communal riots. How convenient. How sickening.

Pranab Mukherjee's call for "zero tolerance to terrorism" looks like a stupid joke in this context. All this is testing the patience of Indians. By God's grace (and the good sense of Indians) there have been no communal riots after a terrorist attack till now. With one exception: Godhra. God forbid there should be another Gujarat 2002. But that is exactly what is going to happen if things continue like this.

Here's a suggestion to Sonia-Manmohan-Shivraj. Why not assume that the aim of the terrorists is not to cause communal riots, but just to kill Indians? Period. Because that's what they are doing (and they are doing it very well). With this change in attitude, the picture should look a little differently to Sonia-Manmohan-Shivraj. Every time a bomb goes off, we lose. Every time a bullet is fired, we lose. Every time an Indian is killed, or even hurt, we lose. This is what is meant by zero tolerance to terrorism, Pranabji. This is the mindset needed to win the war on terror.

But the UPA is not interested in trivial things like winning the war on terror and protecting the life of the "aam aadmi". They are worried about more important things like the elections. I repeat: there is a limit to the patience (and good sense) of Indians. If the current state of affairs continues, we will see an eruption that will make the Gujarat riots look like a picnic. No Indian wants that. Let us pray that our rulers come to their senses – before it is too late.

Science Meets Spirituality

David Brooks looks at how the latest research in neuroscience is validating ancient spiritual beliefs. Science is converging towards spirituality. He calls it "neural Buddhism". He rightly notes that this poses a serious threat to revealed religions (like Christianity and Islam).

Brooks says, "The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships". This line really struck me. Why? Because I have been coming around to the same conclusion of late. Just replace "relationships" with "experiences". Relationships are a subset of experiences.

Brooks helpfully gives a list of names for those interested in reading on the subject. Here's a closer look at who these guys are, and what they have written:

Andrew Newberg (associate professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania)
1. The mystical mind: Probing the biology of religious experience
2. Why God won't go away: Brain science and the biology of belief
3. Why we believe what we believe: Uncovering our biological need for meaning, spirituality, and truth

Daniel Siegel (associate clinical professor of psychiatry, UCLA School of Medicine)
4. The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are
5. The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being

Michael Gazzaniga (professor of psychology, University of California Santa Barbara)
6. The mind's past
7. The ethical brain
8. Human: The science behind what makes us unique

Jonathan Haidt (associate professor of psychology, University of Virginia)
9. The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom

Antonio Damasio (professor of neuroscience, University of Southern California)
10. Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain
11. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness
12. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain

Marc Hauser (professor of psychology, Harvard University)
13. Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong

Just reading the names of the books is quite an education :-)

The Vice President

Now that it's more or less settled that it will be a McCain vs Obama showdown in November, attention has shifted to who will be the vice presidential candidates. Salon magazine has an interesting quiz for readers to 'pick' the running mates for McCain and Obama. Accordingly the top 3 picks are...

For John McCain
My picks:
1. Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)
2. Fred Thompson (Senator from Tennessee)
3. Wayne Allard (Senator from Colorado)
Salon readers' picks:
1. Colin Powell (we know this guy)
2. Tim Pawlenty (see above)
3. Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

For Barack Obama
My picks:
1. Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas)
2. Ted Strickland (Governor of Ohio)
3. Chris Dodd (Senator from Connecticut)
Salon readers' picks:
1. Jim Webb (Senator from Virginia)
2. Wesley Clark (former General)
3. Kathleen Sebelius (see above)

For both candidates my second and third picks are way off mark. But my first picks seem to be close to the bull's eye :-)

PS: I have been following the US presidential primaries closely, and have been tempted a lot to blog about it. But I remembered this rap on my knuckles and decided to restrain myself ;-)

The Unbearable Emptiness of Being

What is life? It is a series of moments – each one unconnected with the other. Each moment in itself is meaningless. All the moments taken together also do not add up to any meaningful whole. Any meaning is at best relative, not absolute.

So what are we to do? How are we to live? Most people don't ask themselves stupid questions like, "What is the meaning of life?" and hence do not face this problem. But for those of us who do, what is the solution?

Milan Kundera spoke of the unbearable lightness of being. The fact that life is meaningless should be seen as a blessing, not as a curse. Absence of meaning is nothing to cry about; it is a source of freedom.

How many of us can bring ourselves to look at life in this way? Most of us cannot. We persist in asking the question, even though we may never find the answers. All that we have is the unbearable emptiness of being.

The Year Is 5110

Q: Which year is it now?
A: 2008
Q: How is it year 2008?
A: Because it's been 2008 years since Jesus Christ was born

The calendar we are using is the Christian calendar. It is a relative system, not an absolute one. When the European countries colonised most of the world during 1400-1900, they spread their customs in the lands they ruled. Thus the Christian calendar (along with many other things) became the default for the whole world.

For practical purposes we may continue to use this calendar, or at least be aware of it. But we must also be aware of our own calendar(s). The two Hindu calendars most commonly cited are Vikrama and Shalivahana. The Vikrama calendar is followed mainly in north India. Its zero year corresponds to 58 BC; so according to it the current year is 2066. The Shalivahana calendar is followed mainly in south India. Its zero year corresponds to 78 AD; so according to it the current year is 1930.

All this is very confusing. So instead of these two regional calendars, we can remember one national calendar. According to Hindu tradition, the Kali Yuga began in 3102 BC (when Krishna died). So the current year is Kaliyugabda 5110. As per this, we are in the 52nd century (not the 21st). It also fits in neatly with the notion of India being a 5000-year-old civilisation :-)

Hindu Militancy

The case for Hindu militancy is simple. We have a glorious culture and way of life, yes. But that is not enough. We must also have the strength to defend it. Anything good and beautiful attracts unwanted attention. What is the use of having a refined civilisation if you don't have the strength to protect it? In its 5000 years of history, Indian/Hindu civilisation never attacked other countries. The mistake we did was to think that everybody is like us. And we paid the price for it. We are still continuing to make this mistake.

We are tolerant and peace loving, yes. But everybody is not like us. The sooner we realise this, the better. We Hindus are polite to a fault – we refuse to admit that somebody can be intolerant and aggressive.

Two notes of caution here. First, some people think the answer is to become intolerant and aggressive like the Semitic religions. Absolutely not. We are Hindus. We should remain Hindus. We must think, talk and act like Hindus. We must continue to be tolerant and universal in our outlook. Second, rule of law is supreme. The law must be respected at all costs. Nobody should break the law, or take the law into his own hands. Any effort has to be within the four corners of the law.

Will Durant said it best: "... the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within. The Hindus ... had failed to organise their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600 – 1000 AD) India invited conquest; and at last it came. This is the secret of the political history of modern India ... The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilisation. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry."

The Strength of Hindus

"The Islamic conquest of India shows that Hindus were weak and cowardly."

This is how most people (even patriotic Indians) see our history. But look at the facts:
644 AD – Arabs first attacked Sindh
712 AD – bin Qasim conquered Sindh
1023 AD – Ghaznavi conquered Punjab
1192 AD – Ghauri conquered North India
That is, from 644 AD to 1192 AD, it took Islam more than 500 years to conquer our country.

Compare this with Islam's other conquests. The Arabs started pouring out of their peninsula after the Prophet died in 632 AD. By the end of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 AD, they had conquered all of West Asia, North Africa and Spain. That is, the Islamic juggernaut flattened every land from the Pyrenees to the Indus in just about 100 years. But we were able to hold off this juggernaut for more than 500 years. Not a small achievement.

There is an untold story here. It is the story of the heroic resistance of India's northwest provinces (Sindh, Punjab, Rajputana). It is the story of the true character of Hindus – one of strength, valour and sacrifice. This story has been left out of our textbooks. It must be written in letters of gold. Every Indian must know it.

PS: I owe this insight to Dr Ravindra, the RSS's Saha Bauddhik Pramukh in North Karnataka.

RSS Training Camps

An important aspect of the RSS that few outsiders know of is the RSS training camps. These were earlier called Officers Training Camp (OTC). Today they are called Sangha Shiksha Varga.

The training camps are held all over the country every year during April-June. There are totally 4 levels of training:
1. Prathamika Shiksha Varga (Basic training camp) – Duration is 7 days. Usually held at the district (zilla) level.
2. Prathama Varsha Shiksha Varga (First year training camp) – Duration is 21 days. Usually held at the provincial (prantha) level.
3. Dvitiya Varsha Shiksha Varga (Second year training camp) – Duration is 21 days. Usually held at the zonal (kshetra) level.
4. Trutiya Varsha Shiksha Varga (Third year training camp) – Duration is 30 days. Held at the national level in Nagpur.

At the training camps, both physical (sharirik) and theoretical/intellectual (bauddhik) training are imparted. Sharirik training includes danda yuddha (combat with a cane), niyuddha (unarmed combat), samata (drill), yogasana and playing games. Bauddhik training includes lectures and group discussions.

The primary purpose of the training camps is to impart the various skills needed for running shakhas. Needless to say, to qualify for any training camp you must have completed the previous level of training! :-)

Philosophy

Philosophy is not meant to be merely studied. It is meant to be lived.
Philosophy is not about reading books. It is about living life.

How To Write

Let us look at a simple English sentence:

Ramu ate an apple.

Let us look at the structure of this sentence:

Ramu --> Subject
ate an apple --> Predicate

This is the most basic way of breaking up a sentence. The predicate can be further broken up into a verb and an object. Thus we have:

Ramu --> Subject
ate --> Verb
an apple --> Object

Let us look at the parts of speech of the key words in the sentence:

Ramu --> Noun
ate --> Verb
apple --> Noun

This Subject-Verb-Object (S-V-O) or Noun-Verb-Noun (N-V-N) structure is the most basic form of an English sentence. Write all your sentences in this form!

So the first rule is: Use short, simple sentences (S-V-O or N-V-N form). The corollaries to this rule are:
1. Do not use adjectives.
2. Do not use adverbs.
3. Do not use additional clauses.

And the second rule is: Use small, easy words. Do not use big, difficult words.

There are many more rules (you can find them in Rudolf Flesch's book), but these are the two most important. Simplicity, clarity, and brevity: these are the three things every writer should aim for. If you want to see the power of simple writing, just pick up any book by V S Naipaul – the greatest living writer of English prose.

September 11th

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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)

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.

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...

Sweet Revenge

The boys did it.

"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.

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'.

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.

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 :-)

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.

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."

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?

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...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The Quran Blogs

After David Plotz "blogged the Bible" in Slate magazine, it was just a matter of time before somebody did the same with the Quran.

Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org was the first off the mark. Spencer is a well-known critic of Islam. He points out that Muslims regard the Quran as the Word of God – true for all time and for all places. So if we really want to understand the Quran (and Islam) we must read it the way Muslims read it: literally. Not metaphorically, not symbolically, not allegorically. Every sentence and every word in the book must be taken literally. This is also, according to Spencer, how mainstream Islamic scholars down the ages have interpreted it. The result is that the Quran comes off as a scripture that preaches intolerance, aggression, hatred and violence.

And now we have the reaction to Spencer. The liberal newspaper Guardian has started its own blog on the Quran, written by Ziauddin Sardar. Sardar is a Pakistani-born British writer known for his moderate and progressive views on Islam. He says that though the Quran is the Word of God, its real meaning can be known only by interpreting the text keeping the context in mind. This is a more sensible view than that of the fundamentalists. But the question is how many Muslims agree with him. Anyway, in the days to come, we can expect Sardar to interpret the Quran as a scripture that preaches peace, compassion and tolerance.

You can check out both the blogs, and decide for yourself which interpretation is correct. Is Islam a religion of the sword? Or is it a religion of peace? But whatever our opinion is, at the end of the day it may be irrelevant. What matters is what Muslims believe. And here the usual argument is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding and non-violent. True. But it doesn't take a billion people to turn the world into a violent place. All it takes is a few thousand. As long as even a tiny fraction of Muslims believe that God has ordered them to kill non-believers, there will be no peace in this world.

PS: The Guardian says it was inspired by David Plotz. It makes no mention of Robert Spencer. But they are not fooling anyone :-)

Conservatism

From the beginning, man has been in pursuit of happiness and the good life. Much has changed over the millennia, but not this basic human desire. The earliest men also wanted the same thing (essentially) that we want today. And in this pursuit, they made many mistakes, and learned from them. They asked many questions, and found answers to some of them. They had many problems; they found solutions to some of them. By a painful process of trial and error, they managed to learn a few things. They managed to make some progress.

These people passed on their hard-earned knowledge to their offspring, so that they (the offspring) would not repeat their parents' mistakes. So that they would not face the same difficulties. So that their lives would be safer and easier. And the offspring learnt whatever their parents had to teach them. Thus knowledge was transmitted from one generation to the next. This process of transmitting knowledge continued with every generation. Each generation learned new things and passed on that knowledge to the next generation – in addition to what it had learnt from the previous one. Thus was knowledge accumulated and over time, a store of knowledge built.

Some of this knowledge was explicit and tangible. It could, for example, be written down as a book. Other knowledge was more implicit. People developed many beliefs, practices, customs, habits, values and norms to make their lives better and more meaningful. They gradually built many systems and institutions to help society to function more effectively. This implicit knowledge grew as life and society became more and more complex. The explicit and implicit knowledge together make up a way of life, or what we call culture. Culture is mostly intangible. It improves and enriches our lives – in ways that are not immediately obvious. And when this culture is passed on from one generation to the next, it becomes tradition.

The tradition that we inherit is thus the product of the cumulative efforts of our forefathers in their quest for the good life. It has been developed over a long period of time and with great difficulty. It is good, useful and precious. We cherish it. We preserve it. And we nourish it. Tradition has sentimental value too. It is the bond that we have with our ancestors. It is what connects the past to the present, and the present to the future. Tradition is also a responsibility. It does not belong to us alone. It is given to us to hold in trust, so that we can bequeath it to future generations the way we found it, or in a better condition. This, in a nutshell, is conservatism.

Conservatism does not mean we should keep things the way they are. It means we should build on what already exists.

Shame on Australia!

I didn't watch the Sydney test match – which was good for my blood pressure. What unfolded over 5 days was not a cricket match but a farce. Both the umpires and the Australian players set new standards of integrity and sportsmanship. The final insult was the three-match ban on Bhajji, for a 'racist' slur that nobody heard.

Australians have proved once again that they are descendants of criminals.

RSS, Part 5

This post was prompted by questions about the Sangh from several friends. I had tried to describe the RSS and its work earlier. But it looks like further elaboration is needed.

The basic question that people have is "What is the RSS?" or "What does the RSS do?". The answer is that the RSS runs shakhas. The RSS is nothing but the sum total of its shakhas. The RSS begins with the shakha, and ends with the shakha. Other than the shakha, there is nothing more to the RSS. This centrality of the shakha is the key to understanding the Sangh. It is also the biggest stumbling block. Outsiders have great difficulty in understanding how such a vast and influential organisation can be just about a bunch of boys/men exercising and playing in a field. Indeed it is just that.

Another stumbling block in understanding the RSS is labels. The two labels most commonly (mis)used for the RSS are 'political' and 'religious'. The first label is completely wrong. The RSS is NOT a political organisation. It does not do any political work. The confusion is mainly due to the existence of the BJP. The BJP may have swayamsevaks as members, but is a separate organisation. The second label is also problematic. The response to it depends on the speaker’s understanding of Hinduism (since the 'religion' meant here is Hinduism). If by Hinduism he means our inclusive way of life, our culture and our civilisation, he is correct. But the word 'religion' typically means a narrow, rigid and exclusive dogma – and hence is best avoided.

However labels cannot be done away with completely. Especially in this age of soundbites. So what labels would be right for the RSS? Sometimes the RSS is described as a 'social' and/or 'cultural' organisation. These are better than the previous two labels. But they are too general. Another word is 'nationalist' which is absolutely correct, but gives no hint of exactly what the organisation does. The RSS's own leaders have described its mission as 'character building' or 'man making'. So these terms can be used as labels for the RSS. This 'man making' is not an end in itself, but the means to an end – the end being a strong nation. Hence the RSS can best be described as a 'nation-building' organisation.

Hindutva 2.0

Varghese George on the Gujarat elections:

"Sunday's win announced loudly that Narendra Modi has arrived on the national scene. So has Hindutva 2.0. Advani's original Rath Yatra started from Gujarat and spread the message of Hindu pride and cultural nationalism. Advani tried to link suraj - good governance - to Hindutva in 2004, but failed. In Modi's regional version, Hindu and Gujarati pride blend with economic prosperity. The core of the pan-Indian Hindutva philosophy of the Sangh Parivar is retained: that a united, Hindu upsurge is the necessary and sufficient condition for material progress."

"Hindutva 2.0 is not driven by trishul-wielding sadhus, but by professionals and the middle class."

THE Question

What is the meaning of life? Does life have a meaning? If yes, what is it? What does it all mean?

Searching for the Truth 'within' is futile. It is like peeling an onion. You peel away layer after layer, and finally you find there is nothing inside. It is empty. Hollow. If there is Truth, it is to be found 'without' - in the real world, among real people. They say the world is false, an illusion. I don't know. As far as I am concerned, this world is my only reality. I do not know any reality other than it, or beyond it.

It is possible that the journey without will also lead to nothing. But, as they say, the journey is more important than the destination. Or, as someone else said, play the game as if it matters.

"The only way to find yourself is to lose destroy yourself in the service of others." - Mahatma Gandhi

Three Questions

An artist is painting a picture. He is so busy painting that it takes up all his time. He is so engrossed in the details of his painting that they fill his mind completely. He has neither the time nor the mind-space to think about anything else. But every now and then he should step back, look at his painting, and ask himself,"Am I painting correctly?" or "Is my painting turning out the way I want it to?". Even more fundamentally, he should ask himself,"Am I painting the right picture?" or "Should I be painting some other picture?". And sometimes, he should ask himself,"Should I be painting at all?".

A man is travelling to a certain place. Every now and then, he should stop and ask himself,"Will this road take me to my destination?". Sometimes, he should sit down and ask himself,"Have I chosen the right place as my destination?". Even more fundamentally, he should ask himself,"Should I be travelling at all?".

What Is Hinduism?

This question has long been bugging me. Let us look at the possible answers:

1. "Hinduism refers to the beliefs and practices of the Hindus" – This is the standard textbook/dictionary answer. It is correct, but not of much help.

2. We can list these "beliefs and practices of the Hindus". In brief: our key beliefs or concepts are Atma, Brahman, Samsara, Karma, Moksha, Purushartha, Ashrama, Varna, etc (Any religion’s chief purpose is to help man understand the inter-relationship between himself, the world and God). And our practices are the multitude of rituals and ceremonies that we follow.

This is an improvement over the first answer. But it still leaves us unsatisfied. The question "What is the core/essence of Hinduism?" remains. My previous post was an attempt to find an answer to this question.

Thus the essence of Hinduism is two-fold: universality and tolerance. Hinduism believes that:
a) There are many paths to the Truth.
b) You are free to take whichever path you like.
The paths may be different. But they all lead to the same Truth.

Whereas any other religion believes that:
a) There is only one path to the Truth: its own.
b) Those who do not follow the path (infidels) are doomed to eternal hell.

Every religion says,"I am right, and you are wrong". Hinduism is the only religion that says,"I am right, and you are also right".

The Essence of Hinduism

The Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia has a brilliant article on Hinduism, by Arvind Sharma. Some excerpts:

"The Hindu tradition encourages Hindus to seek spiritual and moral truth wherever it might be found, while acknowledging that no creed can contain such truth in its fullness and that each individual must realise this truth through his or her own systematic effort. Our experience, our reason, and our dialogue with others - especially with enlightened individuals - provide various means of testing our understanding of spiritual and moral truth. And Hindu scripture, based on the insights of Hindu sages and seers, serves primarily as a guidebook. But ultimately truth comes to us through direct consciousness of the divine or the ultimate reality (Brahman).

"In many religions truth is delivered or revealed from a divine source and enters the world through a single agent: for example, Abraham in Judaism, Jesus in Christianity, and Muhammad in Islam. These truths are then recorded in scriptures that serve as a source of knowledge of divine wisdom: the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Quran. In the Hindu tradition, by contrast, there is no single revelation or orthodoxy (established doctrine) by which people may achieve knowledge of the divine or lead a life backed by religious law. The Hindu tradition acknowledges that there are many paths by which people may seek and experience religious understanding and direction. It also claims that every individual has the potential to achieve enlightenment.

"The difficulty of defining Hinduism arises from its universal world-view and its willingness to accept and celebrate diverse philosophies, deities, symbols, and practices. A religion that emphasises similarities and shared characteristics rather than differences has a difficult time setting itself apart - unless this very quality is considered its defining feature. This is not to say that there are no beliefs and practices that may be identified as Hindu, but rather that the Hindu tradition has concerned itself largely with the human situation rather than the Hindu situation. Instead of basing its identity on separating Hindu from non-Hindu or believer from nonbeliever, Hinduism has sought to recognise principles and practices that would lead any individual to become a better human being and understand and live in harmony with dharma.

"The distinction of dharma from the Western sense of religion is crucial to understanding Hindu religious identity. To the extent that Hinduism carries with it the Western meaning of being a religion the words distort Indian reality. In the West a religion is understood to be conclusive - that is, it is the one and only true religion. Second, a religion is generally exclusionary - that is, those who do not follow it are excluded from salvation. Finally, a religion is separative - that is, to belong to it, one must not belong to another. Dharma, however, does not necessarily imply any of these."

Is Islam Anti-National?

The question is inflammatory. Let me explain what I am saying.

The relationship between a nation and its people involves two things: loyalty and identity.
a) Loyalty – The nation demands absolute loyalty from its people. A person's first and last loyalty must be to his country and his fellow countrymen, not to any other country/organisation/entity.
b) Identity – The nation demands that its people identify first with the nation. A citizen of XYZ nation, when asked "Who are you?" is expected to first say,"I am an XYZian". Other answers must follow - not precede - this answer.

Now anything that comes in the way of a person's absolute loyalty to his country or absolute identification with his country can be considered anti-national. It is in this sense that I am using the word "anti-national" here.

This absolute loyalty and identification is found in most people of the world. With one prominent exception: Muslims. Not because they are bad people or traitors, but because it is what their religion demands of them.

To understand this, we must first understand the concept of Ummah - a central concept in Islam. 'Ummah' is the Arabic word for 'community'. When Muhammad founded Islam, he founded it primarily as a social reform movement, not as a personal quest for Truth. Hence the Muslim community or Ummah is of paramount importance in Islam. And this Ummah must be united. Why? Because Islam is a fiercely monotheistic religion. It believes that God is One and Indivisible (it regards the Christian doctrine of Trinity as unacceptable). This unity of God must be reflected in the unity of the Ummah. Hence the obsession with the Ummah's unity.

Thus all the Muslims of the world - regardless of which country they live in - form the Ummah. And their first allegiance is to this Ummah, not to their respective countries. This is true not just in India and America, but also in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So a Saudi Muslim is a Muslim first, and then a Saudi. He is not being a bad Saudi; he is just being a good Muslim. If a Muslim of XYZ country thinks he is an XYZian first, and then a Muslim, it only means that his Islam has been 'diluted'.

So we see there is a conflict between the demands of nations and the demands of Islam. This conflict is at the root of much suspicion and mistrust in the world today. Will this conflict ever be resolved? If yes, how? These are interesting, and important, questions.

PS: The United States, surprisingly, seems to be another exception to this rule. With the recent increase in Christian fundamentalism, many Americans think of themselves as Christians first, and Americans second.

Nietzsche's Superman

[Disclaimer: I have not read any of Nietzsche's works (Will to Power, Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spake Zarathustra, etc). My knowledge of Nietzsche comes from secondary works (like Will Durant) and his depiction in the popular media]

Let me try to set down Nietzsche's Superman (Ubermensch) theory in brief.

The human population can be divided into two groups:
1. A small minority (Supermen) who have exceptional ability, energy, ambition and intelligence.
2. The rest who are mediocre; the average and the below average; the ordinary people. Here after referred to as the 'masses'.

The 'masses' here does not mean the poor and illiterate people, although there is a great degree of overlap. A poor and illiterate man can be a Superman, if he has the qualities mentioned in 1. Conversely, many rich and middle class people (most of them, actually) belong to the masses.

To put it simply, Nietzsche did not believe that all men are created equal.

The world is not changed by the masses. It is changed by the Supermen. The masses are content with happiness. That is not such a bad thing in itself. The problem is this 'happiness' is defined in mainly material terms.

On the other hand, the Superman has nothing but contempt for material comforts and pleasures. His sight is set on higher things. He yearns for greatness, power, fame and glory. This is the stuff heroes are made of. Instead of happiness, he will find pain, discomfort, defeat, failure, fear and loneliness. But he would rather have these than the false contentment of the masses.

It is easy to see why Nietzsche is such a controversial philosopher.

Swami Vivekananda also believed in the concept of Superman. He said, "What is so great about being happy? If you give a cow enough grass to eat, it will also be happy. Then what is the difference between man and cow?"

But the crucial difference is Swami Vivekananda did not believe that Supermen have a right to exploit and oppress the masses. On the contrary, he believed they should serve the poor masses. Supermen are servants, not masters, of the people.

Accordingly, the Supermen will have to take a lot of crap from the rich and middle class masses. That is unfortunate, but unavoidable. They must endure this humiliation by keeping in mind their true purpose - which is to serve the poorest, the weakest and the most ignorant. Daridra devo bhava, deena devo bhava, mooda devo bhava.

Farce In Karnataka

Indian politics has touched a new low. And the scene is not Bihar or Uttar Pradesh, but my beloved Karnataka :-(

Elections will be held now. What are the chances that one of the three parties (BJP, Congress, JDS) will get a clear majority? Very slim. So it’ll be back to the same old games, or President's rule. I don't know what sins the 5 crore people of Karnataka have committed to get a politician like H D Deve Gowda.

This kind of instability is a recent phenomenon. Earlier there was no BJP, so we had a stable two-party system (Congress and JD). With the rise of the BJP, we now have three contenders in the ring. It's all quite farcical. The JD has become irrelevant. Now the JDS is not even a caste-based party; it’s just a family-based one.

This instability will continue for some years. Eventually Deve Gowda (now 74) will die. The JDS will disintegrate. Most of its members will join the Congress; some will join the BJP. Then we will have a stable two-party system again in the state. Till then, God save us all.

Foxes And Hedgehogs - 2

The words "sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision" betray where Berlin's sympathies lie. He is on the side of the foxes (The rest of the book argues that Leo Tolstoy was a fox, but was trying to become a hedgehog). Another writer (Scherder?) made exactly the same point when he said that every man is either a Platonian or an Aristotlean.

Leaving philosophy and art aside, let's talk about what this means for us ordinary mortals. The parallel at the mundane, everyday level is obvious. Some people can do only one thing at a time. Others are good at multitasking, and can do many things together. Some can hold only one thought in their heads at any given time. Others' minds are like multitrack recorders. Some seek comfort in uniformity. Others revel in variety. These are our hedgehogs and foxes, respectively. And by this definition, I am a hedgehog. (I also happen to prefer Plato to Aristotle)

So which type is superior? The usual argument of "each has its pros and cons" does not apply here. I think it is better to be a fox. Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein said it best: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." In today’s fast-changing, diverse and complex world, we hedgehogs are at a serious disadvantage.

The fox vs hedgehog theme has become popular again, thanks to the management bestseller Good to great by Jim Collins. Collins argues that one must be a hedgehog to become a great business leader. But he, like Berlin, is talking about the realm of ideas, not of day-to-day work. He is telling you to relentlessly focus on one idea and build your company around it. He is surely not saying that one can become a successful CEO by being a zero at multitasking.

So are you a fox? Or are you a hedgehog? :-)

Foxes And Hedgehogs - 1

Are you a fox or a hedgehog?

An ancient Greek poet said,"The fox knows many things. The hedgehog knows only one thing." British thinker Isaiah Berlin made the idea famous in his book 'The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy's view of history'. The first paragraph makes the idea clear:

"But, taken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general. For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel - a single, universal, organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance - and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related by no moral or aesthetic principle.

"These last lead lives, perform acts, and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal, their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision.

"The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes; and without insisting on a rigid classification, we may, without too much fear of contradiction, say that, in this sense, Dante belongs to the first category, Shakespeare to the second; Plato, Lucretius, Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen, Proust are, in varying degrees, hedgehogs; Herodotus, Aristotle, Montaigne, Erasmus, Moliere, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce are foxes."

"No God But Allah"

Reza Aslan's book "No god but God" has the subtitle: The origins, evolution and future of Islam. Thus the scope of the book is made clear to us. It is not a conventional history of Islam. It covers the following topics:
Origins - Pre-Islamic Arabia; Muhammad in Mecca; the first Muslims; from Medina to Mecca; the first Caliphs
Evolution - Theology and law; Shiism; Sufism; response to colonialism
Future - Islamic reformation

Thus half the book deals with only the first 50 years of Islam (the remaining 1350 years of history are dismissed in one page). The second half of the book deals with the development of the religion. And in the final chapter, the author gives us his view on what is happening in Islam today, and where it is headed.

So what does Reza Aslan say? In his introduction he says that critics will call his work an "apology". But he proudly embraces this label, saying that 'apology' means 'defence', and that there can be no higher calling than defending one's faith. He then proceeds to defend his faith. He describes the historical, social and religious context in which Islam arose (which he believes is crucial to understanding the religion). He sets down what he thinks is the correct Islamic view on issues such as the status of women, Muslim-Jew/Christian relations, meaning of Jihad, etc.

Aslan's knowledge of Islam is very deep. He is also a very sophisticated spokesman. It is more difficult to find holes in his arguments (compared to Karen Armstrong). But one pattern is clear: where he has a strong case, he dwells in detail; and where he's on a weak wicket, he moves ahead quickly. We must also remember that he is a Shiite. So where he talks about issues over which Sunnis and Shiites disagree, we have to take his words with a pinch of salt.

One problem with "No god but God" (a problem that most books on Islam suffer from) is that it focusses mostly on West Asia. It doesn't cover Islam in India in enough depth. A separate study of Islam in South Asia is necessary for two reasons. One, Islam in India has its own special characteristics. For example, the dominant school of Islamic law here is the Hanafi, as against the Hanbali in West Asia. Also, Sufism has had a far greater influence in the subcontinent than in the rest of the Islamic world. Two, Muslims are a minority here. When Muslims are a minority in a country, it throws up a whole lot of interesting questions - which do not arise in West Asia (where they are the overwhelming majority).

As a devout Muslim, Aslan does his duty of defending and explaining Islam. There is no doubt that he is a liberal, moderate and progressive Muslim. He sticks his neck out on many occasions, saying things that Islamic fundamentalists will find unacceptable, and will oppose violently. At the same time, there are many other things he says that we will find difficult to agree with. For example, he says that Islam respects other religions, but this respect is reserved only for monotheistic religions. Polytheists and idol worshippers are given two options: convert to Islam, or die.

All in all, it is a scholarly and well-written work that adds to our understanding of this intriguing faith.