Connect with us

articles

What Hindus can learn from Batra vs. Doniger

Published

on

Author: Dr. Jayakumar Srinivasan

Press Release: http://centreright.in/2014/03/what-hindus-can-learn-from-batra-vs-doniger-2/#.VTHsmNzBXlY

Contents:

  • Introduction
  • Vilification of Hindus and Hinduism
  • Doniger’s Book, The Hindu Experience and Wendy’s Children
  • Psychoanalysis and its Application to Hindu Figures
  • Dialog with Purported Scholars of Hinduism
  • Asymmetry and Labeling in Reporting and Discourse
  • Calling Out the Labelers
    • “Reductio ad Hindutva”
    • “Reductio ad Taliban”
    • “Donigeration”
  • Conclusion

Introduction

Recently, after four years of engagement, Penguin agreed to an out-of-court settlement to voluntarily withdraw and pulp all copies in India of the book The Hindus: An Alternative History. Wendy Doniger, Distinguished Professor of History of Religions in the Divinity School of University of Chicago, is the author of the book.

Wendy Doniger is not new to Hindus. Around 2002, critically acclaimed researcher, writer and speaker, Rajiv Malhotra, reported his encounters and engagements with Religions in South Asia unit of the American Academy of Religion, where he identified Doniger as “undoubtedly the most powerful person in academic Hindu studies”. He exposed the disturbing syndrome of eroticization and denigration of Hindu traditions and practices.

Many have critiqued Wendy Doniger’s book. In this article, while referring to such works, I cover deliberate vilification of Hindus and Hinduism, asymmetry in reporting and discourse, application of unproven psychoanalysis and provide much needed labels to label the labellers.

Vilification of Hindus and Hinduism Abounds

Cases of disrespecting or outright vilification of Hindu icons and traditions have increased in the last decade. In India, the venerated H. H. Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Acharya of a 2000+ year old Kanchi Mutt, was arrested in a callous and disrespectful manner by the Tamil Nadu Government in 2004. Hindus felt vulnerable and confused. The mainstream Indian media, which blatantly disrespects the Hindu majority, was the first to act as the jury. Just a few months ago, the sham case was dismissed and the Acharya was acquitted. However, due to the muted coverage of the acquittal, the negative perception predominates in the public. Such disrespectful treatment of religious leaders is not imaginable in the US, as demonstrated by the treatment of proven cases of pedophilia in the Catholic Church. The Indian episode is equivalent to arresting the Pope on trumped up charges.

Recently, the Tamil Nadu government made an attempt to control the iconic Chidambaram temple. The Archaeological Survey of India quietly renamed the Shankaracharya Hill in the Kashmir Valley to Takht-e-Suleiman. Just a few months ago, fatwas were issued in the sacred town of Rameswaram that bars non-Muslims from entering Muslim-majority villages! Outrages such as these are rarely covered by mainstream media and are reported only by independent Hindu watchdogs. Examples such as these are numerous.

In the US High School History textbooks, portrayals of Hindus as monkey and cow worshippers, bride burners, and given to caste-based oppression abound in what Rajiv Malhotra has termed the Caste, Cows and Curry syndrome.

Doniger’s Book, The Hindu Experience and Wendy’s Children

In page 3 of the preface of The Hindus, the Hindu encounters a shrill message: Doniger indicates that she is presenting “a narrative of religion… as linga (an emblem of Lord Shiva often representing his erect phallus) as set in a yoni (the symbol of Shiva’s consort, or female sexual organ)…”. (section in parenthesis is part of her writing). This is the forerunner of things to come in her book.

Kaalidaasa, one of the greatest poets humanity has known, dedicated his classic Abhijnaana Shaakuntalam, to Shiva and Parvati, using a metaphor that the two are as inseparable as a word and its meaning in the famously known ‘vaagarthaaviva‘. In the Hindu tradition, it is customary to begin a class, program, or a book with a dedication to the ever-present Ishwara, such as Shiva, Vishnu, Saraswati or one’s Guru. I grew up as a Hindu, listened to many erudite Swamis on the spiritual, philosophical and practical essences of Hinduism, studied some Hindu texts, practiced Vedic rituals, spent all night worshipping Shiva during Shivaraatri, taught children the tenets and practices of Hinduism, and coordinated group-study of the Bhagavad Gitaa.

The word “linga” in the religious and spiritual context means “lingyate anena” or “that which is indicated by”. The oval shape has no beginning or end, signifying Brahman, that which is the essence of the entire world, that which always was, is and always will be, that which is all pervasive and indestructible. Brahman is that which cannot be categorically pointed to as an object of our sense-perception or inference, hence Shiva is often symbolically portrayed as “teaching in silence”. We grew up chanting Lingaashtakam (eight verses on Shiva in the form of Linga) that praises Shiva as the one who is worshipped as the liberator of the sorrows of life.

The western interpretation of the Shiv Linga as a phallic symbol is not the way the Hindus look at the Linga, as also pointed out by Prof. Balagangadhara in the book Invading The Sacred. In such circumstances, whose interpretation should have primacy, the Western or that of hundreds of millions of Hindus?

The book is littered with factual inaccuracies, blatant denigration, and racism. A Chapter wise review of the book, in particular, covering over 600 occurrences of factual errors, trivializations, and eroticization, has been meticulously developed by Vishal Agarwal, and partially by Chitra Raman. As an example from the book to quote: “If the motto of Watergate was Follow the money, the motto of the history of Hinduism could well be Follow the monkey or, more often Follow the horse.”, or “Dasharatha’s son is certainly lustful… when Lakshmana learns that Rama has been exiled, he says, The king is perverse, old, and addicted to sex, driven by lust”. Hindu Deities are presented as lustful, Hindu Saints are falsely alleged to have indulged in sexual orgies, or to have ‘taken actions against Muslims’, Hindu worshippers are compared to cheating boyfriends, intoxication is a central theme of the Vedas and Hindu scriptures are presented as a litany of tales of faithful women forsaken by their ungrateful husbands.

Prof. Madan Lal Goel of University of West Florida caught Prof. Doinger red-handed: “After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus … are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. But, why save such a vile, violent religion …?” Given the extreme nature of the writing, the burden is on her supporters to say how they are not siding with her in inaccurate characterization and intentional denigration of Hinduism.

In the book Kali’s Child, Jeffrey Kripal, Wendy Doniger’s protege, paints Ramakrishna Paramahamsa as a pedophile and Swami Vivekananda as a homosexual. In his book Ganesa, Paul Courtright, another student of Wendy Doniger, caricatured Ganesha with a trunk that is likened to a limp phallus and as one who is attracted to his mother Parvati. Even more egregiously, Courtright claimed that the Devi Bhaagavata Puraana records an incestuous rape by Daksha of his own daughter, the Goddess Sati. Doniger and her children accomplish such feats by filtering all the richness and complexity of Hinduism through a single perspective of a Freudian psycho-analytical approach applied to the exclusion of the others. In accomplishing the feat, Doniger and Wendy’s children take generous “scholarly” liberties in extrapolating the texts that they analyze with the academic license of psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis and its Application to Hindu Figures

Far from burning books or issuing fatwas, Hindus have undertaken a serious study of such “scholarship”. Rajiv Malhotra’s Infinity Foundation systematically present a critique of American Studies on Hinduism, in the book Invading The Sacred. Leading players, asymmetry of power between Euro-centric Academics and its critics, debates and exchanges, and the “science” of psychoanalysis are discussed.

Hindus must become familiar with the topic of psychoanalysis because Hindus are the subject of this less-known theory. Psychoanalysis posits that human attitude and thought are largely influenced by irrational unconscious drives. Conflicts between the conscious and unconscious results in states of neurosis, anxiety, and depression. Freedom from the unconscious material is obtained by bringing that material to the conscious through guidance.

Freudian psychology is far from an established science. It is not an evidence-based science. Karl Popper, who is famous for introducing the concept of falsifiability to demarcate between science and non-science, is famously known for viewing Freudian psychoanalysis as a pseudo science. Popper said that psychoanalysis was simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behaviour which would contradict it. [Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, p. 37. ] Or, as my mentor told me in my first job “If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” – so I have the solution to all problems.

In Freudian psychoanalysis, schizophrenia and depression are not brain disorders, but narcissistic disorders. Autism and other brain disorders are not brain problems but mothering problems. These illnesses do not require pharmacological or behavioral treatment. They require only “talk” therapy.

What has the application of Freudian psychoanalysis done to Hinduism?

In Invading The Sacred, Alan Roland, an ex-President of the National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, explains the uses and misuses of this practice where “all … interpretations remain speculative”. Applied to Indian Swamis, it has reduced spiritual experiences to regressions into infancy, homoerotic phenomena, and psychopathological or defensive motivations. Observing an essential difference in the constituted individual – The Western individualized self vs. the Indian familial-communal self – Roland questions the applicability of Freudian analysis to Indians, leave alone spiritually accomplished Swamis. Roland views “attempts to link spiritual experience with various developmental stages as all being highly reductionistic”. Scholars “do not take sufficiently into account the existential nature of spiritual experience”. I feel this is an understatement. It is like a teenager observing that research (performed by Professors in University) is motivated by a sense of lack of self-worth.

Sudhir Kakar, an expert psychologist, observes in psychoanalysis the treatment of Indian culture and Indians as “patients”, a lack of respect and objectivity for the patient, and a disdain for mysticism.

What possible benefit can be obtained by analyzing, say Newton, to conclude (hypothetically) that his intellectual pursuit was a result of intense taunting and abuse he suffered in the family as a child? On the contrary, this gets into invasion of privacy and denial of tradition and knowledge. These so called scholars are outright disingenuous in selectively applying psychoanalysis to established Hindu figures. Malhotra observes that “Freud had ruled out …applying his methods either posthumously … or via native informants … not directly engaged by the psychoanalyst.” This reveals to us the troubled minds of these ‘scholars’, rather than the minds of Shiva, Ganesha or Ramakrishna. It seems to me that it is Doniger and her cohorts who need immediate psychological help, for which we seek Bhagavan Ganesha’s help!

The Hindu tradition allows us to recognize spiritually advanced individuals, called Swamis. For Hindus, our Swamis, who are our teachers, also serve as our personal counsellors and family guides. A Hindu, however accomplished professionally, can still be a spiritual child. I am reminded of the story when a professional went to a revered Swami and introduced himself as a ‘very successful marriage counsellor’. Upon being asked what brought him there, he said “My marriage is on the rocks!”

Alan Roland shares his experiences of applying psychoanalysis practice with several individuals who took up spiritual practice. Some of them were in failed marriages and wanted to escape family distress. He helped them see their motivations which in turn enabled them to lead more useful lives. In fact, the Swamis in the ashram where I study are routinely sought out for guidance on personal emotional challenges. Within seconds, they can spot personal pain underneath a spiritual interest. Teaching and counselling go hand-in-hand. This is why the tradition holds the first contact with a Swami as a defining moment in the life of a Hindu. Any system is prone to abuse and the tradition has its in-built way of weeding out charlatans.

Roland questions whether spiritual aspirations, practices, and experiences essentialize into regression, and criticizes Doniger’s school of universalizing Freudian techniques and developing wild theories of Indian culture. Roland observes that “If anything, clinical experience indicates that spiritual practices and experiences are a strong counterpoint to regression and childhood merger experiences with the mother and with the Hindu extended family”. The authors of the book Invading the Sacred analyze the scholarship of Wendy Doniger, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, and Paul Courtright and ask the troubling question of whether their own personal psychosexual traumas are projected on to other cultures. Malhotra challenged Doniger at the 2000 AAR conference if she should be psychoanalyzed, and observes that Kripal’s need to distance himself from his half Roma/Hindu lineage through his father (and become 100% white) has manifested fully in his work.

Therefore, I view the process of psychoanalysing Hindu spiritual icons and giants by ‘scholars’ under the banner of ‘Hinduism studies’ as an underhanded way to vilify Hinduism.

Dialog with Purported Scholars of Hinduism

As much as Wendy and her children take liberties with Hindu texts, they do not evince similar openness in participating in discussions of their works. It is not that Hindu intellectuals did not try to establish a dialog with Doniger. After The Hindus was published, several Hindu scholars attempted to engage with Prof. Doniger. At the Association of Asian Studies annual conference in 2011, Prof. Madan Lal Goel of University of Florida organized a panel to discuss Prof. Doniger’s book. Prof. T. R. N. Rao, Professor Emeritus at Louisiana State University and Prof. Bharat Gupt of Delhi University were other round-table panelists. Doniger was invited several times by these individuals but declined to participate. Kripal likewise has not responded to Swami Tyagananda’s response to “Kali’s Child”. Says Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparitive Religion at McGill: “Such perceived indifference to an obviously credible critic was noticed by the Hindu community, … [who] took it upon themselves to explore the matter further.” “Nor is the cause of civilized intellectual discourse advanced if they decline to respond to informed critiques simply because the critics do not happen to be academics. It tempts the critics to conclude that the emperors have no clothes.”

Prof. Jeffery Long, chairman of the department of religious studies at Elizabethtown College, has voiced concerns about the consequences of such misinformation: “How many children will grow up believing Hinduism is a ‘filthy’ religion, or that Hindus worship the devil? When they grow up, how will such children treat their Hindu co-workers and neighbors? Will they give them the respect due to a fellow citizen and human being?”

Through a series of three articles, Paul Courtright was engaged in a debate in LittleIndia.com where Paul Courtright conceded that his interpretation of incestuous rape was unwarranted: “I’m not sure I would say explicitly, ‘Daksa raped Sati. Paul Courtright then adds: “I think the storytellers are trying to tell us something by not telling us everything. The project of interpretation is to try to get at not only what is said, but what is not said. Naming these unconscious desires is, of course, the project of psychoanalysis.” Little India’s independent analysis of the two passages based on the Puranas in Courtright’s book does lead to the conclusion that one of the claims is clearly erroneous, which he acknowledges, and the second is strained at best and unsupported by any of the many other versions of the story in the Puranas. Arvind Sharma observes that a “methodologically sophisticated slander of Hinduism was fast becoming an American academic pastime.”

Richard Crasta, knows very well the enormous barriers Indian writers face in getting their original work (especially those which challenge the Western establishment) published in India. In his satirical and riveting book Impressing the Whites, The New International Slavery (2000), he explains why nothing short of connections in the British Embassy may be needed to appear in the radar of powerful publishing houses in India. On the contrary, western authors can publish with ease in brown country, especially if it is derogatory about browns! The book publishing cartel in India seems to be controlled by the Brits.

Scholars-of-Hinduism

Monika Arora is the legal counsel for Batra’s Shiksha Bachao Andolan Committee (SBAC, literally, Committee of the Movement for the Protection of Education). As for worries that this spoke poorly of India’s commitment to the freedom of expression, Monika Arora counters it with the argument that “freedom of expression does not mean freedom of defamation”. Many legal jurisdictions (including in the US) have adopted the substantial-truth doctrine which allows for restricting freedom of expression from overstepping onto defamation grounds. “Doniger has a history of defaming Hindus,” says Arora, “and the book is filled with factual errors but just because she is white, we don’t question these things.”

Asymmetry and Labeling in Reporting and Discourse

Asymmetry and Labeling

When reporting episodes concerning Christianity, journalists adopt a very professional and respectful tone. Consider the book Da Vinci Code, a mystery novel by Dan Brown published in 2003, tracing an alternative history of Christianity, a book that, as expected, received enormous attention. Hundreds of Christian organizations ranging from small outfits to CBN have responded angrily. A quick Internet search of reports of such criticisms shows the following language:

 

 

  • “The book has been extensively denounced by many Christian denominations as an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.”
  • “…mostly negative reviews from Catholic and other Christian communities.”
  • “Critics accuse Brown of distorting and fabricating history.”
  • “A Biblical Response was provided by …”
  • “…presentation of religious ideas that some Christians regard as offensive”
  • Christian groups in many Asian nations have stepped up their protests …”
  • “A Christian perspective…”

Notice how respectfully Christians are referred to in reports. None referred to upset Christians protesters as “fundamentalists”, “neo-Nazis” or “right-wing”ers. Those protesting Doniger’s book however attract a different kind of reporting.

The Time Magazine labels Dinanath Batra as a Hindu activist that has “arm-twisted” Doniger. In the article Hindu fundamentalists vs. Hinduism, USA Today introduces SBAC as a “Hindu Fundamentalist group”. Dinanatha Batra is an “upper caste man“. Dean Nelson of The Telegraph
reporting from Delhi stands to lose nothing by saying that “the book angered fundamentalists” and “fundamentalists have criticised the book”. He neither has the burden of reading the book, nor knowing anything about Hinduism, nor of India’s history. As a rule, these reports make not a single mention of how Doniger portrays Hinduism.

Calling Out the Labelers

Hindus must learn to identify when they are being labeled and call it out.

Reductio ad Hindutva

The moniker “Reductio ad Hitlerum”, was coined by Leo Strauss of University of Chicago, a predecessor of Doniger, to describe the following fallacy: If you do or like something that Hitler did, then you are also like Hitler. For example, if you are devoted to your nation, since Hitler was a nationalist, then you are like Hitler.

Wendy Doniger, in her response to the settlement, praises Penguin for taking on this book “knowing that it would stir anger in Hindutva ranks”. Notice how Doniger uses the by now familiar word “Hindutva”, a fashionable ammunition to invoke the threat of fundamentalism. She does what she knows always works well, i.e. scare Hindus into submission and then invoke fake victim hood. The truth is that her book stirs anger in all Hindus, not a special section of Hindus. Essentializing all Hindu voices as fundamentalist political views is a tactic that has been used to discourage Hindu identity or voice.

This type of labeling Hindus, who speak up to express their anguish and indignity when Hinduism is denigrated, as fundamentalists should be described as Reductio ad Hindutva – a logical fallacy of undermining an argument by association. The implication is the following: If you do anything that a Hindu fundamentalist would do (such as get angry, as Dean Nelson of The Teleghraph reports), then you are a Hindu fundamentalist. Among other things, since Hindu fundamentalists would come in support of Hinduism, any effort to support Hinduism is a sign of fundamentalism. The only way you could stop Doniger from slapping you with the charge of fundamentalism is if you stop standing up for Hinduism.

Ironically, the word Hindutva is a beautiful word that means ‘the essence of what a Hindu is’. In the Sanskrit language, the suffix ‘-tvam’ is equivalent to the suffix ‘-ness’ in English – used to indicate the attribute or nature of an object. For example, ‘kaṭutvam’ refers to the nature of being pungent, strong-scented or bitter, i.e. ‘bitterness’. ‘Samatvam’ indicates equanimity (‘sameness’) and ‘manushyatvam’ refers to the nature of being a ‘manushya’, human. Thus, Hindutvam means the nature of being a Hindu or that which makes a person or a thing Hindu. By definition, all Hindus have Hindutvam – just as Christians have Christness and Muslims have Islamness.

Anti-Hindu “scholars”, “journalists” and media have hijacked the traditional word “Hindutva” and ascribed the pejorative meaning of “Hindu nationalism” and associated with religious identity politics. Any effort on the part of Hindus to take a stand to show solidarity is labeled “saffronization”. Are Hindus not allowed any solidarity or group identity, to speak for their collective rights?

Hindus cannot seek comfort in thinking that they are not being compared to the likes of Hitler. New York Times recently called them “Taliban-like” forces.

Reductio ad Taliban

The New York Times, known for its penchant for India-bashing, Hindu-baiting and Modi-bashing (see my recent article), as expected, covered this episode. Notice how Ellen Barry once again resorts to quoting nobodies. She quotes “one writer” (whom she doesn’t name) referring to Dinanath Batra’s organization as “an unknown Hindu fanatic outfit” and given to “Taliban-like forces“. The word Taliban readily conjures vivid mental images of flying airplanes into skyscrapers, shooting blindfolded citizens, lashing men and women publicly, and chopping off the hands of innocent men. Why would a journalist of the New York Times find it right to use such threatening labels to describe a Hindu who voices a concern peacefully, using constitutionally-enabled legal means, and within the provisions of law? What burden does the non-Hindu

American journalist, serving as Moscow Bureau Chief writing about Hindus of India, have? She cleverly uses a picture of Batra alongside RSS stalwarts – enough to send deracinated Indians into a tailspin.

what hindus see

Dinanath Batra and his group had meticulously prepared their case after studying Doniger’s book thoroughly. They did not burn buses, loot shops, issue threats or a fatwa against Wendy Doniger. Their use of English may not be as sophisticated as that of Arundhati Roy‘s, but they followed the law for four years after which Penguin decided to voluntarily withdraw. Sandeep Balakrishna explains why this is not a free speech issue and Aravindan Neelakantan traces intellectualism and openness in historical Hindu responses to opposing worldviews and threats to Hinduism.

 

A few months ago, the store chain Costco apologized for labeling The Bible as “Fiction”. The media didn’t brand the protesting people as Christian Fundamentalists, just Christians. There was no media-led hue and cry about suppression of Freedom of Speech. Fourteen years ago, many will recall Doniger stating in a public lecture in 2000 that the “Bhagavad Gita is a dishonest Book”. When Hindus demanded an apology, they were promptly labeled as fundamentalists!

Prof. Doniger knows full well that Hindus followed the law by the book. So she blames Indian law. Immediately after her statement, Indian Sepoys – like faithful followers of the colonial masters – joined in the thousands to sign petitions to reform the Indian Constitution. I am reminded of General Dyer and tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh of 1919. One wonders where these free speech pontificators were when Harvard University chose to terminate the honorary professorship of Dr. Subramanian Swamy for his forthright talk on wiping out Islamic Terrorism. Or when the majority-discriminatory Communal Violence (Prevention) Bill was introduced by the Indian Parliament. On the contrary, the Catholic Church in Mumbai filed blasphemy charges under the same section 295A against Sanal Edamaruku, who attributed the miraculous water dripping at the crucifix to a leaking drainage. (He has since fled to Finland to escape a life sentence.) Let us see if these self-styled liberals offer a whimper of a protest to the recent news that google was asked to pull out a youtube video of an allegedly anti-Islam movie “Innocence of Muslims”.

DonigerationDonigeration

“Donigeration”

The Hindu is indeed tired of being attacked within and outside her homeland but yet has no penchant for a Homeland security bill or a Patriot act. Would Prof Doniger joke at Chicago Airport that she has a bomb and test her first amendment rights? Would she write a History text about the violence, slavery, plunder, and rape of conquered women that the Holy Bible alludes to and be awarded academic Honors in the West or Israel? Has the US demanded action against Churches for Pedophilia and Money Laundering, and arrested Cardinals and Popes, and why is there no publicity of these criminal acts?

Donigeration

Only in India do we find that blatant denigration of Hindu deities by M. F. Hussain through his paintings or by Doniger’s writings gets applauded as an expressions of free speech. Lascivious depictions of Jesus in the US would never be condoned. The muted reaction to the fatwa against the Danish cartoonist for just one objectionable cartoon of Prophet Mohammad shows the blind-spots of all free-speech advocates.

In the 1940’s and 1950’s in the US when Communism was seen as a threat, John McCarthy’s speeches on alleged communist infiltration lead to a witch-hunt of anybody who was not anti-communist. Even though McCarthy was proved wrong and censured, it marked one of the most repressive times in American Politics of the 1900’s. The term ‘McCarthyism’ was born. I feel the need for another new term in the English Lexicon:

don·i·ger·ate

Transitive verb \ˈdo-ni-ˌgər-āt\ don·i·ger·ated, don·i·ger·ating

1 : to attack the religious sanctity of : denigrate <donigerate Hindu deities>

2 : to make a denigrating interpretation of anything held sacred: <donigerate modes of worship>

3 : to defame in the cloak of scholarship; to use the academic pulpit to denigrate a native tradition

4 : to make an institution out of victimizing ancient traditions

5 : to invoke fake victim-hood when criticized.

Conclusion

Hindus do not need a lecture on free speech, rather we need to speak freely. It is alright to get upset when Hinduism is defamed. It is alright to protest peacefully, contest and file lawsuits, and write – none of which makes fundamentalists of Hindus. The West has not figured out a way to accept ancient traditions that consider the world or nature as sacred, whose spiritual vision dissolves perceived differences between the individual, the world and God. It requires a paradigm-shift to appreciate that it is possible to sublimate one’s passions without suppressing them. America should focus on its past and address the guilt born of decimating the Native Indian traditions before obsessing over and developing crackpot theories of cultures they understand very little about. The western penchant to exoticize, sensualize and debase such traditions in the cloak of free speech or scholarship is a disease that will likely continue for a while. Utilizing their Indian Sepoys, entrenched establishments will threaten Hindus with words like fanatics, fundamentalists, right-wingers, fascists, Hindutva, saffron brigade. Hindus will learn not to take such sham threats seriously and in turn label the labellers.

Islam and Christianity have powerful hierarchical institutions that are also politically active. Unlike them, while Hindus have institutions called Mathas and Pithas some of which are millennia-old, none of them expected such vicious treatment and are not geared even for institutional protests, leave alone exercising political clout. The Acharya Sabha, the Apex body for Hindus, was formed precisely for giving Hindus a voice, but it is very much in its infancy. Until then, it is individuals and organizations that take up the cause for Hindus. Hence, Hindus should be proud of Dinanath Batra, SBAC and Monika Arora.

It is no wonder that Hindus are fighting back. Four years ago, Doniger’s book was shortlisted for an award by the National Book Critics Club in 2010. After dozens of intelligent letters like the following from Subroto Gangopadhyay and thousands of petition signatures, the award was blocked. These represent a refreshing rise in crisp scholarship by Hindus who challenge Western Universalism.

Such Hindu responses shouldn’t surprise Doniger. After all, Hindus are studying the Bhagavad Gita more than ever before. Was it not Prof. Doniger who said that “The Bhagavad Gita is not as nice a book as some Americans think… Throughout the Mahabharata … Krishna goads human beings into all sorts of murderous and self-destructive behaviors such as war?”

Shubham Bhooyaat

Continue Reading

articles

भारतीय कास्ट-व्यवस्था में दुनियाभर के लोगों की इतनी दिलचस्पी क्यों ?

Published

on

By

अन्य देशों के विपरीत भारत में कास्ट-व्यवस्था को सामाजिक विशिष्टता के रूप में प्रस्तुत करने की एक अनोखी प्रवृत्ति रही है। जाहिर है, पश्चिमी दुनिया में व्याप्त सामाजिक उंच-नीच(अनुक्रम) और बहिष्कार के इतिहास पर पर्याप्त ध्यान नहीं दिया जाता है, न ही ब्रिटिश उपनिवेश के अधीन भारत में सामाजिक वर्गीकरण के अनोखे विकास की पूरी तरह से सराहना की जाती है।

रत की कास्ट-व्यवस्था और ‘छुआ-छूत’ बड़ी संख्या में सामाजिक विज्ञान शोधकर्ताओं, इतिहासकारों और यहां तक कि आधुनिक समय में आम जनता के लिए गहरी रुचि का विषय रहा है। भारत में व्याप्त कास्ट की धारणाओं ने गैर-भारतीयों के दिमाग में ऐसी गहरी जड़ें जमा ली हैं कि मुझे अक्सर पश्चिमी लोगों के साथ अनौपचारिक बातचीत के दौरान पूछा जाता है कि क्या मैं अगड़ी कास्ट की हूँ?

यह आश्चर्यजनक नहीं है, क्योंकि आज भी अमेरिका में ‘वर्ल्ड सिविलाइजेसन: ग्लोबल एक्सपीरियंस’ (एपी संस्करण) जैसे हाईस्कूल की पाठ्यपुस्तकों में ऐसे पूर्वाग्रहजनित वाक्यों को शामिल किया गया है: ” शायद, भारतीय कास्ट-व्यवस्था एक प्रकार का ऐसा सामाजिक संगठन है जो आधुनिक पश्चिमी समाज के सर्वाधिक महत्त्वपूर्ण सिद्धांतों, जिनपर समाज टिका है, का उल्लंघन करता है।”

आश्चर्यजनक रूप से, खुद भारतीयों ने ‘निम्न कास्ट और अस्पृश्यों के शोषण’ की इन सभी कहानियों को आत्मसात कर लिया है, और किंचित ही कभी इसकी वैधता पर प्रश्न उठाया है, न ही पश्चिमी दुनिया में व्याप्त ऐसी प्रथाओं के बारे में जानना चाहा है| क्या भारत में छोड़कर विश्व भर में वास्तव में कोई कास्ट-व्यवस्था नहीं थी? यूरोप के समृद्ध नागरिकों के शौचालय से मानव मल को खाली करने वाले लोगों के साथ कैसे व्यवहार किया जाता था? मानव-शवों और पशु-शवों को ठिकाना लगाने वाले लोगों के साथ कैसे व्यवहार किया जाता था? क्या ऐसे लोगों को अमीर लोगों के समकक्ष बैठने या अपनी बेटे-बेटियों की उनसे शादी करने का अधिकार था?

अधिकांश लोगों को यह जानकर आश्चर्य होगा कि 20 वीं शताब्दी तक यूरोपीय कास्ट-व्यवस्था के तहत, निचली कास्ट के लोगों का जीवन बहुत दयनीय था। डीफाइल्ड ट्रेड एंड सोशल आउटकास्ट- ऑनर एंड रिचुअल पॉल्यूसन में लेखक कैथी स्टीवर्ट ने 17 वीं शताब्दी के उन सामाजिक समूहों का वर्णन किया है जो “व्यापार की प्रकृति के कारण हीन” थे जैसे जल्लाद, चमार, कब्र खोदने वाले, चरवाहे, नाई-सर्जन, आटा चक्की वाले, लिनन-बुनकर, बो-गेल्डर, अभिनेता, शौचालय सफाईकर्मी, रात्रि-पहरेदार और न्यायिक कारिन्दा।

एम एस स्टीवर्ट इन व्यवसायों को नीच दृष्टि से देखने को रोमन साम्राज्य की देन मानते हैं। “रोमन साम्राज्य के दौरान ‘नीच’ व्यावसायिकों को ‘उच्च’ कुशल कारीगर समूहों और पुरे समाज के द्वारा जनित सामाजिक, आर्थिक, कानूनी और राजनीतिक भेदभाव के विभिन्न रूपों का सामना करना पड़ा| समय के साथ, ‘नीच’ लोगों को अधिकांश समूहों से बाहर कर दिया गया| सर्वाधिक अपमानित वर्गों जैसे जल्लादों और चर्म-कर्मियों को ‘उनएयरलिक्काइट’ (अपमान की एक अवधारणा) नामक प्रथा का शिकार होना पड़ा जिसमे उन्हें लगभग सभी सामान्य समाजिक समूहों से बहिष्कार का सामना करना पड़ा। जल्लादों और चर्म-कर्मियों को कोई भी कंकड़ फेंककर मार सकता था, उन्हें सार्वजनिक स्नान से बहिष्कार, सम्मानपूर्वक दफन करने से इनकार और महज शराब के हक़ से भी इनकार कर दिया जाता था जो उस समाज में आम लोगों को आसानी से उपलब्ध था। यह अपमान आने वाली कई पीढ़ियों को अपने पिता से मिले धरोहर के रूप में भी झेलना पड़ता था। हीनता में ‘छूत’ का माना जाना इस कुरीति की प्रमुख विशेषताओं में से एक है। हीन लोगों के साथ अनौपचारिक संपर्क में आकर या आचरण के कुछ अनुष्ठान नियमों का उल्लंघन करके सम्मानित नागरिक स्वयं को हीं महसूस करते थे। एक उच्च वर्ग के कारीगर के लिए अशुद्ध होना विनाशकारी होता था।एक समूह के जिन लोगों पर अशुद्ध होने का कलंक लगा होता था उन्हें एक प्रकार की सामाजिक मौत का सामना करना पड़ा। उन्हें अपने समाज से बाहर रखा जाता और उनसे उनके व्यवसाय करने का हक़, जो समूह की सदस्यता द्वारा मिलता था, भी छीन लिया जाता था ताकि वह अपनी आजीविका, सामाजिक और राजनीतिक पहचान दोनों खो दें। यहां तक कि व्यक्तिगत संपर्क के माध्यम से छूत का डर इतना खतरनाक होता था कि पड़ोसी और पास खड़े लोग के सामने व्यक्ति मर भी रहा हो तब भी कोई उसकी मदद नहीं करता था। एक नाटकीय उदाहरण एक जल्लाद की पत्नी का है जो 1680 के दशक में उत्तर जर्मन शहर हुसूम में प्रसव में मरने के लिए छोड़ दी गई, क्योंकि मिडवाइफ ने जल्लाद के घर में घुसने से भी इंकार कर दिया था। ”

सम्पूर्ण इतिहास में, कचरे और मल साफ करने का काम करने वालों को कभी भी सम्मान की नजर से नहीं देखा गया। 20 वीं शताब्दी के उत्तरार्ध तक, यूरोप में मानव माल-मूत्र को पखाने के गड्ढे से हाथ से ही साफ किया जाता था। ‘नीच कर्म’ करने वाले निम्न वर्ग के यूरोपीय लोगों को अंग्रेजी में ‘गोंगफर्मर्स’ (फ्रेंच) या ‘गोंग फार्मर्स’ कहा जाता था। क्या आपको लगता है उनका समुचित सम्मान किया जाता था और उन्हें समाज के उच्च वर्ग के साथ स्वतंत्र रूप से घुलने-मिलने की इजाजत थी?

इंग्लैंड के गोंग फार्मर्स को केवल रात में काम करने की इजाजत थी, इसलिए उन्हें ‘नाइटमेन’ भी कहा जाता था। वे उच्च वर्ग के लोगों के घरों में रात को आते थे, पाखाने के गड्ढे को खाली करते थे और उसे शहर की सीमा के बाहर छोड़ आते थे। उन्हें शहर के बाहर कुछ क्षेत्रों में ही रहने की इजाजत थी और दिन के दौरान वे शहर में प्रवेश नहीं कर सकते थे। इस नियम को तोड़ने पर उन्हें गंभीर दंड मिलता था। कमोड के प्रयोग में आने के बाद भी,लंबे समय तक, मल-मूत्र पखाने के गड्ढों में ही बहता था और इसे ‘नाइटमेन’ द्वारा साफ करने की आवश्यकता पड़ती थी।

दुनियाभर में, जब तक सीवेज और मल के परिवहन और प्रबंधन की आधुनिक व्यवस्था अस्तित्व में नहीं आई, तब तक इन श्रमिकों को समाज से बहिष्कृत ही किया जाता था।आधुनिक शहर जब तक लाखों प्रवासियों, जो विविधता और विषमता को बढ़ाने में भी मदद करते थे, के आ जाने से प्रदूषित नहीं हो गए, समुदाय काफी बंद प्रकार के और दूसरों का बहिष्कार करने वाले होते थे।

दिलचस्प बात यह है कि अंग्रेजी शब्द ‘कास्ट’ पोर्तगीज शब्द ‘कस्टा’ से लिया गया है। इसका इस्तेमाल उन स्पेनिश अभिजात वर्गों द्वारा किया जाता था जिन्होंने विजय प्राप्त क्षेत्रों पर शासन किया था। ‘सिस्टेमा डी कास्ट’ या ‘सोसाइडा डी कास्टों’ जैसे शब्दों का इस्तेमाल, 17 वीं और 18 वीं सदी में,स्पेनिश-नियंत्रित अमेरिका और फिलीपींस में मिश्रित प्रजाति वाले लोगों के वर्णन करने के लिए उपयोग होता था। ‘कास्टा’ व्यवस्था ने जन्म, रंग और प्रजाति के आधार पर लोगों को वर्गीकृत किया। एक व्यक्ति जितना अधिक गोरा होता था, उसको उतना अधिक विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त था और कर का बोझ भी कम होता था। कास्टा, ईसाई स्पेन में विकसित रक्त की शुद्धता के विचार का विस्तार था जो बिना यहूदी या मुस्लिम विरासत से कलंकित लोगों के बारे में सूचित करता था। स्पैनिश आक्रमण के वक्त जब पुराने धर्म वापस अपनाने के संदेह पर हजारों परिवर्तित यहूदी और मुस्लिम (यूरोपीय, निम्न वर्ग) को मार दिया गया था तब तक तो ऐसी अवधारणाओं ने काफी गहरी जड़ें जमा ली थी।

एडवर्ड अलसवर्थ रॉस ( प्रिंसिपल्स ऑफ सोशियोलॉजी, 1920) यूरोप की कठोर और सख्त ‘कास्टा’ व्यवस्था का एक विस्तृत विवरण देते हैं और कहते हैं कि यह यूरोपीय समाज के भीतर शक्तियों की देन था। वह कहते है:

“रोमन साम्राज्य पुरुषों को अपने पिता के व्यवसाय का ही पालन करने और अन्य व्यवसाय या जीवन-यापन के तरीकों के बीच एक मुक्त परिसंचरण को रोकने को मजबूर कर रही थी। वह व्यक्ति जिसने अफ्रीका के अनाज को ओस्टिया के सार्वजनिक भंडार तक पहुचाया, मजदूर- जिन्होंने इसे वितरण के लिए ब्रेड बनाया, कसाई – जिसने सामनियम, लुकेनिया, ब्रूटीअम से सुअर लाया, शराब विक्रेता, तेल विक्रेता, सार्वजनिक स्नानघर की भट्टियों में कोयला डालने वाला, पीढ़ी दर पीढ़ी उसी काम को करने को बाध्य थे… इससे बचने का हर दरवाजा बंद कर दिया गया था … लोगों को अपने समूह से इतर शादी करने की इजाजत नहीं थी …किसी प्रकार शाही फरमान हासिल करने के बाद भी नहीं, यहां तक कि शक्तिशाली चर्च भी इस दासता के बंधन को नहीं तोड़ सकते थे।”

भारतीय ‘कास्ट व्यवस्था’ ब्रिटिश उपनिवेशवादियों द्वारा लगाया गया एक पहचान था, पर इस पहचान ने समाजिक विभाजन का सही ढंग से प्रतिनिधित्व नहीं किया। वेदों में, रक्त की शुद्धता , जो यूरोप की कास्ट-व्यवस्था की विशेषता थी, की कोई अवधारणा नहीं थी। दूसरी तरफ, कार्यों और व्यक्तिगत गुणों के आधार पर व्यक्ति का वर्ण निर्धारित करने की अवधारणा थी। भारतीय शब्द “जाति”, जो कि समाज के व्यावसायिक विभाजन को नाई, चमार, मवेशी-पालक, लोहार, धातु श्रमिकों और अन्य व्यापारों के रूप में इंगित करता था, सिर्फ भारत में ही एक अवधारणा नहीं थी (भले ही ‘कारीगरों के समूह’ की अवधारणा का जन्म भारत में ही हुआ था)। दुनिया में बसने वाले हर समाज में, बेटों ने परंपरागत रूप से अपने पिता के व्यवसाय को ही अपनाया। बढई के पुत्र बढई बने। बुनकरों के पुत्र बुनकर बने। ऐसा होना स्वाभाविक भी लगता है क्योंकि बच्चे अपने पिता के व्यापार से अच्छी तरह से परिचित होते थे, और अपने व्यापार की अनोखी विशेषताओं को सम्हालकर गुप्त रख सकते थे।

भारत में, जातियों को विभाजित करने वाली रेखाएं शुरू में धुंधली थीं और लोगों के कुल से हटकर व्यवसाय अपनाने के कई उदहारण भी मिलते हैं| निचली जातियों के संत रवीदास, चोखमेला और कनकदास ने लोगों का सम्मान अर्जित किया और उन्हें ब्राह्मण संतों से कम नहीं माना जाता था। मराठा पेशवा ब्राह्मण थे जो बाद में क्षत्रिय बन गए थे। मराठा राजा शिवाजी जिन्होंने कई साम्राज्यों पर अपनी जीत के बाद उदार ब्राह्मणों के समर्थन से खुद को क्षत्रिय घोषित कर दिया था, को शुरुआत में निचली जाति का माना जाता था| प्रसिद्ध समाजशास्त्री एमएन श्रीनिवास कहते हैं:

“यहां ध्यान देने वाली बात यह है कि एक क्षेत्र में असंख्य छोटी जातियों का समाज में स्पष्ट और स्थायी अधिक्रम नहीं रहता। अधिक्रम का परिवर्तनशील होना ही वास्तविक समाज को काल्पनिक समाज से अलग करता है। वर्ण-व्यवस्था जाति व्यवस्था की वास्तविकताओं की गलत व्याख्या का कारण रहा है। हाल के क्षेत्र-शोध से यह बात सामने आई है कि अधिक्रम में जाति की स्थिति एक गांव से दूसरे गांव में भिन्न हो सकती है। अलग-अलग जगहों में सामजिक अधिक्रम परिवर्तनशील होता है और जातियां समय के साथ बदलती रहती हैं| इतना ही नहीं, सामाजिक ओहदा कुछ हद तक महज स्थानीय भी होता है।”

यह भी ध्यान दिया जाना चाहिए कि यूरोप के विपरीत, भारत में उच्च और निम्न वर्ग का विभाजन कभी भी आर्थिक विषमता के कारण नहीं हुई। ब्राह्मण परंपरागत रूप से सबसे गरीब, प्रायः याचक ही होते थे। वैश्य और शूद्र व्यापारी प्रायः अमीर होते थे और अक्सर ब्राह्मणों की सेवा लेते थे। आमतौर पर, भूमि क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शुद्रों के स्वामित्व में थी। प्रसिद्ध गणितज्ञ आर्यभट्ट स्वयं एक गैर-ब्राह्मण थे और फिर भी उनके अधीन नंबूदरी ब्राह्मण शिक्षा ग्रहण करते थे। आज भी, सैकड़ों ब्राह्मण जाति के लोग भारत में शौचालयों की सफाई में कार्यरत हैं, जबकि किसी को भी अमेरिका में एक स्वेत व्यक्ति द्वारा एक कचरा ट्रक चलाना हैरानी की बात लगेगी।

इतिहासकार धर्मपाल ने 18 वीं शताब्दी में स्वदेसी शिक्षा प्रणाली पर अपनी किताब ‘द ब्यूटीफुल ट्री’ में लिखा है कि मद्रास, पंजाब और बंगाल प्रेसीडेंसी में किये गए ब्रिटिश सर्वेक्षणों ने भारत में बच्चों के विद्यालयों में व्यापक नामांकन का खुलासा किया। लगभग हर गांव में एक विद्यालय था। कई विद्यालयों में शूद्र बच्चे ब्राह्मण बच्चों से अधिक संख्या में थे। इन स्कूलों को धीरे-धीरे बंद कर दिया गया क्योंकि ब्रिटिश शासन में गरीबी व्यापक हो गई थी और ग्रामीण नौकरियों की तलाश में शहरों को चले गए।

स्पेनिश औपनिवेशिक कला – मेक्सिको की कास्टा प्रणाली।

विदेशी आक्रमणों और “फूट डालो शासन करो ” की ब्रिटिश नीति जैसे विभिन्न कारकों के कारण जाति विभाजन अधिक कठोर हो गया। जब तक अंग्रेजों ने 1881 से विभिन्न उपनामों को विभिन्न जातियों में सूचीबद्ध करने के लिए व्यापक जनगणना नहीं किया, तब तक अधिकांश भारतीय जातियों के अधिक्रम से अवगत नहीं थे। आम तौर पर, कुछ परिवार के नाम एक गांव में एक विशेष जाति से जुड़े थे और दूसरे गांव में एक अलग जाति के साथ। अचानक, जनगणना के कारण जातीय विभाजन की रेखा प्रगाढ़ हो गयी। अंग्रेजों द्वारा जातीय पहचान पर इसलिए इतना जोर दिया ताकि भारतीय समाज जातियों में बटे रहें और अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ एकजुट न हो सकें| इसके कारण जातियों में आपस में गहरे विवाद पैदा हो गए| ब्रिटिशों द्वारा कई अनुसूचित जातियों और जनजातियों को आपराधिक श्रेणियों में रखने से भी जातीय रेखाएं प्रगाढ़ हो गयीं जो स्वतंत्र भारत के लिए विनाशकारी परिणाम लेकर आई। विडम्बना यह है कि वर्ग और कास्ट में विश्वास रखने वाले ब्रिटिश ने भारतीय जातियों को सूचीबद्ध किया, उन्होंने अंग्रेजी महिलाओं को भारतीय पुरुषों से शादी करने की इजाजत नहीं दी, जबकि भारतीय महिलाओं को अंग्रेजों द्वारा रखैल की तरह अपनाने में भी उन्हें कोई आपत्ति नहीं थी।

यह याद रखना चाहिए कि भारत की व्यवसाय आधारित जाति प्रणाली की ढीली संरचना को बदनाम और सख्त करना ईसाई मिशनरियों की रणनीति का हिस्सा था। गवर्नर जनरल जॉन शोर के ईसाई धर्म के क्लैफम संप्रदाय के सदस्य बनने के बाद भारत में मिशनरी गतिविधि में काफी वृद्धि हुई। अपने “अंधविश्वास वाले धर्म” के कारण हिंदुओं को “मानव जाति का सबसे पिछड़ा और असभ्य लोग” घोषित किया गया था। विलियम विल्बरफोर्स, जो दास-विरोध के प्रणेता माने जाते थे और क्लैफम सेक्ट के सदस्य भी थे, ने 1813 ई. में हाउस ऑफ कॉमन्स में घोषित किया कि हिंदुओं को अपने धर्म से मुक्त करना हर ईसाई का पवित्र कर्तव्य है, वैसे ही जैसे अफ्रीका को गुलामी से मुक्त कराना।

दुनिया में कोई भी देश असमानताओं से मुक्त नहीं है। ऐसा होना अधिक पैसे और अधिक शक्ति के लिए निरंतर मानव प्रयास के द्वारा भी सुनिश्चित होता है। भेदभाव व्यापक रूप से फैला हुआ है और गैर-ईसाई, गैर-मुस्लिम, काले, समलैंगिक, महिलाएं, एड्स रोगी या कुष्ठरोगी इसके प्रमुख शिकार रहे हैं। पश्चिमी समाजों में ऐतिहासिक रूप से प्रचलित नस्लवाद जो आज भी विभिन्न रूपों में जारी है, यह भी घातक कास्ट व्यवस्था का एक रूप ही है। होलोकॉस्ट के लिए नाज़ीवाद और यहूदी-विरोध को दोषी ठहराया जाता है, लेकिन शायद ही लोगों ने इसे कास्ट-व्यवस्था के बुरे परिणाम के रूप में देखा है| यहां तक कि संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद में केवल पांच स्थायी सदस्यों का होना भी कास्ट-व्यवस्था है, जिनके पास वीटो शक्तियां हैं। आइवी लीग विश्वविद्यालयों के स्नातक और विशिष्ट क्लब के सदस्य भी अपने स्वयं के कास्ट विशेषाधिकारों का फायदा उठाते हैं।

यह तर्क दिया जा सकता है कि भारत ने ऐतिहासिक रूप से वंचित जातियों की सहायता के लिए “आरक्षण” नामक दुनिया की सबसे बड़ी सकारात्मक योजना को लागू किया है। सरकारी स्कूलों और कॉलेजों में आरक्षित स्लॉट के साथ, सरकारी सेवाओं में पदों और चुनावी निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों में आरक्षित सीटों के साथ समावेशी होने का एक बड़ा प्रयास किया गया है। भले ही इन प्रयासों के अच्छे परिणाम मिले हों या नतीजतन “विरोधी कास्ट व्यवस्था” ने जन्म ले लिया हो, यह जांच का विषय है।

भारत में कास्ट-पहचान का आधुनिक वर्गीकरण और इसकी विचित्र अभिव्यक्ति ब्रिटिश और भारतीय सरकारों की संस्थागत नीतियों का बुरा परिणाम है जिसमे मार्क्सवादियों और अल्पसंख्यकों, साथ ही साथ गरीबी और विकास के अवसरों की कमी का बड़ा योगदान है। कास्ट-पहचान हिंदू परंपराओं में समाज के मूल वर्गीकरण की किसी कल्पना की विकृति की देन नहीं है।

यह सबसे उपयुक्त समय है कि दुनिया और स्वयं भारतीयों को भारत को कास्ट-व्यवस्था के चश्मे से देखना बंद कर देना चाहिए और दुनिया की हर हिस्से में कास्ट-व्यवस्था की शुरुआत के साथ-साथ सामाजिक-आर्थिक ओहदों को समझने का प्रयास करना चाहिए। इतने लंबे समय तक पश्चिमी शोधकर्ताओं के सामाजिक और मानव विज्ञान अध्ययनों का विषय रहने के कारण भारतीयों ने भी यह मानना शुरू कर दिया है कि प्रयोगशाला में नमूने की तरह, उनकी जगह भी माइक्रोस्कोप के नीचे है। यह लेंस को उलटे करने का समय है। भारत के बाहर एक पूरी दुनिया भारतीय परिप्रेक्ष्य से जांचे जाने और समझे जाने की प्रतीक्षा कर रही है।

The article has been translated from English into Hindi by Satyam

Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness,suitability,or validity of any information in this article.
Continue Reading

articles

The Story of PYTHAGORAS

Published

on

By

Author: Dr. Jayakumar Srinivasan

Press Release: https://www.esamskriti.com/e/Spirituality/Education/The-Story-Of-Pythagoras-1.aspx

The Pythagoras theorem is studied by almost every high school or college student all over the world. We have used this theorem of squares of the lengths of sides of the right angled triangle in solving numerous problems in geometry for years.

Pythagoras lived from 570 to 495 BCE, i.e. for about 75 years. Several scholars such as Albert Burk (1) and others say that Pythagoras visited and lived in India where he learned Indian Philosophy and Sciences. Dr. Raj Vedam, in his talks (2) narrates the story of Pyathagoras’ visit to India. Burk suggests that he learned in Sourthern India. Raj Vedam postulates that Pythagoras could have studied at Kanchipuram. Even though we are told that Kanchipuram was the capital of the Pallava Kingdom, its history is significantly older.

When Pythagoras returned to Greece, he was called a madman because he had become vegetarian! His diet was predominantly based on nuts, corn and fruit. He set up an education system based on the Gurukulam style of India.

To read article in English in PDF

To read article in Tamil in PDF

To read all articles by Author

Also read

Talks on Maths in metrical form

A brief history of Indian Maths

India’s lost history of mathematical genius

Continue Reading

articles

Was India Always a Poor Country

Published

on

By

Author: Dr. Jayakumar Srinivasan

Press Release:  https://www.esamskriti.com/e/History/Indian-History/Was-India-Always-A-Poor-Country-1.aspx

To read article in Tamil in PDF.

Today, many people consider India to be a developing country, or a polite way of saying that Indians are “poor”. There is truth in this observation. Despite the dazzle and comforts of city life, air travel, multi-storied malls and Smart Phones, the majority of Indians lead a rough life. People attribute India’s continued poverty to many causes such as government corruption and ineptitude, poor infrastructure, social inequality, communal conflicts, and lack of innovative spirit.

In the same breath, we also say that India is one of the oldest civilizations, i.e. that it has one of the longest histories of any country, or rather people lived here for many thousands of years continuously. On top of that, we are told that the British made Indians civilized and prosperous.

In this article, the question we are asking is “Was the geography that we now call India alwayseconomically backward?” Specifically, we are focusing on the economy aspect of overall prosperity.

How does one measure economic prosperity? For example, today, we say that the USA is a very prosperous country. What does this mean?

We use a number called GDP (“Gross Domestic Product”) that is calculated for every country. Higher the GDP number, more prosperous a country is. GDP is supposed to measure economic activity of a country. GDP is defined as the value of all goods and services produced by a country in one year. The more a country produces, which then gets consumed locally or exported globally, the higher the GDP. For example, today, the world buys expensive items like Hewlett Packard laptops, Apple iPhones, and Boeing aircraft from the USA. People in the USA also consume large quantities of goods and services, much more than anywhere else in the world. Hence, it is no surprise that the GDP of USA is the highest in the world today.

To illustrate how we are going to use GDP, I performed a simple analysis of GDP data for the year 2017 published by the International Monetary Fund (1):

2017 GDP comparison in Trillion US Dollars
GDP of USA$19.4
GDP of Entire World$ 80
America’s Share of World Economy19.4/80 = ~25%
GDP of India$ 2.6
India’s Share of World Economy2.6/80 = 3.2%

This means that when the world citizen spends Rs. 100, Rs. 25 of that revenue goes to the USA. Now you can imagine why USA is economically prosperous, even without visiting it!

Now we should be able to understand statements such as this in the news “PM Narendra Modi today called for targeting double-digit GDP growth … and said India’s share in world trade has to more than double to 3.4 per cent.” (2)

Now, how are we to understand the economy of countries in the past? Indians must thank an economist Angus Maddison (3). He was a Professor of Economics in The Netherlands. He extensively research to compare the economies of many countries and how they evolved over time. He went backward in time – not a year, not a decade, not a century, but two thousand years!

Prof. Maddison collected a lot of data over many years. The best way to understand what he found is by looking at the chart below (4).

Looking at this chart, we can make the following observations:

1. India was the most prosperous country for the first 1,500 years of the Current Era

2. India’s share of the global GDP started plummeting from a high of 25% since late 1700 all the way to under 5% at Independence.

3. After the British entered India and established their regime, the economy of Western Europe increases dramatically from around 1800.

4. After Europeans establish settlements in America and began slavery, a non-existent American economy skyrockets starting in 1800s.

5. The trend for India has been reversing since the 1970’s.

So, if I were to ask the question “How economically prosperous was India 300 years ago”, we should be able to see that “India was as relatively prosperous then as USA is today!”

S. Gurumurthy’s talk at IIT Bombay in 2010 (5) provides a very good introduction to this topic.

Pay closer attention to the economic trends of India and Western Europe. Less than a century after the British entered India and establish themselves firmly, European economy begins skyrocketing for almost 150 years. Raj Vedam (6) says that this is not a coincidence. He attributes this to transference of wealth from India.

Let us see what the plundering British themselves had to say. Robert Clive (1725-74) was the Commander-in-Chief of British India. He created ownership of the lands of what is today India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and established a process of funneling wealth out of India to Britain. He said that India was “a country of inexhaustible riches and one which cannot fail to make its masters the richest corporation in the world” (7). At that time, the state of “Bengal” alone, which was the richest “state” in India, was richer than the entire Britain!

When an American philosopher Will Durant visited India in 1930, 175 years after Robert Clive’s planned campaign to destroy India began, Durant was so horrified at the destruction wrought by the British (8) that, instead of pursuing his goal of writing his book “The Story of Civilization”, he took up writing to inspire Indians to fight for Independence. In what he terms as “The Rape of a Continent”, he says “But I saw such things in India as made me feel that study and writing were frivolous things in the presence of a people-one-fifth of the human race – suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth…” Raj Vedam highlights actions by the British that choked India (6).

●The cost of British conquests (including first and second world wars), developments in Britain, and administration of India, were all charged to Indians.

●Indians were forced to sell cheap and buy exorbitantly.

●Indians were taxed twice as high as in England and thrice as in Scotland.

●Millions of dollars’ worth of bribes from rulers who were dependent on favours and guns.

Hence, it is accurate to say that the British rule decimated Indian economy and ruined India. Yet, today, our children are taught that it is “the caste oppression” that made India poor!

In conclusion, India was one of the most economically prosperous countries in the world for a good bit of the known past. The British rule is probably the most significant factor that contributed to India’s poverty.

Let us remind ourselves that “Colonization” is never beneficial for the colonized people. If we study history properly, we will likely find that every colonized country was culturally and economically prosperous, and each such country is in various states of struggle or ruin today.

References

1. “World Economic Outlook Database“, International Monetary Fund, 17 April 2018.

2. “PM Narendra Modi seeks double-digit GDP growth, raising India’s share in world trade”, The Economic Times, June 22, 2018.

3. Maddison A, “Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD”, Oxford University Press, 2007.

4. Hunter, Tracy M., Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,

5. S. Gurumurthy, speech at IIT Bombay Hindustan Times Avenue 2010 (Full),

6. Raj Vedam, “Indian civilization: The Untold Story”, Talk at Srijan Foundation, New Delhi, February 2018.

7. J. Albert Rorabacher, “Property, Land, Revenue, and Policy: The East India Company, C.1757–1825”, Routledge, 2017.

8. Will Durant, “The Case for India”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1930.Also read

Continue Reading

Trending

Designed by ihar © 2023