The prominent BJP leader Jaswant Singh recently published a book on the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, in which he praised Jinnah, and largely criticized Nehru and the Congress party for causing the Partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The book, which has not been released outside of India yet, is called Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (interesting that Singh puts “India” rather than “Pakistan” in the title).
Praising Jinnah is heresy for BJP leaders, so this week, Jaswant Singh, who has been with the party for many years and served in several Cabinet posts under Vajpayee, was formally expelled from the party.
Update: There is a long interview (PDF) with Jaswant Singh and Karan Thapar from CNN-IBN, with a transcript up at The Hindu. I would highly recommended it, if you have the time. (Thanks Al Beruni)
Below are some excerpts from an article in Dawn [with quotes from the CNN-IBN interview] indicating the general outlines of Jaswant Singh’s perspective on Jinnah. Though Congress does come off badly in his account, which seems logical for a BJP leader, Jaswant Singh appears sincere in his desire to correct what he sees as a distortion in the popular perception of Jinnah in India. Surprisingly, he also seemingly bears no animus towards the idea of a two nations theory, or Jinnah’s use of religious loyalty for political ends:
It was historically not tenable to see Mr Jinnah as the villain of 1947, Mr Singh said. ‘It is not borne out of the facts… we need to correct it… Muslims saw that unless they had a voice in their own economic, political and social destiny they will be obliterated.’
Mr Singh said the 1946 election was a good example to show the fear held by Muslims. That year, he said: ‘Jinnah’s Muslim League wins all the Muslim seats and yet they don’t have sufficient numbers to be in office because the Congress Party has, without even a single Muslim, enough to form a government and they are outside of the government.
‘So it was realised that simply contesting elections was not enough… All of this was a search for some kind of autonomy of decision making in their own social and economy destiny.’[…]
‘He single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t really like him … Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see (and try to understand) why he called him that?’
Mr Jinnah was as much a nationalist as any leader in India. ‘He fought the British for an independent India but also fought resolutely and relentlessly for the interest of the Muslims of India … the acme of his nationalistic achievement was the 1916 Lucknow Pact of Hindu-Muslim unity.’
Among the aspects of Mr Jinnah’s personality Mr Singh said he admired his determination and will to rise. ‘He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself. ‘He was so poor he had to walk to work … he told one of his biographers there was always room at the top but there’s no lift. And he never sought a lift.’ (link)
(Again, a longer interview can be found here)
I am at present agnostic on the claims Jaswant Singh is making. I don’t hold any particular animus against Jinnah — and I certainly understand where he was coming from — but I also question many of his (Jinnah’s) choices in the lead-up to Partition. (One bad choice that is often mentioned by critics of Jinnah is Direct Action Day, in 1946, which led to widespread communal rioting.) If people have specific historical accounts of Jinnah they would recommend (with links, if possible), which might either support or contradict Jaswant Singh’s take, it would be helpful to see them. I am also curious to hear from readers how this fits into their understanding of Jaswant Singh: what is he up to? What are the likely implications of this book and the controversy that’s followed it? In short: what is all this about?
A nice read on the controversy generated by Jaswant Singh’s book, with some competing historians’ interpretations of Jinnah’s role in the 1930s and 40s, is Soutik Biswas at the BBC. Biswas does address some of the “what is this all about?” questions.
We also had some discussions of Jinnah in the inaugural post from my short series on Ramachandra Guha’s book, “India After Gandhi.” Guha has a more critical take on Jinnah, though he distributes the blame for Partition amongst the three main players, including the Congress Party, Jinnah and the Muslim League, and the British.
For another take (more sympathetic to Jinnah than Guha), readers might be interested in reading some or all of Ayesh Jalal’s influential first book on Jinnah, “The Sole Spokesman.” The book is online for free at Google Books: here.
Hello Yajnavalkya,
I am running a bit short on time right now, so I am going to answer briefly – please don’t take it as a sign that I am not interested in what you’re saying.
I mentioned the point about the different periods of time and contexts in whcih they were written not to contest something that you had said, but to illustrate my point – in my experience, even with a great amount of exposure, there is a difficulty in arguing that texts written over the course of hundreds or thousands of years don’t have different poitns of emphasis (really my main point – i was drawing the contrast more starkly jsut to illustrate it). If anything, it would be shocking if th messages were the same – and if it is not evident in the broad brush strokes of the texts, then it is more clear in the details. From what little I have read of the Vedas, some of the upanishads, the Gita, and the ramayana, I think it is a mistake to believe that seeing unity in them is something that is in the text, rather than something that is in the intepretation of the text. this does not make it less legitimate from a religious standpoint, but i don’t htink it is accurate in a material sense.
See my point above regarding different points of emphases. My argument is that the Gita takes the oneness / everythingness of God (atman=brahman) and removes it from the abstract and into the personhood / deity of krishna. Now this may not be as objectionable to some people as it is to me because other people, as pointed out above, might have a different path to appreciating stories of the divine – but i need to be clear that, especially in Hinduism precisely beause it is NOT exclusionary in many ways but is instead catholic, these kinds of shifts in meaning and intepretation are of enormous importance. It is, in fact, how ideas and politics get changed within the interepretations of texts and undersatndings of what ‘Hinduism’ (or whatever the local name for the local faith is – Brahmanism, etc etc etc).
This is to some extent true that as a reader I will react to what I react to. However, I am still somewhat tied to the text and would acknowledge if I were wholly disconnected from it about it 🙂 see below for a portion of what I’m talking about:
I agree with this. I point out only that I am not ‘passing judgement’ but giving a preliminary read on the basis of the admittedly little that I know, without discounting what I do think I know.
Yes I agree with the first part, but I wonder about the effects on the reader to be told that even someone presumably ‘greater’ as a person than one’s self (arjun) is terrified as well as delighted and that God can bestow the vision of the divine form upon those whom he/she/it favors. I do agree that my characterization has been overly simplistic.
I disagree with the aspect of intent – thouhg as you poitn out , much dependson the text and the propensities of the reader.
On a first point – I don’t believe that the Gita demands submission to the Divine directly. I do believe – and you can use a slighytly less strong word like exhorts – it asks for and hopes to receive submission to dharmic duties which are laid out in advance in the text. I will freely admit that I am not an advanced scholar on hinduism but that I am only giving my own reading based on a few readings of various texts and conversations i have had with others, some minimal coursework i have done (which has both advantages and significant downsides), etc. However, unless there is a problem with the translation I have presented above, I don’t think I am taking odd liberties with the text of the Gita that we have been discussing and I would have to identify and revisit the particular upanishad I was referencing to know whether I think I’m taking odd liberties with that. There always the chance that I am mistaken, that the texts are mistaken, etc. – but as someone who is left to interpret these texts today, I can only hope that those people who feel I’m mistaken will provide me with a more convincing and textual or social analysis of what’s going on than what my own is.
Don’t mistake the name for the substance or fail to read the text of what I have written, please. The point is the motive from which you act, and the extent to which you act. If there is a German Panzer tank marching down your street or a crowd of VHP activists swarming the car you are in, the point is to act to defend yourself to the extent necessary, rather than attempting to exact revenge or retribution. It does not mean that one should not act – but that if one does act, that it is as carefully thought through as possible and as fully in accorsin with principles of non violence as possible. This does not seem to be too much to ask, as the consequences of escalating violence are horrendous, and the self-reflectiona nd analysis it takes to consider whether it is necessary and justified is fairly minimal, if one is honest with one’s self.
In this context he does advocate going to war. However, I believe the whole point of the book is to pose a fairly extreme circumstance of moral dilemma (follow your duty or follow your doubts about killing your brethren). The point, then, is the wayi n which you resolve the dilemma, not war for war’s sake. It is war for duty’s sake. (which, as i stated above, i have a lot of problems with too, in the way taht the resolution of the dilemma is presented).
I am not seeking to condemn. I am seeking to explore feelings of betrayal and a bad feeling I get about the idea of a divine authority/adviser telling me waht to do. In a sense, what you’re saying is fair in that it is not a mindless call to fratricide, but I on a different point I think there must be a maximum amount of space to explore what dharma means on a personal level if the idea is that it must be upheld regardless of internal doubts (personal costs is not the appropriate way to put it in today’s society, imo) . to read dharma as the vedic or mahabharatan or ramayanan senses of order (all of which, I would guess, are going to be different, and differe from tanslation to translation, version to version, book to book) rather than in a contemporary sense is a grave mistake. This retains the basic principle of following your heart’s internal order and compass without straying while still operatingi n YOUR context rather than arjun’s or more broadly the gita’s.
If it is inaccurate, why do we call the charioteer/deity Krishna? why don’t we call him brahman? Why does he take human form? Why does he present as divine form? One of the standard power plays that operates in Hinduism (and other pantheistic faiths) is to subsume other people’s worship into your own and place your own preferred deity at the top. if this is not what is happening, explain to me in what way it is not. I have frequently considered the possibility that the order in which i read the texts ratehr than the order in whcih they were written is what has influenced me, but I would like to know more to know why I should not have this doubt about the motive behind presenting the Divine in this fashion.
sure. But the practice of faith must be balanced with living in a contemporary society. And taking a ‘traditionalist’ or ‘orthodox’ stance towards a faith is but one way of doing this, and can be contested. Whether it would be or not, by me, depends on what effects it produces.
Do the words “tat vam asi” mean anything to you?
If all things are an emanation of the atman, then it necessarily follows that Krishna himself is also a personification of it. Because he is an avatar, however, that means he is more acutely aware of this fact than the rest of us mere mortals.
I’m not even sure what translation of the Gita you would be reading to interpret it the way you have. It seems more influenced by the crackpot, new-agey gobbledygook trying to equate Krishna to Christ than anything in the source text.
I’m curious. What’s the difference in interpretation between the two?
Do you typically feel betrayed or get a bad feeling when a doctor dispenses advice about your health or when a science teacher tells you the value of the universal gravitational constant?
You have admitted yourself that you have your own biases that blind you to certain things. How do you figure, then, that your “internal compass” is a reliable arbiter of truth? It takes a lot of conditioning to be able to overcome your own cognitive limitations as a human being. Don’t you think it’s a little boastful to just assume you’re there already?
This is the problem with the buffet approach to religious teachings, it only works if you’re vain enough to believe you are the only one who knows how to determine objective truth for yourself. Part of the reason most religions preach humility and the elimination of the ego is specifically to get rid of that tendency.
Oh, that’s a pity. The stopping part. Not the admiration part.
There aren’t enough admiration societies in the world.
Yoga Fire, “Khuda” is the Persian word for God and “Allah” is the Arabic one. I guess those who oppose “Khuda Hafiz” think that it is too secular a greeting (as in Allah is purely the Muslim God, while Khuda can theoretically include the Christian or Jewish god as well). The interesting thing is that Arab Christians use Allah to refer to God, so the theory doesn’t hold water. My parents have always used “Khuda Hafiz” and they say it’s really only post-1980s that Allah Hafiz became de rigeour.
Of course there’s always the Punjabi “Rab Rakha”, but that’s way too secular for the fundos:)
I think either we disagree or what I am saying is not coming across clearly, given that you are now speaking somewhat insultingly. I am comparing a reading of the Gita to a reading of one of the Upanishads whose name I can’t remember and looking at the two together to evaluate the reading in the Gita. so, obviously, the Gita is drawing on the ideas already present like atman=brahman and Krishna therefore is also partaking in that sense the individual / universal divine. What I am arguing is that in placing the individual/universal divine into voice and the body and the personhood and divinity of krishna (and, yes, by extension, everything else that is holy) – it is taking a broader strain and putting it into a narrower and more personal one. As several people have pointed out above, my preference is for a more impersonal and less incarnated sense of the spiritual or divine, so combining a human form and a supernatural deity and the overarching force into a persona that retains some thread of being the same through the coures of the book is not to my taste. It can be to your taste, but it’s not to mine. I would have thought that would be enough.
yes, if they don’t answer my questions and help me understand why the things they are telling me might or might not be accurate (exempting such things as maybe the doctor is hoping for a placebo effect). If there is not an underlying structure of logic or reasoning or proof – even if that very structure rests on a first act of faith as I believe science does in investing the senses with the faith that they are reflecting something about the material world – then I get frustrated, cynical, and eventually suspicious because at the end of the day, if you only have the authority of another person or a text to rely on and it’s not falsifiable or verifiable by some other metric, then you’re pretty screwed if something happens that is not to your liking – because you’ll have nothing to appeal to in contrast to that authority.
I don’t think one can overcome the cognitive limitations of a human being, being a human being 🙂 Nor do I think that I am anywhere other than where I am – which is as one person, who knows what he read, and what he came to believe. I could be in error, but I believe it sincerely, and am open to being corrected, but being corrected doesn’t mean being told you’re wrong – it means someone working with you to try to help you figure out what you think and how it relates to the matter at hand. Consider the inverse of what you suggest – if you DON’T trust your internal arbiter to some extent, then on what basis can you know anything? How do you know what you like and don’t like? Aren’t you just a slave to what other people tell you, what social conditions have created you, to an even greater extent than you would be anyway? Out of the 0.1% of free will that is at least possible for me to imagine I can exert, why would I give up that possibility and cease to imagine that? how would you even choose what direction you will move in, given that all that has shaped you already is already in you? At an extreme, isn’t this an abandonment of the meaningfulness of faith altogether by imagining a person as a passive recipient who cannot be trusted to judge?
This precludes the idea that i am a social being. If I were sitting in a room, in isolation, reading texts and not talking to anyone my entire life, then I would agree wtih you. But that is not the case, and it is virtually impossible for that to be the case for nearly anyone. I have been exposed to reform and conservative judaism, american christianity in various forms, the kinds of hinduism i described above, and some aspects of islam, explored things my friends are interested in like vipassana buddhism and nvc, and talked to marxists and capitalists (more the latter), explored postmodernism, cultural theory, etc. etc. etc. among other things. it’s not that I’ve gone out and chosen to sample the buffet because it’s a buffet- it’s everything that’s been around me that i’ve interacted with.
In order to do all this, you have to strive to combine humility and faith in one’s self (to avoid falling into a constant pattern of running from one cult or self-help book to another which I’ve seen people do)- in other words you have to have a sense of self. If having that means that I don’t have humility, then so be it – i think that’s a misunderstanding of what humility really means and how I can develop it further, but it doesn’t fundamentally matter whether you believe me.
It’s all cool, Dr A. As the man said, ‘Appo Deepo Bhavah’
Here’s where the conversation breaks down.
Heh, if you consider that to be brief, Dr. A, then I’ll count my blessings…
Anyhow, let’s get to the crux of the matter here. While I do agree that you are entitled to your own opinions regarding anything, let alone hindu texts, that does not mean your interpretation is correct. Indeed, it is precisely why the hindu tradition advocates the tutelage of various gurus, pandits, or acharyas. This is because there is a tangible difference between merely reading scripture and properly understanding its intended meaning. Sanskrit, while grammatically perfect according to computer science theorists, is exceedingly supple and nuanced, with individual words often having as many as 20 meanings. As such, we often find “academics” (typically from the west and who are mindlessly parroted in the east) who often project their own perspectives onto these translations and in many cases produce oversexualized or just plain irrelevant work that has nothing to do with the intended meaning. More maliciously, colonial and neo-colonial historians have often taken such liberties to develop ahistorical theories such as AIT without a shred of scientific evidence or develop inaccurate narratives to sow discord among northern and southern language groups–convenient for the British Raj. I know you ranted about CAPEEM above, but there are serious issues with the caste, cows, and curry version of indology. That is not to say I support a whitewashed history that merely reacts to colonial narratives, but I think we have to be very careful before we start concocting theories without the appropriate qualifications or education. As such, many of your interpretations here are coming across as rather amateurish.
The first of of course is Krishna vs Brahman. I assume your left leanings naturally color your efforts to ascribe an inherent conflict of traditions here, when there is a fundamental unity to them. If you read the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, there is a Mahavakya: “Aham Brahmasmin”. Literally, it means I am Brahman. While this may be subject to some nuance if you are an advaitin, dvaitin, or vishistadvaitin, this quote is particularly notable because what you rather oddly like to characterize as Vyasa’s strategic effort to subsume Brahman, is really the consistent vedantic discussion of the nature of Brahman pervading all prakriti and purusha. Krishna, thus, is Brahman, and Brahman is Krishna. Krishna is discussed in both human form (as the avatar meant to restore dharma in the dwapara yuga) and in divine form (vishwarupa) to reveal himself to Arjuna–and many other of the key figures in the Mahabharata and assorted puranas. To discuss this as a simple power play in hinduism does a gross injustice to the text and relegates us to the realm of Paul Courtright theories.
As lupus noted, your preference for nirguna rather than saguna is not uncommon, and in many cases encouraged as the higher of two; however, that does not mean that the manifestation of brahman as Krishna’s vishwarupa is somehow invalid or emblematic of some “brahminical conspiracy” to take over something distinct. The two (saguna and nirguna) are inextricably linked, just like energy and matter. This is where the value of the traditional hindu education finds value. It is not sufficient to merely read translations by “scholars”. The acharyas and pandits are schooled in the proper intended meaning of these works. Mere undergraduate coursework in the western ivory tower does not suffice (I would say really disadvantages rather than advantages to your point above). Besides, I think if we can respect the theological construct of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we should have no problem digesting nirguna vs saguna. Also, please note that I am not saying that all of these texts are just repetitions of each other. The Upanishads and Brahmanas are commentaries that explore and elaborate on the Vedas. The Mahabharata and Ramayana are great epics that synthesize the great philosophies stemming from the Vedas with semi-mythological stories that offer pragmatic manuals on how to live good, virtuous and productive lives. The Mahabharata, of course, includes the Bhagavad Gita which essentially crystallizes the core philosophies of vedanta. Now do all these texts repeat all the exact same things in the same contexts and constructs?– obviously not. However, there is a fundamental unity of purpose in them, irrespective of the obviously distinct time periods of their respective compositions, so I think you are seeking needless discord where none exists. As to why? I think you’d have to ask yourself that question. But just off the top of my head, I would say that it could be because of your tendency to color things through political lenses. This of course leads me to the next point.
Dr.A, even the Buddha, arguably the most palatable to the Granola Free Spirit movement, ultimately tells us what to do with his Eightfold Path. So while I wouldn’t even think to tell you how to feel, I would say, your feelings of betrayal are rather odd and perhaps even unjustified. A divine authority/adviser is there precisely to tell us what to do–although I would argue especially in the modern era, to choose carefully ;). I know individual freedom is at the core of modern political theory, but that is why I find many of your social science frameworks to be inapplicable. We subscribe to gurus (be they divine or corporeal) to tell us what to do because they know what is spiritually good for us (even more than we ourselves do–granted even true gurus warn against charlatans seeking material gain, so again, be careful). Now if that means you don’t want a guru, no problem, you live in a free country. Does that mean hinduism is incompatible with rationalism or evaluative discouse?–no to the contrary, many of its schools openly encourage it (see Nyaya–one of the 6 orthodox schools which literally means logic). In fact, I’d recommend you read the assorted works of Swami Vivekananda. He does an excellent job of providing a deep insight into hinduism.
Like I said, this is not a mindless call to fratricide or even war for war’s sake. It is war to restore dharma. The Kauravas have violated dharma again and again. As such, Krishna himself has already destroyed them for their repeated misdeeds–Arjuna is merely the instrument. As for panzer tanks and nonviolence, even Gandhiji ultimately recognized that satyagraha has its limits. Nazis would have no compunction about mowing down line after line of satyagrahis with the devil’s sprinkler. That is my point: against some adversaries, the mere moral force of your righteousness, humanism and compassion will have no impact–jihadis come to mind here. That is why force was necessary against the Kauravas, why it was necessary against the Nazis, and why it is necessary against jihadis.
To the point on orthodoxy, I think you misunderstood. There are 6 ancient orthodox schools of hindu philosophy, called astika. They hold the Vedas to be the fundamental authority. There are of course the various nastika, or heterodox, schools that reject the authority of the Vedas, These naturally include sramanism, buddhism, jainism and would by corollary, include many of the modern syncretic traditions. So what I mean is that casteism and mindless ritualism are no way to live especially in the modern era, and in essence, conflict with the core message of the scriptures themselves. As Krishna himself stated, a brahmin is so determined not by birth but by conduct. Indeed, Satyakamala Jabala was given a traditional hindu education on the basis of his character and not on his birth (he was the son of a courtesan). In fact, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad contains an ongoing dialogue between the sage Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi, who desires brahmagyan (in essence, knowledge of the divine). Indeed, there is no shortage of hindu tapasvinis, yoginis and other women in the ancient tradition, many of whom even had a great command of scripture. This is yet another reason why the caste, curry, and cows construct of hindu history must be replaced.
Also, just to elaborate on my initial point about politicization and philosophy, I would advise you to avoid mixing the two discussions. While we are entitled to our respective views on things, there is an inherent danger when we seek to project modern political conflict within the realm of ancient philosophical discourse. More than anything else, it hinders a proper understanding of either one, giving the tendency to push a political line in a philosophical discussion (your eagerness to unfairly compare VHP activists with Nazis above did not pass unnoticed to me). Please note that, although I myself have not connection or affiliation with any of the organizations within the parivar, there are many vhp/rss/bjp members who were upset by the gujarat riots and openly call for pluralism and harmony within india, see Tarun Vijay. Their point is true secularism–ucc and true federalism (article 370??) are things for which to strive. Moreover, I would ask that whenever you discuss the gujarat riots that you have the courtesy to remember and mention the dozens of mostly women and children who were killed by a mob at the godhra train platform. The gujarat riots were horrible and I sincerely hope for India’s sake that such a thing will never happen again. But there is a fundamental injustice that many NGO types engage in when they concoct narratives about what transpired in that 2002 tragedy. There were hundreds of hindus who also lost their lives and tens of thousands who were made homeless as well. Since we are all here to discuss things as “human beings”, I would venture to note that hindus are human beings as well. Accordingly, I think your attempt to draw parallels between nationalist hindu ideologies and islamic extremism are both clumsy and inaccurate. With all due respect to our muslim friends here, hindutva is not an expansionist ideology that seeks to convert the world to its religion at the point of a sword. There is a clear and undeniable distinction here. Oddly enough, it does seek a pluralistic india, but one that does not devalue the contributions of India’s ancient culture to the modern state, and seeks to restore the country to genuine secularism. That is not to say the crimes of many outfits affiliated or unaffiliated (SRS has nothing to do with the parivar let alone the BJP) with the parivar should not be condemned and punished. But since we are all about nuance here, I would recommend you recognize that communal violence in India did not begin with gujarat or babri. Indeed, in the early 20th century, the mopplah massacre resulted in the deaths, rapes or forced conversions of 3000 hindus for no reason other than the turks abolishing the caliphate (something rather odd considering Gandhiji openly and actively supported the Khilafat movement in the interest of hindu-muslim amity). Even Godhra, split along communal lines, has a long history of religious violence that predates Babri. As such, it is not enough to merely condemn those whom you find politically unpalatable. All communal violence is bad and should be unequivocally condemned and remembered. More than that, attempts to justify horrendous terrorist violence like arundhati roy did through a chorus of “gujarat and babri” are both grossly inaccurate and utterly inhumane–not to mention politically deplorable. ISI-funded jihadis have aims of destroying the Indian state that predate these awful tragedies that serve as convenient propaganda for them. As such, by avoiding such needless politicization in philosophical discussion, I think it will help us all have a more civil and informed dialogue rather than a mere shouting match with labels substituting for ideas.
Finally, I think one other concern I have is that you have tendency to overcomplicate discussion points with unrelated often irrelevant social science frameworks. While, I think it’s great that you’ve had such an education, I don’t think they (the constructs or trivia) really help your discussion points other than to advertise to your audience that you’ve had said education. I know I’ve had to respond in some larger paragraphs than I’d prefer, but in the interests of constructive dialogue with everyone, I’d just thought I’d note for future reference that brevity is the soul of wit ;). I’ve enjoyed the discussion…
Re: comments 209 and 210,
I don’t want to get into discussions about Hindu theology for which I am not qualified, but I want to further two points that the two of you have brought up.
1) Dr. A is right in referring to the “state sponsored murders” and pogroms in Gujerat. The “riots” or whatever one wants to call them occured on Modi’s watch and the police and government must be held responsible. I am surprised that someone as reasonable sounding as Kumar ji is in denial about this.
2) RE: Article 370. Article 370 is there because of the special status of Kashmir. This special status was given in agreements between Maharaja Hari Singh and the Indian government. (Instrument of Acession, anyone?). It was reinforced in agreements between Shiekh Abdullah, the popular leader of the Kashmiris and the Indian government. Whatever one might like to pretend, Kashmir is not just another Indian state, it is disputed territory and thus has a special status. I am basing these arguments on a book called “Kashmir In the Crossfire” by Victoria Schoefield, which is a very fair non-partisan history of Kashmir from the time of Ashoka to the Modern Era. Please note that it was written by an Englishwoman, not a Pakistani or Indian. Thus, she cannot be accused of blindly following the “Paki POV”. Facts are Facts, and there’s no getting away from them.
Regards
Yajnavalkya, thanks very much for your detailed response. I will do my best to brief, and I will fail.
Points of agreement:
Questions/ points of disagreement
What is the benefit of understanding its intended meaning where it is not relevant for the life you are living and indeed may destract from it? What is the social and political process by which the intended meaning was and continues to be formed?
Power operates in all contexts, including in Hinduism. One of the unfortunate problems with the exceedingly poor scholarship that was done on South Asia (and basically every colonised part and population of the world) is that I don’t have ready access to the detailed understanding that we have of, say, the Reformation, the Counterreformation, the impact on the 30 years war, connectinos to the development of capitalism, etc. What I would agree with is that the idea of a fundamental unity can be said to exist among many Hindus – among many Hindus I have seen today, it is exceedingly syncretic. However, just as forest dwellers ‘outside’ society were brought into the caste structure and placed in a subordinate position, similar trends can, generally speaking, happen within the faith tradition. Thus, the mode of conflict I am using may be incorrect, but the notion that there are hierarchies and power operating in terms of which faith traditions are prevalent and which ones are not is, imo, a basic fact of South Asian society as it has existed and corroborated by evidence such as the isntance I presented above (it’s from an account of ‘South Bihar’ (now Jharkand) in a volume of Subaltern Studies)). To deny or obscure difference or differences in power in the name of unity is simply to assert the hegemony of a particular viewpoint on the topic at hand.
I have no idea who Paul Courtright is. However, what I would suggest is that you are giving an individual interpretation with no more or less authority in terms of accuracy than I am giving, unless you would care to cite the methodological tradition by which you arrived at it. A proper study of this would require a genealogy, which, as I hinted at before, I am not capable of producing. Above all, though, it requires what I stated above – acknowledging that within the context of the desire for unity, differences in power and subsumed conflict can and often do exist. Until such time as I am presented with a sound approach that contradicts my own ideas, I’ll continue to hold to my ideas or shape them as I see fit on the basis of my own efforts with likeminded people.
I recently spent a good 2 hours with a few people trying to understand exactly what ‘The Holy Spirit’ is. It was fairly inconclusive and resulted in a resort to wikipedia. The idea is convoluted, something of a catchall. Moreover, the whole notion of the trinity is not simply doctrinal or theological, but tied to institutions, battles in early Christianity (E.g. see Arianism, which still exists in a minority), and relates to the role of the church(es) in wider society. And don’t get me started on transubstantiation and why someone woudl ingest the body and blood of christ…
Profane analysis? Yes. The same is, imo, needed for Hinduism, alongside the participatory and personal understanding of the divine. There is Hinduism as a social and cultural and idea-based set of thigngs in the material world (which includes ideas) and there is Hinduism as is understood by its followers. I would suggest that sticking to the tradition of ‘intended’ meanings, not examining the choice of texts which have been elevated as important (why is a section of the upanishad you mentioned not raised above as ‘the’ primary text of the Gita), understanding the long lengths of time that have transpired over the course of the composition of these texts (in some cases collectively), and similar factors which work in the real world would do a disservice to both understanding the texts as well as interpreting them for contemporary use. To rely on received authority is, as you know, a choice – it is a contemporary choice – and it is no more than that. That is not to say that there are not some benefits that could come about – for example, by having technical questions answered – but there is a difference between that and being instructed on the spirit of the text.
I have yet to hear what this unity of purpose is, how it was developed, why it was developed, and how it is not a fundamentally anachronistic modern implantation on texts that were written or orally composed (in some cases the same text) by many different people over many many many many hundreds of years. Even the New Testament is not consistent and that was composed in a fairly short amount of time and does not contain all of the gospels (to say nothing of the other holy people who were ignored besides jesus). The Old Testament has two different, and in some people’s minds conflicting, versions of the Creation story within the same book. What is the process in the real world by which this corpus of texts has somehow managed to escape this process? To me, many contemporary interpreters of Hinduism, especially on the Hindu right, are seeking for greater unity than actually exists.
See above – there is an analytical component to it which bases itself on the ability of human beings to study their own social practices (i.e. religion in this case) and there is a much smaller political component to it here – the idea that texts need to be reinterpreted and even discarded if they are not of use in the current day. I take the same position on the 2nd Amendment of the American constitution as I do on Hindu scriptures in this respect. And of course there is, as pointed out above, the personal relevance of a text, which can encompass both of these things and much, much, much more. But, as you say, that is for me to account to myself for.
If you will read carefully what I wrote above, what I suggested is not that mentorship and mentoring relations are not necessary (whether called Gurus or something else). What I have suggested is that the proper role of the mentor is not to tell you what to think, but to help you come to understand what you think, what is most relevant for you, to work through things. This, in fact, was one of my primary objections to the revelation of Krishna that left Arjun frightened (and delighted) – a good mentor will not make you feel beneath him/her.
I have the entire set of Vivekananda but haven’t opened it yet. I will do so.
What is the role of human agency in your interpretation of Hinduism?
Shall I then fly to Gujarat and kill Modi? What is to stop a single person or a single group from determining, from their world view, what is relevantly moral to the point of killing? The answer, of course, is nothing – which is why social interchange is VITAL to moral conversation.
That is besides the point. What I have referred to is the theory of nonviolent communication, not Gandhian ahimsa. The idea, as presented to me by a follower, is to limit your use of force to where necessary and monitor for what purpose you are using it and use it in a way that is not driven by violent impulses. This is a very different thing from pacifism – because the use of physical force and violence – while frequently related – are not identical things.
This is an example of the kind of reinterpretaiton of texts that I was referring to. I am fairly certain that the message you have drawn from the enormous variety of texts you have just cited here was not the literal meaning in all instances. At the same time, I think this is exactly what needs to be done, and I am grateful that you have done it in reinterpreting what ‘different kinds of people’ can mean. The only point I disagree with you on is the same point on which I disagree with most religious people (including American strict constructionists) who are not willing to abandon the object which they are interpretign when it comes down to it. Ask yourself this – if there were an inherent conflcit between something you found as a core message of the texts and something that you yourself think is important, what would you do?
I agree that a framework relying on human beings and which opposes communalism of all varieties, regardless of the religious, ethnic, linguistic, gender, caste, or other identity status of the victims (whether in murder or in day to day life and discrimination) is more useful than politicising religion. To the extent that I have, I believe I am partaking in what we all partake in- which is to bring our values to our ideas. I have chosen to make it explicit to the extent that I can so others can see where I’m coming from.
What I have asked above is taht those who share a belief and a faith in Hinduism will do the same – that they will with equanimity look upon the victims of communalism conducted in the name of Hinduism as they will to communalism conducted in the name of Islam, nationalism, ethnicity, or anything else. Moreover, that they will not disregard the idea of scholarship because so much scholarship in the past has been flawed – scholarship is a process and only works when the peopel are committed to it and what it represents – and do so collectively. Which leads me to:
I am a poor communicator. This is partly due to trying to reconcile different impulses (and discourses) in the same breath – finding the right nuance and thought to do it is very difficult. However, trust me when I say that if I didn’t believe it was useful to try – I wouldn’t.
If it is too much, then what can I say? I’m imperfect.
It doesn’t have to…maybe today it will, but it doesn’t have to…
The “special right” to commit ethnic cleansing and stifle freedom of expression by threatening violence against anyone who goes against the whims of a pack of religious fanatics aren’t really rights I’m keen on preserving.
You can’t have a nation state that goes around dispensing “special status” to some groups of people just because they’re prone to getting uppity at having their delicate religious sensibilities offended. India does enough of that crap as it is. All that does is encourages the most retrograde troglodytes in the country to continue agitating and committing acts of vigilantism and terror rather than accepting that India should be a nation governed by laws rather than the caprices of mobs.
India’s presence in Kashmir is the only thing safeguarding the rights of the few remaining Hindus and Buddhists in Jammu & Kashmir. If not for that we would have a situation not unlike what Pakistan did in Bangladesh or what the Bangladeshis are brazenly doing to their Hindu population right now. It’s not just a matter of territorial integrity and long-term geostrategic considerations (although those are important too), it is also a matter of fostering a pluralistic society and safeguarding freedom of conscience for everyone on the subcontinent.
A good mentor will humble you and make you admit to yourself how little you know. That’s the difference between a mentor and a huckster. One is actually intent on fostering your spiritual growth through self-examination. The other is intent on exploiting your vanity about being a precious little snowflake to win you over. Humility is the first step towards spiritual development and the obsession with the “self” is just a byproduct of the ego.
No, their real job is to tell you how to think. Letting you “understand” what you think basically toes the line between true philosophy and base sophistry. The truth doesn’t just jump out at you and say “HERE I AM!” It conceals itself. This is the nature of maya.
What you’re proposing is going to make people believe what they wish to be true rather than engage in the actually difficult work of unveiling the truth.
I think what happened is that you saw the phrase “and Arjuna was afraid” and pretty much closed your mind at the suggestion that fear was used constructively. The fact is, however, that fear and awe are the only natural reactions one can have when they see infinity. It’s the same feeling I got when I saw the Hubble Deep Field for the first time. What Krishna was doing was essentially taking Arjuna, who at that point was intent on sulking and navel-gazing, and slapping him across the face and telling him to pull himself together and look at the big picture.
Kabir,
How does my remark about a conversation breaking down equate to me being in denial?
I can say with equal self-righteousness (as you have shown) that you have been misled (and so was Dr.A) because you let your ideology blind you from the truths.
Please read more about Gujarat riots.Have all your facts with legally proven evidence ready.Lets discuss it on your blog or some other place of your choice.
I will commit to the debate with an open mind, but will marshall the facts to prove you wrong.I shall expect you to do the same.It should be educative for all of us.
Can’t get more reasonable than this, dost 🙂
Or we can wait for the SIT investigation into Modi’s role (ongoing) and accept their findings without rancour on either side.
P.S.: Modi himself declared a few times that people should not expect an apology from him for Gujarat 2002.If he has really done what you guys say he has, he needs to be hanged (Modi’s words) so that it will stand as an example, and no one will ever contemplate such a heinious deed as state-sponsored terror.Why let a Hindutva fundamentalist politician get away with an apology?
Btw, I will tell you a genuine case of state-sponsored terror.Nandigram.Poor Muslim peasants were killed and their land taken away.
However, right now, I am extremely worried about missing AP Chief Minister YSR.
Here’s praying that YSR is safe and sound.
Sorry for getting off-topic.My local identity (Telugu-Rayalaseema-Kadapa)asserts itself at times like this.
I was going to take you up on this offer, but actually, you can, get much more reasonable than this, bhai. Legally proven evidence in a court system is a function of a political and legal process. There are many things that people have come to believe given a preponderance of evidence outside the legal realm but that are not acknowledged by any legal system (as of yet). For example, to take an obvious case, Henry Kissinger is not in jail for war crimes.
If you are willing to take up a different standard (maybe: ‘preponderance of evidence such that a reasonable person, upon reflection, would conclude something did or did not happen, regardless of its status as legal evidence’ I’m happy to engage in this conversation with you. Otherwise, what this allows is a major political or public figure to hide behind India’s court system, as many others have before and continue to. As noted, not exclusive to India.
Yoga Fire,
Kashmir is not a religious struggle it is a political/nationalist struggle (I’m really getting tired of having to explain this all the time). Sheikh Abdullah, “the lion of Kashmir” was a secular politician all his life and believed in Kashmiriyat– yet he wanted India out, preferring either independence or autonomy within the Indian Union (going from one position to another at various points in his political career). He spent much of his life in jail, first because of the Maharaja and then because of Nehru.
I grant you that the post-1989 “insurgency” or “freedom struggle” took on a religious character, and the militants did some horrible things. I also concede that what happened to the Kashmiri Pandits is horrible and must never happen again. BUT, none of this removes India’s (and Pakistan’s) responsibility to respect the Kashmiri people’s (all the Kashmiris-both in the Pakistani part and the Indian part) right to self-determination.
Another point to note is that prior to about 1847, “Jammu and Kashmir” was not all one entity. The Dogras controlled Jammu, but the Valley was ruled by other people. Similarly the Northern Areas, now called “Gilgit-Baltistan” were independent kingdoms of Gilgit, Hunza, and Nagar. All this to say, that when a solution is finally reached, the state doesn’t all have to go to one country or the other.
Please read Schofield’s “Kashmir in the crossfire” and then get back to me– don’t just spew Indian government propoganda. (I would get just as upset with someone who spewed Pak government propoganda). It’s not going to help the Kashmiris, who are the most important people in this whole struggle.
“freedom of conscience for everyone in the subcontinent”– this obviously doesn’t include the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley. Why can’t you concede that Kashmiris, throughout their history, have never considered themselves Indian but Kashmiri. I notice (from the “Ladli” thread) that you also resent the fact that the population in the “Indian” Northeast also doesn’t consider themselves Indian. Why does this threaten you so much? Why does the Indian state believe it needs to extend it’s hegemony over populations that don’t want to be part of it?
If we have learned anything from the creation of Bangladesh, it’s that the powerful elements in a state (in this case the West Pakistanis) cannot oppress an entire population (the Bengalis) and except to keep them in the country by force. In the long term, military occupation is not the most effective strategy.
<
blockquote>A good mentor will humble you and make you admit to yourself how little you know. That’s the difference between a mentor and a huckster. One is actually intent on fostering your spiritual growth through self-examination. The other is intent on exploiting your vanity about being a precious little snowflake to win you over. Humility is the first step towards spiritual development and the obsession with the “self” is just a byproduct of the ego.
I agree with this.
Interesting. i disagree with your psychological analysis of my mind at age 21 when I read the Gita more thoroughly on my own – several times (10 years ago) – it wasn’t a single phrase that threw me but the overall tone of the chapter. 🙂 However, I can understand your response to this and appreciate that you’ve explained it to me in a way I can grasp.
Your summary pinpoints exactly what I have a problem with in this part of the model – people have different styles and perhaps a ‘slapping him across the face’ can be counterproductive in many contexts 😉 As such, presenting this as a model for education – whether spiritual, moral, or otherwise, can present a problematic relationship to emotional and spiritual violence. If you have ever undergone the process of attempting to help someone understand something about themselves or the world that they do not at that moment understand (e.g. people who are lacking in confidence, suffer from depression, have been victims of abuse, or are routinely subordinated as part of their ‘normal lives’), you would understand how deeply problematic it can be in many contexts. I could cite some developmental psychology stuff on the most fruitful attitudes in parenting being ‘warm and demanding’ but I assume that will be considered extraneous 🙂
I don’t want you to think that this is all I believe krishna does in the text – I am aware that the bulk of the text is not devoted to an overwhelming conception of the divine and is instead more of what I would think of as more effective teaching methods. However, I have defended this interpretation of the point because I believe it constrasts with other texts. At minimum, the Gita could be reconstructed without the element of ‘overwhelming fear’ at all while still containing the same lessons. But that is a bare minimum.
A more relevant and interesting task might be to look over the enormous number of texts – including different versions of the Gita – that have been produced in various traditions that are labeled ‘Hindu’ today in South Asia and pick and choose other ones to prioritise than these. Haven’t you ever wondered why it is that the Gita receives so much emphasis, much like the four specific books in the New Testament do, regardless of how much other writing or practice there is?
india goooood. pakistan baaaad.
Yes, but we’re not dealing with all the many contexts. We are dealing with Arjuna being lost in a navel-gazing sulk on the eve of the greatest and most crucial battle in history.
He, being a warrior, needs to snap out of it and do his job. The talk about mentor/pupil relationships and domestic violence is a digression. If you don’t like the “slap across the face” metaphor then go with “having cold water splashed on him” or “having smelling salts cracked under his nose.” No meaning will be lost.
What element of overwhelming fear? I really think you’re making up what you want to see here because there is no intimidation going on. I already explained why Arjuna was afraid upon seeing Krishna’s true form. It wasn’t to intimidate, it is the same sort of fear/awe one experiences whenever they try to wrap their heads around the divine.
I think you have dialed a wrong number here tulsi.
uh oh. sulabh had a compute failure 🙁
Really? Are they threatened for being Muslims? They’ve got their freedom of conscience, what they lack is the right to break the union out of a desire to impose their religious values on everyone else in their neighborhood. The idea that the impulse to create a religiously defined nation-state, not just a national-identity, but a state, is going to be purely benign for everyone who doesn’t share it just strikes me as naive. We tried that experiment with Pakistan. It failed.
Because I’d need an argument to support the claim that the conditions of Kashmiri self-identity were substantially any different from, say, Telugu self-identity. We Andhras also identified ourselves as Andhras, it did not, however, cut into our conceptions of ourselves as Indians as well.
Look at the European Union. Through unification of different linguistic and ethnic groups they are no more prosperous and secure than ever. Barriers to trade have dropped, thereby increasing commerce and wealth for everyone, and the prospect of another war like the two that took the lives of tens of millions of people now seems nearly impossible. All because the Europeans realized that what united them is greater than what divided them and they could benefit from setting aside the political power plays of demagogues, princes, and various other potentates and focus on making each other better off.
The logic of these linguistic, religious, and ethnocentric separatists as to why they are distinct isn’t any sort of logic that couldn’t be applied to any group within India. What it amounts to being is that one group of people in one state or another just decide that they are more important or more deserving of special privileges than the rest of India. They are asserting that they cannot live with and get along with people who don’t think, speak, worship, and eat like them thereby undermining the unity within diversity upon which India as a nation and as a civilization were built. One state leaving makes it marginally more justifiable for another state to leave. And another. And another. Separatist sentiments undermine the cultural understanding that holds the Indian federation together.
Now take a look at the opposite case, the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into all the various Balkan states. This is the kind of situation separatism is trying to engender in India. Each linguistic group demands a separate state for itself, but surprise! The borders and lines don’t break clearly. So minorities end up in each ethnic state, they don’t have a commitment to making a diverse republic work so their rights are predictably trampled upon, and they are in perpetual conflict over land and resources. So what have we seen in the Balkans over the past century have been wars, conflict, ethnic cleansing, and chronic economic underdevelopment. All of this eventually culminated in the complete subjugation of the Balkans to the Soviets. Because they couldn’t get over their petty issues and hold together, the ultimate end was that they would be swallowed up by the Russian Empire for 50 years, not getting together again until Western Europe pressured that Empire into insolvency.
That’s what you’ll get with India too if separatist sentiments are stoked. A great nation will be reduced to a bunch of disparate, parochial, and increasingly barbaric tribes perpetually at war. And unlike the Balkans, India will have no Western Europe or American hegemony to intervene when China or some other overambitious totalitarian state decides it wants to subdue us. If you think Kashmiris have it bad being Indians, just talk to the Tibetans about how much sunshine and roses they get to see.
Correction: Through unification of different linguistic and ethnic groups they are now more prosperous and secure than ever.
Only Kashmiri Muslims will want to be out of India, not Kashmiri Hindus. So the Muslim religion, not the Kashmiri language, is the dominant factor at play.
Let us say that your wish is granted, and Kashmir does go out of India. How are we Indians to react? Why should we not think that Hindu-Muslim unity is chimera, a thing that appeared only when the British dominance became oppressive, and disappeared when the British left? A chimera that appeared in Akbar’s time because the economy boomed and disappeared in Aurgangazeb’s time, when the economy was less strong? Why should we not change our Constitution to say that India will not be a home to Muslims? Why should we not change our history books to say that we only followed Gandhi in his fight against the British, that we never meant to follow Gandhi in his fight to establish Hindu-Muslim unity?
As a historian, what do you think is the basis for forming a nation? Can a nation be a nation with a lot of minorities in it? Let us imagine that all the Jews go back to Germany. Will Germany still be a nation? Or will Germany also have the problems that India has in Kashmir?
@228 For some reason, I can’t copy highlighted text from the comments right now. But just to add to your first line about only Kashmiri Muslims want out–since the next counter argument will be that the majority of Kashmiri are Muslims, it’s ever important to point out that even that is divided into groups. The Shi’a certainly are less likely to want out.
There is a tendency to compare the post Godhra riots to every liberal cause. The shoe usually does not fit. Try a simple thought experiment.
Think what would be the reaction in the Muslim world if Muslim Malyasian families – men, women and children returning from the Haj, were stopped in Kuala Lumpur Airport and burnt to death by a Hindu Group.
And if all papers, followed it up by saying something on the lines that they were returning from the center of Wahbisim and that they provoked the Hindu crowd by praying and can be safely be considered terrorists, what would be the reaction of the moderates?
Would the reaction be non-violent? Would the moderates continue to respect the media? And even if they did, would this respect continue after the Media keeps reporting discredited, incorrect facts and figures repeatedly and keeps making comparisons of Non-Hindu parties to Nazi Germany?
To cut to the chase — there is no denial here. There are however different angles. Sure, the response was one sided, by and large. The state govt did not clamp down, possibly deliberately, to the extent that they could have.
The majority of the people closest to the incident — Gujaratis — do not feel regret on the reactions. Gujaratis are not violent people by nature, nor do they consider themselves warriors. They saw a threat to their way of life, they saw bloodshed in response, considered the matter and made their decision, in 2002.
Sure this is an issue that provokes strong feelings. And yes, I have several caustic remarks in my head right now and have something to say with your choice of certain keywords. It is just that stating them will lead to paths we have go down several times before, and is not worth going there again in every topic. So since it does not add to the discussion, why insist on going there?
I think you mean “Hindu-Muslim unity is an ephemera“… You know, something that doesn’t last very long?
Not sure about that – one of the bloggers on this site is a Gujju that dude is pretty merciless when it comes to erasing comments.
TTCUSM:
I admit to being at the outer limit of my vocabulary here. However, this link suggests that one meaning of chimera is delusion.
de-lurker:
Does the Hindu-Muslim problems have a different impact on Shias, when compared with the Sunnis? Please de-lurk some more, and elaborate.
well, you are a hindu wahabbist after all.
can we please stop with the hindutva bashing on this site?
I am running out of steam. I’ll try to wrap up on this topic, but I think we have a difference of opinion about what kinds of feelings the divine or the unknown should inspire. I believe it’s extremely counterproductive for it to inspire fear or really any sense of being overwhelmed- particularly by a revered figure. I have a hunch that Krishna’s case can and was made without that chapter being necessary.
The literal reading of story in the book is irrelevant for this- who is arjun to me or i to arjun? 🙂 What is more relevant is reading it as an allegory by which the message(s) are being conveyed – and quite clearly from this discussion, these will differ by the person reading it (or hearing it) and even for the same person at different points.
for me the book has to be more than just a story about arjun and a battle – that would make it cartoonish. this is why external considerations to the book – i.e. the book in the world (for me, my social world) are relevant – things like how would the relationship between krishna and arjun model bewteen other mentor-mentee relationships or authority-follower relationships and who the people who might be reading it might be (there is no universal ‘reader’ – the reader has a gender, a sex, a sexuality, an age, a spiritual inclination of some kind or another, etc.). again – i’m reading it with different lenses – right now at the level of the text (translated, and in a particular version), another as a material text to be studied with a genealogy and social context, and a third as an allegorical message. There are other ways you can read it.
But again, I can’t stress this enough – this is exactly one aspect of one chapter in the book that we’ve discussed. There are many other things in the book that are worth talking about (and that I’d rather talk about at this point, quite frankly). For example, the idea of duty as tied to maintaining a collective order is also worth discussing, as is the martial metaphor. Both have implications for the meaning of the book as well – if read a little more broadly and creatively. It has to fit, you know?
Firstly, thank you for the civil tone. I appreciate it, sincerely.
The reason I brought it up in this context is that a claim was made that a liberal Hindu right is emerging in India. My request was that those people who identify as such back up their claim to that sort of identity by taking a stand against the illiberal use of state, social, and political violence in the name of Hinduism (ongoing, by the way). There was then a challenge laid down to debate the facts of the issue, but the way that ‘facts’ were defined was problematic for what would constitute a fair debate, in my opinion.
I wish I heard this more often, and I am left wishing it went further. Whatever one thinks of Tehelka, Human Rights Watch, or the many other organisations and people that have mounted more evidence to the original violence and the subsequent continuing discrimination than most ‘facts’ require, this is surely a serious enough matter with enough substance behind it to warrant a real thorough introspective look by members of the Hindu right rather than condeming the organisations and people that raise the issue.
This is exactly what I would ask members of Bangladeshi civil society or the diaspora to do with regard to persecution of Hindus, Ahmadis, and others in Bangladesh or members of Pakistani civil society or its diaspora to do with regard to persecution of Hindus, Ahmadis, and others in Pakistan. It is what I push myself to do as an American and a person of Indian origin and as an ABCD and all else – and it’s hard, and I fail (frequently), but that does’t take away the need to do it – or the right of other people to call me on it when I’m not. It’s in that vein that I raise the topic.
the other side of this argument is that it is not separatist sentiments that have undermined stability in states, but a failure in state capactiy and competence. Pakistan 1948-1956 is a very good example of both structural causes as well as what can be called -at best – poor statesmanship. At its formation, Pakistan had an enormous number of weak points for holding together west and east pakistan – starting with being separated by like a 1000 miles by India. But there were many missteps as well – for example, if, instead of saying ‘urdu is the language of muslims in the subcontinent’ within months of independence, jinnah and liaqat ali khan had come up with something like Fazlul huq proposed and put the bangla language into a persian script, it might have made a diffrerence. Or they could have come up with what was ultimately done by 1956 i think- which was to make bangla a state language. but by then, it had turned into something else, with the grievances having already been created. You can find similar examples in Sri Lanka of continuous state provocation or Indira gandhi’s conduct in the punjab. In contrast, if you look at Canada’s dealing with Quebec or Nehru’s acquiescence of linguistic reorganisation int he 1950s, you see a very different outcome.
Granted, this is just one way to look at things and involves a lot more factors, but generally speaking, for a state to argue that a separatist region’s claims are illegitimate and then try to forcibly suppress those claims is probably among the best ways to strengthen the separatist tendency.
But I don’t pretend to understand kashmir because I don’t understand what happens in border regions with separatism. I wish Kashmir’s people would be able to have the power to come to a solution on their own, but it seems like the will of India and Pakistan is going to determine that 🙁
Yoga Fire, again Kashmir is not just another part of India (for example you brought up Andhra), Hari Singh only acceeded to the Indian Union with the guarantee that he would retain special status for his state. All subseqent agreements between Sheikh Abdullah and the central government conceded this special status. Also note, the Sheikh led the National Conference as opposed to the Muslim Conference (which favored accession to Pakistan). Abdullah believed in Nehru’s secularism and in Kashmiriyat. It is only post 1989 that the whole conflict has taken on a religious character. Prior to that the Kashmiris were (largely nonviolently) asserting that they were a qaum– a nation, not Indians or Pakistanis.
The right of self-determination is enshrined in the UN charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. Kashmir is also the oldest unresolved conflict at the UN. In my humble opinion as a Kashmiri (though 3 generations removed from the Valley), this is not an India-Pakistani issue, but a human rights issue. India and Pakistan have obligations to the Kashmiri people, who have been fighting to leave India for the last 60 + years. In all honesty, tell me how you would feel if your people (the Andrah-ites) wanted out of India and were being kept in the Union by force?
Does it now make sense why Kashmiris wave Pakistani flags and support Pakistan in cricket matches? They are doing it because this is what will upset India the most.
Kabir@239:
Can you state reasons why Kashmiris want to be independent of India? Is it primarily because their majority religion is different, or they believe they are a distinct ethnicity? Human rights violations committed by police/solidiers I understand, but wouldn’t that decrease and vanish along with militancy? Do you believe there must be a strong basis for breaking countries apart, or should any subgroup within a country be allowed to secede as and when they define a separate identity for themselves? Why is being part of India an imposition for Kashmiris (arguing with logic rather than emotion)? The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of worship, absolute non-discrimination, and a large degree of state autonomy (soem of this is in theory, but the constitution works, by and large). A Kashmiri could become the PM of India as well. In contrast to that, what would an independent Kashmir look like? I can’t imagine it being anything apart from one that imposes Sharia rule upon its population; in effect, a less liberal state with less personal freedom for all its citizens. Being landlocked, it would be completely economically dependent on Pakistan (if it does not become part of Pakistan, that is). And India would have another hostile state on its borders.
No problem, Dr. A, I’ve got time to pass now anyways…
1.How do you know the intended meaning (of the entire corpus of hindu scriptures) if you have not had it properly interpreted for you? I think the issue here is that you are jumping the gun and saying that “it must be inapplicable to modern life, but just in case, I am going to deconstruct it into random social and political frameworks (under the guise of context) while missing the point entirely”. It is called Sanatana Dharma (truth everlasting, i.e., irrespective of context) for a reason.
Regarding power, I think your naturally tendency to view matters through the lens of conflict theory is hindering your understanding. Yes, there are many distinct traditions, sects, and sampradhayas within hinduism; however, to use this as some type of basis for conflict and subsumption within hinduism is rather silly. Forest dwellers such as Valmiki rose to great spiritual heights and fame within hinduism irrespective of their place “outside” the varna system. To insist that hegemony and conflict must exist in all contexts and must drive all religious motivations is inappropriate given the catholic nature of hinduism, which you yourself concede. If you spend too much time insisting on deconstructing things in bad faith, it’s only natural that you will not gain the necessary understanding.
“However, what I would suggest is that you are giving an individual interpretation with no more or less authority in terms of accuracy than I am giving, unless you would care to cite the methodological tradition by which you arrived at it. A proper study of this would require a genealogy, which, as I hinted at before, I am not capable of producing. Above all, though, it requires what I stated above – acknowledging that within the context of the desire for unity, differences in power and subsumed conflict can and often do exist. Until such time as I am presented with a sound approach that contradicts my own ideas, I’ll continue to hold to my ideas or shape them as I see fit on the basis of my own efforts with likeminded people.”
and that’s the problem. you are so caught up deconstructing, you are not taking the time to understand. like I said before, I am not Vyasa, or a pandit, or an acharya. If you are that interested understanding the various traditions of hinduism, it is incumbent upon you to seek out the right teacher and seek in good faith. As yoga said, the truth doesn’t just reveal itself. You have to pursue it on your own, with the intention of learning. Also, I think we’re coming from different places with respect to our knowledge of hinduism–so no, I think there is a significant difference in the accuracy in this discussion as indicated by your statements about krishna versus brahman. Much of what you are calling for here is merely obfuscation in the place of understanding. A few intro to hinduism courses do not replace a life time of study.You are, as always, welcome to hold you “ideas” and opinions, but that does not mean they are anything approaching accurate.
4.
Because you are seeking to impose the western/christian experience on hinduism. Subsumption was a key feature of early christianity (and even modern evangelism if you see some of the megachurch practices in India wherein hindu and christian practices are intermingled to induce conversion), as seen with the Christmas and Easter. And battles on doctrine were often institutional, and were on the basis of power plays. However, that in no way explains why you are constantly seeking to replicate the western experience in hinduism. There is no pope in hinduism. There is no Temple of the Hindu faith seeking to impose a set doctrine at swordpoint or stakepoint. That is the problem and the reason why I keep telling you that your frameworks are irrelevant. Study the material on its own without constantly imposing irrelevant sociological or theological constructs from the familiar. The questioner matters as much as the questions. Received authority is important for both the technical and the spirit of the texts, and it is a choice only if you actually wish to understand rather than deconstruct and categorize the parts while losing the sum of the meaning.
Unity of purpose—Because that is the genius of the hindu oral text tradition. The vedas have been passed down unchanged. The additions to the various brahmanas and upanishads were all elaborations on the unchanged original philosophy passed down in the vedas. To me, there are many contemporary interpreters, especially on the “secular” left and far left (there’s no true center), who are seeking greater conflict and discord than actually exist.
I think yoga’s point about humility is very relevant here. If you are looking for a mentor that makes you feel good about yourself, I’d suggest you join the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization. Spirituality by its nature necessitates authority that is superior to you, just as a mother and father may guide a child and claim precedence. To say that an authority must be invalid because you don’t like the notion of serving him/her is indicative of why you are having trouble with these very basic ideas within hinduism. Service and humility are at the core of spirituality. If you have no interest in discarding your ahankara and forgetting the self in the pursuit of brahman, that really means you have no real interest in spirituality beyond its fashionable currency. I don’t mean to be so blunt, but these are really very elementary concepts and your point about good mentorship is rather silly. Just as a parent may often need to show his/her authority and scold a child, so too must a guru do the same on occasion–as Krishna did here with Arjuna. At other times, the guru may show love, just as a father or mother would to a child. You missed the key point where Arjuna recognizes how foolish he was to look upon Krishna as his mere friend, cousin, or charioteer, when really, Krishna is divine incarnate and his spiritual guide. Just as a guide is needed through the desert or jungle, so too is a guide needed to maneuver through maya and avoid the crocodiles of sin and sense, ego and evil so that you may reach the ultimate truth.
8.” Shall I then fly to Gujarat and kill Modi? What is to stop a single person or a single group from determining, from their world view, what is relevantly moral to the point of killing? The answer, of course, is nothing – which is why social interchange is VITAL to moral conversation”
Funny how you keep skirting over buddhadeb bhattarcharya (nandigram), hafeez sayed, or the murderers who burnt the train at godhra. The problem with pure relativism is that you completely lose sense of when to act and when not. Modi is being investigated by the Supreme Court, which will then confirm the nature of his involvement in the riots of 2002, and he will have to answer for it as per the due process of the law. The real question you should be asking therefore is what is being done about the other two? You can’t claim the moral high ground if you continually ignore the crimes of others as well. I still am saddened by your deafening silence on the 58–mostly women and children–who were murdered at Godhra. Considering the jholawalla line of going so far as to assign blame on these innocents for courting their own destruction by singing bhajans (just outrageous propaganda from so called secular humanists), I would think you would demonstrate the very humanity your are demanding of others in this matter. Or does your moral relativism prevent you from doing so?
9.”this is an example of the kind of reinterpretaiton of texts that I was referring to. I am fairly certain that the message you have drawn from the enormous variety of texts you have just cited here was not the literal meaning in all instances.”
Actually, it’s not at all. If you actually took the time to read the very scriptures you claim to have read, you would have come upon these examples. Maitreyi is the second most important figure after Yajnavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka. That you could have even missed the centrality of her participation is demonstrative of the depth of your study. Satyakama Jabala was also a pivotal figure in the Chandogya Upanishad. Draupadi was a great tapasvini in her previous life–indeed it is her requested boon of having the perfect husband that resulted in her having 5 husbands in her next life as Panchali (since no man could ever be perfect 😉 ). Anyhow, I’m sorry Dr.A, but it’s not enough to skim read and then claim the authority to deconstruct and cry “revisionism and reinterpretation”. You have to actually take the time to understanding the subject matter before you can even approach the state needed to appropriately analyze (whether from a spiritual or social science perspective). Like I said, I don’t mean to be so blunt, but these are all very elementary aspects of the scriptures you claim to have read.
We are all imperfect beings, Dr. A. That is why we seek God in manifested (krishna) or unmanifested (brahman) form. But it is not enough to say you are imperfect. You have to approach these matters by denying the ego and embracing humility. Only then can the true meaning be communicated and understood.
At this point, as you previously noted, I think enough has been said on this topic. I don’t want to keep repeating myself in discussing your understanding because I do not wish to be rude. Do, however, post when you have thoroughly read some of Swami Vivekananda’s works. I don’t think there is or ever will be a more lucid communicator of the relevance, nature and beauty of hinduism than he.
Rama @ 240,
It has nothing to do with religion (or didn’t for the longest time) but, as you’ve speculated,with ethnicity. Kashmiris are a distinct ethnicity, with their own history, language etc. Yet since the time of the Mughals they have been ruled by one foreign group or the other. Not hard to understand then the fervent demand for azadi (freedom).
As for what an independent Kashmir would look like, it does not inevitably have to be a Shariah state (I wouldn’t support it if this was what it was absolutely going to turn out to be). I can’t do better than refer you to this blog post by a Kashmiri student called “Charter for a free Kashmir”.
http://bluekashmir.blogspot.com/2009/08/charter-for-free-kashmir.html
To anyone who is at all interested in finding a long-term workable solution to the Kashmir conflict, I would seriously recommend reading the Schofield book that I have referred to above. I have now finished it and have found it to be very thorough and non-partisan. It is also really clear and I feel accessible to the lay reader (though I am perhaps biased as an aspiring academic in the field of South Asian Studies). She also includes a comprehensive bibliography which provides further sources for research. However, keep in mind that it is now fairly out-of-date as it was published in 1996 and thus doesn’t include the events of the last 13 years. Still it is useful as a general historical introduction to the dispute.
The full details of the book are as follows:
Kashmir in the Crossfire by Victoria Schofield published by I.B. Tauris.
Yajnavalkya, thank you for the courteous and honest response. As you can see from the tone of civility you have adopted here in telling me that I am too unschooled in the traditions and in knowledge, it is quite possible to do so without making someone feel beneath you. I raise this issue, as mentioned above, in terms of the role of ‘modeling’ relationships of various kinds through authoritative texts, not through a literal reading of the Gita which, as is mentioned, is not directly concerned with the proper role of mentorship.
To cut to the chase: How do you know whether the entire corpus of hindu scriptures has an intended meaning? How do you discern what constitutes proper interpretation, and how do you determine who is in a position to offer it? This is the other side of the question you ask.
This is not an accurate assessment of my worldview on power. Conflict is not the only aspect of how power functions – every day relations are conditioned by power, and power can be generative of identities, perceptions, and realities as well as inducing conflict. The point I was making is that, like brahman in Hinduism, for me, power is an all pervading force. You can call it the Late Foucault-Yoga.
On a historical basis and in the contemporary sense, the ideas that you have presented here about the nature of power in Hinduism as a social and not just theological entity are simply mistaken, as per documented scholarship and even basic observations about contemporary realities – e.g. the Ekal Vidyalayas and their role in Hinduizing people. To believe that there have never been power differentials in a corpus and practice that has been used to justify caste, among other things, read literally to attribute a division of labor to people (varna system), etc., is surely mistaken. Arjun himself is described as a scourge of his enemies and what is going on is a battle. Simply posing the idea of the varna system intrinsically speaks to notions of power that are inherent in the texts, and as we can see from observation, in the lives of people. This is particularly the case of politicised Hinduism which is.
There are, in fact, multiple methods to seeking inner or outer truths. That is the point of the middle section of the Gita. Is it possible that there are other ways to go about it? Moreover, here I am speaking of a tradition of Hinduism (vaishnavite Krishna worship) that is not the one of my own upbringing (see: subsumation)- if you want to talk about the role of Durga, the giving of prasad, or why Calcuttans are intent on referring to the Hooghly as the Ganga (as am I, in bangla), then by all means, let us continue. However obliterating all disagreements to the meaning of texts or principles or how they can be used or interpreted serves no one any good. You are free to believe that I have a poor understanding of the conception of Hinduism you have on the basis of the methodology by which you achieved it and the manner in which that methodology developed; I am free to state that there are other methodologies and if Hinduism is not the right word for the conclusions and way of being I come to, then I am more willing to discard the word than to adopt a sensibility that is foreign to my own. This is a common trait among people in all faiths – the willingness to stray into heterodoxy and even hereticism in pursuit of one’s own truth. However, I think Hinduism does not necessitate such a thing.
There are different readings of the Gita. Some stress its allegorical nature, as I have (e.g. see Gandhi). It is ironic that in the name of humility you would deny not just my reading or use of the text but fail to examine whether or not the text is actually a call for inner reflection with Krishna as the spiritual center. Is this what was meant by the text by the people who taught it to you? I assume not. Is it a viable interpretation? I don’t see why not, particularly given that all human beings, including gurus, remain imperfect. (okay, almost all – and the ones we put in almost all are the ones we choose as gurus for our life paths). We are not children, and guidance for adults is different from guidance from children. It is probably more difficult in many ways.
There are many ways of interpreting this statements. Duty can be, and has been, stated in many different ways, from meeting your inner conscience, to meeting textually laid out duties, to meeting duties argued by practice, to meeting your alleged obligations under a varna system. What is common to all these is that they will appeal to and resonate with the inner conscience, in my experience, even if they do so reluctantly. If they don’t, then that is not a spiritually inclined duty, but an external.
It’s not funny at all. It’s a deliberate choice. I’ve commented on and fumed about Buddhadeb extensively on the blog I write on. I don’t know who Hafeez Sayed is, and I don’t comment on the Godhra incident because whatever the facts of the matter, it is often a rhetorical ploy to invoke it, so I ignore it. I have laid out the principle, however, on which I would judge these incidents in response to a previous comment of yours, and it was relatvistic only in the sense of understanding to a minimal degree the varying levels of social violence that exist in South Asia in assessing them. I have also articulated a principle of nonviolent communication above that would clearly implicate anyone involved in any of these incidents, though the extent and application of such a principle to these situations is, as I have said, undetermined for me in the case of Godhra and Hafeez Sayed.
Here is the crux of the point and the disagreement between us – you argue that there is a fundamental unity to the texts. I focus on the existence of differenes among them. If you would like to disparage my level of knowledge about them, that’s fine, but I think you are missing a fundamental point- ‘unity’ of message from disparate texts written over hundreds or thosuands of years in a variety of social contexts and in a place where there is still enormous fragmentation of cultures – is virtually impossible without excluding or subsuming large swathes of people. There is a real world process which occurred.
What you are missing is that are participating in it as well. In saying there is a unity, you are not just saying it, but you are seeking to impose it and describe it in a certain fashion- this is not an accusation but an observation of the continuing evolution of what constitutes ‘Hinduism’ in this space in this conversations. I find it ironic but not unpredictable that I am the one who is told that he is applying Abrahamic notions of religion when i am fairly peripheral to this debate and the interepretations of the hindu right frequently verge on constructing a notion of hinduism that does resemble an abrahamic faith (witness the emphasis on scripture), has built a huge network of people and organisatinos which – while more fluid than ‘The Church’, nonetheless exists and attempts to interpret Hinduism in a narrow way for the rest of us.
That’s my piece. Thank you for the conversation and apologies for any shortness here – the topic is sensitive and work rules are being violated 🙂
Kashmiris are a distinct ethnicity, with their own history, language etc.
Really? I didn’t think Kashmiris were any different ethnically than other Indians or Pakistanis for that matter. What do you mean distinct ethnicity? Are Malayalees distinct ethnic group? distinct as opposed to what?
Razib has talked about this as far as genetics, which I’ll admit I don’t know much of. But the gist of what he was saying was that according to studies there’s very little difference between different Indian groups, except there are a few outliers? (is that the right word) such as Sindhis…I don’t know where Kashmiris fit there. J. Nehru looked like a regular Indian to me, whether Muslim or Hindu or whatever. I wonder how much his Kashmiri cultural background, or distinct ethnicity had to do with his identity as an Indian?
A Kashmiri could become the PM of India as well.
Aren’t the Nehrus Kashmiri?
Here’s some info on Kashmiris – including the recent INdian dude, Cash and Carry as Manju likes to call him, who is the interim head of the department that handles the financial stabilization program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_people
I’d be pretty angry. . . at the Telugu people for being so parochial that they would try to break the union. In fact, I daresay I would be sorely tempted to crack a lathi over their skulls and knock some sense into them.
A Kashmiri could become the PM of India as well.
There have 3 prime ministers of India who were Kashmiris: Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi. The fourth one is waiitng in line.
Also, some of the major power-brokers in Indian establishment since 1947 have been Kasmmiris, including top-level civil servants.
That is true that most of them are Hindus, with only Abdullah family not being one (some of their family members are Europeans, Sikhs and Hinuds)
Servility is the highest form of patriotism.