pursuit of political aims

In large families the eldest child is often the third parent, helping mum and dad get the younger ones to follow house rules. She has the privilege of her parents’ trust and almost as much power over them as their parents do. She is expected to never hit back if they pummel her with their little fists or kick her in the shin when she tries to bathe or dress them against their will. She is held responsible for any fracas involving the rest, often getting punished while the smaller children go scot-free. I know, because I was that eldest sister.

With this template, I entered adolescence thinking the government was right in overextending itself to take care of minorities at the expense of the ‘privileged’ majority.

When my siblings and I were in our teens I was battered in a fistfight with my brother who seemed to have developed superhuman strength overnight! Until then I had got by with a long, furled, towel stretched between my fists to use as a nunchaku when attacked by any of the younger ones. But that wasn’t enough when they were no longer little. They just yanked it out of my hands!

In 1990, when the minority Hindu Kashmiris were tormented and chased out of Jammu & Kashmir by that state’s majority, and the government did nothing, I questioned the label ‘minorities’ being applied to the group that was larger, disruptive and violent – the equivalent of my ‘defenceless’ brothers and sisters – for the first time.

In my last post I wrote about the Tuareg people being sidelined in Niger. That seems to be the pattern everywhere: minorities are sidelined, or even persecuted, or annihilated.

Unless, of course, the government accedes to the demands of ethnic minorities at the expense of the majority, as has been done in India. For example, churches and mosques get to use donations made by their followers for their own activities, as well as receive funds from the government, but donations made to temples by Hindu devotees go to the government!! For over 65 years our government had total faith in the gullibility, self-doubt and fatalistic acceptance that has been hardwired into the mental make-up of Hindus over centuries!

As Indian Hindus have a small presence in many countries, most people who have come in contact with them will agree that they are generally law-abiding, make no demands on the government, do not resort to violence, and do not try to convert local people to their religion. Their spiritual values are not rigid and they don’t concern themselves with other people’s gods and religions. Which is why democracy has survived in India, though I admit it is far from perfect.

I am pretty sure that some nations are incapable of democracy because the narcissistic upper echelons can’t imagine being equated to the hoi polloi. But democratically oriented countries propagate it with a missionary zeal, ignoring the fact that the countries they want to mould in their own image prefer oligarchy, so they can hold on to their limitless power over the tribe.

An evolving civilisation in its early stages tends to stick with tribal customs and hierarchies, and no amount of harping on democracy and human rights can change this. It looks like some civilisations refuse to evolve. They mark time rather than march forward, or even take a few steps backwards time and again.

Not even ‘education’ can help a community or nation grow intellectually and spiritually if its children are indoctrinated with ideas of ‘only one god, our god, revere him, serve him – or else!’ As we know, a lot of people who run terror outfits are ‘educated’, as are people who infiltrate well-knit communities to spread subversive beliefs, wreck social systems and cause strife.

Terrorism is defined as ‘the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims’. Regardless of what they claim, there is always a political goal, and I think that is the most important part of the definition of terrorism. Once terrorists achieve that goal there can’t be peace for ordinary citizens.

While unlawful use of violence is relatively easy to understand, intimidation is harder to define. It can be subtle, like people who aspire to power via religion threatening gullible people that they will burn in hellfire if they don’t toe their line. It’s surprising how naïve people are intimidated by threats like this, but it’s common enough, going by what I have heard from panicked patients who have had a breakdown when thus intimidated.

Minorities like refugees, traders and temporary settlers often request concessions to follow the ways of their homeland in their new country rather than assimilate. They can who-moved-my-cheese their way into political power right under the noses of the hosts if governments give in to all their demands. At any rate, that is how the East India Company jumped from being traders to colonisers in India! What followed was not different from terrorism, really.

Since getting free of the British, India has always had a problem of infiltration from the neighbouring countries they hurriedly hacked out of India along their Radcliffe line, etc. before they left. Plugging gaps in its land frontier – 15,200km of it – is an ongoing process, and hasn’t been very successful so far.

Even well guarded borders in developed countries are not perfectly sealed. Desperate people find ways to get in. And, with time, they become the ‘minorities’ and begin making demands on the host country’s government, backed by human rights activists, while citizens continue to fund them with the taxes they pay.

Countries that have traditionally been White majority are now uneasy about changing demographics. When European immigrants became the majority in the Americas the original inhabitants were wiped out, so the White world is fully aware of the danger of being in the minority, of being overwhelmed by people whom they allowed in as guests.

So, I discovered that my towel nunchaku could no longer protect me. Even if it had been the real thing I couldn’t have wielded it like Bruce Lee because I had no intention to kill my brother! So I turned my room into a bomb shelter, figuratively speaking, and used the dining and living rooms for civilized conversation when we had to sit together, what else! We all grew out of our teens and stopped terrorizing one another.

That possibility of civilised diplomatic dialogue between nations has been taken away by events of the past two decades. Trust and respect have both disappeared completely from the international political scene. The spread of terrorism has left us with a choice of upgrading our weaponry or building bomb shelters. Or both. Unfortunately.

Wendy Doniger’s book

 

Much has been said about Wendy Doniger’s book in the media. To be fair, the author has admitted on the front cover that it is an alternative history, not the one that most Hindus believe in.

I’ve just been wondering – if I were to spend years studying a religion practiced in a different country and get a doctorate in it, what sort of book would I write?

I guess I could produce a scholarly book. But, to write a book that reflected the spirit of the religion, I would first have to steep myself in its spirituality and accept its beliefs and mythology as my own. That might eliminate any bias I unconsciously harbour against the religion (because of having grown up in a different culture). I might have to live for several years among people who live the religion.

My version of the religion would then be closer to what a majority of the followers of the religion believe. If my study of the religion were only intellectual and objective, I might not quite capture the essence of the religion, and could end up presenting my biases as the religion itself.

Wendy Doniger seems to have spent only one year in India, when she was just 23 years old! Is her knowledge mostly from books, then? Is her alternative history about a lesser–practiced branch of Hinduism like tantra, that is not mainstream Hinduism?

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/tantra.asp

I’m guessing it might be, based on excerpts I’ve come across on the internet.

A scholarly approach to a subject is rational and analytical. It uses intellect alone. An experiential one may be only intuitive and holistic. But, a book on religion, however scholarly, must be tempered by a little of the latter, I think . . .

Rational vs experiential learning is roughly similar to the concepts of anubhava and anubhuti in Hinduism. Anubhava is the experience of reality through the senses and intellect; anubhuti is the spiritual experience of where that religion takes you, and is much deeper than anubhava. I think anubhuti – or something like it – would give one a better understanding of a religion than mere anubhava for writing a book on it.

These are just idle musings. I haven’t read the book. Extreme reactions to books, movies, Telengana, Article 370, Right To Education Act, Modi, Article 377, etc. etc. are often making headlines for hurting some group, which means all of us are sensitive and vulnerable creatures. We ought to be gentler with each other, and careful about what we write and say. Unfortunately, it’s not a Utopian world.