"Ghadar di Goonj" - Reverberations of The Mutiny (1857)

The uprising in 1857 saw an outpouring of literature, mostly song and poetry, in Punjabi and Hindustani. I am dumping my translation attempts of a select few here on this blog. The poet-fighters did not leave us their names.

One of the high points of humour in our history textbooks is the suggestion that the uprising of 1857 was sparked by the induction of cartridges greased with pork and tallow. Curiously, there is no mention of this in these passionate verses, which dwell on more uninteresting details like systematic exploitation and destitution, famine and hunger, genocide and the crushed spirit of a people, humiliation and honour - a society kept reeling off center as a matter of state policy.

The apathy had set in so deep, that the poems bemoan a lack of sufficient response, while still clinging on to hope, expecting this would at least sow the seeds and mark the new dispensation as an Outsider firmly in the consciousness of the people.




1. A poster: "Manifest Nation"

Now for this manifest nation
    in us grows infatuation, 

As mutinous propaganda
    finds leaven day by day, 

And the overlordship of strangers
    feels like an abomination!

2. A poem: "India's Ravaged Face"

Judgment Day shall find only this,
My tongue, my self-expression:
'A servant of Indian people, I,
This India is my nation.' 

An atom of broken ruins
Of India's ravaged face:
That is my full address,
My only name and trace. 

In blood and humiliation,
Properly Indian I remain,
This is my solar religion,
My only family name. 

Everyday Mother India's people
Sit and stand regretfully;
If only my lot were more like that,
But such is not my destiny! 

Oh India, in your martyrdom
Should I lose my life, my head,
Then I would think my everlasting life
Is to this world be dead. 

3. A poem commemorating May 10, 1857: "Burst Dams of Choked Tears"

We mark this blessed day in memory,
This hallowed day in Indian history;
When extraordinary waves of mutiny
Rolled across the land from mountains to sea. 

The directions pulsed with hot energy,
And martyrdom flashed quite regularly;
Every Indian became sworn devotee
Whose heart and soul throbbed for liberty. 

The siren screamed "Destroy!" nationally,
"You! Kill that fork-tongued, greedy feringhee!"
"Stake the nation's flag to flutter freely!"
"Take back your throne, your crown and glory!" 

A mysterious voice spoke sorrowfully,
To the evening breeze as it blew gently:
"This rebel message of such gravity,
Must vault to the heart of each Hindustani!" 

Every ear heard it more attentively,
Every child in India, and the elderly:
"Finished is darkness and atrocity -
Just dislodge their violent monopoly!" 

So stand up no matter who you may be,
Mature in years or the young and sprightly,
Wipe out the nation's disgrace completely,
Now grip ye the sword and the spear firmly! 

The brokenness of India's great polity,
Broken people of India weep in self-pity,
Exhausted by chaos, dying hungry,
In the vice grip of famine and feringhee. 

Everywhere homelessness spreads rampantly,
Possessed, they fall upon the enemy;
Seeing the state of affairs in the country
Burst dams of choked tears and longanimity.

4. A poem: "It Was For Us They Dithered Not"

For the sake of the life of sacrifice, passionate are we;
Set in our hearts was freedom from these shackles of slavery. 

Propaganda for mutiny was all the mulla's sermon,
Possessed guardian of this celebration was the brahmin. 

Giving up preoccupation with domestic responsibility,
All became a pain in the neck to British monopoly. 

Not an 'uff' of doubt in ascending the hangman's noose,
'Twas for us they dithered not in doubt for life to lose. 

Pandey made his sacrifice for our own sake,
Like Tantya, Nana and Ahmad Shah, and in their wake. 

They sowed the seeds of freedom with their own blood pure,
Alas, as keepers we fell behind in ignorant stupor! 

Cowards like us aren't to be found anywhere in this age;
Who is there with heart so stony that it won't outrage? 

Over there were lost the lives of lakhs of India's progeny,
Till their final breaths they clutched on to the nation's dignity. 

Lakshmi Bai fought on that battleground a manly game;
Soldiers, women, children - all became moths to the flame. 

In a fiery heart does 'REBEL' the leaping flames stoke,
Further bloodshed shall the colour of ripened martyrs provoke. 

Suddenly there was ignited a world of seditious ire;
Here were firangi 'investigators', there were homes set afire. 

That felicitous day in May, today its anniversary,
When the sherbet was martyrdom, and our elders drank it happily. 

Therefore, my love, take this oath upon your life's vitality,
Very soon shall we drive away our India's slavery! 

5. A poem: "By the Outsider"

Awakes the bless'd destiny of India from sleep,
Manifest in her people as a caring deep. 

The Mutiny revived us, faces wet with spray,
Indifference from our negligent hearts driven away!

Reaching India these rays of holistic progress,
Beating it from our homeland is heavy darkness.

Shrunken figures shall now leaven with puberty,
Their constitutions newly inclined to the country!

The veil of indifference from our hearts pure,
Has been lifted now by the Outsider.

I will update this page with more if and when I get to it.

Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 2

As regards globalization, whether people are willing to notice it or not the choice is actually between Succumb via haphazard Anglicization, and Control via methodical Sanskritization.

Since independence, India and other countries with Sanskrit as classical base language have not put in any effort to reconnect with it. Rather, they have preferred a strategy of patronizing the various Prakrits, along with assigning English the status of a lingua franca for modernization. Given the circumstances, perhaps this strategy had some benefits. But clearly, it has run its course and hit a wall, creating a cultural crisis of sorts. Development and modernization is under way, but the Prakrits are hardly able to stand their ground or develop without losing their footing, their cultural character. 

The Prakrits try to fabricate indigenous terminology using Sanskrit root words (when they can avoid absorbing an English word directly), but the end result for the speaking populace is a language that sounds rather artificial and stilted - partly because of an artificial methodology of Sanskritization, and partly because the populace is no longer connected with spoken and written Sanskrit directly. 

Rather, the better way is to have Sanskrit revived as a parallel language, whose usages then seep into the Prakrits via a natural process - just like how English words are currently trickling into the Prakrits. The natural process that works with English will then work with Sanskrit, too; but with English it leads to a strange, miscegenation - a creole - whereas with Sanskrit it will be a native, classical upgrade.

Another effect of Anglicization is that the Prakrits are forced to become uniform and "modern" in their cultural tenor. They are unable to remain in their cultural orbit, but are forced to reflect - however awkwardly - the affectations of "modernity". With Sanskrit as a platform to manage modernity, a multi-orbit cultural system within Indic civilization can persist without distortion, and each Prakrit can remain comfortably at a desired distance from "modernity".

With Sanskrit in the saddle, India will be able to embrace globalization much better, without losing its own cultural footing. Moreover, it will make available the tremendous knowledge resources buried in Sanskrit, to itself and the world at large. The Prakrits - and English - can then flourish each in their own spheres, with Sanskrit as a platform.

Presented below are thoughts put together by a friend along with other participants at a forum (BRF). The model below is civilizational, not national. That means it is scalable to many countries and regions outside India that have a historical civilizational connection with Sanskrit, or aspire to re-establish a lost connection with Sanskriti, or aspire to create a new relationship afresh. The rest of this post reproduces his summary of thoughts on guiding principles for a policy framework for Sanskritization:

I have earlier often spoken of the need to have a Bharatiya language as India's Operating System if India hopes to be able to position itself as an independent civilizational pole in the world, and I have long favored Sanskrit 2.0 to take up that role.

The only way to preserve diversity in India is to provide the people of India with a platform which ensures its preservation.

What we have built today in the form of ethno-linguistic states is an acknowledgement of this diversity among the major ethno-linguistic groups, but within the region of authority of these ethno-linguistic groups we have allowed a process of reckless homogenization to the detriment of all smaller ethno-linguistic groups. One could even say, we have thrown the sheep to the wolves.

Now the problem is that the concept of federalization that we have started with the Center-State paradigm with respect to linguistic issues, we have failed to pursue the principle any further. Every ethno-linguistic group in India should have been given the authority and resources to preserve its literature, its stories, its music, its songs, its linguo-cultural heritage. However for all minority ethno-linguistic groups within the various states this has not been assured.

It is true, that within a certain region, the people need to deal with the administrative system in a standard medium, so as to make the functioning of the state run smoothly, but that in itself is no reason to emasculate the lingual heritage of a people, to let it die.

Each ethno-linguistic group should have the fundamental right to preserve its culture and the state needs to ensure that through the provision of suitable laws, their implementation, provision of resources and sufficient infrastructural encouragement.

However in order to get there, there is a need for various parties to understand a few principles:

I. "Principle of Respect for One's Language" - One has a right to demand respect for one's ethno-linguistic autonomy from a higher level of political authority, only if one is willing to give the same level of autonomy to ethno-linguistic groups within one's own sphere of political authority. If a state wishes that its language be given due respect by the Central Govt. then it too should respect the language of the various ethnic minority groups within the state, and provide the group with the resources to maintain their own language.

II. "Principle of Need for Upward Compatibility" - Every individual should be empowered to be upward compatible with all levels of cultural-political environments of which he is a part of. As such it is important to enable the citizen to learn all of the following languages: "Four-Language Vertical Integration Formula"!

Community-Language for (e.g. Tula, Toda, Maithili, Brij, Haryanvi, ...)
State-Language (e.g. Bengali, Marathi, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, ...)
National Language (e.g. Sanskrit 2.0)
Mandatory Foreign Language (e.g. English)

III. "Principle of Need for Cross-Peer Administrability" - One needs to work together with one's peers with whom one shares an environment, a common language being an essential feature of that environment and an essential condition for smooth working. Again every granular environment has peer granular environments which all share a higher environment. It is the higher environment's responsibility to be able to administer the granular sub-environments with minimum level of problems arising out of linguistic incompatibilities. The environment may be a village, a state, the nation or the world.

IV. "Principle of Recognition of Linguistic Dominance" - If we go about creating a federal structure consisting of regions of various levels of political granularity like nation, states, districts, tehsils, villages, etc., there would be some dominant ethno-linguistic group with a smattering of minorities in the given region. Even as it is important that minority rights be accepted, ethno-linguistic minorities would have to agree to recognize the dominant status of the majority ethno-linguistic group and thus to allow the official language of that political granularity level to be based on the language of the dominant group. Depending on the size of the minorities, the official language may have to concede some space to the minority languages as well and to integrate some part of their vocabulary into its own vocabulary and structure.

V. "Principle of Linguistic Neutrality" - In environments where it is not possible for some dominant ethno-linguistic group to politically assert its claim to define the official language of a certain region of political granularity over the objections and potentially resistance from other ethno-linguistic groups, all the linguistic stake-holders should agree to adopt a neutral language as the common official language. Neutrality can be accepted based on the "Principle of Equal Disadvantage in Learning". If all ethno-linguistic groups must exert a more or less equal effort in learning the language, then it could be considered neutral. Such a language can come from various sources - a foreign origin, a common ancestral classical language, or a language of small ethno-linguistic minority from among the group such that a maximum number of people among those concerned would have to exert themselves.

VI. "Principle of Common Cultural Space" - When there is a need to have common language mediums applicable across various ethno-linguistic groups, the commonality should be searched for in some common platform which allows the reproduction of the linguistic psyche of the various ethno-linguistic groups involved rather to be searched in an equally foreign language, a language too alien to reproduce the thought patterns of the people involved.

VII. "Principle of Classicism" - When there is a need to have common language mediums applicable across various ethno-linguistic groups, then one should also try to adopt a language through which much of the past glory of a culture and its literature can be made accessible. It is also important to choose a language where its rules of grammar have been written down.

VIII. "Principle of Linguistic Purity" - It is obvious that with time languages change. New technologies, new scientific research, new paradigms of organization, new forms of cultural expression, new products for consumption, all necessitate an enlargement of vocabulary. Many of these novelties may arise in other language spaces. If the foreign words or expressions have an etymology based on functionality or references to nature, then it may be possible to reproduce those foreign words using a similar etymological process in one's own language. However if the etymology was culturally based, it would be much more difficult to reconstruct the words or expressions in own language. In this case, one should simply import these foreign words into one's own language. Unless some foreign word or expression has no equivalent in the own language, or one wants to express some nuance which can only be expressed through the use of the foreign term, the foreign word or expression should be discouraged in the own language.

IX. "Principle of Love for Vernacular Language" - Every individual should feel proud of his mother tongue, so much so that the individual should try to preserve his own family's particular variant of his mother tongue. One should be cognizant that the official language of the area may not be the vernacular language, and if the moment is opportune, then one should always try to converse in one's own mother tongue.

X. "Principle of Consideration for Protocol" - One is often confronted with situations where multiple contexts are applicable - work place language, language of the political unit, languages of the higher levels political granularity, presence of community members, presence of guests from other language spaces, etc. Everyone has to make a call which language to speak based on all these factors. An understanding of such protocols in society does help.

Just a little effort to bring some clarity to the confusion!

Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 1

There are numerous reasons why individuals and groups anywhere in the world have chosen to make the Sanskrit language a part of their lives and societies. Curiously, in India one would expect a much greater appreciation of its value and potential than one currently finds, but fortunately a self-corrective grassroots movement is already afoot. Perhaps until this generation the time was not right. Now it appears that its time is come.

Founding Vision
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who chaired the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly and shaped modern India's Constitution, strongly favoured Sanskrit as the national language. He was a lifelong Sanskrit enthusiast, and was also the first Member of Parliament to speak briefly in Sanskrit in the House. Newspaper report posted here. 

A friend pointed out: 

REPORT OF THE SANSKRIT COMMISSION 1956-1957

The move to have Sanskrit had support in three crucial quarters, during the discussions in Constituent Assembly and within the Congress:

1) Scheduled Castes: B.R. Ambedkar was strongly in favor of making Sanskrit as India's National Language.

2) Muslims: Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (formerly Muslim League) made a strong appeal to have Sanskrit.

3) South India: Many Tamil members were also in favor.

Reproduced below is a quote from the above linked report:

As already indicated, the Constituent Assembly did not give a smooth sailing to the Bill on Hindi as the Official Languages. The majority which decided such a vital issue was one of the narrowest. During the few stormy days of the Constituent Assembly's discussion of this question, the impasse was sought to be solved by some members by proposing Sanskrit as the Rastrabhasa; and the late Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, who as the Law Member, was piloting the bill, was also reported to have favoured that proposal. In the course of the discussion of this question in the Assembly, several members, including some ardent protagonists of Hindi, paid due homage to Sanskrit. Apart from all this, the only other Indian languages for the adoption of which as the Rastra bhasha a regular amendment was moved, and discussion on which took a good part of the time of the Assembly, was Sanskrit.
As Shri Naziruddin Ahmad, advocating Sanskrit, put it on the floor of the House, a language that is adopted for the whole country, where so many languages are spoken, should be impartial, a language which is not the mother-tongue of any area, which is common to all regions, and the adoption of which will not prove an advantage to one part of the country and a handicap to all other parts. The late Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, who moved the amendment seeking to replace Hindi by Sanskrit as the Official Languages, observed in the Assembly, that, if Sanskrit was accepted, "all the jealousies, all this bitterness will vanish with all the psychological complex that has been created ............. there will not be the least feeling of domination or suppression of this or that". Thus, neutrality (or not being the spoken language of any section) has been urged as the first criterion of a National Language. That is why efforts were being made to create in Europe quite a new languages like Esperanto, to be used as the International Language perfected for this very purpose of all-India use through all these centuries, why throw it away? The neutrality of Sanskrit is not a mere negative quality; it is also the positive virtue of having grown by incorporating into itself elements from all other languages of the country. In this respect again, Sanskrit, which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is a synthesis of the best in all the cultural constituents of India, can truly claim to have been developed and enriched by every part of India.

My friend adds: I think that one vote by President Rajendra Prasad which clinched the choice in favor of Hindi, really changed the whole course of world history (if I may be so bold as to say that)! I am trying to retrace the steps. If Sanskrit had been adopted, English would not have been necessarily continued after its foreseen initial 15 years! However the report deserves to be read regardless of the above reason!

If there is one leader whose persona, ideas and preferences encompassed all the tremendous  practical socio-political changes of 60 years of  Indian independence, it is not Mahatma Gandhi, not Sardar Patel, not Nehru, but rather is Dr. Ambedkar. Many of his more talked about ideas on social reformation have created the greatest realignment of social forces in any nation in modern history - through the ballot rather than the bullet. His ideas on economic policy are still relevant, and the intention behind the Constitution's diversity policy are spelled out in the Preamble - to create a confidence and freedom in India that would lead to a fresh round of consilience of subcultures and a re-standardization of the civilizational discourse at a new normal, for a new age. A critical part of this standardization process was a linguistic platform that could serve the civilizational bandwidth. In this, he was not alone in identifying that Sanskrit is the natural choice, and he advocated an aggressive Sanskritization of India as a critical medium of bringing great value and deeply buried resources back onto the worktable, as well as to level out cultural iniquities across the land.

Because of Ambedkar's visionary advocacy of Sanskrit, it is not surprising that a biography of the father of India's Constitution has been written in Sanskrit - in verse!- a distinction not owned by any other national leader. The report below is heartwarming because of the story it tells, the penitent inspiration felt by the author, his devotion, and the pains borne in accomplishing the task...

Ambedkar’s first biography in Sanskrit

Many of Ambedkar's ideas in other spheres have borne fruit, or are in the process of bearing fruit. But the renaissance of Sanskrit lags behind the rest. Along with some governmental agencies, grassroots organizations such as Samskrita Bharati are actively bridging the gap, and this is a revolution that gives every individual citizen the rare opportunity to personally be part of a history-changing aspect of civilization-building.

Self-Improvement

Note that Sanskrit serves not 'nation-building' but 'civilization-building', because Sanskrit by its very nature as a meta-language is global in its bandwidth. Internationally, several countries already use it as a root language, and several more can sign up at whatever level of affiliation they feel comfortable with. Therefore, an individual living anywhere can contribute to this civilization-building by partaking of it, for it is a part of an interpersonal process of one's own self-improvement.

In his survey of the entire spectrum of human intelligence, the philosopher and political mentor Vidyaranya put down Sanskrit grammar and linguistics as one of the grades of knowledge and training in a hierarchy of 16 steps that lead from the base to the sublime in human semantics (see Sarva Darshana Sangraha). For Sanskrit grammar not only gives better form to an evolving natural language, but attempts to model speech itself according to the fullest scale of semantic expression. Therefore, it is a civilizing medium for  the edification of the human mind.

Sky and Earth: Sanskrit and Other Languages
Because of this, Sanskrit has a unique relationship to all Prakrits. The Prakrits are vernacular languages in India or any other country that participates in Sanskriti (a culture of refinement). Since its most ancient times, Sanskrit has itself borne the mark of all Prakrits who participated in the culture of Sanskriti. Even the language of the Vedas is considered distinct from nearby Iranic languages because it bears the stamp of "Dravidian" phonetics from South India in its very rudiments. Conversely, a classical Dravidian language like Tamil reveals in its heart an inseparable contribution from Sanskrit in all its aspects, even in its word for "yes" (आम्) / ஆம்)!

Sanskrit does not compete with Prakrits for mindshare, but instead it absorbs their matter and distills it - and then returns the favour by enriching them with a more refined product. Consider an analogy:

Under the warmth of a shared sun, water evaporates from the various rivers, seas, ponds, even the most contaminated gutters, marshes and swamps, and forms clouds in the skies. Depending on the direction of the winds of time, the clouds move and discharge their distilled product. Similarly, Sanskrit has traditionally always absorbed material from all the subcultures that formed part of a shared sphere of civilization, and dispensed its influence on communities related to those fields of human endavour that most absorbed that civilization in any particular era. It re-formed, crystallized and standardized words and meanings according to the best knowledge of the day, and replenished those same Prakritic sources with semantically adjusted words that were standardized across the civilizational span at any given point in time.

Therefore, the Prakrits contribute to Sanskrit, and vice versa. They have a mother-father relationship, and enhance not just one another, but contribute differently and in parallel to the psychological and intellectual development of the children that speak both. May this union revive and prosper.

Reasons, reasons, reasons
Most of the reasons given above are applicable to anyone on the planet, any society that is searching for a methodical approach to globalization, a psycho-linguistic superstructure that can encompass and re-crystallize its diverse cultural patterns without threatening the integrity of their local native culture and language. This is a real challenge in today's world. Languages propagating by sheer economic influence compete for mindspace and cannot interface very well with local languages, or if they do it leads to an ugly creole replacing the original. No wonder there is quite a bit of...er...kolaveri among cultural vigilantes everywhere about the watered-down pop culture.

One landmass colliding with another will lead to distortions or submergence. But a language that intrinsically operates at a higher human level than the bazaar would answer the need. A sky and earth relationship; the sky does not interfere with the diversity underneath, and yet influences it substantively via changes in states and modes.

Of course, many of the people of India have no need for reasons to learn Sanskrit any more than they have a reason to love their fathers. It is directly connected with their identity, their Asmita. Or one could say that the people of India have a special reason to learn Sanskrit - because the sky is so high!

"Louder" dialogue: Right foot forward

Here's a line of thought that advocates a greater focus on internal dialogue and external covert ops, along with a drastic reduction of external dialogue, diplomacy, and "cultural exchange" with any nation or party that misuses protocols and engages in a one-pointed agenda of hate.

Sometime during my 11th or 12th grade, a young man walked into class and said he was our new physics teacher - a male teacher at an all boys school where most staff members are female. In our small world, some of us in the backbenches thought it was in the same category as being a male nurse. It was a class in which the backbenches were extraordinarily eager to participate: We would keep interjecting, "Lowda sir! Sir, lowda please!" while pretending that we were straining to hear him. Lowda is Hindi slang for 'dick', or 'dick off', pronounced a bit like English "louder". He became a target because we thought: (a) There was something odd and out-of-place, (b) We could take liberties that we couldn't take with other teachers just because we had a common gender,  (c) But we still had to treat him like a teacher because of rules and the risk of punishment. In this game, plausible deniability is the best policy.

It is said that the human subconscious is more vulnerable to insanity than the animal kingdom because we evolved the faculty of speech, and especially because of homonymic words in human speech (homonym: a word with more than one distinct meaning). Add to that a multilingual society with an alien "elite" language transplanted across cultures, and it makes it all the more fun.

But insanity is after all just the final limiting condition of a long process, when a lie or a misunderstood idea has been consciously practiced over and over against all reason, with such unrelenting stubbornness that it finally finds its hiding place in the subconscious.

Fortunately, even backbenchers know when a joke ceases to be funny. But in the merciless world of politics, a deadly combination of dissimulation and crushing ridicule of the other would be too good to let go, decency be damned. Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter? Is the white man's burden the heavy loot from India or the setting up of convent schools over the rubble of its society? Does "jihad" mean holy war, interfaith diplomacy or inner struggle? Or all three (while "terrorists have no religion")? Does "secularism" and "communalism" in Hindu India mean exactly the same thing as it does in a Western society re-negotiating its relationship with Christian authority?

Generalizing from the case above, the requirements are that the unfortunate target is: (a) A person, party or nation that oddly sets itself up (or has been set up) for ridicule by its non-traditional methods of conducting policy or expressing its purpose, (b) Participates in creating some cultural commonality and familiarity that invites contempt - by allowing for a certain leeway in etiquette that can be used to subvert the intent of dialogue, and (c) And yet expects to be taken seriously and holds out the threat of punishment.

In the Logic of the Nyaya-sutras, Gautama says that there are 3 well-known types of argumentative dialogue:

प्रमाणतर्क्कसाधनोपालम्भस्सिद्धान्तविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहो "वादः" ॥१.२.१॥ 

"Discussion (vaada) is the adoption of one of two opposing sides. What is adopted is analysed in the form of five members, and defended by the aid of any of the means of right knowledge, while its opposite is assailed by confutation, without deviation from the established tenets."

To put it simply: A "discussion" is an honest effort to understand and arrive at a truer conclusion - either from the winning side, or a newly created understanding of the subject after listening to both sides. That's what classroom discussions should be trying to do. That's what history-writers, scientists, religions and philosophers should be trying to do. That's what the media should be trying to do in a national discourse. That could also be what international discourse and relations could do.

What is significant is that partisanship is not derided here. Anyone can have their point of view to begin with. But the discussion is carried forward on sound principles of logic and a love of truth, not hatred or prejudice.

But if any of the above prostitute themselves to politics and partisanship, then one of the following ensues:

यथोक्तोपपन्नश्छलजातानिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भो "जल्पः" ॥१.२.२॥ 

"Wrangling (jalpa), which aims at gaining victory, is the defence or attack of a proposition in the manner aforesaid by quibbles, futilities, and other processes which deserve rebuke."

Zhou Enlai's cocky assertion that "diplomacy is war by other means" is the most honest description of a dishonest mentality, spoken by one who oversaw the transition from communism to ethnic nationalism - one visceral movement to another.

स्वप्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनो "वितण्डा" ॥१.२.३॥ 

"Cavil (vitanda) is a kind of wrangling which consists in mere attacks on the opposite side."

Clausewitz's well-known quote "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means" appropriately comes from the colonial age in Europe - a Europe that hadn't been so successful with the religious Crusades in an earlier time. Historical background plays a big part in the dialectic quality of the thought process (ref. earlier blogpost - Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics).

What is fascinating is that wranglers and practitioners of cavil are often the ones quickest to disavow or rebuke partisanship in all its forms, raising cries of "communalism", "religious fanaticism", "social inequality", "reason versus faith" and a host of false dichotomies.

Its not that visceral, detrimental partisanship doesn't exist. Its just that its possible for someone to have a partisan view as an aesthetic rather than a visceral propensity. And there lies the rub. In casting suspicion and following it up with wrangling and cavil, one can reduce an aesthetic proposition to a visceral threat. That's an important datum for "strategists" right there.

In fact, it seems to be a rather popular tactic. In India's national discourse, Modi is basically subjected to a one-point cavil response to almost anything his supporters have to offer. (See this video of the English media's latest feeding frenzy.)

But it is best seen applied in international relations, whether it is the Indian subcontinent or any other theater of international affairs. Vajpayee was riding the peace bus to Lahore amid much fanfare, while Musharraf's "mujahideen" were creeping up on Kargil. A "war of a thousand cuts" using "non-state actors" is waged while also cultivating "track II diplomacy". Cultural exchange is used by the guests and their internal hosts to shape India's national discourse, rather than the other way round.

"Citizen diplomacy" is fruitful only if the agents of dialogue are reasonably in sync with their nation's purpose and philosophy. Such individuals from both sides can use the informality and good intentions to create a genuine dialogue and enhance mutual understanding. If India had genuine representatives, I would be all in favour of track II diplomacy and cultural exchange. But an octogenarian Wagah Candle Holder pining for his ancestral aangan in Lahore and trying to keep alive his dhimmi-schooled father's Urdu may not be India's best foot forward. 

Nor, in my view, is a "secularist" who is unwilling to acknowledge the depth and real context of India's civilization as a valid (and valuable) starting point in modern times, much less take pride in it. What is he willing to fight and die for? - That question undergirds his qualification to dialogue on behalf of the nation, rather than merely his "pacifist" unwillingness to fight. Or worse. (See this interesting speech by M.J. Akbar on the Idea of India.) 

This is all the more important because this generation of warfare has stepped out of the conventional framework of Westphalian states, and its driving force goes beyond a primitive nationalism and even political-economic ideology. In this scenario, there are "countries" today that are not really nation-states in the proper sense of the term, they are sly foxes in the garb of law abiding nation-states. Their behaviour confuses naive observers, who call them "failed states" that are not quite failing. But the fact is that they were never meant to be successful as nation-states. Their success lies in something else, something much larger. Taking advantage of the protocols of being called a nation-state and especially a failing one that cannot control "non state actors" is part of that larger war, specifically its diplomatic aspect.

When this is the big picture, a nation that is in a make-believe delusion that the context is about nation-states is decidedly out-of-place and a naive oddity, setting itself up for others to play games with it. Therefore, those Indian commentators that try to distract the nation by calling a strangely idiotic "pride" to the fact that India is not considered as "failed" a state as some others are deluding the people. Knowingly or unknowingly, they are a direct hazard to the future crystallization of India's national purpose, much less ideal representatives in dialogue with others.

As long as India cannot put its "right" foot forward, its probably better to keep transactions limited to covert ops where required, as punishment for specific actions or to cultivate certain trends. At the same time, the need of the hour is for a vigorous discussion (not wrangling, not cavil) within India, to clarify and then solidify the idea of India going forward. As actions speak louder than words, this combination of internal dialogue and hard external ops will make for a "louder" dialogue, decency be damned.

Identity and Learning: Worlds within worlds

Popular media and political parties seem to thrive on false dichotomies. Some are more transparent than others. Are faith and reason mutually exclusive? Is secularism and diversity endangered by Hinduism? Is democracy compatible with Islam? Is China's one-party system better than India's democracy at this stage of development? One bloc of countries is invading others to give them the gift of capitalist democracy, another bloc works to cure the disease of capitalism and bring social justice, while a third is trying to give everyone the gift of faith and religious law. Buffeted by internationalist blocs and their local sepoys, some Indians prefer to define themselves merely as "being different" from others based on a shared racial memory. How can Indians think about our identity more creatively while engaging with everyone in a globalizing environment?

Fundamental Hindu philosophy says that holistic survival can happen if we all become one - and we can become one while remaining diverse because our desires for distinctive categories reside simultaneously in each of us. We  can become reflections of each other while not becoming copies of one other. We can see and work on reflections of others in ourselves, and ourselves in others. Moreover, the adventure of consciousness blossoms in stages, and each stage reveals petals that protect others within: whorls within whorls. Each whorl is an iteration in the civilizing process of Man.

Below is a tentative table listing some civilizational iterations. Convenient names of historical civilizations have been used to characterize prominent cardinal values in each iteration. Original material borrowed from The Order of Time and modified. 

These can be applied to an individual or a culture as a whole. Various cultures of the world have managed to cycle through or assimilate few or more of these iterations. Its also pretty clear that some need to make more progress than others. 

Each iteration builds on preceding ones, so some individuals/cultures may need to "re-tribalize" in order to re-build a proper foundation for holistic growth rather than face increasing deracination as they "progress".

Once in 1992, Lee Kwan Yew, the architect of Singapore's successful city-state, was invited to Pakistan as part of a cultural exchange, to discuss ideas for developing an Asian economy using "Asian values", and to make way for investments. His hosts told him about the ideology of Pakistan, the two-nation theory, the inspiration of Islam, its values and mission, and the problems it was facing. At the end, Mr. Lee exclaimed, "How can a culture that places all its value in a life after death create a thriving entrepreneurial and innovation-based modern economy?!" Apparently he correlated purposes with values and virtues, and for a society with a fixation on one particular iteration, he saw a serious problem.

The purposes of any iteration have been looked at from four viewpoints: 

1. Non-illusion, i.e., what kinds of data is considered more 'real' and significant than others. The Selection of Importances is basic to any course of action and further cognition. 
2. Love, i.e., how is affinity expressed in the context of that iteration. The kinds of affinity and identification  it allows directly corresponds to the smooth flows of that same type of communication, as well as the type of reality that can be shared by participants of that iteration.
3. Reward, i.e., the medium that provides satisfaction for participants. This has a direct effect on the political-economic order possible at that iteration. It can intensify or dampen the production-consumption cycle, and have similar effects on all other forms of oscillations.
4. Social quality, i.e., the attitude it creates at the social apart from individual level, in either mobilizing people or affecting them in other cultural ways: actions, speech, thoughts, etc. This will be a trigger for the kinds of "rights" and obligations that people at a particular iteration tend to prioritize and are willing to fight for.
5. Effect, i.e., the net political effect of that iteration at the individual as well as social level.

A quick summary of the above table:

The Zeroeth Iteration  (Vedic) has as its essence a vigilant meditation as a permanent state of mind. Its net effect is "discipline". Here "discipline" doesn't mean a regimen, but rather discipleship. The Vedic effect is to be at cause over "knowingness", and therefore to gain the ability of continuous, never-ending learning. 

The purposeful values of any iteration can't be treated as absolutes - that would be an error. Rather, its Values are better interpreted according to practical Principles aimed at bringing about a desired Reality. This desired Reality is the quality of consciousness that is sought to be achieved for some purpose. Each such Reality (consciousness) manifests certain Virtues that indicate its existence symptomatically. For this  Zeroeth iteration, the relationship can be represented as follows:

The First Iteration (Asian) has as its goal "community", and therefore its values, principles and virtues align with that, in a sense of regimen and harmony.

The Second Iteration (Platonian) has as its goal "politics". So its values, principles and virtues align with this purpose of the art and science of governing any sphere of affairs - individual or social.

The Third Iteration (Christian) is inherently an inverted, subjective reality, and has as its goal sacrifice. Here is an inversion, a gambit of one reality for another, where there is gain through loss.

The Fourth Iteration (Mohammedan) is a sufferance, an austerity, executed at a sunset of sorts. A penitent austerity, an abandonment or killing of past, and a turning about and journey back to a lost Center. It is  a cult phase, of correction and radicalization of old orders. But inversion and radicalism can result in unhinged fixations also.

The Fifth Iteration (Cartesian) is a rational foundation of inquiry based on empirical observation. Undertaken holistically, it is the beginning of being able to work with two (or more) realities simultaneously, a spiritual dualism. Undertaken without completing the earlier iterations, it can become a permanent deracination from spiritual reality.

The Sixth Iteration (Democratic) introduces accountability of all parts to the whole. It is devolution of responsibility.

The Seventh Iteration (Economic) is the organizing principle of any order that can encourage or discourage different types of responsibility. It is the base of the pyramid.

The Eighth Iteration (Interfaith) takes into account that at least at a global level, human civilization will always have a "cleft" in it - apart from the mainstream, there will be crosscurrents, subversive points of view, a rejectionist section of defectors or drop-outs. Certain ideologies will always exist that cater to this eternal tendency. A mature civilization can create a working unity even with this cleft, and turn it into an advantage by becoming a motor for continuous technological and ideological evolution. Apart from humanity as a whole, civilizations such as India have always included a cleft in it, and perhaps modern America is moving in that direction fast.

The Last Iteration has been tentatively named "A New Dualism", and its goal is one of social control - one that resolves a problem by inspiring and re-channeling human social forces towards a new purpose and greater satisfaction and justice. This re-purposing would go hand in hand with cleaning up the corruptions that indicate that the old order is running into several limiting conditions or stepping on unseen triggers - a dangerous "I didn't know the gun was loaded" condition that could threaten survival. I have called it "Dualism" because it is the full ripening of what began with the Fifth Iteration (Cartesian) and is able to fully work with two ontological realities seamlessly.

In the various anti-corruption movements or 'revolutions' today, there is a discernible move by different nations to complete their own incomplete iterations, or remove obstacles from the ones they have attempted. Some are proving to be more smooth and successful at progressing than others. What gives? 

A progressive characteristic may have something to do with the underlying self-definition. The more abstract and dynamic, the smoother and more flexible. The more prescriptive or history-centric, the more reaction and conflict one can expect. Rajiv Malhotra's discussion of History-Centric traditions versus non History-Centric culture is relevant here.

A famous mantra from the Vedas and Upanishads. It was supposedly also quoted a lot by The Buddha to his disciples:

चरन् वै मधु विन्दति चरन् स्वादुम् उदुम्बरं 

सूर्यस्य पश्य श्रेमनं यो न तन्द्रयते चरन् |

चरैवेति चरैवेति ||    

~ ऐतरेय ब्राह्मण 7-15-5

One translation:

"The moving one wins nectar, 

The moving one gets delicious pickings. 

Look at the superiority of the Sun

Which is never tired of moving. 

Keep moving, Keep moving."

~ Aitareya Brahmana 7-15-5

Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics

In the Itihasas and Puranas of India, history is treated in a way that befuddled Western historians 200 years ago. The time-linear historical vector was only one thread, which was woven into an epic narrative, which in turn had its origins in a faraway but all-illuminating mythos. Western historians like Max Mueller initially rubbished this as fecund imagination not fit for historical data - after all, he pointed out, its absurd that they speak of an ancient history stretching far earlier than 5000 years (when the world was created according to authentic Biblical scholars)! That's become a joke now, but little has been done to re-evaluate this civilization's heritage from its own point of observation. Further, this innovative treatment of history is not an eccentricity unique to India. The great Persian poet and historian Ferdowsi, author of the epic Shahnameh, also speaks of these three threads: tareekh - time-linear historical events, hamaaseh - the epic heroic narrative between good and evil), and the asaateer - the mythological legends that encapsulate the collective psychological source of his civilization. This mythology sits on the horizon of conscious memory and time immemorial. Taken together, they help the civilization evolve by carrying forward the lessons of historical experience while maintaining its own essence and integrity, its soul.

Psychohistory is a modern discipline that attempts to study the psychodynamics behind historical patterns, past and present. Using the insights of process philosophy and psychotherapy, along with the research methods of sociology, anthropology and ethnology, it tries to understand the emotional origin of the behavior and choices made by social and political groups and nations as they happened in the actual context of their own times and places. A special angle of analysis is interpersonal relations according to the culture of that time, place and technological environment. Gender relationships and social divisions are re-organized differently based on the technological and cultural horizons in which society has to survive and operate most efficiently.

Psychohistory is fairly common sense, and is important because all too often we wrongly superimpose present day values onto a past circumstance and make an emotional judgment about it. A poetic observation that evoked religious awe in geocentric minds in millenniums past may prompt a supercilious wisecrack in classrooms today - but that would be a willful failure to appreciate the context and therefore the substance and validity of that work emerging on a different horizon. Its similar in the case of interpersonal and social relations in different eras and climes. A hierarchical social division that served well and harmoniously in feudal-agricultural times will certainly become unjust if it persists beyond its usefulness into the present day and age, but that doesn't mean it had the same effect in that earlier age.

Needless to say, one's Point of Observation can make all the difference in one's own affective states, and the cognition and action that can proceed from it. Awareness and education, as well as a general sense of contentment, self-esteem and detachment about life goes a long way into being able to find the optimal Point of Observation in any situation.

The present dispensation in India and the system it has nurtured is not just nationwide but pan-subcontinental and even international in terms of its primary dynamics. Its Point of Observation is not Indocentric. Chacha Nehru uvaacha: "I am an Englishman by education, a Moslem by culture, and a Hindu by accident." Fortunately or unfortunately, he was a child of the times for someone from his background. (Fortunately or unfortunately, other leaders like Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi or Sardar Patel were of a different hue and had a different perspective, though they didn't live to personally steer the Executive happily ever after.)

The current dispensation uses the same political methods that survived from the British colonial machinery and the Islamist powers that went before: extra-national allies, subversive elements, internal wedges and  external buffers to contain any resurgence of the core. Moreover, it tries to ideologically and culturally inoculate the civilizational core against its own essence; sort of 'Bollywood'-izes it. It thrives on perpetuating general poverty while encouraging the formation of rich new oligarchies and interest groups that pledge loyalty. This leads to competition for resources and quotas, amid widening inequality. Its ideological moles then frame a victimhood narrative to deepen the cleft, and its other allies use it to win converts from the core toward the cultural periphery, or towards a subversive movement, or to the outright antithesis.

The typical Communist ideologue (generally mistaken for a 'historian' at all our elite universities) uses a dialectic based on a deeply flawed psychohistory: It takes something that is an oddity or injustice in Present Time context, and superimposes its present sense of absurdity, grievance, or deprivation on history in a way that completely distorts the vastly different circumstances of that historical process. This retrospective distortion magnifies the grievance or ridicule, and makes the "burden of history" too painful to bear. The resentment is then used for push-button politics, mobilization and social engineering. Without a doubt, this social "reformer" is actually the angel of death as far as the civilization is concerned. Since he can't pick up the threads of the past in present time, he cannot help it evolve into the future. He can only try to nullify it as a step to "year zero".

More insidiously, after allowing the body politic to be periodically wracked by violence, the dispensation then encourages a maudlin sentimentality and a wishy washy "synthesis" culture from the thesis and antithesis. What's interesting about these periodic bouts of 'Aman ki Asha' is that it always initiates this "synthesis" by using the cultural preferences, dogmatic core and hackneyed accusations of the periphery and the subversive as the starting point (thesis), with the native core viewpoint (usually a travesty of psychohistory) framed as the flexible, fungible, or downright illogical and unjust 'other' (antithesis).

But this is a devious misapplication of dialectics: It is an epistemological observation that if the human mind is first possessed of an untruth, and is then confronted with a truer piece of data (true to the self), it first rejects it via a process of Othering. Any synthesis subsequently formed is of less truth value than the newly introduced data, though it may be better than the untrue figment that was used as the starting point. Its a positive outcome for the less civilized parasitic horde, but a net negative outcome for the more civilized host nation if it internalizes this "syncretic" culture.

If the ruling dispensation primarily addresses the periphery, the subversive and the outright antithesis of the Dharmic core as the point of departure for the evolution of Indian civilization, what occurs is not evolution but devolution. This social-engineered punctuated equilibrium is a slow death spiral for Indian civilization in stages...wherein the final nails in the coffin will be hammered in by enthusiastic and well-intentioned native deracinates who consider themselves as belonging to the core, but don't know any better.

Perhaps the first task is to reorder the political and educational discourse, and capture the dialectic initiative with a vigorous purva-paksha (clear statement of difference, what we are not). The work of people such as Rajiv Malhotra is very relevant in these times. Along with that, the core Dharmic forces need to create an all-inclusive and all-encompassing responsibility for society that outflanks the periphery and reduces it to an island, that pulls the carpet from under the feet of the subversives, and that defeats the untrue antithesis on the strength of demonstrated evidence.

Some related thoughts in this speech by Swaminathan Gurumoorthy on globalization and India: