Violence and Kshātra: War, Religion & Philosophy

The recent roadside butchery of a serviceman in Londonistan is a high-visibility, low-impact advertisement for jihad. It happens all the time in India. It can be thought-provoking, amusing and also chilling to observe the reactions within the Muslim community in the wake of every such incident.

It is familiar to hear the taqiyyah on TV of some Muslim representatives telling non-Muslims that 'jihad' is primarily an act of self-improvement or a struggle against social injustice, rather than an act of war or violence. But there are several other Muslim sheikhs, intellectuals and bloggers now emerging who are more frank and philosophically succinct in that jihad was indeed primarily defined as an act of battle. However, they still do draw a line between legitimate jihad and anarchist terrorism. E.g.:

Blog - The Humble "I": Terrorism is to Jihad as Adultery is to Marriage

In their everyday lives and drawing room discussions, the initial reaction is embarrassment, irritation or self-pity at the real or imagined stares and uncomfortable silences of colleagues at the workplace or fellow travelers on the metro or bus. There is some condemnation of the perps not being good Muslims. But when that starts happening, there is always the wise voice that reminds the gathering that according to the widespread interpretation of Islam even major sins do not constitute a breach of Iman (faith in the eyes of Allah), so one should not judge the perps on that count. Besides, the political cause brandished by the perps cannot be brushed away, one is reminded - the US has invaded Muslim countries.

In discussions that follow, many of those that initially condemn the perps then jump to the defence of the Saudis, who are not to be unfairly considered the prime petrodollar proliferators of these takfiri ideologies, but rather as those who support the schooling of the most hardened fighters in legitimate jihads such as the ongoing one in Syria, while dealing equally swiftly and mercilessly with anarchic criminals and terrorists. The discussion then veers around to how such criminals who bring Islam a bad name are affected by psychiatric illnesses.

My feeling is that while clinical or sub-clinical psychological problems may play a big part in such behaviors, the fact that such criminals seem to most easily find support for their paranoid schizophrenic tendencies in particular types of ideology is not being considered. For doctrinal adherents, the same ideology that famously breeds the most admirably hardened jihadis in West Asia, Af-Pak and Africa is not to be blamed if these lunatics misuse it. I've heard the analogy used: a good car cannot be blamed in an accident involving a crazy driver.

In their worldview, there are obvious injustices in the world, such as the West invading Muslim countries to exploit their resources. Therefore, a "complete system" covering all aspects of life must involve the use of violence and the priming of the mind to clinically execute acts of violence against an oppressor or anyone who displeases Allah. That the violent component of the philosophy is in the mould of a religion seems to be the hardiest, most viable, sleekest and most powerful solution to them, an unbeatable gift, and they frankly or secretly admire it and are proud of it. In fact, Napoleon and Hitler and many a military leader have recorded their secret admiration of Islam and its rugged utility, and wished they had such a system at their disposal in their nations. It does not strike its adherents as having any inherent problems whatsoever. The spartan warrior's religion, the prophet-king or his viceregent, these are romanticized. 

In this vein, a certain predominant cultural meme comes to the surface in Islamic society. It is a meme that is in every society including our own - but Islamic society is the only one to invest it with the crown of spiritual potential in a particular way... One therefore often sees Muslim youth, even in the West, become part of the subculture of War and Death that is anyway always there in the West. A sample:

Chris Hedges' "War is a force that gives us meaning"

 "Sarajevo in the summer of 1995 came close to Dante’s inner circle of hell. The city, surrounded by Serb gunners on the heights above, was subjected to hundreds of shells a day, all crashing into an area twice the size of Central Park. Ninety-millimeter tank rounds and blasts fired from huge 155-millimeter howitzers set up a deadly rhythm of detonations. 

Multiple Katyusha rockets – whooshing overhead – burst in rapid succession; they could take down a four- or five-story apartment building in seconds, killing or wounding everyone inside. There was no running water or electricity and little to eat; most people were subsisting on a bowl of soup a day. It was possible to enter the besieged city only by driving down a dirt track on Mount Igman, one stretch directly in the line of Serb fire. The vehicles that had failed to make it lay twisted and upended in the ravine below, at times with the charred remains of their human cargo inside.

Families lived huddled in basements, and mothers, who had to make a mad dash to the common water taps set up by the United Nations, faced an excruciating choice – whether to run through the streets with their children or leave them in a building that might be rubble when they returned.

The hurling bits of iron fragmentation from exploding shells left bodies mangled, dismembered, decapitated. The other reporters and I slipped and slid in the blood and entrails thrown out by the shell blasts, heard the groans of anguish, and were, for our pains, in the sights of Serb snipers, often just a few hundred yards away. The latest victims lay with gaping wounds untended in the corridors of the hospitals that lacked antibiotics and painkillers. 

When the cease-fires broke down, there would be four to five dead a day, and a dozen wounded. It was a roulette wheel of death, a wheel of fire that knew no distinctions of rank or nationality.  

By that summer, after nearly four years of fighting, forty-five foreign reporters had been killed, scores wounded. I lived – sheltered in a side room in the Holiday Inn, its front smashed and battered by shellfire – in a world bent on self-destruction,a world where lives were snuffed out at random.
...
I learned early on that war forms its own culture. The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug, one I ingested for many years. It is peddled by mythmakers, historians, war correspondents, filmmakers, novelists, and the state – all of whom endow it with qualities it often does possess: excitement, exoticism, power, chances to rise above our small stations in life, and a bizarre and fantastic universe that has a grotesque and dark beauty. It dominates culture, distorts memory, corrupts language, and infects everything around it, even humor, which becomes preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death.  

Fundamental questions about the meaning, or meaninglessness, of our place on the planet are laid bare when we watch those around us sink to the lowest depths.  

War exposes the capacity for evil that lurks not far below the surface within all of us. And this is why for many war is so hard to discuss once it is over. 

The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when
we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves.  

And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are susceptible to war’s appeal.

That subculture of Death, whether it expresses itself as a fascination with arms, or a Goth fad, is present in all human societies, more in some than in others. But rarely does it find itself as the crowning jewel of religious faith. This is even stronger than other ideologies such as Communism that have also traditionally glorified bloody guerrilla tactics and terror.

In my humble opinion, if the philosophical consideration of violence were truly defensive in spirit, or as a creative destruction and a means to an end, it would never be cast in the mould of religion itself - such as the jihadi meme. Rather, the comprehensive philosophical justification of violence would probably be cast in the mould of a fight against precisely such a cult of glorified and religiously directed violence or domination. To quote the famous mantra:

॥ इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुरः कृण्वन्तो विश्वं आर्यं अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ॥ 

"Augmented by Indra's (Soma's) strength, civilize the world by destroying the non-liberal and jealous ones." ~ Rigveda 9.63.5

It appears that the fundamentalism of each viewpoint on violence could be rooted in different spheres. Violence (and sex) are forces that contain information that most humans cannot consciously process. To overlay that with the significance of religious commandment is dicey, so the fundamentals are key. Recently a friend pointed out (BRF):

Modern brain research shows there are three layers of the brain: reptilian, middle and neocortex and reflect evolution. The reptilian brain is the one that provides the auto responses and the neocortex all the pleasant high thinking that allows human society to develop and prosper. A religious "philosophy" that is plugged into the wellsprings of violence is fashioned for the reptilian brain and reinforces the auto responses of hostility.

The world renowned neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, who also shares an interest in different classes of religious experience, wrote a book "The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's quest for what makes us human" (PDF here), which is also a good read in this regard.

There are strong indications of this link between jihadism and brain function. Sometimes this 'reptilian' limbic brain is channeled for purposes of law and order-and-consolidation, and at other times it is channeled for purposes of aggression-without-reservation. It manifests itself in the bedroom as on the battlefield. Consider this revelation in the Qur'an about how a man should respond to his wife if they get into a disagreement -

Qur'an 4:34 (link) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

The part in italics is what happens between dysfunctional couples from a particular strata of society anyway (more widespread in certain cultures). If they get into a disagreement, the husband first "admonishes" her. If she remains stubborn, they probably withdraw sexually and become silently hostile for a while. If it gets nasty, then it comes down to physical abuse ('fighting and fucking' syndrome). Numerous such cases are found in any society. This, then, is Allah's revelation in the Qur'an. One could say that it is a civilizing guideline - not to beat her right away, but to first admonish, then stop sleeping with her, and use physical intimidation as a last resort, and to forgive and reconcile if she surrenders, rather than seek divorce prematurely. But still this civilizing force doesn't rise above the basic idea of male possession and authority over the female, or the right to use physical intimidation. This equation is only one cultural mode of male-female relationships, a caveman ethic which has its legitimate place and attraction in the larger scheme of things. It is an integral part of the relationship, but one doesn't find the other, liberal modes of this relationship discussed adequately in the Qur'an. It is true that Islamic law and subsidiary literature is full of exhortations to kindness towards ones spouse, the joys of marriage, etc., but they all have as the background this basic tone. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Qur'an dwells mostly on one brain mode of thought, relationship and action. That mode has its own validity, but when it is not balanced out by comprehensive discussion on other modes, then it is very problematic.

To extend the brain analogy: When something is cast in the mould of the reptilian brain, the person identifies with it possessively. It becomes the end, not the means. It produces irrational not rational thought. It is no longer "philosophical" even if specious arguments are used to show how there is obvious justification for its form and action. Even when those motivator justifications are no longer there in the environment, they will be manufactured. Thus, there is an undercurrent of either provocation or reaction.

In the above Vedic mantra on dharma-yuddha to make the universe Arya (noble), it is the mobilized mass of "non-liberal" elves-turned-orcs that is sought to be fought and civilized. Here also there is reaction involved, no doubt, but it is not provocative in the same way as a cult of violence. It is a war meme, no doubt, but the difference is subtle. It is the difference between the Sikh Khalsa and Aurangzeb's forces. A post from another blog on this mantra:

Blog: Kal Chiron: "कृण्वन्तो विश्वं आर्यं " - Civilize the world - In what context?

The Vedic idea of war is truly philosophical, rather than religious and pseudo-philosophical. Because the Veda has a prominent line of thought against the Dasyu-Dāsa combine that generates illiberal tendencies in society as a means of control and expansion of political power. This has been blogged here earlier [The Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic vs. "class struggle" theory]. A friend pointed out (BRF):

Even if one observes these traits to be common in Islamic society, one should still give credit to Islam that it has mastered the reptilian brain behavior and made a science out of it, and learned how to both bolster it as well as how to channelize it. The elites in Islamic societies often use it to their political ends. 

This mastery however shows a neo-cortical behavior. 

So even if an individual or most individuals in Islamic societies may display reptilian brain behavior, at the forest level, there are cold calculations.

It must be recognized that the religious commandment-philosophy of jihad is a very refined tool, indeed. It is not merely a childish, "irrational" eccentricity. Communist anarchists have a secret admiration for the ability of Islamist elites to mobilize "Koran rage" demonstrations across the planet. As the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have said, "If one can ride the Ego like a well-trained and blinkered horse, one will reach the goal very swiftly."

And that is true. But it is the other ingredients of training and of being human that make the difference between whether one is riding a horse or a tiger. Separating the means and the end is a big part of sanity. If Service is the end, then Conflict is only a means. In terms of varna, the kshatriya must always be trained to be strictly subordinate to the brāhmana limb of consciousness or society; never the other way around.

As per Swami Dayananda Saraswati's commentary (Arya Samaj), the Vedas say that a Complete Man (Arya) is one who has the following abilities:
1. Domesticate animals (and the animal within) to perform constructive works for nation-building,
2. Cook a delicious meal from a balanced assortment of natural ingredients for a mainly lacto-vegetarian diet,
3. Use weapons expertly in battle - not in rage, but channeled with the clinical intention of killing or repulsing the enemy who hates him,
4. Know the science and art of music, especially for Vedic chants.

Personally, I'm almost there - I've been domesticated by women, I love honoring a well-cooked meal, I get an adrenaline rush just by watching martial arts on TV, and I prefer music to white noise any day.

Priest-craft: Managed solutions vs. Unmanaged customizations

The name and signature of any particular element is of primary importance in changing a cultural, psychological or technical system. For instance, these days the main problem in discussing Indian religious and secular culture is semantic confusion. Terms like "religion" are used from a purely Christo-Islamic perspective, rather than understood from within the 'pagan' Indic context. 'Hinduism' is called a "religion" by secularists, and 'Hindutva' fundamentalism is compared to Islamic fundamentalism. This is ludicrous. Similarly, within the cacophony of 'Hindutva' aspirants, many do conflate reinforcement of tradition with an all-inclusive eternal philosophy, thus justifying the reservations some opponents may have. [See 'Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist'].

Two kinds of dharmas - faith-based and ethics-based
There are two main categories of Dharma (broadly, Ethics). In its most comprehensive and truly universal sense, it is One Sanatana Dharma (eternal Dharma), or the Philosophia Perennis that Western philosophers have tried to discern. Then there are the several dharmic applications that are bound by purpose, culture, etc.

Among these applied dharmas, there are again two types - those dharmas that are received as "managed" solutions for the individual or a society, and those that are received as "unmanaged" solutions for the individual or society. This blogpost focuses on these two.

Consider an analogy that is applicable to, both, the individual as well as a society. The figure below describes an operating environment. Its substrate is an operating system that provides an unlimited set of resources, mapping logics, etc. But at the very top, the actual observed behaviour only reflects that part of this fundamental system that is allowed to shine through. Even those parts that are allowed to shine through may be intercepted and over-ridden. Most other aspects may be suppressed, or masked.

Between this fundamental operating substrate and the externally observed behaviour lie solutions that have been installed in the environment. There are Managed solutions (A and B) and Unmanaged customizations (C and D). Each of these either masks or modifies certain inherent, pre-existing elements of the system.

Unmanaged Customizations
When elements are deployed using an Unmanaged solution, the effects deployed over-write (not merely over-ride) any previous effects of the same name and signature within the environment.

Secondly, after deployment it is as if the initial solution's "wrapper" is of no consequence. It is discarded and the bundle of contents simply becomes part of the native environment and reacts with it like a solute does with a solvent. 

In this way, the contents forever become part and parcel of that environment - they can never be deleted as a finite package of elements, but their net effect can be over-written or transformed based on future additions and reactions. 

Since it over-writes (not over-rides) an element, the only way to restore that element to its pre-customized state would be to somehow re-connect with the fundamental systemic substrate wherever it may be accessible, query it, and then duplicate the desired element in the environment via a new Unmanaged customization.

Managed Solutions

When a bundle of elements is deployed using a Managed solution, then post-deployment it remains in its "wrapper", insulated from the native context of the environment it is deployed in. It seeks to stay as a bundle within its own bubble context, and duplicate its effects as is, rather than by adding to the net effect of the native environment. It uses the native environment's resources for its own operation, giving back only its intended effects to change the native environment.

Any chance interaction with the native environment through a hole in the wrapper can cause Byzantine behaviour requiring troubleshooting. 

It over-rides (not over-writes) any corresponding elements of the same name and signature of past solutions, by superimposing its own effects as is. Only those effects of a past managed solution continue to shine through that are not explicitly over-ridden within the new managed solution. 

If the managed solution is deleted then all its effects are deleted as if it were never there. Any effects of underlying system or older managed solutions then reappear in Application Behaviour (without having to reconnect or deploy another solution).

Another thing about Managed solutions is that they always need the external vendor (who built it) or his explicit legatee for any issue that crops up - hence it is called a 'Managed' solution. If the contract and dependency on the external vendor is broken, then the managed solution could stall and not yield any effects, or even create problems with no one to make even a show of troubleshooting. A period of such chronic misbehaviour ought to be a justifiable case for deleting it (or at least removing the wrapper and converting it into an Unmanaged solution). But hostile priesthoods and selfish anti-national politicians have a vested interest in reinforcing the wrapper by reinforcing isolation (ghettoization or caste-exclusivity) and contracting out to an elite core group.

Dharman and Brahman

Dharman is an Unmanaged Way to deploy different selected potentials of Brahman. Therefore in the Bharata culture, discussion of Dharman is anterior to Brahman. The human body and its cultural symbiotes are like the wrapper needed for the potentials to be deployed, and thereafter is of no karmic consequence to the actual realization of the potentials. Whereas in non-Dharmic "religions", the Brahmanic potentials are sought to be deployed without the context of Dharma, and therefore are deployed as managed solutions, in which the integrity of the wrapper is very important for predictable behaviour. Even without a hierarchical priesthood, when such non-Dharmic religions deploy themselves as a franchised network, their ideological integrity and sanctity of their idolized scriptures of personalities is of critical importance to their survival. Whereas in a Dharmic pantha those are only via media, intrinsic but not critical, because of the constant awareness of the Perennial Philosophy that is the real substrate, rather than obsession with a particular historical time, place, form or event.

The Wrapper

Where the wrapper is considered fundamental, there karma is cumulative - whether it is good karma or bad karma. 'Wrapper' can be a particular book, personality cult, organizational hierarchy, caste system, etc. When the wrapper is not considered fundamental in an Unmanaged customization, there karma is being changed directly - either rightly or dangerously, depending on the contents deployed and the state of the context.

Tone of the Context

Lastly, it would be an omission to not acknowledge that if the environmental context itself comes alive and becomes an active participant in the process rather than merely a passive recipient, that is a real game-changer. If people spilled out onto the streets, beside themselves with humble joy and creative enthusiasm, it is a game-changer. Similarly, if bloody revolution and conspiracy is in the air, that is also a game-changer - and then it doesn't matter if the society is moving towards "democracy", because certain types of forces will win power anyway.

Priests, Politicians and Wizards

Clearly, one way the effects of a Managed Solution can be masked is by inventing and deploying another managed solution that hides and overrides it, element for element. But this is playing the same faith game, and susceptible to the same limitations as the problematic Managed solution. If the new managed solution is deleted then the older managed solution's effects again reappear. A cult that is tightly controlled by a priesthood can be deprogrammed much more easily than an ideology that survives as a franchised network that injects itself culturally into the mainstream discourse. 

The other way to block its effects is to deploy new behaviors via an Unmanaged solution, which would have the effect of modifying the mainstream discourse itself in a way that inoculates it from evil invasion.

Using Managed solutions to modify and correct the evil effects of older Managed solutions is a typical dialectic process - it is unidirectional and can only move forward without ever regaining original virginity. 

Using Unmanaged customization is double-edged - it depends on what is being injected into the mainstream, and whether there exists a real, live channel of communication with the fundamental substrate. Only that live channel can ensure right customization at any stage.

This is the task that must be accomplished by the interplay between a nation's governing Constitution, its public discourse (education, media, etc.) and religious movements.

Retrospective
At different points in the last 1400 years, the local System Administrators have cooperated in the deployment of different modules of certain Managed solutions that seek to suppress or exploit the native environment. Feudal Casteism, Islam, Christianity and now pseudo-secularist Marxism are cases in point. One finds that the priest-hoods controlling these Managed solutions jockey with rival priesthoods in a mutually convenient musical chairs, as long as the environment isn't fundamentally altered.

One had to then find another Managed Solution B for the initial Managed Solution A, that changed 'A' just enough that an Unmanaged Solution strategy could be used later on. This is what several Indian social, political and religious reformers initiated over the last few centuries.

Thus, Dharma-friendly Managed solutions do need to be crafted in order to "contain" the more harmful and invasive effects of the exploitative Managed solution -- but only as a stop gap measure before all are deleted and the system is reset via an Unmanaged refurbishment. That deletion can safely be undertaken only after an Unmanaged component can be deployed that has a live connection with the fundamental substrate. E.g. Cloud Resource in the diagram above.

Buddhism itself was an attempt to reconnect with the fundamentals and reset the environment - but when Buddhism itself became a Managed solution and the sangha wrapper assumed ascendancy in league with mercantile or government interests, it only served to deracinate existing religious applications, without following it up with reinvigorating the fundamentals and re-aligning with Veda. I believe this happened partly because the tone of the environmental context was not optimal for the kind of discourse that could lead to real change; rather, it caused conservatism even when there was desire for political peace in the post-Ashokan period.

Secularism and Paganism
One can observe the operation of different memes based on how they were deployed, and the historical order in which they were deployed. India as a civilization is "wounded", i.e., it still retains its fundamental operating basis to a large extent, but has borne the brunt of every possible effort and stratagem to destroy that basis. Other civilizations are twice-deracinated - their fundamental operating basis has been ruthlessly destroyed by one Managed Solution and its Unmanaged counterparts, and then they have suffered a second round of the same. E.g., Russia and generally the Slavic nations were first deracinated by Christianity, and then by Communism. When Communism was deleted, the Church re-surfaced to some extent (modified by the mainstream discourse). The Islamic world is once deracinated, while within it subcultures like Persia are twice deracinated like Slavic nations. With the West the situation is still different for reasons of political economy, and there are ambiguous attempts to try to dissolve Christianity as an Unmanaged solution within its secular context. In each case, the solutions to return to a holistic state will be slightly different. In all cases, a return to secularism, or I daresay paganism, are important. In the case of India, this is important to consider as an advantage and a repository. Paganism is essentially the name given by hostile Managed solutions to native host environments.

Administrative Policy
Practically speaking, how to engineer the optimal dynamics between Managed and Unmanaged solution? Simply by preventing or countering the necessary things that a wrapped, bundled and strings-tied managed solution needs to deploy and survive. In this regard, the "neti neti" process is relevant in terms of self-definition, as an individual or as a civilization.

It would then be an interesting exercise to jot down how governmental policy can incorporate Dharmic ethics by being an able System Administrator with sound policy on the kinds of Managed and Unmanaged solutions that can be deployed in the system, as well as the relative order in which they are deployed.

As a guideline, a truly secular government cannot extend active support to Managed solutions, though it may have a policy of, say, incentivizing faith-based initiatives applicable to all. However, the government can actively ensure that all Managed solutions have a level playing field. Native Managed solutions must be protected from Managed solutions with wealthy and powerful foreign vendors and priesthoods. E.g., a principle of reciprocity can be introduced - if your country will not allow XYZ to be deployed in your environment, we cannot allow you to sponsor the deployment of ABC in our environment. Or, a low ceiling on foreign-funding to NGO's active in deployment of Managed solutions can be set by governmental policy.

However, a truly secular government can and must define its value system in Dharmic terms, in terms of its overall worldview. This worldview has, for instance, been talked about at length by India's Constitutional fathers such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The revitalization of certain Dharmic memes in the mainstream are an important part of this. E.g., Dr. Ambedkar was a vigorous advocate of Sanskritization. [See 'Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 1'].

The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the 'PH value' of the Indic solvent remains Dharmic. That means not just in name but in actual values. Practically, that means that all pseudo-'Dharmic' impostor memes in our society need to be broken down, especially when they have outlasted their legitimate purpose and usefulness. That means any structures or forms that are obsessed with reinforcing the need for their "wrapper" - the fixed integrity of their priesthood, bodies and cultural exclusivity based on being legatees of some past vendor.

Rushdie and Naipaul
Salman Rushdie says regarding his transforming relationship with Muslim culture in the Subcontinent and Pakistan in particular, in his novel Shame: “I tell myself this will be a novel of leavetaking, my last words on the East from which, many years ago, I began to come loose […] It is part of the world to which, whether I like it or not, I am still joined, if only by elastic bands.” This mirrors the condition of Western 'secularism' and its relationship with Christianity. Many Indians from different communities would echo the same sentiment to some extent or another. On the other hand, V.S. Naipaul calls India a wounded civilization and wants to heal a historical wrong while criticizing the agencies of those crimes. A comprehensive Dharmic secularism should encompass both these good aspirations within a larger process.

Indian secularism does need some Modi-fication. A truly Secular Government would not discriminate based (primarily) on belief-system, but rather on its ethical effect in the environment. In other words, government should not practice मतभेद but rather धर्मविवेक. Secondly, government does this not by fiat, but by coordinating with grassroots Dharmic organizations and by stakeholders in the national discourse under an overarching constitutional framework.

The upshot of this is that no belief-system can consider itself immune to criticism or questioning, either in terms of its beliefs or the actions and opinions of its people.

Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist

Some lessons can be learned from the electoral loss in Karnataka for forces purporting to represent 'Hindutva'. The loss of bastions like Mangalore is attributed by some to the foolhardiness of those leaders who reduced 'Hindutva' to moral policing and protecting old superstitions in the name of tradition.

It is also immediately relevant to point out that a slap in the face of 'traditionalist' activism is by no means equivalent to a defeat for 'Hindutva', but is rather a very welcome shift for its most dynamic vectors at the present time. Consider this post on another blog:

Kal Chiron's Blog: Rise of Narendra Modi - Return of Savarkar's stream of thought?

Time-binding Hindutva
It is not the place of 'traditionalists' to lead anything or set the tone for a movement like Hindutva. But they must always be carried along and their proper place is to act as strong 'buffers' to channel the stream, delineate its survival routes, and assert its beingness - Asmita. But it is the 'fundamentalists' who must lead Hindutva, intellectually as well as in terms of setting its social programme.

Without trying to pigeonhole any individual as a 'traditionalist', 'fundamentalist' or 'reformist', how can we define these terms in a schema of form and substance? A friend suggested (at BRF):

There are of course "traditionalists" who like to retain all the evolutionary changes that have taken place in their ideological framework over the years as well as in its implementation in society! Then there are "reformists" who accept the religious framework as it stands but say that the society should deprecate certain practices, making them congruent with current thinking on ethics. Then there are "secularists" who cannot wait to throw off their religion underpinning their civilization for a variety of reasons, shame for it being one of them, atheism another.  

... What about "fundamentalists"? Considering that Sanatan Dharma goes back to the dawn of human civilization itself, that kind of fundamentalism would mean reaching quite a bit back. It is going back to the Rishis themselves, and to try to understand their message! ... "Fundamentalism" on [any] issue however need not detract from the fact that one can still remain a traditionalist as far as culture, rituals and other spiritual and philosophical endeavors are concerned.

Unlike other species, General Semantics considers the human being to be a time-binding organism, i.e., humans transmit experience cumulatively from one generation to another, usually via symbols. Knowledge regarding material form and method is constantly to be revised and changing in present time, flowing eternally like a torrent (प्रवाहतः अनादि). Knowledge regarding spiritual principles is eternally unchanging and inherent in all 'being' and 'becoming' (कूटस्थ अनादि). When both are transmitted together, then the integrity of Dharma and her civilization is maintained.

Experience that is transmitted down generations is called Agama (आगम) in Sanskrit. The foregoing description of 'fundamentalists', 'reformists' and 'traditionalists' (apart from 'rejectionists'/'secularists') reminds one of the classification of Agama according to the Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra schools of the orthodox Vaishnavas. the Pancharatra says that Agamas are handed down in 3 forms:

1. दिव्य - Divine: Directly revealed by the Lord of all Mankind, Narayana, to Mankind via the Rishis.
2. मुनिभाषित - Spoken to Sages: Handed down and interpreted by the self-realized philosophers of different schools at different times, places and for different levels of cultural maturity.
3. आप्तमनुजप्रोक्त - Spoken by reliable and authentic persons: This has been written down and transmitted by individuals deemed trustworthy by virtue of their ethical character, intellectual acumen, clarity of memory, etc.

The first can be considered the fundamentals, such as the Veda. The fundamentalist harks back to those rudiments via meditation and epiphany. The second can be considered the speculative exegesis, such as the Upanishads and their extensions in the smritis. The reformist engages in this search as a process of managing the house politically at all times. The third can be considered pure traditionalism, which limits itself to duplication and admiration of what is written in the 'shastras' that were written at one time in pursuance of an Upanishadic method.


First Formalism, then Propaganda
In my humble opinion, as a precursor to propaganda, there is a need to create a greater awareness of a core ideological formalism of a high standard for Hindutva that can hold its own against any ideological adversary. Up until now, Hindutva ideologies have been individually propagated by fundamentalists (e.g., Swami Dayananda Saraswati), by reformists (e.g., Swami Vivekananda), or by traditionalists (e.g., Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada). Each one of these tried to subsume or derogate the other strands in order to mobilize certain sections of society that were ripe for their propaganda focus. The political philosophers of Hindutva, such as Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup, the RSS ideologues, Savarkar, etc. must be extended in order to do a sound job of consolidating and managing these strands, which can sometimes appear divergent and sometimes complementary. It would help the general awareness of all proponents of Hindutva as well as its opponents, to have a clear picture of the political schema into which all these tendencies find a coherent place.

Good and Bad Fundamentalists - Context dependent
Unlike Abrahamic cultures (esp. Islam), in the Hindutva context, the 'fundamentalists' are best suited to define the mainstream public and political discourse of the civilization, because of its yogic rudiments and fundamentally liberal undercurrents. Whereas the 'traditionalists' are best suited in defining the extremes and populating the margins, and therefore its outer contours and different stages and schools of its spiritual  process. (For a schema of 'balance' verses unbalanced phases of growth, see previous blogpost: 'Can Hindutva do Yoga?')

Notice that the reverse is true in the context of non-Dharmic societies. E.g., in Abrahamic cultures, it is in the interest of sanity that the 'fundamentalists' are marginalized and not allowed to dominate the mainstream discourse or establish a rule by religious law. Because that will read to violent radicalization. (To some extent that is true of non-Vedic Dharmic religions also, such as Jainism, Buddhism, etc., though here the radicalization is non-violent and of abnegation.) In such cases, the 'reformists' or so-called 'moderates' must be helped to hold that fort, and the 'traditionalists' may be corralled into religious institutions that serve society. 'Secularism' may be encouraged as a temporary bridge to moving away from a deracinated, exclusivist cultism and discovering Dharma (via any of the 3 co-ordinates).

This is simply because there is a difference in the 'fundamentals' of the Vedic and non-Vedic, or more generally of the Dharmic and non-Dharmic. In Abrahamic societies, the irrational and violent 'right-wing' draws on scripture and the associated excitement of reliving the lives of its traditional exemplars, whereas the reasonable and pacifist left-wing appeals to rationalism, compassion, balance, etc. But it is seen that in Dharmic societies, the progressive, pacifist and reasonable leaders who advocate 'balance' typically draw on scripture and the religious exemplars, whereas the right-wingers appeal to a sense of outrage, national emergency, some grievance, or the need to preserve old traditional forms in this so-called 'Kaliyuga'. (This includes Lankan Buddhist extremist clergy or Dharmic clergy anywhere else).

But 'Hindutva' is best interpreted entirely in present time, from its rudiments, and taking all modern and existing currents in its sweep. It must also be open-ended, and not succumb to "definitions" demanded or imposed by others. Its programme should be to complete all incomplete civilizational iterations and strengthen the earlier fundamental iterations. (See previous blogpost on civilizational iterations: 'Identity and Learning: Worlds within worlds')

The Parting of the Waters 
It may be significant that the encrustation of the 'traditionalist' constituency for 'Hindutva' has received a well-deserved setback, opening the way for the 'fundamentalists' and 'reformist' vectors to take control at this point. Meanwhile, the Congress and its casteist litter find themselves increasingly veering towards the extremely shrill "secularist" or "rejectionist" end - a prelude to their ultimate irrelevance or subsumation within a Dharmic viewpoint. Could this polarization of extremes and their insanities be clearing a passage for the sane but strong Vedic fundamentalists to lead the wandering Bharatas across to their native land?

Subsume all their Shibboleths

In an intellectual competition, the goal is not just to find truth, but also to achieve certain political aims, such as winning over another person's mind and heart, or splitting the opposition and putting them at cross-purposes. In comparing two ideas, how does one not get caught in a false dichotomy? The practice of purva-paksha is healthy and encourages a shift in the learner's understanding - but it is not immune to false dichotomy, and a siddhanta that is in contradiction to its Other is not an uncommon outcome. That could leave the Other just where it is, without winning it over and putting it into a new perspective as part of the Self.

The dialectic process is not immune to false dichotomies because of the way false data works within the psyche. As indicated in an earlier blogpost 'Psychohistory vs. Dumb 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 w.r.t the self), then it first rejects the new data 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."

Therefore, first of all there is a necessity for a sound epistemic technique to strip false data as a prerequisite to a selection of importances from a stream of data. If I understand correctly, the purva-paksha offered in the formative phases of the 'Hindutva' worldview by thinkers such as Rajiv Malhotra ji are such an attempt at stripping false data, mostly by a process of Othering, and by working at the points of greatest strain or inability in the body politic. 

Not unexpectedly, one finds that carping "intellectuals" like to point out that this process of Othering is rather divisive. They fail to take a process view of things, and want to pigeonhole 'Hindutva' into a 'rightist' or 'leftist' paradigm upon arrival. This is rather silly, considering the vast and deep tradition that 'Hindutva' seeks to serve. 'Hindutva' as a relative of the word 'Sindhu' itself means oceanic. And its seed is 'Veda' - knowingness.

So then, what sort of cognition does Veda look forward to as a desirable outcome of contemplation? Agni (Fire) is the "first among worshipables", the first among the 33 Divinities, the "One who gathers all the others." In RigVeda 1.1.4 we find as per Swami Dayananda Saraswati's translation and interpretation:

"O Agni, only that sacrifice goes to the Divinities which is of knowledge that you have encompassed on all sides and pervaded through and through, after it is free of schism and contradiction."

One operative word in the above mantra is vishwa-taH, signifying a universality that encompasses the world of knowledge. Therefore, a false knowingness that sets up one "truer" or "greater" fetish to loom over another token idea is in itself in violent opposition and contradiction to the Other - even if it shows itself to be complete and consistent in itself, on its own arbitrary self-referential authority. Such would not be a sacrifice of knowledge fit to reach the Gods. It may be eulogized in the puerile antics between idol-breaker and idol-maker, nothing more. 

These themselves may be incomplete phases in a process (for there is nothing inherently wrong with violence), but usually they aren't. A stellar example of when it is the case would be that of Bhai Kanhaiya, disciple of Guru Tegh Bahadur. On the battlefield at Anandpur Sahib, he would fight against the Islamists, and then walk around serving water to the thirsty among the wounded and the dying. It dismayed many of his fellow-disciples that he was serving water to enemy wounded as much as to his own. When they reported this to the Guru, he smiled approvingly, for he must have known that his sacrifice was reaching the Divinities and wasn't merely a fratricidal orgy between earthlings. Brother Kanhaiya simply said in his defence that he saw his Guru's light reflected in every fallen soldier, enemy or his own. History is witness that Brother Kanhaiya's goat-skin water-pouch probably did more to establish the line between Dharma and Adharma that day than did his sword. 

But intellectually, in terms of logic, how does one describe this universalism better? After first stripping false data via Othering followed by a relentless criticism of its hypocrisies, one must then subsume its remaining truth into one's own siddhanta. This can be done by demonstrating how what is true in it is a special case of one's own model, which is free from its limitations. An example would be how Einstein's theory of Relativity can show that Newtonian mechanics are a special case of its own equations at speeds much slower than the speed of light.

The universalism of the Veda is truly an intellectual universalism, while a subjective affective adherence to a token is a matter of free choice and personal preference (ishta). Whereas the much-touted "universalism" of the Abrahamic systems is actually a totalitarianism.

If Hindutva has to truly evolve and occupy both sides of the aisle, then it has to develop coherence in its worldview - so that there is only a soft diversity between its opposing parties rather than a hard diversity that threatens the affinity and integrity of its civilization. Even the founding fathers of the United States had envisioned only a soft diversity as beneficial, rather than a hard one.

As an example, I would take this excellent blogpost at Indosphere: Rejecting the Dialectic of Western Materialism. In it, the author exposes the historical origins of the favourite shibboleths and obsessions of different strands of Western political and social philosophy, and rejects them as the neuroses they truly are. He then rejects the silly and typical attempts by the Other (including Oxfart-educated Indians who are more-or-less deracinated from Hindu civilization) to label or force-fit Indic philosophical or political movements into this Western framework:

I would caution very strongly against applying such categories as "Capitalist", "Socialist", "Liberal", or even "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" to anything within the Indian system. Not just because they are foreign, but because the very assumptions from which these classifications derive are completely disjointed from an Indian worldview. 

For example, there is a pernicious idea that the traditional Vaishya Dharma, or the relationship of Indian mercantile classes to wealth, is essentially "capitalist." This could not be further from the truth. "Capitalism" is a form of sophistry developed by the apologist Adam Smith to philosophically justify the accumulation of wealth as a natural outcome of Protestant work ethic, in the face of pre-existing memes in Western materialism that glorified poverty. Socialism is a response to Capitalism that re-establishes the glorification of poverty without the earlier tone of overt religiosity. This entire back-and-forth proceeds across a playing field whose geography is dictated by the contours of Western Materialism. The precepts of Western Materialism themselves could not be further removed from the way in which Vaishya Dharma regards the concepts of wealth and prosperity. 

Indian Vaishya Dharma is nothing at all like Capitalism, because in our view, the accumulation of wealth is itself a task consonant with divinity; there is no sophistry required, and nothing to apologize for. To cast one thing in the mold of the other, is like asking Pt. Bhimsen Joshi to sing Raga Maalkauns in "F sharp minor, allegro moderato". It's meaningless.

This is an excellent method to put the Other's affective obsessions in their right place, and then introduce a cleaner, more refined terminology in Sanskrit to put an area of life and living in perspective. 

Further, in order to round off that argument, I would add the following to show that the sentiment of compassion and charity, as well as the glorification of poverty does find a place within the Indosphere, though in a far more well-rounded context. One point that occurred to me was that the Indic philosophical eye (i.e., jyotisha) also does include in its field of vision a "daridra-yoga" case which can be dovetailed via spiritual method to draw closer to God. In this conjunction of karma and circumstance, poverty or deprivation can also be meaningfully dovetailed to draw closer to God. E.g., the Sudama-Krishna relationship. Even here there is fulfillment in the Lord via charity, and Sudama drew closer to the Lord via poverty - though not by glorification of it but by embarrassment and humility.

By showing the Libtards, Maovadis and Macaulayputras that their classifications are included as special cases within a larger, more intellectually and spiritually fulfilling paradigm, one is more likely to win over converts. Apart from defectors, one would also be able to bracket and broadside the bigoted and the prostituted among them, for they may globetrot as much as their patrons can afford, but they won't find a concept to cover their intellectual poverty with. Therefore, one must surround them on all sides and encompass them wholly so they have nothing to hide behind. Subsume all their shibboleths.

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!

Owais and Owaisi: Two halves of Jarasandha

What sort of civilizational context can best manage its form and contents? Are some civilizational contexts better than others at this?

Doctrines or dogmas, priesthoods and caste-collectivization...these are part and parcel of any scientific, religious, or aesthetic tradition. How is this political and ideological creation best related with the undercurrent of knowledge and cognition itself? When does it protect and facilitate the growth of the tree of knowledge, and when does it merely feed off of and eventually suffocate its own host?

Recently, there was outrage over an incendiary hate-speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi close to Hyderabad city in south India. Basically, he portrayed Hinduism as a ludicrous and crass religious culture that was violent towards Moslems without any provocation, and he threatened that angry Moslems would overrun India if Hindu self-assertion develops any further traction.

The moniker "Owaisi" is used in Islamic Sufism to refer to a spiritual method named after one Hazrat Owais al-Qarani, a contemporary and devotee of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). "Owaisi" means someone who can be in the presence of and take teachings from the Prophet directly, across space and time, without an intermediary teacher. Taken as an individual, Owais is one of my favourite spiritual exemplars from any tradition. But odd as it may seem, Owais-like spiritual power and violent Islamism have not necessarily been antithetical to one another, ever since the very first generation of Islamic history. Its not even too strange  a coincidence that this hate-monger bears Owais' name. 

Pause for thought. Isn't it interesting that any spiritual movement observed in any tradition tends to yield two bifurcated social products after the passing of its founder - one connected to the founder by some structured physical association and an authorized, historical 'caste' setup to preserve and propagate; and the other a free-zone of emulation and continuous experimentation and seeking. Depending on historical circumstances, the movement can fuse these two halves, and expand and consolidate. But it inevitably keeps creating certain imbalances and problems. In fact, the greater the persistence it derives from the purushaarthic dynamics, the more trenchant the future sociological problem can be. Must this dogma-driven or caste-collectivized daemon be annihilated once it serves its purpose? If so, are the circumstances for its own annihilation created and set in motion by the enlightened founder? How?

The Vedas and most of its branches comprising Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. do speak of a spiritual potency that must go hand-in-hand with temporal strength. This is the basis of the purushaarthas, of the twin swords of miri and piri. But in which forge they are conceived and in whose hands these two swords become one...can make a world of difference. Conceived one way, a Dharmic context will contain and manage the dogmatic evolution and/or caste-order, and keep existing schools as mere portals to the ever-flowing stream of Dharma. But conceived another way, an Adharmic context will keep causing a series of convulsions to justify its dogma and/or collectivized caste-order, and it can be contained (or better annihilated) only by an outside force.

Recall the story of Jarasandha. Brihadratha was the king of Magadha. His wives were the twin princesses of Varanasi. While he led a full life, he was unable to have children for a very long time. Frustrated, he retreated to the deep forest, approached and served the sage Chandakaushika. The sage took pity on him and gifted him a fruit, telling him to give it to his wife who would then become pregnant. But the sage did not know that the king had two wives. In a schizophrenic turn of mind, as it were, Brihadratha split the fruit in half and gave it to both of them. Soon both the wives became pregnant and gave birth to two halves of a human body. These two lifeless halves were very horrifying to view. So Brihadratha ordered these to be thrown in the forest. A demoness (rakshasi - one who is compulsively 'protective') named "Jaraa" found these two pieces and held each of these in her two palms. Incidentally, when she brought both of her palms together, the two pieces fused  together giving rise to a living child. The child cried loudly which created panic in Jaraa. Not having the heart to devour a living child, the demoness gave it to the king and explained to him all that had happened. The father named the boy Jaraasandha (literally meaning "joined by Jaraa").

The Prophet Muhammad, even at the height of his spiritual and temporal power, was heckled by backbiters for being "abtar" - a frayed end, a lineage "cut off" - meaning one who has no living son to become his heir. It was an issue that frustrated the Prophet, and an entire short chapter of the Qu'ran was ostensibly revealed by Allah assuaging the Messenger and reflecting that same spite back on those detractors. (Qur'an, Chapter 108). 

انا اعطینک الکوثر
"Lo! We have given thee al-Kawthar (the refreshing fount at the gates of Paradise)"

فسل لربک وانحر
"So pray unto thy Lord, and sacrifice."

ان شانیک هو الابتر

"Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is cut off (without posterity)."

But politically, the issue of succession was to eventually devolve into dispersion and schism immediately after the Prophet's death (a saga still playing out in Sunni-Shi'a violence). In fact, the prospect of Islam as a living tradition was stillborn. Horrific internecine war, plague and general dispersion followed. To resolve this death spiral the Islamic community was forged as a regimented Khilafat (Caliphate) under the iron hand of the first two Caliphs, especially Omar Ibn al-Khattab, who used to walk the streets of Medina with a whip in hand. Thus regimented, he successfully diverted that aggression outward, attacked neighboring Persia and hit the jackpot. The rest is history.

What are the traces of bifurcation here? The obvious one is well-known: 'Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law and father of his grandsons, had claimed the mantle of, both, spiritual and temporal leadership. But the other senior Companions (who were also related to the Prophet, having given their daughters in marriage to him) claimed that they had the senior right to political leadership. Indeed, some of the later founders of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence said that in terms of fadheelat (excellence of virtue), the order of precedence puts Abu Bakr at the highest, Omar second, Osman third, and 'Ali fourth; but 'Ali was first in a separate spiritual category all by himself. Thus, according to this line of thought in the dominant school of Islam, the legacy of the Prophet could be split into two parts, and they were given to two different spiritual lineages connected to him by family ties. 

But there is a further, more interesting, and more subtle trace of bifurcation: Much to the consternation of all present, before passing away the Prophet actually bestowed his cloak on a completely different person with no family relationship - Owais al-Qarani, a camel-herder and a saintly personage in Yemen who had never met the Prophet in person, but was supposedly in communion with him telepathically. Not only did Owais have no tribal or family relation with the Prophet, he is not even considered a Companion by any Sunni school, since a Companion must by definition have been in the physical association of the Prophet and/or have served in the association of other Companions at least once. We will come back to Owais again later in this post.

The uneasy cleavage of the spiritual and the temporal was always problematic throughout Islamic history. For a long time, "Sufism" was a continuation of pre-existing spiritual cultures from the surviving remnants of Mithraic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, neo-Platonic and Christian traditions of the Middle East, Egypt and India. Most Sufism at one time was considered outright heresy, and throughout its history its cutting-edge spiritual teachers were honored with the cutting-edge of the Caliph' temporal sword slicing their necks. Then the revered Imam Ghazali came and brokered a theoretical truce, claiming to show that Sufism could be fused with Islam, and that in fact the two could execute a very useful twinship. Thereafter, just as Guns and Bibles would later pioneer European colonialism, so did Swords and Sufis first set that template for expansion and consolidation.

But what makes this twinship a Jarasandha? The Bhagavad Gita, too, was spoken on a battlefield, so how is that different? Well, Ghazali wanted to fuse spirituality with Islam only insofar as it subordinated itself to the absolute dominance of the regimen of shari'ah and its supervising priesthood, its caste-collective, and its dogmas. He still attacked most spiritual schools of the time with vitriol. He wanted the spiritually packaged "Sufism" to be a cooling fount of ablution, with which the devout could soothe their agitations and refresh mind and spirit before re-entering the mosque.

Now the shari'ah is fundamentally based on the idea that in the person of the Prophet and his ways is the truth, and the perfect duplication of the truth is the true method. In the ways in which different Companions of the Prophet did this are reportedly found paths to the truth, and the shari'ah models them perfectly. Most often, this duplication of the truth is of the form of imitation. In fact, the satisfaction of simply imitating the behaviors of the Prophet was considered the greatest and most complete stage of self-realization according to the next great teacher who gave Islamism its ideological form - Imam Rabbani, or Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, who lived in India during Moghal times. Thus, given matching circumstances, there is no sin in the devout committing apparently graceful or terrifying actions, as long as he does so in the consciousness of its alignment with the calculus of shari'ah, just like an automaton servant. Indeed, there is merit in performing all such apparently beautiful or terrifying acts with the force of an intention without reservation.

But most Indic traditions would consider a different permutation - that religious and social regimen, and case studies of the behaviors of spiritual exemplars, are at best a parallel track to individual spiritual knowingness, and that the inter-relation between the two is the subject of ethics. Emulation, not imitation, is emphasized - in fact, imitation is considered dangerous in Vedanta, which says that acts must be based on adhikara, spiritual qualification. Imitation of the amoral acts of higher beings is spiritually harmful, like a form of 'spiritual pedophilia':

धर्म-व्यतिक्रमो दृष्ट

ईश्वराणां च साहसम् ।

तेजीयसां न दोषाय

वह्नेः सर्व-भुजो यथा ॥ 

"The transgressions of Dharma observed, by the Great Controllers seemingly audacious...To such spiritually potent beings this is no blemish, like the fire that devours all and remains pure." - Srimad Bhagavatam, 10.33.29

Owais al-Qarani was someone who had only heard of the Prophet and his new religion, and became a devotee at heart. He had a blind mother to take care of, and so he would herd camels for part of the day and use the proceeds to lead a simple life. Before his death, when the Prophet Muhammad said that he wished to bequeath his mantle to a man named Owais in Yemen, all the Companions were shocked, most had never even heard of him. They inquired, "If he is such a great devotee of Allah and His Messenger, why has he never even come to see you once, where was he to serve the cause of Islam during all the battles?" It is said that the Prophet defended Owais' absence on the grounds of some provisions of shari'ah law, saying that since he had a blind mother to care for, he was exempt. As unconvincing as this was, the Companions couldn't object, and the Prophet sent his cloak with Omar and 'Ali - along with a request to Owais to intercede and save all Muhammad's followers on Judgment Day. Both of them found Owais in the wilderness of Yemen, in a state of meditation. (It was later said that Owais would spend hours in such meditation, and would sometimes be so absorbed in his Prophet that when the Prophet lost a tooth at the Battle of Uhud, Owais's own tooth reportedly dropped off at that very moment.) They gave him the cloak along with the Prophet's request. Owais reluctantly accepted it and asked for some time to meditate alone. He took his time, and heard a voice say, "We have forgiven most of the Companions". But Owais was persistent with his Lord: "I want forgiveness for all his believers." He continued to meditate on the Lord. But it is said that curiosity and impatience got the beter of Omar and he started to walk up to Owais. Seeing him approach, Owais was distracted. He told Omar, "If you had not disturbed me, I would not have worn this cloak until God had bestowed all of Muhammad's followers to me."

Later many second generation Moslems would come to Owais to see him and ask him for spiritual advice. Once they told Owais of an old Companion who had now dug his own grave and was residing in it day and night waiting for his time to arrive, so he could pledge allegiance to Allah and His Messenger one all-important, final time. Owais went to see the man, and found him weak. Owais said: "You have given 30 years to your coffin and your grave, allowing them to come between you and God. They have become your idols." It is said that the man saw the light of Owais and through him realized how much time he had wasted; with a cry he lay his head down and passed on from this world.

Haram Ibn Hayyam said, "I went to visit Owais al-Qarani. He asked the reason for my visit. I explained that I felt a peace in his holiness' presence. To which Owais replied: 'I have never seen anyone who knows what is God, and yet finds more peace and comfort in the presence of another being.'"

Haram Ibn Hayyam requested Owais, "Give me a hadith from the holy Prophet." He replied, "Though I have heard a great deal about him, I never met him. I would not want to engage in story-telling and hadith. I have far too much work to get on with and this is not among them."

"And choose a friend who is able to free you from all else."

"An aim is required before embarking on an action. Therefore, if your aim is to find God and His Messengers, then surely you will reach your aim."

Owais said, "I wanted a high position in life, I found it in modesty. I wanted leadership, I found it in giving advice. I wanted dignity, I found it in honesty. I wanted greatness, I found it in poverty. I wanted lineage, I found it in virtue. I wanted majesty, I found it in contentment. I looked for peace and found it in asceticism."

Later on in old age, after his mother had passed away, Owais went and joined the faction of 'Ali. He volunteered at the Battle of Saffein. Apparently, he wasn't much of a warrior. He was martyred there. They say:

شود رد ابد بو جهل در دامن پیامبر

اویس در بیابان یمن گردد به حق بینا

"Even so close to the robe of the Messenger, 'Bu Jahl passed Eternity by;

While Owais witnessed the Truth in the wilderness of Yemen!"

Jarasandha had a persistence, power and vitality that was preternatural. In the end he was killed by Bhima, the son of Vayu (vitality itself), who was Hanuman in a previous life, and the great teacher Madhva claimed to be his next incarnation.  Bhima was the most certain of the five Pandavas, never hesitating in doubt, and had an intention that was without any reservation, especially when it came to annihilating an enemy. Bhima could marry a demoness and produce a devotee of Dharma from that union who would martyr himself for the Lord. Bhima would satisfy himself by drinking the blood of the slain Duhshasana. Bhima's intention was clear and without reservation, even though many of his actions inspire horror or disgust in lovers of Dharma.

After an interminable fight and numerous unsuccessful methods to handle Jarasandha, Bhima eventually killed Jarasandha by a method insinuated by K. - Bhima tore Jarasandha's body into its two unfused halves. Then he flung each half cross-wise in the opposite direction. Thus, the two halves could not merge back into one and resurrect.