Dude where is my report

Liberhan Commission Report is finally in 17 years after the fact.

After an express perusal of the 1029 page report we can draw only one conclusion on whodunit – “Arrested Development” and “NCERT Text books” 

How else can one explain the 19 page drivel  that has been passed off as Recommendations resulting from 17 years of intellectual and investigative labor of the good Justice.

One may be tempted to dismiss the Liberhan recommendations as being no better than a poorly written political science essay by a High School dropout.

But such temptation must be firmly resisted for those 19 pages are a window into how the Constitution and its many Institutions stand compromised six decades after Independence.

Justice Liberhan’s many recommendations for creating new Statutory agencies and for passing sweeping new Laws are symptomatic of a bureaucratic mindset that believes solutions to every problem lie in creating yet another autonomous organ of the State outside the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

But thats the least troubling aspect of the Liberhan recommendations.

The shallow nature of the intellectual polemic that underlies almost all of his recommendations reminds us once again that we as a Nation are prone to treating the symptoms unmindful of the disease.

It is understandable that after 17 years of labor the good Justice was perhaps disappointed at failing to establishing a conspiracy with direct culpability of specific individuals at the forefront of the movement.

But the good Justice had the opportunity to redeem those 17 years of labor by compensating for his lack of substantiative investigative success with a penetrating critique of Institutional failures and profound recommendations on Constitutional surgery to fix them.

But the tragedy is the good Justice squandered those 17 years of labor to present us with a laundry list of cosmetic fixes that are tantamount to merely applying “band-aid” to bruised Institutions and a mutilated Constitution.

Justice Liberhan leaves us with no profound thoughts on how to cross the chasm of last century nor does his report prepare us in this century for bridging the faultlines underlying that chasm.

A juvenile political essay can be expected to make up in sentiment what it may lack in sound intellectual judgement. In the final analysis the same will have to be said of the Justice Liberhan Report on the Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry.

The fury sans fire within BJP circles in Parliament however is misplaced. The failure of Liberhan Commission report in establishing a conspiracy to demolish Babri Masjid ought to be no reason for celebration within the BJP.

BJP’s legacy will remain forever tainted in popular perception for the wanton hooliganism that ruled the day on December 6th 1992 as helpless Leaders looked on at a movement beyond their control.

There has to be accountability for Adharma committed in the name of Hindutva by the movement’s foot soldiers.

Till the next generation leadership of the BJP proactively exorcises Babri Masjid’s Ghosts the baggage of the past will continue to weigh down attempts to chart a rejuvenated future course.

That can only happen when the BJP’s next generation leadership stands up unequivocally for

#1 upholding the Rule of Law as Dharma

#2 advocating that Dharma will not be served till Religious Institutions are freed from Government control

#3 Legislating for freedom and autonomy to Local Communities and Local Government on governance of Religious shrines

In closing let it be said to those next generation leaders of the BJP who proudly wear Hindutva on their sleeve that the essence of Hindu thought is Dharma and to violate it in the name of Hindutva is Adharma, which will have to be accounted for, if not in this world then in the next one.

Filed under: DesiPundit, Flat World Hindutva, Shveta Chhatra

The Shape of Ancient Thought

Whine as much as we want one cannot ignore the headlines. Not to belittle A.R. Rahman’s well deserved twin accomplishments, one unknown Indian stood out for what he said.

Resul Pookutty from Kerala who was awarded an Oscar for Sound Editing in the “Slum Dog Millionaire” caught this blogger’s attention when he dedicated his award to the civilization that gave the world the primordial sound “OM”.

PTI had this reaction from Resul

This is a Shiv Ratri gift. It is absolutely incredible,” an elated Resul Pookutty said after his triumph at the Oscar awards

Pookutty’s village of Vilakkupara in Kollam district erupted in joy seeing him receiving the award in television.

Taking a break from the world of politics, Offstumped dedicates this post to Resul’s sentiments on this auspicious day of Shivratri, by reflecting on how ancient Indian Philosophy influenced the world over centuries through a process of give and take.

The trigger to this reflection was a weekend reading of Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor. Leafing through the books this blogger was struck by the parallels between “Stoicism” that Marcu Auerlius subscribed to and “Anasakta or Desireless Action” from the Bhagvad Gita.

This parallel lead to a google search to explore how ancient Indian thought may have influenced “stoicism”.

That google search lead to this very interesting book “The Shape of Ancient Thought – Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies” by Thomas McEvilley, published in 2002. Extracts from the book can be found on google.

The book is an exhaustive exercise in tracing the chronology of evolution of ancient philosophy and the many exchanges that had taken place across centuries.

Of particuar interest is page 542 that talks about how the remarkably similar the ethical framework of the Stoics and “Karma Yoga” in the Gita were. The discussion on “Ethics of Imperturbaility” in Chapter 25 makes for some interesting reading as well as it relates to the modern day debate on Dharma and the ethics of “Self Interest”.

For those to the Left and Right who are trapped in modern day labels of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Progressive Socialism, this quote from page 620 must be highlighted

Both Budhism and Epicureanism were criticized for their lack of social conscience and both made more or less the same answer that “enlightened selft interest” is the most useful social ethic.

In closing one must say that the 25 chapters are a worthy read to understand as the author puts it

the massive transfer of ideas or methods of thinking, first from India to Greece in the pre-Socratic period and again back from Greece to India in the Hellenistic period

Since the ideas in question remain fundamental elements of Greek thought for a thousand years, it is time to acknowledge that one of the major strains of Greek thought was Indian Influenced – that it might even be called the Indianized or Greco-Indian lineage

In response to the 19th century imperialist view … this investigation has shown that every mystical element in Indian thought can be found in Greek thought too and every rational element in Greek thought in Indian as well

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva, jeetega-bharat

Why India cannot be a theocracy ?

Mr. Advani in his blog makes an important observation

it was Shri Guruji Golwalkar, Chief of the RSS, who had emphatically told me way back in 1948 that theocracy is alien to our culture and tradition.

Offstumped agrees and would like to draw Mr. Advani’s attention to Offstumped’s formulation of Flat World Hindutva and the need for freeing religion from State control

Offstumped had in two earlier posts first on the Sabarimala Tantri issue and then on the Babri Masjid issue had called for freeing religious institutions from state control. There is a very good rationale for doing this which is both secular and right of center. The secular argument is it separates religion from state control and intervention. The right of center argument is it gives religious institutions freedom to be run as their stakeholders i.e. the devotees and the local communities deem fit.

As Hindutva looks to define itself for the 21st century it would be appropriate for it to begin with this issue for it offers a path forward to resolve the intractable issues of last century as well as provides a clear contrast and distinction on what it stands for in this century. Freeing religion from state control would also serve National Interest for the State would no longer be seen to be acting in parochial interest by speaking for individual communities but for the people of the nation as whole.

On a closing note Offstumped would like to respond to Mr. Advani’s call for National Youth Day of “Ek Kaam Desh ke Naam” by drawing his attention to the young student  INI Fellows at the Retributions and Swaraj who have been making stellar public policy contributions through their blogs and through Pragati.

Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, jeetega-bharat

Dharma 701 or maybe 101 – for many dont seem to get it

A long time Offstumped reader brought this piece by Mr. Arun Shourie to this blogger’s notice. Mr. Shourie covers some familiar terrain here on Dharma, Gita and the variance in Tilak and?Gandhi’s interpretations.

Before we get to that Offstumped would like to state for the record that Mr. Shourie has been an inspiration and a role model to this blogger from High School days. His editorial stance at the height of the Anti-Reservation stir during the Mandal era was stellar. His penchant for making arguments that are rooted in facts and logical analysis makes him stand tall above the rest of the psuedo intellectual crowd.

The one defining attribute of Mr. Shourie that this blogger has attempted to imbibe is his intellectual courage in challenging conventional wisdom and never giving in to political correctness.

That said let us get to the heart of this post. Mr. Shourie writing in the Indian Express on December 27th had this to say on the subject of “Hindutva and radical Islam: Where the twain do meet”.

That grain is the fact that every tradition has in it, every set of scriptures has in it enough to justify extreme, even violent reaction.

Mr. Shourie’s basic premise is flawed, Offstumped will get to that in a moment. But to argue his premise Mr. Shourie meanders into something Offstumped originally began its whole thought process on Dharma, Flat World Hindutva.

From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived non-violence and satyagraha, Lokmanya Tilak constructed the case for ferocious response, not excluding violence. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived his ?true law?, shatham pratyapi satyam, ?Truth even to the wicked?, the Lokmanya derived his famous maxim, shatham prati shaathyam, ?Wickedness to the wicked.?

Could the variance between two interpretations be greater than is the case between the Lokmanya?s Gita Rahasya and Gandhiji?s Anashakti Yoga? Yet both constructions are by great and devout Hindus. Are ordinary Hindus nailed to Gandhiji?s rendering? After all, at the end of the Gita, Arjuna does not go off to sit at one of our non-violent dharnas. He goes into blood-soaked battle.

The above analysis and conclusion drawn by Mr. Shourie is a classic mistake made by most who find themselves trapped in the “progressive liberal” template of “Violence versus Non-Violence”.

Mr. Shourie for all his scars from a lifetime of fighting the political correctness of the Left has made the mistake of accepting the Left’s template to frame his case and in the process ends drawing the wrong conclusions on Gandhi and Tilak’s interpretations of the Gita.

Let us be very clear

- Dharma does not concern itself with the silly Violence versus Non-Violence debate.

- Dharma does not pass a value judgement on the relative morality or immorality of Violence over Non-Violence

To frame the debate on any issue from the narrow prism of Violence versus Non-Violence is to make an intellectually insipid argument. It reflects a poor understanding of Dharma and a tacit acceptance of “Progressive Liberalism” as the overarching template for all public debate.

So one may ask how pray should Mr. Shourie have framed his argument ?

Instead of trying to explain away the apparent variances between Tilak and Gandhi’s interpretation to rationalize violent responses Mr. Shourie should have looked deeper into Mr. Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita? (refer Offstumped on a Gandhian Doctrine for Anti-Terrorism) and he would have seen not a variance but commonality called “righteousness” or “Dharma” (also refer Offstumped on Golwalkar).

Had he done Mr. Shourie would have seen that be it Gita Rahsya or Anashakti Yoga, it is not about choosing between Violence over Non-Violence but it is about choosing the “righteous path” over the “unrighteous path”.

Mr. Shourie in fact almost discovered the flaw in his premise when he asks how come Arjuna after a discourse from Krishna went to fight a blood soaked battle.

But he misses the point when he concludes

The mistake is to assume that the sterner stance is something that has been fomented by this individual or that ?in the case of Hindutva, by, say, Veer Savarkar ? or by one organisation, say the RSS or the VHP. That is just a comforting mistake ? the inference is that once that individual is calumnised, once that organisation is neutralised, ?the problem? will be over. Large numbers do not gravitate to this interpretation rather than that merely because an individual or an organisation has advanced it ? after all, the interpretations that are available on the shelf far outnumber even the scriptures. They gravitate to the harsher rendering because events convince them that it alone will save them.

Offstumped has respectfully disagree with Mr. Shourie here.

They sir gravitate towards bigoted, distorted and underinformed interpretations because of Poor Intellectual and Political Leadership and nothing else.

If large numbers believe that in stray acts of violence targetting innocents there is salvation it is because this Nation has failed them in providing the kind of Leadership they deserve.

Mr. Shourie then goes on to lament the twin evils that imperil the fabric of our society – aggresive proselytism and Jihadist Terrorist, but in doing so he unwittingly adopts the second “Progressive Liberal” template of “Victimhood”.

There is a real vice here. The three great religions that originated in Palestine and Saudi Arabia ? Judaism, Christianity and Islam ? have been exclusivist ? each has insisted that it alone is true ? and aggressive. The Indic religions ? Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism ? have been inclusive, they have been indulgent of the claims of others. But how may the latter sort survive when it is confronted by one that aims at power, acquires it, and then uses it to enlarge its dominion? How is the Indic sort to survive when the other uses the sword as well as other resources ? organised missionaries, money, the state ? to proselytise and to convert?

Offstumped must once again respectfully disagree with Mr. Shourie when he succumbs to the emotional weakness of victimhood.

By viewing the Hindu way of life from the western monotheistic template of religion we suffer paranoia and anger while failing to see that what appears on the outside as a weakness is an inherent strength.

You sir miss the point on how we survived 4000 years of civilization while many have perished in the sands of time.? It survives not because of a central controlling authority or proselytising agency – Pontificate or Caliphate. Its a decentralized faith. It can morph and evolve and transform itself in a million ways. It survives because of this inherent strength. It is like how species surive through the process of Natural Evolution.

If today there is a perceived threat it is not primarily because of the monotheistic faiths but because of our intellectual atrophy in not recognizing this inherent strength. We have attempted to monotheize this way of life in our knee-jerk response to the perceived threats from the monotheistic faiths.

That exactly is why Mr. Shourie’s prescription is flawed when he quotes Swami Vivekananda

It is because of this vice, and the realisation born from what had already come to pass that Swami Vivekananda, for instance, while asking the Hindus to retain their Hindu soul, exhorted them to acquire an ?Islamic body?.

Sir one must humbly submit that there is no room for a Dharmic Soul in what you imagine to be an Islamic Body. What good is such a body if it cannot tell right from wrong and the righteous from the un-righteous.

In closing Offstumped would like to say this.

No People or Civilization can achieve greatness who are trapped in the self defeatist mindset of victimhood.

Victimhood is not a sign of strength or self confidence it is a negative that has a debilitating effect on intellect to cloud one’s mind into confusing Vengeance to be Justice.

We can win against aggressive Proselytism and Jihadist Terrorism. But first we must win over our own emotions to remember that it is not about choosing Violence over Non-Violence but it is about choosing Righteousness over Adharma.

Randomly targeting someone of a monotheistic faith through Riots and Bomb Blasts is Vengeance and Adharma.

Aiding and Assisting the State in nabbing Terrorists and bringing them to Justice is Dharma.

Making the Hindu way of life relevant, inspiring and hopeful to the those at the fringes of society is Dharma.

Those who fail to make this fundamental distinction are a far greater threat to our way of life than any of the perceived external threats.

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva, War on Terror, betrayal of aam admi

Dharma 501 – Responsible Exercise of Freedom

Nitin over at the Acorn has a couple of posts on the global economic crisis. The Washington Post?poses an interesting question – Is this the end of American Capitalism as we know it ?

Many economists are asking whether it remains a free market if the government is so deeply enmeshed in the financial system.

Given that the United States has held itself up as a global economic model, the change could shift the balance of how governments around the globe conduct free enterprise. Over the past three decades, the United States led the crusade to persuade much of the world, especially developing countries, to lift the heavy hand of government from finance and industry

But the hands-off brand of capitalism in the United States is now being blamed for the easy credit that sickened the housing market and allowed a freewheeling Wall Street to create a pool of toxic investments that has infected the global financial system. Heavy intervention by the government, critics say, is further robbing Washington of the moral authority to spread the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism.

The global economic crisis reminds us of the limitations of the Western templates of Laissez Faire Capitalism or Progressive Socialism. As the pendulum swings wildly in the United States from economic freedom to historically the biggest state intervention, Offstumped would like to revisit a post from 8th June 2008 titled “Why there is no Dharma in Progressive Liberalism” ?

Often many to the Right, especially those who primarily care about economic issues, argue that Freedom is the defining principle governing the Right. In this moment of epiphany it must be said that in the natural order of things, it is Dharma or that ultimate sense of Justice which ought to be the defining principle governing the Right. For there can be no Freedom without that ultimate sense of Justice or Dharma.

Then Offstumped went on to articulate an Indian Model of Economic Development rooted in Dharma saying this

the model of economic development must essentially look to Dharma as its moral compass to guide it on which path to take. When posed with a question or a conflict or a doubt, the model must essentially look to Dharma for guidance on what is the morally conscionable choice to be made.?

The global economic crisis reminds us of the perils of exercising freedom without a moral compass.

From individuals who borrowed way beyond their means to banks that were over leveraged. The mess across the globe is a litany of irresponsible decisions by inidividuals and Institutions operating in a moral vaccum.

While more regulation and more State control seems to be a natural reaction across the globe to this mess. One must look beyond the current crisis into the future to pose the question, How different will the exercise of economic freedom be in the future ?

With many years of over bearing regulation and State control staring them in the face, laissez faire economists would do well to ponder over the moral dimension in the exercise of freedom.

While not claiming deep economic expertise, Offstumped had laid out some basic principles based on Dharma for responsible exercise of economic freedom.

to provide for the right enablers at the Local level and the right Institutions at the Central Level while being “desireless” on socio-economic outcomes.?

must not encompass specific goals and programs for the State?but it must instead focus on the processes and structures that the State needs to enable to engender ethical and fair economic activity.

to be consistent with this defining characteristic of Dharma, it must devolve to the local level all socio-economic choices.

must merely focus on that structure and processes that would empower “Local Governments” with the freedom to act based on the socio-economic choices of the “Local Community” they serve.

must end with specifying the kind of Institutions that need to be developed so that the “How”of economic activity would always be consistent with Dharma.

a regulatory authority insulated from the politics of the day (but accountable to Parliament) to ensure fair trade practices and ethical behavior in the pursuit of wealth would be an Institution consistent with Dharma. On the other hand a Government Ministry headed by a full time Politician with the power to intervene in trade practices and the power to prosecute at free will any business would be an Institution that engenders Adharma.

Offstumped invites further debate on this initial formulation as the crisis of morality in economic decisions continues to unravel markets across the globe.

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009

Anti-Conversion Laws – An Alternative

In the last 3 posts Offstumpd examined the Evangelical Project in Orissa, a Case against?Proselytization based on an analysis of?International Laws and Gandhi’s views on Proselytism.

Anti-Conversion Laws have been in force in some Indian states for a while now, while some recent ones have run into political resistance. Offstumped has always maintained that these legislative measures are poorly drafted and not effective measures to check the social damage of proselytism.

In this short post Offstumped proposes an alternative to such laws that is consistent with Offstumped’s postulation of “Flat World Hindutva – Individual Freedom and Socio Economic Choices” as well as Offstumped’s exposition of Dharma and Individual Liberties.

To better appreciate this alternative it is important for all those on both sides of this debate to recognize the distinction between Conversions and Proselytism. While there may be an argument against restrictions on conversions on the grounds of individual freedom the same arguments cannot be made of proselytism for Proselytism is about unsolicited interventions in Private matters in Public spaces.

This unsolicited intervention has 2 dimensions to it. Those public spaces that are shared and truly public such as street corners, billboards, public facilities and those public spaces that are private and not shared such as your doorstep. The use of the first is anyway subject to local laws for religious and non-religious purpose.

Let us examine the second. This unsolicited intervention at people’s doorstep is no different from tele-marketing or spam. When taken in the context of poor rural hamlets where the houses have neoither doors, nor compound walls or any other typical deterrents the social pressure on the targets of proselytism is that much higher and overbearing.

Hence Offstumped is proposing a “National Do not Proselytize Registry” as an alternative to Anti-Conversion Laws. Such a registry could be operated in a manner similar to current “Do Not Call Registries” and Anti-Spam Laws that seek to regulate unsolicited interventions. Individual Families should be able to register with the Registry to obtain legal protection to prohibit and prevent Proselytisers from imposing themselves at their doorsteps.

The Registry could also be open to smaller rural communities that are governed by Panchayats to also register their a community as a whole with the Registry to keep Proselytizers if the Panchayat arrives at a democratic consensus on the same, subject to periodic review.

Any Evangelical NGO that wishes to engage in Proselytism should be required to register with this Registry like the Tele-Marketers while being held to mandatory disclosures that they has not violated the privacy of individuals or communities by attempting to Proselytize.

This method of checking Proselytism could be a better and more effective measure as opposed to anti-conversion laws as it is premised in the rights of Individualto privacy and the rights of local communities to make socio-economic choices. It would also raise the costs for Proselytisers while sending a loud and clear message from communities where they are unwelcome.

?

Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Uncategorized

Dharma 201 – Part 2

Continuing the 201, the first part can be found here. This part will focus on reader comments from 101. Also read Sandeep’s critique of 101.

When you say eternal and universal, you are ignoring the fact that human beings evolved rather recently ?

By eternal and universal the reference was to basic values like Truth and Justice which are time and context invariant. The earlier caveat holds, we are only talking about the observable universe without accounting for an relativistic and quantum phenomena.

You use free will a lot in some arguments. How can we be sure that Draupadi really did it out of free will ? It is not something that is easily known. Society can exert pressure in subtle ways that you only have an illusion of free will

We just have to place faith in the author for the Mahabharata goes to great lengths to also talk about the story of Amba who was forced out of her father’s palace and asked to marry against her free will by Bhishma. That violation of her free will eventually becomes the reason for Bhishma’s downfall in Kurukshetra when Amba is reincarnated as Shikhandin.

What if the democratic opinion supports adharmic actions? For example, this could be due to demogougery of ?popular? leaders or not enough courage to do the right thing or just taking an easy way out. This is where the quality of political leadership becomes very important. You cannot justify something adharmic based on just democratic opinion.

Absolutely there can be no moral sanction for Adharmic actions based on democratic opinion. The “what” maybe arrived at using democracy as a vehicle to satisfy Dharma. But ultimately if that “what” requires actions which fail the desireless actions test then there would be no moral sanction for those actions. A good example could be incidents were an entire Village metes immoral punishment for an inter-caste marriage for example.

Why should anyone follow dharma? Will it always improve our well-being? (I am reminded of the story of satya Harischandra.)
If people are not convinced by this, it?d be very easy to lead them down whichever path is seen as improving their immediate well-being.

Sandeep’s opening statement answers this most eloquently. Dharma is that which sustains, protects. People must follow Dharma for it alone ensures that which we call Civilization survives. Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah

The boundaries between Dharma and Contextual Morality are not all black and white though. In Mahabharata war Krishna himself persuaded Arjuna to kill Karna when he was ?Without Ratha?.

This has been answered in Dharma 201 Part 1. We need to draw a distinction between righteous actions and actions in conformance with a set of rules of engagement in a given context. Arjuna violated the rules of engagement but he did not violate Dharma. His actions were desireless and were limited to upholding Dharma by stopping Karna. He did not indulge in any Adharma by abusing that moral sanction from Krishna for any other material or personal purposes.

It would be important to note though that Dharma (How) and Religion (What) & Contextual Morality (Why) need to find a common ground in real life. One would ask who should win in case of the conflict among the three.

Sandeep answers this in a way in his critique. The “What” and “Why” ultimately have to result in actions that satisfy Dharma else there would be conflict. So while we may have the freedom to choose the “What” and justify the “Why” contextually it is important to ensure that choice is not at odds with the “How”.? It is with this perspective we must view Visesha Dharma that Sandeep refers to. These are choices that have been prescribed with the assumption that in that day and age, in that context, they would have resulted in actions that satisfied the demands of Dharma.

Would an act of prostitution engaged in (by 2 consenting adults) with exchange of services for money be ?dharmic? but ?immoral? & yet ?justifiable? if that is the only means available for the lady to feed her family? I would think not. Thus, I am not sure that the disctinction between How (Dharma), What (Religion) and Why (contextual morality) can be compartmentalized so easily or that ?Dharma? shoudl always win if it is at the expense of morality.

No visitor to a prostitute is desireless in his actions, he is not visiting her out of a sense of duty to provide her with livelihood that should settle the prostitution debate as far as the visitor goes.

In my judgement, the ?determination of whether an act is righteous? has both ?how? and ?why? components to it (without getting in to which one is more imortant). This would make the terrorist act of killing innocent civilians ?adharmic? while killing of soldiers by soldiers of another nation during a declared war would be ?Dharmic? for soldiers on both sides. Thus, while I would consider ?Kaurawas? as ?adharmic?, the foot solders (even on the side of Kaurawas) that obeyed the orders of their commanders and faught the war as havng lived by their ?Dharma? of being a Kshatriya. Am I missing something?

You are right in so far as the foot soldiers were doing their duty in following orders. But then there is a larger question which has to do with tolerating Adharma. On this question the foot soldier is no different from a Drona or a Kripa or an Ashwathamma all of who discharged their duty or Visesha Dharma as Sandeep puts it, but they tolerated adharma and fought to defend it and thus suffered consequences.

In your definition of Dharma, how do you define ?righteous?? Does it spring from ethical considerations?

Actions that further Truth and Justice. Also the Gita specifies the “desireless actions” test. Ethical considerations derive from these basic values. However we must draw a distinction from moral do’s and dont’s.

More questions and comments in 301 as we take this debate further.

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva

Dharma 201 – Part 1

For those who checked in recently, it all started here with this 101 and the subsequent comments. Since the 101, Sandeep has published this critique.

In Dharma 201 we will first respond to Sandeep’s critique (Part 1) and answer the many questions posed in response to 101 (Part 2).

Before we get into Sandeep’s critique let us assume that for this debate we will not get into metaphysical issues. We will assume there is a single reality which is the observable Universe. We will also assume that in this observable Universe, Truth is a universal and time invariant value (not getting into the world of relativity and quantum physics).

This assumption is important for the debate on Dharma here is limited to Dharma in everyday affairs as it relates to the role of State, Government and Citizens and not about “Moksha” or “Nirvana”, we will leave out those metaphysical questions for individuals to sort out for themselves.

Response to Sandeep’s Critique

- Agree with Sandeep on the nature of Dharma being to “sustain” or “protect”. It is that which makes society based on the rules of civilization possible.

- Also agree with Dharma deriving itself from Rta, the order things in the Universe

- Disagree that Dharma has goal. Individuals may have a goal to attain something, Dharma is merely a facilitator by providing a path, a vehicle and a set of enablers and constraints to attain that goal.

- Not sure of the origins of the division of Dharma. Going by the use of sanskrit words like “saamanya” and “visesha” tells me this division is of?a recent origin. Any attempts to find the original source text where this division was first specified did not meet with much success.

However the research found this excellent source on Advaita which lists different references to what Dharma is across texts.?This research piece also introduces Saamanya and Visesha Dharma towards the end without any reference to a specific text where the samaanya versus visesha distinction was originally specified.

Also in its definition of Samaanya it lists “ahimsa”, which is a giveaway that this definition is of a later origin. The earliest references to the use of the word ahimsa are in the Upanishads.

It also attributes a different meaning to Vishesha Dharma as to do with specific duties for an individual as opposed to an exception to what is otherwise dharma.

This meaning makes more sense and would be consistent with 101 where there is the “How” which is generic and then there is the “What” which is specific to a context, community, individual.

It doesnt mean the “What” can be at odds with the “How” it only means that the generic “How” when applied to a given context will yield a set of specific “What”s.

Vishesha Dharma refers to such a list of specific “What” that have been derived without violating the principles of “How”.

- Cannot agree with the rest of Sandeep’s critique on Dharma being fluid for he is relying on specific duties specified for specific varnas as it relates to Visesha Dharma with the butcher example and he is relying on the principle that it is ok to resort to “adharma” to uphold “dharma” with the Krishna example.

The Butcher example is a classic case of confusing the “what” with the “how”. This can be resolved very easily by applying the “desireless action” test. A butcher’s violence is Dharmic for it is his duty. The butcher is not killing because of anger, hate or malice. The butcher is killing because it is his “duty to society” to provide food, by going about it without violating the contract of civilization he is being Dharmic in his actions. We dont need the distinction of “samaanya” and “visesha” here to make the case.

In fact this example explains why someone came up with the “samaanya” and “visesha” distinction, just as Offstumped readers asked in response to 101. If Dharma is about the “How” where do we go to determine the “What” ? Same questions were probably asked in the ancient times hence this list of duties to specify the “What”. It is this list of duties which is being classified as “visesha” dharma.

Is this list exhaustive ?

NO

Can it be time invariant ?

It cannot because with time society changes, roles in it change hence duties change.

Does this mean the list of Duties is inviolable ?

Absolutely not, it has to be contextual. Which is why it is merely advisory in nature and contextual in its application. The list of duties must evolve with time.

But that does not mean Truth can be contextual, Justice can be contextual. They are and will always be time invariant.

What about Krishna’s Adharma in the Mahabharata ?

Sandeep argues that its ok to commit Adharma to uphold Dharma. Thats the absolute wrong lesson to derive from Mahabharata. Rather than derive the lesson that it is ok to use any means to uphold Dharma, the lesson that ought to be derived is that the means adopted to uphold Dharma must meet the “desireless action” test. That is the whole point of Krishna’s sermon to Arjuna.

Righteousness demanded that Karna, Bhishma and Duryodhana be stopped in Kurukshetra. It was Arjuna’s duty as a warrior to stop them in that war.

So how must Arjuna conduct his war to be righteous ?

He must be desireless. He must not be motivated by anger, hatred, malice or material gains.

What about the rules of engagement as far as the War go ?

The rules of engagement of the War have sanctity in as far as they facilitate the upholding of Dharma. If they do not facilitate the upholding of Dharma they have no sanctity. So the mere breaking of the rules of engagement is not Adharma.

Does that also mean you can commit some other Adharma by breaking the rules of engagement ?

No. Arjuna cannot say on the one hand that I will break the rules of engagement because they are in the way of upholding Dharma and then on the other hand use that as an excuse to plunder, pillage, cause collateral damage and take a few women as game as the Greek warrior Achilees would in Homer’s Illiad.

That is the distinction between Arjuna and Achilees and the Mahabharata and the Illiad.

Arjuna’s actions even after breaking the rules of engagement must continue to be desireless at all times. So he is allowed to break the rule to kill Karna, Bhishma or for that matter Bhima is allowed to break the rule to kill Duryodhana because their actions continue to be desireles and were limited to that killing. They did not extend beyond that to pillage, plunder, kill innocent bystanders and take the vanquished’s women for their own.

Also remember when Yudhishtra takes part in the slaying of Dronacharya he breaks the rule of engagement but he doesnt commit Adharma by telling a lie. He merely tells a half truth to help uphold Dharma. Also the half-truth brings him no collateral benefits nor does it have any collateral damage it is merely limited to stopping Drona who was fighting for Adharma.

The rest of Sandeep’s critique is premised on Visesha Dharma so will not respond point by point.

He brings up multiple examples from Arthashastra, Rig Veda etc to make the point that specifying the “What” is also Dharma. He also asks for proof that faith was determined by local communities.

The proof lies in his explanation of Visesha Dharma. There is no single authoritative text on the duties of Visesha. The very fact that these duties have been specified in multiple places at multiple times in history means neither is this list authoritative nor is it overarching.

For if it was overarching we would have one single text like the Bible or Quran laying out the dos and donts and thats it. There is no single doctrine on Visesha. There are multiple templates, best practices and guidelines none of which are overarching but all of them are derived from a common generic principle called Dharma.

More responses to comments in Part2 coming soon ……

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva

Weekend Musings – Dharma 101

5 reasons for this philosophical overdose this weekend instead of the farce and fiction that has been dominating the public discourse since last week.

Reason#1 – Reactions to the Indian Model of Economic Development

Reason# 2 – Contextual Morality which keeps popping up as the Indian way of justifying and rationalizing (Sandeep has a good post on this)

Reason#3 – Reactions to this blog’s criticism of Thackeray’s call for suicide squads

Reason# 4 – Reactions to this blog’s application of “Karna versus Vikarna” to characterize Manmohan Singh’s Legacy

Reason# 5 – The frequent tendency of the BJP, VHP to confuse Dharma with politico-religious goals e.g. State entitlements to religion, protecting religion through legislative instruments like Anti-Conversion Laws etc..

Let us begin this Dharma 101 by trying to understand the nature of Dharma.

What is Dharma ?

Dharma is about righteousness of actions. It is about righteousness which is universal and eternal i.e. it is invariant of time (when the action took place), place (where the action took place) and context (why the action took place).

Is Dharma relative or absolute ?

Because it is eternal and universal it is absolute and not relative.

Is Dharma the same as a set of do’s & donts codified in scripture by a religion ?

No it is not. Dharma is independent of faith or belief systems

How is Dharma different from religious do’s and donts ?

Dharma does not concern itself with “What” you do it only concerns itself with “How” you went about doing it. On the other hand religious do’s and donts concern themselves with “What” you do as well. Let us take an example to better understand this.

A religious belief system may hold Gambling as immoral. So in such a belief system the game of dice between the Pandavas and Kauravas would have been immoral to begin with. However Dharma is not concerned if Pandavas and Kauravas played a Game of Dice. It is only concern is if how that Game of Dice was played. Was the game governed by a set of rules ? Were those rules arrived at with consensus borne out of free will ? Once agreed to were those rules adhered to ? So the Adharma in the Game of Dice in Mahabharat was not the “what” the Game, but the “how” the Game was played – with loaded dice cast by proxy (Shakuni for Duryodhana).

Another example could be a religious belief system could hold Polyandry as immoral. Mahabharata’s Draupadi would be considered an immoral woman by that belief system. But Dharma views it differently. Draupadi’s Polyandry by itself is not of concern to Dharma. What is of concern is how that arrangement of Polyandry was arrived at and how it was conducted. So there was no Adharma in Draupadi’s Polyandry for it was arrived at by consensus between the Pandavas and Draupadi out of free will. That consensual agreement was based on the rule that Draupadi would be impartial in her love and duty towards all of the Pandavas. But then Draupadi was found guilty of Adharma in the end not because of the Polyandry but because she broke the rule on which the consensus of the Polyandry was based on, by being partial towards Arjuna and by not being truthful about that partiality.

So how is Dharma different from Contextual Morality ?

Contextual Morality as articulated by A.K. Ramanujan is really about trying to justify or rationalize something which is unrighteous by invoking the context in which that unrighteous act was committed. Let us take an example to better understand this.

Contextual Morality is basically like saying bribery is wrong but I am right in giving or taking a bribe to get a driver’s license because the process of getting it legally is cumbersome and fraught with pain. Similarly another example could be dowry is wrong but I am right in taking a dowry from my in-laws because its money that is for their daughter.

Some more recent examples of Contextual Morality are Bal Thackeray’s justification of suicide squads. Terrorism by Jihadists is wrong but my Suicide Terrorism is right because the Indian State has not been effective in fighting Terrorism.

Or more historically it is wrong to settle a contest based on factors other than merit or by discrimination but Reservations to my community are right because there were historical wrongs in the past.

So Contextual Morality is basically about acknowledging the difference between Dharma and Adharma but then seeking a one time waiver from Dharma on the grounds that my context is different and hence my Adharma in this context is moral.

Why do we see a lot of this kind of distortion of Dharma in the name of Contextual Morality ?

On some reflection this blogger has come to the conclusion that this is because unlike other faiths and belief systems which have strict doctrines with codified Do’s and Donts, in India there is no single overarching Hindu Doctrine of Do’s and Donts that everyone adheres to. So what you had in India was a sense of Universal Righteousness (Dharma) which addressed the “How” while leaving the “What” to be defined by whatever belief system each community, region evolved. So while Dharma was “Universal” the faith based Do’s and Donts were contextual.

Somewhere along the line as intellectual ferment set into the Indian Society Dharma started to be confused with the contextual Do’s and Donts to a degree that people started to justify Adharma with the contextual Do’s and Donts as the excuse.

The bottomline however is that the “what” of social customs, mores and values can be contextual but Dharma is always universal. One may seek justification for one’s actions on the basis of one’s social context (like Gujjar Reservations) but that does not make their actions Dharma. Those actions would still be Adharma.

What is the relation between Liberty, Freedom and Dharma ?

Since Dharma concerns itself with the “How” and not the “What”, it is not meaningful to talk of freedom and liberty in isolation. It is only meaningful to talk of freedom and liberty in the context of actions.

If the actions were righteous then there would be no sanction under Dharma for any restrictions on the freedom and liberty to undertake those actions. . This explains why Draupadi’s Polyandry was ok in the Mahabharata.

However if those same actions were unrighteous then they would be deemed Adharma. So any restrictions on freedom and liberty of such actions would have sanction. However Dharma would also apply to how such restrictions were applied asking if righteous means were employed to enforce such restrictions or not.

What is the relevance of Dharma as a political philosophy for the Right ?

It makes absolute sense for Dharma to be the basis for any political philosophy to the Right because it is about righteousness of actions that are time and place invariant and not about objectives and goals that are motivated by emotions and justified by context.

This is the fundamental difference between what those to the Left believe in and what those to the Right ought to believe in.

For example: While those to the Left concern themselves with Wealth and Poverty, to Dharma wealth and poverty by themselves are irrelevant since it focuses on the “How” and not on the “What”. So where the Left may see vice in Wealth and virtue in Poverty, Dharma makes no such moral distinction. Instead Dharma concerns itself purely with how the wealth was acquired and how the poverty was inflicted. Thus Dharma as a political philosophy for the Right would guide on the “how” of “wealth creation” and “poverty alleviation” and not on the morality of wealth or poverty.

So if Dharma guides only on the “How” where should the political Right go to determine the “what” of socio-economic choices/policies ?

Its the exact same thing like faith in ancient India. Since there was no overarching doctrine prescribed by Dharma it was left to local communities and regions to make those choices through means that were righteous e.g. social consensus or direct democracy.

Taking a leaf of the same, a political philosophy for the Right which is guided by Dharma should not be prescriptive on socio-economic choices e.g. acquisition of agricultural land for industries must be prohibited etc… Instead it should merely prescribe the means by which such socio-economic choices must be made to have sanction under Dharma?e.g. freedom of local communities to determine via direct democracy if their agricultural lands can be converted for use by industries.

Hence Offstumped’s Model of Economic Development for India is based on a philsophy for the Political Right with Dharma as the Guide.

Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Uncategorized

The Amarnath Shrine Controversy

Rather late to the party Offstumped is still wading through the facts and details of this controversy but a couple of issues stand out.

Issue#1 – The role of the Government in acquiring land to facilitate a religious activity

Issue#2 – The reaction in the streets of Kashmir from the PDP which is a partner in the J&K Government to the assorted separatist outfits.

Normally Offstumped would have viewed the first issue from the prism of Flat World Hindutva that calls for religion to be free of state control from which follows the dharmic principle that religious institutions must stop seeking entitlements from the State.

It is based on this principle Offstumped had been critical of state interference in Sabarimala, Tirupathi and more recently in Tamil Nadu over the new year.? This same principle was also the basis for Offstumped to be critical of Muslim religious institutions and the Communal Socialism of successive Governments for having doled out many decades of entitlements from the State for Wakf and Haj.

But here is the problem with what is happening in the streets of Kashmir on the “diversion” of land to the SASB to facilitate pilgrim friendly activities for the Amarnath Yatra.?

??This is a planned conspiracy to civil occupation of Kashmir? by New Delhi, Ronga said, ?We are not against Hindus and Amarnath Yatra, but we are against the transfer of land to SASB. The Muslims have been at the forefront to provide all possible help to the Yatris during the annual pilgrimage over the years. However, now the SASB is communalizing the issue?.The KBA president said that the SASB would use the land to raise permanent structures to settle non-Kashmiris, thereby changing the Muslim-majority character of the Valley. ?It is a conspiracy to civil occupation and to change the Muslim character of the Valley,? he said.

That was the reaction from the Kashmir Bar Association and this reaction believe it or not has the tacit support of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s PDP which is a coalution partner in the J&K Government.

The debate on the streets of Kashmir is not about state entitlements to religion but about who has first claim to the State’s resources. If in Manmohan Singh’s Communal Socialism Muslims had a first claim to State’s resources because they were a Minority, in the PDP’s Communal Socialism Muslim’s have a first claim on Kashmir’s resources because they are the Majority.

If anyone in India is in any doubt about what the separatist movement in Kashmir has been perverted to after decades of support and interference by Pakistan this should settle all of those doubts.

Offstumped Bottomline: The hounding of Pandits from the Valley cannot be seen as anything but ethnic cleansing to alter the demographics of the Valley to a degree where there is neither shame nor guilt in pursuing a Muslim Agenda in the name of Kashmiriyat. What was passed of as Kashmiriyat for secular International consumption is plain and simple Islamiyat and it is?now sowing the seeds for a?third partition of India on the principle of right to self determination of a Mulsim Majority.

Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Uncategorized