It is common for not only Hindus themselves but even those opposing Hindus and Hinduism to conflate Hindutva with Hinduism. While in the former case it is more born out of ignorance, the latter is almost always born out of the need for a euphemism to clumsily mask a motivated hatred for all things Hindu. For instance to give just one example, one person in this comments thread gives the example of Paul Courtright and in a blanket statement paints all those who raised their voices against his fraudulent scholarship as Hindutva. To my knowledge, those that I know of, who raised their voices against Courtright did so in a very erudite manner. Indeed one only needs to look at Vishal Agarwal and Kalavai Venkat’s elaborate expose in Invading the Sacred of Courtright’s outright mistranslations, manipulations and even blatant concoctions to force fit into his perverse fantasies and diabolical agenda. Instead of a civilized reply to the scholarly takedown, all we got was the boogey of Hindutva. And we still do. But of course, we shouldn’t be surprised to see those dedicated to suppressing the survival and revival of Hinduism, dedicated to criminalizing Hinduism, be it a Courtright, Kumar or Karim, use the euphemism of Hindutva to further their agendas when in fact, more often than not, it is Hinduism itself that they target.
The savant Sita Ram Goel and the intrepid S.N. Balagangadhara have made it amply clear that secular social sciences have biblical underpinnings, hence are Christian memes. This is corroborated by the mountain of evidence that keep growing bigger every day. We can see in India the invention of Saint Thomas in Kerala that has no historical veracity and is repudiated even by the Catholic church’s own records being bolstered by secular socialists and historians. While the same bunch of worthies seek to throttle archeological evidence for the Sarasvati river. We can see various English, political science departments both in India and the West being seeding grounds for dharma-hostile paradigms by folks who call themselves liberal. There should be no doubt about the memes secularism, liberalism being inherently dharma-hostile and serving the interests of the dharmavirodhin-s. Various mediacrats are deeply infected by these parasitic memes. Interestingly, even “think-tank” honchos who claim to be nationalist (or at least did so when they started out) aren’t free from its subversive influence. These memes are far more dangerous than any army since it is insidious and subverts from within.
It is not uncommon for those playing the role of good cop to express (faux) denouncement for the evangelical apparatus or to display “tolerance” for the heathens. Note how on being put on the spot, a good cop might seemingly denounce the missionary apparatus, but then will conveniently avoid taking that conversation any further when more pointed questions are asked. While the said denouncement being hand-in-glove with the compulsions of being a good cop, at the back of their minds, it is the ultimate goal of harvest for the one true son of god which is paramount. In the quest for this harvest, the good cops are also very active in unscrupulously mining dharma knowledge system to (a) enrich their hollow dogmatic credo (b) entice heathens for harvest. Meanwhile, as the unscrupulous mining efforts get ongoing, the bad cops are active in undermining and even disparaging the original dharma source traditions. While the good cops and bad cops always assiduously seek to portray as being disparate, ultimately, both are working towards the same goal, which make no mistake, bodes no good for the dharma traditions. Which is why, when one of the good cops, perhaps in a fit of frustration at being confronted by some who are knowledgeable and are not willing to be subservient or fooled by the smokescreen of sameness, approvingly quotes and expresses admiration for the bad cops, it actually exposes the confluence/collusion of the good cops and the bad cops. We hope such Freudian slips happen more often so perhaps some of the imbeciles who swallow the sameness bite will be woken from their suicidal stupor.
[Preface: This post was the result of thoughts triggered by some messages in an email list, so certain references should be considered in the context of an e-group.]
There is no doubt that unlike Judeo-Christian society, dharma traditions are very comfortable with chaos. However, too much comfort with chaos (coupled with a lack of discipline) can often lead to a false sense of security and can be exploited by hostile forces within and without.
Western society has for a very long time overwhelmingly comprised of (White) Christians. While that is slowly changing, it is still largely true. Western (Christian) society never faced existential external threats the way Hindu society did, and further, it fattened itself on the blood and sweat of its various colonies around the world. To top that off, most dangerously, in the post-colonial period it has injected sundry constructs into non-Western(/Christian) societies that may seem like universal but are actually its own memes that dutifully serve the interests of the Christian West. Secularism (specially as practiced in India) is a perfect example of such a meme.
Hindu society however has always consisted of diverse elements, reflecting the inherent pluralism of Hinduism. Of course, there was always the unifying thread of dharma, but that is besides the point. In a diverse society, a decentralized, distributed power structure is more successful.
- It has the ability to self-organize
- It is vastly adept in handling large amounts of noise without being too disturbed
- It is difficult to completely destroy since some vestige of one power structure may seed another
All of these points are validated by historical and extant instances of Hindu/dhArmika society.
The now corrupted varNa system, in its original, pristine form as devised by our wise ancestors, was a wonderful conception of a distributed, fluid power structure which while being comfortable with chaos still encapsulated discipline. Notwithstanding what ideologically motivated historians would have us believe, the varNa system wasn’t entire a liability and played a part in resisting the Mohammedan whirlwind. Christianity however is way more sophisticated than Islam in exploiting any perceivable chinks in the heathen armor. Under these circumstances and in its current corrupted form, the liability of the varNa system cannot be stressed enough. Indeed, the corrupted varNa system is largely responsible for the lack of political leverage for Hindu interests in India. It is also worth pondering over how much this corruption of varNa system has contributed towards decadence in Hindu society. There is not only too much chaos, but also a very high degree of laziness. Further, due to pervasiveness of Christian memes like secularism and liberalism, several members of Hindu society have actually become rabid Hindu-hating zombies who dutifully serve interests of the anti-dharma block, specially the Christian West. This in turns leads to increased chaos in dhArmika society coupled with a disconcerting lack of guiding and disciplining influence. The lack of discipline is even more dangerous since in a society as diverse as the Hindu society, chaos can be turned centrifugal with the right push at the right places. Forces inimical to dharma and India are already very active in doing this. “Breaking India” provides ample evidence of such inimical forces at work. And when the centrifugal chaos gains enough momentum, fragmentation is very likely to happen.
While the importance of discipline even in seeming chaos is undeniable, the question that arises is, who enforces or inculcates this discipline? Western (Christian) society does enforcement from an organizational level. The best example being the Church. However, Hindu society is more dependent on capable, influential individuals. There isn’t really an established mechanism for discipline (or even dharma for that matter) being inculcated from an organizational level. This of course is tied to the comfort with chaos in dharma traditions. At some point(s) of Hindu history, temples played an important organizational role (as the savant RC Mazumdar has demonstrated), but even so, the individualist element has always been very strong. There are sampradAya specific organizations like svAdhyAya parivAra, Chinmaya Mission, ammA trust, etc. (Swapan Dasgupta calls this folk Hinduism). But when considering hard ground realities, even their collective influence over Hindus is still very limited. So, in the want of capable, influential individuals, dharma suffers. In my humble opinion, AchArya sha~Nkara probably realized this and in his short but momentous life-span sought to rectify it by establishing the various matha-s. Unfortunately, today those who claim to be his spiritual heirs are deep in stupor and hardly have the AchArya-‘s monumental vision or sharp, incisive acumen. But I digress. We need not look further from this e-group to see the overwhelming dependence on individual rather than organization at work. Contrast this to the militarily efficiency with which Christian organizations; both missionary and memetic (secular, liberal, progressive, humanist,…) forms; advance their interests. The different seminaries, theological colleges, secular social science programs that regularly churn out well-trained agents who actively propagate the smokescreen of sameness to aid their unscrupulous mining of dharma knowledge systems are fine examples of the organizational approach. As are the extremely organized evangelical missions. I once saw a video of an Indian Christian who heads an evangelical program in India, reporting to a largely White Christian gathering on the different conversion tactics, the number of converts gained in India, etc. The presentation, the data mined and the methods employed for conversions, gave the impression of a meticulously planned militarily operation. That video is probably still available on YouTube. Interestingly, that Indian Christian is also employed in a public institution supported by the secular Indian government, that explicitly propounds Christian mores for gaining converts. But, I again digress. While I do not make claims of this contrast of order vs. chaos, organizational vs. individualist being either good or bad, it does presents ample food for thought.
I have had these sort of discussions with some folks who sadly, more often than not, fall back on a Utopian sapta–sindhu/Gangetic valley Vedic past. Perhaps to avoid confronting uncomfortable, bitter truths about extreme dharma-hostile agents within and without. Or perhaps simply out of laziness, or a false sense of security. Some of these folks are also what I like to call “Safe Hindus“. Nonetheless, the point being, harping on what has long since gone is hardly helpful for survival and revival of Hinduism. To quote shrI Aurobindo, “…the body must change to suit its changing environments if it wishes to live.”
A person I highly admire rightly points to leadership training being a solution to address the problem of excess chaos and lack of discipline. But who trains these leaders and more importantly, who sustains and supports them? Perhaps, the ostensible deficiency of an extant inherent organizational support mechanism presents a more fundamental problem.
[Preface: We have in this blog already discussed the Aryan influx hypothesis issue. From my previous posts in this matter, readers will note that my stand has been very cynical w.r.t. any proposed influx. I have presented comments and inferences by various geneticists and their research papers, which go against any influx. However, I am always open to discussion and new ideas. I welcome any fresh evidence and any perspective provided it has the weight of scholarly analysis. One such scholarly analysis recently came to my attention, which I have excerpted in this post.]
The publication of a new paper on Indian population genetics studies has once again elicitated some excitement over the Aryan question. Some of the authors of the paper made some very strong statements against the colonial theory of Aryan invasion turned euphemistic migration turning trickle-in theory.
Widely believed theory of Indo-Aryan invasion, often used to explain early settlements in the Indian subcontinent is a myth, a new study by Indian geneticists says.
“Our study clearly shows that there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago,” said Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, who led the research team, which included scientists from the University of Tartu, Estonia, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai and Banaras Hindu University.
“It is high time we re-write India’s prehistory based on scientific evidence,” said Dr Lalji Singh, former director of CCMB. “There is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India or even something such as Aryans existed”. Singh, vice-chancellor of BHU, is a coauthor.
The comparison of this data with genetic data of other populations showed that South Asia harbours two major ancestry components. One is spread in populations of South and West Asia, Middle East, Near East and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50 per cent of the ancestry in Indian populations.
“Both the ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia demonstrate much greater diversity than those that predominate West Eurasia. This is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia,” researchers said.
“The genetic component which spread beyond India is significantly higher in India than in any other part of world. This implies that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus,” said Gyaneshwar Chaube of University of Tartu, Estonia.
A very knowledgeable Hindu blogger whom I admire and agree with on most matters, and who is a highly educated (evolutionary) biologist by training (if I have deduced his identity correctly), had this to say on this latest Metspalu, et. al., 2011 paper.
A recent paper by Metspalu et al in AHJG adds additional data to the growing material on the genetics of the Indians. The paper has several issues that are rather unsatisfactory – chief among them is the attempt to meaninglessly hand wave on OIT and AIT. The AIT is sitting right there in their data, yet they attempt to obfuscate the issue in somewhat amateurish ways. But that is not something we wish to discuss today because there is new work that might be published relatively soon that will smash the OIT theory for good.
Interestingly, while the authors of an earlier paper (Reich et. al. 2009) have spoken against AIT/AMT (albeit indirectly) in a press conference, their paper itself has been interpreted by many as supporting AMT (Breaking India, Appendix A). A discussion of their paper in Nature by Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti makes interesting reading. On one hand Dr. Chakravarti seemingly supports AMT. On the other hand, he also supports Reich, et. al. that current Indian population is admixture of ANI (Ancestral North Indian), ASI (Ancestral South Indian), both of which groups have remote ancestry in India (can be traced back to around 40,000 to 65,000 years). Of course, the paper itself mentions that ANI has affinity with Europeans. If we go by geneticists, this affinity would imply that there was/were major migration(s) out of the Indian subcontinent which contributed to the non-African genetic population of the world. Geneticist Oppenheimer says,
For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus.
In his book, “The Real Eve”, Dr. Oppenheimer traces the genetic origin of Europeans and Central Asians to a single mother who lived in the Indian subcontinent, whom he calls the “Eurasian Eve”. This inference points to the autochthonous origin of the genetic population of the Indian subcontinent, which agrees with the results of many genetic studies, including but not limited to, Sharma, et. al. 2009, Sengupta, et. al. 2006, Sahoo, et. al., 2006, Metspalu, et. al., 2004. Not surprisingly, while Bamshad, et. al. 2001, which seemed to support a invasionist/migrationist model had the professional Aryanists jumping up and down, vast majority of subsequent genetic research, which go against any so-called Aryan invasion or migration into India, don’t elicit the same excitement from them.
Interestingly, some professional Aryanists theorize that even if the Indian subcontinent is the genetic origin for Central Asian and European populations, that still doesn’t rule out a migration of Sanskrit speaking (or PIE speaking) “Aryans” into the subcontinent around 1500 BCE (or around that time). Now some questions arise with this theory. How major was this theoretical migration to have contributed language and beliefs in such a scale? Did Sanskrit develop in the subcontinent prior of this said migration? Or, did the ancient migration out of the subcontinent carry PIE into Central Asia, Europe? If we go by genetic studies, among others, Metspalu, et. al., 2004 clearly state that since the initial settlement of South Asia by modern humans, when this region may well have provided initial settlers who colonized much of Eurasia, gene flow in and out of India has been very limited. Metspalu, et. al., 2011 also provide the same thesis. Co-author Gyaneshwar Chaube of University of Tartu, Estonia explicitly states this in an aforementioned quote from India Today. However, given the possibility of new research disputing this out-of-India model, as mentioned by the editor of mAnasa–taraMgiNI, we eagerly await that publication.
In any case, even though the invasionist model has been largely discarded by the professional Aryanists for a migrationist (and even trickle-in) model, there are still significant mainstream books, sites, etc. that talk of conquering light skinned Aryans and defeated dark skinned natives. It may still take significant amount of time before this Aryan debate is settled once and for all. While genetics holds the key, as long as there exists political reasons for patronizing the professional Aryanists, namely, the Marxist history engineers of India and their occidental Eurocentric associates, the results and inferences of genetic research won’t reach textbooks that easily. That said, it will probably take another decade of more genetic evidence, on top of what we already know, to put an end to this Aryan debate once and for all.
Notwithstanding the direction genetics studies take, it is important to dissociate dharma/Hinduism from the Aryan theories. The soul of India has always been dhArmika be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. Wherever dharma has ceased to exist, secessionist activities have taken root. The nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh stand as testimonies to what happens once the population is converted from dharma. If the break India agenda is to be foiled, among other things, there needs to be a resurgence of dharma in India. Whether dharma “came to” India from outside or not shouldn’t really be the focus. Focus should be that dharma is that soul of India and cleansing of dharma enables the break India agenda. Of course, if genetic studies of the last few years is any indication, the evidence for autochthonous origins of the Indian population groups and hence dharma is gradually mounting. While any new paper may as well change this, after some deliberation I have come to believe that it is definitely befitting to decouple the whole Aryan influx matter from dharma/Hinduism. Otherwise, we will merely be playing into the hands of our civilizational opponents.