Rediscovery of India
Tuesday, 2. February 2010 - 12:30 PM
It’s been about 10 years since I started this blog and this post is a personal stock-taking of sorts. This blog started as a space for personal rants/ruminations that made sense perhaps only to me. At a level, it still remains that way. But I’ll spare you those details. The point is it did take a definitive turn at some point for a reason I’m still trying to locate. However, a lot of folks continue to return to this space for whatever reasons and I’m both grateful and overwhelmed for that.
This freaky prelude was necessary as we shall see.
In his monumental literary blunder, the Discovery of India, which now passes off as history in–among other places–UCLA, Jawaharlal Nehru characterized the Upanishads as some sort of esoteric works whose complexity, meaning, intent, and purpose is beyond our comprehension. He was, really, speaking for himself. He expressed a personal opinion about the Upanishads. It was his complete lack of comprehension about the subject that he foisted upon the Upanishads, quite similar to a schoolboy who thinks Mathematics is bad because he can’t solve those damn sums. Whatever his other faults, Nehru was being honest: the Upanishads were really beyond his comprehension. But I wouldn’t judge him too harshly on this shortcoming. Nehru read and “understood” the traditions, philosophy, and culture of his own land through alien eyes. He read them all in English–more accurately, he read their interpretation in books written by Westerners. He was as far removed from India as the Westerners were. If he was really interested, he’d have to like travel just a few minutes to find scores of people who were deeply rooted, preserved, and fought for the preservation of this culture. Instead, he chose to call them kaminey.
And that was a monumental tragedy for India.
The India in Discovery of India became the real India after he became Prime Minister. His interpretations of Western and Islamic (guess at whose feet he learned Indian history?) interpretations of Indian history became authentic Indian history. The Brown Sahib was not only an alien in his own country but unleashed a reign of terror on the nation’s cultural past (chiefly). He actively discouraged Sanskrit. He just couldn’t get to the core of the seemingly-meaningless Hindu rituals. He took a fancy to tyrants, despots, plunderers, and savages who had ravaged India. Mahumud Ghaznavid was a historical hero while “Marshall (sic)” Stalin was his contemporary counterpart. Small wonder Nehru was enamoured with the (then) USSR and China. Under his auspices, the meaning of the term Communal was turned on its head to mean exactly the opposite. A progressive, democratic Prime Minister of a newly-independent nation who despised dynastic rule ruled for 17 years and actively groomed his daughter to perpetuate democracy. I don’t know this for sure, but there’s no evidence that he as much as pondered over what kept such a complex, diverse and large nation with all its conflicts intact.
In other words, he was supremely self-assured in his stupidity, which he covered up with this massive ego.
Is this judging him too harshly, or unfairly? I think not. At a level, you can argue that he was a product of his times. However, so were his contemporaries. Gandhi, his mentor, who declared himself a proud Sanatani Hindu, and Sardar Patel and a host of others.
The result of his self-absorption, love for tyrants, and myopia mixed with hot-headedness culminated in the 1962 humiliation. But the soul of India had already suffered the real blow many years before 1962. A generation of self-hating Hindus was growing and today it’s a pretty sizeable number. It gleefully joins the ranks of the ignorant who casually abuse Hindu traditions and way of life. If you abuse native traditions long enough, you create a class of rootless people who will eventually see no sense in defending the nation they were born in. As we see, this class is multiplying exponentially. Given this mentality, how do you ensure that India stays together? Every category of “liberal,” “modern,” and “secular,” has its own reasons–and they are perfectly logical reasons from their standpoint–to, say, give away Kashmir. Give it enough time and Assam will go the Kashmir way and these selfsame people will advocate these selfsame arguments to give it away.
One of the few solutions to counter–if not redeem before it’s too late–this is to embark on what I call the Rediscovery of India. I’ve done my fair share of ranting about secularism, the Congress party, votebanks, Islamists…. To give it some shape, here are a few broad (and probably vague) themes:
- Repudiate the Nehruvian “idea” of India
- Examine issues, ideas, and policies by scrutinizing/comparing it with similar work our ancients had done
- Examine everything in the context of its applicability to native Indian traditions
- Revive traditions that have timeless relevance
- Discard any ugly traditions that exist
- Revitalize Indian art, sculpture, music, dance, and literature. The value this has in keeping India together is intangible but infinitely more significant than most of us realize.
- Stop jerking off to the fact that one of the greatest strengths of India, for all its flaws (sic), is that it’s a democracy. What we have is a sham.
- Develop a spine: we don’t need to seek the West’s (or the whole world’s) approval for everything we do.
The last point will automatically result if the rest are taken care of. I’m aware that lots of good work is happening in one or all of these areas but I discern three major shortcomings: it is not enough, not widespread enough, and not assertive enough. And it won’t happen merely by the BJP or any other, similar party coming to power. If you believe that fixing drains will fix terrorism, then you equally need to believe this approach will rejuvenate India. We are a sick nation at present, miraculously surviving on the feeble support of some unconscious, civilizationally-inherited values that may not last long. These values, deeply rooted in Hindu civilization is not an inexhaustible blank cheque.
And with that, and at the end of about 10 years, this reassessment of my blog comes to an end.
And I’ve decided to rename this blog to Rediscovery of India. Nothing else changes.
Tags: Ancient India, Blogging, Blogs, Commentary, Culture, Democracy, History, India, Indian Civilization, Indian Culture, Indian Genius, Jawaharlal Nehru, Nehru, Reassessment of Blog, Rediscovery of India, Rejuvenating Hinduism, Rejuvenating India, Santana Dharma, Secularism, Seriously Sandeep, Society & Culture
2. February 2010 - 12:41 PM
Excellent! Excellent!
Sandeep, as always a great post explaining what your blog is all about. All the best. And may your tribe increase.
2. February 2010 - 1:39 PM
Superb Sandeep….All the power to you…
Will keep visiting here…and with even greater interest.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
Shantanu @ http://Satyameva-Jayate.org/
2. February 2010 - 2:11 PM
Sandeep
Best wishes on your initiative to reimagine Indian ‘conservativism’ (label not to be taken too seriously).
While your ambition to revive the good and discard the bad is eminently sensible, it begs the question as to what yardstick will you use to determine what to keep and what to throw away. The yardstick cannot be tradition because it is tradition that is being evaluated. Or can it.
Also, what space for modern ideas that might not have originated in India but are eminently sensible?
2. February 2010 - 2:39 PM
Nitin,
I call it “rediscover” not reimagine. I’m sure you appreciate the difference.
>>…what yardstick will you use to determine what to keep and what to throw away
The same yardstick that you use: national interest. And I agree that tradition is being evaluated and will continue to be. It’s also useful if you can elaborate a bit on how you define tradition in this context.
>>Also, what space for modern ideas that might not have originated in India but are eminently sensible
I didn’t mention it because this isn’t the current focus.
Because I didn’t mention this in my post doesn’t mean I want to blindly pass over them/repudiate them: Aa no bhadraah kritavo yaanti, etc
2. February 2010 - 2:45 PM
Sandeep,
All the very best ! I keep sharing your blog posts (some, not all) on Facebook, and I think there would be other regular readers who may be doing the same. I hope these rivulets of perspective (referring to the various center right or conservative or national interest blogs) may some day become a big river.
Aside: There is a need to pool the resources and research the wealth of knowledge contained in Sanskrit and Pali manuscripts. The Govt is doing a little, but it is just a drop in the bucket. I wonder if the bloggers community can spearhead this ‘rediscovery of India’.
Regarding your perspective, though I agree with most of what you say, some times I fear that in our hatred towards Islamist oppressors of the past, and Islamic fundamentalists of today, we are keeping the Indian Muslims away from our discourse. I like the ‘big white tent’ symbolism used by Offstumped, but I don’t see how Sanatan Dharma can be used to create that big umbrella under which every one can stand. The problem is not with Sanatan Dharma. The problem is with us. The people need basic necessities of life, including freedom and peace. It is our contention that at some point in our hoary past, our ancestors had hit upon a reasonably good formula to deliver these basic freedoms to all the people. How do we bring that era back, using modern and scientific approaches informed by Dharmic principles ?
2. February 2010 - 4:25 PM
We should understand that India survived repeated assaults on her, in spite of self grown Jayachands.I analyse it spiritually.In spite of decay in knowledge of vedas among masses post mahabharat war, vedas and its spiritual/metaphysical lineage were maintained by yogis, brahmins too maintained it. Still they are the most intelligent lot, if they follow vedas in spirit. These yogis and brahmins, saints have kept india alive.When brutal islam came there was nanak who himself was realised yogi(all the miracles [as per laymen which are actually siddhis as per patanjali sutras] performed by him).He formed sikkhism for protection of hindus, as ordinary men are not suppose to take arms except if they are kshatriya by profession, sikkhism actually was a warrior class to protect hindus and oppressed men from brutalities of islam, infact he never formed any new religion, see he was a yogi, he was the founder.Then came Great shivaji, he was supported by Swami Samarth Ramdas a ascetic/sansyasi/Devotee of lord rama. Then in south came vijay nagar empire whose foundation was laid was sage vidyanarayana(again a sanyasi and vedic scholar. Then came Gyaneshwar, tukaram, namdeo all stressed on importance of unity of mankind, but all were bhakti saints, a man experiences divine in meditation/perfect devotion its true. Then British rule and looting of India there came Swami Dayanad saraswati, Ramakrishna paramhansa, Swami Samarath of Akkalkot, Gajanan maharaj, Shirdi sai baba, Bhagwan Nityananda o Ganeshpuri, vivekananda, Swami Paramhansa yogananda, Lahiri mahasya. India has never stopped producing souls who in body of human beings were one with the infinite. These were the real strength of India, they guided many, directly /indirectly Swami samarth is belived to be lord dattatreya, Bhagwan Nityanada to be King of Yogis Lord Shiva,.Lord Krishna himself has helped in maintaining Dharma ( the realised soul took birth as kshatriya) in addition to all the rishis.How come so many realised souls came to Guide us.Our Vedas state that after getting the knowledge from a learned Acharya, when an aspirant performs Yajyen, does pious deeds, discharges his moral duties faithfully, while doing the same he does practice of Ashtang yoga, he thus attains Asamprgyat samadhi. At this stage of Samadhi, Almighty God becomes present within him. Samveda mantra 944 states that at the stage of the Asamprgyat samadhi within the yogi, the preach of Vedas which flows from the mouth of Yogi is inspired by God Himself. So the Yogi at this stage can say, “I am Ganesh, I am Shiva, I have created universe and all must worship me etc., etc.” because at this stage the words uttered by the yogi are inspired by God Himself and the words are directed from God.
Secondly, the souls who had got salvation may come back and take birth to guide the people. And after doing his job the soul goes back at his own to realize salvation. This is as per Atharvaveda mantra 9/10/11. So within the soul of Shri Krishna Maharaj actually the words of God were uttered which are true. However, one must know that Yajurveda mantra 32/1 too says that there is only one formless God, who creates, nurses and destroys the universe. But His names are several according to His qualities. Infact when i read all the yogic literature i found perfect harmony, God is formless, In words of Nityananda bhagwan in Chidaksha Gita “The real place of Jiva is formless, indivisible. God pervades all things movable and immovable. He is the ONE without a second. God is the origin of Vedas. He is the Lord of the body. He is the Lord of Jivanmukti. Man, to be man, must meditate upon God.”
The vedas, the spiritual strength of India has kept it alive when all parallel civilizations have lost.We should by reading, discrimination, practice and study of vedas along with succeeding in making every family Financially strong, should endeavour to make all hindus spiritually stong. My guru ji says Man/women should achieve both worldly and spiritual progress together unlike the prevalent notion that to know God you have to leave everything.Once again we should contact Rishis (a rishi is a mantradrishta means who has seen vedas in samadhi, who has achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi and supreme truth ) such men are true embodiment of God and then we should Revive Bharat. Lord Rama, Krishna all had such Rishis as Gurus who were there gude, they used to serve Rishis, do yajen.The Dust lying on our indian culture will only be removed by our efforts.
I have observed a slow awakening is taking place in india, I pray to God that it should lead to a spiritual and material awakening of India. India without vedas, Upnishads and yogis/rishis is like any other country.No country has ever produced such men who are absorbed in supreme truth in succession, that proves my point all theoris of aryan invasion/dravidian history it is farce.Our direct experience should be a benchmark no approval from west should be sought if they want they can follow us.
2. February 2010 - 7:12 PM
Sandeep,
You have twisted Nehrus words.Nehru was ‘conscious’ of his Brahmin heitage.He was mediocre,naive,idealistic,semi-educated,rich,was uneasy questioning about his roots.Not all can be termed faults.The Nehruvians were invariably scoundrels.We have to be more charitable to Nehru for both the sake of truth and Indias future lest we dismiss every view different from ours as unimportant.
Surely your agenda for India presupposes accurate understanding of India.
2. February 2010 - 7:34 PM
Nehru was conceited.He did not understand Islam or religion.Few were intersted in religion among the educated Hindus of his generation.Yet there are passages in his books expressing his admiration for the spirit of Upanishads.He is exhilarated by the Nasadiya Sukta(remember it was the signature tune for Benegals adaptation.)He was in awe of Shankara and had a good layman’s, which had to be superficial ,understanding of Advaita.He admired Buddha as one of Indias greatest sons.
2. February 2010 - 8:08 PM
Sandeep,
Raja Rao, the great Indian writer writes the following in His “Meaning of India”:
May the tribe of ones wanting to discover that true bhaarataavani, by negating what that is not, increase!
jaya jaya he bhagavati sura bhaarati tava charaNaM praNAmaH
2. February 2010 - 9:16 PM
Sandeep, congratulations for completing 10 years. It takes tremendous amount of passion and staying power to keep blogging for so long. I discovered your blog in 2003 and have been a regular visitor since. Yours is a very popular blog, and shows every sign of becoming even more popular. Best wishes.
2. February 2010 - 11:30 PM
Keep your insightful and informative articles coming Shri Sandeep.
May your tribe increase.
2. February 2010 - 11:46 PM
to rediscover and share the knowledge.
best wishes.
3. February 2010 - 12:32 AM
I love reading your blog. Keep up the good work!
3. February 2010 - 12:52 AM
Anony,
>>You have twisted Nehrus words.
Have I? Let’s see what YOU say about what I’ve written.
>>Nehru was ‘conscious’ of his Brahmin heitage
Did I say that? Why do you attribute something to me which I never said? “Nehru was conscious of his Brahmin heritage” isn’t the same as “he didn’t understand the Upanishads.” Some logic, please?
>>.Few were intersted in religion among the educated Hindus of his generation.
Sure but then those few didn’t become India’s Prime Minister. Also, this is not a logical ground for you to justify the mortal blow he dealt to Hinduism. If anything, it’s actually very revealing of him and such people: he set out to destroy something he hadn’t understood, or according to you, wasn’t interested in. Doesn’t it make it worse? How’d you like it if I destroyed some prized possession of yours because I didn’t like it. Let me know if you condone/agree with/support this kind of mentality.
>>Yet there are passages in his books expressing his admiration for the spirit of Upanishads.He is exhilarated by the Nasadiya Sukta(remember it was the signature tune for Benegals adaptation.)He was in awe of Shankara and had a good layman’s, which had to be superficial ,understanding of Advaita.He admired Buddha as one of Indias greatest sons.
Admiration is not the same as comprehension/understanding. Please re-read my post before commenting.
>>Surely your agenda for India presupposes accurate understanding of India.
It does and while my understanding isn’t perfect, it is certainly accurate. Just as surely as it’ll help if you invested some time in comprehending what exactly I wrote instead of pouncing on me for something I didn’t say.
3. February 2010 - 12:54 AM
OT,
Thanks for the kind words.
3. February 2010 - 5:31 AM
Sandeep,
Congratulations on completion of 10 years!!! Re-discovery is necessary, so is our effort to convey what we already know to the next generation. I would be proud to do what you are doing, so thanks again.
3. February 2010 - 5:33 AM
Oh, one more thing, you might have read this but few discussions on Nehru’s impact on India can be complete without this man’s experience with Nehruism:
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hibh/ch9.htm
3. February 2010 - 7:00 AM
Congratulations on your 10 years of blogging!!! Please keep up your good work. Thank you for your enthusiasm and hard work.
3. February 2010 - 9:07 AM
Sandeep,
Congratulations on completing 10 years of blogging
Visiting your blog has been a value addition to me.
3. February 2010 - 9:45 AM
Sandeep,
People like you are the only hope for this country, your cult has to multiply in thousands. Many congratulations to you.
3. February 2010 - 9:54 AM
I have not pounced on you.It is beyond doubt Nehru had limitations.I read your post (for the first time).Everything you say is true.
Yet the opposition to Nehru was feeble in his times.WHY? This is the question that needs to be asked again and again.Because he led a broad consensus.Hindu culture is not monolithic.It has infinite facets and expressions.There are ‘conflicting’ strands in it.Hinduism was crying out for reform in its social,economic and organisational aspects.The Congress represented the middle ground.
That is why the most orthodox elements did not oppose Nehru.The most orthodox can see the need for reform very clearly because for them orthodoxy is not a received view.Please take my ‘criticism’ FWIW in a friendly spirit.How could India have evolved without Nehru?There was unanimous consensus among educated Hindus for reform.Also a substantial chunk of liberals in Bengal,Bombay and Madras believed British rule ‘quickened’ our impulses.Even Vivekananda and Ramana Maharishi had commented on the superiority of Western civilisation in some aspects.One of the recurring themes of Nehru was the two Englands.This view a gross oversimplification of West still had a large grain of truth.One the England of science,reform,the classic liberal view and the other an oppressive,Imperial West.
When India won Independence,Nehru in the manner of an English teacher in a secondary school set about governing a nation on such moral principles.It was a recipe for disaster.Yet this charming,’innocence’ was necessary after the British machinations.There were level headed realists who provided the counter balance.Nehru did not interfere in the actual details and capability building.
The deteoriation occured later.But all blame cannot be laid at Nehrus door alone.A major part has to be taken by the inertia that had set in the Indian society for so long and 60 years is just about enough for her to shake off all the dross and drowsiness.
Congragulations on your great efforts and Best Wishes for the future.There is definitely a place for a view grounded in Hindu nationalism than some vacuous liberal thoughts.But let us not forget that is a place for a Hindu liberal view as well and Nehru in my view represented an aspect of that thought inspite of his limitations.
3. February 2010 - 10:44 AM
@anony,
Yes, agree with you with for the fact that most educated of those days had some sort of inferiority complex and looked upon their European masters as role model. And it is also true that Industrially and economically they were superior to us. Do this anyway justify his hostility towards Indian tradition? if he could not grow beyond his limits he had no right to acquire the top job. If he represented feelings of middle class educated of his time then he is mediocre did not deserve the rule our country for so long, I pity all those middle class educated elite for their inferiority complex and his leader Nehru.
Going by general impression of common man in India they want to eliminate Pakistan for once and all, so what should our national leaders do ? should they side the common man’s consensus? Expectations from leaders are high, they should not be carried away with general consensus. If leaders can’t grow beyond the space and time, they are no better than dogs and we don’t need such leaders.
But I respect your thoughts on liberal Hindu view
3. February 2010 - 3:45 PM
Its not just Nehru the truth is majority of Hindus, have no idea what exactly are the Upanishads. If you ask an average person of any other faith, particularly a Muslim or a Christian, to tell something about his religion, he will be able to say something about his beliefs, the core concepts of his religion BUT if you ask a Hindu most likely than not he will be completely clueless, he might tell something from the Puranas or Ramayana or Mahabharata BUT he will have noo idea about the philosophical part of the religion. As a result we see that even highly educated people falling for fake babas and jotishis. Hinduism is probably the only religion in the entire world without a trained clergy and adherents of no religion are as ignorant of their own religion as the Hindus. Many people recognize that Hindus are facing a crisis today but their opinion it seems is that it is a political crisis and has to be responded politically, I beg to disagree, I see the it’s a spiritual crisis and it has be responded spiritually, we don’t lack political leaders we need religious leaders. Hindus as a people lack a sense of community or nationhood and this is our biggest weakness.
3. February 2010 - 3:49 PM
Hey Sandeep,
Very many congratulations to you on completing 10 yrs of relentless blogging.
3. February 2010 - 7:10 PM
About the naivety of Nehru, Mountbatten, comparing him to Sardar Patel, had this to say in Dominique Lapier & Larry Collins’ book ‘Mountbatten and Partition of India’:
While Nehru had his head in the clouds, Patel had his feet on the ground!
3. February 2010 - 8:45 PM
Sandeep bandhu….I am a regular subcriber to your blog’s RSS feeds…and tis’ goes without saying that I eagerly await your blogposts, not only for the kind of topics your blogposts are centered on but also for their content, more so as they are among the most erudite I come across on the net! =d>
specially – aware of our motherland Bharatvarsh’s rich cultural as well as spiritual heritage, which unfortunately is under incessant attack from the ‘dhimmi’ as well as ‘psuedo-sickular’ crowd in Bharatvarsh!
Heartiest congratulations on completion of a decade of hard work making us – the Internet Hindus
Look forward to another decade of enlightening posts! Pls. keep up the good work!
3. February 2010 - 9:36 PM
@Anony,
Your analysis does not go deep. Here is why:
“Yet the opposition to Nehru was feeble in his times.WHY?” – It is because no other significant leader existed during 1950s. Look at pre-independence period. Gandhi was the un-questioned leader who choose this man as his close. Despite my respect for MK Gandhi, I can see how skillfully he sent all of Nehru’s political rivals packing. I have no illusion about “Secular” Jinnah, but he was a competent political rival and Gandhi never allowed him to rise to Nehru’s level in the national scene until he went to muslim league. Or consider Subhas Bose, another political rival. In 1938, he became congress president in spite of the fact that Gandhi indirectly disapproved him. A comment by our ‘father of nation’ forced him to resign. Bhagat Singh or Savarkar – people with very strong character and patriotism, had they joined Gandhi line of politics, would have been forced out similarly. Post-independence, Sardar Patel, rising as a stronger leader, died in 1950. With him, any hope for stronger integration died. Rest were either fuddy-duddy Gandhians (like Desai, another moralist) who would not go against Bapu’s wish or communists (like commie Menon, architect of 1962 disaster) who would not go against the puppet approved by Moscow. Those who dared to oppose him in a post independence India, were not heard much. Did you hear about SP Mookerjee? Or Sitaram Goel and what Nehru did to him?
“The Congress represented the middle ground.” – Please justify how. Congress, initially created like a political debate club of the brown sahibs, became a hot pot for multiple political ideas and remained so until MK Gandhi consolidated his control by 1920s and forced out all opposing political thought by 1940. While it was necessary for him to send the non-violent political freedom struggle in a particular direction, it also made Congress an anti-thesis of Hindu style assimilation. There was no middle ground, it was congress ground made by the brown “accidentally HIndu” sahibs suffering from a twisted Stockholm Syndrome.
Reform was needed, but not of the brown sahib variety. It was a mistake to adopt a political system developed and nurtured by a small island state along with all the eccentricities that were a direct product of English society, culture and political thought. We are still waiting for real reform. The system that was adopted not only make us want reform more every passing day but also create more damages that require healing.
“It was a recipe for disaster.Yet this charming,’innocence’ was necessary after the British machinations.” – Really!!!! So when British left, all we needed was a disaster !!! Looking back at events of 1944-1948, one feels that it was a hasty power transfer. No system was taken down, no colonial structure was eliminated, no power center was broken. When British consolidated their hold in India, in their quest to establish a better system for loot, they broke a lot of vested interests they thought would challenge them (for example, it took a British mercenary three decades to eliminate “thagi” community, the quest eventually created English word “thug”), but left ones they thought would be beneficial (like princely states). When brown sahibs took over, they even did not care to consolidate beyond what Patel managed to do. The only colonial structure that charmingly innocent man sought to destroy was Army, a structure that saved his rear end in 1948. Many 5-year plans were developed by capable planners (Mahalanabis, Bhaba etc), there were no capable executioners. Green revolution is often talked about as some thing like a great Indian achievement, only few people know the truth about the beginning of green revolution.
“The deteoriation occured later.” – No, it was all started by him. Sandeep already wrote about how the hypocrite spoke against dynasty and groomed his daughter to be the next leader. Classic British hypocrisy. If half of what released Mitrokhin archives talk about India is true, then one have to assume that after getting rid of London, the dynasty pretty much sold us to Moscow and is fully capable of selling us to Washington again as we are developing new re-sell value.
3. February 2010 - 10:16 PM
With reference to Sid’s post above, in response to Anony’s post, there’s a great book ‘The Untold Truth of Partition — Under the Shadow of the Great Game‘ by Narinder Singh Sarila, ex-aide-de-camp of Mountbatten, Sarila was 24 at that time ‘46-47 circa, and later was India’s ambassador to a host of countries. In that wonderful book, he details as to how both Gandhi & Nehru were carved a fool out of, by the canny Britishers and their mate in this great game – Jinnah!
Jinnah got pissed-off with Gandhi & his disciple Nehru after he felt humiliated at the Nagpur Congress session in mid-20s, when he was hooted-off the stage by Gandhi’s followers! Similar to what happened, as Sid has already mentioned, in 1939 when one of the greatest patriots of Bharatvarsh and a tall n charismatic leader, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, after being elected to the position of Congress President, soundly defeating Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramaiyya, Gandhi backed candidate, had to resign his post and leave India, after being hounded out by Gandhi’s followers! Guess what…Gandhi & Nehru could bully Hindus…while prostrating before Britishers and Muslims! Recall as to how despite Mohammed Shaukat Ali heaping insults on Gandhi, he (Gandhi) continued his support for the Khilafat movement, which by the way had no connection to India.
3. February 2010 - 10:47 PM
Congratulations Sandeep bhai and a big thanks for the informative and terse posts. Hats off for your efforts. God bless you and may you continue blogging forever.
4. February 2010 - 1:33 AM
Congrats sandeep. Continue blogging.
All the best for your efforts.
Nehru exhibited Narcissistic traits to some extent. Narcissists naturally get attracted towards totalitarian ideolgies like Communism,Islam,Nazism etc.,. No wonder he idolised stalin, a pathological narcissist. Narcissism – “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, Need for admiration and lack of empathy.”
Narcissistic rulers consider themselves as “philosopher” king. They never compomise on the “ideologies” that is going to be the foundations for the policies of the government. Those ideologies should originate from them alone and nation should be built on “their” ideas, however absurd it may be. Of course they never realise their absurdity, because they are too self absorbed to see it. They even twist logic to justify their ideas. Nehru didn’t hear the voices of sardar,Ghandhi and others opposing socialist policies for new India. On the foreign policies front too, the same happened. Nehru didn’t even replied to a letter written by Sardar patel When china invaded Tibet. Patel in that letter almost predicted to the dot what was going to happen next.
The pseudo-liberal, pseudo secular character of Indian political elite(Congress) has it’s origin to the narcissistic nature of Nehru. A Narcissistic politician or a journalist claims himself to be liberal and secular. But that is only to get an attention, he is not really interested in secularism. Since majority of Indians are Hindus, a narcisstic politician can gain maximum attention if he oppose hindus in the name of secularism, Hindus and hinduism are perfect candidates for this because they are non voilent in their nature. Also they can “reform” the “outdated” religion to be more progressive(therby, satisfying their “grandiose” instincts).
4. February 2010 - 5:04 AM
Sunjay ->>>”I see the it’s a spiritual crisis and it has be responded spiritually, ”
The way is through spiritual realisation.
>>>“we don’t lack political leaders we need religious leaders.”
What is required is for aam admi to seek spiritual realization himself.
From Sri Buddha to Ramana Maharshi, all spiritually advanced persons have recommended that each person be his own guide and discover truths himself.
>>>” Hindus as a people lack a sense of community or nationhood and this is our biggest weakness.”
Neither community nor nation, it is dharma is important.
bharatiya rishis realized themselves as brahma, transcending identification with physical body, family, community, nation and even humanity.
dhanyavaad
4. February 2010 - 6:12 AM
Excellent Sandeep keep up the great work
Sunjay
u had mentioned abt lack of trained clergy , that is a recent phenomenon due to continous macaulay education, hindus had the best clergy class bramhanas who with the support of others maintained vedas and all the spiritual knowledge for generations together, the situation now is however bad that ppl are ignorant abt most of these,but one good thing is we have various saints of the 19th&20th century who have taken great pains to explain to common people the various spiritual works
4. February 2010 - 9:29 AM
Well said SID,
US seems to be more than interested in having friendly relationship with India (counter China), US is conscious about its goal unlike India, without the strong leadership we will become tool in the hands of Americans. I’m not blaming Americans, its the duty of every country to safeguard its interest, hence we should cooperate with US as long as there is mutual benefit, when I mention about benefit I’m talking of nation’s and not of rulers
4. February 2010 - 10:03 AM
I am a regular visitor to this website since last year. I regularly watch NDTV, TOI & CNN_IBN not because I like them, but to keep the flame burning within me. It is very difficult to challenge the 4th estate, ie. media, but I wish your efforts multiply manifold and we reach a stage when there could be a TV channel for the nationalists.
4. February 2010 - 3:42 PM
I happened to come across this blog after reading ur visit to Nijagal fort. I became curious of other posts and has now almost become an addict. You way of putting things has caught my interest. congrats and carry on..
about rediscvery of india we are rediscovering our land for more than five millenia and are yet to understand. it must be Prof Golbraith who said it is the greatest functioning anarchy, in the sixties. It is functioning because of its five thousand years history and tradition and anarchy because of its sixty years of sham democracy perpetuated by Nehru and his cohorts as explained by you succinctly.
5. February 2010 - 11:47 AM
sundeep you made me feel for all those pre independence and post independence leaders,who where stomped by nehru and gandhi,who infact were not selfish and foolish as these two people , and would have placed india in a diffrent orbit had they led india ,which was also rightful in the first place. nehru was a oppurtunist and a egoist in all rights.the worst part is it didnt end with him, we can still smell the nehru stink. and histroy repeats itself only if we dont learn the past.
5. February 2010 - 1:32 PM
I must say I find much to agree with what Anony says here. Nehru is perhaps synonymous with the consensus of his times (schooled as it was in British thought). More than Nehru’s very obivious mistakes (which are now visible to us mostly in hindsight) it is our own inability to recognize & acknowlege them that has led us to this pass. Inspite of a traumatic and bloody partition that decimated thier precense in huge portions of Indian geography – Hindus were unable mount a significant challenge to Nehruvism (that was distorting, undermining and destroying thier tradtions) until recently – it would be instructive to understand why. Of course the assasination of Gandhi – and monopolization of his legacy by the Congress – and the subsequent demonization and marginalization of Hindu parties played its part. Also important in this respect was the part played by the various contesting liberal theologies like marxism and socialism, that sought to shapen India in thier own image. For a number of people of the 30-40 age group – nehruvian thought and the dynasty were formative influences.
I think that the rise of Hindu assertiveness was the direct consequence of greater availability of information – first through L K Advani’s Rath Yatra (which more than anything else was a mass awareness movement) and later on through the proliferation of contrarian and independent thought over the internet. The assymetry of control over information flow and knowledge formation has been the greatest of weapons held by ‘nehruvians’ and thier co-travellers – so far. It is also knowledge that has allowed many Hindus to free themselves. I think therefore that shrill denunciations of Nehru and Gandhi are distracting and add little value to the cause of Hindu renessiance . Nehruvism is much larger than Nehru and it is this that has to be deconstructed and contextualized. Perhaps Nehru comes dangerously close to something we identify and agree with instinctively but on deeper introspection find alienating and dangerous.
In my own case I used to be a Nehruvian until somewhat recent past. Then I would have been repulsed by personal attacks on him – even with justification – and would have avoided it as shrill rhetoric . My own journey towards Hinduness has been through understanding debates on how Indian history and traditions have been mangled, how her achievements, sciences and philosophies have been appropriated, and how her people have been enslaved, empoverished, misled and made into objects of ridicule. It is this knowledge (and grievance) that encouraged (encourages) me to rediscover my own traditions. I do not take any umbrage to an attack on Nehru anymore but I still think it is pointless and distracting. Such an approach not only gives him more importance than what he deserves but also sets his thought and life as a counterpoint – which it is not and need not be. Hindu grievances, thier opinions, thier ideas about identitiy etc are much larger issues and must be placed in an appropriately large context.
For that the path forward seems to be to generate and retain knowldge about our nation, our ancestors and our traditions, to secure and protect our interests and our geography, to encourage prosperity and order, to dignify our various identities (including castes and other sytems) and systems of knowledge, and finally to be assertive and unapologetic.
Finally Sandeep congratulations – for providing a fora for voicing opinions and discussing all those issues that are so close to our heart
6. February 2010 - 1:30 AM
There is a grain of truth in what Rajiv and annoy is trying to say but I’m not fully convinced , I have some serious questions to be asked, if Nehru is not responsible for Nehruvism, then I need the answer for the following.
Is Gandhi not responsible for Gandhism?
Is Hitler not responsible for Nazism?
Is Mao not responsible for Maoism?
Is Mohamed prophet not responsible for Islam?
We need to do some serious introspection here, life is complicated and has no straight forward answers
There is interesting observations I have noticed, the great scholars of Gandhian era like Sita ram goel and our own Arun shorie, are less critical on Gandhi, it surprises me on how such sharp intellectuals can overlook the weakness of Gandhi.
If Gandhi can influence people like one mentioned, think of common man like us. Mass leader can have strong influence on people. The educated elite who in principle with Nehru were just handful minority, but majority of the people supported Nehru only because he had Gandhi’s good will. It was Gandhi fever which Nehru capitalized.
Fine I agree Gandhism did not appeal revolutionaries so they took refuge in communism, but my point is, situation today would be different if Sardar patel were to rule the nation as long as Nehru did, Situation would be different if Nehru were not a communist in spite of plentiful communist Comrades in educated elite.
Rulers does matter…
6. February 2010 - 2:33 AM
Congratulations. And, all the best…
6. February 2010 - 9:42 PM
I dislike both Gandhi and Nehru. But Nehru was certainly far better than his descendants.
I read Gandhi’s autobiography and have come to the conclusion that he was a very determined man thats all–he is to be given credit for Indian nationalism and for his determination. He understood that its the saintly ideal that moves the Indian masses–As for his leadership, he is certainly no leader of mine, and I found the man very unlikeable upon reading his biography.
Indian leaders? I would place Patel, Sararkar on a much higher rung.
Its sad that the Indian State as adopted for itself the false Gandhi-Nehru mythology for its ideals. What can one expect in a State that believes in false ideals? Hence, you see the results today–no sense at all of command and obedience in governance.
6. February 2010 - 10:29 PM
States like Gujarat are already rediscovering themselves … they are on the right-track.
The rest of India prefers to be exploited by Gandhi-Nehrus … thats their choice …
Check out the rediscovery nos of Gujarat below …
http://narendramodi.in/poststory/story_detail/197
What makes them better is that they Gujarat doesnot have any star performer financial hubs like Mumbai which would contribute for most of Maharashtra’s revenue and productivity…. but actually reflect a highly imbalanced growth … farmers in rural Maharashtra still poverty stricken …untouched by any development.
In Gujarat the growth is more uniform … it actually reflects the improvement in quality of life of a common man .
The sooner we discard this Gandhi-Nehru legacy .. the better for India !!
8. February 2010 - 1:13 PM
A junk stuff from Mj Akbar……
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/TheSiegeWithin/entry/danger-from-the-new-brahmins
9. February 2010 - 2:40 AM
@Rajiv,
Nehruism stood in Nehru’s name alone. It was an impossible dream of naive but yes, educated man. This man was no different hypocrite dreamer than today’s campus elitists who talk of equality and freedom in a university campus but would not take a single step to protect the freedom.
I have a lot of respect for Gandhi because in recent history he was the only man who has followers among Hindus from Kerala to Kashmir and Tripura to what people call Balochistan today. His popularity exceeded caste based and region-based concerns among us. There does not exist any other Indian who could do it in recent history. Hindus gave him so much yet he delivered so little to them. The course of history would have been very different had he not become obsessed with being the first Kaphir leader of the minority and then force us to pay for the obsession (just read about his advise to the raped Hindu women in Bengal and Panjab). Nathuram Godsey’s feeling of betrayal is shared among many in his generation.
What is so holy about personal attack anyway? If a concept, whose logical basis has long been destroyed, stands on a person’s reputation then to criticize the concept we have to criticize the person. The real point is whether these criticism is fair or not. A lot of criticism Gandhi faces today is unfair. I can not say the same about Nehru.
@Raghavendra,
Mr. Akbar does not write junks. The man needs to be taken very seriously. Few journalists in Indian media has an acute sense of history like he has and thankfully, even fewer have his cunning of distorting or mis-representing history (specially recent history) to make his point. Minority appeasement in this country can continue for very long because foxes like these has lots of sheep following them.
9. February 2010 - 9:22 AM
@ Sid,
Very true, M J Akbar is a sophisticated liar.
9. February 2010 - 12:31 PM
@Sid
“Nehruism stood in Nehru’s name alone”
I am not quite so sure of this. What I am trying to say is that even though Nehru is representative of all that we associate with Nehruism, Nehruism itself was the result of a consensus of “educated” indians who took the reigns of power at that time. Had that consensus not been there, would Nehruism have been the force it is today. Inspite of differences (including Sardar Patel) most of leaders of the independent India shared a colonial idea of India. This is evident in the fact that most of the administrative, and constitutional machinery of independent India reflected colonial concerns than domestic imperative. Nehruism as a personality cult developed and changed over time – to reflect the current needs and demands of the ruling party – and hence can be looked upon as a historical development – rather than the creation of one person. Understanding and contextualizing the historical developments is arguably more important than debunking a personality cult.
“The real point is whether these criticism is fair or not”.
Totally agree with you. My problem is less with the criticism itself – I recognize that a lot of the criticism directed at Nehru is fair. Even so Nehru – as any other historical personage – was a complex figure with generous shades of grey. It may have been (as with many other leaders of the time) that his intent was noble – but his vision and therefore, perceptions and methods were skewed. The same goes for many of the seculars today (I know – having been one in a not so distant past). This is not a justification – just a warning that this may be true of any leader or historical figure. As examples – same is true for Gandhi, Sardar or Bose – all of whose legacies have devolved into personality cults and cheap slogans. Meanwhile Nehruvian cult is more powerful because of it’s marriage to the incipient political and academic culture of the time, and the political needs of the congress party and the dynasty.
My problem is when we speak of the “Rediscovery of India” and understand it in the context of anti-nehruism. My point is that Nehruism itself was the byproduct of eurocentricism amongst the anglicized indian intelligentsia. Once this is recognized and remedies sought Nehruism would die a quiet and ignonimous death. Vilifying Nehru and Nehruism actually alienates people in a debate, however when one explains them in a particular context ie anglicism, eurocentricism, colonialism etc, shortcomings and disadvantages of both Nehru and Nehruism become readily apparent. Hence let us understand the larger issues that led to Nehruvism and challenge those.
Tentatively my own ideas for rediscovery of India tentatively involve :-
* Reconstruct Indian tradition and history using traditonal sources, indian expertise and modern methodologies. Base the idea of india on these categories.
* Academically and legislatively legitimize socio-cultural identities ie jatis (caste being a eurocentric concoction) while ensuring non-discrimination.
* Contextualize and re adopt traditions and indigenous institutions based on their relevance and currency.
* Revive local agency at gram, jati level. Ensure loktantra at this level. Devolve control of resources forests, land, waterways, roads etc at this level.
* Reinvent institutions of administration and governance as service organizations with traditional relevance rather than command organizations, keeping in mind the above point.
* Provide comprehensive primary education in regional languages only, with sanskrit as the second and common language, and as language for higher learning.
* Revive traditional educations institutions, methods and sciences. Understand and purge eurocentric methodological biases in these disciplines.
* Expedite research into encapsulating science and technology in Sanskrit with a view to achieving knowledge advantage and by means head start .
* Encourage religious minorities to define, interpret and accomodate their faith using ancient indian traditional perspective. Encourage global evangelism of these ideas.
* Encourage robust nationalism based on common geography, history and cultural experience. Opt for zero-tolerance approach towards aggression.
* Make India as the locus for debunking eurocentricism. Involve and provide support to other indigens to rediscover thier heritage and values – so long as it is not inimical to Indians.
9. February 2010 - 2:22 PM
@Raghavendra
I understand that a lot more introspection is needed in understanding these issues. I hope we successfully can do some of it here – and gain some insight. Regarding Nehru’s responsibility for Nehruism and the examples you quoted – I have a few observations. Of course I do not deny the influence of the historical personages in the various isms associated with them but in my view the various isms are the result of historical processes. Just a few notes to try and understand the same :
1. Gandhism : Is it possible to understand Gandhism as western pacifism in Indian context ? Is there a precedent for his philosophy ? It would seem so by his own admissions. Also Gandhian philosophy was further developed by Vinobha Bhave and Jayprakash Narayan however Gandhi himself is alleged to have stated his desire not to be associated with any “-isms”. Gandhi’s methods were understood and used differently by Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Lech Walesa. Within India itself there are Gandhians who follow his principles in day to day life and there are Gandhians who have appropriated his legacy (politicans). So as we see Gandhism itself is understood differently by different people – and also our current understanding of it is a result of historical developements – rather than solely Gandhi’s ideas.
2. Nazism : I think Hitler represents the culmination of Nazism rather than it formative roots. Nazism has it’s roots in the long lived traditional european christian anti-semetism (though modern european historiography carefully downplays this opting instead to point at indo-european occult etc), the race “theories” and “sciences” developed during the colonial period, militarism, pan-germanism, and colonial european politics, anti-communism etc. The antecedents of Nazism go back some 70-80 years before WW2. The ideas that formed the basis of this cult can be traced back to de Gobineau, Houston Chamberlain, Rosenberg and finally Hitler. There is little difference between Hitler and Churchills ideas of empire, race etc. However comtemporary discourse concentrates only on Hitler’s bigotry because it provides a comfortable and picture-perfect image of european civilization with people neatly labelled under good, evil categories. Nazism is also a product of long historical developement.
3. Maoism : Mao’s application of european class struggle of industrialized working classes to asian peasants is not as revolutionary as it is made out to be. Maoism is a catchy term, however given the need for erstwhile Chinese communist to expand the class struggle in an agrarian China – it is natural that they moved in that direction. Under early influence of soviet ideoleagues Chinese intellectuals opted for communism. It is doubtful they would have succeeded had they not brought the agrarian population under the ambit of thier struggle. I think had it been any other communist leader it is possible that a similar set of ideas could have developed. Moreover maoist methods may be similar but thier motivations, the fundamental cause for thier struggle – and therefore the way they percieve and internalize maoist philosophy differ widely in China, Nepal, India and South America. These ideas also morph based on local conditions. Hence there is no one monothilithic maoism – and each can be understood by the differing imperatives in that country.
4. Islam : Some researchers contend that Koran and Hadiths were the result of historical developments – they say that it is possible that Mohammad did not exist in the way it is narrated. According to them Koran and other texts were apparently written a 150 years after the alleged date of Mohammad. The earliest texts are said to differ substantially in content. There are those who claim that Islam was a Christian heresy. There are others who claim that Koranic and Hadith based narratives of Mohammad might have developed under an arab imperial imperative as Arabs conquered new territories and sought to subjugate populations to thier will. The apparent unanimity about the narrative accuracy of Koran and Hadiths continues to exist because of Islam’s own intolerance to internal dissent. However there are those who question the dominant understanding and prefer to call the Islamic texts as historical developments. Indeed Mohammad might have been a product of Islam rather than the other way around. We can see great parallels here with Jesus and Christianity.
I think that many writers from the pan-hindu movements are kinder to Gandhi because inspite of his great mistakes – with respect to misreading Jinnah, and the British (yes Sarila’s Book ‘The Shadow of the Great Game’is very instructive in this regard), Gandhi understood the subtle and the covert erosion of Indian traditions by means of a flawed education systems, missionariies, westernized judicial and administrative sytems, depriving local indian political units ie villages, jatis etc of self-agency etc. Also Gandhi always proudly stated that he followed Sanatana Dharma, was critical of evangelist movements unlike his protege Nehru who appropriated his legacy without implementing his vision of self suffecient village democracy etc. I think one of the biggest mistakes by Hindu organizations was thier inability to incorpoate Gandhi and legacy in thier political discourse, and allowing themselves to be painted as killers of Gandhi. In fact it is the congress that has killed Gandhi off from Indian political life by contaminating and distorting his legacy and appropriating his name and popularity. It is rather sad that large portions of the Hindu movements remain antagonistic to Gandhi.
10. February 2010 - 2:07 AM
@Rajiv,
“It is rather sad that large portions of the Hindu movements remain antagonistic to Gandhi.” – Can not agree more. RSS actually went back later and re-evaluated Gandhi, but that is all. MK Gandhi today is a leader without any follower. Every time I see MK Gandhi road in Kolkata/Bangalore
About Nehruism, it’s basis has long been refuted. Whatever was left of it, was destroyed with the fall of “friendly” USSR. The only reason Nehruism attracts any attention today because Congress leaders, most of whom would even shame Nehru in their ignorance of their own culture, somehow believe that they own and follow Nehruism. It is not like that they understand what is meant by it, but they follow it because Nehru is associated with both the ruling clan as well as Nehruism. That is the link there. When you destroy the myth of Nehru, Nehruism goes down quickly.
10. February 2010 - 3:46 AM
FYI
http://journalofastrology.com/article.php?article_id=214
10. February 2010 - 1:04 PM
“* Make India as the locus for debunking eurocentricism. Involve and provide support to other indigens to rediscover thier heritage and values – so long as it is not inimical to Indians.”
I have always wondered why there are no such debates among the Chinese? They are sure of themselves and could care less what other think of them as they blaze their way through and they don’t need anyone’s affrimation or approval. Could it be that they understand that such things are irrelevant as long as they create a strong nation for themselves? Its only when you are weak and your government is unable to properly command and be obeyed that a nation has to constantly worry about what others think of it–no one cares for a weak nation’s opinion or sense of injustice. But when a nation become strong and self-sufficient to a large degree, people start to take it seriously. But this aint happening in the Indian State which believes in false mythologies set up by the Congress government.
10. February 2010 - 1:07 PM
“* Make India as the locus for debunking eurocentricism. Involve and provide support to other indigens to rediscover thier heritage and values – so long as it is not inimical to Indians.”
Why does India have to support indigenous causes everywhere? I have always wondered why there are no such debates among the Chinese? They are sure of themselves and could care less what other think of them as they blaze their way through and they don’t need anyone’s approval or affirmation. Could it be that they understand that such things are irrelevant as long as they create a strong nation for themselves? Its only when you are weak and your government is unable to properly command and be obeyed that a nation has to constantly worry about what others think of it–no one cares for a weak nation’s opinion or sense of injustice. But when a nation become strong and self-sufficient to a large degree, people start to take it seriously, and even wish to imitate it. But this aint happening in the Indian State which believes in false mythologies set up by the Congress government.
10. February 2010 - 3:54 PM
Read this article
“RELEVANCE OF MAHATMA GANDHI AND HIS THOUGHT IN MODERN TIMES by J. K. Bajaj”
http://www.cpsindia.org/art_gandhi.html
10. February 2010 - 7:24 PM
“Why does India have to support indigenous causes everywhere?”
Because it is an instrument of power. Do we realize why much of capitalist “secular” west supports both evangelicals/islamists as well as communist/liberals around the world – and particularly the subcontinent. Or do we notice why Arabs and much of the Islamic world support both overt evangelism through terror and covertly through propaganda, madarsas etc. Or why does China inspite of not believing in communism anymore support maoists and communists throughout the world. All these are instruments of power, power of ideas and power over the mind. Coincidentally all these – capitalism, socialism, liberalism, christian and islamic evangelism, and communism (inspite of the maoist gloss) are either euro-centric or abrahamic philosphies. Supporting indigenous movements elsewhere is a call to action – and a moral obligation for the courageous, not a work cut out for the uncertain of mind. Of course it is undeniable that this has got to be preceded by much hard work – the framing and crystallization of ideas, methods and organization.
“I have always wondered why there are no such debates among the Chinese?”
Because last I heard Chinese re-education aka labour camps – weren’t a particular favorite tourist destination for Chinese people. More seriously though – without denying the progress China has made – it must be stated that the Chinese government is perhaps the most insecure of governments around the world. Despite the rhetoric about socialism with Chinese characteristics – please note that Chinese communism has totally decimated what remains of the much venerable ancient Chinese culture. There methods of governance. much of their ancient social structure has been uprooted and recast in a western mould (thanks to Mao). What the communist (and Nehruvians) wanted to do to India – has already been accomplished by Chinese communists in thier own country. I assume that it is nobody’s point that we should be traveling down the same road.
“But when a nation become strong and self-sufficient to a large degree, people start to take it seriously, and even wish to imitate it.”
Agree to the part about being taken seriously. However the only nations who imitate others are those without thier own identity. Only dimwit communists want India to imitate China, only our brown sahibs with no grounding in their own culture (as our post independence political and intellectual leadership) want us to become another europe or america. Only a Pakistan which lost all connections to it’s ancient heritage has chosen to become an Arab wannabe. Whatever stirrings of indegenity we see – we see largely in India.
That is why India can be a locus for such a movement. Such movements would be equally applicable to Indians, Chinese, native Americans, Africans and even in many cases some Europeans and middle easterners.
Of course it goes without saying that a week and intellectually compromised India can never assume leadership in such matters.
11. February 2010 - 6:31 AM
Well supporting “indigenous” causes is also a new age “ism”–a legacy of Nehru who wanted to join the non-aligned countries…India should befriend whoever benefits it in the long run…it has no duty to protect “indigenous” causes and no duty to support failing states that cannot govern themselves properly…No one is saying to imitate China, but the Chinese know how to protect their own and are aggressive about protecting their interests but HIndus are not….As far as imitation goes, people look up to strong nations for leadership and they exert cultural domination whether one likes it or not, its natural human nature to admire the strong, not the other way around.
11. February 2010 - 6:42 AM
“It is rather sad that large portions of the Hindu movements remain antagonistic to Gandhi.” –
Well he certainly was no leader to me, although interesting as an individual, read his own biography and you might be repelled as well. V.S. Naipaul also found him unlikeable. He was a determined man who is to be credited for his determination and for giving rise to Indian nationalism, thats all, he understood the Indian masses and what moves them (the saintly ideal), as a leader of a nation, I think he tried to impose his ideals upon everyone which is disagreeable…
11. February 2010 - 11:16 AM
” I think he tried to impose his ideals upon everyone which is disagreeable…”
And what did he do when they disagreed?
11. February 2010 - 11:34 AM
@rajiv chandran
“The antecedents of Nazism go back some 70-80 years before WW2. The ideas that formed the basis of this cult can be traced back to de Gobineau, Houston Chamberlain, Rosenberg and finally Hitler”
You left out Friedrich Maximillian Mueller from this list.
Mueller supported de gobineau, in spite of his public assertions that language theory was not connected to ‘race theories’.
11. February 2010 - 4:13 PM
And for those who criticize China, India has also turned into a monster. The population from being roughly equal to Russia in the 1940’s has quadrupled. Go to places like Benares and you will feel like you will be run over by the crowds. A State where people breeed out of control, that houses the largest amount of illiterate and poor people in the world is also a monster. A large population will permanently cripple India. A massive population leads to a mass culture. So before criticizing China, think of how a country which was in a better position than China in the 1940’s in terms of population and economics, today is lagging. One only has the Congress party to blame for misrule for 60 years.
I dislike Gandhi because his ideals are for the weak.
11. February 2010 - 4:21 PM
And for those who criticize China, India has also turned into a monster. The population from being roughly equal to Russia in the 1940’s has quadrupled. Go to places like Benares and you will feel like you will be run over by the crowds. This is true for many Indian cities. A State where people breeed completely out of control, that houses the largest amount of illiterate and poor people in the world is also a monster. A large population will permanently cripple India. A massive population leads to a nastly mass culture. So before criticizing China, think of how a country which was in a better position than China in the 1940’s in terms of population and economics, today is lagging. One only has the Congress party to blame for misrule for 60 plus years.
I dislike Gandhi because his ideals are for the weak. There is nothing in him that I find worthy of imitation but his determination. Also his movement against the British was successful and other movements for civil rights as in America and South Africa which tried to follow him were successful (although one can see that these movements did not understand him in a proper fashion), and he is to be given credit for inspiring successful movements.
11. February 2010 - 8:37 PM
@ Sandeep,
I would like to know your take on Shah Rukh Khan supporting inclusion of Pak players in IPL. Personally I feel it is justified to ban his movie and even banish him from the country. I dont know how come we Indians still trust Pakistanis when the govt of Pakistan is the main hand behind all the attacks against India. I guess Shah Rukh Khan including our FM first think on a human level rather than talking about sportsmanship.
11. February 2010 - 10:01 PM
@larissa,
Chinese do not need to think about Euro-centrism etc, because they have lost any sense of history, culture and tradition after Mao’s cultural revolution. You will be surprised to know how little history of imperial China is actually taught. A covert commie cultural revolution of sort was experimented with us, but by God’s grace, that was half-baked attempt. We, who care to know, pretty much know our recent history minus the marxist obfuscation. It is the ancient history that needs to be recovered.
“…Well he certainly was no leader to me,…” – OK, point settled. He was a leader to millions of Indians….ooopsss….well…Hindus. As I said before, the man has lost it after 1927, but he is still our most respected leader. Had he not been there, then I had no trouble imagining babus similar to Motilal Nehru and other anglophiles from Congress club running show in India in 2010 with blessings from Queen mother in London. Not that situation is very different today, but blessings from London is no longer needed as long as the supposedly liberal Christian guy with a muslim name living in Washington gives a nod. Gandhi certainly was not the reason British left India, but he certainly was the reason for British to take the idea of independent India very seriously.
Population for a country is both strength and weakness. It depends on policy makers on how they would like to make the best use of the population. Deng Xiao Peng used Chinese population to shake the world. It is the misrule that has created trouble here. Besides, it is not like Indians alone can claim for crossing 1 billion mark. You have to calculate millions of Hindu refugees beaten and sent from Pakistan, from Bangladesh in 1971 and illegals from religion of peace. Our government is so generous that they are considering amnesty to illegals now-a-days. Anything for a fistful of votes I guess.
11. February 2010 - 10:25 PM
It is a mistake to equate Nehru’s ideas with indigenism. Nehru’s ideas of decolonization and empowerment were framed within the colonial context. His own definition of indigenity of his own people was to mould and define them in a quasi british/soviet statist model. The idea and context of indigenity in the present conversation is entirely different – I dont see where the matter or relevance of equivalence to Nehruvian policies or new-ageism or propping up failed states comes in.
Hindu civlization in it’s long existense has always been plural with the many separate identities within maintaing and sustaining thier uniqueness. This civlizational knowlege, is very relevant in the troubled world of homegenization, westernization, islamization, and maybe soon sinization. This is because it promotes an ideologically tolerant and culturaly and religiously diverse world. It promotes a woldview where people can take pride in and live in peace with thier own identities. In a world of competing ideas (some of them very bad and dangerous), indegenism is a call to return to the roots, for hindus, indians, subcontinentals this would mean returning to thier dharmic roots. For others it gives a chance to move away from those who place themselves at the center of the universe – namely the West, Chtistianity, Islam etc. Hindu politics is presently contextualized as regressive by eurocentricists and thier indian sepoys as a local, provincial, regressive affair. Such contextualization masks the relevance of such political mobilization of the indigen ie hindu in india and other people across the world. Here again a call to indenity presents a universal context under which the hindu struggle can be understood, appreciated and related to. Can we have some cogent arguments as to why the struggle of the Hindu cannot have global relevance – and as to why the Hindus must not help other people who are suffering the same fate? Of course as stated earlier this has to be preceded by much hard work on the part of the hindus in terms of intellectual, political and cultural mobilization.
We – Hindus and Indians remain the last of a people – whose indegenous faith systems, beliefs, culture etc remain somewhat untouched by abrahmic faith systems, westernization and thought processes with claims on modernism. What is wrong with us supporting causes that may be ideologically inimical to those who nurse a profound sense of enemity towards us ? Therefore to fight for this cause by all available means is therefore a duty and an obligation.
There are those who see great merit in China being aggressive and protective of thier interests – but will not allow even the idea of the same being done by India and Indians, to be voiced. That is somewhat reactionary and quite sad.
11. February 2010 - 10:50 PM
@Bharat
“You left out Friedrich Maximillian Mueller from this list.”
You are right – unintentional oversight on my part. He was after all the great speaker for the aryan race theory which he professed to disown much later in life. Isn’t it surprising how many ideological fathers western ideas share with nazism – and everyone pretends not to notice it.
12. February 2010 - 7:36 AM
Sandeep,
Many congratulations on completing 10 years of blogging. I salute your tremendous courage, passion and effort in this regard.
Hope because of such efforts true spirit and strength of Sanatana Dharma gets more appreciation from today’s youth and in next 10 years situation improves.
Famous quote from ishavasya upanishat:
hiranmayena patrena
satyasyapihitam mukham
tat tvam pusann apavrnu
satya-dharmaya drstaye
13. February 2010 - 7:25 AM
Congratulations on 10 years of blogging! The issue of Nehru is a difficult one. Yet, sooner of later one will have to grasp that nettle. One way of putting him in context is by looking upon him as a belated figure who comes on the scene after the Indian National Congress had failed in its mission. The British Civil Servants who set it up- Wedderburn in particular who financed its operations in London at times from his own pocket- were not able to persuade Westminster- or Curzon- of the need to co-operate with Ranade’s successor the great Gokhale. However, Gokhale himself was ambivalent about the Economism of his stated program. The new type of politics espoused by ‘Bal, Pal and Lal’ together with the extraordinary heroics of the Bengali Jugantar- Tiger Jatin in particular- as well as the willingness of a new class of brilliant scholar/politicians to rethink and re-engage with the source springs of spirituality and morality- created a situation where people like Nehru and Jinnah were already anachronisms. Yet, after the first world war, the British were able to impose ‘a long week-end’- ‘a period of diminishing effort and increasing returns’- on India. This was a time of sleep walkers. The secret police- led by people like Comissioner Tegart= were able to kill or marginalize the true revolutionaries. It was some sort of garden party politician that was tolerated.
I accept that Gandhi can not be dismissed as an idiot. On the contrary if the West really had destroyed itself in the manner that H.G. Wells pictured, the Gandhian ashram would have been the sole repository of humane values in a world given over to destruction. But, Gandhi’s prediction was not correct. His ashrams were not self sustaining. His politics sowed the seeds for mass killing.
Ambedkar has pointed to the failure of the Indian Liberals- the manner in which they collaborated in their own marginalization. In this context, does Nehru have a case to answer? Or is the truth that he was positioning himself in the 1930’s to emerge as a strong man, a man of destiny, a dictator? After all, how can there be a Liberalism without some sort of understanding of the role of the private sector in the Economy? These guys were trained lawyers but the one thing they don’t do is reform the Criminal Justice system, update the law of Torts, and so forth.
Yet, Gandhi and Nehru played a great role. What was it? It was to show that the middle class, however well intentioned, can never remedy the position of the masses. In other words, their historical function is to keep the kursi warm for the Communists when they finally finish their PhD’s, or visiting Professorships or what have you.
Trouble is there will be no country left for them to rule over by then.
13. February 2010 - 5:17 PM
In a world of competing ideas (some of them very bad and dangerous), indegenism is a call to return to the roots, for hindus, indians, subcontinentals this would mean returning to thier dharmic roots.
Actually there is a new political right in France started which is based on these ideals–namely that the heritage of the West is Greco-Roman and that the West must return to its true roots. Its a very enlightened conservative movement which has started out more as a “think tank”. It is no wonder that these conservatives also support conservatives in India, insofar as conservatism means going back to the true roots.
13. February 2010 - 5:18 PM
In a world of competing ideas (some of them very bad and dangerous), indegenism is a call to return to the roots, for hindus, indians, subcontinentals this would mean returning to thier dharmic roots.
Actually there is a new political right in France started by Alain de Benoist which is based on these ideals–namely that the heritage of the West is Greco-Roman and that the West must return to its true roots. Its a very enlightened conservative movement which has started out more as a “think tank”. It is no wonder that these conservatives also support conservatives in India, insofar as conservatism means going back to the true roots.
13. February 2010 - 5:25 PM
It interesting that the conservatives I mentioned also believe that the West (before it took up a foreign religion) had also been plural with many peoples co-existing and maintaining their unique identity just as you found in classical India.
14. February 2010 - 2:24 AM
larissa,
I wanted to check it out. Do you have a link?
14. February 2010 - 3:01 AM
Well Alain de Benoist is the founder of the think tank GRECE. He has written several articles–they are of interest to Hindus, although his ideas are in a Western contest. His book “On being a pagan” is an excellent book in which he argues that Europe has to return to its roots which are pagan, i.e., Greco-Roman.
He has written some interesting articles. Here are some.
polytheism vs. monotheism
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html
democracy revisited: the ancients and the moderns
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain14.html
Now he writes in a European perspective and one has to read a man’s writings before forming a judgment and not wiki-pedia. He has a very good understanding of ancient Greece, whatever his politics today might be. He is interesting to read. For a Westerner to understand this much about the West’s pagan past takes a great deal of scholarship…they are not connected to their pagan past in the way Hindus still are.
Confronting globalization.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
14. February 2010 - 3:06 AM
Well Alain de Benoist is the founder of the think tank GRECE. He has written several articles–they are of interest to Hindus, although his ideas are in a Western contest. His book “On being a pagan” is an excellent book in which he argues that Europe has to return to its roots which are pagan, i.e., Greco-Roman.
He has written some interesting articles. Here are some.
polytheism vs. monotheism
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html
democracy revisited: the ancients and the moderns
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain14.html
Now he writes in a European perspective and one has to read a man’s writings before forming a judgment and not wiki-pedia. He has a very good understanding of ancient Greece, whatever his politics today might be. He is interesting to read. For a Westerner to understand this much about the West’s pagan past takes a great deal of scholarship…they are not connected to their pagan past in the way Hindus still are.
Confronting globalization.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
Also his ideas are not to be confused with the neo-pagan movement. He is trying to found a school of thought and not a political party. His ideas are of interest to HIndus because they remain connected to their pagan past although this is quickly changing….
14. February 2010 - 3:24 AM
Well Alain de Benoist is the founder of the think tank GRECE. He has written several articles–they are of interest to Hindus, although his ideas are in a Western contest. His book “On being a pagan” is an excellent book in which he argues that Europe has to return to its roots which are pagan, i.e., Greco-Roman.
He has written some interesting articles. Here are some.
polytheism vs. monotheism
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html
democracy revisited: the ancients and the moderns
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain14.html
Now he writes in a European perspective and one has to read a man’s writings before forming a judgment and not wiki-pedia. He has a very good understanding of ancient Greece, whatever his politics today might be. He is interesting to read. For a Westerner to understand this much about the West’s pagan past takes a great deal of scholarship…they are not connected to their pagan past in the way Hindus still are.
Confronting globalization.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
Also his ideas are not to be confused with the neo-pagan movement. He is trying to found a school of thought and not a political party. His ideas are of interest to HIndus because they remain connected to their pagan past although this is quickly changing….
this man’s politics is his afffair, but I find his ideas interesting. Does not mean I agree with everything he says….intelligent people just make you think more….
22. February 2010 - 6:40 AM
>>”to embark on what I call the Rediscovery of India…. •Repudiate the Nehruvian “idea” of India”
Rediscovery, not of india, but of <embharata.
‘India’ is a chimera, a creation of the british, to displace bharata in the minds of bharatiyas. Like ‘hindu’ and ‘hinduism’ is used to displace dharma. The purpose- deracination.
Rediscovery will be of bharata and dharma.
What Nehru discovered is ‘india’, the entity created by the british and other europeans.
What he, deracinated, indoctrinated by british, could not discover or understand, and what similarly, many of the ‘highly educated’ and ‘eminent, accomplished’ indians of today are unable to discover or understand, is bharata and its inseparable civilisational values.
This re-discovery of bharata is actually also a part of the rediscovery of self as brahma.
namaste
27. February 2010 - 1:27 AM
Here are more links to Benoist’s writings in English which are interesting to read.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pages/textes.php?cat=orientation&lang=en