What is Dharma ?
Dharma is about righteousness of actions. It is about righteousness which is universal and eternal i.e. it is invariant of time (when the action took place), place (where the action took place) and context (why the action took place).
The etymology of Dharma is derived from the root Dhr, meaning to sustain, to uphold, to protect, to preserve, etc. As I have mentioned earlier, this ties in neatly with the conception of Rta or the force that sustains the Cosmic Order. Accordingly, when we say a person has attained Brahman or Ultimate Realization, it simply means he is perfectly in tune with Rta and understands how the entire universe is ordered, and has transcended the limitations of space and time. A person who intensely aspires to reach this state is also known as Mumukshu or one who aspires for Moksha. The goal of Dharma therefore, is Moksha (liberation from the constraints of space and time). How a particular action or deed constitutes Dharma needs to be measured against this yardstick. However, this is a very high ideal to attain and the constraints of space and time are loaded against it at every step. Which is why we have two broad divisions of Dharma as Saamanya Dharma (Universal or generic) and Vishesha Dharma (special, contingent). From this we can conclude that Dharma is an universal umbrella of values, or more fundamentally, Dharma is both a conception of, and a criticism of values as we shall see.

Yossarin’s post elucidates Dharma without making this crucial distinction. Most if not all commentaries and interpretations on Dharma speak of Vishesha Dharma. Saamanya Dharma deals with universal values like Satya (Truth), Shaucha (cleanliness), Brahmacharya (celibacy, also a vow of doing the right thing always), Asteya (non-stealing), Ahimsa (non-violence), Aparigraha (not coveting others’ wealth), and so on. Evidently, strict adherence to these values is aimed at purifying a person step by step till he transcends them. As we can see, these universal values are self-explanatory. However, some or all of these are exempt under special circumstances, which is where the Vishesha Dharma assumes great significance. I have dwelt on Vishesha Dharma at some length earlier, so it is superfluous to repeat it here.

Yossarin’s definition of Dharma as an invariant of time and space is right only insofar as Saamanya Dharma is concerned. However, the definition of Dharma unambiguously states that Dharma is fluid, and should also take into account time and place, which are ever-changing. The symbolic representation of Dharma as a Wheel makes this clearer. The wheel as an indicator of the change shows that Dharma needs to be continuously adapted to this change, again with Moksha as the yardstick. It is interesting to observe how this translates to everyday, or practical life. Does the conception of Dharma of the current time ensure that a person can earn a living without compromising on the universal values? The conceptions of varna (Caste) and ashrama (stage of life) were devised to solve this. By delineating Dharma for each varna, this ensured that every person, irrespective of his varna, could aspire to attain wealth, and Moksha by following the Dharma set down for his varna. A celebrated story is that of a butcher who developed mystic and spiritual powers simply by following the Dharma set for his varna. This leads us to conclude that Dharma–in the words of Hiriyanna–is an intrinsic value to be adhered to for its own sake with no external impetus or force. However, if a society exists on the basis of Adharma, then the conception of Dharma lays down that, to uphold Dharma, one can use any means. Most of Krishna’s “adharmic” actions in the Mahabharata are good examples of this point.

I stress on this because Yossarin wants to consider Dharma as a determinant of political philosophy. If he means this in the historical sense, then Dharma was the guide of politics in ancient India, and not merely one of the determinants.

Is Dharma the same as a set of do’s & donts codified in scripture by a religion ?
No it is not. Dharma is independent of faith or belief systems
This is on shaky ground because Dharma does impose a set of dos and don’ts and they do stem from religion (philosophy is the accurate word), not defined in the way the West defines religion. As I have explained earlier, these dos and don’ts are applicable within a certain framework and are flexible (refer the distinction between Saamanya and Vishesha Dharma).

How is Dharma different from religious do’s and donts ?
Dharma does not concern itself with “What” you do it only concerns itself with “How” you went about doing it. On the other hand religious do’s and donts concern themselves with “What” you do as well. Let us take an example to better understand this.
A religious belief system may hold Gambling as immoral. So in such a belief system the game of dice between the Pandavas and Kauravas would have been immoral to begin with. However Dharma is not concerned if Pandavas and Kauravas played a Game of Dice. It is only concern is if how that Game of Dice was played. Was the game governed by a set of rules ? Were those rules arrived at with consensus borne out of free will ? Once agreed to were those rules adhered to ? So the Adharma in the Game of Dice in Mahabharat was not the “what” the Game, but the “how” the Game was played - with loaded dice cast by proxy (Shakuni for Duryodhana).
Another example could be a religious belief system could hold Polyandry as immoral. Mahabharata’s Draupadi would be considered an immoral woman by that belief system. But Dharma views it differently. Draupadi’s Polyandry by itself is not of concern to Dharma. What is of concern is how that arrangement of Polyandry was arrived at and how it was conducted. So there was no Adharma in Draupadi’s Polyandry for it was arrived at by consensus between the Pandavas and Draupadi out of free will. That consensual agreement was based on the rule that Draupadi would be impartial in her love and duty towards all of the Pandavas. But then Draupadi was found guilty of Adharma in the end not because of the Polyandry but because she broke the rule on which the consensus of the Polyandry was based on, by being partial towards Arjuna and by not being truthful about that partiality.
This is based on incorrect understanding and uses a wrong example as well. The example pertains to Vishesha Dharma. From Rg Vedic times, gambling was explicitly recognized as evil. A Vedic verse says that a gambler’s wife is public property. The Arthashastra holds gambling at the most dangerous vice, and prohibits a king from gambling. However, in the time of the Mahabharata, there was a relaxation of sorts in this regard. It was held that a Kshatriya could not refuse an invitation to war or a gambling match, which clearly shows that it falls in the Vishesha Dharma realm. This shows that the “what” portion is equally important. In this case, Yossarin’s explanation of the “how” is also incorrect because the same Vishesha Dharma allowed casting dice by proxy. As for Draupadi’s polyandry, it again is Vishesha Dharma (or according to some historical accounts, there’s still a tribe in North India that practises polyandry, so it was dharma within her community/tribe back then. I recommend reading the preface to S.L Bhyrappa’s Parva on this subject.). As an aside, it’d be interesting to ponder over the question as to why the permission to have five husbands granted only to Draupadi and not to other women?

So how is Dharma different from Contextual Morality ?
Contextual Morality as articulated by A.K. Ramanujan is really about trying to justify or rationalize something which is unrighteous by invoking the context in which that unrighteous act was committed. Let us take an example to better understand this.
Contextual Morality is basically like saying bribery is wrong but I am right in giving or taking a bribe to get a driver’s license because the process of getting it legally is cumbersome and fraught with pain. Similarly another example could be dowry is wrong but I am right in taking a dowry from my in-laws because its money that is for their daughter.
Some more recent examples of Contextual Morality are Bal Thackeray’s justification of suicide squads. Terrorism by Jihadists is wrong but my Suicide Terrorism is right because the Indian State has not been effective in fighting Terrorism.
Or more historically it is wrong to settle a contest based on factors other than merit or by discrimination but Reservations to my community are right because there were historical wrongs in the past.
So Contextual Morality is basically about acknowledging the difference between Dharma and Adharma but then seeking a one time waiver from Dharma on the grounds that my context is different and hence my Adharma in this context is moral.
This a very beautiful explanation but AKR’s understanding/exposition of contextual morality (his own coinage) is flawed. Morever, he distorts the conception of Dharma to arrive at his thesis.

Why do we see a lot of this kind of distortion of Dharma in the name of Contextual Morality ?
On some reflection this blogger has come to the conclusion that this is because unlike other faiths and belief systems which have strict doctrines with codified Do’s and Donts, in India there is no single overarching Hindu Doctrine of Do’s and Donts that everyone adheres to. So what you had in India was a sense of Universal Righteousness (Dharma) which addressed the “How” while leaving the “What” to be defined by whatever belief system each community, region evolved. So while Dharma was “Universal” the faith based Do’s and Donts were contextual.
Again, I have explained the “how” and “what” vis a vis Dharma so it is superfluous to go there again.

Somewhere along the line as intellectual ferment set into the Indian Society Dharma started to be confused with the contextual Do’s and Donts to a degree that people started to justify Adharma with the contextual Do’s and Donts as the excuse.
I need Yossarin to give one instance of this intellectual corruption before I can fully respond to this.

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

What is the relation between Liberty, Freedom and Dharma ?
Since Dharma concerns itself with the “How” and not the “What”, it is not meaningful to talk of freedom and liberty in isolation. It is only meaningful to talk of freedom and liberty in the context of actions.
If the actions were righteous then there would be no sanction under Dharma for any restrictions on the freedom and liberty to undertake those actions. . This explains why Draupadi’s Polyandry was ok in the Mahabharata.

However if those same actions were unrighteous then they would be deemed Adharma. So any restrictions on freedom and liberty of such actions would have sanction. However Dharma would also apply to how such restrictions were applied asking if righteous means were employed to enforce such restrictions or not.
Again, I’ve to refer you to the distinction between Saamanya and Vishesha Dharma. As for liberty, freedom etc, these were the responses to a civilization that slaved under the Christian/Church-stranglehold for centuries. Liberty and freedom are inherent in the conception of Dharma because it is derived from Rta. Dharma is the conception of ordering practical (human) life on the precept of Rta. Dharma grants freedom to almost do anything. An extreme example is a set of verses dedicated to describing Lord Ganesha’s pubic hair. These verses have survived but no instance of intolerance against its author has been recorded. This explains the reason for the standard Hindu response to someone insulting their Gods/philosophy was one of an indulgent smile, not violence/intolerance or even strict rules of prohibition. The explanation about freedom and liberty vis a vis dharma is incorrect.

What is the relevance of Dharma as a political philosophy for the Right ?
It makes absolute sense for Dharma to be the basis for any political philosophy to the Right because it is about righteousness of actions that are time and place invariant and not about objectives and goals that are motivated by emotions and justified by context.
This is the fundamental difference between what those to the Left believe in and what those to the Right ought to believe in.
For example: While those to the Left concern themselves with Wealth and Poverty, to Dharma wealth and poverty by themselves are irrelevant since it focuses on the “How” and not on the “What”. So where the Left may see vice in Wealth and virtue in Poverty, Dharma makes no such moral distinction. Instead Dharma concerns itself purely with how the wealth was acquired and how the poverty was inflicted. Thus Dharma as a political philosophy for the Right would guide on the “how” of “wealth creation” and “poverty alleviation” and not on the morality of wealth or poverty.
This is okay but the overemphasis on “how” is derived from a rather incorrect understanding so I’m uncomfortable because explaining Dharma in terms of only the “how” of an action is both narrow and misleading as I have shown above. The “how” does not exist in a vacuum. It is always preceded by, and in instances (e.g., Yudhishtira’s gambling) dictated by the “what.”

So if Dharma guides only on the “How” where should the political Right go to determine the “what” of socio-economic choices/policies ?
Its the exact same thing like faith in ancient India. Since there was no overarching doctrine prescribed by Dharma it was left to local communities and regions to make those choices through means that were righteous e.g. social consensus or direct democracy.
Because Dharma is not only about the “how,” the question itself stands invalidated. Even assuming it is valid, Yossarin needs to tell us how was it like in the case of faith? From his answer, does it imply that faith was determined by local communities and regions? If yes, I’d like to see instances of the same.

Yossarin’s effort at explaining Dharma is commendable but based on a–I suspect–confused understanding of Dharma. I strongly recommend a thorough reading of the primary texts that explain Dharma. At the least, M. Hiriyanna’s Indian Conception of Values (part of the Quest After Perfection book), if not P.V. Kane’s monumental History of Dharmashastra .

Beginning with this post, I plan to record–very irregularly–a sort of a run-up of events, news, and other gossip–I’ll even create quizzes–leading up to the actual elections. It promises to be an interesting retrospect.

Let’s start with history. Here is the chronological list of the 14 Prime Ministers India has had so far.

1. Jawaharlal Nehru
2. G. Nanda
3. L.B. Shastri
4. Indira Gandhi
5. Morarji Desai
6. C. Charan Singh
7. Rajiv Gandhi
8. V.P. Singh
9. Chandrashekar
10. P.V. Narasimha Rao
11. A.B. Vajpayee
12. H.D. Deve Gowda
13. I.K. Gujral
14. Manmohan Singh

In no particular order, rate, who according to you is the best or the worst Prime Minister. Back up your rating with reasons. The comments section is open.

PS: I know that at least four Prime Ministers don’t actually count, but include them if you will, in your assessments.

We need to repair, one by one, the institutions that have safeguarded our unity amidst diversity…

I challenge Mr. Guha to name exactly one institution that has done all these.

This edit piece captures a bit of the essence of what I outlined above.

The statements issued by the PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti and the Mufti himself show that Kashmiri leaders of all hues have forged a common understanding among themselves to fight Indian presence in the Valley along with Pakistan-sponsored outfits.

The statements of National Conference leaders, Mr Farooq Abdullah and Mr Omar Abdullah, have brought little solace to the tense situation that prevails in the Valley. Curiously, Mr Omar Abdullah has described the anti-Government demonstrations as an expression of “Kashmiri nationalism”.

He has thus drawn a line between Indian nationalism and Kashmir nationalism. In other words providing for Haj complexes in various parts of the country is ‘Indian nationalism’ and denying Amarnath pilgrims some relief facilities is ‘Kashmiri nationalism’.

Similar newer realities will emerge. Just give the UPA another term.

I have disabled all trackbacks until I resolve this.

Recently, the European Parliament hosted a meeting on “caste discrimination in South Asia”. At the meeting, participants stated that “India is being ruled by castes not by laws” and that they demanded justice, because there “is one incredible India and one untouchable India.” The EU was urged to come out with a policy statement on the subject. One MEP, referring to the caste system, said that “this barbarism has to end.” This is not the first time. However, before the EU decides to publish policy statements on caste discrimination in India, we would do well to reflect on some simple facts.

First, the dominant conception of the caste system has emerged from the accounts by Christian missionaries, travelers and colonial administrators. Rather than being neutral, these accounts were shaped by a Christian framework.

Given historical evidence, we can reasonably interpret this “call” as another of the countless calls to “civilize” India. In harsher terms, this is a call to harvest the heathens. I am interested to know the names of some of the participants who called upon the European Parliament to end the “barbarity.”

It’s easy to miss the fundamental point that the European Parliament has no business to pontificate over matters related to Indian society. Why don’t we see similar meetings that elaborate on Minority Rights in Saudi Arabia? How would the EU treat the idea of an Indian Parliamentary meeting to discuss the UK’s total cluelessness in dealing with the Islamic threat?

A reason that explains the European Parliament’s effrontery is their continuing delusion of being colonial masters. The other side of the reason lies in our own backyard. A strong majority of the power-holders in India are proud inheritors of Nehru’s shameless legacy, which involves taking our problems to the biggest bullies in the international arena, instead of solving it ourselves. Add to this the delicious spice of homegrown representatives of the Vatican who have mastered the art of milking the worldwide Church apparatus by painting gory pictures of rampant caste atrocities in India. And there you have, India’s image as a self-respecting nation kicked around at will in the European Parliament.

Jakob Roover needs to be commended for his political incorrectness. An academician at the Ghent University, the combined might of Christian bigots will attempt to give his career a tough time.

Chinese authorities in the restive far western region of Xinjiang have demolished a mosque for refusing to put up signs in support of this August’s Beijing Olympics, an exiled group said on Monday.

China has characteristically cared a whit for the dreaded PR impact. Like it did in the case of Tibet. This incident has re-exposed worldwide hypocrisy. Check the worldwide reactions:

• The US: Mum
• Europe: Mum
• India:
  • Indian Muslim leadership: Mum
  • The Secularia: Shh! You don’t dare criticize the neo-Fatherland.

But the entire Muslim ummah has delivered the most merciless cut. My news-scouting did not show even an acknowledgement that the demolition was a heinous act.

Did you say Babri Masjid?

Go well sir. May your death teach why patriotism is not an ugly word, and what war really means.

He now rarely writes about the economy but that shouldn’t deter me from ruminating on the economy in a similar fashion. Based on a train journey. But little or no anecdotal evidence.

First about the train itself. Travelling to Chennai from Bangalore by a Shatabdi is an informative experience. Once launched with much fanfare, this has metamorphosed itself into an overpriced, stuffy, uncomfortable and shoddily-serviced beast. About 12 years ago, the Shatabdi’s speakers greeted you with a string of welcoming pleasantries. This was followed by a flight-like sketch of the route, the services available on-board, and rounded off with a have a pleasant journey pleasantry. The train err..stewards served snacks–with rather surprising variety –at regular intervals.

Under Lalu Yadav’s booming train economy, the speakers have been muted, the variety reduced, and the taste, tasteless. You need to force yourself to feel cool to pretend the AC works, and the array of seats reminds you of the cramped seats of yesteryear cinema halls. Not to mention the take-it-or-leave-it attitude of the stewards when you politely question them about a minor lapse in the quality of service. To be fair, you cannot fault Lalu for everything.

Closer investigation reveals certain interesting findings. They actually stare at your face.

Advertisements.

Back to Dilip D’Souza. I choose his name because he is akin to a gold standard in these matters. The government has been quick to capitalize on some of the largesse that has come its way thanks to liberalization. So we find on, and inside almost every train, advertisements that assault our senses. As I type this, I see that Syndicate Bank has plastered senseless ads on all the 108 seats in my compartment. More well-endowed companies have similarly bought ad space for entire bogies. You now need to strain your eyes to catch a display of Southern <insert your zone here> Railways, which was the only thing prominently visible a few years ago on them bogies. The answer to what Indian Railways does with the ad revenues is anybody’s guess. The almost five-fold price difference I paid for this train is hardly justifiable. Barely-working air-conditioning doesn’t count. Neither does a bottle of “mineral” water. I’m more comfortable sitting in the regular train because I can at least stretch and/or fold/cross my legs. I could’ve forgiven all these if this train ensured that I reached Chennai faster than the regular beasts. Unfortunately, I save a little over one hour.

Contrast this with the way airline operators are lobbying hard to get the government to urgently upgrade infrastructure at airports. Contrast how they vie with each other–the battle of airline ads (about a year or so ago) outside the Bombay airport is a positive example of how privatization ultimately benefits you and me. A very recent instance is what I saw at the new Bangalore airport. A private taxi operator had donned his drivers in red T-shirts that screamed anywhere in Bangalore, Rs.300 only. This was in open competition to other cab operators who charge between Rs.15-18 per kilometer to ferry you into the city. In the Indian context it is more appropriate to say non-socialist-governmental interference, than mere privatization.

It is interesting that Dilip D’Souza has rarely written any mainstream article on the state of Indian economy ? Whatever happened to his train-journey observations ever since the UPA took over and in an election year, posted a record inflationary achievement of 11% just last week? This is surprising since the UPA’s economic policies have been variously praised as communal-socialist pro-poor, socially just, and all-inclusive. From stifling subsidies to the failed rural job guarantee dole scheme, this regime has just about tried to appease every known vote bank.

I vaguely recall reading a nugget about the Indian Railways. This was written during the heydays of Indira Gandhi. It stated that the Indian Railways got the script completely wrong by projecting the Railways as “an instrument for national integration” instead of pitching it the way any large business corporation does. There lies your clue.

After observing how AKR leaves us confounded with academic jargon and widely deviating from his original theme, I’ll continue the same examination a tad more. A commenter helpfully added some valuable information about AKR’s corruption of the ullurai concept.

The focus is slightly different in this case.

AKR presents a very clear understanding of a very beautiful passage of the Brihadaranyka Upanishad, which deals with the Ashva (horse) ritual.

One might say, from this point of view, that Hindu ritual (e.g., vedic sacrifice, or a coronation; see Inden [1978]) converts symbols, arbitrary signs (e.g., sacrificial horse), into icons where the signifier (the horse) is like what it signifies (the universe) and finally into indexes, where the signifier is part of what it signifies: the horse is the Universe is Prajapati, so that in sacrificing and partaking of it one is sacrificing and partaking of the Universe itself (see the passage on the Horse in Brhaddranyaka, First Adhyaya, First Brahmana).

While this understanding is perfect, we only need to examine where he makes it flow from.

What the man has, he is: the landscape which he owns, in which he lives (where sharks do not have to work for the mango, it falls into its open mouth) re-presents him: it is his property, in more senses than one. In Burke’s A946) terms, Scene and Agent are one; they are metonyms for one another.

The Brhadaranyaka passage he has quoted is actually an very beautiful symbolic exposition of philosophy. AKR’s elucidation of the actual symbolism, its significance, etc is correct but it has no relation to anything contextual. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is a combination of the Karma Kanda (portions dealing with rituals) and Jnana Kanda (portions dealing with theoretical philosophical expositions). This ritual relates to the Karma Kanda portion, which is simply an aid to concretize abstractions. Which is why AKR fails when tries to fit this within his context-sensitive framework. AKR’s Sanskrit knowledge is highly suspect. While Ashva means a horse, it also can be derived as Na + Shvah = Ashva, which literally means no tomorrow in the sense of the dynamic, flowing nature of Time. It is beyond the scope of this post to more fully explore the Ashva ritual but this is enough to prove that AKR’s one-dimensional approach is misleading.

AKR extends this one-dimensional approach using Tamil and Bhakti literary texts and suddenly arrives at a fantastic conclusion.

…what is contained mirrors the container; the microcosm is both within and like the macrocosm, and paradoxically also contains it. Indian conceptions tend to be such concentric nests: the view of the ’sheaths’ or kosas, the different ‘bodies’ or kayas (Egnor 1975) are examples. Such impressions are so strong and even kinesthetic that analysts tend to think in similar terms: one example is Dumont’s A970: Sects. 31, 34, 106, 118; App. E, F) notions of hierarchic encompassment, where each higher category or jati encompasses all the earlier ones: the Ksatriya is distinct from but includes the Vaisya, as the Brahmin encompasses the Ksatriya.

Another example of AKR’s inability to see the “big picture.” However, AKR is partly right only insofar as he uses the word encompasses. However, the caste as conceived in say, the Purusha Sukta views all castes as stemming from the same Divine Being. Also, there’s no hierarchy whatsoever unless you want to somehow think that a leg is “lower” (in the sense of “less important”) than the mouth in the “hierarchy” of the body. As I had mentioned in a previous post, AKR mentions Rta just so it fits into his context-sensitive scheme of things.

The same kind of contextual sensitiveness is shown in medical matters: in preparing a herbal medicine, in diagnosis and in prescription. As Zimmermann’s work A980) is eloquent on the subject, I shall say little. The notion of rtusatmya or appropriateness applies to poetry, music, sacrificial ritual, as well as medicine. As Renou A950a, 1950b) points out, rtu, usually translated as ’season’, means articulation of time; it is also the crucial moment in vedic sacrifice. Rtd (’order’, the original notion behind dharma) is that which is articulated. Kratu, sacrifice, is a convergence of events, acts, times and spaces. The vocabulary of rtusatmya ‘appropriate- ‘appropriateness’, rasa ‘essences, flavours,

AKR then proceeds in the same vein by extracting random bits like this and removes them from their original context as if that was sufficient proof that everything India ever produced is just context-specific, and hence not “universally” relevant. He calls the Kamasutra a “grammar of love” which

..declines and conjugates men and women as one would nouns and verbs in different genders, voices, moods and aspects. Genders are genres. Different body-types and character-types obey different rules, respond to different scents and beckonings.

What does the author of Kamasutra, a celibate Rishi (sage) say in the very beginning about the goal of his work? Moksha, or liberation. That is the framework, the context of the Kamasutra, which again corresponds to, and flows from the “big picture.” AKR’s concern seems only to do with the specifics of the Kamasutra, an instance of removing it from its original context. From the Kamasutra again, to the other famous episode in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.

In Brhaddranyaka 5.1., Lord Prajapati speaks in thunder three times: ‘DA DA DA’. When the gods, given to pleasure hear it, they hear it as the first syllable of damyata, ‘control’. The antigods, given as they are to cruelty, hear it as dayddhvam, ‘be compassionate’. When the humans, given to greed, hear it they hear datta, ‘give to others’

He says this episode stems apparently from a world “where systems of meaning are elicited by contexts, by the nature (and substance) of the listener.” Fair enough. But again, out of context. The “DA” is Prajapati’s single solution to a specific problem faced by the gods, humans, and demons. Each of the three felt a sudden, inexplicable, prolonged vacuum in their lives. The “nature” is closer to the accurate explanation: Gods were immortal and addicted to a life of sensual pleasure; humans were endowed with a finite lifespan and hence the obvious/natural need to hoard, and demons endowed with fear-inducing brute strength were obviously cruel by nature. Yet, all of them accepted the Prajapati as the all-knowing God who would end their woe with certainty. What does that reveal?

Conclusion

AKR concludes his paper beginning with what he calls “modernisation” which he perceives as

…a movement from the context-sensitive to the context-free in all realms: an erosion of contexts, at least in principle. Gandhi’s watch (with its uniform autonomous time, governing his punctuality) replaced the almanac. Yet Gandhi quoted Emerson, thai consistency was the hobgoblin of foolish minds. Print replaced palm-leaf manuscripts, making possible an open and egalitarian access to knowledge irrespective of caste. The Indian Constitution made the contexts of birth, region, sex and creed irrelevant, overthrowing Manu, though the battle is joined again and again. The new preferred names give no clue to birth-place, father’s name, caste, sub-caste and sect, as all the traditional names did: I once found in a Kerala college roster, three ‘Joseph Stalins’ and one ‘Karl Marx’..

In a word this is: bunkum. The phenomenon AKR has mentioned has a one-word, commonsense explanation: change. But AKR simply persists.

In music, the ragas can now be heard at all hours and seasons. Once the Venkatesasuprabhatam, the wake-up chant for the Lord of Tirupati, could be heard only in Tirupati at a certain hour in the morning. Since M.S. Subbulakshmi in her devotion cut a record of the chants, it wakes up not only the Lord, but anyone who tunes in to All India Radio in faraway places.

Now, AKR turns to assault Indian classical music. The time-raga relationship has nothing to do with context-sensitivity. All ragas can be sung at all times during a day. However, specific times are recommended because these time-specific ragas have their complete impact on both the singer, and the listener’s emotions. Nobody prevents you from singing Bhowli late in the night but the effect it has when you listen to it early in the morning is a million times more powerful. And I shall not even venture a comment on AKR’s mention of Subbulakshmi.

Somewhere towards the end of this chaotic paper, I could kind of sense where AKR was headed: egalitarianism. More specifically, he wants what I can vaguely comprehend as “universal equality.” Again, a one-size-fits-all scheme. It is but a sophisticated variant of today’s reservations champions. According to this theory, a person whose educational qualification is a pass in 10th-grade should be equally entitled to become a rocket scientist because egalitarianism demands it.

AKR has managed to get away with such hogwash because he wrote for and pandered to an ignorant, and patronizing audience. He emphasized their biases and based his work on their interpretations. AKR and his ilk are largely irrelevant today but a TCA Sreenivasa Raghavan surfaces every now and then.

Postscript: Reading the paper was a painful experience, personally. AKR flummoxes us with his constant going-back-and-forth. In many respects, it awed me, what with his amazing knack for trying to prove something on the basis of material that conveyed the exact opposite.