On our Independence Movement

Over the years, I have read about our Independence movement at different stages of my life, going back to read from different perspectives. I see certain patterns which I would like to talk about here. This is one version of how I want to tell this story. This is not the only version. I concede that there are many versions. But I find this the most interesting. [Remember, There are no facts; only interpretations – Nietzsche]

First War of Independence?

We usually term 1857 revolt as First War of Independence. In the beginning it was called Sepoy Mutiny- that’s how British termed it. However, Indians wanted to see it in a different light and called it War of Independence. Was it really a war of Independence?

Not really. It was not even close to one actually. The way it started has nothing to do with India or Indian nationalism or patriotism. It was more to do with religious sentiments and inferior treatment of soldiers by their masters. A Muslim not able to chew on a pig’s fat because of what was said in Koran and a caste Hindu not able to chew on cow’s fat due to fear of loss of his caste. Did these soldiers really think in terms of Indians vs. British? Not really.

However, once the mutiny picked up, there was a widespread participation from many other soldiers and also from local rajahs and landlords. These rajahs and landlords were keen on bringing back their rule by throwing off British. They were neither keen on bringing independence to its people or giving them the rights as citizens. The people were to remain subjects of the kings and bonded laborers of landlords, not citizens.

This movement was then taken up by Mughal-Empire-revivalists. These were those petty kings who wanted to bring back Mughal Empire so that they can have their share of the pie in ruling. This was more of a war where Indian feudals wanted to restore their power. It had no element of Independence that we finally obtained, where the people became citizens, where we had adult franchise, elected legislature, independent judiciary, people’s rights, etc.

The fact that India did not get Independence in 1857 was actually good for its people, in retrospect. If we had thrown off British right then, we would have gone back to having many kings and rajahs with independent kingdoms, and we wouldn’t have had opportunity to bring in a national movement that gave its people rights as citizens and modern institutions that safeguard their rights as citizens.

Indian National Congress

Few years later, Indian National Congress (INC) was formed with great support and help from some British people. During these initial days, Indian National Congress was completely an elite pastime. The members were intellectuals, coming from well-to-do families. INC was not a movement either; it was an organization that met once a year where intellectuals discussed issues from a podium. It was not a people’s movement nor did it involve the masses. If India got Independence during this time, it would have remained an extremely aristocratic rule, where certain intellectuals would have captured power while the actual freedom to its people and its participation would have been a distant dream.

Moreover, it did not include Muslims in those days. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had his own ideas about the role of Muslims in India (vis-a-vis British). He wanted to be friendly with British, because he saw them as somewhat equals, both being from ruler clan (first the Mughals, now the British). He expected special treatment for Muslims from British because of their earlier record of ruling India.

Entry of Gandhi

Only when Gandhi came onto the picture, did we see the actual people’s movement. What is so significant about Gandhi’s role is that he wanted to bring in revolution in India on many fronts, not just kicking out British, but bring untouchables into the mainstream, to bring women into the mainstream, to bring Muslims into the fight, to bring in self-respect in a common man, and teach him the duties of a citizen. [For example, he spent a great amount of time to teach Indians to clean up streets, to bring accountability and responsibility to its people and leaders, form a nation based on peace not based in hatred and violence, etc]

He wanted to see Indians capable of ruling ourselves fair and just when British were gone. He had strong suspicions on whether we were ready to rule ourselves.

The intervening years are quite important because he brought Muslims into the fold. Khilafat Movement which sounds so ridiculous now, was his way of bringing in Muslims into the people’s movement. If in the subsequent years, the talks with British failed, it was because Gandhi did not want to concede on the differences between Muslims and Hindus. He was against separate electorates, because he saw roots for division in it. He was bent on giving sops to Muslims so that they come together and fight. His fear, that Muslims having a separate agenda would dilute the cause and would also break up India, was clearly seen from many of his actions.

First Taste of Power

The fact that INC participated in one of the governing elections (during British rule) and had actually held power is significant because that allowed some of its leaders the taste of governance before India got Independence. Work on Indian Constitution started long before the Independence itself. Many of the notions of how we are going to rule ourselves were learnt between 1857 and 1947. And thanks to Gandhi, many of its rulers were ready to concede to the notion that this country belonged to its people, not its elite, not its rajahs, not its upper caste, not its Hindus, not its men.

Nationalism and Non-violence

Another significant aspect of this movement is Gandhi’s insistence on non-violence. According to him, this country could not have been borne out of blood and iron. He saw too many cultures, too many languages, too many religions, too many castes, too many classes- too many differences in this country, and he couldn’t find a unique slogan for all them, except nationalism and non-violence, which could be applied to different kinds of people irrespective of their allegiance to a local identity. The first one (nationalism) gave a sense of reason to fight British and to stay united; the second one (non-violence) gave a sense of self-restraint to become more mature and responsible to be able to serve and govern India better.

During 1920s, when some young nationalists, who got fed up with Gandhi’s delaying tactics, took to violent forms of protest, Gandhi felt the time was not ripe. Much to the dismay of so many ardent nationalists, he called off the movement designed to dislodge the British and secure the independence. Time and again Gandhi disappointed many leaders who wanted a quick route to India’s freedom. Gandhi believed that if it was complete freedom, then it had to come when Indians are more responsible.

Rejection of other ideologies

Also, during this time, India got time to experiment with communist and militant ideologies only to reject them. It also got time to experiment with what happens when you tried to share power with those Muslims who saw themselves different and wanted to be treated differently because they came from ruling clan. India got time to dabble with organization capabilities, both in terms of moving masses across the nation, and also in terms of ruling the country through bureaucracy. India got a chance to look at how world was divided on various cultures, and thus imbibe those principles in drafting its constitution. India got a chance to uplift its masses, bring them into the mainstream. With the advent of Ambedkar fighting for Dalits, reservations were possible. If India got Independence too soon, such a thing would have been unimaginable.

India got time to experiment with ideologies of Subhas Chandra Bose and other militants to reject them in favor of more balanced and composed approaches towards dealing with its inner conflicts.

India realized that it cannot embrace military ideology of Japan or Germany, that it cannot embrace communist ideology of Soviet Union, and that it cannot be oblivious to differences between religions, cultures and languages. That it cannot use one language or one religion to rally its people. That it cannot impose one identity onto everyone. That it had to be all-embracing, which also means more restraint and more composure. More patience and more balance. No room for militant ideology, because it can easily spin out of hand.

Mature parting with British

Whether we like it or not, the decision to part with British on friendly terms was hallmark of that maturity, which Gandhi championed, wherein we accepted what happened in the past as consequence of those times, and looked towards future without rejecting the legacy and the past. We did not have to resort to breaking up their statues, their buildings and their idols; we did not have to reinvent our identity through breaking up idols or hating our masters. We smoothly transitioned into a mature young adult having been a rebel in its teens, eventually accepting the independence without having to hate the parents or the fathers.

This is what Gandhi envisioned and that’s what happened. Gandhi had high expectations from British. He did not hate them or found them repugnant. Instead he brought out that gentleman in British and negotiated with him, as man to man. To him, history was not a snapshot of few years, but a continuum in which we had different masters at different times. British happened to be those masters now. What was important to him was not overthrowing of British, but that we learn to rule ourselves, to know how diverse India is, accept its diversity, and gear ourselves to act maturely.

If Gandhi failed, he failed when India got partitioned. He was so sad that day, when India got Independence, that instead of celebrating in New Delhi he was elsewhere nursing the wounds Partition left on India.

Right set of leaders for new nation

Our Independence movement threw a slew of mature and well-trained leaders who could later become the governing body. It threw open many architects who framed our constitution, making sure it respected each language, culture, religion, and also to uplift women and lower castes. Though Gandhi and Nehru had many differences over the future course of India, Gandhi believed Nehru was the right person to take the helm.

Sardar Patel did not live long enough. Nehru, having gone through the troubled times that preceded Indian Independence, had a grand vision for India. In it, democracy was important, creating the right institutions was important. There was no room for bigotry, militancy, sectarianism. Also, the results of Enlightenment were embraced by the rational Nehru. He ensured that we pursued the tools of rationality. For that he created the institutions that bore fruit long after he was gone. He had his own flaws. He believed that the state was somehow more humane than the individual. That belief led to License Raj and other ills that befell on India later on.

I see the period between 1857 and 1947 as a class struggle- a movement of its people, emancipation of the untouchables, lower caste and women, a struggle to deal with multiple identities in the modern world which put us in conflict with each other more often than in the past, a process of maturing where we didn’t have to settle the scores on the killing fields.

The Independence Movement is the story of our fight within- an inner struggle, maturing of a teen into an adult. India had to cope with its own problems. The enemies were its past, its caste system, its ruling class, its subjugation of woman and many of its superstitions and belief systems. And those problems were far bigger than the British.

Excessive Regionalism

When I wrote my article ‘Excessive Nationalism and Blurring of Local Identities’, some readers interpreted it as promotion of excessive regionalism. In fact, I never did that. In that same article, I wrote the following:

Excessive nationalism when not really in use sometimes vents itself as other isms- such as regionalism or communalism. As a corollary, certain groups starting out with parochial and radical regionalisms and communalisms get legitimacies when they portray themselves as nationalists. For example, Shiv sainiks who named themselves after Shivaji (who is considered a patriot under a national banner), first targeted Tamils in Mumbai, displaying their excessive regionalism, and later transformed themselves into a group targeting Muslims, displaying their excessive communalism. They get their legitimacies from many educated Hindus when they champion nationalism. Many Hindus laud Bal Thackeray and his Shiv sainiks when he takes a belligerent stand against Pakistan during a cricket season. Shiv sainiks get their legitimacy as true patriots and they use this slogan to cover up many of their other isms.

Certain groups move between these various isms very easily. The defenders of Kannada in Bangalore target Tamils on Cauvery issues, and then vent it out on non-Kannadigas during other incidents showing excessive regionalism, but also portray themselves as the defenders of the nation when protesting against Narayana Murthy over his comments on National Anthem. BJP and its affiliations use this card on a regular basis. They are defenders of national prestige and pride on the national arena while targeting Muslims and Christians in their local constituencies.

Why I touched upon excessive nationalism in that article instead of concentrating on excessive regionalism is very simple. In India and in most nation-states, nationalism and its excesses are always touted as virtues while regionalism and its excesses are always derided as villains. Hence, in India, excessive regionalism was already discredited, like what Tamils preach in Tamil Nadu was always derided by most non-Tamils. Therefore, there was no need to go about writing on a topic which was already a mainstream opinion.

Since, I have decided to touch upon this topic, let me write a bit about excessive regionalism.

I am against excessive isms. Either it is excessive socialism or excessive capitalism, or excessive regionalism or excessive nationalism – it is not good for anyone.

In that article, I asked for promotion and tolerance of local identities. That does not mean rejection of other local identities or imposition of our identities onto others.

Promotion and tolerance of local identities does not mean support for excessive regionalism, just the way promotion of diversity and different cultures does not mean support for excessive nationalism.

Raj Thackeray and Marathas

Raj Thackeray is a byproduct of Shiv Sena ideology. He only pushes the agenda of Shiv Sena little too prominently to the discomfort of its leaders who want to play a national game. He comes as an embarrassment to these leaders, but in reality, his agenda is an outgrowth of the core ideology.

The way Shiv Sena grew into prominence is by targeting non-Marathis, South Indians in Mumbai, not very different from what’s happening now with Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.

Excessive regionalism, as clearly promoted by Raj Thackeray, that targets people of other states has its roots in Shiv Sena who target Muslims at the national level. Many Hindus love Shiv Sena on the national level because they target Muslims, but balk at what Raj Thackeray is doing because one of their own kin is now being targeted.

I keep repeating in this blog many a times that the common element in all these groups is hatred. Once you foment lot of hatred, it is not like a tap or a hose that you can turn it off when you want to or focus it onto one single element. That hatred once stored is bound to come into open and it will negatively affect all kinds of people.

Excessive Nationalism and Excessive Regionalism

Hate groups have the capacity to move between excessive regionalism and excessive nationalism at will. On the national level they are bound to target enemies of the nation or enemies of an identity that identifies them as a nation-group. On the regional level, they are bound to target enemies of the state or enemies of an identity that defines them as a state-group.

My thesis of promotion of local identities is to allow, promote and tolerate various identities without have to reject others or impose ours onto others.

Pakistan: Should it celebrate?

Now that the much-awaited elections of Pakistan finally took place and now that the results have clearly positioned ‘democratic’ parties to take power sidelining the much-hated military dictator, Pakistan and its people are in a jubilant mood. ‘Yes, we are once again victorious!’ they celebrate.

But should Pakistan celebrate? Is this change permanent or ephemeral? Will the old habits die so easily?

Pakistan was victorious many a times before in its history. Pakistan, very much like India, is bereft of grand achievements. While Indian media continues to artificially construct achievements for us here, Pakistan’s polity also creates its own achievements that are quite flimsy, which usually shatter within a short period of time at the first whiff of wind called reality.

When the first dictator Ayub Khan came into power in 1958, Pakistanis were victorious too. Pakistanis celebrated it as a victory against unstable democracy that preceded it. And when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to absolute power through democracy and started to indulge in some of the most undemocratic ways, Pakistan was victorious once again. It was revenge against the inept military that allowed the humiliating defeat of Pakistan against India (1971) and led to breakup of the country. Pakistan celebrated when Bhutto became an elected dictator.

Later on, when Bhutto was hanged, Pakistan was victorious once again, because General Zia-ul-Haq from the Army had negated the wrongs of the past coming from an elected leader. When Zia-Ul-Haq died in a plane crash after a spell of long Islamic autocratic rule, Pakistan was once again victorious because now they got rid of a wily dictator. When Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto came onto power, Pakistan was victorious once again partly because they were a continuation of experiments with democracy.

But when General Musharraf deposed Nawaz Sharif to install his military regime, Pakistan was victorious once again, because Musharraf’s regime kicked out extremely corrupt democratic leaders, Benazir and Nawaz on charges of blatant corruption.

A good friend of mine, from Pakistan, celebrated when Musharraf came into power. When I asked why Pakistan is welcoming a military ruler, he explained that democratic rulers were really corrupt, and hence they needed a ‘benevolent dictator’ to clean up Pakistan’s system. And he believed Musharraf was the man for the job.

Pakistan has a bad track record of celebrating its victories before the results actually come out.

Another friend of mine, a Pakistani, who was in his teens during 1971 war with India, described his own story of how Pakistanis celebrated their victories. Before the start of this war, owner of a café in a Pakistani city put the total number of Pakistani and Indian planes on a black board, and after each day’s battles he would subtract the number of planes shot down by each side, as reported in their media. Within few days, it was clear that Pakistan was winning every day. India was losing its planes in huge numbers. One day, the total number of planes shot down clearly put India’s numbers in negative, but the war in the air was going on. It was absurd. Something was grossly wrong with those reports. He just erased the whole board that day.

Pakistan was winning all the battles on each day of the war, except the last day, when they lost the whole war in a grand letdown. What followed next was sheer humiliation. They lost East Pakistan, and did not gain an inch in Kashmir. 90,000 of its soldiers were now POW.

Time and again, Pakistanis were left disillusioned. They always celebrated their supposed victories too soon and too early.

Let’s come back to the present

Benazir Bhutto, supposedly one of the leaders of ‘democratic’ parties, has appointed herself the head of her party for a lifetime. When she was killed, a will came out in which she appointed her husband as the leader of the party. Why isn’t anyone finding this funny?

How can a democratic party be a family heritage? How can one appoint oneself its leader for a lifetime? How can she bequeath the power to someone in a will as if it’s her property?

Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, et al, have now come together to defeat and sideline the evil dictator Musharraf. So, in an effort to combat the greater evil in Musharraf, they are ready to ignore the petty differences between them. That’s fine! But then they go overboard. They have dropped all corruption charges against Zardari. Now, is that democracy?

Populist democracy and Constitutional democracy

Many people in Indian sub-continent think elections alone constitute a democracy. They fail to realize that even dictators conducted elections.

They do not realize that elections alone DO NOT have the power to condone genocides, crimes against humanity, murders, corruption cases, plunders, etc.

Indian sub-continent has a funny way of exonerating its criminals. As a criminal, all you have to do is stand for elections. If you get elected, you are automatically pardoned of all crimes. People will say, ‘Look! So many million people cannot be wrong. Accept the results of democracy!’

Nobody stops to bother and ask, do elections alone make a democracy? Is legal recourse subservient to electoral process? Don’t we need a constitution, a legal system, election commission, and other institutions that make it a constitutional democracy?

The reason why Pakistanis keep getting disillusioned is because their fundamentals are wrong. They believe in miracles, quick fixes, and short cuts. They have never spent time to institutionalize democracy.

Indian Feet and National Flag

Sacred Flag

For a long time Indians did NOT have access to their own national flag. There were so many DON’Ts that people didn’t feel free to even wave their own flag. Even after Jindal’s efforts, the flag still remains a sacred symbol. Looking at the number of ‘Insult to National Honor’ cases these days, I feel it’s better to lock it up in some museum and restrict it to hoisting on government buildings. Anything you do can be considered sacrilegious.

Sania Mirza and Indian Flag

Sania Mirza, India’s celebrated tennis player was accused of insulting the national flag, when in a recent photograph she was seen putting her feet up in the background with India’s National Flag in the foreground. It has become common these days to accuse every celebrity of insulting national symbols making the whole charade ridiculous.

First, we don’t even know if those feet were close or far away from that flag. Because it is quite probable that the photographer thought it was a nice shot and hence framed them in the same picture, though apart.

Second, many cultures and societies in the world would not consider propping one’s feet up next to their flag to be an insult. Indians are one of the rarest breeds who have funny notions on how to use their feet. They think that touching someone with feet, showing your feet to someone, or even waving them around is a gross insult.

My books and my feet

I love my books. I am an ardent reader. I read everyday and I buy lots of books. And I hold onto them as if it’s my treasure. I take good care of them. You will see my books in their original condition even after many years though they may have been read many times. I love them and respect them for what they are – source for information and entertainment.

At the same time, I move them around with my feet. If there is a book on the bed, I move it with my feet, nonchalantly, without feeling remorse or guilt.

However, it does not go very well with people around me. They always tell me that I am disrespecting my books. And I get this remark even from people who never read books. Their reading stopped when they graduated from college long ago. Yet, they make it a point to instruct me not to touch books with my feet.

It’s not that they care for the books or what is written in them. They never bother to know its contents or value the contents. Yet, they feel they can tell me what I can or cannot do with them. And my peeve is – ‘who are they to tell me how I should be taking care of my books?’

Books are sacred

For most Indians, books are sacred. What it means is these books will be prayed to, honored and put on the same pedestal where their gods stand. For many, books are incarnate of Goddess Saraswati. Some people believe this so strongly that it also means they are NOT going to question what is written in those books. They learn by rote the contents, to memorize them, to spew forth in one continuous incantation, verbatim. [You can also see why they remain idiots even after reading their books.]

Feet are impure

And also, for most Indians, feet are impure. If you touch something with your feet, you defile that thing. Many Indian habits come out of this belief. Touching one’s feet is showing your obeisance. To throw oneself at the others feet is to convey your subordination and sometimes extreme respect for the other. Many Indians get offended when you touch them with your feet or show your feet to them.

Many in India will do some weird action if they happen to accidentally touch you with their feet. They blurt out a sorry or use their hands to show a sign of praying to ask for forgiveness. I grew up in India, but I found this ritual rather amusing since I was a young boy. Unlike most others, I don’t feel guilty, ashamed, apologetic or embarrassed when I touch my near or dear things with my feet.

I like to use my feet

I find that using my feet gives me more than two limbs to move things around. I am completely comfortable using my feet for various purposes.

Many people find that objectionable, and some of them give me some silly ‘scientific’ explanations- that feet are unclean since you go around in the world, full of shit, waddling through the pile, with your feet. Hence, the impurity!

My feet are usually clean. I never go out of home without wearing shoes even when I go on a short errand. Many a times, I feel that my feet are cleaner than my hands. So, my response was, 'well, since I keep my feet clean, can I touch my books with my feet?' Even after this explanation these people would object to it. They cite more reasons why it should not be done- like, what kind of example I would set; like, certain things should always be sacred no matter what etc. No matter how you explain, the end result is – one should not touch books with feet. It’s a blind belief at the end of the day.

Feet are discussed in mythology too!

According to some Indian mythology, Brahmins came from head of Brahma, Kshatriyas from his torso, Vaishyas from thighs, Shudras from his feet, and untouchables from the soil below the feet. Even in this characterization it was clear why Shudras and Dalits were considered inferior- they have something to do with the feet!

Head is OK, hands are OK, torso is OK, even the penis is prayed to. The breasts of a goddess are prayed to. No mention of assholes, so I don’t know its status. But the feet are NOT OK. They are impure, disgusting, and filthy.

Therefore, Sania propping her feet next to Indian flag is akin to putting impure things next to a sacred thing. Therefore, it’s an insult. No arguments!

Pilgrimage subsidies

AP Government headed by a Christian Chief Minister and a Christian Governor thought it was an act of good faith when it announced a package to sponsor Christians to visit their Holy Land in Israel.

I am not even sure if most Christians of India consider Israel their holy land. But I guess the Indian politicians want to create one for Christians since Muslims have one in Mecca.

So, the Christians and Muslims of India get to go visit their Holy Land in some foreign countries through subsidies. Why is that so important for the government of India?

Is visiting Holy Land a luxury, privilege or a basic necessity?

Hey, my religion says that my holy land is on the Moon. Can the Indian government sponsor my trip to Moon?

Vedic Science Vs Modern Science II

[This follows the first part - Vedic Science Vs Modern Science I.]

Debunking one such Vedic Science

Here’s one such document on the web. It’s called “Modern Science and Vedic Science: An Introduction” by Kenneth Chandler, from Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa, USA.

Most of these attempts are aimed at mimicking scientific documents by using similar style but making no sense. Instead of making it simple and easy to understand, these impostors try to make their arguments complicated and complex so that the reader is lost somewhere in between, to resign himself to accept what the author says. Just because someone uses mathematical equations, it doesn’t make it mathematics. Logic, deduction, rational explanation, and other tools of mathematics are also quite necessary. All these tools are completely ABSENT from this attempt. I have taken some quotes from this Vedic Science.

#1 …and which can be explored not only through objective science but through a new technology of consciousness developed by Maharishi.

There is no such a thing called “technology of consciousness”. Technology and consciousness are two completely different fields with almost no overlap. Using such sentences, the author is trying to make you believe that somehow there is technology involved when there is none.

#2 Many thousands of years ago, the seers of the Himalayas discovered, through exploration of the silent levels of awareness, a unified field where all the laws of nature are found together in a state of wholeness.

There is a state of awareness, but there is no such thing called ‘silent level’ of awareness. Notice the heavy jargon. By using such jargon again and again they like to confuse the reader into believing that it is some serious topic.

#3 This unity of nature was directly experienced to be a self-referral state of consciousness which is unbounded, all-pervading, unchanging, and the self-sufficient source of all existing things.

This is what these pseudo-science people do. They like to invent new words, sentences and terminology. What is ‘self-referral state of consciousness’? Its all hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo packaged in nice words.

More such hocus pocus terminology is given below (4A-4I), you can skip them if you want to:

#4A They experienced and gave expression to the self-interacting dynamics through which this unified field sequentially gives rise to the diversity of all laws of nature. That experience is expressed in the ancient Vedic literature.

#4B The technology for gaining access to the unified field is called the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field, and the science based on this experience, which links modern science and Vedic Science in a single unified body of knowledge, is called the Science of Creative Intelligence.

#4D They perceived the fine fabric of activity, as Maharishi explains it, through which this unity of pure consciousness, in the process of knowing itself, gives rise sequentially to the diversity of natural law and ultimately to the whole of nature.

#4E The ancient Vedic literature, as Maharishi interprets it, expresses in the sequence of its flow and the structure of its organization, the sequence of the unfoldment of the diversity of all laws of nature out of the unified field of natural law.

#4G Gaining intimate familiarity with the silence of pure consciousness, Maharishi holds, one gains the ability to experience within that silence an eternal "fabric" or "blueprint" of all laws of nature that govern the universe, existing at the unmanifest basis of all existence.

# 4I One of Maharishi's most important contributions to Vedic scholarship has been his discovery of the Apaurusheya Bhashya , the "uncreated commentary" of the Rig Veda , which brings to light the dynamics by which the Veda emerges sequentially from the self-interacting dynamics of consciousness.

In all the above statements, there is a heavy dose of newly constructed jargon, which tends to make people believe that it is indeed something serious, such as science itself. Pseudo-sciences like to pass on themselves as science by using sophisticated terminology. Just by emulating scientific documents and its usage terminology, a pseudo-science cannot become science. However, this tactic seems to go on well with some ‘educated’ folks! Notice how the author keeps repeating the same terms, like, sequential, self-interacting, dynamics, unmanifest, unfoldment, silence, etc? By repeating such terms hundred times, they wish to pass their hocus pocus as truth. Can anyone tell me what ‘unmanifest’ and ‘unfoldment’ means?

#5 The knowledge of this ancient science that Maharishi has brought to light is known as Maharishi's Vedic Science.

Didn’t Vedic science reveal all truths already? If so, how can Mr. Maharishi take credit for it?

#6 Maharishi's Vedic Science is to be understood, first of all, as a reliable method of gaining knowledge, as a science in the most complete sense of the term.

First, you don’t even prove it is science. Second, you ask for faith in this system. Isn’t this how religions are dictated? “First, you believe, then, we reveal the truth?”

#8 Maharishi's work in founding Vedic Science is very much steeped in that ancient tradition, but his work is also very much imbued with the spirit of modern science and shares its commitment to direct experience and empirical testing as the foundation and criteria of all knowledge. For this reason, and other reasons to be considered below, it is also appropriately called a science.

So, we have come to conclusion that it is indeed science, through sheer leap of faith. No scientific argument is provided in the above deduction, but somehow we have arrived at the conclusion that this Maharishi’s work is in fact a science.

#9 This experience was not, Maharishi asserts, on the level of thinking, or theoretical conjecture, or imagination, but on the level of direct experience, which is more vivid, distinct, clear, and orderly than sensory experience„perhaps much in the same way that Newton or Einstein, when they discovered the laws of universal gravitation or special relativity, enjoyed a vivid experience of sudden understanding or a kind of direct "insight" into these laws.

This is where it becomes sheer nonsense. First he says that this method is based on gaining knowledge through “exploration of consciousness”, which we have no clue what it means. Next, he says that this experience is not theoretical or based in imagination, but is direct experience, more orderly, distinct and clear than the sensory experience. I don’t know what more direct experience than a sensory experience is.

Then he goes onto say it is very much similar to what Newton or Einstein went through. ‘Hmm... really?’ The only common element between this hocus-pocus and science is imagination- one is seeped in fantasy while the other is in understanding the universe as perceived by direct senses. While Einstein and Newton may have applied their minds to conjecture and imagination, they actually went back to their notebooks and blackboard to actually prove their conjectures through rigor, which had direct bearing on the observed universe! Their theories were verified hundreds of times and have proven to be standing true to the observed universe.

#11 All knowledge of the Veda is contained implicitly even in the first syllable "Ak" of the Rig Veda , and each subsequent expression of knowledge elaborates the meaning inherent in that packet of knowledge through an expanded commentary.

Hmm... What does this mean really- knowledge is contained implicitly? Is knowledge implicit? Can it be contained in one syllable? What is packet of knowledge? Is there a limit to utter depravity in using sophisticated language? The gobbledygook continues:

#14 Modern experimental science and Maharishi's Medic Science could now be seen as two diverse yet mutually complementary approaches to knowing the same underlying reality - one through the empirical method, the other through the exploration of the least excited state of consciousness.

This is how Vedas dismiss empiricism as an artificial construct of the West. All they need to send rockets into space is ‘excited state of consciousness’!

#15 The unity of nature is not a mere hypothetical unity, nor a unity of intellectual understanding or interpretation. It is a unity of direct experience that has been described in almost every tradition and every historical epoch.

#17 This global influence of coherence generated through the group practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field has been called the "Maharishi Effect."

And all the references to this technology are made to their own works, which nobody knows other than Maharishi and his sycophants.

Well, you get the point. The whole text is the repetition of the same thing. Using the same previously-undefined words, terminology and new constructs, they keep on harping on achieving one goal: How Vedas reveal the answers concluded from Modern Science and how spirituality and some kind of deep meditation will give you the same answers as Modern Science.

There is no merit to such attempts. Such attempts are pastimes of charlatans, scam artists, and pretenders. There is no science in such attempts. There is a strong and urgent need to discredit such attempts and show them what they are- a sham and a deception. Instead of investing in learning science, inculcating rational outlook and thought, conducting research and experimentation, developing credible and verifiable theories, we are taking a step backward by encouraging such lazy and escapist attempts.

What is worrying is that many academicians, technologists, and elite of India are embracing such attempts. Such supporters are creeping into the bastions of intelligentsia and academia, holding key positions to be an influence on what our kids and future generations will learn.

Related Topics: Vedas and Science, Decline of Science in India II, Astrology Vs Science I, Pseudo-science: Vaastu Shastra, Science and Mythology: Ram Sethu, ABC of Ram Sethu,Rejection of Rationality I: Indian Hindus and the New Age

Vedic Science Vs Modern Science I

Vedic Science??

Is Vedic Science really science in disguise? Is it some kind of archeological find of something very sophisticated and highly advanced science and technology? Did our ancestors have all answers to our questions? Did we have access to nuclear technology, did they understand atomic physics, and could they cure any disease? Did they fly planes?

Many Indians are enamored with their ancient history. It gives them a hope and confidence which they lack in the modern world. Trying to find some glimmer of achievement, they go back into distant past and find solace in unraveling the mysterious conundrums and cryptic statements from ancient texts. Some so-called scholars, who seem to have monopoly on interpretation of these documents, invest great deal of time and energy to ‘prove’ to us that indeed our ancestors had all the answers – that their science was more advanced than the modern-day Quantum Physics.

Though no remarkable achievement has come from these studies into our ancient books we continue to attribute undue credit to them. No breathtaking scientific theory or a simple contraption that actually works has come out of those studies. Yet, we continue to be enamored of our ancient texts, touting them as alternate science. What is sad is that there is a big school of thought in India, harbored by our intellectuals, scientists and physicists, that continues to cripple our scientific temperament, leading to celebration of blind belief, superstition and irrationality.

One may ask, why so much obsession with these ancient texts? What purpose does it serve?

It actually serves two purposes.

One, it gives most Indians a reason to feel proud of themselves. If West could arrive at the same conclusions using the path of modern science through Age of Enlightenment, toiling in labs and conducting elaborate research, our ancestors have in fact discovered all of them, thousands of years ago, only by meditation under banyan trees and by experiencing it through deep consciousness. This allows Indians to say to the West- “Look we were always ahead of you. And we don’t need your empiricism, rigor, and scientific methods to arrive at the same conclusions. We have our own methods. Our practice of looking at the world spiritually is as relevant as yours, which is based in lowly materialism.”

Second, it gives some Indians a taste of ‘pure Indian’ achievement, in which there is no participation or involvement of Muslims, Christians, and other invading people. It gives them a taste of what they were originally- great and supreme beings that had answers to all the problems of the world before they got corrupted by alien forces. They relish in ‘pure Indian’ discoveries and inventions that preceded all advances made in the West. Now, they can find reasons for Akhand Bharat and Hindutva, and give legitimacy to Aryan supremacy.

Finding more than what Vedas says

Many of these new age Indians are fascinated with their ancient achievements. They try to find meanings and achievements in those places where there are none. If there are no achievements, they want to create them. Trying to read into poems, calling bears and wolves and bosons and fermions, these studies make a mockery of our intelligence. Instead of spending time in developing modern science by spending time in research, they want to sip chai and equate the modern sciences with the poetry of our ancient folks.

I discredit most of these attempts, this fascination with ancient texts, deciphering them, creating new terminologies and concepts to explain them, making fantastic and completely ridiculous analogies to prove them as alternate science. I like Vedas, for what they are- for the mythology with a dose of philosophy. There are many mythological documentaries in each civilization. Mythology and even philosophy of olden days should be read as such.

If one were to analyze “Lord of the Rings” by J.R.R. Tolkien few thousands years from now, this future man may conclude that we actually had Middle Earth, elves, dwarfs, etc, and that we could conjure up the dead and use them as armies, and that some of us were immortal, etc. Such books should be read as mythology or as fiction. Trying to solve the hidden puzzles to come up with theories that indeed we had middle earth would be foolish. That’s exactly what we are doing each time we utter the word ‘Vedic Sciences’.

Vedas are Vedic. Let them be. They are ancient. There is nothing scientific about them. However, we see many trends in modern India which suggest the contrary. There is an attempt to glorify these ancient texts as alternate science. I could go on and take many examples. Instead, I thought I will concentrate on one such attempt and see what merit it carries. [To be continued.]

Related Topics: Vedas and Science, Decline of Science in India II, Astrology Vs Science I, Pseudo-science: Vaastu Shastra, Science and Mythology: Ram Sethu, ABC of Ram Sethu,
Rejection of Rationality I: Indian Hindus and the New Age

Germans teach their kids history

According to this news item:

German students are getting a colourful insight into the darkest chapter in 20th century history, in the form of a graphic novel on the Holocaust.

A far cry from your average history textbook, Die Suche (The Search), uses bold graphics to chronicle the fictional story of Esther, a woman who unearths the truth about her Jewish family which was deported to Auschwitz.

This is what I mean when I say we don’t teach our kids history. We don’t tell our kids what happened in this country – that for thousands of years, certain majority of population was confined to poverty, misery and wretchedness just because they were born into a certain caste. We never own up this thousand-year-long discrimination and persecution that happened in this country.

We don’t discuss the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 where certain people were targeted and butchered because they belonged to an identity. We don’t discuss Partition or its gory details. People come up with various reasons why more than half a million people Indians got killed during Partition – they blame the British, or our leaders, and in some warped logic, Gandhi. Nobody blames the actual reason- the hatred that each of us sow on a daily basis to reap such catastrophes.

Recently, I met a young man who hates Gandhi. When asked why he hates Gandhi, he said, Gandhi divided the country. ‘Gandhi divided this country?’ I asked myself. No person who knows a little bit of history can come to that conclusion. That’s the state of our history – filled with too many myths and misinterpretations.

This news item adds:

“There is definitely a huge knowledge gap among teenagers. Most know about the Third Reich but there are lots of myths, prejudices and misunderstandings.”

We don’t seem to realize the importance of teaching our kids history which details some ignominious pasts. We are not mature enough, even as adults, to handle some of the controversial pasts of our ancestors. We don’t know how to deal with the topics such as caste-based-discrimination in our classrooms discussion. For that matter, we are not even mature to handle sex-education in our classrooms.

This news item concludes:

In Germany, which this week sees the 75th anniversary of Hitler becoming chancellor, many fear that young people are disinterested in or misinformed about this important chapter of history.

Related Posts: To Better India II: Primary Education, Reservations IX: I apologize