he Three Part Series on Hindu Revolution
Hindu God Bishnu
No Dictator to Revolt Against
For a start, unlike Iran, India did not have a Shah-like dictator or even a Savak-like torturing agency.
The Three Part Series on Hindu Revolution
No Dictator to Revolt Against
For a start, unlike Iran, India did not have a Shah-like dictator or even a Savak-like torturing agency.
The Hindu Sacred Word OM
The Taj Mahal
The Past Wasn't All Bad
This resistance still gives pride to the Hindus.
Furthermore, unlike the Brits, they took India as their homeland and therefore almost retained India's GDP. Though they destroyed constructs, the monuments left by them are treasured by all today. Unless P N Oak is right, the world famous symbol of love, the Taj Mahal, forms the crown jewel. While their contribution to the Indian classical music is well known, the less known translation of Hindu text to Persian aided knowledge in Persia.
Indeed the Brits ruled as foreigners and reduced its GDP, but unlike the Muslims they gobbled up only 1-2% of Indians as Christians. While their railways gives a good feeling to most Indians, the given English language gives pride to its elite. Being an international language that has merged with globalisation, while the entrepreneurs and job seekers cherish that language, qualifying for international prize and sales, writers go ecstatic. Though they burnt books, they also made Hindu literature available to the international audience. While Buddha enlightened all spiritually, removing his birth place enigma, they enlightened all in a mundane way.
Indeed, India got vivisected on religious grounds into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, during partition. But, as if tracing Bollywood copying Hollywood plots, it copied the British constitution. Its written form, unlike in the UK, was even 'bragged' about.
The Turn of the Socialists:Although the, 'I am the last British ruler of India' saying man couldn't resist the lure of 'From Russia with Love' and ditched the West for the then USSR that heralded a socialist rule in India, it matched the West's struggle against religion. In so doing, while less virulent Indian communists became ecstatic, socialist scribes turned the 4th pillar into a free socialist media (not today's social media) and congressmen just followed the idolised chacha, its minorities just felt contended with their special minority rights. In addition, his showing teeth as the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) even brought prestige to him and to the nation. It's not that the Hindus didn’t get anything, they got the Hindu ways in the state ceremonies. Like the non-biting NAM, they were 'non-opposing' anyway.
The Turn of the Socialists:Although the, 'I am the last British ruler of India' saying man couldn't resist the lure of 'From Russia with Love' and ditched the West for the then USSR that heralded a socialist rule in India, it matched the West's struggle against religion. In so doing, while less virulent Indian communists became ecstatic, socialist scribes turned the 4th pillar into a free socialist media (not today's social media) and congressmen just followed the idolised chacha, its minorities just felt contended with their special minority rights. In addition, his showing teeth as the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) even brought prestige to him and to the nation. It's not that the Hindus didn’t get anything, they got the Hindu ways in the state ceremonies. Like the non-biting NAM, they were 'non-opposing' anyway
All accepted the power of democracy that aided the smooth transition of power. Under it, people could fire and hire their PM, as they did to Indira Gandhi after the Emergency. Almost more than in the West, free scribes could challenge the Supreme Court, disregard copyrights and even publish concocted stories. With the Saraswati river descending from mythology to history, Dwarika climbing up from the deep sea and one gene theory emerging to demolish two gene theory of the Aryans coming from outside, even Hindus seemed to show a grin.
While quoting from books of their experts and philosophers made the West glad, receiving prizes from English literary world made the Indians go gaga. A man even said in broken English, 'Brits came too late and left too early'.
The Turn of GlobalisationImpenetrable to the Muslim and the Christian onslaughts earlier, India fully let globalization penetrate itself. That changed India as never before. Getting gadgets, the Net, English-aided highly paid jobs (beyond parental imagination) and social and sexual freedom, it was the youth's turn to be happy. Cash flow from entrepreneurs, and UK's NHS and USA's cyber city, helped.
Moreover, with God vanishing from the national ethos, and as expected, that secularism descending from state to homes, He gradually disappeared from ordinary homes too. Yes, even the homes of the minorities! With this, the idea of many lives got reduced to 'one life' of the Semites and then to that of the atheists.
With the afterlife bliss thus gone with the wind, fear of hellfire extinguished and money filling the void as a neo-God, (It even brought respect, irrespective of the means), bliss was to be found through money here. Irrespective of what Adi Sankaracharya said, this life was real and had to be enjoyed. To miss the bliss coming out of the cash, gadgets and the opposite sex was foolish. Suddenly a new mantra emerged - 'Life is short and single, therefore enjoy'. It almost competed with the mantra of secularism.
With the dream worlds - Bollywood, media and the PC/mobile porn - converting beauty to sexy and bliss of love to bliss of body for both sexes, joy was easy. For cash couldn't buy love, it could buy the body. Hedonism, therefore, skyrocketed in the cities.
Being chanced than planned, the 'can have sex, but with a condom' teaching translated into condom-less, even pill-less sex. But then, with mums organising the ways for abortions and STDs, virginity not demanded by future spouses, and the whole thing being part of the respected 'exploring of sexuality', even city girls never had such good time before. The seeking of joy was never so free from consequences.
Adults weren't less. Airing 'Bedroom isn't the business of the state', women's desire did a “two to tango” to the triad of masculine desires - look, feel and penetrate. While skyrocketing pre-marital sex offered bliss to the singles, adultery and consensual swap offered it to the married. And those who didn't go for the full Monty - look, feel and penetrate- got their two of the three joys in the Bollywood aided conversion of the Namaskar to hugs. Worldly success mattering more; while own tuition fee and fashion made college girls get their cash in hotels, sibling's tuition made housewives try the easy way. And housewives who escaped all that got glued to soaps full of repeat marriages/affairs. With free sex symbolising modernity, and Indians calling West immoral ever since they saw Brits dancing with other's spouses, an Australian blogger's 'Indians are more immoral' made them now look more modern than the West.
With God not quite dead - whatever Nietzsche might have said - but still having a self half-life till the next generation, almost like the cattle of the agricultural revolution, even He was being tamed. It's so because secularism had hit ordinary homes, but faith-homes still claimed 'virgin territories'. With Him remaining blissful with the seeking of forgiveness and holy place donations that mitigated secular sins, piety got paired with the latter. In fact, with secrecy and hypocrisy maintaining prestige, and secular sins thus easily mitigated, faith-home donations matched the skyrocketing mundane joy. Noting 'business is booming', even the priests felt joyous (At least till the next generation, when 'Churches of Church of England' will emerge). Like their faith offering goodies of both mono and polytheism, they seem to enjoy best of both theism and atheism. True freedom indeed!
Certainly there was corruption, but where in the world it isn't? Also, voters had the right to hire leaders and, if very corrupt, fire them anyway. Sure India had Maoist terrorism, but being in the villages, it didn't dominate the airways. Of course, Jihadi terrorism happened in the cities, but being occasional, they were live reported, talked about, condemned and then gradually forgotten - till the next. Yes, rape is more frequent and is even an epidemic, but like corruption, it is global. If sufficiently gruesome, it even gets nationwide protests and change in the ways of the courts.
Indeed Bollywood blatantly copies Hollywood, but it has penetrated homes of the people of Pakistan, where it is banned. If anything, there should be a revolution in Pakistan, not in India.
So Why the Revolution?The Glorious Past:
Almost suggesting not all can be made happy, or God's job isn't easy, or even majority doesn't always mean empowered, despite all that, Hindus who were in the majority were not happy. But then, why?
Albeit all three - the past, the present and the future - were the cause of the discomfort, the past was by far the most important.
Not being European ruled primitive people, who were made civilized by the 'White man's burden', but having a glorious past that even made Indians retort 'They lived in caves, when we were in palaces', the formed utopia enticed a desire to achieve it. It was a similar incentive that made the French revolutionaries aspire for when apprised about their rights.
It sounds like the tit for tat Atom Bomb blast, but unlike the 'We ruled over the Hindus' of the Pakistanis, this utopia was for real.
With its influence stretching from Afghanistan to Japan; its narrative, Mahabharata, forming world's longest story; its perfected language, Sanskrit, seen as the mother of languages and computer friendly; its grammar by Panini regarded as faultless; its inventions like '0', yoga and meditation helping humanity even today; its 6 system of philosophy even including atheism; its several universities attracting global students like Oxford and Harvard do today; its GDP and gold reserve topping global figures; its ideals being 'truth wins'; respect for sacrifice and high morals; and its pluralism accommodating persecuted minorities like Jews and Zoroastrians, the Hindu utopia wasn't misplaced.
It is the descent from that civilization, when they, the Hindus, had a say through Islamic, British, socialist rule and then through globalisation that has, in effect, produced a wounded civilization for them. It is the resentment and the desire to re-achieve that utopia that forms the nidus of the revolution. But then, there is more.
Angkor Wat: The largest temple comples in the world
Exasperation With The Muslim Rule:
Seeing it as 'past is past' and today's Muslims not guilty of that, and tracing truth and reconciliation, the Hindus demanded only the three main temples - among the many destroyed. Not getting those, especially the Ram temple in Ayodhya, they felt resentful. Bad treatment of Pakistani Hindus and their lessening in number hurt them.
Exasperation with The British RuleThe Brits - next in line - didn't directly kill as many civilians, but they created famine that killed many- only subdued. Unlike the Portuguese, whose missionaries slaughtered many and destroyed temples in the name of love of Jesus, and anointed some of the wrongdoers as saints (who are immortalised in convent schools), although the Brits didn't do so, their revenge killing after the first mutiny in 1857 and the second killings at Jalalabad changed Indian history.
Although they burned books alone and not libraries like the Muslims, their brilliant plan to make 'Indian in colour and British in taste' wiped out India's past - an entire civilization from the Indian mind - in just a century or so. With it making rule over land easy and rule over mind even easier, and them sensing rule remaining same like the transmigrating soul in either case, they planned for an ongoing rule through the Macaulay's children - as if they were Warren Buffet's future dividends.
It wasn't difficult, though, for on the one hand, English was made compulsory and Western ideas were promoted, glorified and quoted; on the other hand, unburnt Hindu texts were mistranslated and Manu Smriti amongst them was crowned as the highest scripture. Its social system was denigrated as 'brahminical', as was its lingua franca, Sanskrit - the language of its history, religion, philosophy and maths. Ones who didn't set their feet in India, e.g. Marx and Weber, became the authority figures.
Being foreigners, feeling foreign and having a homeland far away, the Brits, unlike the Moghuls, always acted as outsiders. Giving colour (fair) and making a race out of Arya (noble), they propelled the Aryan Invasion Theory that changed its colour like a chameleon to form 'Aryan Immigration'. It offered a triple feast out of dividing Indians (Aryan/Dravidian), justifying their rule (Aryans from outside) and strengthening Christianity (Bible constrained dating).
And, the railway wasn't built for the locals. Furthermore, while post mutiny revenge killings of artisans and their associates pushed the country towards agriculture, discriminatory trade, corruption and transfer of cash and techniques to the West pushed it's GDP to 3% from 23%.
With Hinduism having being reduced to caste, sati, child marriage, 'monkey worshippers' etc., the formed self-loathing Indian saw the cause of India's problems as 'us Indians' and 'our outdated faith'. Seeing the maturation of 'Macaulay's Children' and the fruition of future drones in it, Lord Macaulay's grin was clear, as were the frowns of the Hindus.
Exasperation with The Socialist RuleAlthough all rejoiced when Independence knocked at India's doors, Hindus frowned at the first political shuffle that saw Gandhi bending party rules in caving into atheist Nehru's demand to be the PM candidate - instead of the legitimate desi unifier, Sardar Patel. The turn of the Macaulay's children had come. Thus, the Brits didn't come, rule and then go, they continued to rule through their 'Sir, yes, sir' men. With them praising their former rulers, they even showed Munchausen's syndrome.
Gandhi and Nehru
But then, despite Nehru's love for the Brits - British in taste - he didn't bring a full blown Macaulay's rule though. With dreams for the poor coming from the north, equality was heard louder than freedom and fraternity. The Macaulay's child, Chacha, suddenly turned socialist, and as if echoing the desertion of the Brits for the love of socialism, faith in God followed water of a river. Having used faith richly during the struggle - unlike in the USA and in France - even making Gandhi a Hindu spokesman, and then availing a defined homeland for the Hindus and the Muslims - as for the Jews - in the painful partition, the offering of Godless socialism, now, wasn't what Hindus wanted. Nehru seeing factories as temples, and also not seeing their effluent polluting the Ganges didn't make the Ganga worshipers happy. Their pain didn't end there, though. For when Gandhi died of gun shots, the liberal and conservative division saw strengthening of liberal and communal. And when the reigning queen, Indira, added 'secular' in the constitution without a referendum - when the Nehruvian socialism was at its peak after the man's death - resentment only climbed.
Though godly India's de facto national ethos of 'sarba dharma samanbaya' was already eroded by godless socialism, now it saw a de-jure 'state with no religion'. Though godlessness can't respect godliness and the claimed 'respect for all faiths' could easily be Hindu, the now-opposed Hindu ways of the state possibly had to do with old habits dying hard than faith. While the change of the nation's ethos without a referendum was painful, the loss of majority power through 'majority meant little and minority did not mean little' hurt more.
In addition, now the liberal/communal split metamorphosed into secular/communal. And a tamed majority and special privileges made the minorities elated. But then, having less control over their worship centres than the minorities, Hindus resented being the only majority in the world who had lesser rights. Disapproval of West like Universal Civil Code didn't add joy.
The Language ApartheidWith Sanskrit sucked out of its usefulness and left out, and its younger cousin Hindi, as an AIT dividend, stumbling into a Dravidian outcry, the elite language English remained the undisputed lingua franca; Western thought the Gospel and thinkers the quoted idols. English was the rule; Western thinkers were the rulers. Unlike Al Azhar University or the Vatican, JNU with a leftist slant was the proxy rule centre. Almost like Arrian (c.95-175) on India, translated texts became the primary source, and authority on its history didn't need Sanskrit - like Latin for a Roman historian. While the language of the original - Sanskrit - was in its death bed in a few Indian and Western universities, the uncared texts in the original remained in the domain of rodents.
The Anglophone clearly were more equal than others, for they had the opportunities and an intellectual cartel saw interdependent quotations. Non-English expressions were still 'native' intellectually. With English bringing international accolades, even Hindi books had few takers. No wonder English has destroyed India, screams RSS.
In the abode of learning, let alone from the lack of Sanskrit, Hindus now had to resent the relative dearth of space given to Hindu heroes in the texts. Foreign rule was sanitised; for truth and reconciliation never arrived from South Africa. In addition, tracing not science that said 'Indians have one gene' but the divisive British, it continued with AIT in its history lessons. While the great Aryas e.g. Adi Sankara, Panini, Kalidasa etc. remained unquoted and un-resurrected, and Arya 'the noble one' still remained a race, un-investigated, Mahabharata remained a myth. Hinduism continued to trace the smooth vanishing of the Harrapans.
The Rival ReligionistsHaving received an unfair deal from the state, the deal from their rival religionists was no different. While, Muslims rejected the 'only 3 main temples', as stated above, Christians rejected stoppage of induced conversions. Displeased with fled Kashmiri Pundits being refugees in their own land, they weren't pleased with Hindus having to fight for temples and water at other places as well. With cows having mundane and spiritual significance, and cow protection being central part of Hinduism even to Gandhi, India becoming world's leading beef exporter was painful.
Though fed up with secular Congress using Muslims as vote bank and still remaining secular, and secular meaning minority appeasement, it wasn't happy with its coreligionist's disunity either. Having more media clout, incredibly more economic might (largest real estate owner and 2nd largest employer) and an international Christian ummah, even 2% Christians had more power. With Waqf board boasting 3 position after defence and railways, in election time summoning powerful Congress leaders, Muslims weren't less either. But then an attempt to unify all using Ram temple brought dishonour to Hinduism itself. 'Fundamentalist', instead, became palpably louder and as a retort minoritism became pseudo-secularism.
Christinaity in the North East of India
Free Speech Not for the HindusYes the press was free, even to disregard copyrights, but that freedom was for the secularists, even minorities, not for Hindus. With minorities, as 'Enemy's enemy is my friend', graduating to a lesser of the two evils - even a working friend - and Hindu being what USA is to the Jihadist, the onslaught of reporter's 'Pen is mightier than the sword' fell on the neck of the Hindus. The Brit's 'Indians are bad' that denied Indian judges to try them now shifted to 'Hindutwa is bad'. Any one defending or favouring Hinduism was 'communal' and 'fundamentalist'. Accusations on Mody was feasted upon. Hinduism was still the cause of India's ills. Most discussion on problems ended in RSS and the caste system.
While national press shielded minority errors and amplified ones by the majority, it kept mum on the demographic changes in the North East. Calling its slow growth Hindu growth rate and headlining its poverty and rape incidents, the international press wasn't fair either. More importantly however, western professorial output on the PhD students, encyclopaedias or books like Kaali's child were humiliating for them. In fact, as the pain of a double edged sword, while at home Macaulay's children brought misery, internationally these 'Sir, yes, sir' men brought 'Indians can be trained but they cannot think'. The descendents of ones, who gave 0, algebra, yoga, meditation, etc. to the world were not happy.
Exasperation with GlobalisationYes, its cherished globalization brought technology, and used the Internet (sprouting blogs, comments, websites etc) that bypassed media and provided true freedom of expression for the 1st time.
However, becoming a global worker was for the Anglophone elite alone. Inequality continued. Not quite fitting into their aspiration of abstinence that invigorates youth, and the ideal of 'view women as your mum' that ushers social stability, they found 'have sex but with condom' as tasteless as having sex with a condom. Hindutwa sensed insecurity in the change of beauty to sexy (from face to six pack abs) and the descent of bliss of love to bliss of body brought by Sexual Revolution Plus. It is saddened by the latter's products - moral decay, family breakups and rape epidemic. In fact, seeing a shift in culture, like by the Japanese, Hindus saw India losing its soul.
The Pressure of Globalisation
Their Future was Even Worse
Hindu shrinkage ushering a vanishing touch was worrisome, but believing in 'India is secular because of Hinduism' they worry about being a minority under the Semites. This isn't because of losing a competition, but, not ruling out clash between the two aggressively proselytising faiths, it sees with horror the alarming decrease and untold sufferings of their Bangladeshi and Pakistani brethren. Unless saved by modernity, it greatly fears the return to a stage, when Hindu was used as a humiliating word by the Muslims and Hindoo as humiliating spelling by the Christians. Strangely the other eater, atheism, looked so innocent.
Though the above doesn't make the revolution surprising, its smoothness through elections, unlike the Iranian revolution, does surprise. It even beats Lord Macaulay's way.