Defeating the purpose - caste based reservations

Note: This is an old article i didn't  publish. But seeing the relevance of the debate I'm publishing it without modifications.

Last I heard UPA government has included Jats in the central OBC lists, in other places such as Uttar Pradesh many OBC castes are trying to enlist themselves as SC, many SCs are trying to get into ST. Indeed there is a premium on backwardness, everyone is trying to prove how terribly backward they are. And for all these there exists a robust intellectual support,  reservations and quotas are variously described as tools for social justice, egalitarian society, caste-less society ad nauseam. Opposing such policies on grounds of merit, efficiency, fairness immediately casts you as upper caste stooge and a reactionary manuvadi.  The question is from when all these started? What are the justifications advanced and the issues with them? The story predates independence and has roots in 19^th century reform movements. In this article it’s my aim to show hollowness of the whole theory of caste reservations. On the face of it the issue is eminently common sensical to anyone why shouldn’t there be caste based reservations but it’s instructive to see how elaborate constructions and topsy-turvy logic was employed to justify communal reservations. There are various steps in the whole saga, and the elaborate web is established in the end.

Ethnicisation of caste 

Jyotirao Phule (late 19^th century) was the pioneer of the process, and subsequent caste movement leaders have accepted one or the other form of the ethinicised notion of caste. Its origins lie further afar, in British historiography. The Britons gave a theory of Aryan invasion, the theory was advanced that there are two races in India one invader Aryans and other native Dravidians. Some 4000 years ago Aryans invaded India from northwest. This pushed the peace loving native Dravidians into peninsular India. Britishers advanced this history to justify their invasion. But in the hands of Jyotirao Phule (the pioneer of lower caste movement) the theory was leveraged to serve another purpose, it was held that the Aryans are upper caste/Brahmins and the Dravidians and natives were lower castes, that Aryans invaded the natives and enslaved them. In south India this theory was used to foster a full fledge anti-Bramhin movement in the beginning of the 20^th century. The result of this process was that caste was given an ethnic identity like a race or like a linguistic group. This ethnicisation surved its purpose quite well, it united lower castes against upper castes, it gave them pride and confidence in their original superiority.

How this helped justify caste-based quotas? Well, in USA for example blacks are an ethnic group and they were given affirmative action based on their race…the similarity logic dictates that since caste too is an ethnic group like a race, affirmative action in India too should be given on basis of castes. There are grave issues with this. One, the Aryan invasion theory has been totally discarded now and sociologists don’t consider any racial difference between upper and lower castes, there is so much of interbreeding that it’s almost useless to talk of race and ethnicity so far as castes are concerned. Two, unlike race caste is a chosen identity that is one can’t choose to become white or black but one can choose what caste he wants. This is a crucial difference which we will explore in the next section of sanskritisation. 

Sanskritisation

Secular status(economic status) of a caste is one thing and ritual status(place of caste in the varna hierarchy) is another. Of course inevitably there is a convergence between secular rank and ritual rank of a caste, which means the caste having higher power/wealth will be higher in varna hierarchy or vice versa.

The sanskritization means whenever opportunity is afforded(i.e. economic wealth) lower caste will claim higher varna status and might eventually get one. The Indian Varna system is characterized by this fluidity of sanskritization throughout the history, castes moved up and down through the hierarchy. Take for example the Gupta dynasty- the Guptas were vaishyas when the dynasty was founded but once having acquired power they bestowed grants to the Brahmin priests and the priests in turn bestowed Kshatriya status to Guptas. Or when a person used to be punished and made an outcaste he would likely land up as an untouchable. This understanding makes the whole conception of caste rigidity a hollow claim, the rigid and unchanging caste system was a colonial conception and to a great extent colonial product, the subsequent scholarship has proven it wrong. Our reservation thinking depended much on this outdated conception of rigidity of caste system, we assumed that a depressed caste must be depressed for thousands of years and on that basis demand affirmative action to correct a perceived historical wrong. But no such claim to historical deprivation can be made, we don’t know where the particular caste were some hundred years ago.
This process of sanskritization has a crucial significance for the whole debate, it means that the primary determinant for social deprivation is economical/secular not ritual. The lower ritual status might limit the opportunities available for the deprived caste in a short term and a vicious cycle may begin wherein lower ritual status gives lower economic status and which in turn perpetuates lower ritual status. But when it comes to break the chain, the secular status is most important as it’s the genesis of ritual status of a caste.  That means if you generate economic opportunities for the lower castes (through affirmative action or whatever), the caste will eventually rise in the varna hierarchy. There are evidence from history that the whole vaishya varna was created this way during later vedic period. The texts belonging to early vedic period has negligible mention of vaishyas, but the later vedic texts mentions vaishyas profusely.  Sanskritization applies to individual as well as caste, that means whole caste goes up in the hierarchy through collective action and lobbying. What happened 4000 years ago, has continued to happen till the 19^th century. And since the independence the whole process has freezed, the caste structure has become as rigid as we currently believe. The reason is simple, caste based reservations. The caste-quotas have effectively stopped the process of sanskritization because it creates a disincentive for going up in the verna hierarchy. No dalit caste would want to become Bramhin because that would deprive them of the state entitlements. Social stigma for dalits remain because that’s how Hinduism has evolved in last 4k years, you can’t change a religion that way no matter how strong the religious reform movement is. Hinduism is institutionally fluid enough that it can accept a rich dalit as a Bramhin, but not so fluid to respect dalit as a dalit.  This problem is compounded by the fact that quota lowers the eligibility standards, so if a rich dalit becomes a doctor even if he gets fewer marks the perception among upper caste remains that dalits are intellectually inferior and therefore can’t compete with open category even if materially well-off. 

In the view of the above discussion it’s not difficult to guess what will happen if affirmative action is solely based on economic criteria, slowly lower castes settle themselves into vaishya varna. The untouchable castes will become defunct because the traditional occupations allocated to them will no more be relevant in a modern, industrial world(for example manual scavenging will vanish and with it the caste too will vanish).  This path to social justice will undoubtedly sound appalling to many who wants caste as a unit of entitlements.  Why? Here the concept of ethnicization of caste we discussed above will play spoil sport. The ethnicization movement has instilled a sense of pride among lower castes qua lower castes, the term ‘dalit’ is proudly proclaimed. But as I discussed above this ethnicity-centred concept of caste is completely spurious,  caste is not natural but cultural.
Just as people doing manual labour would move out of manual labour on first opportunity without thinking about glory of manual labour, caste too behaves similarly.  Besides this sense of pride in dalithood is mostly a fashion among dalit elite only, the dalit masses who faces discrimination on a day to day basis will escape the stigma at first opportunity provided.  I personally know instances where people feel ashamed of identifying themselves as dalits. You will see lots of ex-untouchables adopting upper caste surname, this people except for the benefit of reservation would easily change their caste forever.

In the above discussion I tried to show why the caste qutas fail to achieve its desired goal of a society without a horizontal caste structure without hierarchies. But I would also show that caste quotas are not only ineffective but positively pernicious and in the remaining part of the article I would try to demonstrate that.
Impossibility of a caste-less society :- 

Even if we assume that caste-quotas will eventually prove effective tools to social justice, it will at best achieve a society with horizontal caste structure (i.e. castes without hierarchies), NOT a caste-less society. Under the current model the caste-less society is an impossibility. Since benefits are bestowed on caste basis the caste identities has strengthened instead of weakened. The only difference between old structure and new structure will be that while older castes were dominated by ritual rules, new ones will be political ones. That would be like jumping from a well into an abyss albeit a shallower one.  SC, ST, OBC labels have already become synonymous with caste labels. On the other hand quotas on secular criterion will very soon achieve casteless society, take the example of castes within general category(or for that matter SC category) the discrimination and animosity among various castes that constitute general category has diminished greatly. In fact within this four broad political categories the caste has become virtually absent except in case of marriage.

Moral of the story. caste has lost its ritual sheen and has become political. SC,ST,OBC etc are political labels. within these labels caste system is breaking already. Except for the perverse incentives set by our reservation system, these new found casteism too would vanish.

The creamy layer hawks

Within each reservation category there exist a creamy layer consisting of most resourceful people. This creamy layer eats up all the benefits meant for the poor among them. The entitlements never reach those for whom the reservations are there in the first place. The creamy layer is quite conscious of its hegemonic interests, on one hand they mobilize people in the name of caste and demand benefits and on the other hand steadfastly oppose any attempt to exclude the creamy layers in order to secure their interests. This creates a perverse structure such that no matter how much resources you give for affirmative action the overall situations of the targeted group as a whole is bound to remain poor. And this has been the unfortunate case so far in India.

Democracy at stake

The caste politics has given us a democratic landscape dotted by power brokers. People vote en-masse on caste lines, elect leaders from their own caste only. The medieval ties of caste loyalties are exploited by this power brokers. This is quite unlike say a labour union, voting collectively to advance their interest, the union is built with a rational participation by the individual based on the past experience of benefits/harms in acting as a labour bloc. Caste is different, there is no rationality behind caste loyalty except a medieval outlook, the costs of doing this are higher and benefits are flimsy.  It would not be an exaggeration to say that democracy has thrived in India not despite caste-system but because of it, the caste system has co-opted the whole idea of a liberal democracy diluting its quality in the process. 
Sapping social harmony and nation building

Caste-conflicts have acquired all the characteristics of a religious conflicts.  Riots, politics, mutual animosity etc. The society is divided and that makes collective effort difficult.
Retarded industrialisation/urbanisation

Indisputably urbanization and industrialisation are two powerful forces that can flatten even the most rigid of the feudal structures. Urbanization in particular is the solvent of castes. It doesn’t require genius to notice caste system is considerably weekend in urban area than in rural areas.

But this processes are retarded by caste politics over reservations. Private universities are resisted because private sector has no quotas. Privatisation of loss making PSUs are fiercely resisted because PSUs have reservations and private entities don’t. It is also true that the power broker elite is more comfortable with rural masses than urban ones because its rural society where this brokers can have a sound grip, naturally its in their long term interest to retard urbanisation.

Problem of present

Just coming out of a seminar titled "ancient civilization:modern republic, crisis and solution". The speaker stressed the crearivity,originality and audacity of ideas of ancient india. And proposed to take inspiration from such great history to find solutions to our present. To be fair with him he didn't say we should ape our past in any way, only that we should get inspiration and feel strengthened that we have a capacity for rejuvenation from a series of problems that afflicts us in present. He was a particular admirer of the chanakya, inspired by him he proposed many good solutions to corruption, politics,violence etc. Not only i disagree with his aproach to fall back on past for our present exigencies, but also believe the aproach like his is the part of the problem. Reasons
1. Problem with past is that although it enables you to be radical, it doesnt allow you to be radical enough. It limits your capacity to regenerate because your expansion is circumscribed by the invisible boundaries imposed by the past. Examples abound, Gandhiji was a crusader against untouchability but at the same time believed in varna system. He opposed any fetters on widow remarriage but valued voluntary widowhood. The ramayan that inspired him also limited his thought. Most of the 19th century reformers also belong to this category, raja ram mohan roi,vivekananda etc. They innovated but not enough. The same can be said about ancient india too. Perhaps there is a political utility in this approach, you apeal to peole more if you draw inspiration from the sources they are familiar with it. On the other hands breaking away completely presents a risk of being completely alienated from the masses, people wont simply accept you. Is it so? not really if you ask me, its true that an individual cant succedd by breaking from past completely but a sustained movement will certainly outroot this mentality. We have seen its spark, budhha and materialists,rationalists of 19th century, dalit leaders including Dr. Ambedkar. Internationally european enlightenment,russian revolution are shining examples of sending past into dustbin and thinking afresh.
2.The most pernicious side effect of this approach. It justifies to laymen that past was all glory and how wretched we are in comparison. There exists no time in india where people didnt glorified past. Present has always been a kalyug. All kinds of pernicious elements from past had been used to lend legitimacy to contemporary politics. Authority of bramhana,prosecution of shudras, discrimination against women all ideas had been fellow travellers of the genuine reformers. For example this distinguished speaker(ex-diplomat, author) glorified chanakya for his intellect, now all prejudiced views of chanakya(e.g against women) also get a free ride for legitimacy.

Point is not that we shouldnt admire what was admirable in past,but we should not ever let our moral compass be directed by it. In present we live and face problems never faced by ancients, past is inadequate give us answers. Its our problem and we trust our own abilities to bring change. Thats it.

Feminism - the Burkha Dutt way

Burkha Dutt is a self avowed feminist.  When she was attacked from all quarters over her alleged role in Neera Radia scandal, she said the criticisms were motivated by misogyny also. So rather than her actual guilt it was people's prejudice against women as such that drag her to the center of the controversy. This is a favorite defence among all kinds of people, turn personal criticisms into criticism against any specific group you belong to especially if you can identify yourself with a group which has been discriminated against like women,minorities etc.  But I've never heard her attributing - even to some degree -  the admirations and awards she has received to people's wish to accomodate women rather than her own skills.  Her feminism somehow is not applicable in such cases. If someone is being good to her presumably its due to her own charms, but if someonw is getting nasty than its misogyny. Logic.

To her feminist temperament, laws for strict alimony is not good for women's dignity. Why should a women be given the favour alimony? Can't she be financially independant like a man? Logic.

On religious constitutionalism

A very 'in' thing now a day is to attack Anna movement by saying that they are dictating terms to parliament and thereby undermining constitutional institutions, this line of defense is very famous particularly among governing elite, the latest condemnation of this kind is from the president Pranab mukherji himself.

This line of thinking can be best expressed by B R Ambedkar's constitution assembly speech quoted below,

"If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.  It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.  When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods.  But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us."

This is misconceived, there is an assumption here that constitutional democracy would be representative or efficient, that it would truly represent the aspiration of the masses. As a matter of fact it doesn't, no person would consciously want corruption,hunger,malnutrition, he doesnt choose his leader in order to perpetuate misery. No democracy in the world can be representative enough to be complacent about, government establishment itself creates a class structure with its own survival instinct and self-interests which are many a time in sharp conflict with interests of people it represents. This is particularly so in our case, our governments (be it any) can be easily formed even if they garner 20-30% of available votes, this is hardly a case for representative democracy. We have a constitutional democracy not always representative. So when a governments are irresponsible,rigid, vacillating pressure groups,civil society,social activists play an important role in filling up the lacunae in representation.

Quoting from american declaration of independence where the framers of the declaration adequately realized the importance of revolution..
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

On Jainas

Duarte Barbosa -a Portuguese traveler visited India during first quarter of 16th century. He writes vividly about Indians and their lifestyle,their dresses,customs,laws etc. He has this to say about Jain merchants when he visited Gujarat..
"These live amongst the Moors(Muslims), and trade with them in their goods. They are men who do not eat meat nor fish, nor anything that has life; neither do they kill anything,nor like to see it killed, because their idolatry forbids it them; and they observe this to such an extreme that it is something marvelous. For it often happens that the Moors bring them some worms or little birds alive, saying they intend to kill them in their presence; and they ransom them, and buy them to set them flying, and save their lives for more money than they are worth. And in the same way, if the governor of the country has got a man to be executed, these Banians unite together and buy him from the officers of justice, that he may not die; and frequently they sell him to them. An in the same manner Moors who beg for alms, when they want alms from these people, take great stones and strike themselves with them on the shoulders and the breast, and on their stomachs, as if they were going to kill themselves with them, and they receive alms not to do it, and to go away in peace. And others bring knives stab themselves in the arms and legs before them, in order to extract alms; and others come to their doors to decapitate rats and snakes and other reptiles, and they give them money not to do it, so that they are very ill-treated by the Moors.If these people meet with a band of ants in the road,they hasten out of the road, and go and look for a place to pass without treading upon them. They likewise sup in the daytime because they do not light candles at night, in order that the mosquitoes and other insects may not come and ide in the flame; and if of necessity they must have a candle, they keep them in lanterns of paper, or off stuff dipped in gum, so that no living thing can get there to suffer......"

And just when you start wondering how could these Jains survive with such a meek attitude other remarks from the author follows
"..they are usurers and falsifiers of weights and measures, and merchandise, and coin; and liars and cheat"

Tavernier - another traveler of medieval India makes similar observations
"The members of this caste are so subtle and skillful in trade that, as I've elsewhere said, they could give lessons to the most cunning Jews."(Jews were renown for their trade acumen)

I wonder whether its a mere chance that Jains evolved as a merchant community or was the commerce only option left for people adopting the doctrine of strict non violence.

knowledge through revealation

Knowledge through revelation(divine or otherwise) that is, not through reasoning is problematic. If two persons claim to have acquired knowledge through revelation and claim that their knowledge is beyond reason and if they are contradictory, we cant say which one is true. It becomes necessary to admit multiplicity of truth if we take these reveled truths seriously. According to bible universe is incredibly new and according to Hindu scriptures its incredibly old. Now even a kid can tell you both cant be true. This is a very elementary objection but no one cares to explain it. But we cant escape this with a world having 7 billion minds- all vulnerable to revelations, it becomes impossible to discern whats a gospel truth and whats a blatant lie.

It is wrongly argued that intuition is the ultimate source of all knowledge and therefore revelation is any way important. A proposition is not true or false unless its proven to be so through reason, before application of reason that proposition is a mere proposition without any known truth value. So it might be that Einstein had a sudden intuition of relativity and he then set out to prove that intuition through mathematical formulas. But so what? He must also have had wrong intuitions of all kinds. Once the theory is proved the source of the knowledge just doesn't matter it might be revelation or a random guess or a crazy computer program. At any rate its hard to believe that any revelation is sudden, its not sudden there always are psychical precedents to it, if at all einstein had any intuition than it must have preceded by proper understanding of relevant concepts of physics and all the relevant data might have undergone a subconscious gestation ultimately culminating in a conscious intuition. So a sudden Eureka is never a sudden Eureka.

Satire as an outlet to frustration

A joke from a declining USSR regime..
A Communist Party bureaucrat drives down from Moscow to a collective farm
to register a potato harvest.
“Comrade farmer, how has the harvest been this year?” the official asks.
“Oh, by the grace of God, we had mountains of potatoes,” answers the
farmer.
“But there is no God,” counters the official.
“Huh”, says the farmer, “And there are no mountains of potatoes either.”

Another one from contemporary India..
A journalist asks Manmohan Singh "Tamara raj ma at atla kaubhando thai chhe tamara mantrio hajaro karodo rupiya khai jai chhe tame kem kai bolta nathe?"
PM's reply "Hu khati vakhte bolto nathi"

There were many humorous slogans during Egyptian revolution, Pakistan has become a 'hotbed' of satire not all of them political.

Its almost universal that when people are frustrated things being out of their control, when governments are suppressive, satire inevitably comes out. I think if we find out popular satire of a particular society in a particular political,economical milieu we can understand their perception of the condition. It effectively captures the mood of the times. If we track down how satire changes its forms and modes of expression we can view history from popular point of view. This might further illuminate us in a modern mode of historiography called 'subaltern history'.

Somnatha - III

Few books I read with a prior opinion, Romila Thapar's "Somnatha the many voices of a history" is such a book. But I must admit I'm mellowed after reading it but still I find it difficult to agree to her thesis in substance. The book is an attempt at a sort of revision of the popular history of Somnatha raid by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1026 AD. Going by her own admission she doesn't try to recreate the entire event but mainly attempts to understand different voices emanating from various sources. What the book tries to analyze is essentially this - was the raid of Somnatha by Mahmud in 1026 really a seminal event which created the most inveterate of antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims? or lead to an ultimate crystallization of a collective hindu psyche? She analyzes five different kinds of sources 1. Turko-Persian 2. Sanskrit Inscriptions around somnatha 3. Oral traditions 4. Courtly literature of Rajput kings and biographies and Jaina texts 5. Colonial interpretation

Book can be summarized in following points..
1. Religious fanaticism was not the only factor there were many equally(and perhaps more) important factors such as desire for booty, breaking hindu political backbone by destroying somnatha etc etc. Economic motives are more rigorously advanced by her predecessor - if that's the right term - Mohammad habib, she just builds upon it

2. Turko-Persian accounts mentioning the raid are often exaggerated in order to appease Caliphate so that Mahmud can get political legitimacy from the him which he subsequently did get.

3. It might well be the case that Mahmud raided Somnatha believing that its idol was actually an idol of Arab goddess Manat destruction of which was the command of prophet Mohamad himself. Therefore Somnatha was more important to the conquerors than the conquered(somnatha being only one of 12 jyotirlingas for hindus)

4. At the time of the raid Somnatha was already under repeated attacks by various local Rajas and chieftains and therefore attack on Somnatha by Mahmud left local Hindus unperturbed. An explanation which goes well with the fact that almost no sources other than Turko-Persian accounts(chronicles of the conquerors) mentions the raid.

5. Activity of raiding or building the temples in those times was carried out in order to gain political legitimation, Rajas funded construction of temples to assert their authority and legitimation and by the same token Mahmud's raid should be viewed as an 'inverse legitimation' that is legitimation through destruction

The author is an eminent historian of India and a authority in ancient India but that no more impresses me after reading this book. What I find is a clever marshaling of facts to suit her hypothesis. Much can be said against her thesis...

1. Her's is a two pronged technique firstly she tries to diminish credibility of Turko-Persian chronicles by pointing to the contradictions in it. And secondly she tries to increase the reliance on other sources like hagiographies and epics and all that. This is against the classical approach where Islamic chronicles are considered more reliable than indigenous accounts which are full of myths and contradictions. In both this approach I think she is mistaken the contradictions in Turko-persian accounts are contradictions of details but in essence they inevitably agree. For example Turko-Persian accounts mention one fresh raid in every half century some say a mosque was built at the place of temple but all agrees that raid did occur different thing if mosque was constructed or not. And about other sources I think there is some indirect evidence as elucidated in earlier articles(see Somnatha-I, somnatha-II).

2. Arab chronicles maintains that Manat(arab goddess) was sent to Somnatha because it was a safe place for idols similarly Jaina texts also mention that jaina idols were sent to Somnatha for safety(probably from Turks). If raids on somnatha were so common that Mahmud's raid was considered minor irritant then why was this place considered safe?

3. If there were other motives(apart from loot and iconoclasm) such as political legitimacy and all that then why did Turks keep on raiding somnatha repeatedly particularly when after raids Mahmud restored local hindu kings? It seems rather odd that Mahmud was keen on destroying political symbols of hindus and glorify it when his actual political interests in India was so little that he didn't even care to install a Muslim ruler.

4. She stresses too much on Sufi stories regarding Mahmud many of which twists the story by asserting that Mahmud was a pious ruler and attacked somnath to emancipate people of somnatha from tyrant hindu raja. This must not be confused with views of hindus, these stories are propagated by sufi saints who might be familiar with Turko-persian sources(author admits this possibility). Sufi saints were missionaries also, they wanted to convert people through persuasion, in doing so it was necessary to create a positive face of Islam and while doing so they have to re-brand Mahmud and cast a benign image of Mahmud, sufi stories regarding Mahmud is but an example of such endeavors.

3. Then comes the confusion created by Tantrik tradition stories, here they seem to praise Mahmud as a brave man(though no mention of raid). This I cant understand but surely this must not mean that hindus praised Mahmud for his iconoclasm or a decisive evidence that hindus have forgotten raids by him.(this perplexity can be better understood with what is discussed in Somnatha-I, Mahmud survives in oral traditions long enough even when intermediate ages show no mention of him, this means penetration of Turko-persian or sufi sources in oral traditions and also means that hindus didnt have any direct memory of the even but that doesn't mean that the anguish created by the event had subsided- it might have been transformed from a person to a religion i.e. from Mahmud to Islam in general)

4. There is another approach that I cant agree to. She(all marxist historian in general) argues that the concept of the Hindu as a monolithic identity(like Islam and Christianity) is fundamentally flawed, that hindus didn't have any common identity they were divided and known by their castes,varnas etc and 'hinduism' is more of a convenient label. This I agree wholeheartedly. Modern idea of a religion stems from our understanding of religions of book like Islam,Judaism and Christianity all of which have a high level of ideological uniformity. On the other hand there is almost nothing that cements all hindus in one frame. So a freshness in attitude is indispensable to understand Indian history. But this conceptualization should not be selectively applied, each hypothesis must be re-examined whenever religious factor appear to influence order of events. This is not what the author does, she invokes the idea of nonuniform 'hinduism' only when it aids her thesis. For example she lays too much stress on hindu kings and bramhins allowing(grants were also given) Arab traders to build their mosques in and around somnatha in 13th century, this she asserts is a sign that there was no animosity between hindus and muslims. This is a flawed conclusion. An ordinary hindu has nothing to do with hinduism as such his only religious concern lies in temple rituals and following caste norms, and in this a mosque doesn't give any threat to his limited religious objectives. And for priests there was no reason to feel threatened by Muslims because their thin number would mean that muslims will never be able to compete for state patronage. Here the primary reason is lack of any zeal to proselytize. For a muslim mindset(or any religion who believes in proselytizing) a center of worship of some other religion is something undesirable, because in his ideal world there is no other religion but Islam. Hinduism simply lacks this incentive, their outlook is fundamentally different. A merchant is both a merchant and a religious man, in his mind there is division between dharma and artha, so he wont mind doing business with an Arab merchant(as prevalent in somnatha of that era) but at the same time due to his dharma he wont eat food cooked by him(as mentioned by Al beruni in his Kitab-ul-hind, he was contemporary of Mahmud). A muslim mindset cant comprehend this for him Islam is not just a religion but a politico-economic doctrine(I am just comparing without implying any moral overtone). This lack of dominantly religious outlook- the division between karma and artha - helps us to reconcile many a contradictions.

Let me explain it a bit further, Al biruni's account goes diametrically opposite to what Thapar tries to explain through indigenous sources. Al-biruni is sometimes called 'first indologist', his erudition is evident even if you read a few pages from his book on India. So if you go against his observations you have to explain it satisfactorily why he was mistaken. Sadly, Thapar doesn't try to explain his observations in any serious way. Al-biruni makes following observation relevant to our discussion(he writes this in 1030 a few years after Mahmud raid) 1. Somnatha economy is devastated due to raid 2. Raid has created the most inveterate antagonism between hindus and muslims 3. Hindus find Turks and their customs so alien that they frighten their children with us. Thapar says that economic devastation of somnatha was temporary and Al-biruni was talking about brahmans when he used the word Hindus. The contradiction completely escapes her that those grants to the mosques she is so obsessed to talk about were provided by these very bramhans and those sanskrit inscriptions too were written at the behest of these bramhans only.

Addendum:-
om namo adesha guru ka,
turkani ka put mahmanda bir,
nari ka put narsingha bir,
age chale mahmanda bir,
piche chale narsingha bir. - A couplet from Tantrik tradition

Somnatha - ll

This should be read in continuation of Somnatha-I

A college going Muslim girl from Ahmedabad said she had started wearing veil- the symbol of her faith after Godhra riots(apparently telling the government "you killed muslims I am muslim do whatever you want"). It didn't deter her that she had never worn a veil before and it will only increase her discomfort without creating any problem for government. Such themes are understandable, Government was held responsible for attacking people of a particular identity and as a result that identity became more assertive and more crystallized. In such events fear of losing one's identity makes him more assertive about it. There are other examples of such themes, importance of vegetarianism and non-violance increased when jainism threatened hindu faith, caste system became more rigid after the rise of Buddhism, Dharmashashtras and Manusmritis were written to counter the effects of increasing urbanization In this background I find it easy to understand why temple building activities increased after the raids of Mahmud Ghazni, it was a peculiar kind of resistance not unlike that of an anxious Muslim girl. As I understand it the author(R.Thapar of Somnatha many voices from a history) attributes this rise in temple building to economic prosperity of Rajas and the increasing importance of temples, but even that explanation leaves unanswered the question why temples were increasingly more important. Unlike author I tend to see even this activity as an 'epics of resistance'.

Somnatha - I

When Mahmud of Ghazni raided Somnatha and desecrated the temple, what was the subsequent reaction from the local people? how did hindus view that event? how did they come to terms with it? After Ghazni's raid he had been and still continues to be hailed as a champion of Islam, as a holy warrior who brought Islam in India. His raids are glorified in words and repeated in deeds throughout the medieval Islamic world. Turko-Persian accounts mention the event in gory details. If we call this 'epics of conquest' what were the corresponding 'epics of resistance' from hindus of the time? what was the retaliation?

There is a serious lack of contemporary accounts to begin with and that hindus have no sense of history writing complicates it further, what is available is the inscriptions and texts from about a century onwards of the event and there seem to be a mysterious silence about the event. Almost all accounts mentioning somnath apart from Turko-persian ones don't mention the raid at all. But one unusual 'memory' manifests itself repeatedly. One inscription dating the reconstruction of the temple in 12th century(that is more than a century after the raid) attributes the dilapidated temple(and hence the need to reconstruct) to 'Kaliyuga' where there is moral decay,rajas dont protect their temples and administrators are corrupt. There are stories saying that temples will continue to be destroyed in Kaliyug. In one such story from 15th century speaks of a dialogue between Narada and Vayu, a question is posed that, if an image, when consecrated, becomes the habitat of the deity, how can it be destroyed by the Yavans(meaning Turks here)? Why do the gods not prevent this? The answer covers more than one facet. It is said that there has been and will continue to be a conflict between devas and the daityas and other evil ones. The Yavanas are a part of this conflict, which will continue until the end of this Kaliyuga cycle. The current Yavanas are presumably repeating what the earlier ones have done and doubtless the Yavanas still to come will be doing the same. The Yavanas destroy images as do the asuras, and devas do not prevent this, since the conflict is eternal and cannt be stopped. It is now the Kaliyga and iconoclasm is to be expected because the world turns upside down in this age. The Yavanas are already carrying the burden of being cursed. Whenever rulers are lax in their duties or devoid of faith in Shiva, the Yavanas will break images. Fatalism is complete in this story, no one is thinking of fighting against the Yavanas and save the temples, all they are prepared to do is to rebuild the temples once the Yavanas have their rampage spree. In another story it is said that due to too many good people heavens are overflowing and then gods decide to destroy the temples themselves and thereby corrupting people so that they become less virtuous and heavens become less crowded again. In yet another story it is explained that in the Kaliyuga gods leave the idol so it simply doesn't matter if you break them or worship them. How utterly resigned to fate! Am I using this myths selectively or is it really that after having failed to resist the Turks, after having failed to protect themselves, Hindus resorted to mythmaking to assuage their trauma? Is this the sign of Trauma? To me it seems rather clear that these are the 'epics of resistance' represented not through defiance and glories of war but slowly and subtly through mending inner beliefs in such a way that not only tolerates but accepts the mayhem of the outer world no more in your control. Myth-making is effectively used as a balm to the wounded conscience.

Romila Thapar poses a question somewhere in her book("Somnatha the many voices of a history") "why the saviour figure of Kalkin, the tenth and last Vaishnava avatara, is not invoked to counter the Turkish attacks on temples?", she considers only two admissible answers to her quest "..those so traumatized either exorcise it by referring to the experience again and again to expurgate their fear; or, alternately, they suppress it by withdrawing and refusing to have anything to do with those who have perpetrated the trauma." No there can be other possible reactions if only we are ready to understand their semantics.

Regressive step?

Ok so there are talks of 'prescreening' content on social networking sites like Facebook and Google with government throwing its weight to put censorship and IT companies refusing to buckle. Shashi tharoor wrote an article 'Virtual reality' (deccon chronicle, 9 Dec,2011) on this controversy. His defense of gov's position is neither consistent nor logically sound.

First as common place among apologists, he empathizes importance of freedom of speech and then starts justifying moves which are indistinguishable from a moderate censorship. He begins by saying that all societies exercise some kind of control on freedom of speech as with US where any racist remarks are de facto bans. But then he ventures from social conventions to government policies arguing that government policies also should curb freedom the way social conventions do. If social traditions can so smoothly be allowed to convert itself into laws then we would never have got rid of untouchability for example, no denying social traditions are a factor for consideration but there are other factors which easily supersede local cultures, and Tharoor wont deny that freedom of expression is such a first principle.

Meaning of freedom of speech does change from place to place but then we can always tell what interpretation is progressive or what is not. Surely Tharoor wont say that freedom in china is just a different kind of freedom and not a regressive one. Western form of freedom of speech is more mature than Indian just as Indian form is more mature than Pakistan or China.

Further he argues if there are regulations on print media, broadcast media then why only internet media is exempted? well even in those media trend is that regulating becomes more and more lax except recent attempts by the same gov to tighten regulations again. Additionally sites like FB and google too are regulated by respective organizations.

Then he gives the example of 'shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire' to empathize again that freedom cant be absolute. Now this shouting-fire metaphor is borrowed from a US SC judgment way back in 1919 which convicted an anti-graft propagandist during world war-I. He uses the analogy wrongly, the judgment also stressed 'clear and present danger' criteria to curb freedom of speech. And in present context where pre-screening is disputed, the danger caused by FB is neither clear(all abstract arguments that it will hurt religious sentiments and all that) nor present(not a remote possibility of FB inciting a riot). If something from US is to be put in context it should be 1969 judgment which acquitted a Ku Klux Klan member upholding freedom of expression despite organization's open provocation to bring down gov through violent means and threats to Jews and niggers(acquittal despite another fact that Ku Klux Klan was a headache for gov sort of semi terrorists)

He is not yet satisfied with metaphors he puts another extremely abstract metaphor, 'match stick near a petrol storage'. Now here is a problem, one can also argue that its not the match stick only that can be blamed but the combustibility of the liquid poses a greater danger. A Gandhian analogy inevitably comes to my mind, he believed that lasting Bramhcharya cant be attained by keeping away from women it can only be achieved by cultivating mental discipline strong enough that sexuality no more troubles you. No doubt there is a dangerous immaturity in a person who will start rioting after reading a Facebook status. So instead of playing guardians of people's sentiments and creating a pampered, hypersensitive society teach them that tolerance is absolutely essential, there should be enough provocations all around that people find nothing provocative at all(case in point is Indian cinema, Delhi belly in black and white era would have sent guardians of morality into a hysteria, but see society has improved we don't feel particularly immoral after watching that movie nor do we go out and rape anyone). Only economic reforms wont do social reforms are equally important though i would hate the idea that government should play any role in such reforms but at least they should remain neutral.

Finally he concludes "I reject censorship. Art, literature and political opinion are to me sacrosanct. But publishing inflammatory material to incite communal feelings is akin to dropping a lighted match at a petrol pump", without giving any clue on how to decide/who will decide what is 'sacrosanct' and what is 'inflammatory'.

In philosophy there have been two schools of thought running counter to each other, one side looks at the material world and from the uniqueness of physical truths(reality) deduces that morality and other value judgments are also of this nature. These abstractions too have eternal veracity like laws of nature. Thus a bad action is a bad action inherently, regardless of its consequences. This is a basic element of Aristotelian thought. On the contrary there goes another school of thought, it looks at the multiplicity of sense-perceptions and variety of moral values and concludes that all facts of the material world have similar multiplicity. There is no single truth(reality), sense perceptions are subjective so are the truths of material world perceived through senses. No this is not exactly like solipsism or anything of that short, because though these schools base their theory on the variety of sense perceptions, they believe that ultimate truth is one and unchangeable. Whereas here it is admitted that truths themselves have multiplicity, for example its possible that two mutually contradictory theories may be true. This I think is distinctively a Hindu philosophy(if that's a proper term), i don't remember to have come across anything like this in western philosophy(in my very limited amount of knowledge). Though this philosophy seems very innovative at first, i think it suffers from a careless metaphysical treatment, it's not well explained or not well understood if explained.

To a modern scientific mindset none of these schools may appeal, however they are very interesting and enlightening.

P.F: written a bit carelessly, may not be a very accurate classification.

On omniscience

       The paradox of omniscience is a favorite argument for rationalists to bring down theistic arguments. I too have used this paradox extensively to win arguments with theist types. But I think the paradox is more interesting than what I've hitherto believed, it has greatly disturbed me since. Let me explain.

       First of all to forestall quantum mechanics from being considered as a possible explaining factor, we'll assume prevailing scientific opinion regarding quantum mechanics. The opinion is that despite our material world being non-deterministic at the sub atomic level, it does follow all the laws of classical physics at the macro or aggregate level. Therefore as the definition of classical physics goes all the events are deterministic. If a state of an object is given, theoretically we can apply laws of physics on that state of the object and determine the subsequent states of it. By this way we can predict each and every event of this world with complete accuracy, all events are knowable before it actually occurs and gets known. For example it is perfectly knowable in advance whether I'll have a glass of juice before I sleep or not. Continuing the same example the answer to this question can be given if some extraordinary super computer is given all equations regarding laws of nature and all the necessary data like the current neural network pattern of my mind, environment information, every minute information about my physiology and internal processes. The ultimate answer will be either 'yes' or 'no'. Here is the paradox, if the machine answers yes I'll go to sleep straight without having juice and if it answers 'no' than I'll have it. In both cases the assumption that 'physical world is deterministic' is violated. But if we dispense with this assumption our entire concept of classical physics will be proven erroneous. So it follows that the paradox of omniscience is not only a pastime argument to irritate theists but it also confuses our understanding of science.

       Looking on the formidable questions that this paradox can raise about science, I think I must admit a probable chance of error in the basic understanding of physics on my part. But so far as my confidence goes I've studied my high school physics too religiously to err on that and I think that for anyone who has an inkling of the philosophy of physics this problem of omniscience will be only too obvious, but surprisingly I've never come across anywhere where this question is considered.

Misunderstood atheism....

Of late I've noticed a surge in the number of atheists. Their number is bound to soar still higher owing to the availability of internet and books on atheism (such as 'the god delusion' by Dawkins). The atheist communities and organizations campaigning atheism are flourishing in the western society(Estonia is a atheist majority country). I must admit that I fully admire these efforts because ultimately they help free people from the tyranny of religious dogmas and false notions of God. But despite my wholehearted appreciation somehow I find myself uncomfortable and out of place with this scheme of things, I can't identify myself with this cause or if I do identify, I cant appreciate the way it is being carried out.

I think the goal should rather be rationality or clear thinking and the atheism shall automatically follow. Fundamentally human mind has a natural inclination to avoid clear thinking and favor obscure/superficial thinking because superficial thinking is less exhausting and thus more comfortable. This is the reason why dogmas and prejudice of every kind are entertained by human mind. In such conditions whenever atheism is preached or arguments against the existence of God or arguments against the religious authority are put in front of the person and as a result he is convinced of the arguments and therefore has become an atheist, he is actually spoon-fed only. He hasn't arrived at the arguments buttressing his newly acquired atheism by reflection but by a sort of intellectual cajolery. Therefore his reluctance to clear-thinking mostly persists because a short period of spoon-feeding can't make him think clearly. This ends up in producing atheism of a fragile character, the sort of atheism which justifies the famous saying "there is no atheist in a pit". Such atheists, because of their fragile intellectual conviction, will become believers again in the moments of serious illness or when a tragedy destroys their personal life. When such kind of people free themselves from religious dogmas their irrational mind is still susceptible to seek refuge in another kind of dogmas. He might continue to believe in astrology or frighten when a cat crosses his path for instance.

This spoon-feeding must end if we are to inculcate a healthy and a lasting scientific disposition in a person. Cultivating the art of clear-thinking and acquiring a thoroughly rational mindset is the only way out. But unfortunately there is no short cut for it, you can not become rational in a day or two or by reading a book. It's a long and continual process which may consume considerable energy just like learning calligraphy or a musical instrument. But once it is learned, all dogmas will vanish into thin air including religious ones and even if he still hold the belief in religion and Gods it will be a harmless and refined predisposition the way it had been held by people like Plato, Leibnitz, Newton and likes.

Another grave objection to atheism without a rational mindset can be that it can nourish an ideology of escapism from the generally accepted moral codes,it can become a convenient way to rationalize nonconformist instincts of a person. People like Hitler are atheists not because they don't find the moral codes of religions unconvincing but because they are too cruel and too mean to conform to any kind of moral behavior except what satisfy their instinctual tendencies.

"Man is a rational animal — so at least I have been told. Throughout a long life, I have looked diligently for evidence in favor of this statement, but so far I have not had the good fortune to come across it, though I have searched in many countries spread over three continents." - Bertrand Russell

dynamics of yore

The key to understand human nature is wealth if you ask Marx, sex if you ask Freud and power if you ask Russell. I don't dare to take sides in this tri-party war therefore, let me bypass this war ground altogether. Coming to the contemporary writing we've got another couple of freaks who think they have found the philosopher's stone when they try to prove "People respond to incentives" in their books titled 'Freakonomics' and 'Superfreakonomics'. They say that the key to understand human nature is in understanding the incentives that lie behind their decisions. Let us give this theory a chance...

In the recorded history of India there is no evidence of any large scale forced conversion of non-muslims into Islam. With few notable exceptions all the muslim rulers of medieval India were bigots, they often plundered and destroyed shrines of other religions and many of them were cruel as well. But even Aurangzeb-the most fanatic of all didn't resort to forced conversions. Why? Perhaps the economical incentives explain this. Almost all the muslim rulers be it Delhi sultanate period or the Mughal period imposed an additional tax called 'Jaziya' on all non-Muslims and the revenue generated from that tax constituted a big chunk in income of the state. So once a Hindu is converted into Islam he ceases to be a source of additional income. And a sane ruler would not jeopardize royal treasury just for the sake of proselytizing. There was a strong disincentive for forcible conversion. Wasn't it mentioned earlier that "People respond to incentives"?

Just one thing which needs to be added is that all the mughal emperors except Aurangzeb were more like sufi muslims than like extremist mullahs. They celebrated art, music, poetry and were inclusive of non-muslims in their court. They were not so much bigoted as their stereotypical portrayals are. Hence, the reason given in above para may not be the only reason that explain the lack of forcible conversions.

nymphocracy

Some secretly, some volubly but all of us agree that this world has been and probably would always be dominated by men. Women, despite relentless efforts and Utopian fantasies of feminists, have always remained subjects to men. But then how to measure the status of women in a society? Is there any way to quantify this womenfolk's position on social ladder vis-a-vis men? Frankly speaking I don't know, sociology is alien to me. But let us guess..

1. Ratio of girls to boys in schools/colleges:-
Nope, this is a bad idea. Not only in developing societies but also in developed societies education, though in varying degrees has been an instrument to get good job plus a high income husband for women.(This is how I interpret a chapter in a book titled 'superfreakonomics' which says that an average married man in US earns significantly higher than an equally qualified married woman even when childless. The authors also alludes to the same conclusion.) So this metric wont give credible estimates.

2. Number of woman employees in public and private sectors.
Public sector has women quotas so it's an enforced, state driven equality not a genuine one. Apart from that there are many kind of employments some man dominated, some woman dominated and also they all are divided into several categories which makes a straight forward analysis difficult.

Apart from these two other candidate metrics may be number of driving licenses issued to women, number of woman traveling in public/private transports but all have their shortcomings and none of them are simple.

So a crazy alternative- what about 'Number of public urinals for woman per hundred male public urinals'. Obviously these metric is simple to assess. Now let's see whether it's robust or not. Use of public urinals is directly proportional to the economic as well as social participation of either sex. If women participate in public life sufficiently and yet don't use PU's, that means that they are reluctant to use them and that's an indicator that they are still not on a par with men. Second thing is that PU metric shows no enforced equality, they are mostly built owing to necessity, not in order to flaunt government's goodwill towards women(for example in shopping malls urinals for both sexes will always be found in equal numbers- that shows that malls are frequented by both sexes alike.) We can also compare the figures from different countries because urinals like gods, are omnipresent.

PS: nymphocracy is hand-made combining nymph=a beautiful woman + cracy=a rule like in autocracy,democracy.