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.