The Nazis created the myth of the Aryan super race of the past, and sold that fiction to the naive German populace...a similar thing is happening in India (of course like in Germany of the past, there are still many Hindus that question this nonsense)

The title (above) is from the latest message sent by a correspondent of mine, who is interacting with me on the subject of whether India was leagues ahead of other countries in technology before "the British destroyed our civilisation".

Here is an excerpt from my last mail to him:

It is difficult enough to understand how a rich and highly populated land like India could have come to be ruled by foreigners, even assuming parity in technology.

If one asserts that Indian technology was actually that many leagues better, then the difficulty becomes insuperable – or rather the moral turpitude of our ancestors becomes even more incredible, as the only reason we would have lost would have been betrayal by insiders.

In that case, we may have been technologically superior, but we were all the more morally inferior – and our own history should be a standing illustration of the fact that all the technological superiority in the world is of no use when there is lack of honesty, morality and loyalty.

So the preeminent factor in civilizational longevity or success is not technology but morality.

And if our culture BEFORE the foreigners came was not able to build a sufficient morality or ethics, then what is the use of trying to revive that culture?

Does our ancient culture not need to be supplemented by ethical and moral values from a different source?

Unleash the power of your pen!: FORWARD Press seeks applications from interested candidates for appointment as Correspondents at divisional, district and sub-divisional headquarters

Appointees will be paid at the rate of Rs. 5 maximum per word (conditions apply) for their published reports, as well as attractive commission on advertisements secured by them.

The minimum qualifications and other conditions for these positions are as under:

Should have enthusiastic commitment and missionary zeal for working for the deprived sections of the society as a journalist.

Should have a confident and outgoing personality. Should be able to interact with top politicians and administrative officers.

Must be able to work to tight deadlines.

Must be comfortable working on computer - via internet.

Must be “forward thinking” and in broad agreement with magazine’s vision and values.

Those having experience in Hindi or English journalism and having wide social contacts in Dalit-OBC communities would be given preference.

The appointments will made only at centres where FORWARD Press has at least 100 subscribers and the magazine is available at local book stalls. Otherwise, appointments will be made only if the candidate can assure that s/he has the capacity to enroll the required number of subscribers in the area.

Everything else being equal, preference will be given to Dalitbahujan (OBC/SC/ST) candidates.

Apply with CV to: info@forwardmagazine.in

If there is a crisis of India's soul, what has caused it?

A friend writes: What do you think of this from Gallup and others who have less credibility?: http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/161930/india-having-crisis-soul.aspx?utm_source=email&utm_medium=052013&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=newsletter

My response:

"This is usual Deepak Chopra rubbish, half-true and half-false, with some intuition into what is happening, but attempting to compensate for lack of analysis with a scattering of facts.

"I am surprised that Jim Clifton allowed his name to be linked with Chopra's.

"The simple question that arises for any half-intelligent person from the article is: if there is a crisis, what caused it?

"Since Chopra and Clifton do not even begin to hint at what caused it, the article cannot be taken seriously.

"Actually, the crisis is caused by two things:

"(1) the civilizational crisis in the USA (which has impacted all other countries, since the US is still the world's lead economy), and

"(2) the political and administrative paralysis in India itself, with the rise of a generation of selfish and manipulative leaders (of all parties) following the decline of Biblical as well as nationalistic influence in the country."

Who was it that buried the stupa and temple associated with the Buddha's death?

The Parinirvana (or Parinibbana) Stupa is one of the four holy places declared by the Buddha to be places fit for pilgrimage.

Near the site of the Buddha's death, the stupa possibly housed one-eighth of the Buddha's relics.

No one knows when the stupa and nearby temple were built, but it could have been as early as immediately after his death.

In any case, it was, presumably a centre of pilgrimage during the heyday of Buddhism in India. However, with the "disappearance" of Buddhism, all trace of the stupa and the temple disappeared.

When the remains of the Parinirvana Stupa and Parinirvana Temple, were rediscovered (something like 500 years after they vanished from history), they were apparently buried in a 40 foot high mound of bricks within a dense and thorny forest.

Time covers many things, but it is usually with dust, not bricks. And coverage by bricks does not happen by accident.

I cannot discover any reference to the time when the stupa and temple were buried, to the name of the person who ordered it done, or to any reason why the burial was in 40 feet of bricks rather than in 30 feet or in 60 feet or in any other number of feet of bricks.

Not only were the stupa and temple buried, the whole surrounding area seems to have been declared a "No go" area by means of taboos and superstitions, so that a jungle grew up (or was perhaps even started?) around the sites.

In any case, do these actions not show a deep desire on the part of certain very powerful people to cover all trace of the site and to make it as difficult as possible to reach or even discover?

Financial Times: full text of my letter to the Editor, following the letter by John Godfrey, on Indian philanthropy

Sir,

John Godfrey (Letters, February 2) may be pleased to hear that I started work, last Autumn, on a history of Indian philanthropy from Vedic times to the present, examining the historical impact of Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and Hinduism as well as the contemporary impact of secular modernity. That work is what led to my initial letter on the subject (published in FT on 19 January 2013).

In addition, another study is expected to be published in the next few days by Coutts; still another study is forthcoming in the next few months from Sage, written by three North American academics. So studies of Indian philanthropy do appear to be emerging.

However, there is a question of how various studies define the subject: do we wish to include donations in India, whether from the poor or from the rich, to temples and priests, or do we to we wish to confine ourselves to donations that are actually philanthropic? It was just this week that a report was published by a religious organisation in India announcing donations of the equivalent of over half a billion dollars to that organisation in the last year alone! While it is true that some temples and religious organisations have started philanthropic work as a reaction against Christian influences over the years, it is unclear how much of the money received by these temples and religious organisations is now devoted to philanthropic causes.

Outside the world of temples and religious organisations, I agree that genuine philanthropy has increased, though a lot of it, perhaps inadvertently, ends up strengthening the gap between the rich and the poor.

In fact, it is not clear how much Indian philanthropy has even attempted to address the real problems of the country or to ameliorate in any systematic way the lot of the masses – India has more poor people, more uneducated people, and more people dying from preventable diseases, than any other country. Indeed, India apparently has one NGO for every 400 people: so, while Mr Godfrey is undoubtedly right about the scale of aspiration in the area of philanthropy, one is perplexed about how to understand, evaluate or remedy the relative lack of impact. Though I remain cheered by Mr Godfrey’s belief that India’s bureaucracy might be able to regulate and support the growth of Indian philanthropy, it is clear that India’s poor taken as a whole are benefiting at best only marginally both from the expansion of India’s economy and from the growth of Indian philanthropy.

There is the further question, which I will raise in my lecture at the National University of Singapore later this month, of whether the newly promising forms of Indian philanthropy, as they follow in the wake of developments in the USA, may also end up strengthening the trend towards crony capitalism in India as they appear to be doing in the USA, or whether a more positive outcome in India might be in view.

Lastly, I am not aware of any assessment of the historical and contemporary role and impact of Indian philanthropy as a whole (which is partly what I am aiming to do through my book), and any comments on that from your readers would be particularly useful.

ENDS

According to the Yajur Veda, how wise was Jesus the Lord?

The Yajur Veda says: "Realising bodiless vast and all-pervading Atman dwelling within impermanent bodies, the wise do not grieve" - Yajur Veda, Katha Up. I, ii, 22

But, on hearing of the death of his friend Lazarus, and before raising him to life again, "Jesus wept" (John 11.35).

Renunciates, Kural, Jesus and the Roman Church

"The (Indian) scriptures exalt above every other good the greatness of virtuous renunciates", says the Thirukkural (Kural 21).

I am not aware of a greater renunciate than Jesus the Lord.

Nor am I aware of many people who, while claiming to be renunciate, are more NON-renunciate than the Popes, Cardinals and Princes of the Roman Church. Though I guess some of our gurus (such as Osho) may not have been far behind; others, even now, may not be far behind. Of course, there are true renunciates, including in the Roman Church, and among our gurus and swamis...but many renunciates may not be recognised as renunciates, because: who can look through appearances to see the realities of the human heart except God?