Globalaffairs

Issue 13/ February-March 2009
By Neha Rajan

26 November 2008 cited the day of the Mumbai terrorist attacks. The onslaught was conducted tenfold, violence striking the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Oberoi Trident, the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel, Leopold Café, Cama Hospital, the Nariman House, Metro Cinema, a lane behind the Times of India building, the Mazagaon Docks, and Vile Parle (1). For fifteen years Mumbai has been the target of terrorist hostility, while India has experienced terrorism for decades (1). The former Chinese ambassador to the United States, Hu Shih, has been credited with saying: “India conquered and dominated China culturally for twenty centuries without sending a single soldier across her border”. The nonchalance and cleverness with which India has controlled other countries, mindful and intangible, has survived until today. Why is this military strategy not quid-pro-quo?

India has been controlled by the British, invaded by Persians, Dutch, French, and Chinese alike, and has warred with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Foreign soldiers have infringed on Indian soil on many occasions, whereas Indian forces have seen the sun rise at the same time for centuries. This incongruity lives, courtesy the inconsistencies and shortcomings that are housed by the Indian government. The Indian subcontinent, despite lax military policy and permissive border patrols, has achieved phenomenal economic success in the past decade. If the pacifism is to be reciprocated, if there is to be a dearth of foreign military influence in India, the indiscretion in its legislative system must be resolved. The problem areas lie in the two global arenas: the intercontinental and the domestic.

I) Indo-Burmese Diplomacy – In Retrospect and Introspect

Eyes patiently scan for signs of the enemy; lips relentlessly move with words of pacifism; nose alert for when the first bullets remain true to their cruel character and dispatch that familiar fragrance of blood; and arms ache, dutiful in their act of sign-holding. This is a typical Burmese, pro-democracy activist. History tells of a time when Burma was anything but alone in its fight for that elusive fantasy, democracy. Loving the neighbor was categorically a priority for India in the 1980s, as the world’s largest democracy shared with Burma a resplendent zeal to restore egalitarianism – a zeal that formed for the countries a gracious brotherhood. A decade and 180 million people later, an energy-depleted India had largely deserted its friendly instincts towards petroleum-rich Burma, and vouched instead for stringent business relations. Northern neighbor China has received gas from scouted blocs in Burma’s western province of Arakan, prompting India to pursue diplomatic and economic relations with the Burmese in order to claim its place at the oil and gas reserves. With the newly developed business interests also came the calculated reticence over ethical and diplomatic affairs. India’s newly initiated ‘Look East’ policy focuses on a crossroads, namely the intersection of a self-seeking, inconsistent business enterprise and an ineffectual diplomatic outlook.

Take, for example, a Hindustani patriot, a deshabhakt, dreaming of saffron-colored autumns, well-versed in the recitation of scriptural verses, and an eager anticipator of 2 October, Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday. Yet this same country, whose main religion revolves around the concept of dharma, or righteousness, and whose ancient art of yoga speaks of piety and goodness, knowingly practices double-standards. Eminent human rights lawyer, Nandita Haksar, states that having democracy at home [in India] and supporting military tyrants in the neighborhood is iniquitous; leading editor, Sumit Chakrabarty, agrees that India’s foreign policy towards Burma is packed with hypocrisy, and it therefore must be amended (2). India’s Burma policy is shaped by provincial politics, nonchalance, and a jettisoning of its universal support of democracy in the Western Concert of Democracies. It is with futility that India implements its ‘Look East’ policy, as the country seems to turn a deaf ear to the East’s resonant cries of defenselessness, but purposefully never fails to greet westerners with namastes.

Symbiosis is defined, by Merriam Webster’s English dictionary, as the close union of two dissimilar organisms (3). India’s candid business policy with the Burmese junta and its lax and indifferent international position towards the Burmese people come together as the “dissimilar organisms” to universally represent the Indian attitude towards its eastern neighbor. The business aspect, raw and totalitarian, derives from three considerations: the priority of enlisting Burmese forces in combating insurgencies in the Northeast, fervor to offset and oust Chinese influence in Burma, and interest in sourcing Burma’s invaluable gas and oil reserves (4). India has but one objective in its tremendously cautious foreign policy, with regard to ethics and human rights: like the Americans, to ensure domestic tranquility in the neighborhood. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee himself has said that “strategic and economic interests” are India’s main priorities (5). The English translation from his native Hindi claims the following: “It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy. It is their issue.” Petroleum Minister Murli Deora, fully aware of the dangerously high level of state repression in Burma, accepted summons to the fuel-rich country to sign a $150 million gas transaction. Burmese protestors, all similar to the one with patient eyes and aching arms, urged Deora to go not for gas, but for democracy.

If one were to put India’s Burma policy under a high-resolution microscope, tweak the fine adjustment knob, and peer through the eyepiece, he would see an indiscriminate conglomerate of ethics and business. Many of these critical eyes searching through the microscope lens are native to the Indian subcontinent, mainly pro-democracy activists, the Indian Congress, the Socialist and Bharat Janatiya party, and north-eastern civil society groups. All who magnify India’s eastern policy search in vain for the moral union of the country’s business interests in petroleum-rich Arakan and its seeming unconcern for the Burmese democratic situation. The elusive ‘middle ground’, the medium in which there is leniency for diplomacy and business to mesh, can be found if India chooses to readopt its humanitarian tendencies and urge affluent countries to join the effort. India’s current diplomacy, or lack thereof, is largely deficient of a genuine concern for human rights. If there is enough leeway to modify India’s business policies with Burma a proper diplomacy, stressing the aspects of refugee relief and funding for dissident groups such as the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, can be formed. The world’s most populous democracy has the best chance of breeding the highest number of deshabhaktas, patriots who hopefully know that the best way to help one’s own country is to help others first.

II) The Bhagavad Gita’s Interpretation of India’s Caste System

A most glorious scripture, serving as a holy shrine of guidance, sings lyrically of the Lord’s teaching. Dating back to the year 1000 BC, this epic tells a gallant tale of Bhagavan Krishna’s guidance to a grief-ridden Arjuna. Ironically, the divine advice towards achieving mental peace was given on a vast battlefield, where everything except peace resides. While the location v. the subject matter issue is peculiar, the scripture’s subject matter is consummate in greatness, when inspiration, wisdom, philosophical insight, and knowledge are the determining categories. It is the Bhagavad Gita, the gem of world literature, a specimen so dazzling that “our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial” (Henry David Thoreau). One subject demystified in the Gita has encountered much controversy over the years. The caste system, or varna-ashrama, has been one of the most misunderstood, misused, contentious, and criticized theories in Hindu thought and philosophy. An accurate etymology must be conducted in order to ascertain the true purpose behind establishing the caste system. The ancient, Hindu culture was founded upon a system of social diversification. The system was one of spiritual development, dictated by one’s karmic action, not by his birth.

The predetermined notion that ascribes caste based on one’s birth is not a principle of Hinduism. The Yajur Veda says, to establish an egalitarian mindset, that “the universe is an outpouring of the majesty of God, the auspicious one, radiant love. Every face you see belongs to him. He is present in everyone without exception” (6). Additionally, the Isha Upanishad declares that “the Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.” Lord Krishna, in accordance with the dictums of the Yajur Veda and the Isha Upanishad, answers Arjuna’s question regarding the reasoning behind the formation of social order:

“Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues which are the cause of auspiciousness. Even a chandala (lower caste) observing the vow is considered a Brahman by the Gods. The fourfold division of the castes was created by me according to the apportionment of qualities and duties. Not birth, not sacrament, not learning make one dvija (twice born), but righteous conduct alone causes it. Be he a Sudra or a member of any other class, he serves as a raft on a raft-less current, or helps to ford the unfordable deserves respect in every way.”

In his dissertation, Lord Krishna, whose words of guidance constitute the preponderance of the Gita, has alleged that one of Hindu origin cannot be ‘assigned’ a denomination of caste on basis of his birth. Varna was not bestowed upon an individual according to parentage. One who is a Sudra (labourer) has chosen to become Sudra, as he has had no faith in the Lord. Accordingly, Bhagavan Sri Krishna says that there is no superior caste, but mortals are grouped according to their aptitude (6). However, the material world of occupation survived throughout a generation during the time of the Mahabharata. For example, a carpenter’s son will follow in his father’s footsteps and his own son will continue the carpenter tradition.

The repetitiveness of daily life, the leaders of each generation under one lineage following in the footsteps of their predecessors, does not exist today. Modern times boast the concept of individualism, the ability to succeed on one’s own, without a paternal or maternal ‘springboard’ upon which the son or daughter will be incited into the work force. The caste system, however, in contrast to the occupation scheme, relies upon individual character rather than on parentage. In the legendary dialogue between the witty warrior, Yudhishthira, and a nature-spirit it is said that “A man does not become a Brahman by the mere fact of his birth, not even by the acquisition of Vedic scholarship; it is good character alone that can make one a Brahmin [a righteous person]. He will be worse than a Sudra if his conduct is not in conformity with the rules of good behaviour.”

India’s caste system has been exploited against the Hindus by Christian and Islamic missionaries, secular surveyors, and even acquisitive Indian politicians. To discredit any system requires cunning recognition of the system’s drawbacks and shortcomings. The caste system has been doused in a negative spotlight for centuries, yet social idiosyncrasies appear to live on in Western societies. The Hindu “caste system” has been challenged relentlessly by Western chauvinists, yet their own societal loyalties lie astray. Western society has intimidated minority groups, planting the Native Americans and the Australian Aborigines in reserves. Contradicting common belief, the Indian caste system is genuinely a force that encourages togetherness, not alienation. Purposefully, the caste system was an effective foothold that would propel the Indian subcontinent into international distinction. Once, the caste system was based in practicalities, but the standards are outmoded today. Unfortunately, the caste system is not capable of standing dependably in modern times. In order to establish social regularity, the current caste system should be amended. Social reforms would erase the negative connotation many associate with India’s caste system and eliminate baseless bigotry.

While there is baseless bigotry associated with the Hindu caste system, there is clemency and humanity associated with the Hindu religion. Despite Hinduism’s steadfast advocation about vegetarianism, no Hindu will be seen as an outcast if he chooses to be a meat-eater. Similarly, the Hindu religion does not require its followers to fast; rather it only suggests such practices as possible lifestyle choices. In fact, Chief Justice P.B. Ganjendragadkar was quoted to have said the following:

“When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, [it] does not claim any prophet,; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophical concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may be broadly described as a way of life and nothing more” (7).

Thus, some scholars argue that Hinduism is not very much a religion as it is a diverse set of traditions and cultural practices that mix to form a cohesive system labeled Hinduism (8). Using this logic, one could apply leniency to the concept of the caste system. Lord Krishna’s rationalization for his caste system involves him claiming that the denominations are not to dehumanize any one person. Rather ironically, this social grouping serves as a medium of classlessness, in which one belongs to a caste according to his disposition and character, not according to his birth, social excellence, or the enormity of his riches. The divine proclamations made about caste in Chapter 4 have the ability to be misconstrued by readers. No class can be rendered superior or substandard, a thoughtful reader would imbue from the Gita; it is with impartiality and grace that Bhagavan Sri Krishna has given his counsel to a distraught Arjuna (9). The effect of misinterpreting Lord Krishna’s words to be subjective ones is deeply unpleasant; the cursory reader who misinterprets the judicious words of the Gita can only harm himself. The extent with which this harm can impair a person is infinite, leading the baffled one down the ladder of fall. He will become wildly disillusioned, hypocritical, cynical, and debauched. On the other hand, one who has let the lithe words enter the deepest crevices of his mind will benefit, on his way to spiritual enlightenment.

A young boy once went on a seemingly futile task of carrying water in a hole- ridden, filthy basket. Scampering in desperation from the banks of Ganges, the boy brought the basket to his grandfather, the one who had assigned him this task. The wearisome task was assigned to boy many times, when at last he shot questions at his grandfather.

“Why do you keep asking me to bring this basket to you?! Don’t you know a basket with holes cannot hold water? Why are you trying to frustrate me so?”

The grandfather’s twinkling eyes moved from the boy’s exasperated face to the basket. The boy, in visionary pursuit, followed his grandfather’s lead. Suddenly, he noticed the basket had become sparkling clean, from inside and out. It was not the Ganges’ soothing touch which had cleaned the basket, but the endless times of immersing it into the river.

“Son, you must remember what this basket looked like the first time I asked you to fill it. It was when you wondered aloud about why little children are asked to study the Gita when they cannot understand its timeless words. But your minds are like hole-ridden, soiled baskets, you see. They become cleansed with the water of knowledge, and are changed inside and out. The words of the Gita get immersed in you, and even if you do not understand them, they will still change you, inside and out.”

A naïve, little one like this boy may not understand everything about the caste system mentioned in Chapter 4 of the Gita. It is for certain that Bhagavan Sri Krishna’s words about the caste system, about its shortcomings, its triumphs, and its limitations, are honest and wise. He claims that caste is assigned based on a system of individual merit, not on birth or parentage. The occupation lineage, however, usually continues with each generation, the son or daughter taking charge of the family business. One who misinterprets the divine words is led astray, taking on a burden which will leave him deeply disenchanted. The fascinated reader who applies the sayings of the Gita to real life will only benefit, attaining greater and greater levels of happiness and enlightenment. One who does not understand everything the Gita says will also benefit from its teachings, their inspirational words lighting fires of passion in the reader. The tangibility of the Gita epitomizes the cliché of all clichés, ‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’. Copies of the Gita are not to be judged by their covers; tattered, burnt, crinkled, yellowed, some may be, but their innards function like new.

Neha Rajan
Journalist

References
(1) Jha, Sushil. “Bohot Kuch Badla Hai Sisti Par”. [Translated in English: Much Has Changed in One Week]. BBC Hindi.2008.
(2) “Teen Deshon Ke Rajmarg Ko Manjoori”. [Translated in English: Superhighway Deal Finalised between Three Countries]. BBC Hindi. 2002.
(3) “Symbiosis”. Merriam Webster. 2009.
(4) Allison, Tony. “Myanmar Shows India the road to Southeast Asia”. Online Asia Times. 2001.
(5) Bhaumik, Subir. “Explaining India’s Silence over Burma”. BBC News, Calcutta. 2007.
(6) Sharma, Raj Pandit, Dr. “The Caste System”. Executive Member Hindu Council UK. 2008.
(7) Mehta, Vrajendra Raj. “Political Ideas in Modern India: Thematic Explorations”. Project of History. 2005.
(8) Pigott, Robert. “First Hindu Faith School Opening”. BBC News. 2008.
(9) Rao, M.N., Justice. “Freedom of Religion and Right of Conversion”. Eastern Book Company. 2003.

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion

 Print Culture | Permalink | eva