Our Modern Crisis: Death Of Superman

Concluding part to series. Previous posts here and here

The gist of previous posts was

1. As far as man is concerned, evolution transforms from a purely biological phenomena to one transcending social, technological and spiritual dimensions.

2. This evolution, transcendent, tends to cleave a man as  projections on various planes, biological, social, technological and spiritual, more often than not at tension with each other.

3. Proper aim of philosophy, science, religion any system of knowledge created by human endeavour should be to harmonize the multifaceted nature of evolution. This in turn implies the aim should  to keep man's projections in harmony, to project a "becoming" man. Only that much can be expected, anything more should be left up to evolution

The end of our runaway evolutions is at some unknown point in future. when the synthesis of man's projections is complete, and they unite to create a transformed man. All the concepts are preparatory stage for this glorious transformation when out of becoming man, Superman emerges . Even the gods as mighty as they are but intermediate staging something staggering

This idea, of a transformed man, was first proposed by Nietzsche in form of Ubermensch (lit. overman). However, Nietzsche, his vision restricted by receding lights of Christianity and blinding supernova of biological evolution. Consequently, Ubermensch became a material counterpoint to Jesus Christ, a spiritual balm offered by Christianity for material affliction. As a result Ubermensch became a prisoner of biology, condemned to chase sensual pleasures, even if that was not intended by Nietzsche.

It was Guru Aurobindo Ghosh who perhaps realized this fundamental concept underlying observable reality in life divine with emergence of supramental being. In doing so, he was synthesizing concept from ancient Hindu thought with Theory of Evolution. This is Superman.

I believe ancients were sub-consciously aware of evolution and Superman. The way they accommodated this awareness into their world view differed from civilization to civilization. Greeks realized this accommodation of evolution in politics, in philosophy and in natural sciences by eudaimonia, but they missed the spiritual, hence missing Superman.

Hindus, in my biased view, had keenest grasp of the evolution and Superman. They accommodated their view by infusing earthly with spiritual and spiritual with earthly. As a consequence the line between faith and world so stark in west, is blurry at best in India.

The Jews had their God but instead of pointing man to Superman, this "insecure, jealous God" imprisoned the man in a prison of covenants and laws, circumscribing his evolution in philosophy, natural science or spirituality. Christianity compromised between Greeks and Jews. Its God reached to man, holding promise for man to flourish philosophically and spiritually. Yet even Christian God was derived from Jewish God  and remained insecure and aware of its incompleteness, in the end Christianity inverted the vision of evolution and Superman, and replaced man as starting point to Superman, with man as end result of fall of man, evolution with original sin, and Superman himself with grace.  It was a rebellion, not of Adam against God, but of Christian God against Superman!

But as inverted as Christian world view was, even though it rebelled against evolution and Superman, it still had the saving grace of a vision of man beyond his biological self, it held a promise, however confounded,  of man's elevation.

Superman survived.

And then renaissance happened.

Like Christianity, it inherited from Greeks as well as Jews (as did it from Christianity itself), however it attempted a different approach at reconciling. It retained that Jewish framework of Laws, but killed the God, it retained Greek science but excluded eudaimonia.

The end result was even more devastating than Christianity. For renaissance man, devoid of promise of evolution,  science, philosophy became end in itself and not the means, their pursuit meant for intellectual pleasure and not evolution. Devoid of God or any means to connect to spiritual self, renaissance man turned inwards, and made himself the end, and instead of evolution there was degeneration, instead of flourishing, there was withering, and instead of Superman. man became Last man

And this is how Superman died.

Our Modern Crisis: Ancient Discontent (Updated)

Previous post might have given the impression that we moderns have stumbled on the crisis on our own. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The genesis of modern crisis is ancient, rooted in the human nature itself.

The human nature, transcending evolution, always becoming, ever dynamic, is also the scene of a struggle. A struggle between its projections.

The biological man is in existential confrontation with social man who in turn is challenged by technical man who is a rebel against the spiritual  man. It is not in power to man to stop or end this confrontation. This confrontation will resolve only when ever unfolding evolutions draws to its unknown conclusion.

Update: In simple words, this means there is always a tension between an individual and society, society and technical progress, technical progress and spiritual faith.

So if the man can't bring the confrontation to its end, what can he do? The overarching aim of philosophy, politics, science, any body of knowledge as conceived by humans should be to  try to mitigate the frequent destruction unleashed by evolution even as it carries human to next stages of his transformation. 

Our Modern Crisis: Background

Ecce Homo

We are missing it. Beyond the incessant chatter of media traditional as well as social, beyond even the rarefied atmosphere of policy debates, there lurks a crisis. I doubt if many are aware about it, much less attempted to grasp its seriousness.

Our modern crisis is about true nature of man. Western politics is sharply divided into Conservatives and Liberals. Yet despite their often bitter partisan rancour, they have fundamentally same view about nature of man. To both, man is an atom, isolated entity imprisoned in his biological form, completely defined by personal virtues and vices, by his intellect and desires. Whether he is triumphant or defeated, he stands alone.
Man is atrophied, static. Man is a mere "being".

Let me humbly suggest that this conception of man is flawed. Man in fact is dynamic, he has progressed from biological evolution itself to higher forms of evolution. Man is "becoming".

It is true that man has a biological form, but that's not his limit. He projects onto higher planes. He is a nexus in social network. He is a shard of global data. He is a wisp of reason. Finally man is the very part of cosmic concious.

What a magnificent creature man is!

Alas how he has been sundered by simple minds 

An absolutely awesome post on Koran burning

if awesomeness is measured with X*

I am sure everyone must be fed up with Uncle Sam coverage, however frankly speaking blogging wise this is a low hanging fruit, so here is what I think about Koran burning gimmick. As you might have guessed I am against it.

a. It is offensive to a lot of good people.

b. Just like minaret ban and outcry over Love Jihad, it is a emotive, and as such distracts from serious threat of global political Islam.

Having said I am underwhelmed by many of the arguments against it. They are

a. It is fascism. No, it is not. It would have be fascist if US govt were burning piles of Korans. An individual burning Koran, while arguably boorish, doesn't fascism make.

b. It will offend Muslims and boost Jihad. It is true. Burning Koran will offend Muslims. You know what else offends Muslims? US in Iraq, US in Afghanistan, US not intervening in Palestine, US intervening in Palestine, Jews in Israel, Jews in Europe, Jews in Planes, Muslims among Christians, Muslim among Hindus, Muslims among Buddhists, Muslims among Secularists, Christian among Muslims, Hindus among Muslims, Buddhist among Muslims, Sikhs among Muslims, Baha'i among Muslims, Ahmadis among Muslims, Shias among Sunnis, Sunnis among Shias, African Muslims Among Arab Muslims. I could really go on, but I hope you must have gotten the picture.

It doesn't make much sense to fret over offending Muslim sensibilities, because few ruffled feathers are not root cause of jihad, just like lack of democracy is not the cause, or the poverty, or oil.

The cause behind jihad is the supremacism intrinsic to Islam, unless it is excised be ready for more terrorism.

* where X = number of links

The Awakening

The sound of clattering instruments broke the silence of the lab. The table, which, except for the chair, was the only piece of furniture in the sparse room, had toppled and fallen, spilling the instruments on the floor. The scientist tried unsuccessfully to steady his shaking body by gripping the chair. Even as he steadied himself, his chest for the second time exploded with searing pain.

He fumbled for the medicine in his pockets. The search seemed agonizingly long to him, even though it took barely few seconds to locate the medicine. He swallowed the medicine, desperate gesture of a dying man. For he knew that he was dying. He suffered from a rare congenital heart condition, in any other time he could not have expected to survive infancy, but the advances in medical sciences meant that he had made to late twenties.

However even science had its limits and now he lay on the cold floor gasping for the breath, losing his consciousness. All of a sudden, just as candle burns brightly before extinguishing, the fog of pain lifted over him lifted. He admitted that he had failed.  For his whole life, he had pursued the mystery of universe, hoping to unlock it, but in the end death had defeated him. A sudden despondency gripped him, he could not bear the thought of dying without unraveling the unknown. It was then that he had a conversion. He, who had rejected God as ancient superstition his whole life, became a believer in the last throes of his life. In sheer desperation he begged for God. 


Slowly darkness enveloped him.


Slowly he regained consciousness, of course strictly speaking this was not true, as he didn't possess any material body, his existed, for lack of better word, as an Idea. The new sensations were strange to him, he could sense the physical world, but in the same way we normally watch TV, he was not part of it any longer. He, again for lack of better word,felt detached. Finally he was free of emotions which bind and prod men. 


Gradually he grew comfortable with his new surroundings. Although he didn't posses any sensory organs, his sensory perception was beyond what biology could device or mind can imagine. Tentatively he started to explore. He found that he could observe any phenomena irrespective of its location in the universe or the physical scale at which it took place. He could simultaneously investigate the nebulae and the subatomic particles. And yet even he had limitations, he was not detached from the material realm, he was bound both by time, logic and more importantly existence.


Many eons passed, after he had observed, investigated and deduced everything he could, he grew restless. He dimly remembered when he belonged to material world, he had prayed for an answer, yet the answer still eluded him. Space time undulated through what was his ethereal manifestation in a pattern which if he was still human would have been recognizable as brooding. 


He was in this mood for some time before he became aware of another presence. That other being had been there for quite some time, but until them he had missed him. He sensed that the other was very similar to him. He kept observing the other for some time. The other remained still.


Finally he spoke to the other (he could do this by warping space time continuum), "Who are you", he added hopefully, "Are you God". The other replied, with amusement, "If that's what you wish to call me", "What do you mean", He was confused, ""Where am I", and after a pause, "What am I". The other explained, "Since you prayed for me, you begot me". He asked not convinced, "What if I hadn't prayed for God"."I don't know". "How can the God not know", He was incredulous. The other was patient, " Is it that incredible! I, The God, am the manifestation of your act of believing, I can not fathom what non-belief could have brought forth. Suddenly he understood. He asked plaintively, "Do you have the answer". The other ruefully replied, "No, I don't have, countless time I have appeared, only to dissolve without knowing what lies behind it all". 


And for the second time, he begged in sheer desperation. He begged and begged for an answer.


Slowly darkness enveloped him for the second time.


And for the second time He regained consciousness. It seemed as if He had been dreaming for a long time. Though it didn't make sense, for now not only He transcended physical world, but also boundaries of time and logic. He knew what had happened since the beginning of universe, the big bang, but beyond that the truth was hidden from Him. He started thinking.


After many eons had passed, He came out of his reverie, now He had a way to find the answer. But for that, the universe as it existed didn't fit. He knew what He had to do. Almost instantaneously the space time continuum encompassing the universe folded. Universe ceased to exist. There was nothing but Him. 


Now He had to begin again. He was not sure what He will do next. But that was OK. He was patient, for time had no meaning for Him. He will think of something.


Shamelessly plagiarized from Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein

Friday Double Bill - I, Of Ground Zero Mosque

A very good evening (or a very good whatever the hell your time zone is), to all the comatose readers of this blog (as evidenced by tepid response to previous post). In this edition of  LaS (i.e. Life and Something ), we will discuss the controversy surrounding, depending on who you ask, Ground zero mosque or Park51 community center, proposed in the hymietown. On second thoughts discussion is a very ambitious term, mostly because I don’t have much to say as opposed to, say greatbong. So let me make a brief remark. I don’t have strong opinion about the mosque one way or other, this is because I have no emotional stake in this particular situation, I am not an American much less a New Yorker, neither any of my near or dear ones met their ends on Ground Zero. It is possible people opposing the Mosque are really emotionally aggrieved, it is also possible that they are not enamored of Islam, a possibility which is further supported by the fact this opposition is not limited to the particular case but to any mosque in general. Now I can understand if Americans are wary of Islam, however my view regarding this remains as stated in earlier posts. If Islam is a problem to USA, denying legal rights of citizens is not going to solve it. Having said that what I find really puzzling, no make that mind boggling, is the insistence by supporter of Mosque that it actually is a step for tolerance and understanding. Now this may sound uncharitable, but the matter of fact is 9/11 was perpetrated in name of Islam, considering this, how in God’s name, construction of a mosque near to Ground zero is going to promote understanding! At best this is a case of tone-deafness, at worst however this may seem like pissing on grave of victims to many people who otherwise may not be intolerant to Islam. I suppose constructing a mosque is permitted by the law of the land, however to insist that mosque is a symbol of respect and harmony and to demand that other defer to this viewpoint is nothing short of sanction of the victim.

Sadanand Dhume can be my wingman any time

All right, may be I am being over enthusiastic, if that be the case pardon me, because he is one of those rarest of rare public intellectual who knows and writes what is wrong with the Pakistan. Now you can read the article yourself, but it can be summarized as following.

Even among those who recognize that Pakistan is in general pain in nether regions, the blame of the unpleasant situation is placed squarely upon Zia-Ul-Haq. Now this is true to a certain extent, he was, without doubt, a fanatic. But to say that Pakistan began its long slide towards frenzy of fanaticism during his regime, is a wholly mistaken notion. Pakistan has proceeded on its journey irrespective of the religious zeal of its ruler. Indeed it was a socialist and moderate Muslim Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who declared Ahmadayya sect unIslamic , it was much before Zia that Pakistani leadership attempted to wrestle Kashmir by fanning flames of fanaticism (which ultimately almost succeeded two decades later as a fallout of rise of Mujahideens).

Nor this ended with Zia. Post Zia, terrorism has been state policy of Pakistan, irrespective of the leader at helm, this includes now departed Benazir Bhutto, moderate daughter of a moderate father.

Therefore problem is not Zia, it is Pakistan. The raison d'etre for Pakistan was the view of leadership, both political as well as religious, of Indian Muslims that Islam is fundamentally irreconcilable with Indic tradition.

The self destructive behavior that Pakistan has indulged in since its founding is nothing but an attempt to purge itself of impurity.

This is the summary of Dhume's article. However while he correctly diagnosis the pathology which plagues Pakistan, his prescription is incorrect. Dhume recommends replacing cultural DNA of Pakistan. However that is impossible because you can not change DNA without changing the beast. If Islam were to be replaced as Pakistan's foundation, there will be nothing to distinguish Pakistan from India, and in due course Pakistan will be re-assimilated within India. The Pakistani leadership realizes this and hence its constant attempt to destroy India.

Another one

It is a pity that Bhajan became extinct in 80's. I am sorry, what I meant was it is a pity Bhajans didn't die in 80's. Instead they assumed undead existence as paradies of Bollywood music (the main culprit, to no one's surprise, T-Series), but fortunately some Bhajans still managed to be written which could move you.

Partition And The Indian Project.

To no one’s surprise, Arun Shourie has boldly gone where no Indian politician has ventured before, namely finding something to commend about Partition, a sentiment, which though will find many supporter among the riff raff of the nets, hardly finds any taker in the respectable society.

The justification is something like this, since idea of Ummah conflicts with the idea of India (a premise I agree with), it would have been impossible for an un-partitioned India to exist as a stable political entity much less emerge as a prosperous and influential nation, the partition prevented this from happening by containing Ummah to manageable level.

My own thoughts about Partition are far from settled. While I more or less agree with the idea of containing Ummah, I am not satisfied with the results. While Ummah in divided India is not as strong force as it would have been in united India, it is still a significant, and to be frank, a corrosive force. This dilemma has no easy answers.

One can of course concoct scheme for transferring Muslim population to Pakistan and Bangladesh (as was suggested by Dr. Amberdkar during partition) but as much as some people might like it, the scheme is less than impracticable.

This leaves us with only two options, one let Ummah fester within the host body and resign ourselves to inevitable results which is disintegration of India. Or if this is not acceptable then assimilate Ummah within India. Therein lays the problem. The reason it is more or less impossible to assimilate Ummah is the same behind the facts that Ummah manages to be a corrosive force even in post partition India, and Indian polity is getting increasingly fragmented along lingual, regional and caste lines, viz. abysmal failure of Hindus/Indians to define their identity. Sure there have been instances in democratic India where a non trivial percentage of the Hindus/Indian have voted as Hindus/Indians, but these instances always been sporadic and almost as emotional, whereas for Hindu/Indian identity to have a meaning, such a political project must anchored in philosophical thought and executed with intellectual vigor.

The process by which such an identity can be formed is too complicated either to be covered in a single post, or to be expounded by a single person (that is I).

However it is possible to describe what minimal conditions end result of such a project must satisfy. I will expand upon this in later posts (Hint: It has to do with the fact I have used “Hindu” along with “India”)

B Raman: Secular Apologist For Islam

I say, why B Raman had to spoil the whole thing! Well, if you must know, TOI came with a brainwave for peace in our lifetime, alliteratively titled “Aman Ki Asha”.  They hope to realize this by, wait for it, people to people contact, which have been tried for, let’s see, some gazillion times. It is difficult to see why this reenactment of cosmopolitan self preening will be different from previous ones unless the goal of this charade is to sell the copies.

It is then B Raman enters and in few paragraphs deftly demolishes the argument, or rather thought, behind the whole charade viz. it is just mutual misunderstanding which is the root cause behind the tension. He states, correctly, that Pakistan is one of the most mistrusted nations as far as terrorism is concerned.

This is the perfect point from which B Raman could have entered and explained the pathology of Pakistan, at this point however he is gripped by a fear that he will cross Laxman Rekha of secularism. As a result he does what all secularists do when they find themselves in this situation, start issuing apology for Islam, such as the problem with Pakistan is its distorted interpretation of Islam not found anywhere else in Ummah.

Really! This is quite surprising because I can think of quite a few countries (read all the countries) which have this “distorted interpretation” of Islam.

In the same manner, as far as cruelty and barbarity go, Pakistan is the norm rather than the exception in the universal Islamic brotherhood. Also, while Pakistan may headquarters of jihadi terrorism, its outlets are everywhere in Ummah through franchise, so even in that Pakistan is hardly the exception that Raman makes it out to be.

But most ridiculous is the presumption by kaffir such as B Raman that they can instruct LOP (Land of Pure) on the soundness of their doctrine. This is as absurd as me suggesting Tamizhans not to sneakily put DAMNED black peppers in the vadai.

There is a relatively straightforward simple explanation for this phenomenon. So imprisoned are secularists to the notion the all religions are equal (whether equally good or equally bad), they simply ignore any evidence to the contrary. This is one more indicator how secularism has morphed from an ideology to article of faith, a pernicious one at that.

PS. It is unlikely, but one might give it a benign twist. Secularists realize that Islam is the problem, but realize that admitting it publicly will make matters worse. Hence the noble lie of distorted Islam. Problem with this is their actions do not suggest that they realize the problem.

PPS. B Raman is right in a way. As far as India is concerned Pakistan is different from Ummah, but that is not a matter of doctrine but rather that of origin. Existence of a kaffir (even if dhimmi) India is a testimony of, first failure of Pakistan to obliterate shirk  from Indian subcontinent and second thriving while even as Pakistan self destructs thus invalidating the premise of superiority of  the deen.

Fear and loathing in Switzerland

We will be talking about 3 idiots but first let's see what is my problem with Swiss minaret ban. Now all crypto Hindu fascists are more or less gloating over the ban and I think that's wrong. Before I state my problem though I think it should not be controversial to admit that this ban is motivated by an apprehension of Islam. This is not to accuse Swiss people of Islamophobia.


Islamophobia is a term frequently deployed by our Sec-Lib overlords to browbeat anyone critical of Islam, which is ridiculous as strictly speaking phobia is irrational fear of something, whereas there are at the least more than a few reasons for Swiss (or for that matter anyone, including Muslims) to be wary of Islam. The only purpose for terming any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia is to frame the criticism as a psychological affliction and therefore not worthy of reasoned response. This is a typical example of the how Sec-Lib establishment frames the narrative.


So apprehension of Islam is not my problem. My problem rather is this ban is just a reflexive response which doesn’t actually do anything to address the concern. Present situation in Europe has arisen because of their asinine immigration policy. Almost all European countries have a minority population which is ethnically distinct, socially depressed and culturally disconnected from the rest of population. These differences, hard to reconcile over in any case, turn to impossible hurdles in case of Europe due to two factors. One, specific to Europe nation states, is the gradual erosion of common culture first as a result of secularism and later socialism. In absence of any foundation, European nations are losing their relevance as political or social unit, only surviving owing to the fact that they are mostly mono ethnic, and Pax Americana. However this state of inertia is challenged by the second factor which is supremacist nature of Islam. 


These two factors combined are the origins behind tensions in Europe, and to address the European problem these factors must be addressed boldly. The ban on Minarets in no way addresses these factors. In fact, it makes the situation worse because it deludes Europeans into believing that they are confronting the problem as the situation becomes increasingly precarious. 

Faithful, besieged

So this is post I promised about, supposedly a brief examination of historical causes behind partition. As usual it is going to be long and incoherent, and people are better off not reading it. You have been forewarned. 

I think it should come as no surprise I am no fan of Harry Potter. To be sure, the series had promise in the beginning, but as it progressed it became a casualty of its own hype. That and I really don't need "snogging" mentioned in literature.Even then I found Lord Voldemort and his death eaters interesting. Lord Voldemort  and death eaters are of course allusion to Hitler and Nazi. Hitler like Voldemort was obsessed with blood purity and just like Voldemort was a half-blood, Hitler was rumored to be part Jewish.

Now this is fictional, but there is a psychological basis for their seemingly contradictory.
Consider an ambitious young man who more than anything craves social status and peer approval. As it happens the only way available to him to achieve his desire is by belonging to a particular group identity.
Unfortunately for him, his association with the group is not strong sufficiently for his liking. Then, if our young man is neurotic enough, it is possible that he will become a zealot for enforcing the group exclusivity.

Coming to Partition, the villains, as is insinuated by minders of secularism, were fanatics of Muslim league led by Jinnah on one side, and Hindu Mahasabha on the other side. This is, to put it mildly, hogwash. Notwithstanding its politcs, Hindu Mahasabha was always a fringe player and as such not a priority for Muslim league. No, their bile and venom was reserved for wily Hindu Bania aka Mahatma Gandhi and Congress under him. So far from Hindu Mahasabha, it was Congress which was the culprit or at the least protagonist during partition.

 Moving to other side, while it is true that Muslim league is guilty of preticipating partition, it was far from a party of wide eyed Mullahs. In fact, in a way it reflected Congress in that it was a coalition of landlords, middle class professionals and intellectuals. But what is even more remarkable about the movement for separate Muslim homeland is its leading lights.

First Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He was a reformer and modernist. His commitment to western and liberals ideals was such that not only he freely consumed alcohol and pork he also advocated same for Muslims so that they can emulate the British. He also contributed significantly towards establishing modern educational institutions for Indian Muslims (Aligarh Muslim University being foremost) and at one time he was a strong advocate of Hindu Muslim unity. Yet later in his life he became one of the prominent proponents for a distinct Muslim political identity, a  position which were to directly lead to formation of Muslim league.

Next comes Aga Khan, Imam of Ismailis, a moderate sect within Shia Islam. He in addition to to religious education, also received modern European education in best of British universities. Later on, he made significant contribution towards establishment of social and economic development. And yet, he was one of the founders of Muslim league.

Following him is Allama Iqbal a descendant of Sapru Kashmiri Brahmins, who like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aga Khan, received western education in European institutions, and besides being a renowned lawyer was an accomplished philosopher and poet. Like others he too began as a patriot who not only stood for an undivided India but also prided himself on Indian heritage (Remember he was the man who gave us Saare Jahan Se Accha). Yet he was to make a turn around in a very short time, and set off on a course which ended up where he is acclaimed as spiritual founder and thinker of Pakistan.

The last exhibit is of course Jinnah. For sake of completion, let's recapitulate. Jinnah, belonging to Khoja Ismaili sect (we will come back to this later) educated in England, possessing a sharp intellect, a western outlook, a man who enjoyed his whiskey and pork, and not his Islam, a man who had no use for religion in public life, a man who was hailed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, a man who doggedly opposed Muslim league and proclaimed respect for Ten incarnations of Vishnu. And yet the same man turned into a demagogue pouring incessant vitriol on Hindus, provoking passion, and setting India ablaze.

Of course this is not an exhaustive list of the leaders of Pakistan movement, but I am sure by now you must have noticed something curious. In all the cases we have Indian Muslims, of considerable intellect and education, moderate in their world view, belonging either to more moderate sects or of recent Hindu ancestry, all initially patriots, paving the way for Pakistan.

As Goldfinger remarked, Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action

Now then, if there is a pattern, what is the reason behind it. I have come to believe that the reason is anxiety. To be specific anxiety of identity.

Of the many infractions against reason that Dr Amartaya Sen has committed to this date, none is more flagrant than his characterization of identity as a buffet from which individual can pick any one at his will. Now this may be true of certain western nations at present but it is not true everywhere, what is more important that historically  it has hardly ever been the case.

To be sure, left to himself, a common man of the street whether a Hindu, or a Muslim, will like go on with his life. He has not much use for identity. This is what our enlightened masters mean when they claim, Muslims and Hindus, or Pakistanis and Indians are not much different. Therein lies the problem. Common man, whatever his creed, is never left alone, rather his interactions in the larger social setting are determined by his group association which is acceptable to the society for that particular setting.This holds true even if his interaction is not a part of larger group effort.

The question then arises, what is that mechanism whereby group associations form, reinforce and wither away. What follows is not a not particularly well formed explanation. Group identity are self-enforcing phenomenon, which roughly means group association determines social privileges, obligations and hierarchies, which subsequently  define the cultural assumptions and social norms governing the dynamics of the social interactions. It is the result of these interactions with respect to evolutionary fitness which acts as a feedback to reinforce the group association.

Next we come to the role of individuals. It is my belief that the common man as such doesn't influence the workings of group identity, instead as I wrote earlier, historically speaking his action is dictated by the group identity to a large extent. However, if we make the assumption that the response of common man to factors is not random or arbitrary but limited by some basic rules of human psychology, in that case the masses acting in sync do impact the society, as evidenced by popular movements.On the other hand uncommon men also known as thinkers, philosophers, intellectuals etc, have ability to influence group identity at individual level.

But men, both common as well as uncommon, are guided by a much stronger force, of history. For much of, well history, humanity has flow in its silent yet inexorable currents, and though the thinkers pretend otherwise, even they are not unaffected by it. As George Orwell famously remarked, Those who control the past, control the future. A corollary of this for present context is those who control the identity, control the present/

So where am I going with this. Well the whole digression about identity was to introduce what was in my view the real reason about partition. Which is the historically there has been conflict between Islamic and Indian identities. Now before I proceed, let me do away with some possible objections, I do not think it is accurate to say that everyday co-existence of average Hindus and Muslim is marked with strife and violence, either now or historically (Though I will add that historically even the relations between common Hindus and Muslims have not been entirely peaceful. Hindu-Muslim riots, after all are not something which started after demolition of Babri Masjid). Neither I am implying that Muslims are un-Indian. My intention rather is, that Indian Muslims are claimed by both Indian identity as well as Islamic identity. This is different from other such cases because other linguistic or cultural identities are subset of Indian identity, whereas Islamic identity has an existence and history independent of Indian identity, and as I will attempt to show,by discussing about Islamic experience in India, at conflict with Indian identity.

For Secular class anxious to whitewash the history, Islamic experience in India is mostly a fable about swirling Dervishes and qawwali singing Sufis. That and Akbar the great. In my view a single word more accurately captures the experience of Islam in sub-continent. That word is Urdu. Urdu, derived from Turkic language, means encampment.

Islam was mainly introduced to India, as a consequence of invasions spanning centuries by Muslim invaders, initially from Arab and later on from Central Asia. Now India has been invaded since time memorial by barbarians and nomads from beyond Sindhu. However Islamic invasions were different. Surely the series of Islamic like previous invasions were meant for both loot as well as conquest, but in addition to that, the invaders this time carried the word of Allah as revealed to Prophet Muhammad, seal of Prophets, and zealously guarded by Ulema. They were united in communion with every Muslim of the world in Ummah as bearers of the truth, and foreshadowing the annihilation of Incas and Aztecs by conquistadors,  obligated by religious injunction to bring the kaffirs to righteous path.

The invading zealots sought to spread the true faith by the terror of sword. Templed were desecrated, Murtis were destroyed, Kaffirs were compelled to embrace Islam on the pain of a torment and death. However as the conquerors set to rule the conquered land, the compulsions of the geopolitics and the governance tempered their zeal to multiply the believers. Sure, they wanted the glory of Islam to spread, but they also had to maintain the alliances with Hindu Kings and they could not oppress their subjects too much lest they start rebelling. So instead of sword they took recourse to coercive taxes and laws for the dhimmis. Slowly Islam in  India came to an uneasy arrangement, the rulers didn't try too hard to convert the idolaters, and Islam occupied the seat of power. However this arrangement was an extremely fragile, as this was considered deviation from the righteous path by Ulemas and the more fervent of the ruling class. The result was this arrangement was breached by the zealots who launched frequents campaigns to show the infidels error of their ways and the inevitable rebellion by the oppressed subjects.

Here it should be noted that this was no different from what happened with the Zorastrianism or Buddhism when Muslims invaded Iran or Afghanistan. However one crucial difference between Hinduism and the two religions was that both the religions depended heavily on priests and monks as opposed to Hinduism which was more folk based. Which is why even when its institutions were annihilated (you can count North Indian Temples belonging to pre-Islamic era on your fingers) it managed to survive.

This went on for well over a millennium, and as the sword and the jiziya slowly converted heathens, Islamic identity that formed was that of a superior creed by virtue of power as well as faith. It was this identity which the Muslim elites as well as clergy with. However since Hindus were always the majority, and Islamic identity couldn't reconcile with this, it retreated behind wall of powers. Thus Islamic identity also assumed characterstics of encampment. Urdu, in other words.

This arrangement began to unravel in the 18th century first with the decline of Mughal dynasty and arrival of British. Hindus, so far reduced to secondary citizens, began to take advantage of the western education to re-occupy position in the government, in addition to even further securing the advantage in trade. With education there also emerged a class of middle class professionals with interest in sciences and renewed curiosity about their Hindu identity. This combined with the freedom for expression of religion available to them after deprivation of several centuries saw a new vigor in the religion and giving rise to Hindu revival movements of 19th century.

In contrast was Muslim experience, they didn't take advantage of the opportunities available to them, owing to hubris of being ruler as well as certain of superiority of faith. The loss of power, the advance of  the formerly inferior Hindus over their former superiors, and even more important resurgence of Hindu religion  had a severe effect on the psyche of Muslim elite. To the former rulers it felt as if Allah had abandoned his believers by failing to safeguard their honor from suffering the indignity of  jostling with the inferior kaffirs for living. It was this crisis which caused a crack in the foundation, which was assumption of superiority over kaffirs, of the Islamic identity.

Islamic identity could never recover from this. This crisis was made more severe by the breach of the wall of power which separated Islamic identity from the majority identity. For the first time in history Muslim elites felt threat to Islamic identity on account of its being subsumed into the Indian identity, especially since Hinduism is much more encompassing, inclusive, adaptive and tolerant than Islam, or for that matter any other Abrahamic creed. Camp was no longer secure for the Islamic identity anymore.

Since Muslim elites could no longer count on assumption of superiority afforded to them by power nor were able to reconcile with a resurgent Hinduism, and further since they felt besieged by Hinduism enveloping them in the society, they increasingly assumed  an adversarial role to define themselves. As a result gradually Islamic identity transformed into a negationitist one in the sense it was defined by negation and rejection of Hindu identity rather than by a positive statement relating to historical or cultural context.

This is what I believe was more fundamental reason for Hindu-Muslim tensions and ultimately partition.
And once Pakistan was formed on basis of Islamic identity, its tragic destiny was also decided. For in defining their identity in negation to Hindu identity, Muslim elites had made themselves dependent on their adversary. When the partition eliminated the adversary, the Pakistan intellectuals sought to define themselves either by associating even more strongly with Ummah in a Voldemortian fashion, and at the same time taking a strong adversarial position to India. This is the reason I don't think any reconcilation between India and Pakistan is possible.

As far as Indian Muslims are concerned, I think they can still be reconciled to broader Indian identity, provided they recognize, and make peace with, the Hindu core of Indian identity and disregard Ummah and Ulema.

Jaswant Affairs - Partition Debate (Updated)

Previous post 

Politics aside, the book by Jaswant Singh besides getting him kicked out of BJP also provoked a spirited debate on Jinnah and the Partition itself. In this the occasion is eerily similar to the earlier one where a debate of similar nature was provoked by Advani's remarks during his Pakistan visit.

Now as someone who believes that history plays an extremely important in a nation's destiny and one who rues the neglect shown by Indians to their history, I can only welcome the debate.

Before stating my own views it is helpful to summarize various arguments in this debate, almost all of them implicitly assuming that partition was a unmitigated disaster in theory and also in implementation. Most widely held notion of them all is that Jinnah was the villain and architect of the partition. In addition to that extremist politics of Hindu organization (viz. Hindu Mahasabha and Sangh) are blamed for the communal polarization which led to partition.Yet another opinion holds ego clash between Nehru and Jinnah responsible for the partition.

There is some truth in all of these notions. Jinnah was the visible face of Muslim league since the 1930's and was responsible for its revival after the debacle post 1937. It was he who demanded partition. Similarly  any attempt to arrive at compromise failed due to the the differences between Nehru and Jinnah. Yet it is my opinion that as visible and pronounced these reasons may seem, they are just proximate causes hiding a much more profound reality and one which pertains to Hindu-Muslim relations.

Coming to the subject of controversy, ie Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the reason there is so much consternation and confusion about his role is that by any assessment there seem to be two and diameterically opposite Jinnah. One is a secular, whiskey swilling, pork eating liberal with a western world view and minimal familiarity with Islam who wanted a undivided India. Other is a rabid demagogue, stoking communal passion by evoking  before Muslim masses specter of living in a Hindu India. It is hard to reconcile these two attitudes, which is why some people (including Jaswant Singh) while admitting his culpability in partition, have taken recourse to explain it away as a result of his being outmaneuvered by the Congress and blinded by his own ego.

Now there is truth to this. It is true that early in his political carrier Jinnah was a Nationalist and later turned into a demagogue. It is also true to a certain extent this transformation can be attributed to Nehru. However a true patriot wouldn't have turned against his motherland just because of his ego.Which is why I don't think that Jinnah was ever in heart a true patriot, and judging by his methods even truly liberal.

Further as it turns out Nehru was hardly the main cause behind his transformation from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hide.  The reason which transformed Jinnah was also the reason that transformed Indian freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi.

Prior to arrival of Mahatma Gandhi at scene Indian freedom movement was primarily an elitist concern, comprising of either landed gentry, nouveau rich industrialist and middle class professionals. The prevailing consensus was that it was possible to secure independence working from within Colonial framework. It was believed that as Indians demonstrated capability to self govern in accordance with British interests, the British masters will gradually grant more and more autonomy to their subjects eventually setting them free. The main difference which existed between different factions was about the extent to which the demand for more autonomy should be pushed with one group not in favor of rocking the boat too much while the other group even though more aggressive in its demands, grudgingly accepted the existing framework .

Whatever their differences in politics, it is important to realize their wold view was informed by their elite background and  in general it was disconnected from mass politics. Mohammed Ali Jinnah belonged to this school.

Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi changed all that. While he was a firm advocate of non violence, he engaged the masses on the scale that was hitherto not witnessed in Indian freedom movement. Mass of public, burdened with exploitative policies of the Raj, responded passionately to Mahatma's call of non violent agitations. This enthusiastic participation expanded the project of Indian freedom as never imagined possible earlier.

However this expansion upset existing elite consensus. The modus operandi shifted from "freedom through petition" to "freedom through peaceful disobedience". Existing actors who were not accustomed to mass mobilization disapproved of the tenor of the movement and they responded in different way. Some like Rabindra Nath Tagore just went into background, others like Motilal Nehru accepted Mahatma's leadership. Jinnah was no different in his disapproval of mass politics.

However with him there was an additional factor. Jinnah was irked by the overt infusion of spiritual message by Mahatma Gandhi to (what Jinnah considered) a non-religious endeavor. Even more infuriating for him was the fact that spiritual message had a distinct Hindu hue. Now for Mahatma spiritual message was about fostering religious harmony. However Muslim intellectuals and to lesser extent Jinnah, always apprehensive about the metaphysical boa-constrictor form of Hinduism became paranoid by Mahatma'a approach. They took it as a conspiracy to assimilate Islam within the folds of Hinduism.

I believe it was this paranoia combined with his ego which wouldn't accept Mahatma's leadership which ultimately drove Jinnah to Pakistan.

Update: There are two issues that I will like to discuss in separate posts, one is the proximate causes vs historical causes as far as partition is concerned, second is the mobilization strategy of Mahatma.

Another communal post

Can some one explain the fundamental difference Kashmiri Muslims and Muslims in rest of India.

I am interested because I want to understand why what happened in Kashmir to Hindus wouldn't have happened to Hindus in any other part of India if Muslims were Majority.

"Now now Gaurav", The well intentioned are going to say, "Surely you are jesting, surely you can't mean that every Muslim is a radical who will want nothing less than annihilation of kaffirs and establishment of  Ummah".

Which is precisely my problem. To understand let's model this in form of sets.

Assume M_i = set of all Indian Muslims.

Then M_i = M_m +M_b + M_r.

where M_m = Moderate Muslims who are just like you and me (well mostly like you, I am obscenely awesome and hardly anyone is like me),  who do respect other faiths, are unquestioningly patriotic, and are concerned with nothing more than daily grind of life.

M_b = Believers, They are also concerned with daily grind of life, but their concern doesn't end here. They are also concerned with their faith and their identity. Which is why it is a confusing group, individual member of this group may or may not respect other faiths, may be unquestioningly patriotic or may be conflicted due to opposite pulls of faith and nation.

M_r = Radicals. They are convinced, partly due to indoctrination, and partly due to dis-affectation, that India is not their future, and they actively participate in undermining India.

Now the well intentioned elites argue that it is unfair to blame moderate Muslims for acts of radical Muslims.
In other words M_m >> M_r

Only problem, while moderate Muslim may not unleash violence, neither will they attempt to stop radical Muslims. They will remain silent witness to slow subjugation and annihilation of  Kaffirs at the hands of Radicals. Therefore the only difference between rest of India, and Kashmir, or between post-1947 India and pre-1947 India  is the percentage of Muslims, the cultural DNA is same.

Which is why I don't want myself or for that matter my coming generations ever to live in a Muslim majority nation.

Asinine Observation

This is going to be bit complicated, so please bear with me.

First, one can not help but be aghast at Justice Katju's observation. To say that growing beards by observant Muslims is somehow equivalent to Talibanization is nothing but absurd*. As far as religious practices go, beard as a symbol can not be more than aggressive than applying Tilak on forehead, or wearing cross.

This is not to say that I disagree with verdict, but the reasons are different. In principle, The private institution in the case has the right to set its own rules, as long as it is not compelling anyone to enroll. The aggrieved student has full right to find admission in a different school.

Now I believe this is standard libertarian argument, and perhaps this is a correct. However I am yet to come around to this, mainly owing to a feeling of discomfort with libertarian arguments. Unfortunately I am not well versed enough to articulate my discomfort into some concrete principle, but I will try to give it a shot.
For me more important than question of property is the broader social outlook. Libertarians limit social outlook to strict observance to property rights, implicitly assuming that this is necessary and sufficient condition for utilitarian purposes**. I am not sure this is true. Human society is a complicated system, and I really doubt that it can be captured with a single rule.

Pertinent to this case is what norms of propriety should society at large evolve towards the case where property rights operate under significant public interaction. In way that was the essence of my position in these  Harvard posts by Ravikiran. Now I don't know whether propriety can be captured in a set of rules. To illustrate my point, there would not be much objection by Hindus or even educated Muslims over the school prohibiting some Muslim from growing a beard. However if instead it was a Sikh concerned the protests will be so vehement that there is no chance that this will ever pass.

Now strictly on religious principle this makes no sense. However it starts to make sense if we take history into context. Now this may be called Hindutva Fascist, and since I am one I have no compunction in saying that, but I think many Hindus are discomfited by bearded Muslims which indicate a more earnest adherence to faith, this is not the case with Sikhs. Of course despite secularists denial the contentious history between the two faiths can not be simply erased. For Hindus Islamic beard is a reminder of Ghaznis and Ghooris, a Sikh beard, on the other hand, is a reminder of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Arjun Dev.

* Justice Katju defends the observation calling himself secularists. Now other secularists will claim that it is not  "true" secularism but a perversion of the principle. They may or may not be correct but the problem is more serious. By elevating, what was in effect a matter of pragmatic compromise between competing factions of monarchy, church and emergent middle class, to high principle the secularists themselves are guilty of opening loophole for perversion.

**  Of course How to define utility function is a difficult question in itself.

Nietzsche and Nihilism

All right,  I was thinking of writing another illuminating post to lift the ignorant toiling masses,  but that can wait for a brief comment on this post which commits the error of conflating Nietzsche with nihilism. This is a common error, yet one which arises not due to confusion regarding Nietzsche's works but due to deliberate mis-characterization by a generation of philosophers of diverse schools antagonistic to his idea.

The fundamental problem is that Nietzsche was not a Nihilist, rather he warned against the collapse of society in an orgy of Nihilism.

Nietzsche is popularly known for his critique of Christianity, however while he wrote devastating polemics against Christianity, most notably The Antichrist, his main preoccupations were attacking prevailing weltanschauung  in post Enlightenment Europe which can be broadly characterized as secular and rational, and

His argument essentially was that any philosophical system having discarded belief in existence of a God (or to be more specific Christian God), can not continue to assume a moral framework, which is founded upon the premise of existence of such God. This argument is best captured in his famous proclamation, "God is dead" .

His concern, as he wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, went further than the logical flaw in secular philosophy of Kant or Hegel . He worried, correctly in my view, that, having removed  "veil of God", civilized man may end up annihilating himself out of despair of the futility of existence*. Thus his admonitions about gazing into abyss and fighting the monsters .

He realized that post-Christianity Europe robbed of its purpose in form of Christian Eschatology , must be supplied with a new purpose, a new teleology so as to speak. Nietzsche accomplished this by appropriating Schopenhauer 's "will to live" (which was influenced by Vedanta and Buddhism , as was the norm for German Romanticists looking for world-view alternative to Christianity). In this he employed "theory of natural selection" , which since its introduction had revolutionized the philosophical landscape and held promise as alternative to traditional religion. Nietzsche fused the two to propose will to power. Explored in The Gay Science , Beyond Good and Evil , and Ecce Homo, his philosophy found full expression in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There he introduced the concept of Ubermensch, which was the final goal of civilized man.

At the time he wrote the book, it didn't get many followers but by the turn of 20th century this idea gained wide currency owing to translations and reprints. This idea distorted through antisemitic literature appealed to Adolf Hitler combined this with pseudo scientific race theory to conceive of Aryan race which was to rule the world. Rest is a rather unfortunate history. One effect of this was Nietzsche became persona non Grata as far as philosophy was concerned.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to dismiss his concept of "becoming" . However his critique of secular and rational world view remains as relevant. This incidentally was my purpose for baiting earlier. Too bad it ended in non sequitur .

* This was not something unique to Nietzsche. This concern for nihilism is reflected in works of Fyodor Dostoevsky such as The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment

Where I bait

There are not "true" atheists.

Update: Rephrasing,the topic is

"There are no atheists even outside trenches"

Update 2:  Let's extend it, "If true atheists are to be found out anywhere it is inside the trenches and foxholes, not outside"

Discuss.

Time for another communal Hindu fascistic post

In Judaism, the deity is God of retribution
In Christianity, the deity is God of mortification
In Islam, the deity is God of submission

Aphorism: Rebel

Best way to vanquish a revolutionary is to declare him a Messiah.
Which is why Romans anointed Jesus as Christ.

Discuss

Hinduism is autistic.