☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Sikhi(sm) - A Presentation By Tejwant Singh Malik
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Original" data-source="post: 201724" data-attributes="member: 14400"><p>Respected gentlemen, </p><p></p><p>I copy n paste for your perusal an interesting letter, which I wrote to my daughter in December 2014. This was in response to "Arundhati's" [popular Indian fiction writer amongst the 3rd generation professionals UK] lecture at University College London [UCL]. In short, Arundhati crticised Mahatma Gandhi for condoning rather than condemning caste based society of India. I listened to the lecture and found it unsafe to warrant any crediable admission. The crux of my findings were based on "evaluation and interpretaion of information", which were inconsistent wth conventional rules. Beacuse it wasn't consistent, I refuted. Similarly, Sikh scholars far and wide will attempt to perceive facts and will then go on to communicate those facts by expressing them as opinions in a way, which can and in most cases will really and truly be invalidated. So much so, Sikhi left to individual or personal interpretation ? Yes, that will be the case if an "authortative" statute is not produced and relied upon.</p><p></p><p>In view of that, SPN has been a tremendous resource to prompt an academic based research in the distant future if not immediate. It is people like you that will in all eventuallity shape the beautiful, just and the good Sikh, universally.</p><p></p><p>The real reason for inviting you to read the letter is to give you an idea of what is expected in relation to interpretaion, evaluation, analysis and expression of Sikh tenets.</p><p></p><p>Thank you</p><p></p><p></p><p>Dear Jasmin</p><p></p><p>Thank you for sending me the link to Arundhati's lecture at UCL.</p><p></p><p>Personally speaking, it was more of an attack on Gandhi's personal life than the de-merits of the caste system in India; a writer wannabe politician eh? Given that she's a serious candidate within the literary world, it begs the question, "did she employ the appropriate disciplines of the Arts and Sciences in the determination of her critique? "I don't think she did". An objective, unbiased and impartial account of Gandhi from a sociologist’s perspective would've paved the way for analytical criticism and thus be considered sound. But as it stands high and dry, full of facts without a credible narrative it must be treated as propaganda. I'll explain and demystify the crux of my findings later, but first, something befitting, <strong>"if the lions had their own story tellers the tale of the hunt wouldn't always glorify the hunter"</strong> (African saying). </p><p></p><p>For ease of reference and clarity on the subject matter, I've divided the entire text under sub-headings: </p><p></p><p><strong>Aim</strong></p><p></p><p>The aim is to get you to chew information skilfully using listening and reflecting means. What does it mean to listen? It means acquiring information from the outside world. What does it mean to reflect? It means processing that information to make sense. Moreover, our task as moral scientists is to help people to "give birth" to the correct insight, since real understanding must come from within.</p><p></p><p>In the words of Judge Benjamin Cardozo: "Deep below consciousness are other factors, the likes and dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions, habits and convictions which make the individual what an individual really is". </p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Sociologist’s perspective</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>From a Sociologist's perspective, it's a fundamental assumption that when we are born we are confronted by a <strong>social </strong>world, which is just as real as other realities. That as a result, shapes (condition) our behaviour. What we are as individuals is decided by the particular society in which we live and by the particular social group to which we belong. This is because the world around us channels our actions, <strong>constraining</strong> us to act in particular ways. For example, if I decide to leave this room in which I'm presently seated, I can only do so by a limited number of means available to me, that is, the door or the window. I have a strictly limited choice of action, and the extent of the choice is determined for me by the constraints of my physical environment. </p><p></p><p>Similarly, social norms of behaviour considered appropriate or inappropriate in a society is determined by its system of belief and values. These beliefs and values impact the behaviour of the individual. If Gandhi’s character and actions were the result of his biological, environmental and cognitive make, to what extent can we hold him responsible for his behaviour ?</p><p></p><p>As an individual, Gandhi also had similar constraints, the choices of which were determined by factors outside of his "willful" control. He ought to have been subjected to this line of questioning before any credible conclusions were drawn.</p><p></p><p><strong>Historical perspective</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>The historian's job is not just to view historical facts as information, which simply has to be assembled to produce an objective account. For this system is inherently flawed because historians selectively choose which "facts of the past" get to become "historical facts" at their fancy or inclination. History is a story of the past and the historians are the storytellers. What information they select and reject forms the very basis of their produce.</p><p>Given that Arundhati the historian had studied the events of the past, she inadvertently gets involved in a personal standpoint from which, the object of her study (Gandhi) cannot be extricated or disentangled. And, since history is the historian’s interpretation of the past, a strong element of the subjectivesness (gut ache) operates at every level. She is driven without choice to turn to the best available explanations in the social and behavioural sciences to arrive at theories about causal mechanisms and human behaviour. Her findings depend ultimately upon factual inquiry and theoretical reasoning. </p><p></p><p>To tarnish Gandhi with the political brush of the then Congress Party and say he was that way inclined isn’t sufficient. In the absence of theoretical reasoning and plausible suppositions to support her critique, the required standard hasn't been met. </p><p></p><p><strong>Religious perspective</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Throughout history and beyond the dark recesses of humankind's earliest cultures, religion has been a vital and pervasive feature of human life. To understand human history and human life, it is necessary to understand religion. India's caste system is perhaps the world's longest surviving social hierarchy. Caste encompasses a complex social order. It is hereditary in nature and the differences in social status are traditionally justified by the religious doctrine of "karma". This is a belief that one's place in life is determined by one's deeds in previous lifetimes. Liberation from the cycle of life and death and the subsequent salvation of the soul is attained through the performance of one's "obligatory duties" within the caste into which one is born. Working in harmony the caste system ensures the equilibrium and the perpetuation of the Hindu social order.</p><p></p><p>The caste system of India is not just the bedrock of society albeit unequal, but the very foundation of Hinduism. The Bhagvad Gita (Lord's Song) dialogue between Lord Krishna and the Warrior Arjun centers on "duty ethics" and reinforces the value and importance of the caste into which Arjun is born. From this perspective, which is outdated in the present age just as slavery is, Gandhi's position no matter how volatile ought to have been subjected to careful criticism. In the absence of such careful criticism, Arundhati hasn't met the conventional standard of a well-founded Critique.</p><p></p><p><strong><u>Background</u></strong></p><p><strong><u></u></strong></p><p>At the tail end of my LLB Law degree, I did my dissertation on the Caste System of India; this particular area of my research fell within the ambit of "International Human Rights". Introduction went something like this........</p><p></p><p>An extract:</p><p></p><p><em>"In much of Asia and parts of Africa, caste is the basis for the definition and exclusion of distinct population groups by reason of their descent. Over 250 million people worldwide continue to suffer the horrific violations of their natural rights as a result of this primitive concept. This is a system of social stratification where discrimination of all kinds is justified on the basis of caste".</em></p><p></p><p>I, along with other human rights activists voiced our concerns to bring the caste issue within the ambit of <strong>Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)</strong> so as to engage the international community <strong>(UN);</strong> more so on my part, to have it ratified as a form of "racial discrimination". Indian Government batted cleverly to keep sympathisers like me at bay. I moved on, as you know with architecting ...charity to achieve the same. However, I'm pleased to learn from Arundhati that the same has now been achieved albeit fragmented.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Concluding remarks</strong></p><p></p><p>In the space of a few thousand years we have transformed the planet and created technological civilizations the likes of which has never been seen. The likes of Gandhi and Arundhati will come and go (dialectical reasoning). Humanity will evolve; other species are shaped by evolution but we map our own and, hence the reason to see both Arundhati and Gandhi through the lenses of reason and not just mere facts.</p><p></p><p>As regards her critique of the caste system, I couldn't agree more. The same read within the context of the jurisprudence of law (human rights) she hit home without a hitch, but when weighed under the sociological scanner, she failed miserably. Getting the balance right between making a memorable impact while retaining the dignified stance in a public arena can be a formidable task. She clearly didn't strike the right balance no matter how factual her case. Attack on Gandhi's character and action was unwarranted because it lacked correct interpretation. Conversely, critical analysis empowers us to better understand our everyday life scenarios, but not to the extent that we blow out the candle, which helped us, find electricity in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Although, her findings are probably correct on account of the source materials used, the interpretation and the motive with which she advanced her argument isn't watertight to warrant any credible admission. Her omission, particularly of evolutionary and sociological evidence interpreted in a historical context makes her case very weak; especially, within the meaning of the scientific method. That is to say, she fell prey to confirmation bias rather than an objective account of<strong> "why the caste is and how Gandhi was a mere product?"</strong> Confirmation bias is the mind's tendency to pick and choose information to support the case at hand, while ignoring a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Classic example is the criticism of Gandhi for defending the caste system. </p><p></p><p><strong>Opinion</strong></p><p></p><p>In my humble opinion, what she failed to home in on was that Gandhi couldn't even if he wanted to, condemn the caste system due to its evolutionary conditioning on the human genome. In other words, culturally, genetically and environmentally Gandhi was the product of the conditions prevalent at that particular period in time. Even to his better judgment, shunning the caste system to align his moral compass on the day would've conflicted with his mission to free India from British Raj. Given the circumstances and the task at hand it is reasonable to infer from the two evils that prioritising political initiatives over social stratification was a necessity no matter how crude his stance. An important observation on her part would've been, to recognise the caste system from a "religious perspective" and not just social.</p><p>The central theme of Bhagvad Gita (Holy book of the Hindus) is "caste" - Lord Krishna enlightens warrior Arjun on the merits of one's duty over one's inclinations and encourages him to fight the battle of righteousness</p><p>(Dharma). How could Gandhi have denounced Hinduism in this critical hour when his personal dilemma was the same as Arjun - Dharam (free India)? What she ought to have done, is gone beyond the scene to unearth the mechanisms inherent in Gandhi's society to explain his behaviour relative to that of the Hindu society as a whole. Metaphorically speaking, the knife is a useful tool with many functions; it can also be abused. Does that mean it shouldn't have gone past the conceptual stage of invention ? The pursuit of human life, as in Gandhi's case, albeit flawed by selfish genes (Hindu Brahmin, priests and advisers to the ruling dynasty) cannot be held accountable for the entire social inequalities within the Indian system, can it ? Just as the untouchables are conditioned over time to accept their inferior status so were the ruling castes conditioned to accept theirs as part of the natural order of things ordained by God. Fulfilling one’s duty as codified by Hindu Dharma is seen as an overriding objective. And, since duty ethics are embroiled within the dictates of Hindu faith, reason and knowledge cannot be employed to determine the right and wrong of Gandhi’s actions.</p><p></p><p><strong>Recommendations</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Arundhati should stick to fiction and let the Dalit (untouchables) representatives take care of the judicial and the social stratification of the Indian system. By all means she could sway public opinion to her best endeavours.</p><p></p><p><strong>Personal statement</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>When you told me that Amber, Kabir and Sonia are there as well, I was immediately drawn to my writing pad. And, since the minds of the young are very impressionable and fertile, something must be said in a constructive prose so as to provide a platform from which they can best draw their own conclusions. Hope they'll be able digest - kept it pretty informal.</p><p></p><p>For you my dearest, I’ll leave you with<strong>, “I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, not to hate them, but to understand them” - </strong>B Spinoza</p><p></p><p>Thank you for taking the time to read.</p><p></p><p>Your dearest</p><p>Father</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Original, post: 201724, member: 14400"] Respected gentlemen, I copy n paste for your perusal an interesting letter, which I wrote to my daughter in December 2014. This was in response to "Arundhati's" [popular Indian fiction writer amongst the 3rd generation professionals UK] lecture at University College London [UCL]. In short, Arundhati crticised Mahatma Gandhi for condoning rather than condemning caste based society of India. I listened to the lecture and found it unsafe to warrant any crediable admission. The crux of my findings were based on "evaluation and interpretaion of information", which were inconsistent wth conventional rules. Beacuse it wasn't consistent, I refuted. Similarly, Sikh scholars far and wide will attempt to perceive facts and will then go on to communicate those facts by expressing them as opinions in a way, which can and in most cases will really and truly be invalidated. So much so, Sikhi left to individual or personal interpretation ? Yes, that will be the case if an "authortative" statute is not produced and relied upon. In view of that, SPN has been a tremendous resource to prompt an academic based research in the distant future if not immediate. It is people like you that will in all eventuallity shape the beautiful, just and the good Sikh, universally. The real reason for inviting you to read the letter is to give you an idea of what is expected in relation to interpretaion, evaluation, analysis and expression of Sikh tenets. Thank you Dear Jasmin Thank you for sending me the link to Arundhati's lecture at UCL. Personally speaking, it was more of an attack on Gandhi's personal life than the de-merits of the caste system in India; a writer wannabe politician eh? Given that she's a serious candidate within the literary world, it begs the question, "did she employ the appropriate disciplines of the Arts and Sciences in the determination of her critique? "I don't think she did". An objective, unbiased and impartial account of Gandhi from a sociologist’s perspective would've paved the way for analytical criticism and thus be considered sound. But as it stands high and dry, full of facts without a credible narrative it must be treated as propaganda. I'll explain and demystify the crux of my findings later, but first, something befitting, [B]"if the lions had their own story tellers the tale of the hunt wouldn't always glorify the hunter"[/B] (African saying). For ease of reference and clarity on the subject matter, I've divided the entire text under sub-headings: [B]Aim[/B] The aim is to get you to chew information skilfully using listening and reflecting means. What does it mean to listen? It means acquiring information from the outside world. What does it mean to reflect? It means processing that information to make sense. Moreover, our task as moral scientists is to help people to "give birth" to the correct insight, since real understanding must come from within. In the words of Judge Benjamin Cardozo: "Deep below consciousness are other factors, the likes and dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions, habits and convictions which make the individual what an individual really is". [B] Sociologist’s perspective [/B] From a Sociologist's perspective, it's a fundamental assumption that when we are born we are confronted by a [B]social [/B]world, which is just as real as other realities. That as a result, shapes (condition) our behaviour. What we are as individuals is decided by the particular society in which we live and by the particular social group to which we belong. This is because the world around us channels our actions, [B]constraining[/B] us to act in particular ways. For example, if I decide to leave this room in which I'm presently seated, I can only do so by a limited number of means available to me, that is, the door or the window. I have a strictly limited choice of action, and the extent of the choice is determined for me by the constraints of my physical environment. Similarly, social norms of behaviour considered appropriate or inappropriate in a society is determined by its system of belief and values. These beliefs and values impact the behaviour of the individual. If Gandhi’s character and actions were the result of his biological, environmental and cognitive make, to what extent can we hold him responsible for his behaviour ? As an individual, Gandhi also had similar constraints, the choices of which were determined by factors outside of his "willful" control. He ought to have been subjected to this line of questioning before any credible conclusions were drawn. [B]Historical perspective [/B] The historian's job is not just to view historical facts as information, which simply has to be assembled to produce an objective account. For this system is inherently flawed because historians selectively choose which "facts of the past" get to become "historical facts" at their fancy or inclination. History is a story of the past and the historians are the storytellers. What information they select and reject forms the very basis of their produce. Given that Arundhati the historian had studied the events of the past, she inadvertently gets involved in a personal standpoint from which, the object of her study (Gandhi) cannot be extricated or disentangled. And, since history is the historian’s interpretation of the past, a strong element of the subjectivesness (gut ache) operates at every level. She is driven without choice to turn to the best available explanations in the social and behavioural sciences to arrive at theories about causal mechanisms and human behaviour. Her findings depend ultimately upon factual inquiry and theoretical reasoning. To tarnish Gandhi with the political brush of the then Congress Party and say he was that way inclined isn’t sufficient. In the absence of theoretical reasoning and plausible suppositions to support her critique, the required standard hasn't been met. [B]Religious perspective [/B] Throughout history and beyond the dark recesses of humankind's earliest cultures, religion has been a vital and pervasive feature of human life. To understand human history and human life, it is necessary to understand religion. India's caste system is perhaps the world's longest surviving social hierarchy. Caste encompasses a complex social order. It is hereditary in nature and the differences in social status are traditionally justified by the religious doctrine of "karma". This is a belief that one's place in life is determined by one's deeds in previous lifetimes. Liberation from the cycle of life and death and the subsequent salvation of the soul is attained through the performance of one's "obligatory duties" within the caste into which one is born. Working in harmony the caste system ensures the equilibrium and the perpetuation of the Hindu social order. The caste system of India is not just the bedrock of society albeit unequal, but the very foundation of Hinduism. The Bhagvad Gita (Lord's Song) dialogue between Lord Krishna and the Warrior Arjun centers on "duty ethics" and reinforces the value and importance of the caste into which Arjun is born. From this perspective, which is outdated in the present age just as slavery is, Gandhi's position no matter how volatile ought to have been subjected to careful criticism. In the absence of such careful criticism, Arundhati hasn't met the conventional standard of a well-founded Critique. [B][U]Background [/U][/B] At the tail end of my LLB Law degree, I did my dissertation on the Caste System of India; this particular area of my research fell within the ambit of "International Human Rights". Introduction went something like this........ An extract: [I]"In much of Asia and parts of Africa, caste is the basis for the definition and exclusion of distinct population groups by reason of their descent. Over 250 million people worldwide continue to suffer the horrific violations of their natural rights as a result of this primitive concept. This is a system of social stratification where discrimination of all kinds is justified on the basis of caste".[/I] I, along with other human rights activists voiced our concerns to bring the caste issue within the ambit of [B]Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[/B] so as to engage the international community [B](UN);[/B] more so on my part, to have it ratified as a form of "racial discrimination". Indian Government batted cleverly to keep sympathisers like me at bay. I moved on, as you know with architecting ...charity to achieve the same. However, I'm pleased to learn from Arundhati that the same has now been achieved albeit fragmented. [B] Concluding remarks[/B] In the space of a few thousand years we have transformed the planet and created technological civilizations the likes of which has never been seen. The likes of Gandhi and Arundhati will come and go (dialectical reasoning). Humanity will evolve; other species are shaped by evolution but we map our own and, hence the reason to see both Arundhati and Gandhi through the lenses of reason and not just mere facts. As regards her critique of the caste system, I couldn't agree more. The same read within the context of the jurisprudence of law (human rights) she hit home without a hitch, but when weighed under the sociological scanner, she failed miserably. Getting the balance right between making a memorable impact while retaining the dignified stance in a public arena can be a formidable task. She clearly didn't strike the right balance no matter how factual her case. Attack on Gandhi's character and action was unwarranted because it lacked correct interpretation. Conversely, critical analysis empowers us to better understand our everyday life scenarios, but not to the extent that we blow out the candle, which helped us, find electricity in the first place. Although, her findings are probably correct on account of the source materials used, the interpretation and the motive with which she advanced her argument isn't watertight to warrant any credible admission. Her omission, particularly of evolutionary and sociological evidence interpreted in a historical context makes her case very weak; especially, within the meaning of the scientific method. That is to say, she fell prey to confirmation bias rather than an objective account of[B] "why the caste is and how Gandhi was a mere product?"[/B] Confirmation bias is the mind's tendency to pick and choose information to support the case at hand, while ignoring a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Classic example is the criticism of Gandhi for defending the caste system. [B]Opinion[/B] In my humble opinion, what she failed to home in on was that Gandhi couldn't even if he wanted to, condemn the caste system due to its evolutionary conditioning on the human genome. In other words, culturally, genetically and environmentally Gandhi was the product of the conditions prevalent at that particular period in time. Even to his better judgment, shunning the caste system to align his moral compass on the day would've conflicted with his mission to free India from British Raj. Given the circumstances and the task at hand it is reasonable to infer from the two evils that prioritising political initiatives over social stratification was a necessity no matter how crude his stance. An important observation on her part would've been, to recognise the caste system from a "religious perspective" and not just social. The central theme of Bhagvad Gita (Holy book of the Hindus) is "caste" - Lord Krishna enlightens warrior Arjun on the merits of one's duty over one's inclinations and encourages him to fight the battle of righteousness (Dharma). How could Gandhi have denounced Hinduism in this critical hour when his personal dilemma was the same as Arjun - Dharam (free India)? What she ought to have done, is gone beyond the scene to unearth the mechanisms inherent in Gandhi's society to explain his behaviour relative to that of the Hindu society as a whole. Metaphorically speaking, the knife is a useful tool with many functions; it can also be abused. Does that mean it shouldn't have gone past the conceptual stage of invention ? The pursuit of human life, as in Gandhi's case, albeit flawed by selfish genes (Hindu Brahmin, priests and advisers to the ruling dynasty) cannot be held accountable for the entire social inequalities within the Indian system, can it ? Just as the untouchables are conditioned over time to accept their inferior status so were the ruling castes conditioned to accept theirs as part of the natural order of things ordained by God. Fulfilling one’s duty as codified by Hindu Dharma is seen as an overriding objective. And, since duty ethics are embroiled within the dictates of Hindu faith, reason and knowledge cannot be employed to determine the right and wrong of Gandhi’s actions. [B]Recommendations [/B] Arundhati should stick to fiction and let the Dalit (untouchables) representatives take care of the judicial and the social stratification of the Indian system. By all means she could sway public opinion to her best endeavours. [B]Personal statement [/B] When you told me that Amber, Kabir and Sonia are there as well, I was immediately drawn to my writing pad. And, since the minds of the young are very impressionable and fertile, something must be said in a constructive prose so as to provide a platform from which they can best draw their own conclusions. Hope they'll be able digest - kept it pretty informal. For you my dearest, I’ll leave you with[B], “I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, not to hate them, but to understand them” - [/B]B Spinoza Thank you for taking the time to read. Your dearest Father [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Sikhi(sm) - A Presentation By Tejwant Singh Malik
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top