Papers by Dr. Girishkumar T S
Discussions about the Yazidis are much of a recent phenomenon, especially with the atrocities inf... more Discussions about the Yazidis are much of a recent phenomenon, especially with the atrocities inflicted upon this group of people who mostly live in some areas of Iraq, with the ISIS militants grooming themselves into world news. What is discussed at present is mostly about the kinds of human rights violation being forcefully inflicted upon these people, their miseries and illustrations of pleas, requesting the America to bomb their houses to kill: that they prefer death to the rapes and getting themselves sold for ten dollars to any one as sex slaves by the ISIS militants. For me, most details of the atrocities done on the Yazidis reaches from my Israeli friends, who keeps giving a lot of materials, lot of real heartbreaking illustrations through video and other write ups. Israel also had send many rescue, cum relief missions to the Yazidis who distributed medicines and other essential materials to them amidst the ISIS threat. Sometime before, our Shri Shri Ravisankar also had made a daring attempt to go to Iraq to help out the Yazidis, but I do not think that the 'paid' media did give any news upon it.
Bharat has distinct and thorough approach to most aspects of knowledge tradition. For example, we... more Bharat has distinct and thorough approach to most aspects of knowledge tradition. For example, we know of the dichotomy of a vegetarian and non-vegetarian dilemma, and how many of us realise that Bharat has just nothing to do with this dilemma? Europeans made such distinctions, and not us. For Bharat, the philosophy of Sankhya speaks it all. Bharat had classified food into categories as per the 'guna' concept, as Satvika, Rajasvika and Tamasika. Acharyas had identified types of food those generate different qualities or gunas to human mind and psyche. That is where some vegetables become non vegetarian for us. Here, the distinctions are so subtle, and based on complete understanding of phenomena, whatever. On the other hand, the European friends think that vegetarianism is connected to not taking lives of other living beings!! Many gods and goddesses in Hindu Dharma The Europeans categorise religion as monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, naturalistic etc. obviously, these classifications are not really based on proper knowing or understanding of religions other than what is familiar to them. They make a frame, and try to see everything through such frames, giving the decent name of 'perspective' at the best. Later the communists over did the same thing, they also carry heavy frames and reduce whatever phenomena into their available frames, actually reducing anything into such frames. When communists kept playing such havoc, the non-communists started understanding communism and communists and they came up with the criticism calling the communist phenomena as 'reductionistic'. Precisely, Europeans, through one such reductionism, arbitrarily called Hindu Dharma polytheistic. On the face of it, there are many gods and goddesses, and they equated the god in Hindu Dharma with the God available to them. There is hardly anyone among them who understood the concept of Monism in Hindu Dharma and called Hindus as 'Monistic'. It may be the case that still in many places they keep teaching that Hindus are polytheistic. In fact, there is no theism at all with any of Bharatiya Dharma; Hindus discuss a reality; just one and only unnameable indivisible reality through the Upanishads. The small 'g' for Hindus and capital 'G' for Semitic is very significant. And for the Hindus, these gods and goddesses are deities; very meticulously programmed deities, with explicit and well thought out purposes. As usual, the immense wisdom behind these is not only amazing, but also inconceivable for people like us. Saraswati and Lakshmi Saraswati is the goddess of letters, knowledge and education. In our prayers to goddess Saraswati we aspire for wisdom, we aspire for ego-lessness and the ability etc. for knowledge. Bharatiya education bases itself on goddess Saraswati and all auspicious things get associated automatically and naturally. Anything with Dharma in Bharat has only just one ultimate goal and that is Moksha itself. Education is
In our present education system, especially in the schools, text books play a vital role. The usu... more In our present education system, especially in the schools, text books play a vital role. The usual pattern of both teaching and learning shall amount to making the student understand the given text. The teachers often completely trust text books, and they hardly think in lines of critically viewing a given textbook, and this kind of conformism is a positive one too, in a way. Critical Theories Marx and his dreamy theories did not make any impact in the world. But Marxism has this mechanism of emotionally sensitising unstable minds into fantasies untold. That is where dreamers and romantic minds fall pray for Marxism in their younger days. Needless to say that Marx himself was a victim to his own emotional instabilities. On a simple survey one can find in which age group people get attracted to Marx on the one hand, and on the other hand what happens to those young Marxists once they cross a given age stage. One hardly finds young communists continuing to be communists after 'maturity'. It is normal, that people cease to be communists once they get their eyes opened. Thus a rejection of communism and the theories of Marx were natural by the world. Nonetheless, there would still be a few who fail to attain 'maturity' and continue in the dream world of lotus eaters, to continue as communists with Marx, albeit their own 'comrades' rejecting them once they attain 'maturity'. People stop taking them serious, and start ignoring them. Perhaps at this juncture is what people like Fromm, etc. went about strengthening Marxism in the town of Frankfurt in Germany. Jürgen Habermas belong to their second generation critical theorists, and the phenomena of disguised communism as critical theory still goes on in places where there is fetishisms with intellectualism. When the Nazis threw our 'intellectuals' (actually emotional and spiritual illiterates) out of Germany, they went to the US of America and established a 'Frankfurt' school there for re-establishing Marxism with the quasi disguised name 'Critical' theory to their all emotional Marxism. The Italian Antonio Gramsci also called Marxism as the 'Philosophy of Praxis' in his love and affection to communism. Withal these, there remained only some EQ and SQ sans people all over the world to remain confined to communism or Marx. But these critical theorists went after Dostoyevsky to practice 'poverty is no crime' and lived through it just reading and writing. And they read as well as wrote, and published like mad. Most people who fetishised intellectualism fell upon this fold, and many could creep into the academia in relatively easy terms. And this made academia their world in many places like a virus. Media belonged to them, publishers belonged to them and many teachers belonged to them. When poverty is no crime and when poverty is getting celebrated, they had 'nothing to lose but their chains through VI Lenin. Critical theories are predominantly negative. This negativity also comes from Marxian theories.
The ancient nation of India that is Bharat, whose civilisation and culture simply dates back to t... more The ancient nation of India that is Bharat, whose civilisation and culture simply dates back to the glorious days of the river Saraswati had taken many severe blows in time, but had amazingly survived. As a matter of fact, there may be nothing unusual in this survival of Bharat and her culture, since etymologically what is called 'Sanatana' is permanent, and the ongoing existence of Bharat and her great heritage can be seen as a natural phenomenon only. Our history has a large chapter of invasions, invasions beginning right from the BCE, with Alexander, son of Philip of Macedonia. Then came a series of invasions from the Muslims, beginning with Muhammad Qasim, and followed by many till the Mughals. Further came the Europeans, and their colonial rule which lasted through modern times. And there were many attempts to throw out the alien yoke, to breathe free air, and make free space, both in ancient times as well in modern times. The first ever freedom fighter is Vishnu Gupta, son of Chanaka, who is popularly known as Chanakya, who was a Professor of Economics and Politics in the University of Takshasila. Then there were many, like, especially, the Rani of Jhansi and the great Shivaji Maharaj. Still, such attempts were often individualistic, and not collective, mass, common movement throughout Bharat. During the British colonial rule, a soldier named Mangal Pandey began the struggle of 1857 for the independence of Bharat. Since it all began with a common soldier, the colonial rulers named it the soldier's mutiny and people repeated what the British christened. It was Swatantra Vir Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who changed the British name, as he called it the first struggle of independence. The book he wrote was promptly banned, as expected of the alien rule. Vir Savarkar had to suffer much, he was imprisoned in the 'unicellular jail' which was specially constructed by the English in the islands of Andaman, some 1800 kilometres into deep sea from any point in India, for artful torture. Savarkar was in prison for ten years, which destroyed his health, but certainly not his spirits. Interestingly, people who went from outside lived relatively less longer life, which is evident from the Cemetery of Ross Island, a lesser island where the British tried to reproduced England. I haven't seen any epitaph where some lived beyond 40 years, suggesting that the Brits who lived there died an early death, for reasons obvious. Naturally, Savarkar who was a prisoner suffered much, and was about to die there. People from mainstream Bharat kept urging Savarkar to get release; since the British offered freedom to him should he writes an apology letter. People insisted that a living Savarkar is what they want, and not the memories of a dead Savarkar. Finally, Savarkar wrote the apology, and he was released from the cellular jail.
Much has been reflected, written and spoken about the questions concerning Ekatmakata. It had bec... more Much has been reflected, written and spoken about the questions concerning Ekatmakata. It had become almost trivial discussing the topic, with the amount of such discussions already in existence. This creates some apprehensions in me, whether or not to venture into such discussions, especially when there is a strong possibility of creating more confusion to some already existing. Some such similar phenomena happened in Pakistani society after 1947, they were trying to juxtapose Bharat's poet Tagore through Mohammad Iqbal. Some interesting data tell us that if one ventures to make a list of books published on Iqbal, it shall come to some thousand five hundred plus pages. An Iqbal industry started in Pakistan, and a phrase 'Iqbaliyat' came to stay, which had become an unchallenged reality with the Pakistani society now. So many people saying so many things about Iqbal, and each one quoting one another had drifted most of them, the vast majority of them far from some truth, reality etc. if anything remaining. After seeing this, an apprehension naturally arises, about anything at all, what one may venture writing into. Nonetheless, let me also think into the question concerned, hopefully not making duplications and complications. Let me try to think in terms of epistemology, epistemology here implying knowing knowledge. We understand the world around, and how? Further, how do we look at the world around us? Knowing fully well that the nature of nature is multiplicity and plurality, the only question to be discussed becomes the perspective. For we know that each aspect of nature is unique, each blade of grass is unique, and there shall be nothing like this, of past, present and future. The crucial point shall be, as to, how do we understand the relations between one and two? Let us think that each aspect of nature as particular specificities, and how is one specificity related to another specificity? When we view one specificity as different from the other, the question shall arise, what is difference and how different they are? I call this as the 'epistemology of difference'. When one sees each specificity as different from one another, the relations there in, could amount to one that of contradiction, and contradiction easily shall be entering into a relation of conflict. European speculative philosophy has this specific problem about specificity, the epistemology of difference. They are unable to find relations, and connection between one specificity to another, I mean relation of any substantial level. From this arise theories such as 'social contract' to Marxism, where Marxism is a theory based on the concept of contradiction. And it is this epistemology of difference that gave rise to many other phenomena also. Take for instance, the Semitic theology itself. Semitic theology normally suggests that mine is the only 'true' God and all others are untrue; which leads one to the position of I am right and you are wrong. This had caused much killings in the history of man, there were the famous thirty years of war, crusades, battle between nations and all in the name of religion, though most of them were supposed to be addressing same or similar God. Today it had become what is dearly known as Jihad.
Perhaps one the most elusive, undetermined, confusing and heterogeneous shall be the concept of w... more Perhaps one the most elusive, undetermined, confusing and heterogeneous shall be the concept of what is called as 'Modernity', through it had become a matter of practice for many people to use it much loosely. To a concept of modernity, the space and time context is of utmost significance; albeit it all had to begin with the typical European context for any understanding, the archetype medieval European so called dark period, and the repercussions of papacy, the protest from the Dominican Monk Martin Luther, the protestant movement (some wish to call it as protestant revolution), the thirty years of war, the coming of science juxtaposed to religion, though the term religion in this context strictly stands for papacy and not even Catholic Church. To make an attempt to speak of an idea of modernity in a nutshell, one may venture to say, that modernity shall amount to some kind of shift from something unwantedly old. The old, here is persisting and static; but at the same time there is no immediate escape from it. For Europe, Papacy had suppressed all efforts to any knowing other than what is permitted and permitted also for the clergy alone. The term religion is commonly used to stand for papacy, for the simple reason that what used to be available to them in the guise of religion was papacy alone. Science emerged in Europe as a liberating phenomenon from the suppressing religious phenomenon, and science was supported by reason, experience (experience as the empiricists understands, not as the seers of Upanishads understand) and demonstrability. It at once gave the impression that the autochthones of religion, custodians of religion etc. can no more take common people for a ride, and hence things remains safe in the hands of science. No wonder that subsequently, but the time Europe reached the 19 th century, we see euphoria of science, and people hopeful of science replacing God and religion. Naturally, we come across theories like positivism, ambitious efforts like social physics, verifiability principle, Vienna circle and logical positivism, and at the same time supported by materialism, Marxism, existentialism, phenomenology and even hermeneutics. For Europe, and their thinking streams had more or less the same direction, which generally remained diverged from religion and theology. (I am not too confident to use the terminology 'theology' as it is my strong feeling that 'theology' was the mediaeval hapless philosophers philosophy, as they had to concern themselves with religion alone). These had gone into structuralism and post-modernism, only to add few more terminologies. The European intellectual exercises went on and on, and the philosophy went back thousand plus years to Greece to find a beginning, began primarily with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, went through Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz, used sense – object – contact experience as the only source to knowledge as in Locke Berkley and Hume, experience through reason as in Kant and others, and then, something of an intuitionism of Bergson also.
Science and technology had made great progress, particularly so with the European nations. The in... more Science and technology had made great progress, particularly so with the European nations. The invention of a steam engine, the making of a wheel turn with the help of steam engine had made the beginning of man's march towards technology through a method of sense-object-contact-experience, what is otherwise known as a method of cognition, cognitivity and empirical method of knowing. Science and technology had invented many instruments; those furthered the abilities of sense organs and enabled man to go into areas hitherto unknown to senses, or impossible to comprehend, given limitations of sense organs. The limitations of sense organs that made it impossible to go beyond a point in knowing are the point that has to be thought of as a first step before any details. With the advent of science and technology, it became possible for science to create instruments of many kinds, and these instruments were created to go beyond the limits of human sense organs. It is with the help of these scientific instruments that human knowledge made huge leaps into the unknown, and made so much of unknown, known. This process shall be for ever, and ongoing, there shall be new unknown, and to know that new unknown, there may be the need of a new instrument through which it may be possible for us to know the unknown. Thus, scientific instruments are those which enhanced the abilities of human sense organs to venture ahead into knowing empirically through a process of cognitivity. But then, is that all in knowing? Is knowledge confined to this instrumentality of science and technology which enhances the abilities of human sense organs to a better and clearer cognitivity? Is it really the case that knowledge can be confined to cognitive and empirical understandings of things? It shall be impossible for any Bharatiya to say yes to these questions. Our Acharyas had already instructed us that there are things 'beyond' the mundane and about which we have no doubts at all.
When the Nation is celebrating yet another Republic day, there are few things those should come t... more When the Nation is celebrating yet another Republic day, there are few things those should come to our minds. True that we had not been independent for not so long a time, but the time that had lapsed is also not too short. Certain things had been done, but for a Nationalist, things could have been done much more, and in much better and fruitful manner during these years those had gone by. One area where we had failed considerably is the area of Education in general and Higher Education in particular, during these long ears of independence. The need of Indo Centric Education The real strength of any nation shall come from within only. This means the togetherness of the citizens of the given Nation States. For Nations in Europe, their solidarity is often on the basis of the languages they speak, as it is in the cases of Germany, France and the like. In some other cases, it becomes Religion. But for a Nation like Bharat, this is all different; Bharat had been one neither through language, nor through faith systems, but through Sanskara. Political unity was certainly not the unity of Bharat; it had always been cultural unity. That is the reason that some short sighted British made the claim that it is they who united this Nation, and they simply thought that Bharat will fall apart once they leave this Nation. Another real reason for their confusion is the Epistemology of this land, to which I shall return shortly. Thus, Education ought to be Education of Bharatiya Sanskrti also, apart from other formal teaching and learning. Hence the need of Indo Centric Education for the unity and strength of Bharat. The unique Epistemology Bharat has a distinct and unique Epistemology if its own right from time immemorial. This can easily be understood through the concepts of plurality and multiplicity and how we look at them, as well as how others look at them. Both plurality and multiplicity are the nature of nature: each blade of grass in this
Last week, I happened to visit the Vedic site of Dholavira in Kutch along with some friends who c... more Last week, I happened to visit the Vedic site of Dholavira in Kutch along with some friends who came from some other university. The site, just one among some 3700 in three stages (as suggested by Michel Danino in his book 'The Lost River, on the trail of the Saraswati') is indeed ancient, and how ancient, it is really difficult to say. The European chronologists suggested some time frame, which is by and large now rejected. KD Sethna, in his book 'Ancient India in a New Light' tries to show how the European chronologists are sadly mistaken about the chronology of Bharatiya events and history, and in fact, the civilisation and history of Bharat is much older than what they suggest. Archaeologists are still under scientific spell, they do not go about saying anything without cognitive evidence, and though their logic may say one thing, they are unable to spell it out. They do keep insisting on evidences, or they prefer to keep silence. Philosophers are the only free ones here; they go by common and higher logic, when or where they can. The logic of Saraswati site can run as follows; (as a matter of fact the archaeologists are still not prepared to call Vedic sites as Saraswati sites, they finally settle with the name 'Harappan' site, since Harappa was the first discovered site among them. Prior to this name of Harappan, the Europeans mistakenly named it as Indus sites and the civilisation Indus valley. However, they now call it as Harappan, albeit people still keep talking about Indus Civilisation) Rigveda is the first ever written text of mankind, and there shall be no dispute to this statement. Rigveda speaks much about the river Saraswati as the mighty flowing, very powerful very wide etc. At the same time, Rigveda very rarely mention the river Sindhu, and also as not very important one, though one of its tributary used to be a main feeder river to Saraswati. Now the philosopher's logic is this; Rigveda was composed during a time when the river Saraswati was flowing full swing. From here it may be rather easy to make a conjecture, we know that the river Saraswati dried up, and it is possible for us to visualise how long ago did this phenomenon happened. Form this, one can say that the peak time of Saraswati was the time of the Vedas, how many thousand years old, is left to imagination for the time being. But it certainly is not just before three or five thousand years ago. Michel Danino says that the 3700 Vedic sites were spread over 88,000 square kilometres, to the north up to the river Sindhu, to the south up to the river Tapi, to the east up to the river Ganga and to the west, up to Kutch. He also says that 60% of the sites are in today's Gujarat alone. It is amazing that all these sites had so many things in common; they had similar sized bricks, similar weight and measures etc. and all these suggesting that they were one people, and one civilisation. At Dholavira I saw amazing water management for drinking as well as sewage. They were filtering water through underground stone cut wells, seventeen of them were excavated. They also used to recycle sewage for other uses through recycling system. The citadel, the north gate, the cremation ground, and everything just leaves anyone simply spell bound. Indeed, our ancestors were very knowledgeable people.
Bharat never had any dearth of scholars, visionaries and divine personalities. Education used to ... more Bharat never had any dearth of scholars, visionaries and divine personalities. Education used to be one aspect, where most had put in their thoughts as well as aspirations. It had become practically impossible to say anything either new or different from things already discussed by the ancestors, and to this end, I was trying hard to select one of our ancestors from the many, to find guidance, while I sit and reflect in this area. They are all complete in themselves, and formidable. Allotting priorities becomes a trivial task and one should not even attempt that.
Bharat always used to be a huge cultural unit with many languages, many geographical distinctions... more Bharat always used to be a huge cultural unit with many languages, many geographical distinctions, and many dresses – food variations: all ever co-existing as a single unit, which had created epistemological confusions to most Europeans. They ever failed to understand how this is just one unit, since they ever failed to comprehend the principle uniting the huge area of land, as the Sanatana Culture. Hence in Bharat, there was always the need of a language, a common lingua franca for all practical and functional reasons. To this end, it is amazing that how our ancestors created a language of refinement, a refined language, Sanskrit, with such perfect grammar and syntax. Importantly, the language of Sanskrit was not a simple lingua franca or functional language alone; it was a language that was so designed to carry knowledge with least energy loss, and maximum knowledge with minimum words. As a matter of fact, what had been normal functional existence for Bharatiyas of the old used to be essentially knowledge existence; and knowledge existence of varying levels depending on the requirement and function of a given iindividual. This is because of the fact that the Bharatiya tradition is essentially as well as inescapably a knowledge tradition based on the Vedopanishadic system of knowing. The very Hindu Dharma is also an after effect of this knowledge tradition only. The point is; Bharat always needed and used a common lingua franca for communicating as well as teaching and learning. There were multiple reasons for the 'going out' of Sanskrit as a common lingua franca from mainstream Bharat. One of the reasons is nothing other than the decadence of Vedic Varnashrama Dharma into rigid caste system. The second important reason is the coming of Buddha and the Shramanas, though they themselves reverted to Sanskrit after some time. Then comes the period of invasions and alien rule over Bharat that lasted for nearly thousand years. During the second part of the alien rule, which was the British rule, people like McCauley wilfully made a policy for Education in the language of English with his own nefarious purpose. Thus we see English effectively taking the place of a lingua franca in place of Sanskrit, and our teaching and learning started off in English language. Today we are aware of the fact that how McCauley and Max Muller jointly tried to subjugate Bharatiya minds, trying to create a mental subjugation to the British and we have evidences to these through the published letters of both McCauley and Max Muller. Finally, English replaced Sanskrit in British Bharat as the lingua franca. Today, we are into the sixty eighth year of supposed 'Swaraj'. Political rule so far had been mostly following and copying both British and others of Europe; but then, today we are very positively hopeful of Bharat becoming really free and into complete Swaraj. How to look at the requirement of a common lingua franca in today's context is the important question here; and how to deal with some situations. Primarily, we are conscious that English as a language has international standing, and it had been of serious advantage to our people interacting internationally. This we should address; but at the same
It was indeed disappointing that Nepal had not become a Hindu Rashtra constitutionally. Perhaps t... more It was indeed disappointing that Nepal had not become a Hindu Rashtra constitutionally. Perhaps this can have some real in-depth reasons, and let us try and look into what those could be. To this end, let us try to unpack what is Hindu, Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. What is it to say, Hindu? Let me try to be brief on this rather intricate question. It had been established beyond any iota of doubt that the Vedas and the Upanishads are knowledge texts. These knowledge texts gave rise to a Sanskriti or culture, and a transcendental expression from this culture based on the Vedopanishadic knowledge tradition got expressed as Dharma, the Vedic Dharma. Subsequently, through invasions of history, the Vedic Dharma got to be called and known as the Hindu Dharma. In all reasoning, it is wrong to equate the Hindu Dharma as religion, as the term religion is used and understood popularly. The very concept of religion is essentially non-Vedic, it is rather Semitic. The ingredients those constitute a concept of religion in the Semitic sense of the term have majority commonalities, but none of those commonalities can be subscribed to the Vedic Dharma. The details to this shall be exasperatingly exhaustive, and I should thus stop going beyond this point here. Hence it becomes a mistake to call Dharma Religion: the world has set notions concerning religion, and when it gets extended to Dharma, it shall be a mistake, a mistake like the 'category mistake' as Gilbert Ryle speaks of in his book, the concept of mind. In short, Hindu Dharma has to be seen and known through concepts and categories essentially non-Semitic and concepts and categories pertaining to the Hindu Dharma only. Hindu Rashtra To think in terms of Hindu Rashtra creates a contradiction at once; because the name Hindu Rashtra connotes 'theocratic state' to European patterns of thinking and doing. We all understand what a theocratic state shall be, as seen through history. But when we understand the Vedic Dharma, it shall also become clear that any nation that is based on the Vedopanishadic knowledge tradition is bound to be an essential welfare state, provided the state shall effectively impart the knowledge tradition to all people. This process is going to take much time, and until awareness of Hindu Dharma is made common and popular, there shall not be voluntariness from many people opting for Hindu Rashtra. When this awareness is created, it should be natural for most people who adopt themselves to Vedic Dharma to also adapt to a political Hindu Rashtra. Some glimpses of an archetype Hindu Rashtra
When I was a young teacher of Philosophy in the North East India, for the first time I heard the ... more When I was a young teacher of Philosophy in the North East India, for the first time I heard the slogan, " Garv Se Keho Ham Hindu Hai ". The North East of Bharat is infected with Christian Missionary activities, and due to the ignorance of our former government, the missionaries succeeded in converting a large mass of people of North East into Christianity, and some elements had even injected anti Bharat thoughts in some sections of the people as well. In this background, the slogan Garv se kaho ham Hindu hai had become very attractive to me and I thought, yes, the Hindus should of proud in being Hindus. When it is the question of pride, the pride should be a genuine pride, and certainly not a spurious pride. One can be proud of things, and until one has authentic ground to be proud of something, then such pride shall be meaningless and empty. Thus began my thoughts towards what is the source or what are the sources of Hindu pride, and the personality that struck me then was Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda explicitly called the society to rise and awake from colonial slave mentality and the slogan he used was a mantra from Kathopanishad, and he called the people to rise and awake: saying " Uttishtata Jagrata Prapyavarannibodhata ". In Kathopanishad, this is the saying of Yamadharma to Natchiketa in a different context, but the Swamiji used it so effectively to the youth, it caught the minds of the people like wild fire. Indeed the Hindu during the British time was shy of being Hindu, he was taught by the British that Christianity is right and Hindu Dharma is obsolete and stupid. Children in schools were ashamed of being Hindu, as Christians were posing as cultured, advanced and modern. The British found so many faults with Hindu Dharma like caste, untouchability and many of our faith system etc. they succeeded for some time, and they succeeded only because we did not know what we are. Hindus did not and do not know what Hindu Dharma is, and Europeans really took advantage of our ignorance of our own tradition and rich knowledge as well as values. They gave us the impression that since they were wearing fashionable dress and speaking English, they are better than us and they wanted us to copy and imitate them in every respect. They also made out a secret programme of making all Hindus Christians, from top level itself, and officially through Lord McCauley and his conspirator friend Max Muller. McCauley was then the Viceroy, and he chalked out a programme. First of all, teach English to the Hindus, and then get Sanskrit texts translated into English in such a manner that any one reading the translation should throw it away as trash. By the time the young newly English educated people can read English reasonably, the translation of Sanskrit texts shall be ready for them to read and discard. McCauley recruited Max Muller from Germany precisely for this job by getting the East India Company to pay him 10,000 pounds, a huge sum then, and Max Muller began his work of writing the series, Sacred books of East. But then, they could not succeed in their endeavour albeit they were in
Uploads
Papers by Dr. Girishkumar T S