|Christians launch political party in Tamilnadu
(March 22, 2011) Christians in Tamil Nadu have launched a political
party in the southern Indian state, where a legislative assembly poll is
October 4 (This post received a lot of responses, involving a long discussion. We will try to summarize this in a separate post).
|Houston Seminar on Breaking India: September 11, 2011 - Audience Q &
Sanjay: I am looking for a source for the quote from Narayana Murthy that Rajiv-ji mentions in the video. Ref.
According to Narayana Murthy, when he was asked why Indians were so good in IT,rather than explain that we have a whole learning tradition, he said"Thanks for the British for teaching us Maths and Science."
"I heard this in his talk in 2003 at the Bangalore conference organized jointly organized by Templeton and Infinity Foundation. I felt he was impressing the western guests. The "scientific debt to colonialism" is a common theme amongst many leftists. Gyan Prakash of Princeton has written a book on Indian science during the British period in which the direction of influence is onw-way from Europe to India as if the europeans learned nothing scientific from Indians. (Mr. Murthy has said that he was rooted as a leftist in his younger days but that he later turned into a capitalist. That kind of rejection of the left is for its economic model only, but it does not automatically involve embracing the dharma paradigm.) The key issue is: where lies the root of Indians' competence in science? The west claims to have invented the scientific method - a claim many Indians accept. Thats why I started the very ambitious project of doing 20 volumes on the History of Indian Science and Technology, of which 8 are published already. What is more troubling than a random remark is that Mr. Murthy's foundation has given a multi million dollar grant to bring out English translations of Indian classical works, and the editor in control is Sheldon Pollock. A brilliant Sanskritist no doubt, Pollock's interpretations have tilted towards things like: Aryan invasion theory, dalits being oppressed by sanskrit under brahmin control, etc. In some of the volumes of Indian classics which he did under a different series, such ideologies came through in various ways direct and indirect. For the same amount of money, Mr. Murthy could have re-ignited a whole India based Sanskrit scholarship and translation under the guidance of pandits. Of course, its his hard earned money and we respect his right to spend it howsoever he chooses. I am merely expressing my personal opinion on how I wish our tycoons would back their own civilization in the same manner as American tycoons helped build their civilizational foundations. The Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie philanthropy did not go to foreign scholars to write American history. "
|Ref: FHRS Digest No.2305 - Rajiv Malhotra's Breaking India - posted
Ref: FHRS Digest No.2305 Rajiv Malhotra's Breaking India - posted by Achintya Nath Sexena Oct,2. With reference to the remarks of Mr.Achintya Nath Saxena
that Dalit and Dravidian movements are home grown, I can only say that
the author is simply under informed about the genesis of separatist
trends. It seems Mr.Sexena has turned a blind eye to the historical
facts relating to the colossal role played by the imperial Govt. in
creating a wedge and fanning hatred amongst the people of India. Further, Mr.Sexena remarks regarding Smritis and oppression of
lower castes by upper castes for centuries are nothing short of
monomania. For people of any evolved civilization/progressive nation,
inheriting such a precious patrimony i.e., the Vedic texts
including original Manusmriti(without interpolations) would have been a
matter of great pride. However, it is quite astonishing to note
that certain sections of our own countrymen, instead of digging the
gems of Vedic truths in their original form by purging the extraneous
matter, simply engage themselves in negating and condemning them without
going into their depth..."
|Explaining purva paksha to Hindu activists
Rajiv Malhotra posts:
"One or two Hindu activists in India who have no clue what this book is
about have expressed concern simply on the basis that it has been
endorsed by a
variety of persons who are non-hindu, including christians, scientists
are atheists, etc.
Such a statement comes from a closed mind
which parrots simplistic statements that are already well known, and
hence speaks to those already on their wavelength. They need to
understand the traditional method of purva paksha debate with opponents.
DIFFERENT opens a new type of interfaith engagement than has existed
today. It seek to (a) clarify dharma for those inside dharma, (b) invite
open introspection from those who are in the undecided/confused middle,
and (c) challenge those with certain metaphysical beliefs opposed to
To achieve this goal, it defines dharma categories in
clear, strong terms (i.e. categories that comprise whats "different and
distinct" about dharma) and invites debate on our terms.
It reverses the gaze upon the west using the dharmic lens, making us the observer of the other.
Till now the terms on which debates took place were set by western
metaphysical assumptions. Therefore, my project is to hold a series of
debates, some live and some online as webinars, with various thinkers
from diverse traditions. I already have serious interest from Hindu
groups, some Christian theological centers, Buddhists, those in the
scientific approach of religion without espousing any faith, etc. I want
to expand this set of debates.
email from the critic who has not even seen the book says: "Why has the
author sought and received endorsment from the evangelist Francis
Clooney who is acitve in TN? Considering the previous book is about the
church's agenda to break india I am surprised that Malhotra has sought
Clooney's endorsement who has authored comparative religion books on
mary worship and devi worship besides insidiously penetrating
srivaishnava mathams seeking to be educated on srivaishnava
philosophy. If the author wants endoirsements from evangelists then he
diesnt need Hindus to read his book."
I preciously started an
online debate with Clooney challenging his view that Mary and devi
worship can be interchanged. It did not go far because of his
unavailability. With this
book, I want and hope Clooney will organize a public event at Harvard
(or somewhere) where my positions on how dharma DIFFERS from western
religions can get a
fair hearing. Therefore, his endorsement is a good sign and I appreciate
his willingness to have such a conversations. Once a door is opened,
one may have serious engagements in a tone of mutual respect and
Of course, those Hindus who are insecure will not do
this because they simply cannot do it. They have not done enough study
and churning internally for a sufficient number of years, have not
engaged in hundreds of serious intellectual encounters with opponents to
be able to develop solid positions that they could confidently bring to
the intellectual forums. They are secure only inside their small and
relatively isolated cocoons and are afraid to speak in an open forum as
equals. It is easier
for them to shout than reason but this has only turned off many of our
own youth and pushed them away. I am wanting to stick my neck out and
face the "other" in the same spirit as our purva paksha tradition.
Purva paksha REQUIRES the active participation of the opponent; otherwise it is a monologue and not a purva paksha. In
the same fashion, if a Muslim scholar wants to debate me I am
interested. All I ask for as a precondition is a fair forum and
moderator. I intend to bring my own video camera to record so that
nobody can edit a one-sided outcome.
interfaith events I have seen have a pathetic Hindu presence. BEING
DIFFERENT wants to shift the game by this very approach. It shocks and
bothers many Hindus who get a drubbing in metaphysical debates, because
their knowledge is limited go Hinduism only with a superficial knowledge
religions and philosophies.
BEING DIFFERENT gives extensive Hindu
views on metaphysical issues concerning: Aristotle, Hegel,
Christian ideas of original sin, redemption, salvation, Judaism's
exclusiveness, misappropriations of Hindu dance/yoga and even Vedanta,
the Hebraic/Hellenistic split, the science/religion split in the west,
among several others.
It is a delight to interact in the spirit
of purva paksha on such matters with those in other faiths. I hope to
educate more Hindus on how
to do this without fear of getting a thrashing. The west has
systematically studied Indian civilization for centuries (incl. debating
hindu scholars) and have built armies
of scholars who can debate any issue from their point of view. It is
time we level the playing field by encouraging our folks to reverse the
gaze - which is what BEING DIFFERENT does."
|Response to Vishal Mangalwadi's attack on "Breaking India" its princ
Rajiv Malhotra [and Aravindan Neelakandan] share:
of the book `Breaking India', [see 1] Vishal Mangalwadi makes numerous
on book and on my personally. Being a prominent world
class jet set evangelist serving the foreign nexuses, he gets extensive
coverage in the book and it is not surprising that he would hit back
My co-author and I are issuing the following rejoinder to Mangalwadi's
to Vishal Mangalwadi's attack on 'Breaking India' and its principle author
`Mosaic Ethnology' thus: "Mosaic Ethnology) assumes that our human race
originated from one pair of parents. Initially everyone spoke the same
language. Linguistic and racial divisions arose after Noah. The authors are
right in saying that from the 17th to the early 20th century it was not secular
rationalism but the Bible that inspired and directed Europe's intellectual
vitality, including Indological studies. Hinduism and Islam had been in India
for centuries but neither of those faiths stimulated their followers to study
India, its languages, history, people, or natural resources as the Bible
perhaps did not read the book properly for he misses the point entirely. From
the 17th to 20th century it was not the Biblical view
alone that shaped European mindset but also colonial expansion, renaissance
driven enlightenment which actually has its roots in the rediscovery of the
pre-Christian pagan philosophical and scientific legacy and identity crisis
driven by all these factors – which was forging the European worldview.
Mangalwadi boasts as `Europe's intellectual vitality' was actually responsible
for the justification of the most cruel and most commercialized slavery
establishment in the history of humanity namely trans-Atlantic slave
trade. It was the Hamitic Myth of the
Bible that justified slave trade and all its cruelty. For example the
nineteenth century American best seller `Slavery as its Relates to the Negro or
the African Race' (1843) elaborated on
the Biblical scene of Noah cursing Ham's progeny into slavery and cursed the
Blacks should remain as `both in times of peace and war a despised, degraded and
oppressed race.' As late as 1895 Biblical
mythology was trumped up in defense of slavery as in the writings of Troup
Taylor, a devout Christian who in a very popular track explained that the
entire `Negro' race `was adapted to a destiny suited only to an inferior race.'
The countless evidences can be multiplied and one can read some of them in a
very detailed manner in the book (for example pp. 40-41).
exhibits his arrogant ignorance when he states that Hinduism and Islam never
stimulated their followers to study India, its languages, history, people, or
natural resources as the Bible inspired Europeans. In reality it was the Hindu
mathematics which was transmitted to Europe by Islamic scholars which started
the very European renaissance. And modern linguistics including computational
linguistics owes its origin and development to Panini and Kerala mathematicians
as well as logicians. The only additional input that Europeans added was the
racial categorization which visited upon humanity some of its worst scourges in
history in the form of Nazi holocaust and Rwandan genocide. And this distinctly
European contribution, which Mangalwadi claims as having Biblical roots, is
neither scientific nor very flattering to Christianity as a religion.
Mangalwadi errs when he states that it was Bible through European colonialism
that made India a nation-state in the modern sense. In fact the idea of Indian
nation state defies the European idea of nation-state which was based on rigid
monocultural identity. As B.R.Ambedkar the chief architect of Indian
constitution has pointed out in an elaborate discussion that the integrity of
India is based more on its spiritual culture rather than the colonial
infrastructural frameworks that the British created for their own interest.
From the beginning Indian unity has been based on its respect and acceptance of
pluralism – something that the modern West including US is trying hard to come
to terms with and which is resisted by fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and
his ideological clone Mangalwadi.
claims that the "missionaries embraced, loved, and served the racially
different "lower" castes and Dravidians." But documented evidence suggests that
missionaries only saw the impoverished social conditions of the `lower' castes
and the fabricated Dravidian race identity as opportunities for conversion
rather than showing on them genuine love and respect for their culture. For
example the book documents how Caldwell considered Dravidians as inherently
endowed with `the density of their ignorance' which he laments is the `chief
obstacle to their evangelization'. So much for love and respect that
missionaries have for the fellow human being!
He states that "The oppressed do hate their oppressors, but that
privilege is not available to Christians..." How does he explain the
centuries of Christian oppression - from the times of Roman imperialism, to the
genocides of Native Americans, the slavery of Africans, and colonization of
Asians? Even today, American civic society is highly divided along race lines. The
churches are almost entirely segregated - Blacks, Hispanics, Koreans, Indians and
Whites each have own separate churches. Before wagging the finger at others and
exporting "solutions", US based evangelists like Mangalwadi should
work on solving Christianity's internal problems at home..."
Rajiv follows up:
Mangalwadi champions the missionaries are helping the labor class in
India. Below is a counter example of the devastation they cause, this
example sent to me by someone named Bharat Nair. It shows their role in
plagiarizing India's manufacturing advantages in order to help the
industrial revolution in Europe:
For example, see Cotton: The Biography of a Revolutionary Fiber By Stephen Yafa p.30
for the Indian methods of "animalizing" cotton [i.e. giving cotton the
texture similar to animal skins], they remained mysterious to most
European printers until much later than might be expected - for seventy
years after the arrival of chintz. Ironically, it was a man of
the cloth, Jesuit Father Coeurdoux, who betrayed these fiercely guarded
secrets. In 1742 the French cleric took advantage of his missionary
posting on the Coromandel coast to gain the trust of Indian master dyers
whom he had converted to Catholicism. They confided their
secret pricess to him with an understanding that he would never reveal
it. Coeurdoux immediately gave a detailed description in a step-by-step
letter published in France. In a blink, three thousand years of
clandestine artisan practice became public knowledge."
is the same priest described in Ananda Ranga Pillai's description of
the destruction of Vedapuri Iswaran temple in Pondicherry"
|"Ecstasy, possession, and spiritual realization: Yoga of Dance"|
"....Christ repackaged for Hindus?
Christ who is at heart only a Hindu?
Hindu Christ for the whole world?
Since its inception in 1988, Shobana Jeyasingh Dance Company has worked throughout the United Kingdom and internationally, producing and touring dance works by its artistic director and choreographer, Shobana Jeyasingh. Each year, the company engages with up to 30,000 people through performances and a range of education projects.
Shobana Jeyasingh is acclaimed for her pioneering work in choreography. She deploys her South Asian roots to create work that is uniquely British. The dance itself is ground-breaking and contemporary in style but draws on many traditional forms and influences such as Ballet or Bharata Natyam, a centuries-old Asian classical dance form. This produces a language of movement with which people from all cultures can identify..."
Post a Comment