What do you do when insecurities
you face in life is so basic that you are incapacitated to be a human? It is a
grim struggle to claim semblance of being a human. When the system is hinged on
fate, and fate has burdened you in debris of overwhelming odds, how do you
claim your life? This is constant struggle of people in this part of the world, and many get trapped and trampled in stampede as they come in terms with reality of their existence and die miserable deaths. In this extreme violence on soul the human body is kept intact as a carrier of game
of fate. Human bodies are where liberal battles of democracy are fought. Bodies
are kindling to keep the flame of grand narration burning. It must spread the
brightness of fiction of nonviolence and diversity, and we must reclaim the
dimming brightness with more sacrifices. Incidentally, Shaivism was very much a
primordial cult with extreme tendencies and violence was very much part of its
bearing (which could be traced to stone ages without the later consolidation into
Shiva -much later appropriation into hinduism). Shaivite cult formed
mercenaries of war in ancient medieval India. The attempt to sanitize into
nonviolence doesn’t stand basic scrutiny. Ofcourse these were assimilated into
squatter narration, and myth were churned to consolidate and work out divine
relationship between various sects, and with narration control these were
stamped on to people. One must add cosmic dance is quite a nuanced idea and a charming
visual motif, the spectacle of death and mayhem emulated the existential nature
of life during uncertain violent medieval times. Not only invaders, infighting,
natural disasters, but disease wiped out much of population regularly. Microorganisms
added much uncertainty to life.
Hinduism was never really a
religion as is understood by organized horrors on humanity. It was built on
cult and myths, on conveniences and wisdom, practical and spiritual. Oldest
ideas of human yearnings and myriad faiths knitted the concept of singular
religion that assimilated quite recently -as it faced organized religions
onslaughts (as also better narration of control hence vigorous myth building
that emulated organized, ending with prominence of single book -bhagvad gita)
and later pressures of nation state et al legal needs into single entity. Meanwhile
over centuries local traditions were assimilated into its fold with myths of
bigger gods, grander avatars and smaller local representation (hence the local
god through compelling apophenial side story became symbol of bigger trinity).
Squatter control created a pan subcontinent narration that were spread through these
channels which consolidated with power. With it the framework of misery which acquired
neatness as colonial british saw the opportunity of easy exploitation. Divine
rights were attributed as the inbred cannibalised the region into worst of
humanity with purity of purpose. Nature provided the bountiful while the region
slipped into wasteful mediocres and pompous nincompoops sowing vilest values.
The best of thoughts were always exceptions while nuanced contribution from
this region happened much before squatter consolidation -enlightened Upanishad
were contribution of vibrant seers and saints (inbred mediocres are incapable to
have the intellectual brilliance, the wisdom or any empathetic qualities)
contributed much to Indian/Hindu philosophies that is plagiarized into sanskrit
-sometimes the mismatch in claim and affect is hilarious!, while much of ‘philosophies’
were embarrassing grand urges of imbeciles. Later contributions happened as a
resistance to squatter degradation and growing tentacles that had started to
eviscerate humanity. Incidentally, Hinduism, as is understood today, cannot
claim Nalanda. Nalanda was an Indian idea of quainter humanistic world that was
determinately against inbred squatters, and there is a definite reason why it ceased
with spread of Hinduism. Buddhism was not trying to reform squatter consolidation
of hinduism, it vehemently stood against it. If marauding Islam demolished and
burned the physical idea of Nalanda the spiritual idea was demolished by Hinduism.
Islam destroyed violently while hinduism destroyed nonviolently. It is striking
that nonviolence posing MK Gandhi took quote from bible on the “famous
business of turning the other cheek” (it so happens that I am reading
Joseph Brodksy’s collected essay Less Than One, and had intended to
write about a few weeks from now), moral supremacy is a serious infection
afflicting caste cannibals -the sense of entitlement and compromised
self-worth/hometruth makes them easily susceptible to narcissism. What is
infection on humanity is the reason for some to live. What kind of people are
these?
Brodsky deals with this moral
balderdash brilliantly, it needs intellect and empathy -deep awareness of human
condition, it has to be lived, and a lawyer politician turned moralist caste
cannibal is surely incapable despite the best effort of narration controlling cheerleaders.
Brodsky begins by putting the context; since ‘turning the other cheek’ is not
fully quoted (“a line taken out of context will leave you crippled”!),
and indeed in the limited context the ‘moral victory’ could be mistaken by the
adversary (it also has to be understood and emphasized: a superior adversary
where you don’t have any chance of fighting back) as impunity. Brodsky quote in
length an incident that took place in prison in Russia, the young prisoner “remembered
the text of Sermon on the Mount better than Tolstoy and Gandhi”, he
understood the complete context. The context of the quote continues with ‘let
him have thy cloak’, and further do whatever is demanded, and this is where
goodness shifts to metaphysics, hence cannot be quantified into the needs of
modern politics. Brodsky elaborates “Quoted in full, these verses have in
fact very little to do with nonviolent or passive resistance, with the
principles of not responding in kind and returning good for evil. The meaning
of these lines is anything but passive, for it suggests that evil can be made
absurd through excess”. “The victory that is possible here is not a moral but
an existential one”. Brodsky explains “To base ethics on a faultily
quoted verse is to invite doom, or else to end up becoming a mental bourgeoise
enjoying the ultimate comfort: that of his convictions. In either case it
results in yielding ground to evil, in delaying the comprehension of its
weaknesses. For, evil, may I remind you, is only human”. Giving exaggerated
attribute to evil, indeed constructing one to distinguish themselves is what
Indian liberal posing “mental bourgeoise” do as they parasite on dehumanizing
system and cannibalize common people. Prescient and perceptive Brodsky was
devastating on India “ethics based on this faultily quoted verse have
changed nothing in post-Gandhi India, save the color of its administration.
From a hungry man’s point of view, though, it’s all the same who makes him
hungry. I submit that he may even prefer a white man to be responsible for his
sorry state if only because this way social evil may appear to come from
elsewhere and may perhaps be less efficient than the suffering at the hand of
his own kind. With an alien in charge, there is room for hope, for fantasy”.
Brodsky was too benign in his understanding of Indian society. Common people
don’t really suffer from illusion of “own kind”. They very well understand evil
that castetva represents and sinister nature of their posturing. Brodsky calls
for innovative vibrant original forms of resistance to evil, implying that staid morals of religions have far lived its context. Resistance to evil must
emerge from reality of the world we live in.
