Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

(CHAKRA) Some Hindus appalled at the reports of proxy baptism of peace icon Mahatma Gandhi by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) are still waiting for an official apology from its leadership.

Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that Gandhi baptism reports appeared in the media on February 27, but the LDS President Thomas S. Monson or its other leaders were yet to come out with an apology and explanation on how this happened despite calls by Hindus.

LDS should urgently issue a formal apology, explain the circumstances how Gandhi baptism happened and assure the hurt Hindu community that baptism of their ancestors would not take place without their will/request in the future, Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, noted.

Rajan Zed argued that LDS being a responsible organization with over 14 million membership and worldwide presence should show some maturity and transparency in this matter. Besides immediate apology, they should also come up with detailed report on how many Hindus had been baptized without the will/request of their living relatives.

Zed stressed that proxy baptism of their ancestors, who lived and died as Hindus, was simply not acceptable and LDS should assure them that they would develop an “effective” mechanism and safeguards to ensure that this would not happen in the future without the will/request of the living relatives.

Rajan Zed further said that Hindus and most probably other faith communities worldwide would be willing to work with LDS to build bridges of understanding. He pointed out that they would gladly support the LDS endeavors if they made a good-faith effort and organized a meeting of various religious groups to help them set up such a mechanism.

Zed indicated that the February 29 LDS directive to its congregations worldwide that “Those whose names are submitted for proxy temple ordinances should be related to the submitter” was a “step in the right direction” but its implementation should be wholehearted and transparent.

Rajan Zed explained that Hindus did not mark death as the end of existence. Ancient Hindu scripture Bhagavad-Gita (Song of the Lord) referred to death as abandoning of worn-out clothes and acquiring new ones. Hindus believed in reincarnation with moksha (liberation) as a goal; which brought end to rebirth, embodiment and death.

Zed pointed out that ancestors had always been highly important in Hinduism since ancient times. Hindus followed sraddha, pitryajna, pinda, etc., rituals for their ancestors. It would be really painful for Hindus if they came to know that somebody unrelated performed some rites on their ancestors without even asking them.

Emails sent by Rajan Zed to LDS officials on this issue carrying short letter addressed to Monson on February 24 have remained unanswered till now.

Salt Lake City (Utah, USA) headquartered LDS, also known as Mormon Church, which claims to be a Christian denomination, is one of the fastest growing church. Hinduism is oldest and third largest religion of the world.

Gandhi doing Namaste

(CHAKRA) Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that it was appalling to note that Gandhi, who lived his life as a Hindu and was cremated by Hindu traditions, had been reportedly baptized by proxy by LDS. It was insensitive and hurtful to the feelings of about one billion Hindus spread worldwide.

Independent researcher Helen Radkey of Salt Lake City, in an email to Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, sent pages from  FamilySearch, an LDS service, which showed Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Person Identifier LHTR-62Z; born October 2, 1869 in Porbandar & died January 30, 1948 in New Delhi) as baptized on March 27, 1996 at Salt Lake City Utah Temple; with “Confirmation” completed November 17, 2007 at Sao Paulo Brazil Temple; “Initiatory” completed February four, 2009 at Sao Paulo Brazil Temple; and “Endowment” completed October two, 1996 at Salt Lake City Utah Temple. It also lists names of Gandhi’s siblings, parents and children.

In this email to Rajan Zed, Radkey said that she looked up this record on February 16 but it had since disappeared and was no longer available in the database. Person Identifier LHTR-62Z pulled up as “Unknown Name”. It was unusual for a record to vanish, she added.

Emails sent by Zed to LDS officials carrying short letter addressed to LDS President Thomas S. Monson on February 24 have remained unanswered till now. In this “information request”, Zed asked whether it was a fact that Gandhi had been baptized by proxy by LDS; how many other deceased Hindus had been baptized by proxy without the will/request of their living relatives; was it the current/past LDS policy to baptize Hindu ancestors without the will/request of the living relatives and would this policy continue in future also.

After the recent news of posthumous baptizing of Jewish rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal’ s parents, prominent Jewish victim Anne Frank (Diary of a Young Girl) and now Mahatma Gandhi reports, we were highly concerned and wonder how many of our ancestors had been baptized by LDS without our will, Rajan Zed argued.

Zed further said that President Monson should himself apologize for this and explain how this happened. Monson should also come-out with detailed report on how many Hindus had been baptized without the will or request of their living relatives. Proxy baptism of our ancestors, who lived and died as Hindus, was simply not acceptable.

If it was just an “accident”, then LDS needed to come-up with a mechanism and some “effective” safeguards so that mistakes, errors, breaches and misunderstandings did not happen in the future in the area of proxy baptisms involving non-LDS ancestors, Rajan Zed stated.

Zed noted that Hindus and most probably other faith communities worldwide would be willing to work with LDS to build bridges of understanding. He pointed out that they would gladly support the LDS endeavors if they made a good-faith effort and organized a meeting of various religious groups to help them set up such a mechanism.

Rajan Zed explained that Hindus did not mark death as the end of existence. Ancient Hindu scripture Bhagavad-Gita (Song of the Lord) referred to death as abandoning of worn-out clothes and acquiring new ones. Hindus believed in reincarnation with moksha (liberation) as a goal; which brought end to rebirth, embodiment and death.

Zed stressed that ancestors had always been highly important in Hinduism since ancient times. Hindus followed sraddha, pitryajna, pinda, etc., rituals for their ancestors. It would be really painful for Hindus if they came to know that somebody unrelated performed some rites on their ancestors without even asking them.

Hinduism was the oldest and third largest religion of the world with a rich philosophical thought and it should not be taken lightly. Any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed added.

According to reports, Catholics had also objected such baptism of their members and even Republican American presidential front-runner Mitt Romney’s atheist father-in-law Edward Davies was posthumously baptized. FamilySearch claims to be the largest genealogy organization in the world and runs a Family History Library in Salt Lake City.

Official LDS website says that the foundation of the doctrine of baptism for the dead comes from latter-day revelation through Prophet Joseph Smith. “By standing in as proxy for someone who has died — often one of his or her own ancestors — a Church member may be baptized on behalf of that deceased person…Lord does not damn those people who, through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism. He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for them…The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world”. Baptisms for the dead are performed only in temples because of sacredness involved and the ceremony reportedly involves immersion in water while dressed in white clothing.

According to LDS sources, Jesus Christ is the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which has been restored by God through Joseph Smith (1805-44). One of the fastest growing church, LDS is led by 15 Apostles, including President Monson (who is also considered a prophet); first and second Counselors Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf respectively; and President of The Quorum of the Twelve Boyd K. Packer. LDS, also known as Mormon Church, which claims to be a Christian denomination, has 134 temples and a membership of over 14 million. Republican Romney is a Mormon and so is United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

One of the greatest moral and political leaders of the 20^th century, Mahatma Gandhi was Time Person of the Year in 1930 and was runner-up for Time Person of the Century.

Jawaharlal Nehru lighting a cigarette for the then British high commissioner's wife

“One must beware of ministers who can do nothing without money, and those who want to do everything with money. “ - Indira Gandhi

Disclaimer notice: First and foremost, the author seeks your invaluable blessings. The views in this article are those of the author only. Any and all faults of understanding the topic at hand are the shortcomings of the author. A healthy debate is always encouraged and all criticism (both constructive and destructive) is welcomed. The author and the readers should never lose sight of the main goal: seeking TRUTH.

Introduction – As a follow up to one of my previous articles, Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, 2011, I’ve decided to focus my grievances with the unscrupulous subversion of India’s population as perpetrated by the Nehru-Gandhi clan and its minions. I am quite upset by watching India celebrate the failures of the Nehru-Gandhi clan and its continued erosion of the country’s social, religious, political and economic fabric. You know, we usually hear people say things like: “you don’t give this woman or this man enough credit for all the good things he/she has done”. My task in this modest essay is to shed light on what we don’t hear people say enough: “you don’t give this woman or this man enough credit for all the bad things he/she has done”. So be forewarned, I’ll be quite negative in the following paragraphs. If you are a diehard fan of the Nehru-Gandhi family (the clan), then be prepared to get the wakeup call of your life. I will briefly highlight the failures of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, and that imbecilic brat unofficially known as Rahul Gandhi. Following the failures of the Nehru-Gandhi clan will be a brief list of present day malaises of India which can be attributed to the clan. I shall conclude with a juxtaposition of Mahatma Gandhi’s insights with the failures to live by those insights by the Congress Party figures and their corporate allies as one final jolt of reality.

Chacha Nehru my foot! Chacha Blunder is more befitting

I get really upset with some arrogant and stubborn historians who attempt to shove the belief that there is no “if” clause in history down my throat. This, to me, is the highest form of subversion! All disciplines should be analysed and reassessed based on the tweaking (up or down) or insertion/omission of certain variables (characters/events – for historical studies) in a model which explains a certain phenomena or occurrence. With your kind permission (dear readers), I shall use the “if” clause to better explain my grievances with the Nehru-Gandhi clan. So let us begin with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (affectionately known as Chacha Nehru). My own take on the fellow is that he was a power hungry cry baby. Nehru exhibited questionable morality – as his affairs with Lady Mountbatten and others are well documented. He was more at ease with experimenting with unproven foreign policy alternatives such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which went on to weaken Sino-Indian, Indo-American, Indo-Pak relations while it strengthened Indo-Soviet relations.

And now, let us insert my ‘if’ clause and look at Nehru’s tenure as Prime Minister (PM) of India. If Nehru was not such a cry baby, then he would have conceded his defeat to Sardar Patel in the Congress leadership vote. If Sardar Patel was the PM of India, then we could bet with a high degree of confidence that the map of India would be quite different (I’m alluding to Kashmir and other territorial disputes). If Patel was PM, then India would not be governed by the idiotic and experimental foreign policy dictates of Nehru’s “Pancha Sheel – Five Pillars” framework within the Non-Aligned Movement. Nehru’s idiocy is perfectly exemplified by his turning down of the American offer of a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council in 1955. Instead, our beloved Chacha Nehru chose to be the ‘chamcha’ of our shrewd and realistic neighbours, the Chinese. Nehru vouched for China to have a permanent seat on the council. Nehru’s arrogance in avoiding border discussions and over-confidence in his experimental ‘chamchagiri’ caused India to pay a heavy price on the battlefield in 1962. Nehru never recovered from this blunder and neither did India’s foreign policy. In addition, we should not forget that Nehru (at the insistence of Lord Mountbatten) even put the offer of a plebiscite on the table at the UN in order to resolve the Kashmir dispute. This stupid move is still costing India a high price! Thank you, Chacha Nehru! Next, we analyse Nehru’s daughter.

“Garibi Hatao” – Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi

Indira Gandhi

Where to start with Indira Gandhi? We give lots of credit to Mrs Gandhi for having chopped Pakistan in two pieces. She gave the green light for “Smiling Buddha” to make India a nuclear state. And she brought over to India the Green Revolution (a new age of agricultural best practices and research) which was to alleviate India’s food shortages.  That is where the positive vibes end. Mrs Gandhi was elected as PM for three consecutive terms from 1966-1977 (the third of which was rendered invalid by the courts) and came back to power from 1980-1984 until her assassination by a bodyguard.

Indira Gandhi holds two distinctions: 1) She was the only Indian Prime Minister to have declared a state of emergency so that she could ‘rule by decree’ and 2) She was the only Indian Prime Minister to have been incarcerated after holding the office (Mrs Gandhi committed election fraud in 1971 during her ‘Garibi Hatao’ campaign and was found guilty in 1975). The only ‘Garibi’ that Mrs Gandhi was concerned with was her own. Mrs Gandhi’s ‘rule by decree’ during the state of emergency was simply for two reasons: 1) to eliminate dissidents, and 2) to maintain her stranglehold on the country.

Mrs Gandhi’s son, Sanjay, was instrumental in implementing draconian measures in order to eliminate Congress and anti-Indira dissidents as well as to ravage slum dwellers and poor people during the state of emergency. The infamous ‘family planning’ campaign spearheaded by Sanjay is still fresh in the minds of many Indians. Sanjay’s mass vasectomy campaigns were not conducted under proper sanitary conditions and one can only imagine the pain of infection and death that some of the lured patients felt.  Also, to win the blessings of the Gandhis, many public officers and doctors performed more-than-necessary amounts of vasectomies in order to meet the quota prescribed by Sanjay. Mrs Gandhi failed the Indian people by ruling like a tyrant. She took away the rights and freedoms of Indians while projecting a persona of “Mother” of the nation. For what did she do this? For power!

Indira Gandhi’s failures also hit the Punjab. She let Bhindranwale and his followers get to the point where they could assassinate anyone that they deemed heretics (Nirankaris etc.) as they pleased. At the same time, Bhindranwale’s friends received training from the ISI and they all jointly devised a plan to create Khalistan by taking over the Golden Temple. Indira Gandhi was left with no choice but to show Bhindranwale who was boss. Operation Bluestar and the subsequent actions of India’s supercop, KPS Gill, virtually eradicated the Khalistan movement from India. However, there were some very negative consequences. Sikhs were alienated and violated as their holiest shrine was ravaged. We also had the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. As well, I would like to share that this conflict also took the lives of over 329 passengers of Air India flight 182 in 1985. The passengers of that flight were brutally killed by a time bomb placed in the aircraft planted by Canada-based Khalistanis. 291 innocent Indo-Canadians lost their lives due to Indira Gandhi and the Khalistanis!

As a final criticism, many foreign policy experts suggest that Mrs Gandhi did not push hard enough on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to make the LoC a permanent border between India and Pakistan (with respect to Kashmir). But that is a dwarfed issue as her victory in carving Pakistan in to two pieces overshadowed this criticism.

Indira Gandhi’s legacy is nothing short of tyranny. However, her assassination gained her sympathy and it seems that many people have forgotten all of the bad that she had committed. We now move on to her elder son, Rajiv.

Rajiv Gandhi

Rajiv Gandhi

Rajiv Gandhi was a mixed bag. He came in to politics after the assassination of his mother. She had initially planned to push Sanjay (her younger son) in to the top seat of Prime Minister, but he died in an airplane accident. However, Sanjay did rule the country under his mother’s name. Oh, and what a horrific job he did. Rajiv Gandhi came in to politics by accident but left his mark on India’s history. He started off by promising to modernize India, to press for global nuclear disarmament, to decentralise power, to clean up the Holy Ganges and many other promises. However, he was only partially successful in keeping some of his promises. Rajiv Gandhi helped to pave the way for India’s modern economy and peace with China, but that is where the glory stops. He was voted out of office due to his role in the Bofors scandal.

Rajiv Gandhi’s glories of institutionalising peace with China and modernizing India’s economy were overshadowed by his failures. I’ll list some of TK Arun’s thoughts on Rajiv Gandhi’s failures verbatim:

• “The foremost failure is the contempt he showed for the Indian people….The strategy of serially appeasing first Muslim fundamentalists and then Hindu fundamentalists reflected cynical contempt for the people and their intelligence.”
• “A related failure was his tendency to see people as objects of development, rather than as its subjects, the driving force. This led Rajiv Gandhi to trust technology missions to deliver clearly defined development goals.”

Rajiv never got the opportunity to rectify his mistakes and was brutally assassinated by LTTE terrorists in a suicide bomb blast. Rajiv Gandhi had just started to show some political wisdom while in the opposition but never got the chance to prove himself. I suppose the torch needed to be passed on and his time on earth had come to an end.

Sonia and Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi (real name - Antonia Edvige Albina Maino Gandhi)

Take a moment to bow your heads in reverence to Dr Subramanian Swamy. If it wasn’t for his swift actions, then Sonia Gandhi would be the Prime Minister of India (instead of Manmohan Singh). This one man has singlehandedly taken down political powerhouses. Many of the corruption scandals that we hear of and which were perpetrated by the Nehru-Gandhi clan were exposed and brought to the Supreme Court by Dr Swamy’s petitions. I don’t have anything positive to say for Sonia Gandhi and her silly son, Rahul. They both have slapped the small positive legacy of Rajiv Gandhi in the face with the record-breaking levels of corruption and sheer incompetence. Sonia doesn’t speak English or Hindi well. She can only do one thing well, and that is corruption. It must have been something she learned from the infamous Mafia of Italy, her motherland. Sonia is going to be brought to justice eventually. Her role in the numerous scams of the day is being exposed. Her son-in-law, Robert Vadra, became a billionaire out of thin air due to the connections that she had. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

One should understand very carefully that Sonia runs and operates India and her Congress party much the same way as a Grand Patriarch in a Mafia of Italy would do. Sonia is the Grand Matriarch of the Congress party and not a single decision is made without her stamp of approval and cut in the share of profits. Politicians and business people know damn well that they must pay respects and hefty tributes to the Grand Matriarch, Sonia in order to rape and pillage the country. I’ll share an example of how desperate some lowly politicians are to get in to Sonia’s inner circle. A few years back, Amar Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar were attending a function in Delhi. Both gentlemen enjoyed their drinks but Aiyar had one too many. In a drunken stupor, he provoked Singh in to a mini-brawl. What was the reason? Aiyar was jealous that Singh and his leader (at the time) Mulayam Singh was gaining much clout with Sonia while Aiyar was struggling to get a berth in the Congress Working Committee. Enough about Sonia let us briefly discuss the brat, Rahul.

Sonia’s dear son Rahul does speak Hindi but he is a walking buffoon who has shown absolutely no political maturity. Rahul’s idea of being a man of the people is to roll up his sleeves and sit down at a villager’s home (near his constituency of Amethi) and eat puri-sabzi while NDTV and CNN-IBN report his every move as “Breaking News”. His staged humility is a sham!

Both Sonia and Rahul have dubious education records. However, Rahul takes the prize for the worst Gandhi as he is also an alleged rapist. If India elects Rahul Gandhi as its next PM, then nothing can save the country from pure and utter disaster. Also, what message will India be sending to the world if it elects an uneducated and alleged rapist to the posting of PM?

To sum up, the culture of failing the Indian people has been well preserved by Sonia Gandhi and her son, Rahul. One doesn’t even feel like wasting one’s time by discussing the endless list of failures that are attributed to these people. Let us now focus on the social, economic and political malaises that India suffers due to the aggregated efforts of the Nehru-Gandhi clan.

Thank you, Congress! You created the vote bank Beast!

Reservations

It is without doubt that reservation has helped the scheduled castes and tribes (SCST) ameliorate their social status – albeit at a snail’s pace. But there are some real positives that we should focus on: India has had an SCST President, Chief Justice, and female Chief Minister in Uttar Pradesh (the most populous state). So to an extent, India’s affirmative action project has been working. However, the sticky point is where there are other groups which desire reservations including: Brahmins (the poor ones), poor Hindus of other castes, Muslims, and Christians. These groups have also had the desire to derive some utility from the reservation system so that they could also land public jobs and send their children to IIMs and IITs to be competitive in the Indian market. However, countless governments on both ends of the political spectrum have been able to accomplish nothing for these unfortunate groups. There has been campaign promise rhetoric here and there by tyrants like Mayawati, but that holds no value unless some changes are made.

What the Hajj?

‘The Law of Double Standards’ is my term for the Congress Party’s special treatment given to our fellow Indian sisters and brothers of the Islamic faith. By special treatment, I mean that our Muslim sisters and brothers have huge, government sponsored subsidies which support and encourage them to go on their Hajj pilgrimages (to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina). Conversely, there are no such luxuries for Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus of India. India bends over backwards to protect only one group’s religious identity. I am sure that all jurists who are truly secular would not let any such luxury be enjoyed by any religious community. Also, these same jurists should also believe that there is no room for Sharia law in India’s legal system. All Indians should have to go through the same processes in order to file for divorce etc. I hold all political parties which have ever governed India responsible for this. It does not matter if we are talking of Congress or the BJP. The entire political spectrum is guilty of this double standard.

Biased Indian Media

Media Bias

If there is the Congress Party in the political realm, then its propaganda wing consists of most of the media outlets in the country. All leading news agencies are guilty of pro-Congress rhetoric. I will lash out on one specific individual who stands out the most. I must admit my endless disdain for the likes of Barkha Dutt and her Congress-biased colleagues in print and TV media. Barkha Dutt’s crocodile tears at the suffering of Hindu groups are not only wretched but quite comical. Ms Dutt will openly cry genuine tears of sorrow for the pain and suffering of our Muslim sisters and brothers in India and across India’s borders. Ms Dutt is also more pro-Kashmiri independence than the Hurriyat, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Sajjad Lone, Sheikh+Farooq+Omar Abdullah, and Syed Geelani combined! If I was Ms. Dutt’s career advisor, then I’d advise her to join hands with fellow sell-out Arundhati Roy to completely liquidate India’s borders!

The Scams

I won’t even elaborate on the exact details of the following scams. The list is actually much larger, but please have a quick peek at the table to get an idea of some of the high profile scams perpetrated by the Nehru-Gandhi clan and its minions.

• Jeep 1947
• ISRO spectrum Scam, Coal Scam and 3G scam
• Bofors
• Adarsh
• CWG
• IPL
• 2G
• Various Land Scams
• Rajiv Gandhi Trust

Disaster

India’s economy is growing at a fast rate and the demographics of the country are promising. However, corruption, lousy infrastructure, and poor governance are all great reasons for concern! Failure to plug these holes may pose the risk of devastating the country. You can thank the Nehru-Gandhi Clan + Congress for the majority of this mess. However, there is a way out.

A homeless young boy waves the Indian flag

Solutions

The first step to improving from the status quo is awareness. I’m not so sure if all Indians are aware of what is truly going on in the country. Media subversion (funded by Congress and its industrialist friends) has played a very negative role in misinforming the public. Alternative media must be further nurtured by the civil society to fight this subversion! It is fast, cheap, democratic, and self-policing. It will be the game changer!

Solutions to India’s problems will only be formulated and executed when the entire population of India knows about the current state of affairs and feels that enough is enough. A collective effort is needed to bring about positive and sustainable change in the Motherland. I would like to offer some food for thought and action:

Mahatma Gandhi gave his grandson, Arun Gandhi, a list of the Seven Blunders of the World that lead to violence. Arun Gandhi added his own idea to the list. Steven W. Gilbert has added four more blunders to the list which focus on teaching, learning, and technology. I’ve added some names beside each blunder (in the Indian context). You be the judge and decide whether my opinions carry any merit or not.

1. Wealth without work [Mahatma Gandhi]  –> Robert Vadra became a billionaire due to Sonia Gandhi’s connections (there are more cases but let us stick to one for now).
2. Pleasure without conscience [Mahatma Gandhi] –> Jawaharlal Nehru (womanizer), Rahul Gandhi (alleged rapist).
3. Knowledge without character [Mahatma Gandhi] –> Manmohan Singh (what use is your education when you have no spine to make decisions?).
4. Commerce without morality [Mahatma Gandhi] –> 2G and CWG Scandals (in recent times). Let us not forget Natwar Singh’s payoffs in the Iraq oil-for-food program!
5. Science without humanity [Mahatma Gandhi] –> Montek Singh Ahluwalia who is lobbying for Monsanto and European/American Pharmaceutical firms to destroy India’s food supply and affordable access to medication!
6. Worship without sacrifice [Mahatma Gandhi] –> All the vote bank seeking politicians who simply pay lip service to communities but are not true to their word.
7. Politics without principle [Mahatma Gandhi] –> P.Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, Amar Singh, Salman Khurshid, Digvijay Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi (let’s stick to contemporary politicians only – or else the list will never end).
8. Rights without responsibilities [Arun Gandhi] –> The Apathetic voters who don’t stand up to corruption and tyranny but who complain that their lives are destroyed.
9. Technology without direction [Steven W. Gilbert] –> Nandan Nilekani’s UIDAI government venture has ballooned from Rs 3,023 crore to Rs 17,863 as Nilekani wants to increase his biometric capture mandate. Hmmm, this sounds like a typical consulting engagement which was agreed at one rate and then finalized at a rate which is grossly over budget. It builds dependence of the client on to the consultancy. Typical business model!
10. Connection without community [Steven W. Gilbert] –> Political or business leaders may have Social Media followers or may meet the common man or woman at a face-to-face public event, but that does not translate into true community building. Need I offer examples? I think not.
11. Teaching without joy [Steven W. Gilbert] –> Education is no longer a noble profession in India and elsewhere. It is simply a business! Not to discount the noble educators in the country.
12. Learning without hope [Steven W. Gilbert] –> All of those young students who are working so hard but feel that they have no future due to reservations, corruption, slow job creation, nepotism, and a lack of meritocracy in India!

With that, I sign off wishing you all peace, health, righteousness, self-awareness, and endless resolve to clean up the homeland and the world!

Your humble servant,

Abhaya Shanker Dube

Picture from Gunga Din

By Sita Ram Goel

Macaulayism. The term derives from Thomas Babington Macaulay, a member of the Governor General’s Council in the 1830s. Earlier, the British Government of India had completed a survey of the indigenous system of education in the Presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. A debate was going on whether the indigenous system should be retained or a new system introduced. Macaulay was the chief advocate of a new system. This, he, expected, will produce a class of Indians brown of skin but English in taste and temperament. The expectation has been more than fulfilled.

There is a widerspread impression among “educated” classes in India that this country had no worthwhile system of education before the advent of the British. The great universities like those at Takshashilã, Nãlandã, Vikramashîla and Udantapurî had disappeared during Muslim invasions and rule. What remained, we are told, were some pãthashãlãs in which a rudimentary instruction in arithmetic, and reading and writing was imparted by semi-educated teachers, mostly to the children of the upper castes, particularly the Brahmins. But the impression is not supported by known and verifiable facts.

Speaking before a select audience at Chatham House, London, on October 20, 1931, Mahatma Gandhi had said: “I say without fear of my figures being successfully challenged that India today is more illiterate than it was before a fifty or hundred years ago, and so is Burma, because the British administrators when they came to India, instead of taking hold of things as they were, began to root them out. They scratched the soil and began to look at the root and left the root like that and the beautiful tree perished.”

What the Mahatma had stated negatively, that is, in terms of illiteracy was documented positively, that is, in terms of literacy by a number of Indian scholars, notably Sri Daulat Ram, in the debate which followed the Mahatma’s statement, with Sir Philip Hartog, an eminent British educationist, on the other side. Now Shri Dharampal who compiled Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts in 1971 has completed a book on the state of indigenous education in India on the eve of the British conquest.

Shri Dharampal has documented from old British archives, particularly those in Madras, that the indigenous system of education compared more than favourably with the system obtaining in England at about the same time. The Indian system was admittedly in a state of decay when it was surveyed by the British Collectors in Bengal, Bombay and Madras. Yet, as the data brought up by them proved conclusively, the Indian system was better than the English in terms of (1) the number of schools and colleges proportionately to the population, (2) the number of students attending these institutions, (3) the duration of time spent in school by the students, (4) the quality of teachers, (5) the diligence as well as intelligence of the students, (6) the financial support needed to see the students through school and college, (7) the high percentage of lower class (Sudra and other castes) students attending these schools as compared to the upper class (Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaisya) students, and (8) in terms of subjects taught.

This indigenous system was discarded and left to die out by the British not because its educational capacity was inferior but because it was not thought fit for serving the purpose they had in mind. The purpose was, first, to introduce the same system of administration in India as was obtaining in England at that time. The English system was highly centralised, geared towards maximisation of state revenues, manned by “gentlemen” who despised the “lower classes” and were, therefore, ruthless in suppression of any mass discontent. Secondly, the new system of education aimed at promoting and patronising a new Indian upper class who, in turn, would hail the blessings of British Raj and cooperate in securing its stability in India. The indigenous system of education was capable neither of training such administrators nor of raising such a social elite, not at home anywhere.

The system of education introduced by the British performed more or less as Macaulay had anticipated. Hindus like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Swami Vivekananda, Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Mahamanã Malaviya, Veer Savarkar, Sri M.S. Golwalker, to name only the most notable amongst those who escaped its magic spell and rediscovered their roots, were great souls, strong enough to survive the heavy dose of a deliberate denationalisation. For the rest, it has eminently succeeded in sweeping an ancient and highly cultured people off its feet. Macaulay does deserve the honour of a whole ‘ism’ of which we have not seen the last yet.

It is not easy to define the doctrine of Macaulayism in as authentic terms as we could do in the case of Islamism and Christianism. Doctrinally, Macaulayism is quite diffused. It does not swear by a historical prophet whom it proclaims as the latest as well as the last and the best. It does not bestow a monopoly of truth and wisdom on a single book. It does not lay down a single code of conduct distilled from the doings of a prophet or the sacerdotal tradition of a church.

Nor is Macaulayism malevolent like Islamism or mischievous like Christianism. It is rather mild and well-meaning, more like an imperceptible breeze which blows in silently, fins up the psychological atmosphere, creates a mental mood, inspires an intellectual attitude, and finally settles down as a cultural climate-pervasive, protean and ubiquitous.

Unlike Islamism and Christianism, Macaulayism does not employ any meticulously matured methods to propagate or proliferate itself. It is not out to use a specified section of Indian society as a vehicle of its virulence. It is not a potent potion like Islamism which destroys the body of a culture in one fell sweep. It is not subtle like Christianism which subverts a society surreptitiously. But at the same time, it is a creeping toxaemia which corrodes the soul of a culture and corrupts a social system in slow stages. And its target is every section of Indian society.

Yet, as we survey the spread of its spell over Hindu society, particularly Hindu intelligentsia, we can spot some of its paralysing processes. The most prominent are the following five:

1. A sceptical, if not negative, attitude towards Hindu spirituality, cultural creations and social institutions with solemn airs of scholarship and superior knowledge. Nothing in Hindu India, past or present, is to be approved unless recognised and recommended by an appropriate authority in the West;

2. A positive, if not worshipful, attitude towards everything in Western society and culture, past as well present, in the name of progress, reason and science. Nothing from the West is to be rejected unless it has first been weighed and found wanting by a Western evaluation;

3. An intellectual inclination to compare Hindu ideals and institutions from the past not with their contemporaneous ideals and institutions in the West but with what the West has achieved in its recent history-the 19th and the 20th Centuries;

4. A mental mood to judge the West in terms of the ideals and utopias it proclaims from time to time, while judging the Hindus with an all too supercilious reference to what prevails in Hindu society and culture at the present time when the Hindus have hardly emerged from a long period of struggle against foreign invasions;

5. A psychological propensity to scrutinise, interpret and evaluate Hindu culture, history, society and spirituality with the help of concepts and tools of analysis evolved by Western scholarship. It is never granted that the Hindus too have well-developed concepts and tools of analysis, derived from their own philosophical foundations, that it would be more profitable to use these concepts and tools of analysis for a proper understanding of the Hindu heritage, and that it is less than fair to employ alien and incompatible methods of evaluation while judging this heritage. If the Hindus use their own concepts and tools of analysis to process and weigh the Western heritage, our Macaulayists always throw up their hands and denounce the exercise as unscientific and irrelevant to the universe of discourse.

The intellectual and cultural fashions and fads of our Macaulayists change as freely and frequently as the intellectual and cultural climate in the West. Now it is English Utilitarianism, now German Idealism, now Russian Nihilism, now French Positivism or Existentialism, now American Consumerism-whatever be the dominant trend in the West, it immediately finds its flock among the educated Hindus. But one thing remains constant. The platform must first be prepared in the West before it could or should find an audience in India.

And this process of approving, rejecting, judging and justifying which Macaulayism promotes among its Hindu protagonists does not remain a mere mental mood or an intellectual inclination or a psychological propensity, that is to say, a subjective stance on men and matters. It inevitably and very soon expresses itself in a whole life-style which goes on rejecting and replacing Hindu mores and manners indiscriminately in favour of those which the West recommends as the latest and the best. The land from which the new styles of life are imported may be England as upto the end of the Second World War or the United States of America as ever since. But it must always be ensured that the land is located somewhere in the Western hemisphere. “Phoren” is always fine.

The models which are thus imported from the West in ever increasing numbers need not have any relevance to the concrete conditions obtaining in India such as her geography, climate, economic resources, technological talent, administrative ability, etc. If the imported model fails to flourish on the Indian soil and in India’s socio-economico-cultural conditions, these must be beaten and forced into as much of a receptive shape as possible, if need be by a ruthless use of state power. But if the receptacle remains imperfect even after all these efforts, let the finished product reflect that imperfection. A model imported from the West and implanted on Indian soil even in half or a quarter is always preferable to any indigenous design evolved in keeping with native needs and adapted to local conditions.

Starting from the secular and socialist state and planned economy, travelling through a casteless society and scientific culture, and arriving at day-to-day consumption in Hindu homes, we witness the same servile scenario unfolding itself in an endless endeavour. Our parliamentary institutions, our public and private enterprises, our infrastructure of power and transport, our medicine, public health and housing, our education and entertainment, our dress, food, furniture, crockery, table manners, even the way we gesticulate, grin and smile have to be carbon copies of what they are currently doing in the West.

Drain-pipes, bell-bottoms, long hair, drooping moustaches; girls dressed up in jeans; parents being addressed as mom and pa and mummy and daddy; demand for convent schooling in matrimonial ads: and natives speaking their mother tongues in affected accents after the English civilian who was helpless to do otherwise-these are perhaps small and insignificant details which would not have mattered if the Hindus had retained pride in the more substantial segments of their cultural heritage. But in the current context of kowtowing before the West, they are painful portents of a whole culture being forced to feel inferior and go down the drain.

The Hindu may sometimes need to feel some pride in his ancestral heritage, particularly when he wants to overcome his sense of inferiority in the presence of visitors from the West. Macaulayism will gladly permit him that privilege, provided Kãlidãsa is admired as the Shakespeare of India and Samudragupta certified as India’s Napoleon. The Hindu is permitted to take pride in that piece of native literature which some Western critic has lauded. Of course, the Hindu should read it in its English translation. He is also permitted to praise those specimens of Hindu architecture, sculpture, painting, music, dance and drama which some connoisseurs from the West have patronised, preferable in an exhibition or performance before a Western audience. But he is not permitted to do this praising and pride-taking in a native language nor in an English which does not have the accepted accent.

The Hindu who is thus addicted to Macaulayism lives in a world of his own which has hardly any contact with the traditional Hindu society. He looks forward to the day when India will become a society like societies in the West where the rate of growth, the gross national product and the standard of living are the only criteria of progress. He is tolerant towards religion to the extent that it remains a matter of private indulgence and does not interfere with the smooth unfoldment of the socio-political scene. Personally for him, religion is irrelevant, though some of its rituals and festivities can occasionally add some colour to life.  For the rest, religion is so much obscurantism, primitive superstition and, in the Indian context at present, a creator of communal riots.

It should not, therefore, be surprising if this self-forgetful, self-alienated Hindu who often suffers from an incurable anti-Hindu animus a la Nirad Chaudhry, turns his back upon Hindu society and culture and becomes indifferent to their fate. He cannot help having not much patience with the traditional Hindu who is still attached to his spiritual tradition, who flocks to hallowed places of pilgrimage, who celebrates his festivals with solemnity, who regulates his daily life with rituals and sacraments, and who honours his forefathers, particularly the old saints, sages and heroes. He also cannot help being indulgent towards those who are hostile to the traditional Hindu and who heap contempt and ridicule on him, no matter to what community or faith they belong, though he may not share their own variety of religious or ideological fanaticism.

The traditional Hindu, on the other hand, wants to live in peace and amity with all his compatriots. He is normally very tolerant towards his Muslim and Christian countrymen, and gladly grants them the right to their own way of worship. He goes further and quite often upholds Muslim and Christian religions as good as his own. He shows all due respect to Muslim and Christian prophets, scriptures and saints. He does not try to prevent anyone from freely discussing, dissecting, even ridiculing his religion and culture. He never mobilises murderous mobs against those Hindus who do not share his convictions about his ancestral heritage. He turns a blind eye to his Gods and Goddesses being turned into cheap models in calendars and commercial advertisements. Nor does he go out converting people of other faiths to his own.

The traditional Hindu, however, does get stirred when the Muslims and Christians cross the limits and threaten the unity and integrity of his country. He does want to retain his majority in his only homeland against Muslim and Christian attempts to reduce him to a minority by fraudulent mass conversions. He does believe that Hindu society and culture have a right to survive and put up some defence in exercise of that right. But the Hindu addict of Macaulayism stubbornly refuses to concede that right to Hindu society and culture. He cannot see the need for defence because he cannot see the danger. And he has many strings to his bow to run down the Hindu who dares defy his diktat. His attitude can by summarised as follows:

1. To start with, he refuses to recognise any danger to Hindu society and culture even when irrefutable facts are placed under his nose. He accuses and denounces as alarmists, communalists, chauvinists and fascists all those who give a call for self-defence to the Hindus. Better, he explains away the aggression from other faiths in terms of the aggression which “Hindu communalism” has committed in the first instance;

2. Next, he paints a pitiful picture of the aggressor as a poor, deprived and down-trodden minority whom the Hindus refuse to recognise as equal citizens, constitutionally entitled to a just share in the national cake;

3. At a later stage, he assumes sanctimonious airs and assigns to the Hindus an inescapable moral responsibility to rescue their less privileged brethren from the plight into which the Hindus have pressed them. In any case, the Hindus stand to lose nothing substantial if they make some generous gestures to their younger brethren even if the latter are slightly in the wrong;

4. In the next round, he harangues the Hindus that any danger to them, if really real and worth worrying about, arises not from an external aggression against them but from the injustice and oppression in their own social system which drives away its less privileged sections towards other social systems based on better premises and promises. Does not Islam promise an equality of social status because of its great ideal of the brotherhood of men? Does not Christianity present an example of dedicated social service a la Mother Teresa?

5. If the Hindus are not convinced by all these arguments and become bent upon organising some sort of a self-defence, he comes out with a fool-proof formula for that eventuality as well. The Hindus are advised to put their own house in order which, in his opinion, is the best defence they can put up. They should immediately abolish the caste system, start inter-dining and inter-marrying between the upper and lower castes, particularly the Harijans, and so on and so forth. It never occurs to him that social reform is a slow process which takes time to mature and that in the meanwhile a society is entitled to self-defence in the interests of its sheer survival;

6. If the Hindus still remain adamant, he tries his last and best ballistics upon them. He suddenly puts on a spiritual mask and lovingly appeals to the Hindus in the name of their long tradition of religious tolerance. How can the followers of Gautama and Gandhi descend to the same level as Islam and Christianity which have never known religious tolerance? The Hindus would cease to be Hindus if they also start behaving like followers of the Semitic faiths which have been conditioned differently due to historical circumstances of their birth. But he never dares put in one single word of advice to the followers of Islamism and Christianism to desist from always having it their own way. He knows it in his bones that such an advice will immediately bring upon his head the same abusive accusations which Islamism and Christianism hurl at the Hindus. This is the outcome which he dreads worse than death. He cannot risk his reputation of being secular and progressive which Islamism and Christianism confer upon him only so long as he defends their tirades against the Hindus.

But the stance which suits Macaulayism best is to sit on the fences and call a plague on both houses. The search for fairness and justice is somehow always too strenuous for a follower of Macaulayism. The one thing he loathes from the bottom of his heart is taking sides in a dispute, even if he is privately convinced as to who is the aggressor and who the victim of aggression. He views the battle as a disinterested outsider and finds it somewhat entertaining. The reports and reviews which some of our eminent journalists have filed in the daily and the periodical press about happenings in Meenakshipuram and other places where Islamism is again on the prowl, leaves an unmistakable impression that these gentlemen are not members of Hindu society but visitors from some outer space on a temporary sojourn to witness a breed of lesser beings fighting about Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

An adherent of Macaulayism can well afford to take this neutral, even hostile stance, away from and above Hindu society, its problems and its struggles, because, in the last analysis, he no more regards Hindu society as his own or as his indispensable benefactor. He has already managed to monopolise most of the political and administrative power in this country and the best jobs in business and the professions. He has secured a stranglehold on the most prestigious publicity media. The political upstarts and the neo-rich look up to him as their paragon and try to mould their sons and daughters in his image.

But what is uppermost in his mind, if not his conscious calculation, is the plenty of patrons, protectors and pay-masters he has in the West, particularly the United States of America. The scholars and social scientists over there in the progressive West approve and applaud whenever he pontificates about India’s socio-economico-cultural malaise and prescribes the proper occidental cures. They invite him to international seminars and on well-paid lecture tours to enlighten Western audiences about the true state of things in this “unfortunate” country and the rest of the “under-developed” world. He can travel extensively in the West with all expenses paid on a lavish scale. Even in this country he alone is entitled to move and establish the right contacts in social circles frequented by the powerful and the prestigious from the West.

And, God forbid, if the worst comes to the worst and the “fanatics like the RSS fascists” or the Muslim fundamentalists or the Communist totalitarians take over this country, he can always find a safe refuge in one Western country or the other. There are plenty of places which can use his talents to mutual profit. The salaries they pay and the expense accounts they allow are quite attractive. The level of living with all those latest gadgets is simply lovable. In any case, he has all those sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, cousins and close relatives ensconsed in all those cushy jobs over there-the UN agencies, the fabulous foundations, the business corporations, the universities and research institutions.

So, Hindu society with all its hullabaloo of religion and culture be damned. This society, and not he, stands to lose if he is not permitted to work out his plans for progress in peace. In any case, this society cannot pay even for his shoes getting polished properly.