Vedic Astrology: A scientific exploration into the philosophy of Hinduism

Part 3 of 3: Addressing scientific scepticism

Allow me to illustrate this with a simplified example of the effects of the sun and the moon on our lives on earth.

Seasonal changes that occur with the earth’s rotation and position around the sun affect the course of lives of organisms on earth. Plants wither, animals hibernate and migrate. It is no coincidence that during winter seasons, the lack of sunshine affects the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain causing seasonal affective disorder in many; a condition which can significantly hamper or affect life.

The gravitational forces of the moon affect tides, making the environment more habitable to some than others, which subsequently affects the lives of fishermen who live by sea and what they eat. The nutrients that are contained within a particular species of fish, varies from another, therefore what you eat is also dictated by the environment you live in, which in turn affects your constitution, physical built, physiological and psychological well being, health and overall quality of life.

Such are examples of only two of the multitude of floating masses within our solar system, not even the universe. Could we have underestimated the effects of the other planets in solar system on our lives?

I draw an analogy to the above by dropping a pebble into the middle of the pond. As the pebble breaks into the surface of the water, it sends ripples in all directions of the pond. A fish in the pond will surely feel the wave of ripples as it passes through, and its subsequent actions will in a way be dictated by the size and nature of the force of the ripple waves; however it chooses to react to the stimulus. The closer it is to the ripple, the larger its direct effect it has on the course of actions to the fish. But you would be wrong to assume that a fish being further away from the source of the ripple would be any less affected by it. Although the energy from direct force of the ripple itself may have dissipated away, the indirect effects of the force still affect its subsequent actions, thus creating a chain of separate but inter connected sequence of actions, not dissimilar to the chaos theory.

Neutrinos are an example of a particular type of particles that are constantly being transmitted from the universe onto earth, amongst the many others that have been identified and not. Initially thought to be massless, these particles travel at light speed and pass through other particles relatively unaltered due to its seemingly neutral properties. With so little understood about neutrinos, would be unfathomable to think the transmission of the immeasurable masses of neutrinos from the constellations could possible have at least some bearing on the courses of an individual’s life? Where would we even start if we were to attempt to conduct an experiment the effect of neutrinos on an individual’s health or mood? Furthermore, how can we with any confidence disregard the effects of the other particles that potentially remain elusive from the limitations of our scientific knowledge and theories?

Ancient vedic texts describe an inner energy within the human body, not dissimilar to chakra flow. Ayurvedic and ancient Chinese medical texts books describe these chakra pathways to great detail, similar to how the course of the neurovascular bundles run through the body. The dissection of human anatomy has not demonstrated these pathways, yet I believe that these pathways exist, even if they remain invisible to the naked eye or electron microscopes. We may be unable to prove they exist, but it does not dismiss the distinct possibility that they might. Ayurvedic texts describe that illnesses stem from the imbalance of these pathways on bodily systems, and that at birth the effect of the constellations determine the dominance of the various different pathways that flow through the body.

Therefore to me, it is not inconceivable that with the changing positions of the planets and the constellations, there are continual changes in the quantities and nature of particles and thus energies being transmitted onto us. The effects of this are of course immeasurable, but could potentially interact and activate or inhibit the flows of the pathways within all objects animate and inanimate in this world, subsequently altering the course of life as we believe it to be.

I remain sceptical towards Vedic astrology, but equally have not grown blind or ignorant to the remote possibility that it could be true. As a scholar of modern sciences, Vedic astrology defies the logics of the set laws of the sciences I have been taught. Yet I am fortunate enough to recognise the limitations of science as we know it, and not to dismiss even the most improbable of likelihoods. There perhaps exist realms beyond our own, which inevitably sparks the famous debate of whether we are alone in this universe. But let us not allow the arrogance of our limited knowledge in science to dismiss the remote possibility of the fact that we could be wrong, and there may be a far greater use and understanding of Vedic astrology and religion that exceeds our own understanding in the matter.

Vedic Astrology: A scientific exploration into the philosophy of Hinduism (Part 2 of 3)

Part 2 of 3: The principles of vedic astrology

For the sake of simplicity, let us start with exploring horoscopy. Within Vedic astrology, an individual’s horoscope is determined by the constellation which appears at the horizon at the time and place of birth and its relationship to the sun and the other planets (including the moon) within our solar system. The constellation of stars at the horizon channels its energy to the individual and thus is the dominant force in determining the individual’s character and nature, whilst the arrangement of the suns and planets influence the development and evolution of these characteristics and control the element of fortune. As the position of the planets and constellations shift, the nature of the energy that is channelled to the individual subsequently changes and affects the individual’s energy, lustre and even fortune. These changes occur in varying time periods and intervals and alters the nature of the energies projected to the individual and can broadly be categorised as having a positive, negative or neutral effect on the life of the individual at that particular given time.

So for example if an individual decides to act on a particular life decision, such as making a risky career decision; he can prepare meticulously to ensure that he has the best chances of obtaining success, but this will heavily be influenced by the nature of energy channelled onto his career pathway at that particular time period in which he decides to commit his action. If this energy is positive, than combined with his efforts, his actions are likely to be met with success. If the energy is negative, despite his effort his actions may not succeed. If the energy is neutral, the success of his actions will purely depend on his effort alone.

Similarly in marriage, the union of two individuals bring together the energy of both individuals and unites them in a complex relationship. The channelling of the energies from the planets and constellations on both individuals unite, and thus creates numerous and immeasurable probabilities. Still, Vedic astrology predicts the nature of the union of these energies and predicts whether these energies synergise or repel each other, thus creating unions which are favourable, unfavourable or neutral.

Whilst the relationship that the married couple share will depend on the nature of the individuals itself and how much they commit to the relationship, Vedic astrology predicts that a favourable union will generally bring success, fortune, progeny, comfort and good health to the marriage. An unfavourable union will generally cause a marriage to be beset by troubles and grief. This is further compounded by the shift of the planetary positions and constellations with time. So despite a favourable or unfavourable union, the respective energies channelled towards each individual at that particular time will subsequently impact on the relationship and the actions between the two individuals within the marriage at that given time. Therefore even within a favourable union, the relationship of the married couple may undergo a duration of hardship and grief if the unison of energies of the channelled result in a negative energy based on the planetary positions at that given point in time; and thus vice versa.

If not already complicated, allow me to remind you that horoscopy is not the sole factor that influences fate. Vedic literature goes on to explain the effect of previous births, curses, effects of dharma and adharma, karma, birthmarks, and varna on the life of an individual and his fate.

This next brings the argument of what this knowledge achieves; predicting the nature of these forces alone is meaningless if we cannot utilise them to repel the negative forces. One could argue that the knowledge of impeding doom or disaster without the ability to avoid it itself is useless. True to a certain extent, but this knowledge is used by sages, priests and Brahmins to advise and teach their followers on how to avoid them into committing into unfavourable unions or performing significant actions during unfavourable times when negative energies are being projected onto them. If unavoidable, then certain cures and remedies are available through prayer, devotion, offerings and worship of the very Gods that control the energies of these planets and constellations. The cures and remedies vary in strength and potency, but help alleviate or minimise the effects of these negative energies and curses that affect an individual. Equally, the strength of these negative forces and curses vary in some circumstances, some for which there is no available cure or remedy.

Given the importance of astrology and vedic knowledge, Brahmins and priests were naturally revered by all strata of society. Brahmins, respected for their scholarly knowledge and as custodians of dharma were considered the head of the body that encompasses society. The Mahabharata even goes to the extent of explaining how every king needs a household priest learned in these arts if he were to be a successful king, and that the king should be guided by the priest in his actions, and that will allow his kingdom to flourish. Any who disrespects or disregards a true Brahmins advice will only inflict grief onto himself; such was the authority and influence Brahmins held over society in relation to their knowledge in the Vedas and Vedic astronomy and how it was believed to influence the fate of the individuals’ lives.

For scientists and the modern society, this unfortunately means nothing. For all the spirituality and mysticism of the religion, astrology and fate, the lack of evidence or proof to actually connect the dots in a logical sequential manner to demonstrate how these affects the course of life and nature, make it extremely difficult for sceptics to accept this. In an era where the generations of scientists have managed to dissect and unravel some of the mysteries behind the supernatural forces of nature, it has necessitated the need to conduct detailed reproducible experiments to prove any hypotheses or theories. In the case of religion and horoscopy, that may prove impossible, and thus for some easier to reject than to accept.

However the inability to conduct an experiment to prove an idea or hypothesis does not allow us to reject it wholly. Atheists’ arguments centre around the inability of religions to prove the existence of God; instead finding the concepts behind quantum and astrophysics somewhat more believable than God. Nevertheless whilst quantum physics explains the creation and the generation of energy forces within the universe, their theories stands on a balance of series of assumptions, statistical likelihood and unknown variables such as the presence of dark and cold matter, neutrinos and even gauge bosons; most of which has not been discovered or even understood. I am certain the future will provide us with more answers to the many questions behind these great mysteries, but whilst struggling to unveil the nature of some of the minute particles, how convincingly can we actually disprove the existence of God or even dismiss the influence of the rest of the universe onto our lives?

Vedic Astrology: A scientific exploration into the philosophy of Hinduism

Part 1 of 3: An introduction to vedic astrology

The relationship between Hinduism and elements within it that are intertwined with spirituality, astrology and the supernatural makes it a complex religion. It encapsulates itself within its mystical concepts that have become so complex that they even elude some of its staunchest followers.

During times when the seemly random forces of nature had a more than significant bearing on the lives of individuals within society, the role of religion was somewhat clearer. Lacking control or even the understanding behind the forces of nature and the mechanics behind these forces that dictated their lives, people believed in a concept; a vague appreciation of a larger entity that is constantly providing the forces that moves all that is on the earth. As ones lives depended on these forces, it was only natural that then people believed and worshiped these forces. These supernatural forces were believed to have originated from a high power that is God. But an increasingly secular education system adopted by the west that is dominated by science has undermined the influence of religion and is now threatening the integrity of belief systems that has once been at the core of society for thousands of years.

The relationship between science and Hinduism is of a stormy nature. Scientific theories and advancements have dominated most parts of the modern world over the last few centuries, even more so in the last few decades. Society is no longer merely willing to accept, but instead demand scientific explanations and proof to what previously remained beyond the understanding of the human intellect. It would not be far fetched to suggest that we now stand at crossroad between science and religion, and the latter appears to be a less likely appealing path for future generations.

Vedic astrology is one such example of an ancient belief that is being interrogated by modern society that I intend to explore with this essay. For thousands of years, the influence of constellation of stars and the planetary positions have been central to many Hindu societies, and is an important pivot around which crucial life decisions are made amongst Hindus. In fact, some factions of Hindus believe that the fate of an individual is preordained and set in mould; horoscopy thus explains the path that is set ahead of the individual. Others however challenge the notion of a predetermined fate and use Vedic astrology to predict the course of an individual’s life and offer hope and remedies to change the course of fate. The use of astrology in these circumstances are viewed by some as a gift of knowledge from god to alter fate; but for some, it challenges fate and believes the mastery of astrology grants us the ability to choose and carve our own fate.

In a quick glance at horoscopy and astrology, it is almost inconceivable to an educated and academic society on how the planetary positions and their relationship to the constellation of stars millions of light years away could possibly have any bearing on an individual’s life. To even begin to fathom how our respective actions and decisions, is predetermined or even altered by revolving planets and giant gaseous masses makes a mockery of our free will, and in fact our very existence. Surely the course of an individuals life and the consequences of the choices and decisions one make depends more on the environment the individual is in. Surely genetics, societal influences, the environment in which a child is raised in and the immeasurable variables that revolve the transition of an adolescent to adulthood are amongst the obvious factors that directly affect ones lives; not positions of the sun, moon, planets or the stars. If so, what proof or shred of evidence is there to demonstrate this unlikely link between astrology and our lives?

However, I would not hastily dismiss this unlikeliest of connections.

Firstly, allow me to dispel some common myths around Vedic astrology. Indian horoscopy which is so often used interchangeably with the term Vedic astrology implies that it draws its reference from the Vedas. . A consistent theme within the corpus of many Hindu literature imply the importance of astrology and one would repeatedly find reference to a higher source of power originating from beyond the realms of our planet in texts such as the Vedas, Upanishads and even the Mahabharata. However, despite the fact that Vedas themselves although on numerous occasions draws reference and acknowledges the importance of planetary positions, they do not directly prescribe nor state the laws and rules of astrology in any great detail.

So although the Vedas acknowledge the importance of astrology, it was actually ancient vedic texts such as the ‘Vasistha Samhita’ and the ‘Brihat Parashara Hora Sastra’ that explored and prescribed astrology; as ascribed to Sage Vasistha and Sage Parashara respectively. Sage Vasistha, one of the Sapta Rihsis (seven sages) is considered one of the mind born sons of the Lord Bhrama who brought down to earth divine knowledge, and Sage Parashara is his grandson, born of Shakti Muni. Sage Parashara is in turn father to the great Sage Vyasa, the scribe credited to the Vedas, the author of the Mahabharata and grandfather to the Pandavas. The teachings of these revered figures are central to corpus of the vedic literature and hence Hindu religion and vedic astrology.

The ‘Vasistha Samhita’ and ‘Brihat Parashara Hora Sastra’ are often considered to be the bibles of Vedic astrology and within these ancient texts, the rules of astrology are described with great attention to detail, explaining how ones horoscope is determined and how it subsequently affects his or her nature, character, constitution, fortune and even health. It even advises on how to prepare for significant life events such as marriages, approaching war, migrating and other events, as it argues on how the arrangement of the constellations and the positions of the planets channel their positive or negative energies subsequently affecting the outcome these events.

For example for an individual to perform a particular action successfully, it requires a balance of constitution, strength of character and resolve, and finally a fine execution of the action itself. Nevertheless, even if all above were meticulous performed, it does not necessarily guarantee the successfulness of the action itself. For vedic astrology argues that beyond what the individual is capable of controlling in this realm, there remains a superior force that influences the successfulness of his actions. Whilst recognising the importance factors that an individual need to control to increase the chances of obtaining success through his action, the channelling of energy forces from the arrangement of the constellations and planets will affect the chances of success of failure of a particular action performed.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 3 of 3: The White Way

The reality is that the American and European domination of the world has taught most of us to think in one similar way; their own way. Heralding their perceived superiority, they have infiltrated existing local societal systems all across the world and condemned any other way apart from their own. At their own folly and perhaps our own, their belief in the infallibility of democracy and a legal framework in the form of the constitution have condemned all other forms of societal structures.

Hindu laws, Hudud Laws, the customs and practices of certain African tribes, native Indians the ideology of the Chinese and Japanese, communism, facism and socialism have all fell victim under the scrutiny of the western judgement. Numerous literature and documentaries in western media have described in great detail the flaws of these ‘brutal’, ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’ and unfair and inhumane cultures. These exposés are widely circulated portraying these cultures, ideologies and concepts in a negative light compared to western thought.

The arrogance that reeks from western ethnocentricity perhaps justifiably stems from their greatest strengths; their ability to organize and structure, to impose and convince and finally faith and utmost confidence in their own ability. With a strong sense of self-belief in their methods, their overwhelming faith in their laws, cultures and beliefs compelled them to convince all others, that their ways were superior. Their ability to structure and organize all their thoughts served as a testament to their superiority. And finally when they imposed, most often than not, they succeeded.

Unfortunately, where lay the strengths that I have described in western cultures, therein lay the weaknesses of the non-western cultures. Their lack in structure, authority and self-belief allowed them to succumb to the imposing nature of western cultures.

I have no personal agenda against democracy, western culture or Christianity. Democracy may not be flawless, but perhaps it represents the most widely acceptable political structure we have now. Western culture has introduced many good values to the rest of the world too; speaking out against injustice and liberating those who have been discriminated. Christianity has brought hope and faith to many who in their darkest days were left floundering. Western colonisation of the world has indeed its benefits. But indeed it made the world sway to its tune; and if any is to stray from it, it would be near impossible to escape the prejudice and judgement from all else.

We are decades into the post-colonialism era. But why are we still judged based on western standards? Worse still, not only by the westerners, but by ourselves too.

Values like chastity are forsaken in the name of liberation. Traditional masculine and feminine roles are increasingly challenged by feminism, blurring the divide between male and female; unfortunately portraying the modern women as one not limited by culture or traditions and ultimately less feminine. Duties, responsibilities and roles are forgotten as western youth revolutions challenge the traditional eastern parent-child relationships. Sacred ties and relationships such as marriages now are no more than legislative and civil partnership that last only whilst it works. Prayer and devotion are met with scepticism and western scientific hypotheses, theories and statistics are increasingly used to explain the ways of the world.

Perhaps there is no right or wrong. But this discourse is not about which is right or better, eastern cultures versus western cultures. It merely is about remembering who we are and why we are, instead of aspiring to be someone else we are not.

Cultures and traditions evolve with time, and I am not naïve or ignorant to that. We cannot expect to still live by the traditions of our predecessors from the Vedic era. But nothing should stop us from holding onto the good and positive principles of these cultures and traditions that define us. The evolution of cultures and traditions is not about forgetting older practices, but instead is about learning from other cultures and ingraining their positives into our own lifestyle whilst accepting the technology and modernisation of the world. Unfortunately, the converse is the reality. We see more people adopting this modern foreign culture and trying to implement an eastern flavour to this. At risk of hypocrisy, I admit that even I may perhaps be guilty of this.

So hence the paradox within my discourse; will globalisation blur the lines that divide us culturally until we accept an increasingly popular western culture, or will the remaining few who have resisted westernisation so far continue to resist this new hybrid culture and allow the clashing of cultures to continue?

I warmly embrace globalisation, as the bringing together of people, I believe, helps you understand other cultures, allowing you to dispel myths, prejudices and stereotypes. Or even if it confirms them, it at least affords one the chance of experiencing a different culture and learning how to respect and live with it. However, I for one am not ready to discard religious teachings and traditions that have been passed onto me for centuries, for these are the very things that have defined who I am and provide an explanation to my identity.

Perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place if we all discarded our respective culture and religion and adopted a hybrid one. But I suppose I still would prefer a little more flavour and colour that the various cultures, religion and traditions bring to the world, even if it means a little more drama.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 2 of 3: Post-colonialism sentiments of superiority
The residual effects of post-colonialism still linger on as many former colonies have suffered from westernisation in the form of European ethnocentricity that has quenched previously held traditions, religious beliefs and ultimately culture. Heralded as the harbinger of civilisation, European imperialism gradually built an aura of superiority around European culture by condemning our very own traditional Asian cultures, hence teaching the world to measure and judge against a European based standards; a western yardstick.

This is commonality I find especially amongst the upper class or the upper middle class of our very own Asian cultures. By no fault of their own, their exposure to ‘stylish’ western cultures allows them to indulge in an air of self belief that embracing the values of ‘civilised’ cultures is form of self betterment. After all, the faculty of self improvement comes naturally even to the most primitive men. When combined with curiosity and the faculty of thought, the theory of survival of the fittest subconsciously forces upon men the natural inclination to attempt to distinguish themselves from the pack, to portray themselves as better, improved, attractive or even for simpler reasons such as a testament to their fitness or fertility.

By discarding traditionalistic cultures, many Indians have separated themselves from the traditionalist hordes that make up the majority of the society. By embracing western cultures, they edge closer towards belonging to a group perceived as being elite and superior; unfortunately and unwittingly failing to see that they have just allowed themselves to enter into the submission of foreign influence. Consequently the very features that define the Indian society and culture dissipate away and Indian identity is gradually lost.

The sense of identity is important to all because it explains what we are. It explains why we act or behave in a certain manner. It provides a fresh source of variety in an increasingly monotonous culture that has been emphasised by western education and science; inhibiting the birth of unique individuals from the various cultures. By infiltrating local legal, administrative and religious setups, western colonisers have imposed their own practices upon their colonies.

Bearing western gifts, a coy smile and the promise of a structured civil society for the benefits of the people in lands stricken with civil wars, in exchange for a mere share in administrative powers in local affairs may appear to be a fair trade at first glance. But the manner by which colonisers wrest control of the administrative powers from local leaders were by no means honourable. Many forget the circumstances under which the locals had to agree to the terms set by the western colonisers. With a vast army with far superior array of arsenal looming not far behind, the options were simple; a peaceful transition of power under which locals retain a small portion of position and power, or a transition by force under which locals will be forced to accept whatever scraps are available after the aftermath.

The strategy was brilliant, as although western colonisers gained entry through the threat of force, it provided the illusion that the entry was sanctioned by the local leaders, hence making the so-called joint administration more acceptable to the locals. As the colonisers’ voice grew louder and more frequent, it quenched the voice of the local leaders who became increasingly isolated from their own positions and people. By implementing hybrid laws, the colonisers modified local structures into a system that slowly resembled their own western society.

However, as the locals who held such high regard for their local leaders, they accepted this unfamiliar change purely because the believed that all this change was sanctioned by their own beloved and respected leaders. Unfortunately, many of the local leaders had only the own personal interest at heart, accepting the conditions imposed onto them to purely to safeguard their position The locals believed that their leaders would only have their best interest in heart when accepting these unfamiliar changes; that perhaps they could learn from another culture for their own benefit.. What they did not realise at the time was that western education and law, in many areas contradicted their own views. But instead of offering a moderated platform where these clashing of ideas could be weighed against each other, western ideas were pressed ahead and heralded as better or true at the cost of dispelling and disproving previous culturally dictated thoughts ideas. The more the locals learnt about the west, the more they forgot or unlearnt their own prior knowledge.

Christianity and science condemned religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and our beliefs; labelling them as delusions, misguided or false. Missionaries targeted areas where the population were most severely affected by suffering often most those living in severe deprivation, lacking structure in society and uneducated. The relief of their physical suffering came hand in hand with spiritual rescue.

After all it is not difficult to dissuade a man to part from beliefs that he has held on to, at a time when all around him is failing. Missionaries could very easily convince these select populations that any other form of worship apart from Christianity is false and blasphemous, hence incurring the wrath of God who has brought upon them this very suffering that they are currently experiencing.

At a time when in places like India, education and religious teaching were exclusive to mostly the higher echelons of society, the lack of faith, belief and structure of religion amongst the poor is not the least surprising. Choosing salvation of a new religion and culture over tradition and a religion one know very little about, is a straightforward choice that any man would make at times of desperation.

Thus in Asia, where tradition, culture and religion closely resembles a meshwork that has been intertwined over the centuries, separating tradition from culture, from religion is quite nearly impossible. Hence the consequence of adopting a new religion as per guided by the missionaries is the abandonment of tradition and culture.

Unfortunately the lack of consistency and structure in many cultures has led to its’ notwithstanding nature in the face of imperialism. Faith and beliefs are only held on to as long as a follower has a reason to adhere to them. The diversity and failing teachings of Hinduism due to the lack of a structured religious authority has left many followers lost or misguided. When Hinduism fails them, or fails to provide followers with answers or reason, it is no surprise when these followers look elsewhere. Similarly with traditions and culture; when we do not invest to preserve our culture and traditions, there is no doubt they will dissipate away and become diluted in the wave of globalisation. When the upper class discard and even worse despise our own culture, and openly embrace a perceived superior culture, it eventually becomes exclusive and draws the lower strata of the society towards it. It is then inevitable that the middle and lower class masses aspire to follow similarly to match and achieve the heights of the upper class to resemble or duplicate their lifestyle.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

Part 1 of 3: Is Hollywood really better than Bollywood?

For a long time I have believed that the blurring of cultural lines and barriers is an inevitable consequence of the giant wave of globalisation that is sweeping across the world. This phenomenon was one that an idealist like me warmly embraced, as I believe the breaking down of borders would bring cultures together hence allowing firsthand encounter which could dispel the myths and prejudices that one might hold against another of a different kind.

Perhaps it was my naivety that I did not account for the possibility that the opposite could happen too, if not even more likely than the former. The coming together of various cultures instead of blending together, I find as history suggests, is more likely to clash and create more barriers between cultures.

Allow me to digress to explore this thought. My friends have long known me for my loud spoken criticisms of the Indian film industries. I have never hid my contempt for what I saw as a lack of quality in the direction, a lack of depth in the plot and above all the dismal portrayal of the majority population of Indians as simpletons, rude and uncivilised, and sometimes best described as brute in the manner the films thrive themselves on glorifying retaliation against wrong with pure physical violence. The loud and crude dialogue and the exaggerated acting, I find especially difficult to endure. And even on the rare occasion you find yourself immersed in the storyline with a thin plot best described in Tolkien’s words, “butter spread over too much bread”, you are suddenly rudely interrupted with a random choreographed dance sequence or an utterly irrelevant comedy scene.

How do I even to begin to compare these productions that barely qualify to be called films to great classics such as ‘The Godfather’, ‘The City of God’, ‘Usual Suspects’ or even next to adventurous epics like ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Lord of the Rings’? Never mind the plots, even adrenaline and pure testosterone driven films crammed with violence and action were extremely ‘watch-able’; ‘Rambo’, ‘Predator’ and ‘Die Hard’ spring to mind. Likewise even soppy romantic, slapstick comedy and musicals were amusing and if not entertaining. I must reluctantly admit that I truly was mesmerised by the beautiful production of ‘Moulin Rogue’, an unusual film which I thought its genre appeared to be contemporary art more than mainstream cinema.

Although I never may have admitted it, I perhaps may have been silently embarrassed how the culture and traditions of Indians have been portrayed so crudely and so shamelessly in these movies, especially when viewed in the same light or beside the stylish American, European, and even those of oriental origin namely the Chinese and Japanese productions, such as ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’ or the flawless ‘Seven Samurai’.

That is until a particular scene from a largely obscure Tamil film left me pondering and questioning my judgements of culture. The scene, from a movie titled, “Vilai Thirai”, a struggling wannabe director has elaborate ideas of producing a movie to match the ranks of European classics epitomised by a solid and strong characters with tasteful subtlety by performance actors who are able to effortlessly draw viewers into the plot. He stars opposite a struggling wannabe actor who is a direct contrast to director; an actor who believes in not-so-subtle acting, exaggerating every scene to emphasize every emotion to allow his audience to grasp each innate emotion in its raw audacity, and immerse themselves in the fantasy providing them with escapism from reality.

In one particular scene, the director bursts out at the actor questioning his acting abilities, drawing contrast between him and greats such as Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. The actor retorts in reply, questioning the director on why was he so preoccupied with European superiority. He asked the director to stop judging him on European standards and reflect on the culture and traditions of the Indians.

He asks, “How can a European (referring to Ben Kingsley) play Gandhi, and not an Indian like me? I have no doubt I could play him better, not only because I understand better what it means to be an Indian but I know what its like. He portrayed Gandhi based on a western interpretation of how Gandhi was like. Can you ever see or even imagine an Indian actor cast to play Winston Churchill? Does it not sound ridiculous? But similarly a European plays Gandhi, and so poorly too, yet the world applauds his acting? It’s ridiculous. Stop judging us on European standards. This is India and its culture, and Indians know what we want in Indian films. If the Indian people want overacting, we give them overacting. Do you think your great European actors could deliver what we do in our films?”

Those may not be the exact words, but basically a summary of the message it carries. Nevertheless his words stung me, because I understood precisely why I have failed to appreciate Bollywood and Kollywood. I thought Ben Kingsley’s portrayal of Ghandi was superb. But the yardstick that I used to measure his performance was one that was ingrained into me over the years from popular mainstream media; European media. I learnt to believe what I read, heard or watched from the mass media. Retrospectively, it is only now I realise that I never really had the chance to judge Marlon Brando’s portrayal of the Godfather impartially. Everything I had heard or read about the movie and Brando lead me to believe that it could not get any better, as though films should be modelled after this fine example.

The Decline of Hinduism amongst Hindus

The Decline of Hinduism amongst Hindus

Many Hindus believe that we now enter a period in the age of this world that is called ‘Kali Yuga’ or the ‘age of vice’ characterised by the decline of morality amongst men, the inability to separate right from wrong, corruption between relationships between the strata of the society, between friends and family; just to mention a few. Even a sceptic or a non-Hindu would be pressed hard to disagree given the self destructive nature that men have demonstrated in recent times.

For a long time, I struggled to understand this particular concept which I felt somewhat seemed like it represented the hypocrisy of Hinduism. I failed to understand how Hinduism, a religion that is meant to save and guide mankind predicts its own inability to save man from sin. That surely a religion so pure and true, would be able to save its believers from being condemned into a realm of impurities and sin, and through its teachings help them achieve self realisation.

But upon embarking my slow and steady religious journey, I have stumbled across a series of remarkable observations and realisations, and maybe even possibly am beginning to comprehend some of the very core concepts of Hinduism (and other religions). Stark obvious to many, but a fundamental concept that had previously eluded me; for I have learnt, that God and religion may never save every soul that exists, but instead, every soul has the opportunity through God and religion to save itself from self damnation; that bad and evil is not the failure of God or religion, but purely the absence of it.

I risk incurring the wrath of many sceptics and atheist, who will simply point towards the numerous wars, crimes, pain and suffering that has been inflicted by one man onto another in the name of God and religion. However, I can only assure you, that these very men, who used God’s name and religion in vain, have never really understood either, and were purely driven by themselves or others like themselves, who were victims of the failings and misconceptions of religious teachings. It is only lately that I have realised that although I have been born a Hindu, and practised Hinduism all my life, it is only over the last few years I have began to live as a Hindu. This draws me towards the compulsion to explain the decline of Hinduism or more accurately, the lost principles of Hinduism amongst Hindus.

I recently attended a temple function, during which a priest delivered a sermon, teaching the temple crowd about some of the aspects of Hinduism. Thirty minutes into his sermon, I left, slightly disappointed by the narrow teachings of the priest. Alternating between Hindi and English, the priest explained parts of text quoted from the Ramayana, teaching the temple crowd about the value devotion as opposed to temptation, warning against seduced by superficial beauty and encouraged the crowd to learn and acquire knowledge; advising his audience to live proudly and true to the values of an Indian, and rejecting the corruption of the west. Everything the priest delivered, was direct, relevant and most importantly gave good guidance and direction to all those who listened. But his single shortcoming was his failure to understand, that the concepts of Hinduism extended beyond the cultural and traditionalistic limitations of the Indian subcontinent. Simply put, the priest implied that one ought to live the life of a traditional Indian. In fact, implicating western civilisations as the reason of corruption amongst Hindus may even be perceived as a denial of their own inability to withstand the test of globalisation.

Hinduism was born by the side of the Ganges River in the ancient Indian civilisation, and naturally many Indians would have lived and practiced Hinduism to an extent, the terms ‘Indian lifestyle’ or ‘Indian culture’ could perhaps possibly be used interchangeably or perhaps synonymously as Hinduism, at that point in time in history. But the evolution of society, culture and tradition has changed all this. The traditional Indian culture that was largely shaped and influenced by Hinduism may no longer reflect the true teachings of the very religion that shaped it.

Therefore, although the Indian culture and the teachings of Hinduism may be have interchangeably influenced each other to the point the teachings of Hinduism is immersed in the traditional Indian culture and vice versa, a Hindu must learn to demarcate these two areas to be able to appreciate Hinduism in its purest form. This however, may appear to be a task equivalent to seeking the ‘Holy Grail’, purely because unlike other religions, Hinduism, does not draw its religious authority from a single source, but instead relies heavily on the numerous ancient Sanskrit texts that exists in the form of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the ‘smritis’, and even from the epic poems Ramayana and the Mahabharata of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of. And it is of utmost importance that these texts and scriptures are interpreted in the context in which they were written, hence heavily influenced by the Indian culture and traditions.

Therefore, I understand, and perhaps am able to forgive Hindus who are under the misconception that the traditional Indian culture and lifestyle epitomises the principles of Hinduism. What irks me however is the failure of Hindus to evolve and adapt these very principles to the modern day and ultimately the failure to develop and live by the principles of Hinduism.

As simple example is as follows:
“...Hindus may pray to God in the various forms He has chose to reveal Himself to man. Whether it be through the reincarnation of Lord Vishnu in the form of Rama, or through Lord Krishna the charioteer to Prince Arjuna in the battle of Kurushetra.

…As a Hindu, a child would often be taught to clasp their hands together, in front of these idols, and pray; with prayer being in the form of offering thanks to God for all He has provided us with, apologies for our numerous shortcomings or sins we have committed and finally submitting to God our needs, so He would bless us in all our future endeavours and help us achieve them. We were taught to prepare myself for the rituals, on how to participate and conduct ourselves during these rituals. But very often that was the extent of how much an average Hindu child is taught about the religion…”

Temples, parents or religious classes that teach Hinduism is a rarity, and may be limited to selected religious texts or pure mythology. Hence, when the priests would chant prayers and mantras in Sanskrit and calmly conduct each step of the meticulous and complex rituals, very little of the procedure itself is understood by the Hindus participating in the ritual, but eventually simply learn to accept it. Enduring ignorance in silence, the core teachings are simply lost and masked by our ignorant diligence in performing prayer without understanding it, hence rendering prayer, worship and devotion meaningless. Worse still, is the blatant ignorance that has beset many Hindus, who are dominated by prayer, worship and rituals, forgetting or in some cases never learning about the facets of Hinduism that deal with complex but important concepts such as dharma, karma and conduct.

Outside prayer, worship and devotion, ‘Hinduism’ as it is practiced now fails to prepare Hindus to face the realities of life, due to the neglect of the principles of Hinduism. Adopting a broad generalised view, merely comparing Hinduism to other religions such as Islam and Christianity, it appears to me that Muslims and Christians generally understand and grasp the principles of their respective religions better than Hindus with Hinduism. This in turn allows Muslims and Christians to be better prepared to face the realities in life, such as dealing with significant stressful life events, such as birth and separation, dealing with fortune and misfortune, conduct of relationships between family, relatives and friends, roles and responsibilities and ultimately death.

Hindus, generally less knowledgeable in Hinduism, are often left confused and lost in the face of reality. Thus Hinduism becomes superficial in meaning, as the valuable teachings of the ancient Sanskrit teachings such as the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita are gradually being replaced by ritualism and symbolism. Ask any Hindu about his or her purpose in life, and do not be surprised if your question is met with hesitancy or a long winded philosophical answer; clear evidence of the stark lack of knowledge of the religion by its followers.

Religion is meant to guide and lead. It is meant to provide direction, a source to derive strength, faith and hope. Therefore if Hinduism is to serve its purpose as a religion, it needs to be accessible to its believers. It needs to be practical and practicable in this age in time. Instead of clinging on to the ritualism, symbolism, traditionalist mindset that defined Hinduism in the culture of the bygone ages of ancient India, present day Hindus need to understand that globalisation has changed the face of this world.

The culture of ancient India may not necessarily be practicable now, but Hindus must learn that that does not imply Hinduism is impractical. Hinduism should not be confined to India or the Indian lifestyle. It purely means that Hindus must reach back into the depths of the religion to acquire knowledge and learn the principles of Hinduism, to understand how Hinduism can be practised in the present and the future. Although the outlook of future Hindu practise may appear different from ancient practise, the core must remain the same. This evolutionary process which dictates change in practise of Hinduism may be criticised by many traditionalist who may claim that changes in traditional Hindu practice equates to deviance. But I view this evolutionary change as not deviance, but instead an expansion of our knowledge and understanding of the religion and hence brings us closer to God.

My belief is simple, “A man who calls himself a Muslim, who attends the mosque and prays like a Muslim, and acts like a Muslim but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Islam is not truly a Muslim. A man who calls himself a Catholic, who attends the church and prays like a Catholic, and acts like a Catholic but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Christianity is not a truly a Catholic. Likewise, a man who calls himself a Hindu, who attends the temple and prays like a Hindu, and acts like a Hindu, but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Hinduism is not a truly a Hindu.”

I do not pretend to be the epitome of knowledge with regards to Hinduism, nor am I a learned scholar in the religion. Instead, I am a purist, who by chance stumbled across the principles of Hinduism and am currently in pursuit of the knowledge that has gradually been dissipating away from Hindus. From what I have learnt, I believe that the way forward to reverse the decline in the Hindu religion is to pluck the principles of Hinduism from its traditional and cultural landscape, to learn it in its purest form, to subsequently allow it to be re-taught correctly to present day Hindus who wish live by the principles of Hinduism. Perhaps then, even Hindus will understand Hinduism better.

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

Part II: Malaysian Indian loyalists and a conclusion

I now extend my discussion into the relevance of the elections to minority of the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia: the Malaysian Indians. Consisting of ‘only’ 8% of the Malaysian population, this ethnic minority group have previously largely been discarded as politically insignificant. But recent events have dismissed such claims.

Loyalists to the former ruling coalition, Malaysian Indians have always retained hopeful faith in the governing body and the former ruling coalition could almost certainly rest assured that by large they secured the Malaysian Indian votes. However, this loyalty was taken granted for; and so often in the past has been perceived as passivity or even viewed by some as incapacity.

But the recent handling of a number of issues that remain close to the hearts of the majority of Malaysian Indians provoked an overwhelming emotive response that unearthed dissatisfaction and distrust towards the former administrative body. When their loyalty was met with betrayal involving matters closest to their hearts, a strong sense of injustice swept the Malaysian Indian community. As Malaysian Indians largely felt that their plight went unheeded and their voices muted; in perhaps the largest ever show of unity amongst the Malaysian Indians, they made a bold statement by doing the unimaginable, voting in the opposite direction.

But soon afterwards realising that they now faced the possibility that there may not be any Malaysian Indian holding office in the cabinet, there was a lingering doubt amongst Malaysian Indian voters’ post-elections whether they shot themselves in the foot by voting against the former regime, which at least guaranteed representation of Malaysian Indians in the governing body’s highest administrative task force.

The presence of Malaysian Indian representation within the cabinet was important to them, because it served as an assurance that there will be a voice from the Malaysian Indian population to the cabinet and vice-versa; that these representatives will moderate the decisions and policies formed by the cabinet, taking in consideration their views and interests which otherwise might pass over.

But history has taught us otherwise and more importantly not to repeat our folly. I only need to point the Malaysian Indians towards their increasing political and socio-economic marginalisation to help them realise that apart from ethnicity, these ‘representatives’ only served as an illusion of representation. These representatives who have time and again claimed that they will champion the cause of Malaysian Indians have undeniable failed; not only in terms of addressing the marginalisation of Malaysian Indians, but also in their respective portfolios, thus ultimately failing all Malaysians.

The lack of dedicated leaders who possesses integrity, moral principles and key leadership skills amongst the Malaysian Indian ranks is not surprising given the conservatism and traditionalist mindset of this population. Refraining from commenting on the individual make-up of our administrative body, I fail to see any Malaysian Indian in this point in time, who is truly capable as a leader for not only for the Malaysian Indians, but for a the multi-ethnic population of Malaysia.

Most definitely there will be quarters that disagree, pointing out the fact that there are many successful Malaysian Indians that surely are capable. To refute such claims, I merely have to ask of simplest questions, “Who?” I have no doubts that there are many Malaysian Indians who have achieved remarkable success in their respective fields, to the extent they command huge respect from the masses, and their achievements will remain as a yardstick against all aspiring Malaysian Indians who enter the field, will be measured against. In areas such as medicine, business, law and education, there is an undeniable pool of talent amongst Malaysian Indians. However, the majority of them are pure academics with little else to offer apart from the expertise in their respective fields and therefore, they will continue to ‘serve’ and not ‘lead’.

I have always believed that academic achievement alone is not a sensitive measure of intelligence or ability. If only such academic talent were combined with charisma, dynamism, a sense of duty towards society, management skills, principles and integrity, then perhaps the Malaysian Indians may have a capable leader. So although there are numerous Malaysian Indian academicians who have been earmarked as potential candidates for leadership, I fear this potential will remain untapped and the Malaysian Indian population will fail to have a true leader that they can look up to, and they will remain largely remain a ‘serving class’.

In light of that view, I firmly believe that the cause, interest and views of Malaysian Indians will be better represented by a capable Malaysian non-Indian leader, compared to an incapable Malaysian Indian leader. If the Malaysian Indians can see past the racial barrier, they too will see the importance of a good leader regardless of ethnicity, enabling them to aspire for greater heights which would be impossible under incompetent leadership.

However, indelible mistakes have been made in the past by previous leaders purely stemming from their cultural sensitivity towards the various ethnic groups. A good leader can only address the needs and concerns of a population if he/she can first understand their nature, more so with Malaysian Indians who are conservative and traditionalist. Merely taking a stand and implementing policies with disregard to race, culture and religion is not plausible mainly for two reasons:- 1) the multiethnic population of Malaysia still remains close to her roots, and 2) prolonged subjugation of the population under racial politics has heightened racial tensions and persecutory feelings amongst ethnic groups.

Therefore, all leaders should attempt to be accustomed or if not, at least be sensitive towards the cultural and historical aspects associated with the all major and minor, ethnic and religious groups. Lest they fail, I fear that the ethnic groups will continue to grow unnecessarily suspicious and racial tensions will only worsen, sending the society back to a time where people only thought that only ‘our kind’ will every truly understand ‘our needs and concerns’.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has named four Malaysian Indians in his cabinet, which should at least alleviate some of the concerns of the Malaysian Indians; temporarily at least. Given the poor performance of MIC and Gerakan within the Barisan Nasional in the elections, these appointments signify diplomacy within the coalition and perhaps the greatest testament to Barisan Nasional power-sharing concept. I certainly hope that these appointees will embrace the huge responsibility trusted onto them and quickly realise that their duty lies not solely to the Malaysian Indian population but to all Malaysians alike, and serve the Malaysian people by leading by example, instead of being preoccupied with racial politics as their predecessors were. I commend their appointments (although not necessarily in agreement), as it has given them a chance to step out of the shadows of previous premierships, and hope they will be able to re-educate their peers and help them achieve political maturity from within the party. More importantly, they also need to convey these messages across to the people that actually matter – the public of Malaysia.

The results of the election have been described by many as a political tsunami. Whilst I acknowledge the momentous outcome of the elections in terms of history and evolution of Malaysian politics, its impact and the consequences that follow, I dare not go as far as to describing it as a tsunami. This is purely because more crucially it is this next five years which will truly paint a more accurate picture of the effects of the outcome of the elections. This is a test for both Barisan Nasional and Barisan Rakyat.

Will Barisan Nasional change their tried and tested methods which have they have relied on for decades, to meet the changing needs of the people that are gradually rejecting Barisan Nasional’s ideologies; or will they persevere and continue employing detrimental racial politics under the guise of power-sharing to ensure racial harmony.

Can Barisan Rakyat deliver the changes that they promised to bring to the people, and perhaps more importantly can three parties with vastly divergent view points and a host of inexperienced staff settle on a level platform which will allow the formation of an effective people’s government?

A slip from Barisan Nasional if they choose to remain stubborn will result in a true political tsunami in the next general election and we may perhaps see a new government consisting of the current opposition. However, on equally dangerous footing, a slip from the Barisan Rakyat if they fail to live up to the high standards they preached pre-elections will leave voters utterly frustrated – prompting voters to revert back to the safer option. Expect to then see a landslide victory for Barisan Nasional leaving Barisan Rakyat to rue on the glorious chance that they failed to capitalise on; a chance that may not come by for a long time.

Therefore in my opinion, I believe it will be the next general elections that will tell us who truly emerged victorious in the 2008 Malaysian general elections.


(Disclaimer: This essay purely conveys my reactions, thoughts and opinions on the outcome of the recent elections as an impartial individual with no political affiliation. The focused discussion on the Malaysian Indian population is an attempt to calm their fears and reassure them that they remain relevant to the Malaysian society if they can accept their limitations and bridge the gap between racial barriers. I also believe that my arguments are not exclusive to just the Malaysian Indians but are relevant across all ethnic groups if Malaysia intends to truly achieve the racial equality and harmony she craves for.)

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

Part I of II: The evolution of public will

As the wave of initial euphoria of the recent elections passes on, I believe many are left with a residual feeling of doubt and guilt, as the people of Malaysia who finally have managed to muster enough courage to push for a change now stand on very unfamiliar territory.

Whilst Barisan Nasional will work arduously to dissect the cause of their defeat in post-mortem, unless they dig really deep, they will fail to see that the ethnic groups in Malaysia are finally ready to break racial barriers. Likewise Barisan Rakyat too faces a stiff challenge in working around the stark differences around individual party policies to form a coalition that serves the public that voted for them.

I personally am in disbelief at the results of the elections, a clear testament to how I had underestimated the public masses of Malaysia.

Racial politics has been the bread and butter of Malaysian politics since pre-independent Malaya, and the power-sharing policy of Barisan Nasional to ensure representation of each ethnic group in the government has been their magnet to secure the support of the public. This policy served Malaysia and the public sufficiently in early post-independence, when racial barriers set up by the British as part of their cleverly schemed divide-and-rule policy were impregnable; a time when people believed that their interest could only be conveyed and represented to others, by someone belonging to their own respective ethnicity.

But times have changed. Globalisation and perhaps to an extent overpopulation has brought us all much closer to not only our neighbours, but also to the rest of the world. And in many ways, too close for comfort for a proportion of the population who have failed to embrace this phenomenon. Ethnic and cultural divides are now even less well defined than the borders or even the laws of the land and surely ethnic and cultural barriers are slowly fading. We must accept that the longer we continue to dwell on our differences, the longer and harder it will take to accept the inevitable change. Instead we should choose to focus on the similarities we share and cherish our differences that are unique to us as a precious keepsake.

But unfortunately in the multiethnic Malaysia, a handful of our politicians have tactlessly continued to employ racial politics to remind us of our differences to reinstall these barriers; in what I can only perceive as a hapless attempt for personal political gain at the cost of suppressing the natural evolution of social development of the Malaysian public. Consequently, in the last decade, racial tensions appeared only to be escalating, and it seemed that the racial harmony within the multiethnic society that Malaysia paraded internationally only served as masquerade; a mask underneath which racial tensions were carefully concealed threatening to erupt at any time, a façade or perhaps even better described as the conspiracy of silence of the Malaysian public.

The numerous rallies before the elections were early symptoms of a depressed society, that our executive committee failed to diagnose and address adequately. Furthermore, the situation was not helped by leading authorities, who failed to attend to the needs of these groups sensitively. On numerous occasions, their claims were often dismissed as trivial or worse still went unheeded purely because it was deemed that they were those belonging of the minority.

It is inevitable that the administrative body in a democratic organization will lean towards meeting and satisfying the needs of the majority. It most basic terms, majority rule is amongst the core principles of the governance of a democracy which often can result in the tyranny of the majority; where in the interest of the majority, the interest of the minority can be overlooked and disregarded.

Rousseau wrote in the ‘Discourse on Political Economy’, that a popular government has at its object the good of the people and follows the general will (majority) of the public. However, he immediately recognized that the decree of the general will, will inevitably impinge on the individual rights of the public; majority or minority regardless and hence acknowledged the necessity of a uniform set of laws that apply equally to each individual according to the general will and a good leader who is able to govern according to the public will, without completely overlooking the rights of the minority population.

But above it all, Rousseau underlined with utmost importance that the government should not directly control these laws but instead be adherent to these laws that are administered by legislators, and this lawful government should be lead by a leader who is not blinded by ambition, but one who has integrity and adheres to the principles of moral values. Only then can a leader run the government according to the general will of the public, whilst ensuring that the rights of the minority remain protected – “…let their country therefore be a common mother to all the citizens; let the advantages which they enjoy there make them cherish it; let the government allow them a share in public administration sufficient to make them feel that they are in their home county, and let the laws, in their eyes, be nothing less than the guarantee of liberty for all..” (Rousseau)

The election results are reflective of the paradigm shift of the public will. The only question that remains is whether Malaysia has a leader within her ranks who possesses the integrity and principles that are guided by moral values that will allow him/her to form a popular government that appeases both the majority and the minority.

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part VI of VII: The Failings of ‘Manusmriti’ and the ‘Hindu Law’

The Code of Gentoo Laws thus remained largely imperfect and created numerous problems and conflicting opinions. British officials soon increasingly mistrusted the Pandits (Brahmins) and were frustrated at the way they thought they [Pandits] were misleading the courts primarily by favouring the interests if their own, and dealing with a spectrum of customs that were not certified by any apparent ‘holy scripture [25]. This consequently prompted Sir William Jones (an English philologist) to write in a letter to Hastings on the 20th October 1791, “…for I can no longer bear to be at the mercy of our pundits [Pandits], who deal out Hindu law, as they please.” [21] Jones then proceeded to learn Sanskrit and in attempt to rectify the problems associated with the Anglo-Brahminal hybrid legislative system, translated the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ in 1794.

Jones was determined that the British should administer the best ‘shastric’ law possible. His translation of the ‘Manusmriti’ gradually received wide publicity amongst the British (and eventually Europe – a German translation of the ‘Manusmriti appeared in 1797) [21], and eventually a policy decision by the India Office (the government spearheading British India) kept this document in circulation to project it as an example of the Hindu Law or the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law is merely an enforcement of Hindu ‘shastric’ instructions under which Hindus were governed anyway, by the British who had inherited the authority to administer this law [25].

Sir William Jones himself in a series of letters with Charles Wilkins (a printer/writer under the service of East India Company who first translated the Bhagavad Gita) had initially proclaimed that he had no intention to learn Sanskrit. In a letter to Wilkins in 1784, Jones wrote, “…happy should I be to follow you in the same track (in reference to learning about the untrodden paths of Hindu [Sanskrit] learning), but life is too short.” [21] Remarkably, he changed his mind in 1785, when he received a copy of the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ as a present, and found the temptation too great to resist and started learning Sanskrit. However, what authority does this give to the ‘Manusmriti’, a scripture that was only translated by Jones after by chance receiving it as a present? I do not wish to impart any blame onto Jones for translating this document or for the widespread attention it received. But, these sequalae of events resulted in the ‘Manusmriti’ being eventually widely accepted as evidence (and wrongly so) of the ‘Hindu Law’ as ordered by ‘shastric’ instructions, that the British were administrating.

The contents of the ‘Manusmriti’ itself are not hugely dissimilar to the Vishnusmriti, and likewise advocate caste based discrimination, and therefore was not significantly different from existing Anglo-Brahmanical Law that was already in place in terms of dealing with the treatment received by each respective caste. What changed was the fact that the Pandits eventually had less room to manoeuvre around and manipulate the law to their interests as previously done, allowing a more standardized and consistent legislative and judiciary system to take shape in India, albeit not formally addressing or even effectively dealing with the issues revolving around caste discrimination. Below, I have inserted a few excerpts from the ‘Manusmriti’ [26] for your viewing:

Manusmriti, Chapter III
It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana.

Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

Manusmriti, Chapter VIII
A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

Manusmriti, Chapter X
No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.

Here, I find it worthy of mention, that although this text has prescribed specific and severe punishment for what seemingly appears to be trivial ‘offences’, mostly committed by a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ against another belonging to a ‘higher caste’, I naturally assumed that following this pattern of caste based discrimination, the punishment dealt to the person would depend on the his/her caste as such: a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ would be dealt a more severe punishment, compared to another belonging to a ‘higher caste’ committing the same crime. However, I found myself pleasantly surprised that I was wrong in my assumptions. There was a strange oddity amongst this scripture that seemed to contradict the relative bias of this text towards the ‘upper caste’. Apparently, a person belonging to a ‘upper caste’ such as a Brahmin or a king is considered to be more knowledgeable and learned in the ‘shastric’ laws, and thereby possess a greater ability and understanding to distinguish between what is lawful and what is otherwise; and therefore if he knowingly commits an offence will thereby be subjected to a more severe punishment compared to a Sudra, for example, who is assumed to be lacking in this knowledge, and is given the benefit of doubt.

Manusmriti, Chapter VII
Neither a father, nor a teacher, nor a friend, nor a mother, nor a wife, nor a son, nor a domestic priest must be left unpunished by a king, if they do not keep within their duty.

Where another common man would be fined one karshapana, the king shall be fined one thousand; that is the settled rule.

In (a case of) theft the guilt of a Sudra shall be eightfold, that of a Vaisya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirtyfold,

That of a Brahmana sixty-fourfold, or quite a hundredfold, or (even) twice four-and-sixtyfold; (each of them) knowing the nature of the offence [26].

Nevertheless, ultimately neither the ‘Hindu Law’ as prescribed by the Gentoo Code nor the Manusmriti did any favours for the discrimination against persons occupying the lower strata of social order. One must understand the Hinduism and Brahmanical Law (‘Hindu Law’ as administered by the Brahmins) although closely related are not synonymous. Whilst Hinduism explains the characters of a Brahmins or a Sudra in terms of his ‘varna’ and ‘guna’, Brahmanical Law defines caste by birth, marriage and occupation. Whilst Hinduism explains the role of each particular ‘varna’, Brahmanical Law instructs and orders each particular ‘caste’. Hinduism contains the teachings of God. Brahmanical Laws contains the teachings of Brahmins. Unfortunately the Brahmins, who were entrusted to distribute the teachings of Hinduism and educate the society, have failed miserably. These Brahmins, succumbing to corruption can only be Brahmins by birth, marriage, occupation or name, but can never be true Brahmins as defined by Hinduism. They may live and remain as priests and leaders amongst men, but will stand in front of God as condemned men for twisting His words and teachings. Brahmanical Law which advocates the caste system is not a logical derivative of Hinduism, but instead, the Brahmanical Law is the corruption of the teachings of Hinduism.

Eventually in 1787, Hastings was impeached for corruption. The failings of the early period of the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law was due to its unconventional origins, lacking a clear structure, outline or guideline leading to a confusion amongst the British judges, with no clear understanding of the legislative system could only attempt to satisfy the litigating public, whilst military forces were used to maintain peace and enforce the compliance with the decrees [20]. It was the role of the subordinate native officials to produce a decision to settle a dispute, which previously would have been settled at leisure amongst local leaders, or might have even never have arisen in the form of litigation at all; a system vulnerable to corruption [20] under Hastings rule. Eventually, local leaders, Pandits and other Brahmins dealt out law as they pleased, under the conditions that the government retained all the advantages of authority and jurisdiction which the Company had inherited with regard to Hindu caste matters [20]. Hastings, upon his return to England was subjected to a series of charges by Edmund Burke (Hastings was only impeached for seven of the twenty two charges brought forth by Burke) including benefiting from lucrative contracts by using his position in power, extortion, torture and waging unjust wars; for both personal gains and British colonial interest.

In one of the most powerful orations in history, Edmund Burke delivered his opening speech at the trial of Warren Hastings on February 13, 1788 at the William Rufus Hall at the Westminster; excerpts of his speech which I have included below.

Edmund Burke: At the Trial of Warren Hastings
My lords, I do not mean now to go farther than just to remind your lordships of this—that Mr. Hastings’ government was one whole system of oppression, of robbery of individuals, of spoliation of the public, and of supersession of the whole system of the English government, in order to vest in the worst of the natives all the power that could possibly exist in any government; in order to defeat the ends which all governments ought, in common, to have in view. In the name of the Commons of England, I charge all this villainy upon Warren Hastings, in this last moment of my application to you.

…My lords, what is it that we want here, to a great act of national justice? Do we want a cause, my lords? You have the cause of oppressed princes, of undone women of the first rank, of desolated provinces, and of wasted kingdoms.

…Do you want a criminal, my lords? When was there so much iniquity ever laid to the charge of any one? No, my lords, you must not look to punish any other such delinquent from India. Warren Hastings has not left substance enough in India to nourish such another delinquent

…I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights and liberties he has subverted; whose properties he has destroyed; whose country he has laid waste and desolate

…I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured and oppressed, in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life [27].

The subsequent trial lasted for six years, and eventually in 1975, Hastings was acquitted of all charges. However, the damage that Hastings administration of the British India has caused the society was already severe. Hastings hand in implementing a flawed legislative and judiciary system provided the Brahmins and Pandits the licence to formally exercise their power, and allow the continuous oppression and discrimination against persons belonging to lower social groups or castes, under the false pretences that these laws were as dictated by Hinduism and they were merely holding to authority to implement these laws as they were originally meant to be. One may argue that following Hastings discharge from his position as Governor-General, there were many opportunities to put this wrong to right, either by the efforts of colonial administrators or the Brahmins and Pandits themselves. But with both groups equally benefiting from this Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid Law, neither group were willing to commit themselves to rectify these flaws as it would mean the letting go of the benefits and perks that they have been privileged to, that they have grown to take for granted as their right.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part V of VII: Western hypocrisy – The Introduction of the ‘Hindu Law’

Unfortunately none of my previous discussions offer an explanation to why caste based discrimination is so strongly prevalent amongst Hindus, to a point where it even became incorporated in societal laws and constitutions. Herein lay the biggest hypocrisy of Western colonizers who have repeatedly condemned Hinduism’s caste system, yet were the main culprits who allowed the incorporation of ‘caste based discrimination’ and therefore paved way for its formal introduction into societal laws and constitutions.

The British colonization of India which effectively began as early as in 1670, when King Charles II granted the British East India Company the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops, to form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas in India [19]. However, it was not until 1773, when the British Parliament granted the British government regulatory control over the East India Company via the election of Warren Hastings as the first governor-general of British India.

Amongst the first tasks that Hastings set to achieve were to reinforce British rule in India via imposing the Parliament’s sovereignty and control over the Company and establishing a judiciary and legislative system in India. Appreciating the conservatism of India, Hastings was sensitive to both religion and tradition of its occupants and paid great respect to the Hindu scriptures, which at the time remained unprecedented as a guide on code of conduct in society. Hastings (acting on a proposition put up by the Committee of Circuit at Cossimbazar, 15 Aug. 1772) secured that indigenous systems should be applied, and that the judges of law should be specialists in those systems; the responsibility of judgement should be shared between the official and the native jurists, both signing the final document [20].

However, not even Hastings let alone any other English man was able to overcome the language barrier into understanding these codes and Hindu scriptures as they were almost exclusively available only in Sanskrit. Therefore, Nathaniel Halhed, a British grammarian working with the East India Company was chosen to translate and compile the ‘Hindu Law’ for the legislative purposes. Halhed himself was not familiar with Sanskrit and had to resort to selecting eleven Brahmin pandits to aid him in his task, none of whom were willing to instruct him in the language itself; and ultimately these eleven Brahmin pandits were appointed to make extracts from representative works and to arrange them as a code [21]: ‘The Code of Gentoo Laws’ or also known as ‘The Ordinations of the Pundits’.

Here itself we can spot fundamental errors in the process of compiling a societal law. The hierarchy itself dictates that these laws compiled by the select Brahmin pandits are subject to approval of both Halhed and Hastings, both whom are previously illiterate to Hindu scriptures and ultimately oblivious to the teachings of Hinduism itself, thus leading to a birth of an unorthodox Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law. Furthermore, as explained previously, the inequality that has existed amongst men would predict that a man in a position of power could necessarily exploit his position to further strengthen his position in society, as it is possible with the Brahmin pandits who could have selected excerpts which only contributed towards the gain of the upper ‘caste’. Thirdly, the translation itself was an indirect process – these scriptures which were in Sanskrit were first translated into Persian before it was subsequently translated into English by Halhed. Although Halhed claims that there is nothing slipshod about the translation process, we must acknowledge that the circumstances under which the translation process took place were not exactly ideal.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the compilation of the ‘Hindu Law’ itself is arbitrary. What exactly is ‘Hindu Law’? Classical Hindu law, brings the realm of legal practice together with the scholastic tradition of ‘Dharmasastra’ by defining Hindu law as a usable label for myriad localized legal systems of classical and medieval India that were influenced by and in turn influenced the ‘Dharmasastra’ tradition [22]. The relationship between custom and the ‘Dharmasastra’ was taken for granted, and instead of using the native referees as sources of customary law, Hastings directed that reference should be made only as to what the ‘Dharmasastra’ provided [20]. Hastings exact words which acquired the force of legislation and became law under s.27 of the Regulation of 11 April 1790 were, “In all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to Mohamedans (Muslims) and those of the Shaster with respect to the Gentoos shall invariably be adhered to.” [20].

The ‘Dharmasastra’ on which Gentoo Laws were largely based upon itself is purely a genre of Sanskrit text which contain ‘smritis’ that is compiled by Brahmin scholars explaining ‘dharma’ or literally the code of conduct; a guide for individuals within a society as perceived by Brahmins based on their understanding and interpretation of the Hindu scriptures, which in turn rest heavily on assumption that these learned scholars thoroughly appreciate and understand the teachings of Hinduism in its purest form.

Here I find it necessary to explain the distinctions between the various types of Hindu scriptures that exist. For simplistic reasons, I will classify Hindu scriptures into two categories: the ‘shruti’ texts, and the ‘smriti’ texts.

The original teachings of Hinduism in its purest form itself is contained in ‘shruti’ Hindu texts, which are considered a “divine recording of the cosmic sounds of truth”, heard by ‘rishis’ or sages, or simply put recordings or documentation of divine teachings received directly from a higher power. These teachings are contained in the Vedas, scriptures such as the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads which are a part of, derived from and/or explain the Vedic scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita from the Mahabharata; recording dialogues, instructions and explanations derived directly from a higher power without any input from the transcribers themselves.

The other group of Hindu scriptures are collectively known as the ‘smriti’; translates into “that which is remembered”. Although these scriptures are also written by sages or Brahmins, they are only next in authority to the ‘shruti’ texts, simply because the ‘smriti’ is purely an individual interpretation by the author explaining his understanding of existing Hindu scriptures. Therefore ‘smriti’ scriptures although remain hugely significant in Hinduism, may or may not contain the teachings of Hinduism in its purest form as it contains large amounts of input from the author himself.

Therefore, it is utterly inexcusable to use and quote the Dharmasastra to form the foundations of the ‘Hindu Law’. To attach the words ‘Hindu Law’ itself to a ‘smriti’ text implies that Hinduism instructs an individual as dictated by the Dharmasastra, which is not only misleading, but utterly false; a misnomer that has wrongfully cited the works of men, Brahmins and sages as belonging to those of higher power.

Brahmins scholars alike any other men occupying top most positions in any given social order and are not exempt from corruption, and possess the ability and opportunity to use their position as leverage for personal gains and ensure a secure future for themselves. This becomes apparent when one examines the incongruities between ‘shruti’ and ‘smriti’ Hindu scriptures. Whilst ‘shruti’ texts only explain the ‘varna’ system, social order and the duties and responsibilities of an individual of a particular ‘varna’ in society and life, it nevertheless treats each individual as equal. However, certain ‘smriti’ texts have attempted to segregate the various strata of society by creating separate niches for each ‘varna’ respectively; instructing how each individual is treated differently according to his ‘varna’.

This is exemplified by these following excerpts from the Vishnusmriti (sacred laws as remembered of the teachings of Lord Vishnu), one of the ‘smritis’ of the Dharmasastra:

Vishnusmriti, Chapter V: Law of Debt
…If a (low-born) man through pride give instruction (to a member of the highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth

…If a (low-born man) mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly, an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot).

…If one who (being a member of the Kandâla or some other low caste) must not be touched, intentionally defiles by his touch one who (as a member of a twice-born caste) may be touched (by other twice-born persons only), he shall be put to death

…If a woman in her courses (touches such a person), she shall be lashed with a whip [23].

It is easy to understand from these translated excerpts of the Vishnusmriti why caste based discrimination is attached to Hinduism, as it explicitly discriminates against a person of a lower caste. However, one can immediately spot the glaring contradictions between the ‘shruti’ texts and the ‘smriti’ texts; that the ‘shruti’ texts which contain the original and purest forms of Hindu teachings have not in any way instructed the discrimination or the ill-treatment against an individual of a lower social order, nor did it in most ways passed absolute law or judgement against a particular behaviour.

This is as opposed to the ‘Vishnusmriti’ which although believed to have derived is authority from the Vedas, is marred by an obvious slight towards the higher castes which is uncharacteristic of the original Hindu teachings. Perhaps not surprising considering that the Dharmasastra was composed by Brahmin scholars, for the convenience and the benefit of the Brahmins themselves. The pristine, pure and simple religious tenets that were protected and taught by the Brahmins who were supposed to preserve these messages have made it increasingly obscure and forced the nation [India] into sacerdotal slavery [24].

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part IV of VII: ‘Jati’ and Caste Systems outside Hinduism

I admit that up to now, I have touched very little on the term ‘jati’ itself purely because it is difficult to explain due to the fact that in a number of translations of Hindu Scriptures, the term ‘caste’ had replaced ‘varna’ and ‘jati’ without distinguishing the both. Whilst ‘varna’ is considered to be ‘caste’ or ‘social order’, ‘jati’ has always been considered to be the ‘sub-castes’ or even ‘true caste’. However, in actuality, ‘jati’ which depended on birth truly represented an individual’s heritage, in a similar manner as ethnicity. Distinction between individuals within a particular ‘varna’ was made based on the specific occupations of each individual; forming guild-like division amongst a particular ‘varna’. For example due to the wide range of nature and abilities of the Vaisyas, they held various occupations such as farmers, merchants, and blacksmiths. Therefore the intra-group variation that existed further stratified each individual into smaller guilds within the Vaisya group and an individual would be recognized by the community he occupies by his pedigree.

Identifying one as a ‘son of a farmer’ or a ‘son of a blacksmith’ would offer a picture to represent the environment that particular individual was/is exposed to or even describes an individual’s social status. It marks the ancestry and the heritage of an individual, and is not intended for discrimination purposes. Unfortunately, the wide intra-group variation that exists within the ‘varna’ extended beyond occupation and nature into socio-economic inequalities. The nature of each particular occupation and also its monetary returns not only fluctuate but also vary hugely, creating socio-economic barriers between ‘jatis’.

Some occupations which are ‘clean’, requiring higher levels of training/technical ability/skill and yields greater monetary returns are more favourable and command greater respect within the society as opposed to occupations that are ‘dirty’, requires less skill/training and yields lower monetary returns. This consequently led to prejudices and stereotypes attached to each ‘jati’ or guild, and eventually ‘in-group favourability bias’ exists and a particular ‘jati’ is viewed either positively or negatively. Combined with a lack of social mobility, this eventually became a fixed and rigid system that is perceived by many (and wrongly so) as the ‘caste system’ in Hinduism.

One may argue that there is no need to acquaint an individual by his background or his heritage, but instead allow his or her qualities and natures speak for themselves. I cannot agree any less. The key to understand the role of ‘jati’ within Hinduism, is that Hinduism merely accounts for the existence of ‘jati’ in human society and explains how human relations are/can be affected by ‘jati’, but Hinduism itself does not in way condemn an individual to the occupation that his/her parents possessed. Hinduism does not require a person to be identified by his/her ‘jati’ nor allows discrimination towards any particular ‘jati’.

The caste based discrimination that has so often been attached with Hinduism, is nothing more that an unfortunate consequence of inequality of men in the evolution of human society where the rich and powerful discriminate the poor and weak using whatever weapon or front to support their case; as in with Hinduism – the religion itself was wrongly exploited and misinterpreted to the benefits of certain particular groups to remain both rich and powerful, thus respected in society.

I believe I have sufficiently discussed ‘varna’ and ‘jati’ from the perspectives of Hinduism and sociology to elicit that Hinduism does not advocate the caste system. As demonstrated, the caste system can be explained from a purely sociological model not exclusive to Hinduism; the result of natural evolution (or lack of evolution) of human society.

As it would be fair to comment that not many other cultures, religious and secular societies observe this evolutionary pattern in human society, the logical question that follows is why is the hereditary, discriminatory ‘caste’ system so strongly prevalent and embedded in certain Hindu societies if Hinduism is opposed to it?

Unfortunately, there are similar ‘caste’ systems existing in non-Hindu societies as well for example amongst Indian Muslims, Indian Christians and outside India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, there is evidence of ‘caste’ systems in practice in certain African tribes and even in Japan, Korea and Yemen.

However to illustrate my point, I will only further expand on the case of Indian Muslims, because in many aspects Islam is considered to be the antithesis of Hinduism yet in India many Muslims retained a ‘castes’ systems characteristics to Hinduism [17]. Whilst some may argue that this could possibly be explained as a residual effect or remnants following the conversion of Hindu followers into Islam, I believe that this argument is weak and will not hold considering Islam is opposed to the hierarchy of ‘caste’* as it is explained by Hinduism, and was amongst the chief reasons cited by Muslims to encourage this conversion of faith of Hindu devotees into Islam.

*the usage of the word ‘caste’ in Hinduism does not imply that I am in agreement of it, but instead am offering an explanation from the perspective of Islam regarding the concept for ‘jati’ and ‘varna’

However, the reality of the situation is exemplified by the ‘Report on the Census of India, 1901’:

Report of the Census of India, 1901
According to Mr. Gait the Bengal Muhammadans "recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashrāf or Sharīf and (2) Ajlāf, which in Bengali has been corrupted to Ātrāp. The first, which means 'noble' or 'persons of high extrac- tion,' includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from the higher castes of Hindus. All other Muhammadans, including the functional groups to be presently mentioned and all converts of lower rank, are collectively known by the contemptuous term Ajlāf, 'wretches' or 'mean people;' they are also called Kamīna or Itar, 'base' or Razīl, a corruption of Rizāl, 'worthless.'

This category includes the various classes of converts who are known as Nao Muslim in Bihar and Nasya in North Bengal, but who in East Bengal, where their numbers are greatest, have usually succeeded in establishing their claim to be called Shekh. It also includes various functional groups such as that of the Jolāhā or weaver, Dhuniā or cotton-carder, Kulu or oil-presser, Kunjra or vegetable-seller, Hajjām or barber, Darzi or tailor, and the like.

Like the higher Hindu castes, the Ashrāf consider it degrading to accept menial service or to handle the plough. The traditional occupation of the Saiads is the priesthood, while the Moghals and Pathāns correspond to the Kshatriyas of the Hindu règime.

In some places a third class, called Arzāl or 'lowest of all,' is added. It consists of the very lowest castes, such as the Halālkhor, Lālbegi, Abdāl, and Bediya, with whom no other Muhammadan would associate, and who are for- bidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground." [17]

The similarities between the ‘Muhammadans’ or Muslims and Hindus in India is undeniable. The various functional groups correspond nicely with the ‘jatis’ of Hindu societies, and similarly these Muslims societies have an almost similar structure of social order: Saiads traditionally being priests corresponding to Brahmins, and Moghals and Pathans corresponding to Kshatriyas.

Here I deem it necessary to clarify (albeit repeatedly) that the ‘caste’ system is not advocated by either religion, although it does not necessarily mean it is detached from it. There are elements in Hinduism that potentially has been misinterpreted with regards to the complex relationship between ‘varna’ and ‘jati’; and subsequently has resulted in the confusion that Hinduism supports ‘caste’ based discrimination.

Similarly, Islam societies, which is (supposedly) free from slavery and caste where everyone is treated as equal [17] also suffer from the inevitable consequences of socioeconomic inequalities between various functional groups and likewise experience ‘caste’ based discrimination; parallel to an observation by Dr BR Ambedkar (an socio-politic reformist and a political leader who was amongst the chief architect of the Indian Constitution) that, “caste amongst ‘Musalmans’ (Muslims) has remained.” [18].

Therefore we can conclude that this ‘caste’ system is not exclusive to Hinduism (or Muslims), and likewise ‘caste’ discrimination cannot be solely attributed to Hindu communities and can almost wholly be explained from a sociological point of view as I have discussed above.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)