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.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Thursday, 9 September 2010
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.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, 6 April 2008
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.)
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.)
Saturday, 29 March 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
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.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)