One of my good friends Mr. Naresh S
and myself, both ardent admirers of Hinduism, and who love to dabble in various
ideas, had this friendly discussion on how things may pan out for Hinduism and
other religions in India and the world to come. The discussion was very
interesting with various perspectives. Like in real life private, informal, discussions,
sometimes it goes all over the place. I have not unnecessarily edited it. I
have only restricted myself to corrected the spelling errors, grammatical
errors and in rare instances, occasionally modified a sentence slightly for
clarity. Many of us who grapple with similar ideas and arguments about Islam,
Hinduism, Christianity and the future of these religions in the Indian context,
might find this discussion useful. The text which follows SJ (highlighted in yellow) stands for my words, while NS (highlighted in blue) stands for my friend, Naresh S. The words in square brackets are my own
comments as the editor of this chat. This same blog is also available on http://wowblog2u.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html, published by Mr. Naresh S.
Background : It all started with Mr. Naresh S sharing a video
on WhatsApp where the speaker in the video was suggesting that Hindu religious
texts should be compulsorily introduced in all Indian schools. Here is the actual discussion for you.
[After the video was seen, Staju
Jacob (SJ) initiated this discussion by commenting…]
Staju Jacob (SJ): I am more in favour of introducing some
knowledge of spirituality in schools without any particular isms.... For
instance, basics of how to pray - how to connect with one's own spirituality -
basics on how to read various religious texts and understand the inherent
spiritual message etc. After this basic knowledge is imparted, students, when
they grow up and reach High school level can opt for one or the other religious
study in depth.... For instance, those who want to understand the Quran better
can do so... those who want to go deeper into Gita or Bible or Guru Granth
Sahib can do so
Naresh S (NS): 👍 And so all
countries should do the same then.
SJ: Yes free societies without
spiritual training is bad for societies. The current generation of many white [Caucasian]
people who are completely untrained in spiritual search practices will find
boredom and may need to resort to some form of drugs alcohol etc. to fill what
they perceive as a mental vacuum even when they are materially very successful.
NS: England is full of Church of
England schools (both state and private). And also Catholic and Jewish to a
smaller extent. Very few Hindu, Muslim or Sikh schools get funding. Also, this
country is one where Church of England is the established religion.
SJ: But only in catholic schools
some form of religion is taught only to Catholic children. To others I don't think there is any
spiritual training given, as far as I
know.
NS: Here you can get troubled or
attacked for telling the truth about religion, constitution and atrocities in
their history.
SJ: Well, I think Shashi Tharoor
recently did a good job of telling these things
NS: Yes he's high level too. He
uses charm and diplomatic methods
SJ: I think at least the British
are listening now. In India things are
going a bit bad I think. People are more routinely using violence if they
disagree with your views.
NS: He's (Shashi Tharoor) not a hard liner like a
few Africans demanding compensation and bringing charges of crimes against
humanity
SJ: I think India was more liberal
when I was growing up. [Recently] ‘Padmavati’
set in Maharashtra torched, crew beaten up -
NS: Even here you dare not voice
your opinion in the wrong crowd
SJ: Well, here you can criticise
monarchy and even say that London should be a separate county or that Scotland
should be a separate country
NS: Too liberal /too open? And allowing everyone to convert to Islam and
Christianity. Scotland is trying to be a separate country.
SJ: But if you go to India and say Kashmir should
be separate country your life could be in danger if you are not a well-known
person.
NS: In Kashmir, Muslims have more rights than
Hindus in some things.
SJ: Well, I think the issue of
conversion should be dealt with by using development and education --
automatically it will stop The other thing is that we should have more police
to public ratio to implement laws.
NS: There are more Muslims in India than in
Pakistan; hence Pakistan was not necessary.
SJ: I think Pakistan should become
secular and perhaps join with India like US and Canada. Entire SAARC should be
one nation I feel. Sri Lanka, Pakistan Bangladesh etc.
NS: Yes I think so too. They should become secular
and join India. Yes all can be secular and join up.
SJ: Yes
NS: 👍👍. Many in
Pakistan are not happy
SJ: As far as I think long term
despite the worry of some people [in India] of the danger to Hinduism, I think it will thrive and by 2050 I think
Hinduism will be second largest religion globally after Islam.
NS: Yeah maybe
SJ: While Hindu population might
decrease in India if things continue the same way - they will go up in most
developed countries.
NS: Muslim [population] will grow everywhere
SJ: In UK alone, in the last 30 years close to 170 Hindu
temples or more (as per my knowledge) have come up whereas there were very few
in 1960 or so. Please correct me if my data is wrong
NS: U.K. is more tolerant than it
used to be but the constitution is Church of England
SJ: I think yes but it may also
change in the future as Hindu population goes up. Church itself is changing and
incorporating many principles of Hinduism within its teachings slowly
NS: Despite constitution being
there are more MPs and Lords of ethnic minority than other western countries
SJ: Yes. [But] I think in course of
time world will adopt more and more Hindu ideas. Although because of their ego
they might not acknowledge it is a Hindu idea.
NS: Some very good ideas. But
people do not portray the goodness properly. [After all], Hinduism is the oldest
religion / civilisation known.
SJ: Well you are right. The
Caucasian race is often obsessed with thinking they are the best. They have
difficulty understanding spiritual systems which do not fall into -1 or +1 kind
of logic.
NS: Yes agree. And high focus on
gathering/ aggression. Possibly colder climates. There are a few good Hindu
organisations in U.K.
SJ: I think lot of Hindu
organisations are trying to make aggressive groups in India which believe in
violence. I think it is not good in the long run for India because in my
opinion it is not genuine Hinduism.
NS: Yes agree. Maybe, to combat
aggression in Islam and Christianity.
SJ: I think genuine Hinduism is a
spiritual and ethical fountainhead. For example, Lord Ram [from Hindu epic Ramayana] did not
hate Kaikeyi because she was the cause of his exile in forest. He won her over
with love on course of time
NS: 👍
SJ: Yes maybe these guys feel that
there is some aggression coming from Islam and Christianity and this is the
only way to combat it. [But] I think systemic and ethical solutions are needed.
NS: Must be scared of what has
happened in the past - half of Hinduism wiped out because others used force.
SJ: Well that is true. But I don't
think at that time the kingdoms in India saw themselves as one India.
NS: True. But you need a sword to
defend against a sword.
SJ: For example, many Hindu rulers
have also killed so many fellow countrymen. For example, Ashoka invading Kalinga.
Similarly, Marathas invading Bengal. Similarly higher castes have done so much
atrocities against lower castes. Even today in Kerala some higher caste Namboodiri
Brahmins won't touch lower castes or even Christians and Muslims.
NS: Long ago history. There's been
Roman Empire, Alexander, etc. Also more recently the USA. Canada. Australia and
New Zealand are all build on blood of native red Indians and aborigines
virtually eradicated.
SJ: I think in ancient India there
was this concept of Bharatvarsha which consisted of many small kingdoms --- but
in today's concept I think the whole world is the Bharatvarsha and different
countries are equal to different kingdoms. But some people are still stuck on
the ancient geographical idea of Bharatvarsha . This creates problems because
some of the kingdoms mentioned in ancient Bharatvarsha is in Afghanistan etc
NS: I don't think many people even
know of it.
SJ: The problem is that in a
globalised world the boundaries of countries are collapsing. Also, the time
taken to travel from South India to North India in ancient times was much more
than what it takes to travel from India to US... therefore it is essential that
those who read Gita and understand the global vision must understand that whole
world is Bharatvarsha today. The reach and power of internet,
telecommunications and media make this a small one global world. In fact
Christians and Muslims are increasingly treating whole world as their field
whereas many Hindus are still stuck on the idea that we should 'protect'
Hinduism within four walls of India.
NS: Totally agree. Hindus should
also spread their religion like Muslims and Christians
SJ: In fact if you gaze into the
future --- it is possible that more intellectual Brahmin Hindus will
increasingly move into Countries such as UK US Australia Canada --- and leave India as India becomes hotter and
hotter [in terms of climate]. It also [becoming] more unlivable due to population growth and net migration from Bangladesh etc
.
NS: Yes
SJ: Now, in my opinion there is
nothing wrong with it because in ancient times also Brahmins had moved from
banks of Saraswati to South India etc.
At that time, they must have felt the same pain of moving from one
country to another. But if I tell this to Hindu leaders today in India they
will be very mad at me and call me anti national and enemy of India.
NS: 👎
SJ: So I think lot of Hindu
organisations have difficulty viewing the big picture and they are obsessed
with the four walls of present day India. However despite the good army and so
on, China is slowly eating away Indian territory inch by inch. Of course I feel
India should make itself strong and keep itself as the fountainhead of wisdom
ethics and spirituality but Hindu organisations must also view the entire globe
as the playing arena.
NS: Yes China is growing. Indians
are more scared of the brain drain and capital drain from India.
SJ: Yes my question is that why
should Indians not think of influencing developed countries such as US or UK
and getting these nations to see the wisdom from East ... so in course if time
these countries should be [more] Hindu so that even if Indian territory goes
down Hinduism does not get destroyed.
NS: Yes true; some people are
putting Gita in hotel rooms in USA but that is minor; also Sikh prayers were
said at a public congregation in California a few months ago. But need to
influence the politics and constitution, for example, in U.K. they do not allow Hindu or Muslim (religious)
representatives in the House of Lords but they have 27 Bishops and the Chief
Rabbi. Also Prince Charles said to a newspaper that he would be leader of faith
in general (not just head of Church of England (hopefully he meant a secular
constitution)
SJ: What is most likely to happen
is that as more and more people understand Hinduism better... more and more
Christians and Islamists will adopt the principles of Hinduism and incorporate
it into Islam and Christianity without calling it Hinduism (obviously to save
their face). In my humble opinion, even if this happens it is still good for
the world because the function of a candle is to provide light. Who lights it
or who gets credit for lighting it is not that important. Hinduism is a pathway
of scientific spiritual ethos and ultimately it will benefit the world even if
people who adopt it call it by another name....
NS: I agree that spreading the
light or spirituality is important like Radha Swamis as an example class
themselves as a spiritual organisation. But letting ones Religious teaching
being hijacked or stolen and sold under guise of other religions would be sad
and a sell-out. A lot of Hindu teachings, science, etc have thus been hijacked
and guised as English or western- what a shame!
SJ: Yes it is a bit of shame, but I
think in the end those who adopt Hindu principles will get the benefit.
Hinduism is meant for welfare of all, even those who deny it credit. I think
some Hindu leaders might call it digestion, but in my opinion even if the others
give credit to us. It is just a matter of our ego massage ... if we are not so
bothered about massaging our own ego, then it should not matter to us whether the
principles taught in India are being used for the welfare of the world (even if
no credit is given to ancient India).
NS: That's very giving and generous
like the past - yes Moguls and British please loot us, exploit us and convert
us.
SJ: Even if the principles of
Hinduism is repackaged as Sufism or Scientology or some other ism.... I think
as long as it brings welfare to the world - I think it is good for the world. In
my opinion we should lawfully protect our heritage in India care for it etc.
And also keep India militarily strong to prevent aggression like we have seen
in history. But the point I am making is that despite all these - if people of
other religions adopt Hindu teachings within their religious dogma - it is good
for the world. And we should not grudge it.
NS: Yoga and meditation already is
- some with spirituality. [It is late midnight] Yawn…I'm going to meditate now.
Bye
SJ: Ok let us continue tomorrow on
this point ... I am [also] feeling sleepy.
Nice discussion.
[After the discussion was over we both agreed that it might
be good to publish it in some form, perhaps in the form of a blog.]
Important Disclaimer: Some
arguments in this discussion are intellectual positions taken for the sake of
discussion/debate only and may not reflect the actual thinking or
personal opinions of Mr. Staju Jacob and Mr. NS.
©Staju
Jacob and Naresh S, 2017.
Staju
Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic
spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on
various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone
Ibook etc. He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS
Naresh S
is a Chartered Certified Accountant and used to be a part ime Associate
Professor at an International University in London for 12 years. He also has a
MBA from Cranfield University and another MSc and a BSc. Twitter @wowblog2u .
Naresh S (NS)’s arguments in this conversation are a mix of banal platitudes, historical whataboutism, paranoia about cultural theft, and a narrow, reactive worldview.
ReplyDeleteMy criticisms
1. False Equivalence & Deflection
NS: “And so all countries should do the same then.”
Criticism: This is a textbook false equivalence. Just because someone suggests spirituality in Indian schools doesn’t mean every country must mirror that policy. SJ seems to be advocating for a context-specific solution grounded in Indian realities. NS sidesteps the point and immediately makes it about global symmetry, without offering any reasoning why such symmetry is either necessary or relevant.
2. Deflection via Structural Christianity in the UK
NS: “England is full of Church of England schools… Very few Hindu, Muslim or Sikh schools get funding.”
Criticism: NS brings up institutional Christian dominance as if it’s a rebuttal, but it’s more a description than an argument. He offers no proof to this statement other than a generalisation
3. Paranoia Posing as Realism
NS: “Here you can get troubled or attacked for telling the truth about religion…”
Criticism: Vague, unsubstantiated paranoia. “Telling the truth” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Which truth? Whose truth? This claim adds nothing to the discussion except a sense of vague victimhood.
4. The Sword Fallacy
NS: “You need a sword to defend against a sword.”
Response: This is a simplistic, ahistorical justification for reactionary violence. It reduces complex religious and political histories into caveman-level logic and NS evades introspection by jumping to the Roman Empire and the USA — irrelevant deflection.
5. Cultural Theft Complaint
NS: “Letting one’s religious teachings be hijacked… what a shame!”
Response: NS can’t seem to distinguish between cultural influence and cultural theft. NS devolves into a petty lament about “Western hijacking” without recognizing that Hindu thought, by its own tradition, is not proprietary. This attitude ironically mirrors the very Western obsession with ownership and IP rights that NS supposedly disdains.
6. Passive-Aggressive Sarcasm
NS: “Yes Moguls and British please loot us, exploit us and convert us.”
Response: This sarcastic jab is deeply unserious and intellectually lazy. NS mocks this with a bitter caricature of victimhood. It’s emotional, reductionist, and undermines serious dialogue.
Conclusion: NS’s Position in a Nutshell
Emotionally driven: rooted in grievance, fear, and historical pain — with little appetite for future-facing thought.
Historically illiterate: weaponizes historical atrocities without serious engagement.
Culturally insecure: frames every adoption of Indian ideas as theft instead of influence.
Intellectually inconsistent: agrees one moment, contradicts the next.
Spiritually shallow: NS reduces the argument to identity politics.
Staju Jacob (SJ) seems to present a vision that is open, inclusive, and optimistic—but it’s not without flaws. His arguments invite several philosophical, political, and practical criticisms.
ReplyDelete1. Romanticisation of Hinduism
Claim: Hinduism is a “scientific spiritual ethos,” a “fountainhead of ethics and spirituality,” etc.
Critique: This is idealistic and one-sided. SJ ignores or downplays real issues within Hindu society—such as casteism, exclusionary rituals, patriarchy, and religious violence. His narrative presents an idealised abstraction, not the lived reality of all Hindus. When you present one religion as universally benevolent, you’re not being spiritual — you’re being selective.
2. Naïveté about Cultural Appropriation
Claim: Even if Hindu ideas are repackaged as something else, that’s okay — because what matters is spreading light.
Critique: This is philosophically noble, but politically naïve. While spiritual ideas should ideally be free-flowing, in the real world cultural appropriation often involves stripping context, profiting off it, and denying credit to the origin. SJ underestimates how power dynamics work — e.g., Western wellness industries profiting from yoga while demonising brown people. You can be generous without being passive.
3. Vague and Overgeneralised View of “Spirituality”
Claim: Introduce “spirituality” into schools, without “isms.”
Critique: But what exactly is this “neutral” spirituality? Can you really teach prayer, reverence, and study of sacred texts without implicitly endorsing a specific worldview? There’s no clean separation between culture and religion in most traditions. What sounds like universal spirituality to one person may sound like soft cultural indoctrination to another. The devil is in the implementation.
4. Implicit Elitism
Claim: Brahmins moving abroad and spreading Hindu thought is seen as natural, even noble.
Critique: There’s an implicit caste elitism here — the idea that “intellectual Brahmins” are the torchbearers of Hinduism. He glosses over the enormous historical pain caused by caste hierarchy. Instead of problematising caste privilege, he subtly reifies it. The idea of Brahmins as “mobile custodians of wisdom” is romantic and exclusionary.
5. Over-Optimism About Hindu Influence on the West
Claim: The West is already adopting Hindu values, even unknowingly (e.g., yoga, meditation).
Critique: SJ assumes that superficial borrowing (like corporate mindfulness) signals deep ideological convergence. But borrowing tools doesn’t mean embracing a worldview. Western societies may use yoga for fitness while rejecting or misunderstanding its roots. SJ sees harmony where others might see commodification or dilution.
6. Ambiguous Position on Nationalism
ReplyDeleteClaim: India is becoming more violent; Hinduism should transcend borders.
Critique: SJ dances around nationalism without directly confronting it. On one hand, he criticises the narrow nationalism of Hindu groups; on the other, he speaks of India as a “fountainhead” that must be protected. This can be read as spiritual nationalism in softer clothing — i.e., not “India above all,” but “India as spiritual capital of the world.” That’s still a hierarchy.
7. Underestimates the Political Role of Religion
Claim: All religions should adopt Hindu principles; it’ll benefit everyone.
Critique: This presumes that Hinduism is somehow neutral and exportable — while other religions are bound by rigid dogma. It’s an orientalist inversion: SJ sees Hinduism as fluid, gentle, and wise, and others as dogmatic and aggressive. That’s simplistic. Every religion contains mystic and authoritarian currents. To say others should become more “Hindu” is, ironically, a form of soft proselytism.
8. Overlooks Real Geopolitical Tensions
Claim: SAARC nations should reunite, and all become secular.
Critique: This is utopian. The histories of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh are blood-soaked and traumatic. “Let’s all become one again” is not a serious policy suggestion. It ignores deep-seated ethnic, linguistic, and religious divisions. SJ’s optimism borders on historical amnesia.
9. Assumes “Spirituality” is a Cure for Social Problems
Claim: Spiritual training in schools will help reduce addiction, violence, and identity crises.
Critique: There’s limited empirical evidence that “spiritual training” cures systemic issues like drug abuse or violence. Poverty, inequality, and social alienation have complex material roots. Teaching prayer or meditation won’t fix a neoliberal economy or broken institutions. This spiritual solutionism veers toward magical thinking.
10. Ignores the Danger of Institutionalising Religion
Claim: Schools should teach spirituality.
Critique: Once the state opens the door to spiritual instruction, who decides which texts, which practices, which interpretations? SJ assumes a benign, enlightened state. But history shows how easily spiritual teaching becomes moral policing, indoctrination, or even majoritarianism.
In Summary:
He underplays the political and social dangers of soft religious nationalism.
He idealises Hinduism, often ignoring its problematic structures.
He is overly optimistic about human nature, the West’s intentions, and the ability of spirituality to solve structural problems.
His “big picture” thinking sometimes collapses into vagueness and impracticality.
And to conclude
Important Disclaimer: Some arguments in this discussion are intellectual positions taken for the sake of discussion/debate only and may not reflect the actual thinking or personal opinions of Mr. Staju Jacob and Mr. NS.
This is a childlike effort to couch potentially deeply held views as “discussion points”. This was an exchange of opinions – bad opinions, but opinions nonetheless. If the authors have a differing view, this should have been expressed or can be expressed.