Claimants to the Western Civilization

Fundamental Question :

If the Nordic people are the superior master race, what exactly were the purest of them (Scandinavians, Germans) doing until 1500 AD (from 3000 BC) ?

In this post, I will examine the notion of the western civilization and who deserve to claim from it.

Clash of Civlizations :

We are suffering from increasing noise by the so called defenders of western civilization. It has become fashionable to talk about the clash of civilizations – between the Western Civilization of freedom, democracy and everything that is good (read fair, goodlooking people) and the so called Islamic/Chinese Civilization of autocracy, degradation and everything that is bad (read dark, disfigured, freakish looking people). Especially after the end of the cold war, there has been an urgent need of creating a new enemy. Several people are working overtime to create the necessary image of the evil in the minds of the western population.

This is exemplified by popular media which produces movies such as the “300″. The story of the 300 spartans against the Persian army of Xerxes has become a metaphor of the clash between civilizations. In reality, Greeks and Persians were more alike than anybody else. They even looked similar, spoke similar languages, and had similar customs. The movie portrays the battle of Thermopylae as the struggle to preserve the western values of democracy and freedom against the evil eastern autocracy. Nobody seems to care that these values were not the sole propriety of the Greeks. Tribes throughout the world have established republics. The most ancient republic in the world (which has a written record) was Vaishali in the Gangetic basin. People of all these republics fought fiercely against the conquering kingdoms. Stories of these wars are indeed a huge part of Indian mythology. When Alexander the Great was conquering Bactria, he had to fight several Aryan tribes which refused to surrender. Every single member of these tribes had been murdered in the battlefield, and written records exist proving this. However, we don’t see Hollywood making heroic movies on the plight of Assakenois.

But, let’s try to understand what “western civilization” is and who possesses the right to claim from it. What is western civilization all about ? It begins with the Greeks – their ancient philosophers and scientists. It then includes the marvels of Rome. Finally, it merges with the industrial revolution and the renaissance. Some people go to the extent of including the religion of Christianity (in some extreme cases, even Judaism) into this encompassing definition. So, who are the purported claimants of the western civilization and its values ? United States, Europe, Canada and Australia (read – those of pure European racial stock) Supposedly, these values of western civilization are currently under attack by a multitude of freaks.

Any serious student of history would laugh at such a simplistic and stupid worldview. But, let me dissect each of these aspects in detail.

Appropriation of Greece :

First, we have to talk about the Greeks and their marvellous achievements in the sciences and in the arts. Current day textbooks trace the beginings of all sciences to ancient Greece, hardly mentioning about the parallel (and sometimes more profound) developments that took place in other parts of the world. For example, the father of Medicine is considered to be Hippocrates. The father of history is Herodotus. The father of geometry is Euclid. And so on. Nobody mentions Sushrutha, Chanakya, Brahmagupta or to what they have achieved.

In any case, let’s consider that Greeks have somehow uniquely discovered science and technology. But who were the Greeks and where did they live ? They were a mediterranean people who lived on the eastern most boundary of Europe. They occupied hardly any territory in Europe – they didn’t look beyond the Balkan mountains, beyond which they considered lived barbarian tribes. But surprise, the ancient Greeks lived in most of the modern day Turkey. They had an elaborate shared history and trade with the Persian empire. When Alexander the Great unified the tribes of Greece, he set about conquering Persia and Egypt. The north of Europe presented nothing of interest to him !

There had been several Alexandrias (cities of the conqueror) in Persia, Parthia, Bactria, Egypt and even in the western flanks of India. Each of these civilizations flourished with the influx of Greek knowledge. I will examine how much India stands to claim from the Greek civilization. The art of sculpture was highly influenced by the Greeks, and so was the science of astronomy in the later epochs. Greek genetic ancestry is present throughout the western flanks of India. Several Indian princes had Greek wives. The first major religion of India – Buddhism owes a lot to Greek patronage. Greek kings who settled in India became Buddhists and Vaishnavites, studying Indian scriptures with utmost reverence. The impact of Greece on India was so great that the popular Indian dress for women – the saree, was itself a Greek invention. Even to this day, India and Greece share a similar culture which is reflected in music and art. Ancient India and Greece were ofcourse, much more alike – due to the common Aryan civilization. The vedic pantheon of gods is essentially identical to the gods of the Illiad.

In contrast, how much does the rest of Europe stand to claim from the Greek civilization ? Close to nil.

The Europeans hardly knew about the existence of Aristotle until they read the translations from the Arabic scholars. India and Persia have more in common with ancient Greece than any of the European nations.

Appropriation of Rome :

The second important factor of the so called “western civilization” was the Roman empire. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans have made its presence felt in every corner of Europe except for the extreme north which continued to be savage. The Roman empire has also occupied significant portions of north Africa, where magnificent ruins can be observed to this day. It is sensible to call the Roman civilization as a Mediterranean civilization and not as a European civilization. Unlike the Greeks who stand to claim significant discoveries in the sciences, the Romans have discovered very little for their age. One principal reason is the lack of a continuous thread from the Greek civilization, except in some fields such as art and religion. In contrast, the fruits of Greek civilization continued to thrive in Bactria and Parthia, later picked upon by the Arabs.

Finally, the Roman empire was vandalized by invading hordes of Germanic tribes. The very word “vandalized” comes from the Germanic tribe of “vandals”. These barbarian tribes have literally destroyed the civilization in the 500 AD. Ancient Romans probably hated these tribes more than anything else in the world. Now the very descendants of these tribes – Angles, Saxons, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Vrangians (in modern parlance – British, Germans, Scandinavians, parts of French, parts of Italians – the richest countries in the current world) ironically claim to be the heirs of the Roman civilization.

Renaissance or just Naissance :
Then comes the industrial revolution and the renaissance. Both of these owe heavily to the centres of learning set up by the Moorish Arabs in Spain (Andalusia). The Arabs compiled the entire knowledge of the world, taking from Greek, Indian and Chinese souces and improved upon it. They gifted the entire knowledge to the European people through their universities before they got kicked out of the European continent. This ushered in the very first golden age of Europe, the countries began to have their own share in the history of mankind by advancing this knowledge. This began to happen from 1400 AD. The consequent glory of Europe (along with its twin evils of colonialism, slavery and brutal warfare) is less than 600 years old. The term renaissance is misleading because it assumes that the people of the northern Europe had any cultural marvels any time earlier. This not being so, the term renaissance (rebirth) should be replaced by the term naissance (birth). The proud parents of the European civilization should be the Arabs.

Appropriation of Abraham into Europe :

Before I proceed onto anything else, let me inspect the ridiculous entry of Christianity/Judaism in the spectra of western civilization. These great religions were the product of Semitic people who had a different language and a different history (nothing to borrow from the Greeks). These people had indeed suffered attrocities under the Roman empire. The story of Jesus Christ itself is an example of the divergence between the “western civilization” and these religions. The European countries have been meekly conquered by these Semitic religions. In contrast, the ancient Aryan religion continues to flourish and grow in India. Important strands of philosophy such as monotheism, monism, rationalism etc. have been incorporated within the ancient Aryan religion without an explicit overhaul, like how it happened in Persia or in Europe. India continues to be a thriving place of philosophical discovery.

Now, who stand to be the biggest claimants of the so called “western civlization” ? Not the USA. Not the north European states. Before the racist fanboys of these regions ponder about the “problems affecting the western civilization“, they should observe whether their own claim to western civilization holds any meaning at all !

Appropriation of Aryan Culture :

Not satisfied with the theft of all this heritage, the northern European people started to appropriate the ancient culture of India. The discovery of the fact that ancient India was home to some fair skinned people made all its achievements somehow European. Hitler did the maximum of this theft by appropriating the name Aryan and the ancient holy symbol of Swastika. Nowhere in the ancient Indian texts was the word Aryan used to mean a fair skinned person, but instead a cultured person. Apparently, there are Aryan people and there are Barb-Aryan people, as people who continue to abuse this word suggest.

Plain Conclusion :
No civilization on this planet has been bred in isolation. The great thinkers of the past have respected the marvels from every other civilization. Science shows respect only to science, and not to the tribe that one comes from. Humility is the key to any great thinker. The legend goes that Einstein had this written down on the walls of his study “I am thankful to the millions of people who go to work every day and whose fruits of labour I am relishing”. The same should be remembered by every single person and every single civilization.

Futuristic Indian Flag

With the recent advances in digital printing, we need to update our national flag.

This design shows that the entire spectrum of human thought is present inside Indian philosophy. All these diverse strands of ideas find a happy merger inside India – just as all the colors of the spectrum merge into the purest white.

The wheel at the center stands for the Indian notion of nothingness, which revolutionized mathematics. This method of counting is central in Indian philosophy to understanding the nature of human progress and justice.

United Federation of Indian States

You have seen me complain about the bad effects of racism, but there are cases where it, or rather what is called nationalism, is of great use.

The nation-state is a strong form of rallying people together for a common cause of development. This feeling is essential for motivating several issues such as civic sense, importance of savings and investment in the home industry.

However this feeling of nationalism is strongly tied to the feeling of racism, and if mishandled, can spell trouble to the entire generation of people. We have seen examples of this throughout history – in Germany, Italy, Japan and currently in Israel.

As I speak today, we are moving slowly into a new age of inter-nation-states, from the old age of nation states. When I say that, I do not mean the United Nations, but the United States of America.

USA is one of the few nations which cannot claim to be a nation-state (as understood in the classical sense of the term). Its people are a mixed lot from several races, cultures and backgrounds. They have hardly anything in common, except for a zeal for development and a strong pride in being the citizens of the richest country in the world.

This phenomenon of transcending the classical borders of the nation-state is also being observed in Europe. The new Europe sans frontieres is bringing together the old nation-states of France, Germany, Italy, Spain (and Poland, Greece and soon the whole of Europe) into a common political fold. In unity, lies strength – the strength to combat the great economic powers such as the US or China.

But luckily, in India, we have been functioning as a unified-nation for a very long time. This should, indeed, be very surprising because India is very much like Europe – in both scale and variety. Two regions in India – say Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, have more differences in between them than the nations of USA and Canada. In spite of the seeming impossibility, functioning as a united nation has been good to India – atleast in the first 50 years.

But with its humongous differences, it is extremely hard to define India as a nation state. This is directly evident in the absence of national political parties.

With the momentum imparted from the freedom struggle, the Indian National Congress (INC) has managed to maintain a national existence till now. But with the current generation of Indians, fewer people associate the INC with the freedom struggle and it is consequently losing its identity.

The Left parties, however, have a philosophy which transends that of the nation-state, and thus qualify to being national parties (even though they do not have the numbers to support that claim)

The Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) which is India’s answer to the classical right wing party, however, desperately needs the feeling of nation-state for its existence. And it has chosen to build that sentiment from the wrong sources – the pseudo religion of Hinduism.

Hinduism is a particularly bad choice – not only because this definition alienates a vast minority of people, but also because it does not exist in the first place.

The way of life of the so-called Hindus from different parts of India is so vastly different, that they hardly identify with each other. These differences are more pronounced if we look at the geographic extreme points – for example,  the Kashmiri pandits and the Nambiyar brahmins of Kerala.

However, for all its faults, this feeling of nation-state has been essential for building a strong country (economically and technologically). This is where India stands to lose out to rivals such as China (or even Indonesia or Brazil) The latter countries find it far easier to convince rich ex-patriots to invest in the fledging home industry.

There is a solution to these problems – which is not only necessary but also inevitable.

This is the right moment in history when the central government of India has to relinquish control and provide more autonomy to the states.

In principle, this means transforming the Indian government to resemble that of the United States – a highly federal structure with the centre taking care of only defence and international affairs.

I argue that we move even further.

The following decentralizations are necessary :

• Each state organizing its own centers for research and excellence.
• Each state having its own tourism department with complete autonomy.
• Each state implementing its own tax policies.
• Each state sending its own athletes for competition in the international arena.
• Each state having its own policies on entertainment and censorship.
• Each state having its own policy on social subsidy and reservation.

The above points are essential, and will liberate several progressive regions of India from the shackles of harmful policies being followed at the centre. Moreover, as independent entitities, the competition between the states will be so intense that they will be forced to implement the correct choices (even if they go against populist sentiment)

But the biggest benifit of the new United Federation of Indian States will be that strong political parties emerge on the scene – which actually reflect the operating pressure groups. Strong leaders will emerge who the people actually connect with. A strong sense of nationalism developes when the people think that their culture is at stake if they lose out on the race for development.

India is mature for this decentralization :

• Indian people already have a very strong sense of identity as Indians.
• No state would try to break away from the Indian Union, because that will be against the tremendous advantages provided by the strong defence and economy.
• A strong democracy with periodic elections is already functional in India.
• No state will run into the problem of religious fundamentalism or military dictatorship – especially when the millitary is still under the command of the Union Government.
• Indian people already have several National Institutes – such as IITs, DRDO, NIN, CCMB etc – to provide coordination between the different regional research institutes.

Observe that none of the above would be true, had we done the same thing immediately after independence. Most probably, India would have degenerated into warring faction states, which is the case with Africa.

But this time in history – it is ripe and auspicious.

This process of decentralization would also reduce the regional discontent that we are facing in the North Eastern states and in Kashmir.

With the new form of government, people elect their representatives from amongst themselves. In such a scenario, the children of the Nehru family would not be the only option that would be left to a country of 1 billion people.

This change is not only necessary but also inevitable. The series of coalition governments that we witness in the centre are just a prelude to the major decentralization in power.

I welcome the day when this new India greets the world, and provides an example for other inter-nation-states (which are desperately needed in South America, Middle-East, North Africa and in Central Africa).

Prophet Mohammed’s Oversight

WHY STUDY ISLAM ?

I have always been fascinated by Islam. Not only because of the vast numbers of Muslim people who live in India, but also because of the faint antagonism about Muslim people in popular parlance.

“No, man. You cannot have a peaceful coexistence with Muslims.”

“They are different people. They are raised differently. They think differently.”

These words have always sounded very prejudiced to me. And hence, I have always been trying to disprove them, by reading more about Islam and about its culture. And in due time, my liking of Islam has only increased.

Like all great religions, Islam has been used for dual purposes.

The first one has been as a vehicle of education and enlightenment. At the time of advent of Islam, several tribal practices have become outdated and incompatible with civilization. Islam has been successful in eliminating them – especially idolatry and the often accompanying practices of sacrifices, bacchanalia and promiscuity. It has ushered in a new age of scientific temperment and humanism.

The second purpose has been as a way of supporting the government of people. Similar to Buddhism and Christianity, Islam has been used as a way of controlling the volatile masses and establishing a strong government.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

We need to have a good understanding of history to appreciate this in proper context. The age of the mighty kingdoms began around 500 BC (at about the same time throughout the world). Until then, the principal form of government has been through tribal loyalties. At some places – such as in the republics of North India, these gave rise to primitive democracies. At other places – such as in ancient Greece, these gave rise to tiny kingdoms. But by 500 BC, these were giving way for a more modern form of government – the mighty kingdoms. The new monarchies required a more organized and hierarchical ways of control. These hierarchies have been manifest in the forms such as the caste system in ancient India and slavery in ancient Rome.

However, the principles of human equality and freedom had to suffer because of these new hierarchies.

The great religions of the world, in effect, are an answer to this oppression. Jesus Christ has preached about the necessity of love and of human brotherhood. Gauthama Buddha has preached about the futility of sacrifices and of the intermediaries (priests) between men and God. Not surprisingly, the early followers of these religions were violently persecuted. But with the advent of time, the new religions have won the hearts of the people. In India, violence to animals and men was abhorred. And in Europe, slavery and bacchanalia have been eliminated.

But the great religions could not even out the social hierarchies. Economically, it had been unfavorable for an egalitarian system to flourish in those ages. But the religions were helpful in establishing a uniform system of living for the subjects. And the age of the monarchies has resumed, with the new religions serving as tools of eliminating cultural and tribal differences, and establishing a uniform system of living. The great emporer Ashoka of India has achieved this by popularizing Buddhism. This pioneering use of religion to eradicate social differences and unrest – will later be followed by the great emperors in China (Qin dynasty) and in Europe (successors of the Roman empire). Eventually, the new religions had to come to terms with the social inequalities that existed in the world. In Europe, Christianity has been subsumed by the functioning beliefs of the feudal state. In India, Buddhism was replaced by the modified Puranic religions (which drew from ancient Vedic practices, Upanishadic philosophy and the humanitarianism of Buddhism). These religions have been diverse and never uniform, which is the case now – thus not meriting the use of Hinduism as a word for signifying one single religion.

THE RISE OF ISLAM

When Mohammed was born around 600 AD, he had an enormous work spread in front of him. The Arab countries had been living in dark ages for several centuries till then. The Babylonian empire was prematurely destroyed (primarily because of its strategic location in the middle east) and the population fell into several shortsighted tribal kingdoms which engaged themselves with continuous warfare and barbaric customs. The rest of the world had already well advanced to the age of mighty kingdoms.

Prophet Mohammed had the dual duty of establishing a sovereign Arab state (with the characteristics of a mighty kingdom) along with the duty of building a great religion which spreads humanitarianism. And he achieved both of them with considerable grace.

Considering the fact that the great religions primarily arose to answer for the social inequalities in the mighty empires, this development of Islam seems counterintuitive. But in the hands of Mohammed, it achieved both the purposes. Islam in the later ages has been the source of a great and flourishing civilization – which made great contributions in medicine, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics and culture. In fact, this civilization has nourished the developments made by the ancient Greeks and the ancient Indians, when both the later civilizations were in a state of decay.

Islam also achieved its other purpose of establishing a strong Arab state. But as is the case with all the great empires, with time, this empire has also crumbled due to economical reasons. However, this marriage of religion and strong government (the nightmare of secularism) has continued throughout Islamic history, to this very day.

THE MAIN TENETS OF ISLAM

Now that I have presented the historical context for the advent of Islam, let me give you my critical overview of the religion.

At the core, all the great religions of the west are equal. The principal message is that “God is One”. This is the most fundamental of all beliefs and they do not accomodate anything else in violation of this principle. This is in start contrast to the great religions of the east, which have been very liberal (or flippant). In India and China, religion has never been seen as a harsh code of conduct. The belief that “God is One” has been existent and acknowledged since Upanishadic times, but it has not been forced upon people. Instead, debate has been encouraged between all kinds of opinions. This trend can be observed, even to this day, in India and China.

Islam, however, is the most severe of all religions in enforcing this belief. Mohammed, at any cost, did not want the Arab lands to degenerate into backward tribal customs. His principal contributions are primarily to make the religion fool-proof to any kind of encroachment on this belief. Mohammed has observed that the Jewish religion and the Christian religion have been flippant in this aspect. And due to this fact, the great teachings of the ancient prophets have been diluted and modified to suit the purposes of the powerful.

Firstly, he has put down his messages carefully in written word, which is available today as the book of Quran. Secondly, he has outruled the possibility of anybody propagating alternate views – by proclaiming that he is the last of the prophets. Thirdly, he has taken pains to prevent any attempt at deifying himself or revering himself at the expense of the one God.

At first sight, these are ingenious ideas, and one cannot but congratulate Mohammed on everything that he has accomplished. But Mohammed has overlooked on a critical point, and this is the subject of this blog.

HOW RACISM WAS FORGOTTEN IN ISLAM

Mohammed forgot to decouple race from religion.

In fact, this is not so much of a mistake, because the issue of race has not been understood clearly during his times. But, during the current times, it is necessary to understand its implications and how this issue of race has been succeeding in corrupting the teachings of the pure religion that Mohammed has intended.

Let’s look at how the issue of race has corrupted one of his important teachings – that of not deifying himself at the expense of the one God. Mohammed has actually taken pains to see that nobody in Arabia draws a picture or makes a sculpture of himself. This is to warrant the possiblility of future generations from worshipping his images. But in spite of all his thinking, Mohammed could not preclude this possibility.

What happened was that Mohammed’s children and his successors – managed to stake claim to the mantle of chief religious head (not “prophet”, but functionally the same person) after himself. In fact, these claims have not surfaced until the death of Mohammed. But by the time they have surfaced, they were unpreventable and they were numerous. The history of Islam got bloodied in its very earliest chapters – with the claimants for the throne striking at each other and murdering the enemies. This continues to this day, with the major figureheads of Islam staking claim to a straight descent through Mohammed’s blood line.

Unfortunately, Muslims have failed to realize that this is in direct contradiction with Mohammed’s wishes – of not deifying himself. This is the same as not deifying his descendents or his tribe.

The dual purpose of Islam – to establish a sovereign empire along with a mighty religion, has also aided in fuelling racial hatred. The Muslims tended to look upon themselves as the chosen people and waged wars against other nations, all in the name of the religion.

In fact, Mohammed had also been a warrior, and he had been a sound politician. But his primary purpose was to keep the belief (of One God) alive, and he had dealt brutally with his opponents whenever he felt that this belief was at stake. He waged a war against the barbaric kings of Mecca and killed their soldiers when they threatened to trample upon his religion. Also, he had mercilessly killed the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, when he thought that they were a threat to the survival of Islam.

This will definitely mar the claims for Mohammed’s sainthood – as understood in Indian or European terms. But, before making this comment, we have to understand the dual purposes that Mohammed had to achieve.

But after Mohammed, with Islam no longer under threat, his successors have used his actions as an okay to mercilessly slaughter other civilizations. This has especially been true in India (with its outward appearance of polytheism and primitive customs) The Muslims (in fact, the Arab conquerors) thought they are doing a service to the nation by plundering, raping and murdering the existing ruling classes. It did not matter that ancient Indians have already been great monotheistic philosophers. In the name of religion, the Arabs have advanced their own racist interests. This is also true in the advance of Islam in the west. All the crusader wars that were fought with Christians over control of Jerusalem have been termed as Jihad.

To this day, the feeling of racial supremacy is well alive in Arab people. Saudi Arabia considers itself the guardian of the Muslim teachings. Why not Indonesia – with its majority of Muslim people ? No, because Saudi Arabia holds the shrines of Mecca and Madina. Because Saudi Arabian clerics can claim direct descendence from the Prophet himself !

Arabs in Sudan murder the African people in the name of a better culture (which is just a euphimism for better race). Al Qaeda wants to wage a terrorist war against the entire western civilization. The word used is Jihad. Even Palastenians call their battle with the zionist Israelis as Jihad. Somalis wage a war against Ethiopians in the same name. Kashmiri Muslims wage a war against the native Kashmiri pandits in the very same name. But the age of idelogy wars has long been past – currently people no longer kill you for what you believe in. Religion (Jihad) is just an excuse for fuelling the age-old racial hatred (which is still very much alive). Mohammed will be ashamed to see how this word is being abused.

Islam is no longer under threat. It is acknowledged as one of the mighty religions of the world and has a thriving following of several million people. Using a word like Jihad for a selfish battle with a racial agenda is a shame. And most often, the battle is with the very own supporters of the core belief of “One God”.

If only Mohammed had remembered to warn his people about the dangers of racism, Islam would be the religion that he intended it to be.

The Antithesis of Race

It is one of the most misunderstood concepts of human culture. And it is at the root of an enormous list of problems that plague humanity.

I am talking about race. And I am not talking about just Nazis.

In many cases, we tend to overlook race and rest the blame on superficial elements such as religion, caste, regionalism, language etc.

Karl Marx has once suggested that economic relations are the basis for understanding any society, and that other elements are just superficial. I, however, think that race should be studied in isolation and that this will be equally important in understanding the ills of the society.

When I wanted to write about this, I have realized I have so much to write and so many examples to  illustrate, that it merits more than a single post on my blog. So I have decided to use my wordpress account to pen down these thoughts.

I will talk about several misconceptions amongst people which have their origin in the concept of race. Specifically, I will talk about them in the context of India. This is because, India has been an experiment on the idea of race, and its entire history is replete with incidants of racism and their consequences. Ultimately, India (and its people) stand today as the antithesis of race.

Please put down your comments. I hope to see other points of view and improve my understanding through this dialogue.

Thanks for dropping by !

- Kiran