HINDU CHAUVINISM
Jayant V. Narlikar on Hindu Obscurantism
How much hi-tech and science did our forefathers really know? On the one hand, there are emphatic claims that they knew everything that modern science has taught us today and will teach us in the years to come. On the other there are sceptics who would associate the dawn of science and technology with the West, dating back no more than a few centuries and would thus deny any knowledge to oriental ancients. The arguments "for" fall into three categories. The first line of argument takes to our puranas and the epics. In the Ramayana, we have the pushpaka Vimana which clearly establishes the existence of helicopters and aero planes. What better example of a laser guided missile than the Shakti with which Karna killed Chatokacha in the Mahabharata? And the instant beaming of a living body across vast distances that you see in the futuristic Star Trek was routinely practiced by our devas and rishis.
The next line of argument invokes ancient works like the Brihad Vimanashastra which describes different flying vehicles and methods of constructing them. Then there are-interpretations of the Vedic Richas to show that they certain details of the nuclear fusion that powers the sun. There is Vedic mathematics which is claimed to contain advanced mathematical concepts and methods. it has often been said that the philosophers of the Vedic and later times knew about quantum mechanics, gauge theory unified field theory and so on which the theoretical physicists of today are grappling with.
The third argument brings forth examples of old tests like the Vedanga Jyotisha attributed to Lagadha which has astronomical discussions relating to the solar system, the Shalbha Sutra containing geometrical ideas, and the Charaka and Sushruta Samhitas which contain ideas on medicine and surgery. Surely these demonstrate that some science was known and practiced in the ancient times.
A case is weakened if some of its arguments are demonstrably refutable or are basically ill-formulated. The first two lines of arguments fall in this category.
Thus to convince a scientist it is not sufficient to refer to descriptions of the epics and puranas. Absorbing and imaginative though they are they are a far cry from what constitutes a technical manual. Imagine that thousands of years later our descendants recover a cassette of Star Trek from an archaeological excavation and manage to view it. Are they justified in concluding on the basis of what they see that we ourselves were in possession of the kind of technology shown there?
Therefore, we can credit our ancients with giant leaps of imagination to have produced those works but no more.
In our epics and puranas we see no description of electrical power that is the first significant step of high technology.
I had studied the Brihad Vimanashastra and failed to find in it a technical description of aeronautics. For example, a shastra should contain a basic framework of rules governing flying objects which then gets translated into technical reality. Basic principles of flying like Bernoulli's theorem, the idea of lift and streamlines should be described. Even assuming that the ancients somehow bypassed these basics through some yogi insight, not available to the modern scientist, the actual description of construction is also vague and certainly cannot be used for making a real aircraft.
Vedic Mathematics
Much is made of Vedic mathematics If it is looked upon as a system of carrying out quick numerical manipulation it has its merits. But as any mathematician of distinction will tell you, that does not constitute advanced mathematics.
In interpreting ancient descriptions and with Vedic Sanskrit the problem of interpretation is even more tricky, it is easy for the interpreter to read into a statement the incanting he. wishes to read. This probably explains the post-facto nature of interpretations only after modern science makes a discovery do claims appear that it is contained in such and such ancient time. In many cases, the antiquity of the statement may also be questionable.
Arguments in the third category, however, are worth taking note of and deserve further scholarly studies. For they are clearly documented, can be interpreted without "personal" ambiguities and do tell us that our ancient civilization did have thinkers and experimenters of high quality. Thus, Lagadha should be studied with as much care as his (much) later descendants like Aryabhatta (fifth century A.D.) and Bhaskara (12th century A.D.). The works ascribed to Sushruta and Charaka, unlike the speculations described above, are experimentally testable. The legacy of yoga as a discipline of mind and body is indisputable.
Our old texts are often examined for astronomical. events like eclipses, comets and conjunctions. Another useful and hitherto unexplored line of investigation is supernovae. A supernova is an exploding star: an event which can be spectacular if it takes place in our galaxy. The Chinese and Japanese astronomers have recorded an event that was seen on July 4, 1054. Event like that would not have gone unnoticed on our subcontinent. Records wherever they may be, will be of enormous importance to astronomical archives.
I mention the fact could be precise to be so.
Let us stress examples of precision which is the hallmark of science rather than ambiguous personalized interpretations of what they said. Only then will we do justice to the achievements of our ancients.
(Source: Indian Skeptle, January, 1996)
Bhupendra Yadav on Hindutva: Encroachment on Hinduism
Hindutva is the 'in' thing these days. There can be no quarrel with this statement because khaki shorts march and saffron flags fly everywhere. In its recent judgement the Supreme Court has said that Hindutva is the 'done' thing also. Not stopping here, the Court added that Hindutva is in line with 'Indian ethos and culture'. Here some students of Indian history and politics beg to differ if Hindutva were in line with the Indian ethos and culture, its natural constituency should have been the villages of India. But the BJP or the Jan Sangh (and the Hindu Mahasabha before them) have (or had) negligible influence in rural India. In fact, it is the uprooted, urbanised, modernised and half-westernised mofussil citizens who have been the traditional support base of Hindutva politics.
On the other hand, the political ideologies and parties which have had some influence in the countryside have no love lost for Hindutva. Be it Gandhi's Congress before Independence or Charan Singh's and Mulayam Singh's political outfits since then. It is no wonder, therefore, that all the three attempts on Gandhi's life were made by Hindutva lovers. And this hostility was not because Gandhi was not Hindu enough.
The reason for the hostility between Hindutva lovers and the Father of the Nation. therefore, is something else. Gandhi was very close to the traditions, the ethos and the culture of Hinduism in the way Hindutva lovers were not. Gandhi was a Sanatani Hindu, Hindutva lovers were cultural engineers trying to subvert Hinduism.
Ashis Nandy et al in Creating a Nationality find four faults with Hindutva's claim to represent the traditions of Hinduism.
At the outset it should be noted that Hindutva emerged in several spasms but its final author was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966). The context in which Hindutva emerged was the debunking of Hindus as an effeminate and cowardly people by colonial administrators, even evangelical missionaries Hindutva lovers simply swallowed this assessment and began criticising Hindus for being too diverse, anarchic, irrational, un-modern, feminised, superstitious and, by implication, unfit to govern a nation-state.
On Hindutva's agenda, therefore, the first thing was to make Hinduism look like the ruler's religion. The local traditions of Hinduism were criticised, ignored and sidelined. Hinduism was cleaned, sanitised and pasteurised. So much so that except Ram all other avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu are sidelined and some avatars like Matsya (The Fish), Kurma (The Tortoise), Varaha (The Boar) or Narasimha (The Man-Lion) are almost forgotten.
Violence against the Hindu pantheon by Hindutva lovers was not so much to put Manuvad in command... as to invent a slim and trim Hinduism. The hope was that this slim-trim Hinduism will resemble Semitic religions like Christianity or Islam.
Secondly, the rambling Hindu faith was also sough to be converted into an ideology with certain basic tenc and clear-cut goals. Said Savarkar a Hindu is one who Fatherland (not the effeminate Matribhumi Janmabhumi but Fatherland as the Russians and the Germans call their land) and whose Holy land le between the Indus and the Sea. The Christians and Muslims were thereby excluded by definition fro adopting the territory of Bharatvarsha. As the president Hindu Mahasabha in 1938, Savarkar declared th Hindus and Muslims were two nations with deep cultural and political antagonism. From this, it was small step for Muslim League to demand 'separation" the two nations which the League happily took in 1940 Left to Hindus India would be a bowl of diverse culture but with Hindutva in command the diversities shall be pr into a 'melting pot' a la USA and a national cultur mainstream forged.
Thirdly, Hindutva seeks to masculinise the Hindu and militarise Hinduism of which the khaki shorts an lathi drills are the most obvious expressions. Hinduis never propagates violence let alone praise it. S Gandhi's paeans to ahimsa were more in line with the Indian traditions. On their part, Hindutva lovers ador masculinity to avenge the alleged one-thousand year lon domination of Hindus by Muslims and Christians Gandhi, on his part, considered history (including that o alleged domination) a mithya and defeat allegedly at the hands of Muslims/Christians meant nothing to Gandhi For Gandhi defeat was a problem for the victor, not the vanquished. Victory meant depriving someone else of something or hurting him/her. Depriving or hurting other should cause pangs of conscience to the victor, though Gandhi. The wide grin on the faces of Hindutva lover after demolishing Babari Masjid does not reflect any such qualm on their part.
Fourthly, Gandhi spun charkha whereas Hindutva lovers are uncritical supporters of modern science and technology. So, even an atomic bomb is necessary t them and the question they ask is when will we have ours? Not, why do others have such a dangerous thing Explaining his reason for eliminating Gandhi, Nathuram Godse said he hoped that after Gandhi, Indian politics would be based on reason, it will be practical and India will be powerful. Why did he dislike Gandhian politics Godse said that it was 'supported by old superstitious beliefs such as the power of the soul, the inner voice, the fast, the prayer and the purity of mind.
Do these sentiments sound Hindu? Not to my ears. I anything. Hindutva lovers appear to be encroachers or poachers into Hinduism. And like encroachers they wea some Hindu symbols to proclaim their domicility in the Hindu tradition. But like poachers they do violence to the same tradition.
(Source: The Hindustan Times, 30 December, 199)
