Indian Pseudo-Intellectuals Thrive on Courting Religion

Indian intellectualism since the second half of the last century has largely nourished itself through courting religion (,anti-religion and mostly anti-Hindu religion). Merely by chance, I read an article on Indian Renaissance by one Mr. Panniker in a weekly (probably Outlook or some such one generally available on Air India's domestic in-flight reading. The author, once a Vice Chancellor of an Indian University somewhere, in a nice composition in English, showed that the author knows a few names of the leaders of the Indian Renaissance, although he hesitated naming that as Bengal Renaissance as is internationally known and was quite appropriately recognized by Gokhale's remark: 'What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow'. This of course was only true till India became Independent and effect of the Renaissance evaporated as the period of serfdom to the leaders of political business began.
Be that as it may, the central contention of the article in the magazine appeared to be as follows:


"Indian Renaissance (he could name only a three/ four Bengali's and a person from South India as the leading figures) was not really a Renaissance given the following:
a) this Renaissance was seeking rebirth through rediscovering some thing in the past literature,
b) the leaders of the Renaissance were not much concerned with use of reasoning in life,
c) the leaders of the Renaissance were more interested in resurrecting old Hindu religious scripts like the Vedanta into a new form of religion where worship takes place in idol-less temples where the followers join together in some kind of mass prayers,
d) the leaders were mostly educated middle-class, non-secular and did not or could not have a mass following,
f) the leaders had not paid any importance to free India from the British Rulers
g) the impact of the Renaissance was very limited and the best that they could achieve was Abolition of Sati, Right of widows to get married."


Nearly a century has gone after the end of the India Renaissance period. Clearly, the impact of Renaissance is nil. If there is any requirement of proof of the negligible effect of Renaissance, the best, readily-available one is the former Vice Chancellor, author of the article and the article itself with its unscientific, empirically invalid theory. The article is mainly English language, no logic, little history, based on a mistaken that religion is bereft of all reasoning, that old Sanskrit text could not have any reasoning content and that the current Indian fashion of equating  practice of religion by individuals and communities as non-secular. This is not surprising because for about 70 years or so, low quality brains have thrived by adopting this technique to establish themselves as scholars- within-India. But all this that I write about such 'only-in-India' scholars is in bad taste.

 Better is to hand over the future of these scholars to intellectuals and the common people at large. They can theselves find out how they are being fed with unscientific theories and distorted history.


1. Recommended readings: life and biographies of Raja Rammohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, Pandit Iswar Chandra Vidya Sagar, Acharya Keshub Chandra Sen, Rishi Bankim Chandra Chattopadhya,  Swami Vivekanada, Rishi Aurovindo Ghosh, Rabindranath Tagore, Satratchandra Chattopadhyay, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose, Acharya Prafull Chandra Roy, Acharya Satyendra Nath Bose to name only but a few leaders of Bengal Renaissance.
2. To note that the leaders of the Renaissance were secular even if they believed in the particular for of religion or spirituality they adhered to/ practised.
3. To note that it was because of Raja Rammohan Roy who learned English only at the age of 22 and that too only after learning Bengali, Sanskrit, Persian, Urdu and Hindi, was instrumental in establishing educational institutions to expose Bengali children to English, Mathematics, Logic and other Sciences rather than the British Rulers setting up merely Sanskrit schools and Christian missionaries setting up their Church-linked schools.
4. To find out if it was the writings of Bankimchandra Chattopadhya, Swami Vivekananda,  Rabindra Nath Tagore, Saratchandra Chattopadhya and others who planted the seeds of freedom in the minds of the Bengali Youth, besides bringing a cultural revolution in the cities and towns and even penetrated rural Bengal.
5. To note that the rise of independent-spirited scholastic pusuit of sciences were due the leadership of Jagadish Chandra Bose, Prafulla Chandra Ray and Satyendra Nath Bose who were among the first set of scientists to be recognised internationally.
6.  To note that Renaissance that originated in Italy and then spread throughout Europe, the British Isle and the USA benefited from the patronage of the Christan monasteries and the rich merchant elite and wealthy class including the monarchs. The Bengal Renaissance was not cultivated in Hindu Temples or Muslim Masjids, but the wealthy merchants and Zaminders provided considerable patronage.
7. To confirm that the concept of Renaissance (re-birth) in Italy was associated with an intensive study of literature, philosophy and science texts of much earlier Greek and other civilizations as were available in various libraries: this was strongly similar to the study of Vedanta and rediscovering the knowledge in the light of modern analytical methods during Bengal and Indian Renaissance.
8. To note that the humanistic approach was a major characteristic of the Indian/ Bengal Renaissance as it was in the case of the European Renaissance.
9. To get convinced that the idea that Vedanta was all religion and no reasoning or science is a false propaganda of the weak-brained Indians who took the umbrella of socialism to install themselves in scholastiv\c and intellectual leadership field through backdoor and so that they do not get discarded in open completion from high quality brain power and reasoning skills/ aptitudes. It is only very poor quality brain and reasoning power that erroneously concludes that Vedanta is a religious script. "The Upanishadic literature is not a religious scripture and is free from dogma and doctrines. It is not a part of any religion but is a philosophy for all times and for all. This philosophy does not oppose any school of thought, religion, or interpretation of the scriptures, but its methods for explaining its concepts are unique. The Upanishads should not be confused with the religious books of the East; there is a vast difference between the philosophy of the Upanishads and the preachings of any of the religious scriptures of the world."  "The Upanishads prepare, inspire, and lead the student to know and realize the Ultimate Truth. First of all, the philosophy of the Upanishads frees one to cast away his intellectual slavery to blind faith, superstitions, sectarian beliefs, and dogmas." The Indian intellect deformed with dogmas and blind faith perceives the Vedanta as religious script.

10.  To note the origin of logic and reasoning in India. "The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda (RV 10.129) contains ontological speculation in terms of various logical divisions that were later recast formally as the four circles of catuskoti: "A", "not A", "A and not A", and "not A and not not A". "The development of  formal Indian logic dates back to the anviksiki of Medhatithi Gautama (c. 6th century BCE) the Sanskrit grammar rules of Pāṇini (c. 5th century BCE); the Vaisheshika school's analysis of atomism (c. 2nd century BCE); the analysis of inference by Gotama (c. 2nd century), founder of the Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy; and the tetralemma of Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE). Indian logic stands as one of the three original traditions of logic, alongside the Greek and Chinese traditions. The Indian tradition continued to develop through to early modern times, in the form of the Navya-Nyāya school of logic." ... "Renaissance thinkers sought out in Europe's monastic libraries and the crumbling Byzantine Empire the literary, historical, and oratorical texts of antiquity, typically written in Latin or ancient Greek, many of which had fallen into obscurity. It is in their new focus on literary and historical texts that Renaissance scholars differed so markedly from the medieval scholars of the Renaissance of the 12th century, who had focused on studying Greek and Arabic works of natural sciences, philosophy and mathematics, rather than on such cultural texts. Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; quite the contrary, many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to it, and the Church patronized many works of Renaissance art. However, a subtle shift took place in the way that intellectuals approached religion that was reflected in many other areas of cultural life. In addition, many Greek Christian works, including the Greek New Testament, were brought back from Byzantium to Western Europe and engaged Western scholars for the first time since late antiquity. This new engagement with Greek Christian works, and particularly the return to the original Greek of the New Testament promoted by humanists Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus, would help pave the way for the Protestant Reformation." (see Wikipedia).

As a small brief I extract from Internet :
11. One  Internet site gives the following names in relation to Indian Renaissance.Sri Aurobindo, Allama Iqbal , Sir Syed Ahmed Khan , Ramakrishna , Ramakrishna Mission , Raja Ram Mohan Roy , Brahmo Samaj , Prarthana Samaj , Sir Ganesh Dutt , Dayananda Saraswati ,Swami Sahajanand Saraswati , Swami Vivekananda.

12. In his book  INDIAN RENAISSANCE  Acharya I. V. Chalapati Rao covers ART & CULTUREm SCIENCE & SOCIETY, LIFE & PHILOSOPHY and EDUCATION & LITERATURE.

13. About Bengal Renaissace, Wikipedia writes “The Bengal Renaissance refers to a social reform movement during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the region of Bengal during the period of British rule. The Bengal renaissance can be said to have started with Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1775–1833) and ended with Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941), although there have been many stalwarts thereafter embodying particular aspects of the unique intellectual and creative output.

14. Nineteenth century Bengal was a unique blend of religious and social reformers, scholars, literary giants, journalists, patriotic orators and scientists, all merging to form the image of a renaissance, and marked the transition from the 'medieval' to the modern.
During this period, Bengal witnessed an intellectual awakening that is in some way similar to the Renaissance in Europe during the 16th century, although Europeans of that age were not confronted with the challenge and influence of alien colonialism. This movement questioned existing orthodoxies, particularly with respect to women, marriage, the dowry system, the caste system and religion. One of the earliest social movements that emerged during this time was the Young Bengal movement, that espoused rationalism and atheism as the common denominators of civil conduct among upper caste educated Hindus. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Renaissance aimed at resuscitating the pristine Aryan spirit, ‘Unitarianism of God’, with the help of modern Western rationalist spirit.

15. The parallel socio-religious movement, the Brahmo Samaj, developed during this time period and counted many of the leaders of the Bengal Renaissance among its followers. In the earlier years the Brahmo Samaj, like the rest of society, could not however, conceptualize, in that feudal-colonial era, a free India as it was influenced by the European Enlightenment (and its bearers in India, the British Raj) although it traced its intellectual roots to the Upanishads. Their version of Hinduism, or rather Universal Religion (similar to that of Ramakrishna), although devoid of practices like sati and polygamy that had crept into the social aspects of Hindu life, was ultimately a rigid impersonal monotheistic faith, which actually was quite distinct from the pluralistic and multifaceted nature of the way the Hindu religion was practiced. Future leaders like Keshub Chunder Sen were as much devotees of Christ, as they were of Brahma, Krishna or the Buddha. It has been argued by some scholars that the Brahmo Samaj movement never gained the support of the masses and remained restricted to the elite, although Hindu society has accepted most of the social reform programmes of the Brahmo Samaj. It must also be acknowledged that many of the later Brahmos were also leaders of the freedom movement.
Bengali literature found so many and so bright names found crowded together in the limited space of one century of te Bengali Renaissance: Ram Mohan Roy, Muhammad Shahidullah, Akshay Kumar Datta, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Sharat Chandra Chatterji, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Dina Bandhu Mitra and f course Rbindranath Tagore. Within the three quarters of the century, prose, blank verse, historical fiction and drama wee introduced for the first time in the Bengali literature….While Ram Mohan Roy and Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar were the pioneers, others like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee widened it and built upon it^]. The first significant nationalist detour to the Bengal Renaissance was given by the brilliant writings of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. Later writers of the period who introduced broad discussion of social problems and more colloquial forms of Bengali into mainstream literature included the great Saratchandra Chatterjee.

16. The Tagore family, including Rabindranath Tagore, were leaders of this period and had a particular interest in educational reform^[5]. Their contribution to the Bengal Renaissance was multi-faceted. Indeed, Tagore's 1901 Bengali novella, Nastanirh was written as a critique of men who professed to follow the ideals of the Renaissance, but failed to do so within their own families. In many ways Rabindranath Tagore's writings (especially poems and songs) can be seen as imbued with the spirit of the Upanishads. His works repeatedly allude to Upanishadic ideas regarding soul, liberation, transmigration and—perhaps most essentially—about a spirit that imbues all creation not unlike the Upanishadic Brahman. Tagore's English translation of a set of poems titled the Gitanjali won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913. He was the first Asian to win this award.
The word "renaissance" in European history meant "rebirth" and was used in the context of the revival of the Graeco-Roman learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries after the long winter of the dark medieval period. A serious comparison was started by the dramatis personae of the Bengal renaissance like Keshub Chunder Sen, Bipin Chandra Pal and M. N. Roy. For about a century, Bengal’s conscious awareness and the changing modern world was more developed and ahead of the rest of India. The role played by Bengal in the modern awakening of India is thus comparable to the position occupied by Italy in the European renaissance. Very much like the Italian Renaissance, it was not a mass movement; but instead restricted to the upper classes. Though the Bengal Renaissance was the "culmination of the process of emergence of the cultural characteristics of the Bengali people that had started in the age of Hussein Shah, it remained predominantly Hindu and only partially Muslim. Swami Vivekananda who founded Ramakrishna Mission is considered a key figure in the introduction of Hindu philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga in Europe and America, and is also credited with rising interfaith awareness, bringing Hinduism to the status of a world religion during the end of the 19th century. Vivekananda is considered to be a major force in the revival of Hinduism in modern India. He is best known for his inspiring speech beginning with "sisters and brothers of America", through which he introduced Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions at Chicago in 1893.
During the Bengal Renaissance science was also advanced by several Bengali scientists such as Satyendra Nath Bose and Jagadish Chandra Bose. Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose was a polymath: a physicist, biologist, botanist, archaeologist, and writer of science fictions. He pioneered the investigation of radio and microwave optics, made very significant contributions to plant science, and laid the foundations of experimental science in the Indian subcontinent. He is considered one of the fathers of radio science, and is also considered the father of Bengali science fiction. He was the first from the Indian subcontinent to get a US patent, in 1904.
Satyendra Nath Bose was a physicist, specializing in mathematical physics. He is best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, providing the foundation for Bose-Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose-Einstein condensate. He is honoured as the namesake of the boson. Although more than one Nobel Prize was awarded for research related to the concepts of the boson, Bose-Einstein statistics and Bose-Einstein condensate— the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics was given for advancing the theory of Bose-Einstein condensates.


Beware of the current pseudo-intellectuals, pseud-secular that have infiltrated Indian higher education and political leadership. They are trying to brainwash Indians continuously. You always have a recourse to the Internet Surfing to build your own strength. Unlike those who read in schools before 1970s, most Indians did not have a chance to read the history of Renaissance in schools in textbooks that had much more credibility than those afterwards.

Ramjanabhumi and Criminalf Dishonesty of Historians

I wish that the entire judgement document of the Allahabad High Court's three-member Lucknow Bench was available to the public easily and used by schools and colleges as case study material for courses involving logic, reasoning and scientific methodology.
We have got some extracts in Newspapers through articles. I reproduce part of an article by Swapan Dasgupta, an intellectual journalist. But we cannot depend on the opinions of experts and intellectuals of Indian variety without our own independent verification, especially as what Swapan Dasgupt has revealed exposes the dishonesty or blind faith of so-called intellectuals who even give opinions of doubtful value as expert knowledge-based opinion.
I had always doubted much of Indian intellectualism, especially of the leftist or communist variety as slogans to sell faith to gullible public.

That the Communist (or, communist dependent) Intellectuals' thoughts and behaviour are generally of poor and unscientific quality and dishonesty is all well known. And, this is understandable: just like many preachers/ priest of religion they are in the business of making money and acquiring power by selling blind faith. The standards of logic and science among Indian historians has generally been poor because they have difficulty in living with refutable theories: they have to behave as if they know the Truth of everything: otherwise their credibility will be lost among common people they want to exploit. Seldom will you see communist intellectuals in academic debates and academic journals on international repute.

Swapan Dasgupt is right that for once they have been exposed because the communists thought they are better intellectuals than the judges who daily practices reason and logic to examine evidence of various types arrive at Truth. From the very beginning it was clear that the anti-Ramjanmabhoomi lobby will fail at the cross examinations at the Court. Even for a widely held belief, it is necessary to produce in Court evidence that establishes that no Ram ever existed or that the particular Ram was not born in the land under the Babri Masjid complex. The communists did not understand that the Judges could not have said that Ramjanmabhumi was not Ram's birthplace  unless there was historical proof that Ram did not exist or he was born elsewhere. It was not sufficient for the judges to consider the mere absence of historical proof about Ram's Existence or his birthplace as proof of non-existence of Ram and of birth of Ram outside Ramjanmabhumi. The art of fooling common people is not be confused with science, logic or reason. Noe lwt me quote from Swapan's article at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101015/jsp/opinion/story_13057334.jsp#

IMAGINED HISTORIES
- The court watched a parade of the good, the bad and the ugly
Swapan Dasgupta, The Telegraph, Kolkata, Oct. 15, 2010

When the history of the Ayodhya movement comes to be written, there will be the inevitable search for heroes and villains. The selection will be contentious: one man’s hero is, after all, another man’s villain. At this interim stage, when the Allahabad High Court verdict has opened a small window of opportunity for an amicable settlement that leaves no side completely dissatisfied, it would help to examine how the beauty parade of the good, the bad and the ugly has been viewed from the Bench.

An exploration of the voluminous judgment of the judge, Sudhir Agarwal, is pertinent in the context of a determined bid by India’s vocal left-wing intelligentsia to rubbish the judgment as a departure from modernity, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In a statement by 61 ‘intellectuals’ led by the historian, Romila Thapar, that includes the cream of the left-liberal establishment and sundry art dealers, photographers and food critics, the judgment was attacked for dealing yet “another blow to India’s secular fabric”.

At the heart of the fury of the ‘intellectuals’ is the court’s assault on the reputation of the clutch of ‘eminent historians’ which has dictated the ‘secular’ discourse on the Ayodhya dispute. The court questioned the competence of various ‘expert’ witnesses and cast doubts on their intellectual integrity.

It was the Archaeological Survey of India report of court-monitored excavations in 2003 of the disputed site which set the cat among the pigeons. After exhaustive hearings of “all possible angles in the matter so that there may not remain a grievance”, the high court accepted the ASI report which R.C. Thakran of Delhi University, an expert witness for the Sunni Waqf Board, dubbed “an unprofessional document full of gross distortions, one-sided presentation of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”.

Thakran’s indignation was understandable. In its conclusion, the ASI submitted that “a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive attached with it” was located at the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya. The scale of the buildings indicated that they were for “public” functions. “It was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.”

Without mincing words, the ASI report had brushed aside the so-called Historians’ Report to the Nation authored by the professors R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts”. As an example of this “impartial” history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama’s birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith”.

Subsequently, as more research pointed otherwise, the goalpost was quietly shifted. In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”

A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.

A curious feature of the 1991 intervention, which emerged from Suraj Bhan’s cross-examination, was the disinclination of the “impartial historians” to undertake any field work. In his deposition, Bhan stated: “I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…. In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.”

Nor was Bhan the only armchair archaeologist. Echoing Moosvi, the medieval historian who felt that “to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site”, the professor, D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.Shallowness and superficiality are themes that recur. Bhan confessed that the grandly titled Report to the Nation was written under “pressure” in six weeks and “without going through the record of the excavation by B.B. Lal”.

The lapse would have put an undergraduate to shame but not the “impartial” historians. During her cross-examination, Suvira Jaiswal, another Waqf Board expert historian, confessed: “I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or… from the report of historians.” Sushil Shrivastava, a “historian” whose bizarre book on Ayodhya secured favourable media publicity and is still cited approvingly by CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, admitted he had “very little knowledge of history”, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law. The judge was stunned by his “dishonesty”.Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid wasn’t built on virgin land, “impartial” history turned to imaginative history. It was suggested by Bhan that what lay beneath the mosque was an “Islamic structure of the Sultanate period”. Mandal went one better, suggesting that after the Gupta period “this archaeological site became desolate for a long time”. The reason: floods. Supriya Verma contested the “Hindu” character of recovered artefacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods — something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, “could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure [sic]”. There were also suggestions, never proven or pressed, that the ASI had falsified and suppressed data.

The court was not amused. Dismissing the unsubstantiated allegations “we find on the contrary, pre-determined attitude of the witness (Suraj Bhan) against ASI which he has admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having been seen by the witness, he formed (an) opinion and expressed his views…” The judge, Agarwal, was “surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story” of a mosque under a mosque.
The judge was unaware of what constitutes “scientific” history in India. In her deposition as an expert in ancient history, Suvira Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”
She was articulating the prevailing philosophy of history writing in contemporary India. The courts recoiled in horror at the “dearth of logical thinking” and the underlying cronyism behind the public stands of India’s “eminent” historians. ....End of Quote.

I have received another article reference by email from friends. That speaks of the State / Government sponsored history. It is not merely the communist intellectuals who use their poor brains in history and logic to sell outdated ideologies to acquire money and power: it has become the practice of textbook writing money-making activity for poor-brained, dishonest intellectuals enjoying the patronage of the Rulers in lieu of  promoting myths liked by the Rulers Better I quote now:

'The New Indian Express

A textbook case of howlers
Michel Danino

Express News Service
First Published : 18 Oct 2010 03:33:28 AM IST

As a nation, we often take pride in our history, yet in my decade-long
interactions with Indian students and teachers, I have rarely found any in
love with the discipline. Rather, comments like "I hate history" or "History
is so boring" sum up the general feeling. You are likely to share it if you
open the latest history textbook prescribed for Class VI in 2010-11 by the
Tamil Nadu government under its "common syllabus".

Let us begin with the Indus or Harappan civilization, Chapter 2. On a map,
an important Harappan site, Kalibangan, is shown inside Pakistan instead of
northern Rajasthan (has Pakistan encroached on Indian land?); another site,
Rupar, is placed right on the international border, while it is close to
Chandigarh. The text informs us that "Harappa in Sindhi means 'Buried
City'," even though Harappa is in Punjab, not Sindh, and its etymology is
unknown. Harappan cities were so sophisticated that they boasted "street
lights"-certainly a world first! Another gem: "The terracotta planks
discovered here were engraved with letters"-as a student of archaeology, I
confess my ignorance of what a "terracotta plank" might be; perhaps this is
a garbled reference to Dholavira's famous three-metre-long inscription,
consisting of crystalline material set in a long-vanished wooden board.
Curiously, Dholavira, one of the five largest Harappan cities, and the
second largest in India, figures nowhere. Apparently, our textbook writers
rarely believe in updating their knowledge.

Among the five reasons given for the decline of this civilization, the first
is nonsensical: "Wooden articles would have got destroyed by fire," as if
that could have finished a whole civilization. The second is sheer fancy:
"Rivalry because of the civil war." The fourth-"The Aryans would have
destroyed these towns in order to succeed" (succeed whom or in what is
unclear) - was rejected by archaeologists over 40 years ago, and so has the
fifth: "The heap of bones discovered in Mohenjo-daro is evidence of the
invasion of the foreigners," especially as there is no "heap of bones"
anywhere, only a few scattered skeletons which belong to different epochs.
The third reason alone-a change in the course of the Indus-is among the
accepted factors, but is poorly expressed and quite incomplete.

Let us turn to Chapter 4, "The Vedic Period", which opens with the arrival
of the Aryans around 1500 BCE-a highly disputed colonial theory presented as
hard fact. It adds piquant details: Aryan men, besides dhotis and shawls,
wore turbans and had "bands on their foreheads", an awkward and wholly
fictitious combination. The Congress (I) will be delighted to learn that
among other gods, the Aryans worshipped "Indira" (instead of Indra; another
is "Varna", instead of Varuna). A table summarizes the "qualities of
Dravidians and Aryans" in two neat columns of nine points, the first of
which attributes to Dravidians "dark complexion, medium height, dark long
hair", and to the Aryans "fair, tall and brown hair". Clearly, we shall
never move away from the racial theories of the colonial era, even if they
stand wholly discredited in the light of modern anthropology and genetics.

The other eight points take it for granted that the Dravidians were the
authors of the Indus civilization, a theory that has been around for decades
but has few takers among archaeologists. That the Dravidian/Aryan contrast
is viewed as purely racial is confirmed by the complete absence of a
linguistic comparison, the only legitimate one today. In fact, there is no
mention of Sanskrit; our Class VI student shall never learn that such a
language existed, in conformity with the anti-Sanskrit stance of the
Dravidian movement.
Tamil, by contrast, receives much attention. In fact, Chapter 3 on "Ancient
Tamil Nadu", judiciously placed before "The Vedic Period", presents as fact
the legend of the Kumari Kandam, a mythical land south of India, where the
first two of the three Sangams flourished before the land was swallowed by
the sea (to appear more credible, the textbook uses the word "tsunami",
unaware of the fact that a tsunami swallows no land). This occurred "before
prehistoric period" and "this land mass was eight to ten times bigger than
South India," complete with "wide ranges of mountains", "civilized people
and efficient kingdom" (excuse the broken English). So we had civilization
even before prehistory!

The textbook goes on to identify Kumari Kandam with the equally mythical
lost continent of Lemuria, and asserts that "conditions were favourable for
the growth of living organisms only at Cape Comorin which was submerged
after the tsunami... Because of this the evolution of man would have taken
place then. The language spoken by those people was the basic of Tamil
language." Humans thus evolved near Cape Comorin in Lemuria-not in Africa as
we thought-and spoke Tamil right from the beginning. I have no problem with
a mild dose of national or regional pride, but this planetary jingoism
boggles the mind.

There is more. Lemuria was a "big land mass connecting Africa and Australia"
and was so called after "the monkey Lemur" - but lemurs are not monkeys.
Never mind, "it was believed that human beings evolved from the Lemurs. The
language of the people was ancient Tamil" - in case you had forgotten. As
regards humans being descended from Lemurs, this is a momentous discovery
that will call for rewriting textbooks on human evolution. On geology, too:
the supercontinent of the Southern hemisphere, which is thought to have
included South America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Australia and
Antarctica, is called Gondwana-not Lemuria-and broke up some 200 million
years ago, according to current research. Compare this with two million
years of human evolution, and the absurdity of a Lemur-descended,
Tamil-speaking early humanity ought to be plain enough.

Legends and myths are wonderful windows on the ancient mind in any culture.
But to present the Kumari Kandam tradition as a scientific finding (adding
spicy details that figure nowhere in the Sangam literature) would be like
asserting that Rahu's swallowing of the sun during eclipses is the latest in
astronomy.

There are more howlers in following chapters (we learn that "to attain the
spiritual goal the Jains starved"; moreover, "they eliminated clothes"), but
the above examples will suffice to illustrate the abysmal incompetence of
some of our textbook writers. Remember, in most Tamil Nadu schools, students
will not be allowed to move on to the next class unless they have mugged up
this farrago.

Better textbooks (such as those published by NCERT) do exist, but are not
free either from errors, confusion and lingering colonial stereotypes. In
this Internet age, perhaps it is time, as forward-looking educationists
suggest, to move beyond a textbook-centric education and make creative use
of a variety of materials. This may involve some trial and error, but it
cannot do worse than the above kind of disgraceful material.... End of Quote.

If all these that goes on India, what remains of Indian history and historians. Who will beieve in whom as knowledgable experts. Poverty is not limited to dearth of food intake but inflow of garbage in the brains.
Poverty eradication programmes may need a complete overhaul in India. Those who read textbooks get some food for the body but garbage poison for the brains.

Ramjanmabhumi & Proerty Award

The post on Ramjanamabhumi attracted some comments. People are generally petulant and have great emotional faith on faith or logic as they perceive.  One friend said" religion is beyond reason. Divine faith has no boundaries. God is everywhere(omnipresent).where is the dispute?" Clearly, those who practice religion are not always within the bounds of religion. But the basis of religion is not faith but reason and logic - maybe in most cases weak and outdated logic or reasoning: no new religion has come to establish itself after powerful logic and reason has revolutionised the way the people in the World now lives. But to say there isn't a dispute because religion is beyond reason and God is omni-present may not be really relevant to the issue of Ramjanmabhumi verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. Dispute was not about God, nor about Religion. Dispute was about where exactly God in his human form as Rama was born and who owns a particular piece of land. Dispute is about whether the Judges of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court relied on (non-divine or divine) faith and folklore or reason, logic and principles of law.
Another former colleague remarked:' "When faith & belief ends, reason & logic starts". But it does not always stand static on a straight line, rather it moves in circular. It is situation and time based. When "logic & reason" does not work, rather it ends, "faith and belief" starts. This
is what our life is.'

He is absolutely right. Life is mostly faith, belief and emotions. For most people, logic and reasoning is unknown. For some people, logic and reason is party acceptable so long it is convenient. For some others, things that cannot be explained by logic and reason, has to be explained by beliefs nd faith. Even for many of the greatest of scientists it is difficult to tolerate a situation that they cannot find or establish the Truth/ Knowledge by reason and logic and they tend to adopt beliefs and faith in those situations where reason and logic, at the state of development of their time, cannot explain things or find/ establish the Truth. It is only the rare scientist who can tolerate a situation of uncertainty about Truth and knowledge in many areas because logic and reasoning tools are yet to develop to that stage of establishing Truth and knowledge in certain areas. These scientists know that reason and logic has evolved over time and continue to do so and they are comfortable of not knowing about many things about certainty.  This only has given the birth of probability.  And, they accept high probability as a knowledge that has a high chance of being proved right. Thus, logic and reason starts when people are willing to end their faith and beliefs. But, since logic and reason cannot, at any given state of their development and refinement at any given stage of historical time, cannot find the True answers to all questions, people who cannot tolerate a situation of being blank about those things adopt beliefs and faith. At a later stage, when the truth is found out by more powerful logic and reason, they shed the beliefs and faith, though often most reluctantly.

That the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved round the earth was established by reason one day. But when more powerful logic and reason proved that the earth is round and the Earth revolved around the Sun, it took a long time for the people to change their faith. Thus, faith persists even when reason and logic succeeded.  People like to be in the close comfort of faith and beliefs and fight with the beliefs and faith of others. Only the rare person is capable of not having faith and beliefs at all and remains comfortable with the small knowledge acquired through logic and reason and remaining ignorant about the rest of the unknown. Even those what they accept as Truth and Knowledge, they accept them as those that may have a chance of getting refuted by more powerful logic and reason. They therefore shun beliefs and faith altogether. This is not the way most people can manage to live.

My younger son still had doubt. He believed that that because the Court upheld the claim that a piece of land within the Babri Masjid was Ramjanmabhumi (whatever that actually means is a separate issue and also dealt with by the judges), the Court gave a portion of the land to the Hindus. This is what most people perceive as the Court's judgement. This completely wrong view of the Court's judgement has been popularised by the faith and beliefs of the commentators in the media and the absence of logic and reasoning among most people who are biased by their perception of the communal angle to the issue and the existence of a mosque that was demolished by some Hindu fundamentalists. Whether Ram was born in a piece of land in the area in / around the Babri Massjid building or not has nothing to do with Court's judgement on who owns the land and how this could be shared. This property ownership issue is an independent issue arising out of the claim of three parties which did not exist until recently - not to speak of when Ram was born or the Babri Masjid was built. Apparently, none of the parties could show documents of clear title (resulting from inheritance,  purchase or gift) to land/ property to the land they claimed as their own. And, therefore, the Court could not uphold the claim of any party on the land. But the Court did find acceptable evidence that much before the dispute arose in the 20th century, two different sections of the Hindu Community and one section of the Muslim community did use different parts of the said land for prayer and worship purposes simultaneously for long periods in the 19th century (probably earlier and later also) without any quarrel or fight among themselves. Since Indian law has a provision that any person enjoying possession of land for 12 years or more at a stretch without any dispute can become entitled to be the owner of the property, the Court held that all the three parties, as representative bodies of the different sections of Hindus and Muslims, are entitled to the sections of the properties they had been in possession and using for such long periods simultaneously without any dispute. The Court has arrived at a three-way split of the entire land that best protects the long established usage pattern and awarded the three sections of the land to the three parties. Until a higher Court finds fault with the application of the principle of Indian Law here, the Court's verdict is completely in agreement with the principles of law and fair justice. In India millions of people owned land in this manner: not by purchasing and inheritance but by unauthorised occupation of vacant lands not cared for by their original owners and then retaining them under possession and use for long periods undisputed by the original owners: in and around Kolkata there are residential areas where people have become owners of land by, what Bengalis call, Jabar Dakhal (forcible occupation). Human settlements are always traceable to the origin of forcible occupation methods!!"  If the land under dispute was once owned by King Dasarath of Ayodha and father of Ram must have been forcibly occupied once and then inherited: it was unlikely have been inherited or purchased by another King Babar or someone else but must have been forcibly occupied by their ancestors or themselves. When forcible occupation remains undisputed for long enough periods, one can become owner of lands. That is the law of the land. The parties who get the share of the land should thank the forcible occupiers whom they represent.

Ramjanmobhoomi

Indians are interesting people. They go to courts to settle disputes on any thing they have quarel among themselves. I heard from my father that the Brahmins and Baidyaas - two castes in Bengal when to Court  during the British Rule period: Brahmins had said that Baidyas were not Brhamins while the Baidyas had considered them as Brahmins. The Court seemed to have ruled in favour of Baidyas claim to Brahmin Caste. It is interesting that the Court had dealt with such an issue. I do not know how the Court arrived at the verdict. But judges are learned men and know what is law, what is the jurisdiction of law, what is evidence and what is proof: I do not expect that they will rely on anything that does not meet the requirements of law, logic and reasoning.
These days of democracy makes everyone a lawyer by birth right and everyone seems to be an expert in logic, reasoning and law. Even political party politburos/ brain-storming committees evaluate the basis of the judgements of Courts while professing that independent judiciary as ac pillar of Indian democracy. And, there are many self-professed and media-invented intellectuals and learned persons who act pretty similarly smart on the street in legal issues. Hypocrisy as usual. Why an an Indian I should not practice that?
I quote from a report (rather news analysis) on Yahoo posted on Wednesday Oct 6 at 10.53 AM:

"To arrive at their unanimous conclusion that Hindus have the right to the makeshift temple under the central dome of the Babri Masjid, each of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court relied on a blend of Hindu faith, belief and folklore (italics mine) but each qualified his argument in his own way." Before I quote the rest of the Yahoo post, let me look at the bold statement of the post-person's bold assertion in italics above. The person is such an expert in Law, logic and reasoning that the person can pronounce a verdict on the verdict of the Court. Unfortunately the rest of the report shows that none of the judged relied on any blend of Hindu faith, belief or folklore - contrary to the post-person's bold judgement on the judges. The problem is that the pseudo-intellectuals demand proof for every thing that is contrary to their own belief and faith. If they believe that Ram did not exist or Ram was not born in an area of 20 square feet of land now under the Babri Masjid roof, they demand proof against their belief to be produced by others who have a contrary belief or faith. Forget that there were three learned judges who were assessing the worth of the arguments on both sides. Just imagine a person of pure reasoning assessing the arguments of counsels on both sides. Could he have declared that Ramjanmabhoomi is not Ramjanmabhoomi. He could not have simply because he would not have got any proof that clearly established that Ram was not born at Ramjanmabhumi as claimed by some Hindus or Ram indeed was born at a different place. There was no direct witness in this case: could not have been possible. There were many people saying that Ram was indeed born in that particular place based on what their forefathers have been telling them. As against this  there was not a single person saying that they have heard from the forefathers that Ram was born elsewhere or was definitely born at a different place. It is so straight forward a case: there were no options for the learned and reasonable judges to say that there is no proof either way and acknowledge that many people say that Ramjanmabhumi was identified by their forefathers while none said that they have heard that Ramjanmabhumi was not at the identified place or  elsewhere. The Court has acknowledged this fact and not sided with any particular belief or faith. If the Court had said that Ramjanmobhumi cannot be identified because no one has given any concrete direct proof, that would have been a simple case of rejection of facts.

To understand this simple and valid reasoning of the judges, please consider the hypothetical case that two sections of the Hindus claimed two different places as the birthplace of their Lord Ram. What would the judges say? " Look friends,  none of you can provide direct evidence or proof that Lord Ram was indeed born 9000 years ago. So we cannot resolve this disputes yourself. Please go to a war and fight to win or bring in a monkey to resolve your dispute. Your dispute is  beyond law and courts". That would have been an illegal and illogical act on the part of judges because the Courts have come into existence to resolve disputes. In the actual case heard by the Court, they did not find worthwhile historical evidence that contradicts the identity of the Ramjanmabhmi as claimed by some Hindus. 

Consider another example. I have three sons (suppose) and they are so devoted to me that after my death at the age of 102, two of them claim that I was born in the land below Room no. 1 of a now defunct hospital building converted in to a multi storied residential building with no records at all available on my birthplace and they decide to purchase, with the money I bequeath them with a will that the money should be used for my memorial at an appropriate place of their choice, a particular flat covering that room to set up a prayer hall for born- fools like me in my memory: the other son, 50-60 years younger than the first two, says there is no proof of my birthplace and the prayer hall should be constructed where a fool like me was taught by my teacher. They finally decide to settle their disputes, will the Court by reasoning establish that my birthplace remains unidentified because, none of those like my mother and the doctor or the midwife were no more and they did not keep records. Will the court say, "Mr. Sen's sons, you three are damned fools. This is not case of dispute under law because there is no birth record available. Go to a politicians and settle or just settle by majority vote." The Court will not do so. The Court will hear the arguments and find out the basis of their individual beliefs about my birthplace and give a verdict one way or the other: may be suggesting spending the money for a smaller flat prayer room and another prayer room near the nursery school that I had attended. Do not laugh out my examples: these are real life people's disputes you see everywhere across the World from Palestine to Pakistan, in Iraq and in India. My name is Name Surname as per all record from educational certificates to employment to passport. Then in the middle of my career Income Tax department gave me a card in Mumbai ( I did not go to Court to say that the city should still be called Bombay the way I first heard of the City in my childhood because I know despite the historical proof, the Court will say the Government decides the name of City on behalf all citizens and the term Mubai has a link to MUmbadevi - a Goddess or deity who was worshipped in a temple somewhere in the city), called the Pan Card, which showed by name as Name Father's Name Surname by inserting Father's name in the middle (while I was sure of my Father, Income Tax Department in Mumbai wanted to be sure enough!). No problem for quite some time until the SEBI and the Mutual Fund Industry decided to introduce KYC (Know Your Client or Kill Your Client) Forms System. Now, when I invest in Mutual Funds, they issue me certificates with Client as Name Father's Name Surname and accept cheques issued by the person Name Surname but will redeem only with cheques account payee Name Father's name Surname who does not have a bank account. Before I die, I hope I get the Unique Identification done by Mr. Nilkeni's Adhar Project people: otherwise my sons would have difficulty in getting my money back as they are sons identified as their name and their surname without their father's name as part of their name. They will have to go to courts to resolve the dispute with the mutual funds. The mutual fund may say where is the proof that the son's fathers ever existed and the Court will go by what my son's believe as the mutual fund will have no proof for their belief that I as the father of my sons never existed.

I am not joking.  I quote again from the Yahoo report on RamJanmabhoomi. The judges clearly say that they did not rely on faith or folklore or religious belief: they just did not find any proof for any belief that Ram did not exist or that Ram was not born at what is being claimed as Ramjanmabumi:

"For both Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma (now retired), Lord Ram, son of King Dashrath, was born within the 1,482.5 square yards of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid premises over 900,000 years ago during the Treta Yuga. To ask for "positive evidence" to back this, Justice Agarwal said, "is not only a futile attempt but is against all the canons of the principles of law". For Justice Sharma, the "world knows" where Ram's birthplace is.
For Justice S U Khan, the conclusion is an "informed guess"...based on "oral evidences of several Hindus and some Muslims" that establish the "precise birthplace of Ram" under the central dome.
The salient arguments of each:
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
"Whether Lord Ram was born and was a personality in history, as a matter of fact cannot be investigated in a Court of Law," Justice Agarwal begins. "Simple logic is that failing to find evidence to something does not necessarily result in that the thing does not exist."
"Nobody can dare to ask such questions for such pious and reverent beliefs in other religions like Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammad Saheb, etc...then where is the question of asking such an evidence in the matter of religious faith and belief which is not just a few hundred years old but travels in the history of several thousands of years," he questions.
He quotes the dispute of Al Aqsa in Jerusalem where the Far Mosque is "treated the third most pious place by Muslims since they believe that Prophet Mohammad descended there after visiting Heaven". "Nobody even doubts their faith," he says.
Justice Agarwal says the court has "to uphold a faith which continued for time immemorial" and not seek for "direct evidence" of the exact birthplace.
"The place of birth cannot be proved by direct evidence; indeed no living being is capable of proving the birthplace of any of his parents four degrees or more remote in the line of ascent," he says.
"The fact, therefore, has to be judged in accordance with the meaning of the word 'proved' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists. So 'belief' and 'supposition' are perfectly legal and acceptable states which may lead to 'proof'," he says Justice S U Khan
Even Suit no 5 filed by Lord Rama as plaintiff No. 1 makes no effort to "identify, specify and pinpoint 'the birth place'", Justice Khan writes. His question to various counsel on the precise meaning for the terms "Janam Asthan" or "JanamBhoomi" went unanswered.
"It was inquired whether it (Janam Asthan) meant the exact site where Kaushalia, the mother of Lord Ram gave birth to him (which from its very nature could be very, very small area of 5 to 10 square yeards only) or it meant the room in which the birth took place, or it meant the mansion where mother of Lord Ram resided. None of the learned counsel could give any specific reply to this query," he records.
Finally, the judge resorts to books and gazetteers to discover that the fort of Raja Dasarath was "quite big", and definitely over 1,500 square yards.
"In olden times there was not much demand on the land. The mother of Lord Ram was one of his three or four favourite queens. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that she used to live in a mansion constructed only on an area of 1,500 square yards. At that time even the houses of medium level people must be of quite larger area," he says.
"The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born... however, they were unable to
identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question".
Justice D V Sharma
For Justice Sharma, "the whole world knows that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya where the temple Ram Janama Bhumi stands." Still, he adds that it is "manifestly established by public records of unimpeachable authority" that the premises in dispute is the place where "Maryada Purushottam Sri Ramachandraji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath, which according to tradition and faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Rama is the place where HE manifested in human form as an incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu."
Citing the faith of the "devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala or Lord Rama the Child," it is the spirit of Ram as the "divine child," which resides at the "Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and can be experienced by those who pray there and invoke that Spirit for their spiritual uplift." end of report

Clearly Law has clear jurisdiction over religious disputes, disputes over faith, disputes that can not be resolved by direct evidence either way. Law is not merely what is written in Legislative Acts: then lawyers and judges would not have been required - e-filing of suits and computer programs would have delivered verdict. The source of logic and reasoning is not legislation: source of logic and reasoning is human brains of quality that deals only with logic and reasoning. Faith and belief based intellectualism and politics is mostly far from reason and logic.