Nirmukta » Science P.O.V.

Organizing The Rationalist Movement In Uttar Pradesh

Narendra Nayak — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:00:09 +0000

Uttar Pradesh (UP) is the most populous state in India and is known to be one of the most backward too. In National politics it is always said that the party that comes to power in UP will eventually rule the center (a bellwether state, as they say in the Uniter States). It is hence necessary that a strong rationalism movement is built up in UP if a national level impact is to be effected.

We have been trying this for a long time and have developed contacts with a good number of affiliated organisations and committed individuals from this state. But what is needed is a presence in all the districts and an effective network of dedicated workers. Through organisations like Arjak Samaj, which has thousands of members, and the Social Development Foundation which also has many dedicated workers, we have been trying to create a network in this state. Premanand had conducted training programs here two decades ago and a few volunteers who could explain miracles were thrown up. There are some activists who have learnt the tricks and have been performing and explaining them on their own. But to develop a rationalist movement we need much more. We have been struggling to develop a network which would be broad based as well as active, but we have not succeeded so far.

After Premanand’s first workshop in the 1990s in Lucknow, a few of the trainees developed their skills, and have now started training others too. But there have been a lot of limitations for them. I too have conducted a number of training programs in various places, but the impact had been very, very minimal. In terms of social development, this state ranks somewhere near the underdeveloped countries of sub Saharan Africa. Although it has contributed more than half of the Prime Ministers of the nation and great national leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Ram Manohar Lohia etc., the situation has not improved. The people of this state are very superstitious.

So, last year when Dr.S.K.Singh, the director of the Voluntary Institute for Community Applied Science (VICAS) told me that he had applied for a grant from the NCSTC for conducting four training programs to cover all the 60 plus districts of this state, I was very happy and thought that we could use this opportunity to build up a good network here. After eighteen months of work, I am glad to announce that we have made a start that appears to be quite promising.

The first training program, catalysed by the NCSTC and conducted by VICAS, was in Allahabad in the month of January, 2009. We had a training program for thirty activists who had come from around 15 districts. It was for five days and it went on quite well.

At that time we had a fire walk on the banks of the Yamuna river which was filmed by a number of TV channels and we got some of the best footage we ever had of this event. Impressed by this, one of the channels called Sahara Samay invited me to their studio for a live phone-in program. Although we had some publicity, it did not make a great impact.

Some of the trainees for that program have been active in the field but even there the program is projected like a magic show or an entertainment program and not as a means to develop scientific temper. Then, after about a year, the same organisation contacted me for a series of training programs in the same state. This time they were organised in Lucknow, Allahabad and Baghpat. To each of these, around thirty activists from various organisations had been invited. The training programs were to start from the 1st of June and end of the 17th. After these four programs we would have covered all the districts of the state in terms of training activists from each of them.

First of the series was held at the Youth Hostel, Lucknow from the 1st of June. The number of participants was around 25. But we made an impact on the media persons who had come to cover the event. There were a number of reports in newspapers and the training program went on reasonably well.

One of the reporters who had come to cover the event was the Bureau Chief of the India TV channel of Lucknow. She was very impressed by our work and invited me to their studio for a live program on the 5th of June . That program started at 7 pm and went on to 9.30 pm. There were other participants who were at the Delhi studio. A considerable amount of time was devoted for our exposure of the so called miracles and that program made a huge impact via the media.

On the next day I went to Allahabad for the next training program and by that time the media was ready. We had about thirty participants here though the number went up to forty in the next few days. Many were those who had read about it in the newspapers and wanted to learn things. We had to tell them that they could be only observers and were not eligible to use any of the other facilities like lunch. However some of them expressed great interest and took part.

Click to play all 5 parts of Prof Nayak’s appearance on News 24 India

It was at Allahabad that the media really started taking interest in us! I was invited to the studio of the Sahara group and went on air at 4 pm on a channel called as Sahara UP - Uttarakhand. On the same evening, at 6pm, I was invited live on another channel that was part of the same group, called as Sahara Samay. After the hectic activity of the day, when I was relaxing, there was a phone from a channel called Live India TV. The live program was supposed to be for 30 minutes but went on for an hour. As soon as the program was over I was invited to come on the very next day to Delhi to their studio for a live program there. I had to refuse as I had my training program to look after.

The next day i was to go to Baghpat for another 5 day training program and there was a free day in between the two. But, the channel was so insistent and they sent someone to meet me at the railway station at Meerut where my journey from Allahabad to Baghpa was supposed to end by train, and I was taken to Delhi for a live 2 hour program. During this presentation, I was helped to a great extent by Mr.Pramod of VICAS, Allahabad, who was helping me with the training too.

I think that that live program was the real turning point. We started getting calls from dozens of TV channels asking for where our next program would be and what it would be. Many of them came to the place, Aryabhatt College of Engineering and Management, where our training program was going on, and one of them wanted a live program in their studio.

That channel was India TV and we went live on a Sunday at the prime time-9pm. In two days we were to perform some of the very sensational ‘miracles’ like getting buried underground, removing fried things from hot oil with bare hands, preparing tea with fire on the head etc. It was a great surprise to us that this program done on the 15th June was covered by 17 TV channels including 2 live!

Those who were covering it live had brought their OB vans and were waiting for the events to happen. The print media gave us wide coverage with some of them making features and half page write ups. It also helped that two girls who had come for the training, Sanju and Anju, were bold enough to get buried for 2 hours and then come out and walk on embers!

The UP programs were the most successful to date as for as the media coverage was concerned. The organisers of the Training program VICAS and the department of the central govt, the NCSTC were immensely pleased with the results and we are sure of their co-operation in the next training programs. In fact we have lined up a lot of programs for this state. We propose to have district level training programs first and train activists from all over the district and send them to the field to convey our message of scientific temper to the people. I plan to go with the team for a few of these training programs and then let them continue the process. During these programs, those who have been already trained by us will also take part and help in the process. After about a year of developing activists, we plan on building a state-level organisation whose task shall be exclusively devoted to the spreading of our movement and educating the people about the need for scientific temper.

In this part of India it is very necessary to create a spirit of enquiry and scientific temper among the people. We hear of so many atrocities and dangerous superstitious practices that it would need a whole life time to just make a list of them. The large population, lack of medical facilities and superstitions put into the minds of people from a very young age make the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh. Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh the most backward in India. Unless we build up strong movements there to go to the people and develop their critical faculties, the nation is not going to progress.

That is one of main reasons why the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations has decided to focus on these states for the coming years. We have already managed to start one such in Bihar called as the Bihar Rationalist Forum. We hope to start one in Uttar Pradesh too within a year. That would mean that we have managed to cover the two most populated states of our country and probably the most superstitious too.

How the movement develops in these states shall be a pointer to how it is going to fare in the rest of the Hindi belt. While we have a presence in Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh we are yet do develop in Chattisgarh and Rajasthan. We have to bring these states too into our ambit as soon as possible.

Professor Narendra Nayak is the President of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA). He regularly tours the country, giving demonstrations and holding workshops to develop scientific temper.

Heretics, Rebels, Reformers And Revolutionaries - Part 1

Prabhakar Kamath — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:35:23 +0000

In this series of articles, we will study the stories of heretics, rebels, reformers and revolutionaries who attempted to overthrow organized priestly religions all over the world. In the first article of this series we will study how the first great revolution against ‘Brahmanic’ religion was launched in Egypt in 14^th century B. C.

Priest-Kings And Temples

In the dawn of ancient civilizations, such as Mesopotamia and Egypt, priests were practically the rulers of the land by virtue of their skills in magic, medicine, astronomy, temple architecture, literature, and knowledge of various gods, which they created to represent some aspect of nature. Temples were their power bases. They held sway over people in a given community, and established rules of social conduct within that community. They deluded common people into believing that their gods would fulfill their desires and protect them from evil forces. They gave the society the internal stability, and by means of great personal sacrifices, they safely conveyed civilization from one generation to another. In the process they earned much gratitude of common people, and became wealthy and powerful. Before secular kings came on the stage of history, there were the priest-kings.

Kings And Palaces

The Intellectual priestly class in ancient civilizations suffered from two great weaknesses:

1. They just could not subdue their jealousies of other priests in charge of temples dedicated to other gods, which led to chronic conflicts among them.

2. They were not able to effectively fight off barbaric tribes marauding their lands.

These two problems required creation of secular kingships. The fighting men chosen to be kings built an army of able-bodied men who could protect the society from external aggression, and wage war on other lands to increase their wealth, power, and territory. In the language of Brahmanism, they were both Dhananjaya (Conquerors of Wealth) and Paranthapa (Enemy Burner). However, with the kings came their palaces. Now palaces became the second center of power in the ancient societies. As secular kings became more powerful, they began to hold sway over people’s lives by virtue of their muscle power and wealth. However, the priestly class did not totally surrender to the kings. Instead they manipulated kings into believing that their rule must be shown to the public as granted by the grace and will of the gods, who just happened to reside in their pockets. Hammurabi (1792-1750 B.C.), the founder of the first Babylonian empire, acknowledges the supremacy of Sumerian gods by beginning one of his inscriptions, “When Anu and Bel entrusted me with the rule of Sumer and Akkad…” (H. G. Wells). Conflict between priestly class and kings is a universal theme in the history of all civilizations. As we read in my earlier articles, Upanishadic revolution to overthrow Brahmanism was led by Kshatriya sages.

God-Kings Of Egypt

In Egypt, however, Pharaohs, as the kings were known, with the connivance of the priests, declared themselves as the earthly manifestation of various Egyptian gods such as Osiris, Hathor and Amun Ra. Due to the enormous power derived from their purported divinity, and authority over people derived from their prowess in war and public service, they were able to muster enough manpower to build colossal monuments to their glory such as pyramids, temples and Sphinx. To prevent diluting their divine blood, they married only immediate relatives of opposite sex, such as sisters or cousins. Anyone marrying outside the ‘divine clan’ was subject to social ostracism, which, of course was in the domain of priestly class. Even though the power and authority of the Pharaoh living in relative isolation of their palaces was seemingly absolute, the priests of great temple-casino complexes such as the ones in Karnak and Luxor, held considerable amount of stranglehold on the Pharaohs as well as the populace. As long as the Pharaohs toed the line drawn by the priests, their power base was secure. If they crossed that line, they would do so at their own peril. Inevitably, such a delicate balance of power would certainly receive a jolt sooner or later.

Seeds Of Revolution

An incident happened during the rule of Amenhotep III, a Pharaoh of 18^th Dynasty who ruled from 1386/88 -1349/50. He fell prey to his lust for a beautiful damsel of Syrian/Semitic extract by the name of Tii (“Tee”), and made her his principle wife. This did not sit well with the priests of the chief god Amun Ra. The priests did not hide their dislike for Tii or her offspring. Amenhotep III did another thing to offend the priests. He took an obscure sun god known as Aten, and elevated it to the position of the chief god, while tolerating other gods side by side. (We read in my articles on the Bhagavad Gita how Upanishadic sages took the mysterious spirit Brahman invoked by Brahmins at Yajnas and elevated it into ‘all-pervading Universal Soul Brahman’; and Bhagavatas promoted prince Krishna of Mahabharata epic to the status of Parameshwara.) Thus provoked by Amenhotep III, the priests of Amun Ra became angry, vengeful and turned on his entire family. They did not treat the offspring of Tii well, particularly her second son who came to power later on as Amenhotep IV. Hate for the priests of Amun Ra grew in the heart of Amenhotep IV. It is said that Tii further fuelled the fire of hate in the heart of her son. Now a struggle began between the priests of Amun Ra and the family of Amenhotep III.

Pharaoh Amenhotep IV Launches Monotheism

Amenhotep IV succeeded his father upon his death, following two years of co-regency. He set out to destroy the entire priest-dominated Egyptian polytheistic religion, which had evolved over at least two thousand years. Realizing that the only way to undermine the power of the priests was to take their gods away from them, he rejected Amun Ra as the supreme god, and elevated Aten the Solar Disc to the position of the Only Supreme God as declared in the hymn, “O Sole God beside whom there is none!” This declaration of One Supreme God –monotheism- has echoed through the centuries in Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions. It has been speculated that Moses got the idea of monotheism from Akhenaten as evidenced by his First of Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before Me,” and in Islam’s oft-repeated utterance, “There is no god but God.” In fact, its echo could be heard even in the monotheistic Bhagavata creed as uttered by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, “Surrender unto Me alone” (18:66) and “Worship Me alone” (9:22).

Amenhotep IV Becomes Akhenaten And Attacks Old Religion

Amenhotep IV changed Amun in his name into Aten, his Supreme God, and called himself Akhenaten. He named his son Tutankhaten, whom we now know as Tutankhamen (king Tut). Akhenaten built many huge temples for Aten in Thebes and systematically knocked down old temples dedicated to Amun Ra as well as other gods. He abolished all different quarrelling sects. Disgusted by the narrow-mindedness and oppressive atmosphere created by the priestly class, which completely dominated his capital city Thebes, he built a new capital at Amarna, 180 miles north of Thebes. He named his new capital Akhetaten. He banished priests from his capital and banned their ancient religious ceremonies. In his religion, one could relate to Aten directly, without brokers. He dictated that his statues should be as realistic as possible so that his subjects would see him as he is rather than as an awe-inspiring phony figure as dictated by the priestly rules of sculpturing. Defying the priestly tradition, he portrayed his wives and children with him in the carvings so that his subjects would see him as having a family life just like them. He made sure that the Sun Disc with radiating rays was depicted in all his portraits. Thus he became the first king in history to initiate a revolution to overthrow the ancient polytheistic religion mediated by hoards of corrupt and powerful priests, and establish a monotheistic religion without priests.

The Priestly Backlash

Akhenaten did not live long. He died around 1334 B. C. after ruling Egypt for seventeen years, and his revolution died immediately thereafter. As Ashoka the Great did, he underestimated the weed-like power of priests rooted in two thousand years of Egyptian history. The priests had merely bent with the wind. As soon as the winds blew away, they came back to power and immediately began to destroy every temple and palace Akhenaten had built so lavishly. They used the debris of the demolished buildings as the filler material for the foundations of their new temples built for Amun Ra. Akhenaten’s successor Tutankhaten was about eight years old when he was put on the throne, and he could not rule the country without the guidance of experienced priests. The priests renamed him Tutankhamen to reflect his renewed allegiance to Amun Ra, and made him a puppet in their hands. Like Brahmins did to Ashoka the Great after his death, they wiped out the names of Akhenaten and his family from the history of Egypt. Thanks to their thoroughness, Tutankhamen’s tomb remained intact till Howard Carter discovered it in the early part of twentieth century. Grave robbers did not know such a king existed and so they did not look for his tomb!

Why Akhenaten’s Revolution Failed

Ordinary people, who had been bewildered by the new religion of Atenism, reverted back to the comfort of worshiping their old animal-headed gods by means of their traditional rituals and festivals conducted by their trusted priests, no different than 21^st century Hindus finding solace in worshiping elephant-headed god Ganesha or monkey god Hanuman. They could better relate to these gods in their cool stone temples than to the Sun Disc in the burning desert. The concept of a Sun Disc as the Supreme God was too abstract for their simple minds, just as people of post-Vedic period found it difficult to relate to the concept of all-pervading, invisible Brahman as replacement for various anthropomorphic Vedic gods. Besides, unlike Ashoka the Great, Akhenaten did not appoint a huge cadre of emissaries to spread the message of his new religion far and wide. Ashoka’s incessant effort resulted in Buddhism becoming the dominant religion of India for a thousand years, and one of the great religions of the world to this day. Besides, unlike Ashoka, Akhenaten did not undertake great community projects such as building wells, tree-lined roads, hospitals, etc. to serve the public and enhance his own stature. Some historians say that because of Akhenaten’s preoccupation with his religious revolution, he neglected his kingly duties; did not wage war against potential enemies as expected of Pharaohs, nor maintained proper diplomatic relationship with his neighbors. Others have provided evidence to contradict these claims by quoting correspondence in the clay tablets unearthed at archeological sites in Amarna. In any case, the truth is whereas in the beginning of his rule Egypt was very prosperous, by the time he died, decline had already set in. Thus ended the first great revolution against ‘Brahmanism’ of Egypt.

Lessons From Akhenaten’s Failed Revolution

Akhenaten was a revolutionary, but unlike Ashoka the Great, he was not a visionary. It is clear from all the available evidence that Akhenaten attempted to overthrow the old religion of Egyptians by brute force rather than by means of clever set of strategies and tactics. He did not understand the limitation of power of even God-Kings, and the extent of power of priests over the minds of common people. He did not understand the reality that to reform or overthrow a well-established priestly religion, he needed to take small steps, and carry people with him by means of reasoning, education, sympathy and support. He did not realize that for a new ideology to take roots and spread, he would need the services of thousands of dedicated emissaries and selfless volunteers. He underestimated the power of priests over the minds of simple folks, which they had gained over two thousand years by means of great personal sacrifices. He seemed driven more by hatred for the priests than by genuine desire to reform Egyptian religion. Besides all this, he failed to understand that the new ideology or religion must be so down-to-earth that even common people should be able to relate to it.

Atheists should note that Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam took deep roots only because thousands of dedicated missionaries sacrificed their lives to promote them. No one can convert another person to his way of thinking without making great personal sacrifices. Modern day Atheists dedicated to enlightening common people about stupidity of religion will do well to take note of the lessons from the Story of Akhenaten’s Revolution.

(To be continued)

Read Dr. Kamath’s series on The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita here.

Dr. Prabhakar Kamath, is a psychiatrist currently practicing in the U.S. He is the author of Servants, Not Masters: A Guide for Consumer Activists in India (1987) and Is Your Balloon About Pop?: Owner’s Manual for the Stressed Mind.

Science and Scientists

Vinod K. Wadhawan — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:27:13 +0000

1. Preamble

As somebody said, science is what scientists do. And scientists are human too. Some of these humans have great difficulty in reconciling what science tells them with what they learnt from various sources when they were young and impressionable. So they may unconsciously look for ‘loopholes’ in the scientific premises and reasoning, particularly when it comes to fundamental questions about life, mind, and the universe.

In science there is always a cutting edge, or the frontier line where things are hazy. There is debate among experts as various alternative models are compared and contrasted. The beauty of the scientific method is that it is ruthless and without regard for authority (but see below!). Truth prevails ultimately, sometimes after a prolonged debate about what is the best way of interpreting the available data. When more data come in, science has no difficulty in dumping even its most cherished theories if necessary.

Sometimes, of course, the debate continues endlessly. This is particularly true for the highly counterintuitive quantum theory. To me the most important thing about this theory is that it has been phenomenally successful in explaining a vast multitude of natural phenomena, even though we do not have all the answers. Science accepts it because there is no better theory known to us that can be more successful for explaining what we see in the world around us.

To me it is not important that the quantum theory is counterintuitive. I see no reason why the laws of Nature should be always comprehensible to us. We emerged on the cosmic scene very very recently, but the laws of Nature have been there all the time.

But, as I said, scientists are human too. They do have their failings and weaknesses and gut feelings. We all know about Einstein’s reservations about the quantum theory of his day. His views fell by the wayside. But tomorrow if Einstein turns out to be right, no problem. We would then have an even better theory at hand. That is how science progresses.

2. The Copenhagen interpretation

There was this well-known debate between Einstein and Bohr about the foundations of quantum mechanics. Bohr’s viewpoint prevailed, and this gave him enormous, even undue, authority in scientific circles. If a proof is needed, look at the so-called ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ (CI) of quantum mechanics he gave in 1927, jointly with Heisenberg (another venerated scientist). According to the CI, people and the equipment they use exist in a classical world which is different from the quantum world. A quantum state is a superposition of two or more states, but when it interfaces with the classical world (at the moment of measurement), there is a collapse of the wave function (randomly) to one of the alternatives, and the other alternatives disappear. The CI was put in ‘by hand’ as an additional postulate of quantum mechanics.

I have given some more details of the CI in an article on ‘biocentrism’ I coauthored with Ajita Kamal, published here.

What was done there was to juxtapose the CI with a number of later interpretations. To me it is clear that the CI has been superseded by better interpretations.

So much for science. Now let us look at the scientists part of it.

Among the earliest persons to openly challenge the CI was Hugh Everett III, when he put forward his ‘many worlds’ interpretation. But on the scientific scene at that time he was just a kid (a student at Princeton University in the mid-1950s) compared to stalwarts like Bohr and Heisenberg. [To us in India this is reminiscent of the Chandrasekhar vs. Eddington episode in cosmology.] A. H. Wheeler was the Ph.D. supervisor of Everett. Peter Byrne has written about this story in an article in the December 2007 issue of Scientific American. In 1956 Wheeler took the draft dissertation of Everett to Copenhagen to convince the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences to accept it and publish it. He had ‘three long and strong discussions about it’ with Bohr and Petersen. He also showed the work to many others at the Bohr Institute for Theoretical Physics, including A. S. Stern.

Stern dismissed the work as ‘theology,’ and Wheeler himself was reluctant to challenge Bohr. The thesis had to be whittled down to a quarter of its original length. This abridged version also appeared in Reviews of Modern Physics. Young Everett eagerly looked forward to the reactions of the physics community. All he got was stony silence, such was the awe that the name Bohr inspired (and that continues in some quarters even today). Discouraged, Everett left physics and worked on military and industrial mathematics and computing. As the Editors of Scientific American wrote, ‘He died when he was just 51, not living to see the recent respect accorded to his ideas by physicists.’

3. Entanglement

Bohr, of course, was quite consistent in his views about the basics and limitations of quantum mechanics. This came to the fore again in his reaction to Einstein’s and others’ views on ‘quantum entanglement.’ Now this is another esoteric feature of quantum mechanics that challenges our intuition very seriously. And yet there is no immediate danger to the present edifice and acceptability of quantum theory. Why? The answer comes from experiment, namely the fact that quantum computing is already a reality.

The entanglement feature of quantum mechanics is about the spooky ‘action at a distance’: Two particles behave synchronously without any intermediary, no matter how far apart they are. This nonlocalityfeature bothered Einstein and others, as embodied in the famous EPR (Eistein-Podolsky-Rosen) thought experiment published in 1935 in a paper with title ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ EPR argued that the answer to the question is ‘No.’ They took the position that nonlocality is not something real, and therefore quantum mechanics does not provide a complete description of reality.

Bohr did agree with this conclusion, but for his own reasons (see, for example, the article by Albert and Galchen in the March 2009 issue of Scientific American). He argued that we should not even try to read from the equations of quantum mechanics a realistic comprehension of the world. This was in line with what he did in the Copenhagen interpretation mentioned above; namely, introduce one morepostulate or axiom by hand when interfacing the microworld with the macroworld.

Thirty years later John Bell wrote his famous paper in which he established by mathematical proof that the real physical world is indeed nonlocal, no matter what EPR or Bohr believed to be the case. He showed that no local (as opposed to nonlocal) theory can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics because the predictions must always satisfy the now-famous Bell’s inequalities. This meant that the concept of locality was indeed incompatible with quantum theory, so the actual physical world in indeed nonlocal. Both Einstein and Bohr were wrong, though for different reasons.

The influence of Bohr’s line of thinking was so strong and persistent that there was resistance to Bell’s work also. But this situation has changed gradually. I quote from Albert and Galchen (2009): ‘From the early 1980s onward, the grip of Bohr’s conviction — that there could be no old-fashioned, philosophically realistic account of the subatomic world — was everywhere palpably beginning to weaken.’

4. Ockham’s razor

The philosopher Ockham advocated the use of simplest possible explanations for natural phenomena: ‘Plurality should not be posited without necessity‘. The proverbial Ockham’s razor cuts away complicated and long explanations. Ockham declared that simple explanations are the most plausible.

In science, as also in mathematics, we always have some axioms to start with, from which we derive theorems etc. Axioms are something we accept without questioning. If we choose wrong axioms, we get theorems which contradict experiment, so this is not so serious a problem because it is self-correcting. The more serious problem is: How many axioms we should choose?

An extreme situation is wherein we ‘explain’ everything in terms of axioms only, so we have a huge number of axioms, and there is no theory worth the name. Leibniz (1675) was amongst the earliest known investigators of this situation. He argued that a worthwhile theory of anything has to be ’simpler than’ the data it explains. Otherwise, either the theory is useless, or the data are ‘lawless’. The criterion ’simpler than’ is best understood in terms of information theory, particularly its more recently developed offshoot, namely algorithmic information theory (AIT).

Gregory Chaitin is a pioneer of AIT. To understand the essence of the AIT, consider a very simple example. Take the set of all positive integers, and ask the question: How many bits of information are needed to specify all these integers? The answer is an absurdly large number. But the fact is that this set of data has very little information content. It has a structure which we can exploit to write an algorithm which can generate all the integers, and the number of bits of information needed to write the algorithm is indeed not large. So the algorithmic information content in this problem is small.

One can generalize and say that, in terms of computer algorithms, the best theory is that which requires the smallest computer program for calculating (and hence explaining) the observations. The more compact the theory, the smaller is the length of this computer program. Chaitin’s work has shown that the Ockham razor is not just a matter of philosophy; it has deep algorithmic-information underpinnings. If there are competing descriptions or theories of reality, the more compact one has a higher probability of being correct. Ockham’s razor cuts away all the flab. Let us see why.

In AIT, an important concept is that of algorithmic probability (AP). It is the probability that a random program of a given length fed into a computer will give a desired output, say the first million digits of π. Following Bennett and Chaitin’s pioneering work done in the 1970s, let us assume that the random program has been produced by a monkey. The AP in this case is the same as the probability that the monkey would type out the same bit string, i.e. the same computer program as, say, a Java program suitable for generating the first million digits of π. The probability that the monkey would press the first key on the keyboard correctly is 0.5. The probability that the first two keys would be pressed correctly is (0.5)² or 0.25. And so on. Thus the probability gets smaller and smaller very rapidly as the number of correctly sequenced bits increases. The longer the program, the less likely it is that the monkey will crank it out correctly. This means that the AP is the highest for the shortest programs or the most compact theories. The best theory has the smallest number of axioms.

In the present context, suppose we are having a bit string representing a set of data, and we want to understand the mechanism responsible for the creation of that set of data. In other words, we want to discover the computer program (or the best theory), among many we could generate randomly, which is responsible for that set of data. The validation of Ockham’s philosophy comes from the fact that the shortest such program is the most plausible guess because it has the highest AP.

In the Copenhagen interpretation described above, Bohr’s action of adding one more postulate or axiom by hand was unwarranted, as later developments in quantum theory have demonstrated.

5. Pseudoscientists

The narrative so far is enough to illustrate the difficulties we humans face in understanding the nature of reality with our limited collective intellect and other resources. But fortunately we scientists have with us the power of the scientific method of enquiry, which is no respecter of authority. As Bell’s work has shown, both Einstein and Bohr held wrong views about nonlocality. Good science is self-correcting.

There is so much that science cannot answer. But the big question is: Is there ANY other way of getting these answers? No. There is none.

Some questions are indeed very difficult to answer, but scientists keep trying. The incremental progress may be slow, but there is progress nevertheless.

The unfortunate fact of life is that not many humans have the requisite training and mental discipline demanded by the scientific method. They MUST have an answer always. If science cannot provide it at present, they do not have the patience to wait. They just invent answers by introducing more and more axioms (incidentally, this is what is done by most religions). Here is an example.

Deepak Chopra, a medical doctor, who also uses at times the language of quantum mechanics in his discourses and writings, posted an article on the Huffington Post. Here is an excerpt:

‘I consider myself scientific at heart, and so I depend upon a theory as well. Its basic premises are as follows:

We live in a universe that exhibits intelligence, self-regulation, and creativity.

Consciousness preceded the brain. It created life and went on to create the brain itself.

Consciousness is primary in the world; matter is secondary.

Evolution is conscious and therefore creative. It isn’t random.

At the source of creation one finds a field of pure awareness.

Pure awareness is the source of every manifest quality in the universe.’

Anybody is welcome to subscribe to a theory of his/her choice. My response to the above statements is as follows:

It is only a belief.

What is the basis for making this assertion?

Again just a belief.

Prove it.

Just wishful thinking.

That’s what YOU think.

What can any scientist do with the kind of ‘theory’ Chopra subscribes to? I want to invoke Ockham’s razor. If you introduce as many axioms or premises as Chopra wants to, then there is just about nothing left to be derived from those axioms. Practically everything is axiomatic in this ‘theory.’ Ockham’s razor will make mincemeat of Chopra’s set of premises!

Chopra goes on to give a list of questions which science cannot answer at present. So what? Is there ANY better way of getting those answers?

If somebody is a mystic, I have no problem with that. What is not acceptable is peddling mysticism under the garb of science, or rather pseudoscience. And one cannot be ’scientific at heart’ and yet be innocent about the rigours of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge and understanding.

Chopra uses the word ‘consciousness’ again and again. I draw the attention of the reader to my article here.

As I argue there, it is not possible to define consciousness in an unambiguous scientific way. How do we discuss it and investigate it when there is no agreement on what that word really means?

There is nothing sacrosanct about the set of axioms and premises on which modern science is based. Any other set of axioms can be fine if it leads to theorems and conclusions and intellectual progress better than what the existing science has achieved. Deepak Chopra’s set of premises is quite typical of the thinking to which even some scientists subscribe. These people usually are apologists for their religious beliefs. I want to suggest something to them. Why not try to build up the edifice of a self-consistent parallel science based on such axioms? Take the axioms of your choice, and take as many as you want (or rather as few as you can), and see if you can produce something superior to the existing scientific framework. If you succeed, I shall be the first one to proudly walk over to your camp. Why only me? The whole of the existing structure of science will just fade away, because it would have been superseded by something superior.

6. Concluding remarks

The scientific method is among the greatest achievements of the human mind.
Science is impersonal, but scientists are not. Scientists come in all shapes, sizes, conditionings, egos, and biases. Their subjectivity does slow down the progress of science, but not for long. Ultimately the best theory prevails.
Even the best scientific theory holds only till a better one comes along. Scientists have no compunction about dumping their pet theories in favour of better ones. This is true intellectual humility, not commonly seen in non-scientific or unscientific circles.
All those who love and respect science should try to ensure that it is not hijacked by pseudoscientists to meet their covert or overt agendas.
Some questions are inherently very difficult to answer. But there is NO method other than the scientific method for getting the answers.

‘Freedom Of Speech’ in India- Case Studies: Islamist Zakir Naik, Maoist Rebels, Film Actress Kushboo, Artist M.F. Hussain

Ajita Kamal — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:38:15 +0000

A series of high-profile incidents over the past few months have stirred up conversation among Indians online on the subject of freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, parallels between the cases have been drawn at will to make ever possible argument for and against every side of the debate. This article is an attempt to look at the subject of free speech from a democratic and humanistic point of view.

I begin by outlining the essentials of four cases from the recent past. This will be followed by a short discussion on the notion of freedom of speech. Finally the implications of this discussion will be applied to each case.

PRESENTING THE CASE STUDIES

1. Zakir Naik Banned from UK and Canada

The man in question is a self-styled medical doctor turned Islamic preacher who delivers lectures, holds debates and answers questions in front of large audiences worldwide, all in the effort to spread the ideology of Islam. Naik is known for his hate-filled propaganda, delivered with a self-pretentious smugness designed to carry all the appeal of a tough inner-city kid wrangling his pants around his knees as he delivers one cheeky ad hominem after another on the MTV show “Yo’ Mama”. Its nothing short of cheap, logically incoherent, crowd pleasing rhetoric- going for the PWND factor. This image is the vehicle that he uses to promote a deceptively sugar-coated extremist ideology. He works with an Islamic television channel and also frequently travels India and abroad, spreading his version of fundamentalist Islam.

Naik has been in the news recently after being disallowed entry into the UK and Canada. Both governments within days of each other rejected his application to enter their respective countries on his speaking tour of the world. Naik is appealing against both the bans.

2. Verbal Support of Maoist Rebels Banned

The ongoing Maoist insurgency against the government of India and the people who abide by its constitution is comprised of members belonging to various indigenous tribes in the forests of Central and North Eastern India. The Communist Party of India, Maoist, (not to be confused with the CPI Marxist) has been designated a terrorist organization by the government. The Maoists have been responsible for much destruction of life and property in recent years, as they fight the government supported incursion of mining companies into their lands.

Early in May of 2010, the Indian government released a statement warning that those who speak in support of Maoist terrorists could be prosecuted, under Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

3. Supreme Court Clears Film Actress Kushboo

In 2005, Indian film actress Kushboo was charged on 22 counts of obscenity because she said in an interview that it is acceptable for women to have premarital sex, “provided safety measures are followed to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases”. There were mass protests in Tamil Nadu where Kushboo was worshiped by some as a goddess. Needless to say, the temples built in her honor were destroyed after this incident. In April of this year, the Supreme court dismissed all 22 charges brought against her.

4. Artist M F Hussain Gains Citizenship in Qatar

India’s most celebrated artist in modern times, Muqbool Fida Hussain, took up Qatari citizenship in February of this year. Hussain was awarded the Padma Shri 1955, the Padma Bhushan in 1973, the Padma Vibhushan in 1989 and was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1986. He gained notoriety in 1996 when pieces that he had painted in the 70s were reprinted in a Hindi magazine. Initially 8 cases were filed against him which eventually escalated to a large number of cases (about 900 or so) spread throughout the country. More details here.

In 2006, the death threats and acts of vandalism increased, forcing Hussain to spend an increasing amount of time abroad. His decision to take up Qatar’s offer of citizenship requires him to give up his Indian citizenship.

ON FREE-SPEECH

What does it mean to be Free to Speak?

Popular conceptions of political ideals vary depending on the cultural mindset of the population in question. In secular democracies the freedom to speak as and when one wishes is tempered with a sort of commonsense that many find comforting. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who didn’t agree that some forms of expression should not be permitted. The problem then is that in practice very few of us can agree on where to draw the line. It is because of this that we must pay attention to the semantics involved in formulating such principles.

Common wisdom on the notion of freedom of speech is that we are free to say anything we want as long as our speech does not impinge upon the ‘fundamental freedoms’ of others. The idea is that one’s freedom of speech must not cause ‘harm’ to others. This sort of reasoning leaves much unresolved, because in reality the problem of deciding what counts as ‘fundamental freedoms’ or ‘harm’ is not so simple. In fact, the reasoning often seen in the media and as popular opinion is simply designed to ignore the question or pretend that it has been answered. The problems begin just shy of where commonsense ends.

The law, when it is shaped by such general commonsense notions, remains ambiguous. Such ambiguity is often necessary, given that moral problems are almost always situational. However, there are practical limits to such ambiguity. These limits are to be determined by objective facts and logic.

Limiting Ambiguity Using Logic and Reason

In order to present a clear understanding of the problem, we must focus on understanding the semantic and political philosophy behind the idea of free-speech.

“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.“

John Stuart Mill

This excerpt is from Mill’s seminal work ‘On Justice” which has been instrumental in shaping modern conceptions of the rights of the individual in a democratic state. Let’s see in detail what Mill was talking about.

The freedom to criticize/express all ideas is a stranger to every dictatorship on the planet. The one thing we know for sure about freedom of speech is that the more it is practiced in a country, the less oppressed the people. This includes the freedom to criticize everything, including the state itself. It also includes the right to support any idea, however repugnant that idea might be to you or I. So, it is clear that such freedoms are a good thing. But how do we reconcile this right to support any idea with the ambiguous notion that freedom of speech must not impinge on the fundamental freedoms of others?

According to Mill, there are two major clauses to free speech. The Harm Principle and The Offense Principle. The first is valid (examples of use include hate speech, incitement of violence and making death threats) and the second is not (examples of use include blasphemy, criticizing an ideology, supporting an ideology/religion). This is the foundation of logic and reason over which we can build an appropriately malleable legal structure. Without such a logical framework, the ambiguity is a tool of oppression. The rest of this section is concerned with understanding the democratic interpretation of the harm principle.

Understanding the Harm Principle

The only valid restrictions on freedom of speech are those that are clearly meant to prevent harm. However, governments must go about doing this without stripping us off our freedom to offend. We must find a balance between the two. But how do we determine where this line lies? The only way to practice such a balance is to restrict the law to criminalize only those aspects of speech that clearly are intended to cause harm. Consider a case of hate speech, incitement of violence or making of death threats. A clear and intended causal effect must be drawn between the act of expression and the harm done. This is the only legitimate way in which the Harm Principle can be evoked to restrict certain forms of speech.

In order for an act of speech to violate the harm principle, it must call for and/or intend harm against individuals, and/or target specific locations or events. That is, one must express intent towards furthering specific harmful acts for the harm principle to be violated. On the contrary, if an act of speech expresses support for the notion of harm, or argues that harm is the only way for something to get done, it cannot be construed of as violating freedom of speech. This is the nuance that is often missed. One instance involves verbally endorsing an act of physical aggression (with the intention of furthering said act). The other is about simply supporting an ideology (without calling for harmful action). Of course, the ideology can have unintended harmful consequences, but that is immaterial. It can be argued that every influential ideology has harmful consequences, including yours and mine. This distinction between action and ideology makes a world of difference in real situations- the type of situations that such laws are meant to help navigate. The reason why we need this clear distinction is to avoid ambiguity in practice. This distinction prevents abuse by governments that want to get rid of certain popular ideas, under the pretext that they are “terrorist” ideas.

Note: In this case, ‘harm’ must also be defined in logical and reasonable terms. I will forgo that discussion here.

How Intent Separates Ideology from Action

There is possible overlap between support for ideology and support for action, which is why the distinction between discussion of ideas and the intent to harm is important. For example, it is perfectly OK for us to discuss the merits (or demerits) of destroying Israel or Palestine (just as an example). But if we demonstrate an intent to destroy Israel or Palestine by supporting specific actions, that should not be protected under free speech.

In order to clearly understand the role of intent, the colloquial interpretation of ideology must be properly qualified. Intention is the key dividing factor here. Accordingly, we must separate pure ideologies which have do not include intentions, from action-based ideologies which do. For the sake of convenience, we classify the former as ideology and the latter as action. Intention to cause harm is the difference between the two. Ideologies are very complex sets of beliefs, and no ideology is a self-contained entity. The only way we have of preserving freedoms and removing ambiguity is to clearly distinguish ideologies from acts that are intended to harm. This is the form of the word ideology that we must use to preserve democratic freedoms. This is very important, because politics, like everything else, needs careful analysis of the semantics used.

Free Speech and Free Society

In general, countries with citizenry that are relatively more free have a better understanding of the distinction between support of terrorist ideology and conspiring to commit acts of terror. In India as with much of the world, we are unfortunately unable to find such nuance in our political dialogue. The justification for allowing any ideology to be freely proclaimed and discussed is a whole different subject. I will not venture to tackle it here, but suffice to say that such freedom is one of the most highly valued commodities in the “free world”. In fact, it is the reason why the “free world” is so relatively “free”. The instant we begin adding restrictions to the free discussion of ideas we are in authoritarian territory.

Countries of the World Ranked According to Press Freedoms- 2008, Reporters Without Borders

However, when speech does indeed demonstrate intent to cause harm, democratic governments have a duty to prosecute the speaker. The failure of this clamp-down on certain kinds of speech is also a failure of democracy.

Note: In a democracy, you are free to choose any platform that is willing to express your views, but you may not demand that a private entity provide you with a platform to air them.

REEVALUATING THE CASE STUDIES

1. Zakir Naik:

Why is Naik considered controversial in the UK and Canada and not in India? India has faced more Islamic terrorism than either of the other two countries, and yet Naik has not been the target of the Indian government.

A closer look at some of the most vile of Naik’s statements offers some clues. The one statement of Naik’s that has been quoted the most in the aftermath of the recent incidents is this: “If he (Osama) is terrorizing the terrorists, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.’

Terrorism is an ideology, and a repulsive one at that to any civilized human being. But, as we have seen in the discussion above, specific terrorist acts must be described and endorsed before one can be accused of violating the harm clause. So, in my opinion, the above sentence, if taken by itself, is not grounds for prosecution. However, there are other statements made by Naik that, together with the above statement, conspire to discredit the notion that Naik is not endorsing violent acts. Specifically, Naik has made it clear multiple times that the ideology- the specific form of Islam- that he supports, requires homosexuals and apostates be put to death. Can you imagine him saying such a thing about Hindus? If Zakir Naik came out and said that the belief system that he is promoting on TV and using loudspeakers requires all Hindus to be put to death, he would be behind bars quicker than you can say “inshallah”! It is, however, socially (and apparently, legally as well) acceptable in India to say such things about homosexuals and kafirs.

By endorsing specific harmful acts against innocent civilians, through the process of spreading a particular extremist ideology that, by Naik’s own admission, absolutely requires those acts, Zakir Naik has violated the harm principle. He should have been prosecuted for hate speech and incitement of violence by the Indian government, long before Canada and the UK made clear the hateful deception that he represents. Naik’s fault is not the fact that he has defended and even promoted the idea of terrorism, but that he has clearly and explicitly endorsed specific acts of terror.

2. Maoist Rebels:

Under the conditions set by the democratic interpretation of free speech, the newly passed amendment to Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 is a violation of our right to freedom of speech. There are two clear arguments to be made against the law..

a. The law is deliberately ambiguous.

This is the relevant portion of the statement, taken from the article:

“Any person who commits the offense of supporting such a terrorist organization (like Communist Party of India (CPI)-Maoist) with inter alia intention to further the activities of such terrorist organizations would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or with fine or with both,” a home ministry statement said.”

The article goes on to say:

“It said such action would be taken under Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.”

Free speech can be preserved while respecting the harm clause. This requires a clear distinction in the law between legitimate discussion of ideas and expression of intent to harm. This is clearly missing in the law. A law restricting free speech becomes a tool to be used for suppression of ideas when it is so purposefully unclear. The harm clause could easily be stated very clearly and simply. Why could the lawmakers have not been more clear? One simple change in the language of the law would make it perfectly acceptable. If the law said “… the intention to further the terrorist activities of such organisations”, we would not be having this conversation. This is a simple switch from “furthering the activities of terrorist organizations” to “furthering the terrorist activities of these organizations”, but the effect is dramatic and extremely significant. This switch would remove the ambiguity inherent in the current law, but make the law ineffective as far as stifling of dissenting ideologies is concerned. My argument is that that the ambiguity is deliberately designed and put in place to suppress public expression and discussion of this ideology, through government intimidation.

b. The law is redundant

The new law is redundant regarding its stated purpose of targeting Maoist terrorism. It is not required for the government to do what it should be doing to stop terrorist acts. Whatever the contents of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act prior to the addendum, it was fully sufficient to address Maoist terrorism. The recent change only pushes through one addition that makes any difference- the targeting of the Maoist ideology. This is why the new law is redundant as far as the purpose of targeting terrorism is concerned. It does not bring anything new to targeting the terrorist activities. The sole purpose of this law is to target the ideology.

Both these arguments (a and b) conspire to discredit the proposed intent and to lay unwarranted power in the hands of the government.

Some Additional Points

The tyrannical suppression of the freedom to believe and to propagate particular ideologies is commonplace in dictatorships and rare in true democracies. India does have a lot of freedoms compared to dictatorships and tyrannical regimes, but this is a hard fought and hard earned set of freedoms. In India, we can fight against tyranny confident that someday the truth will prevail, despite the forces that tend to accumulate power. The process of dialogue is key to our democracy, like it is to all democracies. The problem is that when laws are made to target ideologies rather than actions, this freedom to discuss and debate ideas is compromised. It was undemocratic when Stalin banned expression of religion and it is undemocratic if India bans expression of Maoist ideology (this is not the case with the law, but it comes awfully close, using intimidation to suppress ideas).

No ideology is self-contained, including Maoist ideology. Contained within the Maoist ideology is a deeper political ideology with ideological roots in many other systems of thought that must not be censored. It must be debated and discussed in the free-market of ideas. Simply dismissing all Maoist ideology as terrorist is exactly the kind of thing that the distinction between supporting actions (intended to cause harm), and supporting ideology (with no intention of causing harm) is meant to prevent. This sort of attack on an ideology by the government constitutes blatant censorship of ideas, under the pretext of protecting the people. This is exactly the kind of authoritarian government intrusion into public life that democracy is supposed to guard us from.

Under the current law, a professor of political science can easily be arrested for saying that the Maoists have a point. Maybe it won’t stick in court, but in any case this law does not necessarily have to be used to arrest individuals based on their ideological support, in order for it to have its intended effect. It is more about intimidation and control of mainstream culture. An objective observer must look at the language of the law and see how easily this law can be used to shut down political and social dissent.

Finally, I would like to expose a key assumption in the arguments supporting the law- the assumption that censoring Maoist ideology will somehow reduce Maoist terrorism. Where is the evidence for this? I think a very good case can be made that it will have the opposite effect by, for example, driving the Maoist elements underground and away from open and free discussion with democratically-minded and peaceful people. There may be better counter arguments, and there even may be studies on this subject. In any case, this particular point is irrelevant to the case against the law, because the two arguments presented above are sufficient to demonstrate that this law is draconian.

3. Kushboo

The events leading up to the cases against Kushboo, and the eventual dismissal of all the cases by the supreme court, do not deserve to be on this list. But I have included this issue here to make a specific point about free-speech. Adults are free to have consensual sex with other adults. At a much more benign level, adults are free to say so. The cases against Kushboo are an example of a primitive and dangerous slant in the public mindset towards restricting democratic freedoms in India. The only thing scandalous about the conclusion of the events here is that the government didn’t punish those who filed cases against Kushboo for saying there is nothing wrong with premarital sex. The cases were clear examples of frivolous lawsuits and constitute a waste of the court’s time (and are serving to intimidate free citizens). The supreme court should have imposed stiff fines on those who filed the court cases against Kushboo. However, ultimately the blame here lies with the public.

4. M.F. Hussain

As with the case of Kushboo, the issue of Hussain’s paintings and their widespread condemnation by communal elements is more a failure of society than a failure of government. The government’s inadequate response deserves its share of the blame for Hussain having to eventually accept Qatari citizenship, but it was Indian society, polluted by an ideology that demands automaton-like in-group behavior, that was the ultimate force that drove Hussain away.

The standard arguments that I have come to expect from those who support Hussain’s move to Qatar (instead of criticizing those violent factions that threaten his life) have to do with the moral imperatives concerned. “Why does he paint nude Hindu goddesses?” “Why not the Muslim prophet Muhammad?” “Hussain is mocking Hinduism” “Hussain’s ideas are offensive to Hindus” “Hussain is a provocateur”. One is, of course, free to make these arguments, and one may even be right. However, one may not in a democracy expect that these arguments are sufficient cause to take legal action against Hussain.

Those who make these arguments are missing the point about free-speech. Hussain’s motives are irrelevant as long as he is not promoting violent acts against people. The problem is that where religion is concerned, people lose the ability to see that criticism of all ideas is a human right. Moreover, many of those who criticize Hussain’s actions (which are protected under free-speech law) have made death threats and even sabotaged Hussain’s shows and art works. These are acts that are absolutely not protected by the law. Yet the outrage from the Indian community and media has focused on the paintings and the “expert opinion” on whether they constitute “offensive material”, and not on the truly undemocratic abuse of speech by those who have threatened harm against Hussain.

CONCLUSION

To re-iterate, we must draw a clear distinction between discussion of ideas and endorsement of acts that are intended to harm. It is understanding this distinction that can liberate India from the popular undemocratic mindset that is constricting her, preventing the resolution of a vast many social and political issues that need be addressed using reason.

1000 Indian Freethinkers Event: A Conversation With Tom Clark On Worldview Naturalism

Editor — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:00:39 +0000

Nirmukta has recently crossed the 1000 member mark on facebook, and our team has decided that its time to celebrate by hosting an online event! This event will be held on Saturday, the third of July, at 7:00 PM, IST. All you will need to participate in the event is to go to http://tinychat.com/nirmukta at the scheduled time and sign in using twitter or facebook connect.

Tom Clark, director of the Center for Naturalism, will speak to us live on the influence of worldview naturalism. He is the the author of Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and its Uses, and has written various papers and articles on the influence of the naturalistic worldview on our lives. You can read more about Tom’s work at http://naturalism.org and on his blog at http://centerfornaturalism.blogspot.com/.

Go here for a Naturalism FAQ. Here is an excerpt:

Q. What is naturalism, anyway? And keep it straightforward!

A. Ok, naturalism is simply the understanding that there exists a single, natural, physical world or universe in which we are completely included. There are not two different worlds, the supernatural and natural. Since we are completely included in the natural world, there’s nothing supernatural about us. For instance, we don’t have immaterial souls that survive after death. We are fully physical, material creatures, and everything we are and do can be understood without supposing that we have souls, spirits, or any other sort of immaterial supernatural stuff inside us. Your thoughts, experiences, feelings, decisions, and behavior are all things your brain and body does. How they do all this is of course a very complicated story that’s still being discovered by science, but naturalism says there’s nothing non-physical involved. That the material world has produced creatures that are conscious, can reason, feel emotions, and ask questions is a pretty amazing fact. The “merely” physical isn’t so mere after all. Naturalism re-enchants the physical world.

During our conversation with Tom Clark we will explore some of the major implications of worldview naturalism on concepts such as god, religion, morality, justice, free-will, retribution, consciousness, etc. Since this will be a live streaming event, questions can be sent to us in real time through twitter and chat. Relevant questions from listeners will be selected and posed to Tom Clark throughout the entire duration of the event.

Date: Saturday, July 3rd, 2010, 7:00 PM, IST.

Venue: http://tinychat.com/nirmukta

Our twitter account: (for sending us your questions) http://twiter.com/nirmukta

RSVP on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=120028841375938&index=1

Scroll below image for login instructions and known issues with tinychat.

Login Instructions for Tinychat

1. Make sure your internet connection is the fastest you can get. If you are using wireless in India it may be a good idea to plug in.

2. Open your browser and go to http://tinychat.com/nirmukta

3. Wait till a bubble pops up asking you to login using twitter or facebook. Note: The room may only be available when an administrator is in it. If you do not see the room, please try again at the scheduled time.

4. Click on the facebook tab, and then on the Facebook-connect tab to sign in. Choose whether or not you wish to post your arrival as an update on facebook, and click OK.

5. Once you enter the room tinychat will pull up your facebook name and we’ll know who you are.

6. You DO NOT need to sign up for a tinychat account. If you do, however, tinychat will automatically create a separate room for you. You will still have to sign out of your account and log into the nirmukta room to participate in the discussion.

7. Do not broadcast video or audio. Use the text box to type in comments, greetings and questions.

8. Do not message the panelists while they are speaking. If you have a question you may message one of the moderators who will be among the audience. You may also directly type your question in the chat box.

Below are Some Known Issues with Tinychat

1. For slow connections the video and audio latency is very high. The feed can lag by as long as 6 - 10 seconds. We will try to space apart our statements by a few seconds, but there will be some overlap- different people around the world will receive the data at slightly different times.

2. Some may have had trouble signing in. Remember to wait till a few minutes before the scheduled time and then access the page. Remember to use facebook-connect to login. If you’re still having problems, try a different browser. Firefix and Chrome are good bets, but IE should work as well. For Mac users, Safari works pretty well.

3. If you’re behind a http proxy server you may not be able to access the chatroom on tinychat.com.

Join the Indian freethought community in the chat room on Saturday and lets celebrate science and reason!

Everybody Bake Jesus Day - Facebook Event

Editor — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:01:48 +0000

Yeah we realize the title is not very imaginative coming on the heels of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, but wait till you hear all our reasons for why we think you should participate in this particular celebration of free speech and expression.

The Everybody Bake Jesus Day facebook event is being organized as a response to a recent incident involving an assault on our fundamental right to a well-cooked Jesus. Javier Krahe, a musician from Spain, has been charged with blasphemy simply because of a benign and victimless act of self-indulgence committed over 3 decades ago. Krahe made a satirical home video in 1978, in which he oven-baked a properly seasoned statue of Jesus that he pulled off a crucifix. A few frames from this 54 second video were shown on Spanish TV more recently and the Catholic church went all batshit crazy over it. Now Krahe could end up paying a fine of up to 192,000 euros. P.Z. Myers blogged about this on Pharyngula last month. We have decided to make this an official event on facebook along the lines of Everybody Draw Muhammad day.

Event : Everybody Bake Jesus Day

Start Time: Saturday, July 3, 2010 at 12:00am
End Time: Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 12:00am
Location: Everywhere

Support free speech by baking Jesus in your favorite cake, cookie, pie, pastry, whatever. Have a barbecue and bake Jesus shaped pork ribs. If you’re vegan, bake a tofu Jesus. Maybe you’d like to get together with your friend Jesús from next door and do some ‘baking’ together. If you cannot actually bake anything for want of hardware, do something creative. Make a video or design a graphic. Whichever way you choose to participate, join the rest of us on Saturday the third of July, and share your ideas by posting them on facebook.

It is true that the forms of Christianity in practice today are on average less violent and fundamentalist than modern Islam, and this case of Javier Krahe is indeed an aberration in the West. But nevertheless, we think that this case deserves our full attention. Even if we are unable to provide any real support to Javier Krahe, we must at least use this incident to demonstrate to those in the Muslim world that the atheist/freethought community is equally critical of and opposed to attempts by all religious authorities and groups to transgress on the fundamental rights of human beings. The message that we send is peaceful and coordinated defiance of the coercive tactics that religionists resort to when their absurd beliefs are ridiculed. The message is that one act of censorship of ideas will inspire many more acts of free expression of ideas in its place. The message we send to the mullahs and priests of all religious communities is this: If you want to escape the ridicule of the world’s nonbelievers, censoring us or attempting to criminalize free speech is the last thing you want to do.

Here is the original video by Javier Krahe:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Moral and Virtuous People Don’t Need God Or Mindless Religion

Prabhakar Kamath — Sat, 22 May 2010 02:09:33 +0000

1. The Original Intent Of Religion And God

The original intent of Hinduism (Brahmanism) was to bring Law and Order into the lawless and chaotic society. That is why religion was known as Dharma -that which holds. The original purpose of creating various gods was to fulfill one’s desires and protect one from evils, both tangible (wicked people) and intangible (vagaries of nature). Gradually vested interests took over the religion, and it became a big business. This is consistent with Law of Solutions: All noble solutions for societal problems sooner or later become problems themselves.

2. All Religions Are A Way Of Life

Hinduism evolved into what it is today by incorporating a wide array of belief systems, while it maintained the elitism of Brahmins within that amorphous entity. So today a wide spectrum of belief systems, some of which are contradictory to each other, could be found in Hinduism. Hindu religionists try to explain away this nebulous feature of Hinduism by uttering parrot-like, “Hinduism is a way of life.” This mindless utterance seems to suggest that other religions are not a way of life. The fact is all religions are more or less a way of life.

Ad by the American Humanist Association

3. Two Broad Aspects Of Hinduism: Mindful And Mindless

The Hindu way of life has two broad aspects: Mindful and mindless. The mindful part of Hinduism consists of moral values and noble virtues, which guide people’s behavior towards others in the society. This is the true aspect of Hindu Dharma. These morals and virtues are timeless and relevant to all people in the world regardless of their beliefs. Since there is no money to be made by this aspect of Hinduism, it has become an orphan. Neglect of moral values and noble virtues is evident in the antisocial and corrupt behavior of most Hindu leaders in power in India today.

Most of today’s Hinduism consists of mindless rituals and traditions, which have absolutely no relevance to the modern times. These rituals evolved over the centuries, often due to misinterpretation of scriptures, and were propagated for financial gains. Yajnas, Poojas, Abhishekas, astrological predictions and a thousand other profit-motivated superstitions have become hallmarks of today’s Hinduism. This aspect of Hinduism is thriving today, as there is a lot of money to be made by means of these shenanigans. To the vast majority of Hindus, this is Hindu Dharma.

4. Moral Values

The moral values prevent us from harming others in the society. These values arise from our conscience, which represents the values our parents put in us. These values basically tell us: You shall not be a bad person! Here is a short list:

1. Do not steal.

2. Do not lie.

3. Do not hurt.

4. Do not betray.

How do we feel when we violate our own moral values? We feel guilty. Guilt is the function of conscience. Readers could add their own pet moral values to this list.

5. Noble Virtues

Noble virtues consist of those behaviors that encourage us to be helpful to others in the society. These values basically tell us: You shall be a good person !

1. Empathy

2. Generosity

3. Forgiveness

4. Humility

5. Kindness

6. Gracefulness

7. Fearlessness

Every single reader of this article is smart enough to know what these virtues stand for. How do we feel when we practice these virtues? Well, we feel good about ourselves.

6. We Don’t Need God Or Religion To Be Good

If one makes a list of these moral values and noble virtues and practices them in his daily life, s/he does not need religion, god, tradition, rituals, fasting, meditation, praying, Swamis, Babas, Gurus, magic, ash, lingam and other nonsensical stuff 99% of Hindu religion is made up of.

One simple way of inculcating noble virtues is to post writings related to them where one could read them often. For example I have the following statement on the wall where I can see it when I talk on phone. This has helped me to make conscious decision to help those who call me asking for my help:

I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good thing, therefore, that I can do or any kindness I can show to any fellow human being let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.

Stephen Grellet.

Now give me one valid reason why any moral and virtuous man or woman might need a religion or god? Now let us review a few facts why we should reject the mindless part of religion.

7. Temple-Casino Complexes

Today, thousands of glittering temples in India and abroad have become like Las Vegas casinos attracting millions of mindless devotees seeking fulfillment of their desires and protection from evil. The temple of Tirupati is the best-known temple-casino complex in India. Every year new temple-casino complexes are rising all over India. The ostentatious Swami Narayan Temple in New Delhi is a prime example. Bewildered by Brahmanic charm and trappings, Hindus throng to these temple-casinos and keep gambling away their wealth in mindless rituals hoping against hope that they would someday hit a jackpot, but getting nothing in return. The donation box you see in front of the sanctum sanctorum of every temple is like a slot machine.

There are all kinds of Entertainment Shows in this Las Vegas-like landscape: Babas perform magic shows; Swamis perform sex shows; Yogis perform 70-year starvation shows; freaks perform hanging-by-skin-on-chariot shows, charlatans perform walk-on-fire shows, prostitutes perform dance shows, and the like. In fact the list of freak shows, such as Kumbh Mela, Amar Nath Yatras, bathing in Ganga, procession of ash-smeared naked Sadhus and the like, is very long indeed. Who are the ‘enforcers’ of this wonderland of religion? Well, you guessed it right: RSS, Sri Ram Sene, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, and other assorted hire-for-riot men whose only ‘virtue’ is hate-mongering of other religions. Really, there is absolutely no difference between today’s Hinduism and Las Vegas of bygone days when the Mafia controlled the casinos. Now Las Vegas is absolutely honest about the whole shenanigan and Hinduism is still run by hypocritical Brahmanic Mafia, often supported by the government itself, as is the case in Karnataka.

Tell me, why would anyone want to be part of this part of Hindu religion?

Philosophy With Selvi - What Is Knowledge? (Epistemology For Beginners)

Ajita Kamal — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:14:45 +0000

NOTE: The comic strip below scrolls from right to left when you click on the right end of the strip. If you cannot see it, please try refreshing your browser.

This is the second in a series of introductory level essays on Philosophy for Freethinkers. The first one can be found here.

The question caught Sandanam by surprise. Without giving it much thought, she pointed at the trees through the window of the living room they were sitting in and said “It’s how the universe talks to us. We have to listen hard to make sense of it”.

The house was situated on the grounds of a small park. Sandanam has just finished her evening ritual of watching the sun set over the trees, before settling down in front of the television.

Now she was looking at her daughter who was standing in front of her. Selvi had questions for her mother- questions that were not very clear to her, and yet seemed somehow profound and central to her purpose. These questions came to her at every turn. This time she was struck when she was doing her math homework. Her little head was filled with a deep desire to understand how the rules of mathematics related to reality. After talking about it to her dog, Puli, for an hour, she had worked her way down to some really fundamental questions. She tried to give form to her ideas, but the words fell short. Now, standing in front of her mother, she cleared her throat and began again.

“Ma, how do we know these things… I mean, how do we know that anything is true at all?… I mean—”

“OK, let’s look at this.”, her mother interrupted. She was starting to realize that metaphors would not be sufficient to satisfy Selvi this time. The girl was thinking.

“What do you mean when you say the word ‘know’?”, Sandanam asked her daughter.

The girl frowned.

Sandanam continued, “It is good to first make sure that we both understand what we mean by ‘knowledge’ before we go any further. Knowledge has three parts. The first part is belief. The second part is truth. The third part is the way in which we connect belief with the truth. This part is called justification.” She paused for a few seconds and said,

“Do you believe that horses exist?”

“Yes” said Selvi stoutly.

“Is it true that horses exist?”

“Yes”

“Do you know that horses exist?”

“Yes”

How do you know that horses exist?

Selvi’s lips curved mischievously as she looked at her mother and she giggled. She quickly composed herself when she realized her mother was being serious.

“Because … I have seen them…I just told you its true that horses exist and you didn’t object to that”, she smiled.

Sandanam smiled back at her daughter. “Okay, then let’s try to understand how you think about ‘truth’”, she said. “Is ‘truth’ the same thing as ‘knowledge’?”

“No. Something can be true without me knowing about it”. Selvi smiled, realizing how her mother had led her to the answer.

Puli, the dog, stretched his legs lazily on the floor and turned his head at Selvi. She look at him, then cocked her head until it was at the same angle as Puli’s head.

Sandanam urged Selvi on, saying “So, ‘knowledge’ is not related to ‘truth’?”

Epistemology: Image from http://relationary.wordpress.com

Selvi thought about this as she stared into Puli’s face, then turned to look back at her mother. She crossed her feet and swung her hands to and fro. Then she said, “Knowledge needs truth and it needs me to be the knower”.

“Very good!”, said Sandanam. “Knowledge requires both the truth as well as a person to know that truth. This person can be called an ‘observer‘. For something to be true, it must exist even when there is no observer. Then the thing can be said to be true “objectively”.” She pointed at the TV and said, “Do you see that TV screen?”.

“Yes”, said Selvi.

“Okay. Imagine you are the only person who can see it. Everyone else sees a vase where you see the TV. In a situation like that, it would be difficult to say that you ‘know’ that the TV exists ‘objectively’. Fortunately for us, the universe acts in certain predictable ways that we can use to construct and justify informed beliefs. In reality, we both see the TV. The TV exists ‘objectively’, because we can confirm that it would continue to exist in this living room if you and I walk into the kitchen.”

“Is that justification?”, asked Selvi.

“One kind of justification, yes.” Sandanam paused. She took a deep breath, then said:

“In regular conversation we often justify actions rather than beliefs. This is a different type of justification from the one we are interested in. For example, I can justify picking oranges over apples at the market by simply stating that I don’t want apples; by pointing out that I am not obligated to pick apples. However, this form of justification cannot apply when we are dealing with true belief and knowledge. I cannot say that I know something because I am not obligated to believe that it is wrong. To overcome this, philosophers have come up with various rules that can be applied to make the idea of justification more accurate when we are talking about knowledge.

When you want to confirm that something is true, you must first look for the evidence (more here). Also, you must ask how reliable is the source of the evidence obtained (more here). Based on the type of justification, knowledge can be internalist or externalist. To put it in a simple form, internalist justifications consider that complete knowledge is possible from within an internally consistent framework, often by studying observations born out of sensory experience. This form of justification includes some schools of thought such as Rationalism. Externalist justifications take into account the relationship of an event with objects and events outside the sphere of the event (often outside subjective reality). This form of justification accommodates the notion of causality, which we spoke about earlier.”

A few seconds passed with neither of them saying anything. Puli was resting his head on his paws, taking a nap. On the TV, a famous charlatan was talking about quantum mysticism. Outside, the crickets chirped loudly, their mating calls echoing off the buildings on the street across from the park. Selvi decided that the steady chirping made more sense than the man on the TV.

Another thought came to Selvi.

“The evidence… isn’t evidence also a belief?”, she asked her mother.

“Yes”, said Sandanam. “Each and every observation that is claimed as evidence requires justification and belief. This brings us to another aspect of justification, called the structure of justification. How do all the beliefs that we hold relate to each other? And how do those relationships between beliefs create knowledge? These are just some of the questions that are asked and answered within the discipline of philosophy called ‘Epistemology’“

Puli was snoring softly. On the TV, a man was talking about the earthquake in California. He was announcing a special guest on the show; the man named Deepak Chopra, the one who distorts quantum physics to suit his own mystical interpretation of reality, all the while seeking the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise. This time, Chopra claimed to have caused the recent earthquake by the power of his meditation. On the show he was going to talk about how the energy flow from his chakras was consciously guiding the universe to do his will, but the skeptics with their negative energy were inducing power fluctuations in his meditation field, causing unfortunate accidents like the recent earthquake.

Selvi began placing playing cards face down on the floor. She announced to her mother that she had invented a game. For every unjustified knowledge claim that Chopra made, she would turn over one card after first trying to guess what it was by counting the open cards and calculating the odds. Sandanam tried hard to keep a straight face as she turned up the volume. The chirping of crickets faded into the background as the calm, soothing voice of blissful unreason filled the room.

Freeing Devi: A Pragmatist Argument For Gender Equality In The Freethought Movement In India

Ajita Kamal — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:41:16 +0000

In countries like India where goddess worship is prevalent, the argument is often made that such superstition actually helps the cause of women’s rights. To feed the flames, more than a few Western feminists (such as Kathleen Erndl, Sarah Caldwell) have suggested that women in India should embrace these superstitious notions and derive strength from the myths, in order to the counter real prejudice that they face everyday. I disagree with this notion on two levels. Firstly, I don’t think that it is, in practice, possible to separate ‘good’ superstitious beliefs from the ones that are responsible for increasing suffering in society, since these are inter-dependent irrational sets of beliefs that defy logic. Secondly, these superstitious beliefs about goddesses and fairies prevent us from gaining a better understanding of the problem and finding stable long-term solutions based on reason. Furthermore, other feminists like Cynthia Humes have shown that there is a difference between the view of women as goddesses and the experiences of the majority of ordinary women in these cultures. Studying the reasons for this difference is, in my opinion, key to understanding gender inequality in such cultures.

I submit that the goals of the Freethought movement are aligned with those of the women’s rights movements in these countries, and that therefore there is a practical reason for Freethought groups to actively promote the feminist cause.

The Essence of the Argument:

Superstitions such as goddess worship are cultural impediments to realizing true gender equality. True gender equality will help make such superstitions socially redundant. The Freethought movement must actively pursue gender equality, even as it confronts the superstitions that justify injustice.

Before I defend the above argument, two points must be clearly stated.

The idea that women deserve equal treatment in society is accepted as a moral good steeped in the humanistic tradition of compassion, guided by reason.
Any social good that a belief in the supernatural could possibly bring to women’s rights can be fully addressed and achieved through compassion and reason.

“The worship of the Goddess, of the divine as female, has a long history in India and continues to become even more popular today. By virtue of their common feminine nature, women are in some contexts regarded as special manifestations of the Goddess, sharing in her powers.”

Is the goddess a feminist?: the politics of South Asian goddesses, by Alf Hiltebeitel, Kathleen M. Erndl

(Note: The word ‘Devi’ is a generic Sanskrit term for ‘goddess’, used colloquially to also refer to a particular woman, or more accurately, one narrative of an idealized woman out of many possible ones. All religions have, in some form or the other, the idea that women must be set apart from men, assigning them many contradictory narratives. In this sense, Devi can be taken as a metaphor for all sets of supernatural beliefs that project contradictory notions of the nature of a woman.)

The Devi Paradox:

A curious phenomenon becomes apparent when one compares women’s rights across cultures. The more a culture deifies women, the less rights women actually have in that culture. The deification of women could take many forms, including worshiping them as goddesses (living or as myth), and assigning supernatural status to women, referring to some mysterious ephemeral quality that makes them special. One manifestation of the Devi Paradox is seen when women are elected to positions of power in parts of the world where the women’s rights record is the worst. How is it that misogynistic men can abuse women in regular society as part of customary practice, and yet elect one into office?

For example, from wikipedia:

“Muslim majority countries have produced several female heads of state: Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Mame Madior Boye of Senegal, Tansu Çillerof Turkey, Kaqusha Jashari of Kosovo, and Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia. Bangladesh was the first country in the world to have one female head of state follow another, those two being Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina “

Yet no one can deny that these Muslim countries are relatively worse off than most of the West when it comes to their treatment of women in society at large. While particular women are put on a pedestal and respected for their ability to lead, women in general have much lesser rights than men. Often such paradoxes are possible only because contradictory behaviors are justifiable by selectively adopting superstitious beliefs from within the culture. Could this explain why women are simultaneously worshiped and abused in such cultures?

Explaining the Paradox:

In any culture where the individual rights of women are valued less than superstitious edicts from primitive times, it is possible to see the Devi Paradox in action. Superstitious rules may have evolved as a means for society to organize itself into relatively well-defined social units. In modern times these beliefs are responsible for creating contradictory supernatural narratives about women, allowing any one particular narrative to be chosen when it becomes convenient. Thus a man can then use one narrative to justify abusing women, and another narrative to defend the culture that allows abuse. Let’s study this in the Indian context.

Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of TN, Worshiped as a Living Goddess.

The contradictions in how women are perceived in India, by both men and women, are staggering. India is a country that had a woman for it’s 4th Prime Minister, well-respected for most of her tenure as a strong and determined leader. It is also the country where women in some rural parts are frequently tortured and killed on accusations of witchcraft. It is the land where certain women alive today are built temples and offered prayers, while a thriving trade in sex-slaves continues to take place underground. Women graduating from the prestigious management and science schools are taking up high level positions in board rooms and research labs. Meanwhile, thousands of female infants are brutally killed every year to escape perceived difficulties in raising girls in a predominantly male-dominated society. The list goes on.

Such contradictions are kept alive in society by sets of contradictory cultural beliefs. These contradictory beliefs are necessary to perpetuate the notion that women are to be protected at the cost of their own freedom. The patronization inherent in such dubious notions needs to be justified for the cognitive dissonance that the ideas induce to be resolved. This is where superstition comes in. The deification of women as goddesses, feared and worshiped, pure and powerful, gentle and bloodthirsty, emotional and stoic, strong and delicate, angry and loving, and any other stereotype one wishes to project onto the female sex, has contributed to the persistence of these contradictory ideas about women in popular culture. To put it simply, the notion of woman as goddess is a set of popular cultural memes that serve to justify anything one believes about women.

Superstition Justifies Injustice

When superstition has such influence on people, it becomes a social weapon, subtle yet devastating. In the case of gender inequality it works by soothing the conscience of the perpetrators of injustice. The superstitious beliefs about gender are many and dangerous. But the vast extent of the damage that these beliefs inflict is covered up by religious folk trumpeting the fact that superstition actually solves a small section of the problems that it causes! The goddess is the ultimate defense of the misogynist. When there are thousands of women to worship in myth, how can women be lesser than men? The facts and the numbers about daily abuse of women’s rights can seem acceptable and even normal to someone who exists within this reality where women are glorified in myth and kept down in society. It’s OK for a husband to beat his wife, because that is the established standard of equality.

Similar contradictory supernatural beliefs are perpetuated in Islam and Christianity. In fact, there are Islamic Feminists! Women in Islamic societies have been fighting for a version of feminism that wouldn’t seem like feminism at all to most women elsewhere. This is only possible because the meaning of ‘equality’ has been altered, redefined in a superstitious context. When the rules of Islam become the reality within which one operates, the role of a woman is restricted to one of the many goddess forms that Islam projects on her.

Victims in Favor of Victimization:

Superstition works on the victims as much as on the perpetrators of injustice. In India, the number of women who believe that men have the right to beat women is higher (54%) than the number of men who believe so (51%)!

Religions often impose strict conditions on women, and balance these demands by allowing women certain roles within the culture. These roles are often patronizingly referred to as “virtues”. In the most repressed of societies, this quality called “virtue” that women supposedly have is primarily associated with sexual “purity”. Within these cultures, these “virtues”, although far from true equality, are the epitome of an average woman’s range of achievement. Consequently, many are afflicted by a form of Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological condition when a kidnapping victim begins to empathize with his/her kidnappers. In this analogy, we’re all hostages to religion.

The fact that women in the Muslim world are amongst the staunchest supporters of mandatory restrictive clothing for all women should come as no surprise. Women in the Muslim world are believed to have mysterious and dangerous powers that can “tempt” men. Imagine the average Muslim woman in the Middle East, conditioned her entire life to act in submission to men, staying out of sight and unnoticed, out of fear that even the thought of exposing an inch of skin could damn her to burn forever in hell. As far as she is concerned, the layers of black cloth add strength to her constitution. In the context within which she lives, the darkness gives her rights. Such victims of religion are the ones with whom it will hurt the most to reason.

Pragmatic Reasons for Pragmatic Reasons:

My argument for gender equality in the Freethought movement assumes as intersubjective moral truth the axiom that women and men are equally free. This is not to say that the two sexes are the same in every regard, but that men and women deserve the same rights in society. This idea of something as morally true, the basis for the argument from morality, is a popular motivator for action when it comes to creating awareness about equal justice. But the argument from morality is only one part of the larger argument for gender equality.

There is another layer to the argument that we have been ignoring- the argument from pragmatism. I think most of us would agree that teaching our daughters to be strong for themselves and to respect their ability to achieve whatever they desire is a much more effective way of dealing with gender inequality than teaching them to derive strength from a supernatural entity. The implication here is that the women’s rights movement is inextricably linked to the Freethought movement. A strong motivator for action in achieving equality for women is the fact that the struggle for social, cultural, economic and political equality of women in countries like India is aligned with the goals of the Freethought movement as a whole. I submit that this completes the universal argument for equal rights.

The Role of Reason and Compassion:

When the day comes when women are considered equals to men in every applicable social index, reason and compassion will have played the starring role in getting there. Perhaps these two qualities will not always be draped in the colors of Freethought, publicly renouncing ideological enemies such as superstition and bigotry, but real and permanent progress can come only through reason and compassion.

The social rules restricting people to strict gender roles were the result of linear thinking in primitive times. As cultures evolved, these social rules were written into the religions. In modern use these rules are barriers to the quest for a successful and content society. It is in the interests of building a strong Freethought movement to actively pursue equal opportunities for both genders in the organizing and development of the movement.

The Freethought community is already without doubt highly motivated about progressive social issues such as campaigning for gender equality. What’s needed is a stated commitment to make gender equality a core goal of the movement. What’s needed is action.

Freeing Devi

My proposal is that any organization or group that takes on the job of challenging superstition and religion in India must make a conscious effort to break established patterns of gender inequality.

Kumari Devi, the Nepalese living goddess.

Most readers here must be familiar with Freethought groups on social media sites like Facebook and other forums, and can no doubt vouch for the fact that almost every one of those groups is dominated by men. This is not limited to India, by any means, but in general the ratio of women to men is worse in the Freethought movement in India than it is in the West. This must be directly addressed with the explicitly stated goal of creating an equal future for Freethought. This is just the first step, but one that needs to be taken.

Women who are Freethinkers have been real champions for change when it comes to challenging the hatred and misogyny that passes for tradition in many cultures. This sort of activism must be formalized and advanced, especially in countries like India. All Freethinkers must endorse and support gender equality in the Freethought movements around the world. We must particularly focus on movements in countries where women are oppressed. For example, there are Atheist and Humanist movements in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore. There are also some Freethought groups in the Middle East. Just as in the case of India, women atheists in these parts of the world need the support of feminists from the “free world”. On this point it should be mentioned that thousands of people on Facebook and other social networking sites, both men and women, reach out everyday across borders and strive to create a more equal world. These folk are the real heroes of the Freethought movement.

When it comes down to it, the most important thing that the movement needs are strong feminist representatives. In the West, numerous websites and groups for freethinkers who are women have sprung up. One of the most popular of these is Skepchick, a blog run by Rebecca Watson and her gang. Embedded below is the first part of a video of Rebecca giving a talk on the subject ‘Why Chicks Matter’. The rest of the parts can be found here: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’ll conclude with the observation that India needs its own feminist Freethinkers, people like Rebecca Watson, to stand beside Sunitha Krishnan (TED video below) and fight the root of the problem– the superstitious beliefs that serve to justify injustice.

Legacy Of Ancient Religions Of India

Prabhakar Kamath — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:13:49 +0000

Note: All articles in Dr. Kamath’s series on The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita can be accessed from here.

In this article in our series on Brahmanism, we will review its legacy, the evidence of which we can see all around us even in modern times. Just about every single malady we see in India today -communal disharmony, caste-based politics, untouchability, illiteracy, poverty, superstitions, irrational fear of authority, passivity, widespread corruption, Hindu fundamentalism, priestly misconduct in and out of temples, goondaism of para military armies, antisocial behaviors of politicians, bureaucrats and police, fleecing of bewildered people by Babas and Swamis, and many more problems- could be directly traced to the doorstep of corrupt Brahmanism. All these are Karmaphalam (fruits of misdeeds) of three thousand years of Brahmanic legacy Indians eat every day.

1. Rise And Fall Of Buddhism

As we read earlier, Buddhism, Jainism and other heterodox Dharmas arose in reaction to decadence of Brahmanism in the post-Vedic period of India’s history. From third century B. C. till 8^th century A. D. Buddhism’s prestige steadily rose in India due to widespread royal patronage. Even though Buddhism started out as a rational Dharma opposed to mindless rituals, soon Brahmins infiltrated it, and it degenerated into just another ritual-ridden Dharma.

”Although originally a rationalization of human condition and a code of ethics, both of which largely ignored deities and rituals associated with conventional religion, Buddhism had been assuming the trappings of orthodox religious practice ever since the Buddha’s death…. Indeed Buddhist icons of Pala period are so anatomically exaggerated and so generously provided with extra heads and arms that only a trained eye would identify them as Buddhist.”

-John Keay

Buddhism’s teachings of compassion, ethical behavior and nonviolence were not suitable for kings who must protect their kingdom from enemies, conquer them, and administer law ruthlessly. Ashoka’s empire, softened by Buddhist philosophy, fizzled out within fifty years of his death in 231 B. C. Following Ashoka, various kings of north India patronized Buddhism and none of them lasted long, including Harshavardhana. Religion had a way of sapping out the strength of Kshatriyas. Referring to the effect of Buddhism on the once mighty Pala kingdom R. C. Majumdar writes:

”Seemingly it disintegrated under a succession of rulers of a pacific and religious disposition.”

Referring to the demise of Pala rule John Keay adds, “One renounced his throne to become an ascetic, others attended to their spiritual advisers and to the welfare of the monastic establishment which still flourished in the Pala heartland of Bihar and Bengal.”

History has repeatedly taught us the danger of mixing religion and politics. Yet, Indian politicians, most of whom are uneducated in history, have not learned this lesson.

2. Brahmanism During The Quiescent Period

Overshadowed by Buddhism, Brahmanism weakened as political power and remained quiescent till Guptas came to power around 320 A. D. During this quiescent period, though Brahmanism appeared to be in deathbed its brain kept on ticking. Brahmins did not let their dormancy come in the way of producing various mesmerizing mythical works such as the eighteen Puranas (Ancient Stories), the main goal of which was to quietly promote Brahmanism and supremacy of Brahmins in the scheme of things. They further expanded the Mahabharata epic. They incorporated various regional sub-sects into Brahmanism and developed the basic tenets of Vaishnavism and Hinduism. Impressed by their erudition and literary skills, prominent royal houses began to come under the sway of Brahmins. South India was almost completely converted to Brahmanism, with the exception of a few smaller kingdoms, which embraced Jainism. As the fortunes of Buddhism declined, those of Brahmanism rose steadily. By the time of Harshavardhana (606- 647 A. D.) Brahmins were strong enough to attempt his assassination for his obvious bias for Buddhism. Harshavardhana executed the leader of the conspiracy and exiled five hundred Brahmin co-conspirators (Keay).

3. Grave Consequences Of Brahmanic Manipulation Of The Gita

We read in our previous articles how:

Brahmanic seers edited the Bhagavad Gita to hide both Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions and project is as a monolithic text.
Shankaracharya misread, misrepresented and obfuscated the true meanings of revolutionary shlokas.
Brahmins corrupted Bhagavatism by eliminating Yoga in Bhaktiyoga and attaching Pooja to it, which was nothing but Yajna in disguised form.

All these Brahmanic manipulations resulted in serious long-term consequences for India.

Thousands of temples were built all over the country to house thousands of idols. This temple building frenzy continues to this day.
Millions of people visited these temples and donated generously to their upkeep. Temples became fabulously rich. This practice is going on to this day.
Temple wealth attracted the attention of Islamic adventurer Mahmud of Ghazni and others such as Sultan of Ghor.
Misinterpretation of Karmayoga and Bhaktiyoga undermined the Code of the Warrior and weakened the resolve of Hindu warriors.

4. Temple Building Frenzy

From seventh through tenth centuries, Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas of Karnataka, Pallavas of Kanchi, Cholas of Tanjore, and Pandyas of Madurai built great temples dedicated to Hindu gods. Chalukyas even established a school for temple-building arts at Aihole and Pattadakal in Karnataka. Some of the finest examples of temple building experiments survive to this day in these two sleepy little towns. In north, central and east India, temple building frenzy began a little later. By 13^th century both north and south India were dotted with thousands of beautiful temples to house multitude of idols.

Gifts to Brahmins running these temples and donations to these temples based on the literal interpretation of shloka 9:27 (”Whatever Dana (gift) you give away, do it as an offering to Me.”) became common practice. In the course of time millions of people, induced by greedy Brahmins and deluded by the alleged magical powers of the idols in Hindu temples, began to donate enormous amount of gold, silver, precious stones, coins and jewelry to these temples hoping that in return these gods would fulfill their desires (9:22) and protect them from evil (18:66).

The tragic irony of all this was that none of these illiterate, semi-literate, and even educated masses knew that when Krishna said in 18:66, “I shall liberate you from all evil, do not grieve!” the “all evil” he was referring to were Shokam (grief), Dwandwam (restlessness of mind) and obsession with earning Karmaphalam (wealth, power, heaven) in Yajna arising from the twin doctrines of Brahmanism, namely the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma; and the inequities of Varna Dharma based on these two evil doctrines.

5. Temples Bloat With Wealth

In north India, which will be the focus of our discussion, Hindu devotees in Multan, Mathura, Kanauj, Thaneshwar, Somanath, and thousands of little towns built magnificent temples. As money poured in, all these temples became obscenely ostentatious in keeping with Brahmanism’s addiction to ostentation. On the one hand Brahmins attached to these temples professed austerity, wore saffron or white clothes and seemingly led simple lives. On the other hand they demanded or extorted donations and fees from patrons, performed ostentatious Poojas, and induced kings to build gargantuan temples. To manage the flocks of mindless pilgrims whole townships grew around these temple complexes. Thousands of Brahmins attached themselves to these great temple complexes like blood-sucking leaches. They offered to perform hundreds of complicated rituals of graded complexity to please gods and sponsors, and above all, themselves. Annual pilgrimage to these holy temples became a compulsive ritual for millions of Hindus, no different than what we see today all over India.

To attract pilgrims to their temples Brahmins did not hesitate to use any means necessary. As reported by a thirteenth century Arab author, Brahmins of Somanatha temple even managed to levitate the lingam of Shiva in the air by surrounding it with an elaborate magnetic contraption (R. Thapar). If this was true, it must have been a great scientific achievement by any measure, not to mention how Brahmanism used science to delude people as far back as eleventh century. As we will read below, the naïve belief of Brahmins in the magical power of levitating lingam had disastrous consequences when in 1025 A. D. Mahmud of Ghazni entered the compound of the temple to steal its enormous wealth and knock it down.

6. Mahmud Makes Annual Pilgrimage To Pillage And Plunder

The fabulous wealth in these temples was safe from other kings of India most of whom were Brahmanic or Buddhist by faith. Soon the fame of these vast idle treasures reached far and wide. When the greedy Mahmud of Ghazni heard about the fabulous treasures of India, he decided that he, too, was going to make annual pilgrimage to these temples, but with more sinister motives. Being a fanatical Muslim, he cloaked his greed with religious zealotry. He declared that it was his religious duty to destroy the idols and temples of Hindus. Just about every harvesting season, Mahmud descended from his mountainous capital in Afghanistan to the plains of India, attacked the temples, killed Brahmins in thousands, and took the enormous loot back to his kingdom. He expanded his kingdom with the money he had stolen from India. When in 1025 A. D. Mahmud raided Somanatha temple, he mercilessly massacred fifty thousand deluded Brahmins who had absolute faith that the levitating lingam of that temple would protect them from evil Mahmud of Ghazni. Their blind faith in their god was such that there were no warriors protecting the temple when Islamic raiders showed up at the gate.

Between 1001 and 1027 A. D. Mahmud of Ghazni raided Indian temple towns seventeen times and Indian kings were impotent against the relatively smaller forces of Mahmud. There was neither one strong emperor ruling India around this time to oppose him, nor a united front. During the previous two centuries the petty kings who ruled the border kingdoms had ignored the growing menace of Islamic kings from the west. They neither studied the doctrines of Islam nor the methods of warfare of Islamic kings.

7. Brahmanic Hubris

In spite of the predictable annual raids by Mahmud, or perhaps because of them, Brahmins kept urging people to donate to these temples and people obeyed them blindly. Their haughtiness and complacency were well summed up by Al Biruni who was then in India as part of Mahmud’s entourage:

“There are other causes, the mentioning of which sounds like a satire -peculiarities of their national character, deeply rooted in them, but manifest to everybody. We can only say, folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever. Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan and Persis, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is…. Now such is the state of things in India.”

With this kind of know-it-all attitude, they learned nothing from their mistakes.

8. The Code Of The Warrior

Practice of Brahmanism in the third century B. C. basically consisted of two codes: The Code of the Brahmin, which consisted of ritual-related duties of Brahmins, such as performing Yajnas, and the Code of the Warrior, which consisted of duties of Kshatriyas as warriors.

Code of the Warrior is summed up in the following two shlokas in the Arjuna Vishada part of the Bhagavad Gita:

2:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you will enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse resolved to fight. 2:33: But if you will not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin.

This code rewarded warriors with wealth here on earth and heaven hereafter for their bravery, and punishment with dishonor here on earth and hell hereafter for cowardice. The original Brahmanic Code of the Warrior as enunciated in Arjuna Vishada required the warrior to be both Paranthapa (Enemy Burner) and Dhananjaya (Conqueror of Wealth). As we read in an earlier article, Brahmanism hated Ashoka the Great because he rejected the Kshatriya Dharma out of compassion for his enemies. They branded him as one suffering from Ahamkara (egoism, self-centeredness) for abdicating his Kshatriya Dharma. Arjuna Vishada was composed to condemn this “compassionate Kshatriya” concept. Brahmanism was absolutely correct that as long as a king stuck to the Code of the Warrior, his kingdom was safe from foreign invasion. Rajputs who ruled the kingdoms bordering Afghanistan practiced this Code of the Warrior to its perfection till 10th century.

9. Rajputs: True Practitioners Of The Code Of The Warrior

The western region of India -what is now Rajasthan and parts of Pakistan- was then ruled by fierce warrior kings who perhaps originated from the settled tribes of the Hunas whom Kumara Gupta had fought in the 5^th century A. D. Wisely, Brahmanism absorbed them into the mainstream of the society by conferring on them Kshatriya status by means of a great fire sacrifice performed at Mount Abu. These tribes later came to be known as Rajputs (sons of kings). Like all new converts to any religion, these Kshatriyas staunchly adhered to Brahmanic Code of the Warrior. They considered it an ultimate insult to die in bed. The following shloka of Arjuna Vishada seemed to be their anthem:

2:32: Happy are the Kshatriyas who obtain such warfare that comes unsought as an open gate to heaven.

Their allegiance to Brahmanism was so strong that they followed Brahmanic injunctions to the letter of the law. Women of these tribes even indulged in Jauhar (mass suicide by jumping into the collective funeral pyre), or Sati (individual suicide by being burnt with husband’s dead body). This ancient practice was perhaps rooted in the severe proscription Brahmanism expressed against Varnasankara resulting from the death of men in war. Arjuna laments the consequences of decline of family when men die in war:

1:40-44: In the decline of a family, its time-honored usages perish; with the perishing of sacred rites impiety overtakes the entire family. With the growth of impiety, the family women become unchaste; and women getting corrupted, caste admixture ensues. Hell is verily the lot of the family destroyer through Varnasankara (class admixture); for their ancestors fall deprived of manes-cakes and libations. The everlasting Jati (caste) virtues and Kula (family) virtues become ruined due to Varnasankara created by the bad deeds of family destroyer. Hell is verily the long lasting abode of men whose family religious practices have been broken.

The importance of the above information lies in the fact that by 8^th century, Gita had gained recognition as the handbook of Brahmanism and Kshatriyas implicitly accepted its Code of the Warrior as sacred.

10. Taking Advantage Of Complexities Of Sanskrit Language

By 10^th century, the Bhagavad Gita was widely known as the handbook of Hinduism as attested to by Al Biruni in his famous book Kitabu’l Hind. When I read the following passage in it, I was dumbstruck because I had reached the same conclusions while studying the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

“If you want to conquer this difficulty (i.e. to learn Sanskrit), you will not find it easy, because the language is of an enormous range, both in words and inflections, something like the Arabic, calling one and the same thing by various names, both original and derived, and using one and the same word for a variety of subjects, which, in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from each other by various qualifying epithets. For, nobody could distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understands the context in which it occurs and its relation both to the following and preceding parts of the sentence. The Hindus, like others, boast of this enormous range of their language, whilst in reality it is a defect.”

Brahmins took full advantage of this “defect” in their “perfect” language to explain away internal contradictions in the Bhagavad Gita. Their primary goal was to hide both the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions to overthrow Brahmanism, and project the Gita as a monolithic document representing a monolithic philosophy. This, as we will see soon, undermined Brahmanism’s own Code of the Warrior.

11. Beliefs And Behavior

All our actions are based on underlying beliefs. A change in our belief results in corresponding change in our behavior. For example, if you believe that your doctor is extremely trustworthy, you would take any medicine he gives you without hesitation. However, if someone you trusted told you that your doctor had killed several of his relatives due to incompetence, a seed of distrust is now sowed in your mind about your doctor, and your behavior toward him would change correspondingly. You would not accept his treatment as readily as you did before.

Likewise, if a warrior were indoctrinated into believing that it is his bounden duty to fight and win or die fighting, his belief in this doctrine would reflect in his heroism in war. If the same warrior were indoctrinated that he should fight but be indifferent to victory or defeat, and gain or loss, he would certainly come across as indifferent while fighting. If the same warrior were indoctrinated into believing that he should surrender his action to the lord and not worry about the outcome, the warrior’s action would reflect that fatalistic attitude.

Let us now see how a seed of doubt was sowed into the Code of the Warrior due to erroneous interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.

12. Potpourri Of Three Codes: A Recipe For Disaster

Many reasons have been forwarded to explain why capable Hindu kings commanding vast armies lost to Muslim invaders who began to make deeper forays into India: Disunity, pathological jealousy, tendency to enjoy adversary’s discomfiture in the hands of enemies, lack of awareness of seriousness of threat, lack of effective strategy, haughtiness, inability to learn from mistakes, etc. However, I think there is an additional, thus far unexplored, cause, which we need to look at closely. This is purely a psychological issue arising from the misinterpretation of the Gita by Brahmanic seers beginning with Shankaracharya in early 9^th century. Let us examine this issue in greater detail.

A. The Brahmanic Code of the Warrior: In the In Arjuna Vishada, the term Karma unequivocally stands for Action as in fighting. The message to Arjuna in the Mahabharata context and to renegade Kshatriyas in the historical context is clear as daylight:

2:37: Slain (while fighting) you will gain heaven; victorious (in fighting) you will enjoy earth. Therefore rouse up, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight. 2:33: But if you will not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin.

There is no ambiguity in this message. A warrior’s duty is to kill his enemies and plunder his property. In other words, his job is to gain Karmaphalam in action. There should be no hesitation or doubt about this in the minds of the warriors. The warrior is rewarded for his heroism. In fact, he would incur dishonor and sin if he did not fight. Rajputs followed this advice when they fought war with their neighbors. As long as Hindu warriors fought in this spirit, they were second to none.

B. The Upanishadic Code of Karmayogi: In the Upanishadic Gita, the concept of selfless action (Karmayoga) was introduced to counter selfish Yajna (Kamya Karma) of decadent Brahmanism. Here the word Karma meant Yajna, not Action as in fighting. In order to condemn Kamya Karma, Upanishadists declared Karmaphalam as sin. The only way to avoid earning sin is to perform Yajna with indifference to gain or loss (2:48-51). However, to legitimize interpolation of Karmayoga into Arjuna Vishada, Upanishadists pretended as though they were advising Arjuna to do so on the battlefield:

2:38: Treating alike pain and pleasure, gain and loss, victory and defeat, engage yourself in the battle. Thus you will incur no sin (Karmaphalam).

If applied to a Kshatriya, this shloka said that gaining and winning earned him sin. To avoid earning sin, he should be indifferent to gain or loss, and victory or defeat. How do we know that this shloka’s real purpose was to introduce Buddhiyoga (Karmayoga and Jnanayoga) to replace Kamya Karma (desire-driven Yajna) and not to apply it to fighting? Well, in shlokas 2:39-53 that follow Upanishadists introduce Buddhiyoga as the alternative to Kamya Karma and soundly condemn all aspects of Brahmanism. Obviously, the advice given to Arjuna by Upanishadists in 2:38 was merely a pretext to introduce Buddhiyoga into the Gita with the sole purpose of overthrowing Brahmanism. In fact, it is diametrically opposite to the Code of the Warrior in 2:33 and 37, and is impossible to apply in warfare. No one in his right mind could go to war with an attitude of indifference to pain and pleasure, gain and loss, or victory and defeat. Karmayoga has no place in the battlefield. If a king has been brainwashed into believing that he should engage in battle with indifference to gain or loss, victory or defeat, and that gaining anything is sinful, he is doomed to lose the battle.

The true intent of 2:38 becomes evident in shloka 2:47 in which Upanishadists lay down the law that Kshatriyas performing Kamya Karma have no right to its fruits:

2:47: Your entitlement is only to Karma (Yajna) and never at any time to its fruits (for fruits belong to the Devas: 3:10-14). Never be the cause of Karmaphalam (when you act, for by doing so you will suffer rebirth); and never be attached to inaction (just because there is nothing in this for you, do not become an inactive Sramana).

Yet addressing Arjuna the Kshatriya, Shankaracharya says: 2:47, “Never, in any state of life whatsoever, should you crave for fruits of your works -this is the idea.” His advice goes directly against the Code of the Warrior as stated in 2:37. He failed to tell Kshatriyas the truth about this shloka, which is:

”Warriors, this shloka was inserted into Arjuna Vishada by Upanishadists during the post-Vedic period with the goal of weaning away corrupt Kshatriyas from performing Kamya Karma, and to covert them into selfless Karmayogis (3:17-26). Karmayoga cannot be applied in warfare. You need to follow the Brahmanic Code of the Warriors when you fight.”

Admitting this truth meant admitting that there existed a revolution against Brahmanism. Shankaracharya would have none of it. Or, equally likely, he did not know about it.

C. The Bhagavata Code of Bhaktiyogi: In the Bhagavata Gita Krishna tells people:

18:66: Abandon all Dharma and take refuge in me alone; I shall liberate you from all evil. Do not grieve.

Left alone, this shloka would not have undermined the Code of the Warrior. However, as we read in the previous article, because Shankaracharya did not want to admit that the phrase ‘all Dharma’ in this shloka meant all contemporary religions of the post-Vedic period including Brahmanism, he decided to misrepresent this phrase as ‘all Karma,’ and he said to Arjuna: ‘Give up all righteous as well as unrighteous Action.’ He never bothered to explain what he meant by this statement. Shankaracharya said this as if it was applicable to Arjuna in the Mahabharata context, and by extension, to all Kshatriyas.

Had Shankaracharya understood this shloka accurately, he would have said,

”Warriors, when Krishna said ‘abandon all Dharma’ he did not mean you should abandon your Code of the Warrior. Krishna wanted people of post-Vedic period to abandon their religions - Brahmanism and all its sub-Dharmas, and also Buddhism, Jainism and all assorted Dharmas, which had arisen in reaction to decadent Brahmanism- and embrace Bhagavatism, which is his Dharma. Rise up and fight as exhorted by him:

11:33-34: ‘Rise and obtain fame. Conquer the enemies and enjoy the unrivalled kingdom… Slay Drona, Bheeshma, Jayadratha, Karna and other brave warriors who are already doomed by me. Be not distressed with fear. Fight and you will conquer your enemies in battle!’ “

13. Confusion Reigns Supreme

Alas, this was not to be. By 10^th century, Shankaracharya’s fame had spread far and wide. Now Hindu kings, almost all of whom had been mesmerized by Shankaracharya’s teachings or that of thousands of his saffron-clad followers, had to decide what belief system to adopt in fighting their enemies. Brahmanic interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita either did not know, or they refused to acknowledge, that there were three distinct Gitas embedded in its text giving three contradictory messages to the warriors who looked upon the Gita as their guide in warfare.

Arjuna Vishada: “Do your duty helplessly as per your Rajas Guna, fight to gain wealth, or die fighting and gain heaven.”
Upanishadic Gita: As interpreted by Shankaracharya “Never, in any state of life whatsoever, should you crave for fruits of your works -this is the idea.” Why? “Well, because all Karmaphalam is sin and it leads to Samsara.”
Bhagavata Gita: As interpreted by Shankaracharya: “Give up all righteous and unrighteous Action.” Why? “Well, because when Krishna said ‘all Dharma,’ he meant ‘all Karma.’ ”

If one mixes up the above three contradictory messages, the listener is bound to become confused. This is like a father giving mixed messages to his son, “If the bully comes at you, boldly fight back and knock him down; but be indifferent to the outcome of your fight; and don’t indulge in righteous or unrighteous action.” The correct and unambiguous message should have been, “If the bully comes at you, beat the crap out of him and make sure he will never again bother you; you understand?”

Careful study of history of wars between Hindu kings and Islamic kings between 10^th and 16^th century reveals a change in the belief in the minds of Hindu warriors regarding the Code of the Warrior as evidenced by their altered behavior. Increasingly, there entered into their principles of warfare a streak of reckless fatalism, smug indifference to victory, hesitancy in killing Mlecchas (foreign-born outcastes), ambivalence about violence, cowardly retreat, beliefs in superstitions, and blind faith in god’s ability to save them from evil.

14. Decisive Debacle

Here is the brief story of one of the most decisive battles in the history of India in which Rajputs were routed by a much smaller force of Muhammad of Ghor in 1192, heralding the Islamic rule in India. Prathviraj Chahaman, the charismatic Rajput king put together the most formidable Rajput confederacy on record. He had beaten back Muhammad in an earlier war on the battlefield of Tarain. By any reckoning, he should have been able to rout Muhammad of Ghor again. Instead, apparently he sued for a truce. Muhammad agreed to a truce and tricked Prathviraj into believing that his enormous army intimidated him. Naively believing this, Prathviraj’s army was lulled into a “night of riots and revelry.” When the droopy-eyed Rajputs got up in the morning to go to the toilets, Muhammad’s formidable army surprised them. As Ferishta puts it:

”The disorder increased everywhere until at length the panic became general. The Muslims, as if they only now began to be in earnest, committed such havoc that Prathviraj’s prodigious army, once shaken, like a great building tottered to its fall and was lost in its ruins.”

Here is the tragedy of it all: For the first time in history, Prathviraj had succeeded in putting together a formidable army of united Rajputs, and yet, he decides to sue for peace, implicitly trusts Muhammad’s assurance, spends the night reveling and changes India’s history for the worse forever. Even when Rajputs had clear edge over the invaders, they failed to take the initiative and attack and destroy them. Gradually Muslim kings conquered one vacillating Hindu kingdom after another.

15. Muslim Rule Takes Roots And Ruins India

In the aftermath of the disastrous war, thousands of Hindus abandoned Hinduism to escape from stifling caste inequities and embraced egalitarian Islam. One such converted Hindu by the name of Malik Kafur led several raids into deep south, looted rich temples, destroyed ancient kingdoms, and returned to Delhi with, “612 elephants, twenty thousand horses, ninety six thousand mans of gold (241 tons), and countless boxes of jewels and pearls.” Delhi had never seen such loot in recorded history.

The fundamental policy of first Muslim rulers of India was to strip Hindus of all wealth to stifle any resistance to their rule. The cruelest of them all, Alau-d-din Khalji, declared:

”Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they were reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

Grinding poverty became the hallmark of India until just a decade ago. To this day, the vast majority of Indians live in dire poverty. Reflecting on the long-term effect of such economic and physical devastation of India by Islamic rulers, Will Durant observes:

”This is the secret of political history of modern India, Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.”

The British, who took full advantage of every weakness in Hindus as well as by now mellowed Muslim kings, ruled India for ninety years before Indians fought them with a united front. Ironically, independence was won not by the Code of the Warrior, which some naïve militant patriots recommended, but by militant nonviolence, a weapon developed by combining Jain philosophy of nonviolence and Jesus’s philosophy of love, self-suffering and forgiveness.

In the next article, we will study the legacy of caste system in modern India.