India, that is, Bharat
A fierce debate has erupted in India over the nation's name. Coincidentally or intentionally, ever since various opposition parties coalesced to form an alliance called the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), some have begun calling for dropping the word "India" from the nation altogether. Proponents argue that this is a step in the right direction that will help eliminate a colonial mindset. On the other hand, critics say that this is a divisive and diversionary action that will needlessly detach the country from a considerable part of its own history.
Personally, I believe that it can be beneficial to distinguish between liberation and an unreasonable aversion that has the capacity to evolve into an irrational hatred of the "them". From an ocean to a tectonic plate, the word "India" has a wide area of influence. If there can be a willingness to use "foreign" clothes and languages, then single-mindedly targetting one of the nation's names ill behoves an ancient civilisation like India. More insidiously, it can be another move towards the rejection of the pluralistic idea of India that was championed by Mahatma Gandhi and Pt. Nehru. The latter's magnum opus is called "The Discovery of India".
I shall be highly grateful for the views of the honourable members of The Philosophy Forum on this matter.
Personally, I believe that it can be beneficial to distinguish between liberation and an unreasonable aversion that has the capacity to evolve into an irrational hatred of the "them". From an ocean to a tectonic plate, the word "India" has a wide area of influence. If there can be a willingness to use "foreign" clothes and languages, then single-mindedly targetting one of the nation's names ill behoves an ancient civilisation like India. More insidiously, it can be another move towards the rejection of the pluralistic idea of India that was championed by Mahatma Gandhi and Pt. Nehru. The latter's magnum opus is called "The Discovery of India".
I shall be highly grateful for the views of the honourable members of The Philosophy Forum on this matter.
Comments (58)
If the reason for the name change is mainly in deference to the language of Hindu scripture then I think that would be a regressive step. I thought India was named after the Indus valley civilisation (and the river running through it) and I also thought that the name Indus was Latin and literally translated to Indian or/and indigenous. Hindi is the main language of India so what is India in Hindi? An internet search gave me ????, but does that just translate to Bharat in English?
Addition: From my brief internet based readings about it, the early Indus civilisation was the most non-militaristic, peace loving community, ever recorded, of that size/population.
Furthermore, I think that there is a darker element to this. In recent years, some figures belonging to the far side of the right wing (who also favour using only Bharat, ironically enough in English, and dropping India) have begun to advocate the view that ideas such as secularism are colonial concepts that cannot be applied to Indic religions. These people have no love lost for Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru (who were also affected by the allegedly colonial mentality according to these individuals). They tend to downplay caste-based discrimination and also question the widely-accepted Aryan migration theory (preferring to argue that they were natives). Therefore, a shift towards removing India could become a triumph for some pernicious sections of the society.
So, I don't have a stake -- zero investment -- in what India or Bharat calls itself. But we will all have difficulty finding names for ourselves that are entirely founded on whichever native land we are from. "America" derives from the name of an Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, who otherwise had very little to do with the matter.
"Asia" is a name derived from Greek, or maybe Assyrian, meaning "east of".
My point is that language and maps and usage are this huge accumulation of past events and persons that were mostly not rationally organized. They just happened.
Yes, we could spend the rest of our civilization's life straightening all this out. If we do, our civilization's life will be shorter because there are all these other -- far more urgent -- things that we should have attended to and didn't.
I appreciate your willingness (or your sarcasm) in offering me such a dictatorial status, but I will refuse it, as I am a democratic socialist, who requires majority consent from all stakeholders or their democratically elected representatives, before establishing political policy or taking political action such as re-naming this place Britain or (my personal preference) The republic of Britain. But as a socialist yourself, I am sure you already know how it is supposed to work.
Quoting BC
Yeah, but a god with a gender is just 'silly,' imo.
Quoting BC
I think you do, Is your politics restricted by your nationality or does it have a global branch to it?
Would it matter to you if there was a campaign in India to change its name to Hindustan?
Quoting BC
Would it matter to you if Trump and co wanted to change the name of America to Great America, (or perhaps even Christland :scream: ) in true MAGA style? How about the United Kingdom of America, with Trump officially anointed as King by the Evanhellicals? There are good historical reasons why I object to 'Great Britain,' with its military might of Empire connotations, rather than the original intention of 'larger land mass,' compared to that which was occupied by the original folks called Britons or to distinguish them from French Bretons (Now Brittany). We also did not become a united kingdom through the consent of the people, we have never been a united kingdom and we never will be.
Yeah, I am just kinda 'prodding' at you BC, no offence intended. I am just trying to find out if my prodding causes any interesting reactions, feel free to prod back in kind. Remember, I thought your chosen name/ID for TPF, was not reflective of the tone of your postings or are you really a truly bitter crank? You can't be, because you did decide to move to the more enigmatic BC.
Quoting BC
As time moves on and we learn more, we often change how we refer to people and places. We used to refer to people and nations in stereotypical ways that most of us choose not to use anymore. I am sure you would not accept, all us Scots, being called mean and tight with money for example.
India has already changed many of its City names from the names imposed by imperialist Britain.
In Russia, Stalingrad and Leningrad are gone. Many countries changed their name after becoming independent by casting off their imperialist conquerors. Is India trying to do something similar here? or is this just Modi's attempt to get a little closer to his real wish, which I think it to re-name the place Hindustan.
Do you think my suspicion of Mr Modi's real agenda here is far fetched @Existential Hope?
You are right. But, paradoxically, those new names come from the vocabulary and lexicon of the conquerors. Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc. All of them are Spanish names, they didn't use indigenous languages. For example: Puerto Rico could have been named "tahíno", that is the real name of the indigenous people.
On the other hand, I think it is important to highlight that the official language of all of them is still Spanish. So... I wonder, how really much did they get independent from us?
I, like @BC, have no personal or political stake in this matter.
There are a few Indian people in my town, most young - in their 30s. When I asked them their thoughts about the renaming of Mumbai, they laughed and told me the people they know still call it "Bombay." Is there a generational or ethnic split between those who want to change the name and those who don't. Do some regions or ethnic groups feel more at home in India than others?
You may find these articles on the topic to be of some use:
https://thewire.in/history/bharat-india-hindustan-history
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/in-debate-between-india-bharat-hindustan-missing-8926730/
Those who are asking to drop India may not be comfortable with Hindustan as it has Persian links and is widely used by Muslims. Previous governments also changed colonial names, but those names were not as old as India and neither did they occupy as important of a place in Indian history as India does. Again, the key thing to remember is that people are not demanding that the name should be changed; they are asking for one of the names to be removed. When you see this together with the attempts to distance secularism from the nation (due to its "foreign" roots), the picture that emerges is a murky one. Then, there is also this: https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/theres-a-case-for-we-the-people-to-embrace-a-new-constitution-11692021963182.html
True. There is practically no end to this project. And even if there could be, I am unsure if it is desirable considering the continually evolving nature of "us" and "them".
The split, if it exists, is primarily between those who look at a large chunk of their past with suspicion and those who probably have no real issue with it or at least feel that the good outweighs the bad. The unfortunate part is that there was no real movement from the masses for a change. Much of this is being led by some individuals. Misinformation has also become a powerful problem in India. The following article provides a good analysis of the issue:
https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/09/08/india-vs-bharat-a-synonym-binary-choice-or-ideological-fixation
I understand that this might not appear to be relevant to many people, but as the world's largest nation, the path India takes will have an impact on a noteworthy percentage of humanity. Hopefully, it will not lead to unnecessary fragmentation.
There you have it. All politics.
Quoting Existential Hope
Stop!
Did you notice that you already gave the reason, the cause and the effect earlier above? There it is in a nutshell: if the opposition wouldn't have came up with this smug way to portray them as INDIA, would this discussion take place. It's all and everything about this. It's just to make less petty and give it more meaning to the discussion. And yes, I do know that India's name has been also Bharat far earlier than the opposition came up with this idea.
No.
I'm not aware of similar discussion taking place in Niger. Or Nigeria. Or Mauritania.
It's usually the grandiose and narcissist politicians that want to leave their remark and change the countries name to a more "authentic" name from a "derogatory Western" name. Like the Shah that changed his country's name from "Persia" to "Iran". Or like mr Erdogan with his country Türkiye. Yes, as a second grader in Seattle I laughed with my classmate when we found that one country is called "Turkey" on the globe. Mr Erdogan likely has been upset about the name for a long time.
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/country-should-be-named-bharat-britishers-used-word-india-as-abuse-says-bjp-mp-harnath-singh-yadav-2023-09-05-890839
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/rajnath-singh-says-india-a-dangerous-word-slams-opposition-bloc-8924753/
The worst part is that Bharat, as one of our official names, already exists. What is being proposed is an end of a word that has been intertwined with our identity for a long time.
Quoting ssu
Actually, the debate had already begun at one level. This step of the opposition only sped things up.
Yes, the US is incredibly parochial and doesn't take much interest in what's up in other countries.
The threat is beginning to mushroom. Corrective measures would have to be taken before irreparable harm is done.
This seems like it describe the whole world right now. I feel like we're in Europe in 1914 just waiting for the pistol shot.
I would recommend that you watch this documentary:
https://youtu.be/7DmhF_W-nrI?si=C-_ZmU-bcSurx-Rq
The state of the media, and consequently of information, is not particularly good.
:up:
If you have the time, I would suggest that you have a look at this:
https://youtu.be/7DmhF_W-nrI?si=C-_ZmU-bcSurx-Rq
It is mainly about the state of our media, but what it reflects could hint at what is happening at the fundamental level of the society's consciousness.
India is part of the global community and thus totally open to the influences of polarization and populism just like Finland, UK or the USA are.
Populism sells and political parties see polarization as a way to get votes. Maturity doesn't sell. Lame! It's something not just happening there.
a) campaigns conducted for some ulterior motive
b) usually in the interest of a small but strongly motivated group
c) often leveraged with shame and guilt whether deserved or not
Minneapolis has many lakes; one of the most popular is the 400 acre Lake Calhoun. 5 or 6 years ago, a group of social justice warriors decided that this name was no longer tolerable, and petitioned it to be labeled with its actual or alleged Dakota Indian (there's that "India" problem again) name -- Bde Maka Ska.
John C. Calhoun played an early role in establishing Fort Snelling in the early 1800s. Fort Snelling was intended to dissuade the British from any further incursions into the Northwest and to stamp out British influence in the booming fur trade. A map maker assigned the name, "Lake Calhoun" around 1839. Later in his career, Calhoun served on the side of the confederacy and owned slaves.
The name change was supposed to reduce the affront to black people of having a slave holder attached to a popular lake. Question: How many people, white or black, connected "Lake Calhoun" with the confederacy and slavery? One would have to be historically well informed to know that, so probably not very many,
The name change was supposed to honor the Dakota people -- thus the new name is the old Dakota name for the lake, Nothing wrong with the Dakota name. Everything here had a Dakota name before Europeans arrived and gave places new names. It's a nice enough gesture, but it's a damned slight comfort for a people who barely survive (because of numerous economic policies over the years).
"We" were to feel guilt about the name, Calhoun. Similarly, they say we ought to feel some guilt if our house had a racial covenant in the deed, despite those covenants having been made illegal and unenforceable in 1948. There were moves to change the names of streets in order to erase the memory of real estate agencies who developed the street and gave it their name along with racial covenants.
One can have the defunct covenant expunged if one wishes -- another very flimsy sop to people who have been screwed over rather thoroughly.
All of these moves are ways for some activists to perform political theater which, in the end, will have no effect.
Some people in the Pacific coast state of Oregon want to break off the eastern 2/3 of the state and join it to neighboring Idaho. This is just one more example of how a highly vocal minority can generate a big issue out of narrow personal interests.
Quite true. This is precisely what is happening in many other places. If your campaign to change/remove a name is a part of a long-term plan to alter the nature of the nation itself, then questions are inevitable.
And what does it tell when the name of your capital has been changed six times?
The city that now is Kazakhstan's capital has been named Akmolinsk, Tselinograd, Akmola, Nur-Sultan and now is called Astana. It became the capital only in 1997 and since then has gone through the last three names. A lot of honoring has been done in that country, I guess.
Especially when the city / country isn't conquered, but continues as earlier, changing names gives the impression that the name hasn't been important and people don't have much attachment to it. (Just try to get the people of Rome to change the name of their city) It then can be changed either because political correctness or giving someone (something) this grandiose honour of having a city or a place called after them.
It's a similar story like when have the urge to take away statues.
Quoting Existential Hope
Unfortunately I feel there's still a long road on this same path before that better tomorrow.
A possibility nobody can rationally deny. Nonetheless, I do feel that it will not be long enough to tire out the truth completely.
Well, one can always be an optimist and look at what is good and what really bad things have not happened. And the easiest way is to put our present problems into a historical context where our problems will look small and not so dangerous.
When it comes to India (Bhurat), you haven't had a nuclear war with Pakistan and seems that the two countries have learnt to play their version of a nuclear standoff. And then your country has managed to delicately stay in your policy of being nonaligned and has continued to be in terms with both the West and Russia and China (even if with the last one you do have a little trouble in the Himalayas).
We in the West aren't hearing about the Indian economy collapsing or it soon collapsing, anything about the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency or mass killings. The last large famine India endured was in 1943 and the last small famine happened in 1966-1967 in Bihar. If bickering politicians is the only thing, then the future looks very bright. Poverty has decreased, population growth isn't a problem. Even if there is poverty and corruption, those aren't something new in India. No news is good news.
:up: That says something about the news as well.
I don't think the point you make is a strong one or an important one.
Argentina was a reference to it's silver.
The name Cuba may come from the Taíno language, meaning 'where fertile land is abundant' or 'great place'. However, its exact derivation is unknown. Christopher Columbus landed in Cuba in 1492 and named it "Juana" after a Spanish prince, but the name Cuba was later adopted by the Spanish.
Countries like Rhodesia (named after the English horror, Cecil Rhodes) was renamed Zimbabwe, which is not a word from the conqueror's language.
I will leave it to the people of Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Puerto Rico and Cuba to describe their feelings about the Spanish conquistadors.
I had a look at the links you recommended. Some wanted me to accept cookies so I just left them.
But I read about the Persian influence on the name Hindustan. You might find this interesting, I certainly did:
The indigenous people of India, probably did come from proto Indo Europeans, and the Hindi language probably does have commonalities with some ancient Indo European language which also branched into Greek, Celtic/Gallic, Russian etc.
Do you think a name change from India will further damage the chances of a reunion with Pakistan?
What do you think Modi's agenda is here?
Many people belonging to the right-wing deny the well-established theory of the Aryan migration and instead argue that the Aryans originated in India. This would allow them to claim that Hinduism was developed by an indigenous population (you can see why this would be important for those who have a major issue with some "foreigners").
Any individual or group who desires the society to be embroiled in such debates usually has one agenda: gaining power by vilifying a particular section of the society and acting as if one is saving the nation/community from a purportedly terrible fate.
Thank you for sharing that informative video. If you find some free time, I would once again suggest that you watch that documentary.
I was not being rude, just factual. If you find my responses to you, not to your taste or too harsh for your sensitivities, then don't include my ID in any of your postings. I have no issue with you, it is you who takes umbridge with me from time to time. I suggest you accept who I am, or stop responding to any of my posts.
I wish I could avoid your stupid and ignorant comments, but I cannot, because TPF doesn't have the option of silent people like you. Nonetheless, I am just waiting patiently for your ban. If the mods have banned more clever users (such as Agent Smith, Prishon, or Bartricks) than you, I don't understand why they haven't banned you yet.
But good things take time, and I am fully aware that moderators will ban you sooner or later. I wish you the best! :smile:
You have a lot of inner vitriol to deal with. Me getting banned from TPF will not help you with your general state of mind. It would/will be a very minor event for all concerned. You obviously don't wish me all the best. That final sentence demonstrates your inability to control yourself. Get some therapy!
Just finished watching the doc. Ravish Kumar is a brave man. The documentary confirmed some of my worse fears about the Modi mob. It's a very common recipe and totally from the 'how to promote fascism' mentality. Use rampant nationalism and stoke religious divisions as much as possible. Screams of "God bless Mother India" and "death to Pakistan" reverberate and echo down through the annuls of our bloody history, all the way back to 'God bless our tribe" and "death to your tribe."
At least you as a Hindu and me as an atheist have common ground in our condemnation of such.
The end of the documentary seemed to offer some hope for Mr Kumar's journalism, in that he gained a prestigious award for his efforts.
I think the fact that these national horror stories are happening in so many countries right now, suggests, that our species is approaching another major nexus of change. The run up to WW II saw a great deal of global horror regimes form as well, but there are different rules now. Even crazies like Putin, Modi, Trump et al, know that in m.a.d, they perish as well. I think what is happening globally may well be the darkest before a new and better dawn, but it may take a while yet, and we may have a lot of horror to deal with first.
I am just watching the news in the background at the moment, about the unrest in Iran, due to the anniversary of the murder of Mahsa Amini. One female protester recording on her phone, "We will not go back, we are not afraid of them any more, we will not go back!" The documentary you highlighted, shows yet another attempt to rule and direct a population through fear. I again am reminded of Gandhi's words:
Addition: I think quotes from your link such as:
While attacking the Congress, Pragya Singh Thakur, BJP MP from Bhopal, hailed Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, as a "patriot".
Will be the kind of rock a group like the BJP and characters like Mr Thakur, will perish on.
Such dimwitted attacks, eventually backfire on the attackers, imo.
Your reply reminded me of an old Hindi song. Here is the link to it: https://youtu.be/NufQfRt0uCQ?si=LInmOpDSe0VXy0Jh
Sadly, there aren't any subtitles, but this English translation may be somewhat helpful:
maut kabhee bhee mil saktee hai,
DEATH CAN BE MET AT ANY TIME,
lekin jeevan kal naa milegaa,
BUT LIFE WONT BE FOUND NEXT TIME,
marne waale soch samajh le
O YOU WHO IS ABOUT TO DIE! THINK OVER,
phir tujh ko yeh, pal naa milegaa..
THEREAFTER, YOU WONT FIND THIS MOMENT EVER!
raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa,
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT,
kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!
raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa,
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT,
kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!
raat bhar ka hai mehmaan.n andheraa...
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT!
raat jitnee bhee sangeen hogee,
AS MUCH AS THE NIGHT IS MORBID,
subha utnee hee rangeen hogee,
THAT MUCH WILL THE MORNING BE SPLENDID!
raat jitnee bhee sangeen hogee,
AS MUCH AS THE NIGHT IS MORBID,
subha utnee hee rangeen hogee,
THAT MUCH WILL THE MORNING BE SPLENDID!
gham naa kar gar hai baadal ghaneraa,
IF THE CLOUD IS CONSIDERABLE, DONT BE GRIEVED,
kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!
raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa...
DARKNESSS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT!
lab pe shikwaa naa laa ashq pee le,
DONT BRING COMPLAINT TO THE LIPS, DRINK UP THE TEAR!
jis tareh bhee ho kuchh der jee le,
WHICHEVER WAY, FOR SOME TIME MORE, WITH THE LIFE ADHERE,
lab pe shikwaa naa laa ashq pee le,
DONT BRING COMPLAINT TO THE LIPS, DRINK UP THE TEAR!
jis tareh bhee ho kuchh der jee le,
WHICHEVER WAY, FOR SOME TIME MORE, WITH THE LIFE ADHERE,
ab ukha.Dne ko hai gham ka Deraa,
SORROWS CAMP IS ABOUT TO SEVER
kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!
raat bhar ka hai mehmaan.n andheraa...
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT!
aa koee mil ke tadbeer soche.n,
COME, TOGETHER LETS SOME TACTIC DEFINE,
sukh ke sapno.n kee taabeer soche.n
THE OUTCOME OF THE PLEASANT DREAMS, LETS DIVINE,
aa koee mil ke tadbeer soche.n,
COME, TOGETHER LETS SOME TACTIC DEFINE,
sukh ke sapno.n kee taabeer soche.n
THE OUTCOME OF THE PLEASANT DREAMS, LETS DIVINE,
jo teraa hai vohee gham hai meraa,
THE SORROW YOUVE IS THE SAME AS MINE,
kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!
raat bhar ka hai mehmaa.n andheraa,
DARKNESS IS THE GUEST JUST FOR THE NIGHT,
kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa,
WHO CAN HOLD BACK THE MORNING BRIGHT!
Source: https://nasir-eclectic.blogspot.com/2010/05/588-rafis-philosophical-song-raat-bhar.html?m=1
Hope filled lyrics! The woman in the video, played her role well. A dark, stormy, tear filled night, but tomorrow is another day. I have watched some testimony of Jewish survivors of the holocaust and as intensely grim as their words about what they went through were, they nonetheless spoke positively about a future. Some used the words 'This to shall pass,' as words that had a lot of meaning and hope for them.
Thanks for having a look at it.
You should watch the vid about Ravish Kumar that @Existential Hope posted. I think you will find it a very familiar story and perhaps you might reconsider:
Quoting BC
I know this is off topic when considering your OP but have you saw this, in the News here, today?
Also, if true, it may expose Modi a little more, as the tyrant I think he is. It may reign him in a little and cost him some of his support or, it could encourage him to take more risks and 'go for broke!'
This is an old but quite rich analysis of the person leading India right now. This was written by Ashis Nandy who is a prominent Indian political psychologist and social theorist.
I had heard of the violence between Sikhs and Hindus before and I knew about the attacks on the Sikh golden temple etc but I had not realised there was a Sikh movement that wanted their own state called Khalistan. Is this a significant movement?
As that article I shared with you is a fairly old one, please do let me know if you have any trouble accessing it.
I will have a look at it tomorrow. Going to sign off for now. :smile:
A very grim, hard hitting article. It describes how the differences between people, especially poor people, (as you say, who are easily manipulated into a them and us mentality), is used to get them to fight each other, rather than unite and fight the real causes of their economic poverty, no significant control over the means of production, distribution and exchange. The opening exemplifies this in it's comparison between events in Hindu majority Gujarat with the ethnic clashes in Rwanda and Bosnia. Religious difference is a very easy, emotive and efficient way to manipulate poor people into killing each other.
[b]"THE massive carnages at Rwanda and Bosnia have taught the students of genocide that the most venomous, brutal killings and atrocities take place when the two communities involved are not distant strangers, but close to each other culturally and socially, and when their lives intersect at many points. When nearness sours or explodes it releases strange, fearsome demons.
Those shocked by the bestial or barbaric nature of the communal violence in Gujarat would do well to read some accounts of the carnages in Rwanda and Bosnia. In both cases, the two communities involved were close to each other and ethnic cleansing took the forms of a particularly brutal, self-destructive exorcism. And the same thing happened during the great Partition killings in 1946-48. The ongoing death dance in West Asia, with the Arabs and Israelis locked in an embrace of death, is another instance of the same game."[/b]
I know that even something as seemingly benign as a campaign for a name change for a city or a country can be manipulated into 'them' and 'us' based rioting and I do think that's what Modi's purpose is. He does want to promote violence between Muslims and Hindus, imo.
In Britain, it's not as easy to get folks to riot based on religious differences, although it can be an underlying factor. Riot's here like the one's in Brixton and Toxteth in 1981, were to do with economic disparity due to Thatcher's policies and police relationships with the black community in those places.
But there are still similarities in all examples of rioting, where people are maddened enough to destroy their own community environment, because much of it is privately owned.
It's the extreme violence towards people who are not in your tribe/faith which is so shocking!
[b]This situation has come about not because the Inter-Services Intelligence or the ISI of Pakistan omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent like God himself, according to many Indians has planned it that way. Nor because the minorities have been the main victims in the recent riots. This situation of civil war has arisen because minorities now know that they cannot hope to have any protection from the state government. Lower-level functionaries of the state government have been complicit with rioters many times and in many states. But this is probably for the first time after the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 that the entire state machinery, except for some courageous dissenters among the administrators and in the law-and-order machinery, has turned against the minorities.
The minorities of Gujarat are by now aware that, for good or worse, they will have to prepare to protect themselves. This is a prescription for disaster. It will underscore the atmosphere of a civil war and create a new breeding ground for terrorism. More than Operation Blue Star, the anti-Sikh riots spawned terrorism in Punjab in the 1980s; the two decades of rioting in Gujarat has by now similarly produced the sense of desperation that precedes the breakout of terrorism.[/b]
When things get as bad as described below, (Warning: only read the extract below from the article, if you want to read about another example of how savage the 'them' and 'us' mentality can manifest) can philosophers or democratic socialists or atheists or scientists, find a permanent solution to such human atrocity, committed on other humans? No god seems able to. So we only have the revulsion felt by all decent humanity, as our motivation to prevent the horrors described in the article and specifically in the extract below.
[hide="Reveal"][b]Numbed with disgust and horror, I return from Gujarat ten days after the terror and massacre that convulsed the state. ... As you walk through the camps of riot survivors in Ahmedabad, in which an estimated 53,000 women, men, and children are huddled in 29 temporary settlements, displays of overt grief are unusual. ... But once you sit anywhere in these camps, people begin to speak and their words are like masses of pus released by slitting large festering wounds. The horrors that they speak of are so macabre, that my pen falters... The pitiless brutality against women and small children by organised bands of armed young men is more savage than anything witnessed in the riots that have shamed this nation from time to time during the past century...
What can you say about a woman eight months pregnant who begged to be spared. Her assailants instead slit open her stomach, pulled out her foetus and slaughtered it before her eyes. What can you say about a family of nineteen being killed by flooding their house with water and then electrocuting them with high-tension electricity?
What can you say? A small boy of six in Juhapara camp described how his mother and six brothers and sisters were battered to death before his eyes. He survived only because he fell unconscious, and was taken for dead. A family escaping from Naroda-Patiya, one of the worst-hit settlements in Ahmedabad, spoke of losing a young woman and her three month old son, because a police constable directed her to "safety" and she found herself instead surrounded by a mob which doused her with kerosene and set her and her baby on fire.
I have never known a riot which has used the sexual subjugation of women so widely as an instrument of violence as in the recent mass barbarity in Gujarat. There are reports every where of gangrape, of young girls and women, often in the presence of members of their families, followed by their murder by burning alive, or by bludgeoning with a hammer and in one case with a screw-driver.
Gujarat disowned Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi long ago. The states political soul has been won over by his killers. This time they have not only assassinated him again, they have danced on his dead body, howling with delight and mouthing obscenities. The Gandhians, in response, took out some ineffective peace processions, when they should have taken a public position against the regime and the Nazi Gauleiter ruling Gujarat. One is not surprised when told by the newspapers that the Sabarmati Ashram, instead of becoming the citys major sanctuary, closed its gates to protect its properties.[/b][/hide]
"More than a decade ago, when Narendra Modi was a nobody, a small-time RSS pracharak trying to make it as a small-time BJP functionary, I had the privilege of interviewing him along with Achyut Yagnik, whom Modi could not fortunately recognise. (Fortunately because he knew Yagnik by name and was to later make some snide comments about his activities and columns.) It was a long, rambling interview, but it left me in no doubt that here was a classic, clinical case of a fascist. I never use the term fascist as a term of abuse; to me it is a diagnostic category comprising not only ones ideological posture but also the personality traits and motivational patterns contextualising the ideology.
Modi, it gives me no pleasure to tell the readers, met virtually all the criteria that psychiatrists, psycho-analysts and psychologists had set up after years of empirical work on the authoritarian personality. He had the same mix of puritanical rigidity, narrowing of emotional life, massive use of the ego defence of projection, denial and fear of his own passions combined with fantasies of violence all set within the matrix of clear paranoid and obsessive personality traits. I still remember the cool, measured tone in which he elaborated a theory of cosmic conspiracy against India that painted every Muslim as a suspected traitor and a potential terrorist. I came out of the interview shaken and told Yagnik that, for the first time, I had met a textbook case of a fascist and a prospective killer, perhaps even a future mass murderer."
Quoting universeness
Mahatma Gandhi, as a Hindu, was able to use his religion to not only elevate himself (by taking the Hindu Ved?ntic view of seeing the ultimate reality everywhere to its logical conclusion and by defending the idea of Ahimsa), but also others. It was because of this that the rioters in Bengal stopped not by guns, but by his presence.
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/gandhi-the-one-man-army-behind-the-great-calcutta-miracle-2646644
His panpsychist and panentheistic idea of God was also tied with karma. As you read in that article, the Gandhians (and Nehruvians) have been in a state of decline for a long time. While the Congress party's rule remained, they felt little need to make the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru relevant (or, to be more accurate, present them in a more relevant manner) to the new generations. I remember the way we used to study about Mahatma Gandhi in our school. Instead of attempting to grasp the man in a holistic way, all we were given were facts that were to be remembered for an exam. Inadequate understanding of the founders of any nation is dangerous, and it isn't surprising that we now see a plethora of people believing misinformation about Mahatma Gandhi. Pandit Nehru was able to steer the nation towards progress despite his desire to not let the state be associated with religion. None of this would have happened without meaningful actions. The time for change (at all levels) is now. Taking democracy for granted is not an amazing idea.
I think that the core problems are extremism and dogmatism. I remember talking with a few communists who told me about the feeling of violence that used to rise within them whenever they met a well-off person. I was especially surprised by the fact that many of these rich people had actually gone to great lengths to help these people, but the hostility remained as the distinction between "us" and the "other" was so rigid.
Edit: Also, I find it humourous that plenty of young Indians curse the socialism of Pandit Nehru and others while Swami Vivekananda, who was possibly the most influential Hindu thinker to have existed in the last two centuries (alongside Mahatma Gandhi) and who is repeatedly considered a hero by the far side of the right wing, was actually in favour of socialism.
"I am a socialist not because I think it is a perfect system, but half a loaf is better than no bread."
https://vivekavani.com/cxii-mary-letters-swami-vivekananda/
Then again, this isn't shocking in view of the fact that they can manage to downplay the significance of the following words:
"For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam Vedanta brain and Islam body is the only hope."
https://www.swamivivekananda.guru/2017/02/19/vedanta-brain-and-islam-body-only-hope-for-our-motherland/
We are broadly of the same mind regarding Modi and regarding what needs to be pursued to prevent the horrors described in the article you posted and the attempts to silence more rational minds, such as that of Ravish Kumar, in the video doc you posted. I can only hope that more TPF members will post their views on this stuff, on your thread here. I personally think it's very good, if a discussion on a name change, can expand into the much more serious, but related areas of realpolitik and what people face on a daily basis in communities all over the world. Surely philosophy is an integral part of that. If it is not, then philosophy is a sheep, imo.
Names matter. My mother attended Robert E. Lee High School and was a proud Rebel, but that's no more. The winners get to choose the names: Ho Chi Minh City versus Saigon, Istanbul versus Constantinople, New York versus New Amsterdam, Her/She versus they/them, The Washington Commanders versus the Washington Redskins, and even Israel versus Jacob.
A name serves to protect the current status quo and it is for that reason the name change follows the revolution. If India is in a state of revolution over its past, the push for the name change is but a symptom of that revolution. The battle lines will likely arise in all sorts of places, with the name being one area for the focus, but I'd think too much time shouldn't be spent defending the flag, the official colors, or the other labels, but instead of fighting for or againt whatever it is that is the true source of the battle.
That is, if India's politics are sufficiently oppressive that they've lost popular support, the flag is going to fall as a consequence, and it seems misguided to just stand around the flag trying to hold it high, as if the battle is actually over the literal flag.
In our case, this isn't as much about changing the name as it is about removing one of the names (one that has been used to identify the country for centuries, including by those who fought for our freedom). Revolutions can lead to peace and progress, but they can also turn the ship towards the opposite direction. Of course, the flag alone is not enough, but in a society that is heavily influenced by symbols, it cannot be left alone either. For if it falls, it's possible that it will have enough force to form a crack into the already weak wall in front of the pole. It is true, however, that this is but the first step.
You're pointing to a weak foundation that prudence would dictate protecting so that the entire structure won't fall. The problem is that the foundation is weak because there are those who see no advantage in supporting it because it doesn't promote their interests.
It's like telling the disenfranchised to work harder for their paltry pay and to support a system that helps their oppressors because if they push back too hard they'll have even less. It's a hard argument to make to those motivated by fairness over comfort.
My comments are generic and not focused on India's particular history or present day situation because I don't know enough about day to day life in India or where its fault lines are. I just see it as a universal dilemma, where you have to decide between pragmatics and justice. One hopes justice is chosen over control, but typically it's a mixture of both, at least in liberalized countries, which means some semblace of a healthy society would include challenges to the status quo.
That is certainly the perception many have, which is what fuels the popularity of the government. At the same time, I do feel that it is possible to manipulate someone into either believing that they have an interest that they previously didn't, or to give them a "solution" that is going to cause a larger problem sooner or later. As you rightly said, challenges are inevitable. Still, I do hope that they can be met while they are manageable.