The Ugly Indian
©Lúcio Mascarenhas, October 28, 2004.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].
Recently, a minor controversy had erupted on the pages of the Times of India, following the publication of Jug Suraiya's article,
"Mind It, We Are Like That Only!", trashing the "Ugly Indian". I have collated the Suraiya article, the rebuttals and responses, his counter-rebuttal, and other articles written on the same subject prior to Suraiya's (See below).
It is interesting that the vast majority of responses corroborated Suraiya. That is a positive development: that the Indians are beginning to wake up to reality. However, what these articles and responses make amply clear, is that the Indians, while they have begun, are still too very far from arriving at the true appreciation of the facts.
It is my purpose in this article, to analyze and demonstrate, using basically these documents, this fact, and also to show to the Indian and to the Goan, etc., what the true facts are.
The first fact that strikes one's attention is that, of those who make apologies for Indianism, and of those who admit the uglinesses and warts of the idol of Indianism, both are nevertheless agreed on the grandeur and magnificence of Indian civilization. Those, indeed, who deplore the warts, deplore them as aberrations that detract from the glory and grandeur of Indian civilization.
Every Indian repeats unthinkingly and uncritically the same theme-song: India is an ancient civilization. Some even boldly span it over the last four thousand years!
The one rebuttal of Suraiya postulated the superiority of Indian customs and traditions over that of the west. As an example, he postulated that the
"Namaste", as a means of salutation is superior — and more hygienic — as against the handshake.
Is the
"Namaste" more hygienic than the Handshake? To speak of "hygiene" is to miss the point. Both signs have different meanings, and convey different results.
The Handshake began as a token of sincerity and of being unarmed, of having put one's sword away. Handshakes, in different forms and with different vigors, convey different meanings, but as a whole, their meaning is sharply different from that of the
"Namaste".
The
"Namaste" on the contrary, is a coded sign between peoples who admit to a mutual privilege, and, unlike the Handshake, is not meant to be universal. The primary meaning of the
"Namaste" is theological, being a salutation to the supposed deity-hood that supposedly exists in one's soul, according to Hinduism.
Again, while the Handshake was practiced by all European peoples without discrimination, the
"Namaste" was permitted only to members of the
Dvijas or "Upper Castes", and any attempt by a Dalit or
"Mleccha" ("Barbarian") to greet a Dvija with a
"Namaste" produced violent results: the Dvija considered himself insulted and injured, and recourses to violence to right this "wrong".
Nor is this merely "ancient" history. I have a news-report of an incident in the vicinity of New Delhi, in 2001, where a Dalit girl, and then her father, were assaulted by the Dvija teachers, because the girl had dared to salute him the
"Namaste"! (
http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/salute.html)
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his article on the subject of Caste oppression, recounts the history of the ancient quarrel between the Brahmins and the Goldsmiths, over the Goldsmiths' use of the "Namaskar", and the Brahmins' objection to the Goldsmiths using that salutation! Ambedkar tells us (
http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/ambedmanu.html):
In the Bombay Presidency, so high a caste as that of the Sonars (Caste of Goldsmiths) were forbidden to wear their Dhoties with folds and prohibited to use the Namaskar as the word of salutation.
Under the Maratha rule any other than a Brahmin uttering a Veda Mantra was liable to have his tongue cut off and as a matter of fact the tongues of several Sonars were actually cut off by the order of the Peshwa for their daring to recite the Vedas contrary to law.
Having done with the mythology of the
"Namaste", let us examine another of our anonymous postulant's thesis:
"Down the ages, travellers' accounts of this country have been full of praise for our legendary hospitality and conviviality. Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam — "the world is one family" has been the theme of our interactions for centuries with the outside world."
Let me begin by saying that
"Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam" does not complete the picture. The other necessary pieces are
"Atithi Daivo Bhava" — "treat your guest as god!" and the third teaching that teaches the Hindu to visit and study in other countries other than his native country.
These principles, too, should be understood according to context. It is not very difficult to understand what those contexts are.
Firstly, all Hindu teachings are directed only and solely to the Dvijas, and exclude all others. It is forbidden for a Hindu to teach a non-Dvija, it is forbidden for a non-Dvija to learn the Hindu doctrines.
In an ideal, Hindu state, the punishment for a non-Dvija who has infracted this rule is torture and execution!
According to Hinduism, "India" is not seen as a "country" but, similar to the Greeks, as being a patchwork of countries (called "
desas", the Greeks used "
polis") beyond which live the unclean barbarians, the Mlechhas.
The Hindu was encouraged to visit other "Indian" countries. That is, for example, a Hindu Dvija from Maharashtra or Gujarat was encouraged to visit Magadh or Maithila or Koshal or Braj-Bhum, etc.
On the contrary, if a Hindu Dvija went beyond the boundaries of this "India", crossing the
"Kala-pani" (black-waters) he committed a grave sin, suffered pollution and lost his caste position to become a "low caste" or even a "Mlechha".
This threat confronted many who wished to go to England and the outside world. It was a difficulty that was confronted even by Mohandas Caramchand Gandhi.
The concept that the Hindu may go anywhere in the world, is very recent, and is the result of the collapse of Hindu sensibilities on this matter.
The catch-phrases
"Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam" and
"Atithi Daivo Bhava" are meant only for Dvijas and to be practised by Dvijas in favour of Dvijas, and never for any other people, whether Dalit or Mlechha.
It would indeed by a great and wondrous thing if the Hindus truly believed in these three principles on a universal and indiscriminate manner. However, as a matter of fact, orthodox Hinduism is very far from admitting such a universal and indiscriminate sense to these phrases; they are to be understood in their context, in the context of other, limiting teachings.
The ancient Greeks had similar principles. They had a value system that taught them to honor and respect and entertain "guests", but other texts defined exactly who qualified as guests; while other texts taught them to despise and hate and destroy or enslave (as "helots"), if presented with the opportunity, other people who did not qualify as "guests".
As a matter of pointed fact, while it is certainly true that several aliens visited India and chronicled their reception and travels, it is not true that the credit for this belongs with Hinduism. On the contrary, the credit belongs to Buddhism, which largely instigated these journeys, as pilgrimages.
Again, while it is true that nominally Hindu kings such as Harshavardhana also entertained Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, it is necessary to point out that this was in a society where Buddhism prevailed, and where even Hindu kings found it politic to treat well Buddhist pilgrims....
But as a matter of fact, the Hindus themselves, when left to themselves, have always looked upon outsiders as "Yakshas", and have by-and-large, ill-treated and even killed them!
But certainly, all of what I have said in the foregoing is not the complete picture. Today, if one encounters a Hindu, he is eager to have you learn his beliefs; he is eager that you learn to make the
"Namaste" and the
"Namaskar" and that you should even become a Hindu� a task actually impossible by the standards of orthodox Hinduism.
How does one explain this? Perhaps, all that I have narrated in the foregoing is all false, a malicious slander and a lie, designed to mislead and to create a spirit of antagonism among non-Hindus towards Hinduism, and which lie is proven by the current practice of Hinduism?
Certainly, some would suggest, even allege this.
But as a matter of fact, contemporary Hinduism has been modified as a result of two factors.
The first was British rule. At the end of the fight to regain independence, the Hindus realized that, in a modern democracy, the old rules cannot be followed without drawing the condemnation of the whole world. So he dissembles.
The second factor is that Hinduism has been confronted with Christianity, and has realized that in order to cope and to survive, it would need to modify itself. So it has made basic, opportunistic changes: changes that do not have warrant in true Hindu theology.
Thus, only if one can be adopted by a living relative who is still a Hindu, can one become a Hindu, being readmitted to the particular caste to which one had originally belonged, after being "purified" of "spiritual pollutions" of the outside world. No other persons can be admitted as a Hindu. Certainly, that means that if a foreigner comes up and wishes to become a Hindu, there is no theological basis on which he can be accepted as one.
Secondly, the Hindu has decided that the best means of beating the Christians is by going on the counter-offensive, by actively proselytizing among Europeans and other peoples, even despite the theological impossibility of these ever truly becoming Hindu. Now it should be evident to even an inferior intelligence that Hinduism is far beneath Christianity and no match for it. Yet, it thrives and succeeds, not because of its own inherent strength, but because many who were once Christians have debased themselves, and seek to
latch onto some system that justifies that debasement as being "moral", and so they latch onto either Hinduism or some such older, Eastern paganism, or they invent for themselves some new paganism, such as Wicca, the New Age Movement, Scientology, Reiki, Raelism, etc. This is a phenomenon that is restricted to those who have abandoned Christianity, and who therefore go lusting after degrading things!
(See also
http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/ayyappa.html)
Renuka Narayanan in her article, The Ugly Indian, reports on a particular incident:
"She blathers on about how every good idea in the world was actually born in the mind of some ancient rishi."
This in fact is typical of Hinduism. If there is anything good in the world, it originated in India, in the mind of some ancient, legendary rishi or guru or something!
In the same article, Narayanan reports on the mistreatment of spastic children:
"Well, why must we bellyache about this? Does anything in our mainstream religion or culture teach us to include the disabled? Take the story of the blind medieval poet Surdas. His own parents rejected him because of his disability. His brothers got good food and new clothes on Deepavali. He did not. When the village children mocked him, he ran to his parents for comfort, but they pushed him away. One day he just left home in the wake of some wandering singers, who fed him that night, but stole away while he slept. If Surdas had not discovered that he could sing, would he have had a life? Of course not! In India you have to overcompensate, if you're disabled."
But, Narayanan probes further to the Great Indian Civil War, the Mahabharata War, provoked by the mutual animosities of the Kuru and Pandava cousins:
"I mean, just look at the honorable cultural precedent. In the Mahabharata, Duryodhana lifts the hem of his dhoti because he thinks he's about to step into a pool of water in the Maya Vilas (Palace of Illusions). Draupadi loudly mocks him as the unseeing son of a blind father because he's fooled by the trompe l'oeil. None of the Pandava elders rebuke her for this flagrant discourtesy, this appalling show of bad manners."
Narayanan comes the closest to the truth. Even Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire, recorded the lack of a social sense and of a civic sense and hygiene, among the Hindus of Delhi in his time — a sharp contrast to that of his native Afghanistan and Central Asia!
All this utterly demolishes the illusion of a "four thousand year old civilization". There was and is none. What India represents is an anomaly that can be best described as "structured disorder" or "structured anarchy".
But it is necessary to probe further. There is a reason why such a system was created, and why it was sustained, guarded and preserved. The reason is not difficult to find: It is caste-ism or the
Varna-Asrama.
The Caste System deliberately structured society in order to perpetuate itself. It was in its interest to keep the "Caste" groups fighting among themselves and unbalanced, so that the Brahmins could continue to rule unchallenged, from behind the scenes, on the backs of the Kshatriyas. It prevented the integration of society, and therefore the development of an integral sense of civic hygiene.
Hindu hygiene, is therefore, restricted to within one's home: Clean up one's own home and cast the rubbish outside!
Therefore, in sum, my message to the "Ugly Indian" is: If you want to find the true roots of your Ugliness, and not do mere cosmetic surgery, you must confront the fact that the great tradition of three or four thousand years that you boast of, is actually the culprit; that this tradition is the root and cause of your present problem.
You must confront and overcome your tradition of self-conceit and of self-deceit, of a sense of racial superiority, all of which is false and foolish.
It is not the world that has to learn from you, but you who have to learn from the world. For all their problems, integral societies fare better than hypocritical societies!
Narayanan also tells of the angst of Indian industry leaders, who sought answers from "Sri Sri Ravi Sankar" to these queries:
- Why has India lost her 'moral authority'
- Why is India 'unable to realize her potential'
- Why has India 'lost her esteemed rank in the world community'.
These questions are important. They are important because they betray the Indian mindset, the mindset that makes Indians "ugly" to all mankind.
Answer #1: Who told you that you have "moral authority"? What is the basis of this fond self-delusion?
Answer #2: Who told you that India has / had "an esteemed rank in the world community"? What is the basis of this fond self-delusion?
Answer # 3: India is not able to realize her potential because she is lame. She is lame because she is not integral, but is unequal. Her inequality is founded in Hinduism, which is based on the Caste System, which is an integral and indispensable part of Hinduism.
India is also unable to realize her potential because she refuses to meet reality in the eye, but insists on her pompous self-conceit, and on patronising everybody else, and demanding special considerations for herself, bullying others and being totally inconsiderate, and thereby demonstrating her utter "ugliness"!
Christendom is built on the principle that "if a man must boast, let him boast in the Lord". That a Christian boasts in himself, in his racial superiority or technical or civilization superiority is proof not of the failure of Christianity, but of the distance that the former Christian has traveled from Christianity!
On the contrary, when a Hindu boasts of the superiority of Hinduism and of India, he is not acting contrary to the precepts of Hinduism, which is ignorant of humility.
Lúcio Mascarenhas.
Jug Suraiya's Ugly Indian: The Controversy
- Jug Suraiya: Mind It, We Are Like That Only!—Part 1
- Jug Suraiya: Mind It, We Are Like That Only!—Part 2
- Jug Suraiya: Mind It, We Are Like That Only!—Part 3
- Jug Suraiya: Mind It, We Are Like That Only!—Part 4
- Jug Suraiya: Mind It, We Are Like That Only!—Part 5 (END)
- Response—Rupa Parekh
- Response—Manish Chowdhary
- In Rebuttal—Why See Ourselves Through Foreign Eyes?
- Comments on Rebuttal—Raynah
- Comments on Rebuttal—Satish Dayal
- Interview With Etiquette Trainer Abhymanyu Acharya
- The Ugly Indian Controversy—Sarika Chuni Reports
- The Ugly Indian Controversy—Sarika Chuni Reports—Part II (END)
- Jug Suraiya's Counter-Rebuttal: Rude The Obscure
- Anil Dharker: The Ugly Indian
- Renuka Narayan: The Ugly Indian
- Sunanda Datta-Ray: The Ugly Indian
Responses: "Ugly Indians"
Responses, TOI, Oct., 18, '04:
When it comes to civic discipline, there can't be a worse example than us Indians. I have been living in Tanzania, East Africa, for seven years now and there is no doubt that the Tanzanians are much poorer than the Indians here. But there is a dignity about them.
Indians, with their flashy clothes and loudness, are no patch on Tanzanians when it comes to manners and personal
hygiene. No Tanzanian, even a child, would pass by without greeting you. And the admirable thing is that they greet everyone, be it a cleaner, clerk or officer, with the same respect.
Only yesterday, I took my child for an allergy test to a hospital. There was a long queue, with about 50 people awaiting their turn. While the Tanzanians sat patiently, the Indians started fidgeting and
chatting loudly with one another while their kids (including mine, I must admit) ran amok.
According to me, patriotism is not necessarily dying for your country. It can be something as simple as treating your surroundings with respect. We Indians do have some noteworthy qualities, but without civic discipline, no one will look beyond our 'ugly' exterior.
Rupa Parekh, via e-mail.
Responses, TOI, Oct., 19, '04:
Hats off to Jug Suraiya for describing the unpleasant truth about most of us ('Ugly Indian: We Are Like That Only', Oct. 4). Unless we get rid of our national traits of laziness, dishonesty, corruption, selfishness, indiscipline, insincerity, nepotism and hypocrisy, we will never be able to fly the flag of our 4,000-year old civilization higher.
-Shouvik Kharui, Boisar
I agree with the letter in response to Suraiya's article ('Ugly Indians', 'Conversations With Our Readers', Oct. 18). As a consultant to many international companies, I regularly travel to different areas of the world, and I often have to hang my head in shame when I find a fellow Indian misbehaving with a polite policeman or salesgirl. Most Indians, I am sorry to say, just don't know the meaning of politeness and are ignorant that words like 'excuse me', 'sorry' and 'thank you' exist.
I have seen Indians relieving themselves in public places in full view of the local population in European countries. And mind you, I am not talking about poor immigrants but well-heeled tourists.
Manish Chowdhary, Kolkata.
We Indians decorate our interiors and splash filth on exteriors unashamedly. We honk automobiles at night in sleeping residential areas. We overtake vehicles on a narrow two-lane street probably to spend time at the next paan shop discussing how best the country can be run.
A line from my childhood—'Character is what you do when no one is watching'—sums it all up.
Gopa Pandey, via e-mail.
©Lúcio Mascarenhas.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].