Nehru's Voyage - "Discovery of India"

Could someone, after reading and mediated on the above description, say something about Nehru’s voyage, “He “discovered” for himself and for us, the commoners, an India that is “a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision and yet very real and pervasive”

Thanks!

Radhe Radhe !

I am not really an expert on Nehru's vision of India. The reference in your quote is to his book ("The Discovery of India") in which he explains his understanding of India's history and his hopes for its entry into the modern world.

His goal is that of creating a modern nation out of the widely disparate ethnic and religious divisions in India, so that colors his understanding of the Indian past. He was a Gandhian in the sense that he saw India--Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian--as a single people and his goal was to create that kind of nation, a secular one in his own image. Understandable, when you think of the communal violence that he had seen, with narrowmindedness and bigotry on all sides.

If Nehru's vision interests you, perhaps you should read this book.

Thanks Jagat-ji,

After reading how you briefly presented Nehru’s voyage, which is a coherent thought, it is clear that something about Gandhi’s political movement resembles SBST’s ideas, or vice verse. Either way, him, SBST had almost the same approach regard to the conception of society as a “unity”, rather than “separated entities”. His ideas, which are the bases of Vaishnavism, are that everyone, regardless of Varna, can have the same opportunity to obtain the blessings of liberation. It looks that most of the thinkers at that time had the same urge necessity of uniting the strength of society, which had been broken by an imperialist system.

The idea, as you said, of uniting Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. Is revolutionary brahminical-political-ideology, based on Dharma, but opposite of the cast-division-system. Opposition, which is against the traditional system where people, is seeing according to birth. As so, as a way of reforming and liberating the entire society that traditional system was than challenged by Nehru, Gandhi, as well as by SBST.

In other words, who influenced whom? Did SBST influenced or had been influenced by Ghandi and Nehru. Or simply, the entire Gaudiya Vaishinavism had influenced all of them. Otherwise, where did they all get that idea of “Spiritually United Nations”?


Somehow, that similarity of thoughts is reflected by ACBS, a SBST’s disciple, who previously was a Gandhi’s follower:

Srimad Bhagavatam’s preface:

I think that all religious ideas have a social philosphy that envisages people living together in peace. Most of them tend to believe that if everyone believed the same thing, then there would be peace.

Prior to the coming of Islam, Hinduism worked out a kind of coexistence of religions--Jains, Buddhists and various kinds of Hindus shared the stage. There were various means by which this was done, and there was not always peace between these groups. Shankara more or less united the various Hindu sects under the banners of Vedanta and Smriti. Though all the sects fought to preserve their uniqueness, there was a kind of peace on the religious front. The Varnashram caste system managed to preserve a social peace for the most part. It functioned effectively in the agrarian society, where universal prosperity in the modern sense was never really expected.

Islam disrupted this modus vivendi, but even there, certain liberal Muslim thinkers, especially in the time of Aurangzeb, came to appreciate the philosophical perspective of the Hindus, but this excited a major reaction in the Muslim community. Hindus can see Christianity and Islam as "just other ways", but Christians and Muslims cannot and will not allow themselves to be reduced by this kind of relativism. Uneducated Muslims descended from tribal or lower caste Hindus often have traditions that are considered by orthodox Muslims to be pagan; orthodox Muslims frown on their participation in popular Hindu festivals, etc. As a result, there have been several Islamic revivals in the subcontinent that try to uproot these practices. But Indian Sufism has knowingly or unknowingly both influenced Hinduism and been influenced by it.

The coming of the British to India resulted in the introduction of European ideas. The 19th century was the post-Enlightenment and Romantic period in European thought--ideas of liberty, democracy were everywhere. They were brought to India and had a major influence on Indian thought.

I don't think that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was influenced by or influenced Nehru or Gandhi. They were products of their time, but in fact had quite divergent ideas on social issues.

Somehow, I was under the impression that the social-reformers of that time were cooperative in the sense of India’s liberation. Maybe not in the case of SBST; he had his own way of liberation… However, the idea of uniting nations, regardless of material merits, was a common thought which the spiritual and the political leaders shared.



And as you said, "The coming of the British to India resulted in the introduction of European ideas. The 19th century was the post-Enlightenment and Romantic period in European thought--ideas of liberty, democracy were everywhere. They were brought to India and had a major influence on Indian thought."

That probably was the central cause, which embarked many into that urge for social reforms.

If you actually believe this Jagat, then you are one of the most naive people to take birth on this planet. There was no peace in the caste system and by the time Islam entered India in full force, their "modus vivendi" was already disrupted (and corrupted) from within.

You have some proof? Why do you think there were Hindu kings? The Hindu social system is just a variant on feudalism. It works in agrarian societies.

It works through what some have called Sanskritization. There is no individual mobility, but entire jatis try to improve their status within the overall hierarchy. Vaishnavism and other sectarian religions serve as one of the mechanisms for this process. It's a lot more complex than Brahmins and Jats murdering and raping Dalit women.

Please tell me what you know about Varnashram prior to the coming of Islam.

What I know about the caste system (what you refer to as "varnashram") is that it is much ballyhooed by neo-vedic westerners from their "democratic" comfort-zones-vantage-points and much despised by the people who actually suffered at it's hands.

I don't know of anyone ballyhooing the Varnashram or caste system. As a matter of fact, I think that it is regularly condemned by everyone except for maybe a few scholars. Iskcon has an idealized vision, which nevertheless admits that the existing caste system is distorted.

My point is not to defend the caste system. I am only saying that all social systems arise and evolve because they work, however imperfectly, in the context where they arise and evolve.

When circumstances change, they also need to change.

Well, doh, that is the supposed "adaiva-varnasrama" in action, not the "daiva-varnasrama" that Krishna spoke of in BG.

One aspect not to forget is the number of people making up a societal unit. India the way it has been in recent times is no example of a social system that works well (even though it is still doing relatively well considering its huge over-population). About 50 years ago it had "only" around 300 million people. How much five hundred or a thousand years ago? The Greek Polis, in order to function well, could not have more than 10'000 inhabitants. Similar was the situation in medieval cities in Europe, where the traditional class-system not much different from the varna-system was in operation.

My point is that there never was an "ideal" version of the caste system and that it was a distorted concept from the get-go.
The type of society described in the purports of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and touted as "vedic" is far from ideal.




Where is the term "daiva-varnashram" used in the BG? Sloka number please?

Just curious, but how do you know? Please give me a brief summary explaining your studies into the history of varnashrama.

My studies include whatever comments you have come across in slokas or commentaries stating or alluding to the "fact" that someone is "high-born" or "low-born" depending on the work their family members do to earn a living.

High or low is a judgement, for which we have no gusto today, soaked with egalitarian ideas as we are. Simpler, more natural people, as in agrarian cullture, form judgements more according to everyday experience: For farmers for instance, the one with the bigger farm, the better place, is immediately seen as a master, because able to have more command on ressources than the others. The teacher is even higher, and higher than that the priest. The doctor is somewhere in between. There is a natural order expressed in the cyclic experience of life. The teacher knows how to reason well, better than the farmers, and the priest knows reason and the heart, knows what troubles people and relates them to transcendence.

And that is your basis for this:


Wow.

Please tell me, which texts were among those that were around since the get-go and describe the way varnAzrama actually existed?

You cannot make historical comments based on some isolated readings of religious texts!

The aryans came over to the region today known as India and organized themselves and the people they met with into a quasi caste system type of thing which later got more defined, refined, rigid and closed. People had issues then, as they have now. Never was there a "paradise on earth". That is not the nature of this world.

Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that at one point in time it may have been a feasible way to manage the society.

"Democracy is the worst type of government, except for all the other types that have been tried before."

Ah, that age-old wisdom. We are yet to come up with better solutions. Of course it would be cool if pasta would grow on trees and nobody had to do anything at all. Probably even that wouldn't work.

Even now, the caste system elicits admiration from certain quarters. There is such a thing as caste or jati solidarity that has huge positive ramifications for society. The problem is with entrenched caste privilege or exclusion. But, we have similar things in the West, where Jews, Wasps, Blacks, Hispanics, etc., all form caste groupings with very specific borders. Of course, the rules aren't written down or sanctioned by religion (at least not since slavery and Apartheid were abolished, and a few years ago the Pope generously agreed to absolve the Jews of any responsibility for Christ's death); but these things are existing...

As far as I can see, in the US, if your ancestors came over on the Mayflower, you are probably enjoying privileges that those who came over in a slave ship are not. How many black presidents, again? How many non-Wasp presidents was that again? One. And we know what happened to him... and his brother... (cue eerie music...)

India has already had a woman prime minister and it looks like it will have another one soon, did that improve the lot of women in India? What's your point, Jagat Sahib?

Well alright, so how do you know there was evern a "ideal" version or not?


Everyone knows that these words were not used by Krishna. The term is used to distinguish between the "ideal" and the "un-ideal" versions of the caste system, so this is a bit of a facetious request. Anyway, cAtur-varNyaM mayA sRSTaM guNa-karma-vibhAgazaH. [BG 4.13]


Oh well, I guess the UpaniSads and the VedAs are corrupted then, since the earliest indications of the caste system are to be found in these texts.


What Aryans?


Ever heard of rAma-rAjya?

On May 12 2004, I made a question about Nehru’s Voyage, that he shares in his book “Discovery of India" The topic went a bit off, but somehow, something was said about Nehru’s Voyage. Today I found something about Chanakya Pandita, by Nehru.

The author of this article presents Chanakya’s Life through different references; I thought it was interesting to share this one:

Chanakya can be found in Nehru's words in the Discovery of India,

"Chanakya has been called the Indian Machiavelli and to some extent the comparision is justified. But he was a much bigger person in every way, greater in intellect and reason. He was no mere follower of a King, a humble adviser of an all powerful emperor. A picture of him emerges from an old Indian [sanskrit] play 'mudra rakshasa' [rakshasa's ring] which deals with this period. Bold and scheming, proud and revengeful, never forgetting a slight, never forgetting his purpose, availing himself of every device to delude and defeat the enemy, he sat with the reins of empire in his hands and looked upon the emperor more as a loved pupil than as master. Simple and austere in life, uninterested in pomp and pageantry of high position, when he had redeemed his pledge and accomplished his purpose, he wanted to retire, brahminlike, to a life of contemplation.
There was hardly anything Chanakya would have refrained from doing to achieve his purposel he was unscrupulous enough, yet he was aslo wise enough to know that this very purpose might be defeated by means unsuited to the end. Long before Clausewitz, he is reported to have said that war is only a continuance of state policy by other means. But he adds, war must always serve the larger ends of policy and not become an end in itself. The statesman's objective must always be the betterment of the State as a result of war and not the mere defeat and destruction of the enemy."

Extracted from : Mera Bharata Mahan

===============================================
Later edited///

Since Machiavelli’s name was mentioned, and as a matter off (bad?) habit, let me go a bit off too with a link to “The Prince” by Nicolo Machiavelli in CHAPTER XXV, where he talks about "What Fortune Can Effect In Human Affairs, And How To Withstand Her".

I was surprised by his poetical, lyrical and (of course), marvels ironic ability.

"The Prince"