Modi Sarkar @2 : The Real Challenge

It would be churlish to deny the  excellent work being done for economic and administrative improvement.

One,however, acknowledges this with trepidation, lest such appreciation be taken as endorsement of the social horrors being let loose by the emboldened fringes of the parivar.

Prof J S Bandukwala has posited a very sensible and doable way forward for RSS, i.e to give up it's hatred of Muslims, in the tradition of Nanak and Kabir, Tagore and Gandhi.

Jinnah made the mistake of moving away: why punish ourselves, both Muslims and Hindus? Even Sikhs and Christians get targeted.

This then represents the real challenge for Modi Sarkar. Will Modi Ji be just a good CEO of Indian economy, (like a good gujrati businessman), Or, be remembered alongside Mahatma Gandhi; even Nehru, whom they are trying to downplay, even denigrate?

Recent Inflexion Point on Terrorism

The history of terrorism is as old as humans' willingness to use violence to affect politics.

Thru most of the history groups of dissenting individuals have waged war against an established order, a state, fiefdom, a nation. Such groups were called anarchists, terrorists, traitors etc.

Equally the state attacked dissenting private groups, tribes communities to ensure its writ.

The graphic below eloquently illustrates the accompanying narrative.   

In the 20th century, terrorism continued to be associated with a vast array of anarchist, socialist, fascist and nationalist groups, many of them engaged in 'third world' anti-colonial struggles.

Terrorism began to have a negative connotation when the Americans first experienced violent attacks on themselves abroad, as on the US Embassy in Kenya or on USS Cole during the late 1990s. Finally when 9/11 took place, terrorism was labelled as America’s and by implication the world’s number 1 problem.

This is the first inflexion point : The al-Qaeda changed the meaning and practice of terrorism.

Meghnad Desai made a very interesting observation in a recent article in Indian Express, that once USA suffered it decided to clamp down on the American Irish funding on Sein Finn, which finally helped British to calm its northern borders.

Quote " It was only in late 20th century in Northern Ireland that the terrorist activity became sectarian and directed against civilian population as well. Once the Americans became hostile to terrorism, they withdrew the financial support. After that, peace was easy to achieve in Northern Ireland" Unquote. 

The second Inflexion point

Another interesting change has been, according to Meghnad Desai, that now the terrorist event take place against civilians rather than state or nation so far.

This change in terrorist tactics has given the sinister edge to Islamist terrorism.

Tangentially, if Meghnad Desai's conjecture is fair, Mr Modi's strategic recommendation to identify and cut financing sources of ISIS and other groups must be worked on. 

Gayatri Mantra

Three interpretations : All different ; All correct : all acceptable

Debatable? Some would

Recite it with your own meaning

An artistic rendering : recite it

Gita - New Perspective II

You can approach Gita as Arjuna, with curiosity, OR as Dhritrashtra, with suspicion and judgement. What you take away will be your subjective truth ; your Gita.

The Gita itself values subjectivity : after concluding his counsel, Krishna tells Arjuna to reflect on what has been said, and then do as he feels ( Yatha ichasi tatha kuru )

Not a prescriptive 'dharma granth", shall we say.  

The Gita - A new Perspective

Devdutt Pattanaik’s Reason #2 for writing “My Gita” is a completely new take on the context in which Gita is “created”  

We never actually hear what Krishna told Arjuna. We simply overhear what Sanjaya transmitted faithfully to the blind king Dhritrashtra in the comfort of the palace, having witnessed all that occurred on the distant battlefield, thanks to his telepathic sight.

The Gita we overhear is essentially that which is narrated by a man with no authority but infinite sight (Sanjaya) so a man with no sight but full authority (Dhritrashtra).

This particular structure of the narrative draws attention to the vast gap between what is told (gyana) and what is heard (vi-gyana).

Krishna and Sanjaya may speak exactly the same words, but while Krishna knows what he is talking about, Sanjaya does not. Krishna is the source, while Sanjaya ismerely a transmitter. Likewise, what Sanjaya hears is different from what Arjuna hears and what Dhritrashtra hears.

Sanjaya hears the words, but does not bother with the meaning. Arjuna is a seeker and so he decodes what he hears to find a solution to his problem.

Dhritrashtra is not interested in what Krishna has to say. While Arjuna asks many questions and clarifications, ensuring the ‘discourse’ is a ‘conversation’. Dhritrashtra remains silent throughout. In fact, Dhritrashtra is fearful of Krishna who is fighting against his children, the Kauravas.

So, he judges Krishna’s words, accepting what serves him, dismissing what does not.

Therefore, you can approach the Gita as Arjuna, with curiosity, or as Dhritrashtra, with suspicion and judgement. What you take away will be your subjective truth: your Gita.

Wow ! A completely new perspective.

I presume the Mahavakya “Ahm brahmasmi” interpreted as “I create my own world”, is reinforced or reiterated. 

In colonial times, Christianity dominated the world, and so religions that did not have a book were dismissed as false religions leading to a scramble amongst Hindus to find one single holy book. Bhagavad Gita’s popularity over the last century is indicative of this need.