J. Sai Deepak’s Senseless Diatribe Against the Much-Maligned
Charvaka
Shrikant G. Talageri
Recently, I wrote an article on Anand Ranganathan (being interviewed about “Dhurandhar”) in which I stated that the three greatest Hindu intellectuals today are Anand Ranganathan, J. Sai Deepak and Vikram Sampath. I still stand by it, but someone just directed my attention to the video of a recent talk by J. Sai Deepak which was so incredibly fatuous and naïve that I was literally struck dumb. I still cannot believe that J. Sai Deepak said all these things. And I would really be very much interested in knowing whether Anand Ranganathan would agree with him in respect of what he says in this video (particularly about atheists, or those who do not believe in an “after life”, being “woke”):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfkVM9Df3c
I wonder whether J. Sai Deepak really understands the meaning of words that he has used in the video, like Charvaka, atheism, Sanatana Dharma, wokism, etc. Almost everything he said in this video was so bizarre that I really began to wonder whether it was an AI-generated video, although common sense told me it was not.
In this video, J. Sai Deepak, after pointing out (correctly) that European culture is being completely destroyed by wokists, goes on to claim that Charvaka was the “woke-pati” of India responsible for the decline and fall of Hinduism/Indian-Culture.
Before going into the matter, let us first understand whatever little is known about Charvaka (though I took the information from Google AI overview for instant results, any other source will yield the same information, since that is basically all the information that is available):
Question Put to Google: “Aphorisms of Charvaka”.
Google AI Overview Reply:
“The
Charvaka school (or Lokāyata) is an ancient Indian materialistic and hedonistic
philosophy that rejected the Vedas, afterlife, and supernaturalism, asserting
that direct perception is the only source of knowledge. It posited that
consciousness arises from matter and that human life should focus solely on
maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain.
Key
Aphorisms and Doctrines
·
"Live well, as long
as you live. Live well even by borrowings, for, once cremated, there is no
return." — Often quoted as the core hedonistic mantra, rejecting the
concept of rebirth.
·
"While life remains,
let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt."
·
"There is no heaven,
no final liberation, nor any soul in another world."
·
"Earth, water, fire,
and air are the principles, nothing else." — Denying the existence of
an immaterial soul.
·
"Perception indeed
is the (only) means of right knowledge." — Skepticism towards
inference and scripture.
·
"The fire is hot,
water cold... By whom came this variety? They are self-existent." —
The world exists naturally, not by a divine creator.
·
"The only liberation
is death." — (Maranameva mokshaha).
Key
Principles
·
Body is
Life: Consciousness is an emergent property of the body, just as
intoxication is produced by mixing ingredients (such as wine).
·
Anti-Ritualism: They
argued that Vedic rituals (like sacrifice) were invented by cunning priests for
their own livelihood, and offer no actual results.
·
Rejection of the
Soul: When the body is burned, it is cut off, annihilated; nothing
survives death.
Note: Much of Charvaka philosophy is reconstructed from the works of opponents, as their original texts (like the Barhaspatya Sutras) were lost.”
The above is a practically complete list of Charvaka’s doctrines; all, moreover, known, as correctly pointed out above, only through the works of opponents or followers of rival doctrines. In describing the evils of Islamic Imperialism and its (Islam’s) record in the destruction of temples, Sita Ram Goel has pointed out that the value of the evidence is all the more powerful because it comes from Islamic sources themselves, rather than from sources inimical to Islam. Likewise, that the condemnation of defeated peoples by the victors who defeated and destroyed them (including the strong indictments of Pagan religions and Native American religions by Christian Evangelist sources) is always to be taken with a heavy and cynical pinch of salt is a very basic doctrine in evaluating evidence for the purpose of passing judgment. Here, the criticisms of Sai Deepak are based exclusively on the quotes of critics and opponents.
But that – i.e. alleging that the descriptions of Charvaka’s philosophy as described by its critics and opponents are necessarily biased and false (much of it is in fact reasonably correct) − is not my main criticism of J. Sai Deepak’s condemnation of Charvaka, although that is also a factor to be taken into consideration in evaluating condemnation of anyone by anyone. My main criticism is that what J. Sai Deepak condemns about Charvaka (and his allegation that Charvaka represents the “Wokism” that was responsible for the decline and fall, and for the destruction, of India/Hinduism/Indian-Culture) seems to have no connection with the doctrines of Charvaka as known to anyone (see the full known doctrines given above), and Sai Deepak seems to have invented a new strawman-“Charvaka” having no connection whatsoever with the real Charvaka.
Firstly, what is wrong about “Wokism” is not that woke people do not unquestioningly accept as facts orthodox concepts of the afterlife and orthodox doctrines of God, karma, punarjanma, scriptural authority, etc. By that criterion people like Savarkar, Anand Ranganathan, and myself, besides literally countless others fighting for the Hindu Cause, would also be liable to be branded as at least as “woke” as Charvaka, and can equally be held (by Sai Deepak’s criterion) to be as much villains as, and in the same category as, the actual woke forces out to destroy Hinduism and Indian Culture.
It will be seen above that Charvaka’s doctrines (whether one likes them or not) merely delineate a particular philosophy of life, and a valid one at that, with no social activism of any kind involved anywhere. It is not for nothing that Charvaka’s doctrines are included in the Sarva-Darshana-Sangraha along with all the other philosophies of life prevalent in India in ancient times. Or that Charvaka is also classified as a muni (seer).
What is wrong with “Wokism” is not its philosophy in matters of the afterlife or in matters of ethics/morals, but its intrinsically destructive social activism, a central point of Woke ideology, which seeks to destroy the fundamental socio-cultural units and concepts of society, and seeks to actively block, stonewall and destroy people whose views are not palatable to them.
Not only is there no indication of any kind anywhere, directly or indirectly, that followers of Charvaka’s philosophy indulged in any kind of social activism directed against those not believing in their doctrines − trying to block, stonewall, destroy, isolate, boycott, expel, etc. anyone − but in fact there is direct evidence in many places that it is believers in the orthodox doctrines of God, karma, punarjanma, scriptural authority, etc. who believed in doing all these things to the real or believed-to-be followers of Charvaka’s philosophy.
In the Valmiki Ramayana, for example, in Ayodhya Kanda 109, we have the following words put in the mouth of Rama: “Those who preach the heretical doctrine of the Charvaka school, are not only infidels, but have deviated from the path of truth. It is the duty of a monarch to deal with such persons as with felons, nor should men of understanding and learning stand in the presence of such atheists”. An additional quote, considered to be an interpolation (obviously since the Buddha does not precede Rama in time and cannot have been known in the actual time of Rama), also says: “It is a well-known fact that a follower of Buddha deserves to be punished precisely in the same way as a thief, and know an unbeliever to be on par with a Bauddha, and these should be punished in the interest of the people, and a wise man should shun them”. Regardless of which quotes are “original” and which “interpolated”, it must be noted that the “woke” attitude of targeting and persecuting people with different views is not derived from Charvaka but from the doctrines of practically any religion. In that sense, Wokism is practically a religion in itself!
Clearly, classifying Charvaka as “woke” is the height of incongruity.
Secondly, even if one assumes (totally against the data and evidence) that the doctrines of Charvaka were capable of “woke”-like interpretation, leading to the destruction of society and culture, what was the actual reach of these doctrines?
Right from the time of the eponymous Charvaka (whatever his date) till the present day, it is doubtful whether at any point of time even .01 per cent of the population of India were ever aware even of his name, and much less of his doctrines; and not even a minuscule number even among these people may ever have been “influenced” by his views. And certainly there is not even a grain of possibility in the idea that his views influenced India to such an extent that it could have led to the destruction of Indian culture (as alleged by Sai Deepak). Nor is there the slightest evidence to show that the doctrines of Charvaka led to the foundation of a sect which propagated his views. In fact, if not for its description in the Sarva Darshana Sangraha, and mentions in the form of stray references in other ancient texts, the philosophical viewpoint of Charvaka would not even have been known to ever have existed.
The allegation that Charvaka was the cause of the destruction of Indian culture therefore has an eerie aura of unreality.
Thirdly, what exactly is there in the doctrines of Charvaka that is so dangerous to society or culture? Read all the doctrines as detailed above. Nowhere is there the slightest incitement to physical, mental or social violence; there is no advocacy of robbing, killing or even hating anyone; and nor is there any incitement against family values or society. In fact, he does not even advocate drinking or gambling or any other standard vice. In fact he is not even unorthodox enough to specifically advocate meat-eating.
Yes, certain of the doctrines seem to show a rather cavalier and irresponsible attitude towards certain basic principles of a decently sensible way of living: e.g. “Live well, as long as you live. Live well even by borrowings, for, once cremated, there is no return”, or “let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt”. But then this kind of attitude prevails, and has prevailed, among sizable sections of human society in every time and clime. It can be nobody’s claim that people read this doctrine of Charvaka’s and then, under its influence, decided to live a life of debt and profligate spending. So Charvaka cannot be held responsible even for this trend among any Hindus.
On the other hand, the basic principle of Charvaka’s teaching, “human life should focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain” is probably more fundamental for the betterment of any society than the basic principle of any religion. This statement is not elaborated by adding “even if, in the process you reduce the pleasure of other people and cause pain to others”. It is simply a standalone statement, proclaiming a fundamental truth, and after all it is not wrong in itself from any point of view (except a sadistic-masochistic one) for a human being to want to “focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain” and in fact the principle can be logically expanded as follows: “human life should focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain for one’s own self as well as for others and for humankind in general”. Can there be a better principle for improving the world and making it a better place for everyone? Any religion, on the other hand, has its own system of classifying human acts (or even ideas, ways of life, or particular views of “God” or “afterlife”, or particular forms of worship) as “good” or “bad” − and no two religions coincide in their views on these matters − and then every religion goes further by proclaiming “consequences” (ranging from a permanent “hell” full of tortures, to “reincarnation” into lives full of tortures) for those who fail to follow these rules in their behavior.
In comparison, the principle (as elaborated above) “human life should focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain for one’s own self as well as for others and for humankind in general” is faultless.
But in the video, Sai Deepak expresses his criticism for Charvaka (or rather for the strawman-Charvaka of his own creation) in many more ways, not one of which makes any sense.
For example he tells us (using the usual criticism against atheism) that Carvaka and (one assumes) his “followers” were responsible for the decline and fall of India and the destruction of Indian culture because “they had no faith in the concept of karma. They had no faith in the consequences of an action. If consequences of an action don’t matter, then what is good and what is bad? What is justice and what is injustice? Everything is same. So they believe even today that there is no life after life. And therefore there is no concept of a soul. What you see is everything. The two consequences are: it first kills the central unit, the family structure. It normalizes all kinds of behavior and says everything is correct. That means garbage and gold are both the same. That means the power of vivek is completely eliminated, since what is the need for vivek if everything is the same. Once the family unit is destroyed, how will society survive? And after that, what do you fight for?”
Please see, above, the aphorisms of Charvaka as recorded (by third parties): where do you see a single word attacking the family unit, or saying there is no such thing as “good” and “bad” (Charvaka simply refrains, unlike the teachings of simply any religion, from imposing his views in the matter of what is “good” and what is “bad”) or that there is no such thing as “justice” and “injustice”, or that “all kinds of behavior” (except for advocating enjoying life even by falling into debt) are “correct”, or that one’s vivekabuddhi should be eliminated?
Charvaka only and simply rejects the philosophical idea of an afterlife, he does not advocate that this should stunt or distort our ideas of good and bad or justice and injustice in living this one life.
The idea, suggested by Sai Deepak, that not believing in an afterlife automatically frees a person from any responsible idea of good and bad, or justice and injustice, and leads that person into a life of sin or of uncivic or unethical behavior, is an idea found among the most naïve and unintellectual proponents of religion, and does not behove a really erudite and highly intelligent person like Sai Deepak. For starters, Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” deals absolutely thoroughly with this ridiculous idea. The utter untenability of the idea, that religious people are necessarily more moral, ethical, good and just than people who don’t believe in religious ideas, should be so clear to anyone, even to a child, that I cannot find any justification for a person of Sai Deepak’s intellectual caliber resorting to this cliché-ridden view.
[At this point, let me make clear that if my defense of atheism leads anyone to believe I am an atheist, he will be wrong. In fact, the words theist and atheist are themselves fundamentally wrong: the correct words should be astik, nāstik, and ajñāstik. By this, I don’t mean we should use the Sanskrit words rather than the English ones: actual English, or any other language, words directly equivalent in meaning to the Sanskrit words would be equally correct. I will deal with this division in the appendix].
As to Charvaka’s doctrines “killing” or “destroying” the family unit: there is no indication at all as to the attitude advocated by Charvaka towards family and family life. He neither advocates celibacy nor sexual profligacy, and nor does he advocate misogyny either. He is silent on all these matters, and his doctrines (even if they be considered likely to influence society) are therefore less liable to destroy the family unit or family life than the religious doctrines of almost every religion known to us. Every religion, in some manner or the other, and to some extent or the other, directly allows, and sometimes even enforces, social systems and rules which oppress certain sections within the family (usually the female members in the family). A person could even argue that all the monastic sects of the world (Buddhism, Jainism, Catholicism, numerous Hindu Brahmachari sects and orders, etc., not only in the matter of not marrying, but often also in the matter of leading to the breaking of all ties with the family of birth) “destroy” the sanctity of the family and family life. Almost every religion advocates (to different extents) the breaking or loosening or discarding of ties with, or even hostility towards, family members not following certain religious rules or customs.
So how is Charvaka responsible for “killing” or “destroying” the family unit in the first place, and then for doing this to such an extent that Indian culture itself got destroyed as a result?
Going on further, Sai Deepak tells us: “Don’t treat every Khajuraho painting as an achievement of your civilization. It could have been created during the patansheelata (downfall phase) of your civilization because of woke people of that period”! Now, one can either appreciate all aspects of Indian culture, or one can express reservations about certain aspects which go against one’s ideas of orthodoxy or propriety or decency. But is it logical to just decide that people who held/hold views or attitudes of certain kinds, which you do not share or agree with, were “woke” people? This seems to be an untenable free-for-all use of the word “woke” as a label for anything one does not like. In fact, even as he admits, again, that “we don’t know what they were at that time”, he repeats the charge that “they could have been the woke people of that period”!
After labeling everything, from “destroying the family unit” to (as I see the meaning of his words) “creating vulgarly erotic art” to “woke” people of ancient India inspired by Charvaka, Sai Deepak concludes: “So, Charavakaism is bad, in whichever form, and it is now on the rise in Bharat once more, when we should be looking at the rise of Sanatana Dharma”!
He then adds: “Nowadays it is even being said that Charvaka was a Hindu. Yes, he may have been a Hindu but he cannot have been a Sanatani”, and goes on to declare that people who say they are atheist Hindus, “whatever this vichitra creature is”, are free to “please go ahead and believe that but just spare Sanatana Dharma of your nonsense. We have suffered enough already. We don’t need this New Age nonsense to infect us once more. It is self-created by us. India did not suffer as much from Islamic invasions as it did from Charvaka nonsense from within. You have a response to an outer enemy since he is clearly from the outside, so you can see who is an insider and who is an outsider, But if an insider infects this “Trojan (horse)” from inside ,….”.
He goes on to diversify into new fields by explaining that it is western strategy to “remove religion, spirituality and consciousness and family structures and society structures from the community altogether and make them dependent on corporations and governments. Because corporations want a wider consumer base and governments want a wider voter base….” and concludes by asking Hindus to become free of the influence of corporations and governments. I personally would have agreed with all of this part, if it had not been presented as a continuation of all the preceding stuff.
Let us see again all the implications of this talk by J. Sai Deepak:
1. He firstly picks Charvaka as the fall guy to be blamed for all the ills of Indian history and society, and attributes all kinds of things to him which are completely missing in all the known records of the doctrines and aphorisms of Charvaka. And it is difficult to even start to guess where he gets all his data from: is he in possession of some secret documents of Charvaka’s teachings totally unknown to the whole rest of the world – perhaps some kind of “Protocols of the Elders of Charvakaism”?
2. He then gives totally new meanings to the word “woke”, attributing all the ills of Indian society to Charvaka, whom he calls the “woke-pati” of India responsible for the decline and fall of Hinduism/Indian-Culture, even when Charvakaism and Wokism are as different from each other as chalk and cheese.
Then he proceeds to classify whole segments of people such as the artisans who carved the erotic sculptures of Khajuraho, as “woke”, and directly attributes all these woke activities to the influence of Charvakaism.
Incidentally, by his definition of “woke” as people who do not believe absolutely in the idea of “life after life” (i.e. karma, punarjanma, etc.), he indicts large sections of those fighting for Hinduism as “wokes” and “Charvakaists”, and specifically states that “India did not suffer as much from Islamic invasions as it did from Charvaka nonsense from within”. In short, though he does not specifically name them, people like Savarkar and Anand Ranganathan (and, incidentally myself, apart, of course, from the sculptors of Khajuraho) are more dangerous than Islamic activists, and are in fact “Trojan horses”.
3. Throughout the talk, he keeps drawing a distinction between a Hindu and a Sanatani (to use his own words, “whatever this vichitra creature is”), and tells us that Charvaka “may have been a Hindu but he cannot have been a Sanatani”, as if being a Hindu is irrelevant but being a Sanatani is important. He asks people who call themselves atheist Hindus to “just spare Sanatana Dharma of your nonsense. We have suffered enough already. We don’t need this New Age nonsense to infect us once more. It is self-created by us”.
The word Hindu has been used, directly or indirectly, right from the period of the Greek and Persian invasions BCE. It is now many centuries since it has been accepted by all Hindus as the most appropriate word to describe members of our Indic civilization (Indic ultimately having the same root in the Rigveda as Hindu). and atheist Hindus have been part of this definition since time immemorial.
On the other hand, Sanatana Dharma and Sanatani are words which have been used only since the last century or two to describe ourselves, and I have already written an article on this subject, where I wrote “All these words (Sanātanī, Ārya, etc) produced out of an inexplicable allergy for the word "Hindu" and as substitutes for it, were nothing but ill-thought-out pseudo-nationalistic reactions to colonial rule and scholarship, and do not in any way reflect our own self-description in the same way as the word Hindu”:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2024/04/hindu-dharma-or-sanatana-dharma.html
So anyone can judge which are the words and concepts which represent “New Age nonsense …. self-created by us”.
4. Unfortunately, the whole point of the talk seems to be to carry out a Grand Inquisition to decide who are “Sanatanis” (since the word Hindu does not matter): people who do not believe in a “life after life” are, according to the talk, wokes and Charvakaists, and cannot be classified as “Sanatanis”, and are more dangerous for Indian culture and society than even the Islamic invaders. and are in fact insider enemies and Trojan horses.
Many Hindu thinkers have been “infected” by this Abrahamic idea of semantically expelling sections of Hindus from the definition of “Hindu” solely on the basis of what religious concepts they believe in. Tilak had also set up similar criteria to determine who is a Hindu: his primary criterion being a belief in the supremacy of the Vedas. By his definition, not only Buddhists and Jains, but vast sections of even the writers of our ancient Hindu scriptures were outside the definition.
One of the aphorisms of Charvaka (see above) is “Anti-Ritualism: They argued that Vedic rituals (like sacrifice) were invented by cunning priests for their own livelihood, and offer no actual results”. But does this mean Charvaka or atheists are not Hindu? As I have pointed out in an earlier article, acceptance or rejection of religious concepts, and even criticism of actual scriptures (even the Vedas), was a common and perfectly legitimate practice in ancient India. If we expel all these ancient writers of Hindu texts from the definition of who is a Hindu (I genuinely do not care for the New Age word Sanatani) on the basis of Abrahamic-type criteria, we will be left with little of our heritage to call our own.
My article referred to above:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/12/apologetics-in-guise-of-hindu-response.html
APPENDIX: ASTIK, NĀSTIK, AND AJÑĀSTIK:
There is a general tendency to classify religious beliefs into two main categories: theist and atheist, and the third natural point of the triangle, agnostic.
Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion”, in a section titled “The Poverty of Agnosticism” (pages 46-53) has the following harsh words to say (or at least to quote committed theists saying) about those who claim to be agnostics, and I append quotations from it below for those interested, before continuing my points: “The robust Muscular Christian haranguing us from the pulpit of my old school chapel admitted a sneaking regard for atheists. They at least had the courage of their misguided convictions. What this preacher couldn't stand was agnostics: namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters. …... In the same vein, according to Quentin de la Bedoyere, the Catholic historian Hugh Ross Williamson 'respected the committed religious believer and also the committed atheist. He reserved his contempt for the wishy-washy boneless mediocrities who flapped around in the middle.'”
The theists were right to a certain extent: an average normal person, who has not thought deeply on the question of whether or not there is an eternal “God” who created everything and rewards and punishes people for their actions, would certainly be either a theist (firmly believing), an atheist (firmly non-believing), or to different degrees (classified by Dawkins in this section) not sure of himself but inclined to either this side or that: in short, an agnostic.
[Note:
this “God” may be Jehovah of the Bible, Allah of the
Quran, Ahura Mazda of the Avesta, or any of the supreme Hindu
Gods or Goddesses (Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, etc.) or the Gods
of any other ancient culture: Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian,
Mexican, or whatever].
But when it comes to an intelligent thinker, this kind of ambiguous “maybe-or-may-not-be” agnostic attitude would indeed be symptomatic of diplomatic behavior, or lack of courage to put forward a definite opinion, or disinclination to think deeply on such esoteric matters.
Dawkins gives instances of cases where a thinker would be absolutely justified in being agnostic:
“Carl Sagan
was proud to be agnostic when asked whether there was life elsewhere in the
universe. When he refused to commit himself, his interlocutor pressed him for a
'gut feeling' and he immortally replied: 'But I try not to think with my gut.
Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.'
The
question of extra-terrestrial life is open. Good arguments can be mounted both
ways, and we lack the evidence to do more than shade the probabilities one way
or the other. Agnosticism, of a kind, is an appropriate stance on many
scientific questions, such as what caused the end-Permian extinction, the
greatest mass extinction in fossil history. It could have been a meteorite
strike like the one that, with greater likelihood on present evidence, caused
the later extinction of the dinosaurs. But it could have been any of various
other possible causes, or a combination. Agnosticism about the causes of both
these mass extinctions is reasonable”.
Dawkins therefore distinguishes two types of agnosticism:
“How
about the question of God? Should we be agnostic about him too? Many have said
definitely yes, often with an air of conviction that verges on protesting too
much. Are they right?
I'll
begin by distinguishing two kinds of agnosticism. TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism
in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we
so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don't understand the evidence, or
haven't time to read the evidence, etc.). TAP would be a reasonable stance towards
the Permian extinction. There is a truth out there and one day we hope to know
it, though for the moment we don't.
But
there is also a deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting, which I shall call
PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle). The fact that the acronym spells a
word used by that old school preacher is (almost) accidental. The PAP style of
agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter
how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable.
The question exists on a different plane, or in a different dimension, beyond
the zones where evidence can reach. An example might be that philosophical
chestnut, the question whether you see red as I do. Maybe your red is my green,
or something completely different from any colour that I can imagine.
Philosophers cite this question as one that can never be answered, no matter
what new evidence might one day become available. And some scientists and other
intellectuals are convinced - too eagerly in my view - that the question of
God's existence belongs in the forever inaccessible PAP category. From this, as
we shall see, they often make the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of
God's existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly equal
probability of being right. The view that I shall defend is very different:
agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP
category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day
we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about
the probability.”
In short, Dawkins insists that there can be no “agnosticism’ about whether “God” exists or not: the answer either has to be “yes” or “no”, and his own answer is a definite “no”. So, incidentally, is mine. Does this mean I am an “atheist”? But then a Christian who believes in a “God” who sends to a permanent Heaven people who believe in Jesus, (and to a permanent Hell people who don't), a Muslim who believes in an “Allah” who sends to a permanent Heaven people who believe in Mohammad, (and to a permanent Hell people who don't), and a Hindu who believes in any “God” who rewards and punishes (regardless of what one believes in) on the basis of a law of karma and by way of punarjanma, are all three “theists” in respect of each his own particular beliefs but “atheists” in respect of the beliefs of the other two. So no-one could be a full “theist”. I myself, like Dawkins would be classifiable as an “atheist” in all three cases
So the basic question cannot be about “theism” in general, since it becomes a very muddled and item-specific issue. the question of the existence of “God” (with very specific characteristics) is basically in the same category as that of what Dawkins calls “Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot”:
“Many orthodox
people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received
dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot
revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to
disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too
small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go
on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable
presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be
thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot
were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and
instilled into the minds of children at school,
hesitation to
believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the
doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the
Inquisitor in an earlier time.
We would not
waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots; but,
if pressed, we would not hesitate to declare our strong belief that there is
positively no orbiting teapot.
Yet
strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that
there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism
towards a-teapotism.”
Like
“Russel’s teapot”, any “God” with a specific name, cultural
identity, history, chain of command, and rules and regulations and beliefs to
be followed by his believers, will have his band of “theist’ followers,
but the “atheists” in the case of this “God” would not only
include all-round atheists, but also those who would be “theists”
in respect of some other “God” (with a different specific name,
cultural identity, history, chain of command, and rules and regulations and
beliefs to be followed by his believers).
[Of
course, let me clarify that this will be so only for staunch followers of rigid
Abrahamic religions: a Christian will not believe in Allah,
Ram or Zeus, and a Muslim will not believe in Ram,
Zeus, or the Jehovah of Christianity, but the
followers of most Pagan religions, including Hinduism, would be
inclined to regard the “Gods” of all other religions to be just other
forms of their own God, rejecting only the idea that they themselves
will be heading towards Hell for also believing in their
own “Gods”].
So, as Dawkins points out, being “agnostic” in respect of any particular “God” or of a Universal “God” (with a specific name, cultural identity, history, chain of command, and rules and regulations and beliefs to be followed by his believers) is not possible.
This is because the terms used are themselves wrong: “theist” refers to someone who believes in “God”: this may be, as mentioned above, a particular “God” or a Universal “God”, but then there are systems of belief which include an afterlife which can function without an all-powerful “God”. Even the concept of a relentless law of karma where action begets consequences, and where no “God” can tweak the law by allowing anyone to escape the consequences of actions, will not be classifiable as “theism” because the law of karma would be higher than that “God”.
The true classification should be based on “is there anything beyond this life?” and the terms should be “astik” (one who believes there is existence beyond this life), “nāstik” (one who believes there is no existence beyond this life), and “ajñāstik” (one who frankly does not know whether or not there is any existence beyond this life, and sees no possibility of ever knowing, since, apart from stories in religious myths and superstitious beliefs, and horror-stories, no-one has ever really come back after death to testify to anything). This is true agnosticism, about which Dawkins writes: “The PAP style of agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. The question exists on a different plane, or in a different dimension, beyond the zones where evidence can reach.”
I myself am not an agnostic in the theist-atheist-agnostic classification (a “teapot” classification), but I am an ajñāstik in the astik-nāstik-ajñāstik classification. This true agnosticism (the third point in this triangle of astik, nāstik and ajñāstik) is found in Hindu texts long before any mention of karma or punarjanma, and is therefore at least as Hindu as the astik ideas of karma or punarjanma. which Sai Deepak takes as the only true form of what he calls “Sanatan Dharma”.
In my article “Are Indian Tribals Hindus?”, I had written the following:
“The fact is, Hinduism can never be in true conflict with any other religion (other than the two predator Abrahamic religions which themselves choose conflict with all other religions) since it has no particular God, Ritual or Dogma to impose on the followers of other religions. In itself, Hinduism contains the seeds of every kind of philosophy, and is comfortable with all streams of thought, and not necessarily to do with the worship of “Gods”. In Hinduism, we find all kinds of atheistic and materialistic philosophies, the most well known being the Lokayata philosophy of Charvaka, who believed that there is only one life, that there is no such thing as an afterlife, or heaven or hell, or rebirth, and that our only purpose in life should be to maximize our pleasures and minimize our pains. The very basic texts of Hinduism contain the seeds and roots of agnostic philosophies, from the Rigvedic NasadiyaSukta (X.129. 6-7, which says: “Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it? He whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.”) to the Upanishadic speculations which reject everything, after deep discussion, with the phrase “neti, neti”: “not this, not this”, i.e., “no, this is still not the ultimate truth”. And then of course, there is every kind of deistic, henotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, and every other kind of theistic philosophy, including even (but not exclusively) monotheistic philosophy (minus the hatred of “other” false religions and false Gods, and the concepts of permanent Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers, characteristic of Abrahamic monotheism)”.
This appendix, it should be emphasized, was more in order to explain the concept of true agnosticism in its true perspective rather than to deal with Sai Deepak’s talk, which concluded just before this appendix.
APPENDIX ADDED 16 APRIL 2026
THE REAL CULPRITS
Instead of trying to make scapegoats of people like Charvaka, it would be better if Hindus examined where exactly are the faults in their philosophies and attitudes which have really led, and are still leading, Hinduism and Indian Culture to their destruction. The fault does not lie within our philosophies or our wisdom literature (like the Panchatantra and Hitopadesha, which, indeed, show us the right way).
The fault lies firstly in the weird ideas of “virtuousness” which Hindus have cultivated down the ages, but more particularly in the post-colonial era, and, secondly, but even more fundamentally, in certain “ideal” ways of righteous behavior demonstrated in the stories in our Epic and Puranic stories. As I have already written on these two topics, in, respectively, my earlier articles “"Justice" in Sohrab Modi’s 1939 Film “Pukar” and Related Issues” and “Karṇa and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Mahābhārata”, I merely append copy-paste extracts from those two articles below, in the vain hope that Hindus start seeing the light.
I. Virtuousness as depicted in Indian
family TV serials and family films
The extreme injustice
shown in this film is compounded by the fact that it is actually intended that
it should be treated by us as a supreme case of Justice! From the very first time that I saw this
film, in my college days in the late seventies, on Doordarshan, the injustice
depicted in this film literally made my blood boil, and I had always intended
some day to write an article on it. But it is not an isolated issue of one
film. To my mind, this is an indicator of a much larger malaise in India. And I
will take this chance to say a few words on the subject.
There is no doubt that injustice takes place all over the world as much as it does in India, or, in many places, even more. But there is a special quality to the kind of attitude towards Truth and Injustice which is found in present-day Modern India, which to my mind is the key to understanding the answer to a fundamental question: what is it that makes Indians so susceptible to self-destructive or inherently perverted ideas of Truth and Justice, to the extent that Hindu society has been meekly accepting grossly unjust treatment from all its enemies, while it has always been ready to be hostile to those who would be their friends and saviors and at the same time to be grossly unjust towards unfortunate and helpless sections of its own society. Is it just the fall-out of centuries of political slavery or is there some kind of invisible indoctrination going on all the time?
In my opinion, the three basic tenets of any social philosophy, or of any ideology or system of morals or ethics, should be Truth, Justice and Humanitarianism.
That humanitarianism has no place in public debate in India is a given. See my blog article "Rapists, Child Rights, Left and Right": the only persons who have human rights and who deserve humanitarian consideration and treatment in India, if one is to believe the "Human Rights" activists, are gangsters and mafiosi, terrorists, rapists, mass-murderers and the ultra-rich (including not only various categories of Indians but also foreign missionary organizations and multinationals) - the more heinous their acts and activities, the more they become eligible for special human-rights: their victims just simply don't matter except as incidental fodder. That such a situation can prevail in India is because of the fundamental perversion of ideas of Truth and Justice.
From the Hindu point of view, the extent of this perversion can be seen, just to take one example, in the leftist propaganda on the Ayodhya issue. As I put it in my blog article "Parameters for the Writing of Indian History": "Just one example of the omnipotence of this propaganda machine will suffice: the demolition of one mosque structure in Ayodhya on the 6th of December 1992. This, probably the first non-Hindu religious structure deliberately demolished by Hindus in the whole of historical memory in order to make way for a Hindu temple, is today branded as one of the most atrocious and momentous acts in human history, easily comparable with the holocaust of Jews in Nazi Germany. This single demolition followed the 1400-year old long deliberate destruction and demolition of literally hundreds of thousands of temples all over India and their replacement by mosques (including in the last seven decades itself, countless temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir; and including in fact the very Hindu temple, as the Indian judiciary itself has now confirmed, which originally stood on the very spot occupied by the mosque-structure demolished on 6/12/1992), recorded in ruthless and gleeful detail by the Islamic historians themselves. And yet, this demolition of a single mosque structure was treated as something more cataclysmic than the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: from the day the demolition took place, it has been the subject of truly countless and endless newspaper headlines, books, articles, speeches, intellectual discussions, demonstrations and rallies (including maatam rallies), and endless rhetoric."
I was in New Delhi on the day the Babri-masjid structure was demolished, for the editing and checking of the draft of my first book. The next day, the front-page headlines on TV and in the Delhi newspapers showed maniacally screaming hordes of leftist activists outside VHP and government buildings, holding placards with slogans like "sharm se kaho ham Hindu hain" (say with shame we are Hindus)! The same people who deny, defend, condone or justify the deliberate destruction of countless lakhs of major Hindu temples by Muslims, and want Muslims to feel proud to say they are Muslims and Hindus to respect the Islam that sanctions these acts, still expect Hindus to be eternally ashamed for their reclamation of one spot, considered by Hindus to be one of their holiest places, from the occupation of a non-Hindu religious structure which had been built on the deliberately demolished body of a Hindu temple! The same sense of perversion is visible in the works of innumerable "academic scholars", as for example westerners like Audrey Truschke, who strive to whitewash the thousands of massive, detailedly documented and recorded, historical crimes of people like Aurangzeb while venting their venom in castigating a handful of mythically recorded sins of Hindu characters (most of these sins being recorded in sections regarded by most scholars as interpolations in the texts concerned).
But the discussion here is not of "Hindu" issues or leftist venom, it is of general issues of ethics and morality widely prevalent in the Indian psyche and pertaining to extremely perverted ideas of Truth and Justice. Just as my blood boiled on seeing Injustice glorified in Sohrab Modi's film Pukar, my blood always boils with fury on seeing the endless glorification of Falsehood and Injustice regularly being indoctrinated into the Indian psyche through films and serials. Pedestrian though the issue may seem to many, it is nevertheless very important.
India's motto is supposed to be "Satyameva Jayate" (Truth Always Prevails). I do not accept the validity of this dictum - what we see around us in this world rarely if ever shows the prevalence of Truth. I believe in the ideal of "Let Truth Prevail": Truth is something to strive for, and not to be expected as a naturally occurring phenomenon. But the motto pushed in Indian films and serials is "Truth Should Never be Allowed to Prevail".
[By films and serials, I generally exclude, of course, those of specific genres like crime, horror, comedy, etc., and even more the ultra-modern varieties featuring political events, ultra-westernized youth, NRIs and science-fiction themes, and I refer primarily to social films and serials supposedly catering to the Indian Family as a whole and supposed to be espousing moral and ethical "family" values].
It will be noticed that
the most consistent activity of all the "good" people in these films
and serials is telling lies to other "good" people and hiding the
truth from them. In fact, the "good"-er the character, the more
determinedly and firmly and persistently will he or she lie through his or her
teeth and hide things. There are umpteen saintly reasons for telling lies and hiding
the truth, a primary one being that the person (who is being lied to or is
having the truth hidden from him or her) will "feel bad" on
finding out the truth, or will have his or her opinion of someone else (usually
a villain/vamp or dubious character) "spoiled"! That this
results in countless unfortunate and destructive things happening in the lives
of all the "good" people (who are being kept in the dark about things
going on around them, or the true character of people or events) and all kinds
of complicated misunderstandings, problems and troubles, is of no consequence:
Lying is a Supreme Virtue to be promoted as an end in itself!
One very weird and grotesque, and regular, device by which people, both "good" and "bad", in these films and serials, can actually "compel" other people, though only the "good" ones, to tell lies or to hide the truth or indeed to do or not do whatever is wanted from them, is the "oath": kasam in (Urduized) Hindi and shapath in Marathi: I don't know what equivalent words would be used in other Indian languages. I do not think such a concept may even be known outside India, but in Indian films and serials, it is an extremely common device. It is natural in any culture to swear to do or to not do something: "I swear or take oath that I will do this" or "I swear or take oath that I will not do this", but I greatly doubt if any other people in the world can put oaths on other people: "I place an oath on you that you will do this" or "I place an oath on you that you will not do this". It starts with "tumhe meri kasam" and can even go on to "tumhe tumhare maa/bacche/bhai/xyz ki kasam", and the person so "oathed" is compelled to do or not do whatever he or she is told! Needless to say, no "good" person ever seems to think of putting such oaths, or counter-oaths, on the "bad" people!
[At this rate, wouldn't
it be easy for some resourceful person to catch a billionaire on the street and
tell him: "Give me one crore rupees: tumhe tumhari maa/beti ki kasam"?
A failure to fulfill this "oath" would certainly result in something
bad happening to the billionaire's mother or daughter as the case may be, so
one assumes he would hasten to hand over the one crore rupees!]
But the biggest casualty of all this compulsive and inveterate lying is the concept of Justice. Actually, "a person who tolerates Injustice is as guilty as the person committing it". But in these films and serials, the ultimate demonstration of saintliness and virtue is encouraging people to behave unjustly. The "good" person will not only tolerate Injustice with a saintly smile or a faintly suffering look of acceptance, but will strain every fibre to see to it that the person committing this Injustice meets with no opposition from anyone else and in fact is encouraged, if not instigated, to do more and more and more of the same. Anyone who tries to interfere in support of this saint will be severely discouraged. This is for example a regular feature in the ubiquitous Indian saas-bahu serials, where the bahu (daughter-in-law) meekly, and with a saintlier-than-thou expression on her face, submits to insults, harassment, spiteful instructions and even physical abuse from her in-laws. In the rare case, it is the saas (mother-in-law) who is the saint and tolerates everything from a waspish and vampish daughter-in-law. The central point is that whoever is facing Injustice must accept it as his or her fate (maybe as just punishment for sins in a previous life?) and not only quietly take it, but encourage the tormentors to go on with it. The supreme virtue of Lying also enters into play when the saint, by lying through his or her teeth, prevents other good people from coming to the rescue by hiding from them the fact that anything is wrong. And if they do find out anyway, then it is time to gently (and if that does not work, more strongly) discourage, forbid or prevent them from coming to the rescue.
Incidentally, "good" people not only do not themselves object to Injustice being done to themselves, and in fact encourage and instigate the perpetrators to keep it up or intensify the same, but sometimes they are also quite indignant when they see other good people trying to resist Injustice to themselves instead of continuing to accept it with saintly resignation and fortitude. As we are on films and serials, a typical example of this is a scene from the famous film "Ram Aur Shyam" (later remade with a female protagonist as "Seeta Aur Geeta"). In the film, Ram has been kept terrorized and under psychological pressure since childhood, and his vast property is being controlled by his villainous and sadistic brother-in-law (sister's husband) who regularly whips him whenever he is in a foul mood. But, unknown to everyone, Ram has suddenly and accidentally been substituted by his long-lost twin brother Shyam who is anything but a meek simpleton. When the villain picks up his whip and tries to carry out the usual routine, he is horrified to find the whip snatched from him and himself placed at the receiving end. But the noteworthy thing is the behavior of his wife (the sister of Ram and Shyam): the saintly lady, who is always shown standing at a safe distance shedding copious tears for her brother when her husband is doing the whipping, suddenly jumps into the fray and gives a resounding slap to her brother and saves her husband from further humiliation: of course, she sobs bitterly out of sorrow for having slapped her brother, but she achieves her saintly aim nevertheless. The same theme is shown in the remake "Seeta Aur Geeta", and is even more incredible. In the first film, the villain is at least the saint's husband. In the second film, the villain is the brother of the heroine's uncle's wife (!), and the saint who comes to his rescue is the heroine's own grandmother who is not even related to the villain! "Saintliness" and "goodness" is above relationships!
But, to return to the main point, why is it that tolerating and encouraging and even instigating Injustice on oneself (and on other "good" people) is so constantly depicted as a Supreme Virtue and a sign of Saintliness, Virtuousness and Goodness? One can understand tolerating under strong duress: a person who is helpless and powerless against strong oppressors and has no-one to help him/her will naturally be in no position to resist; but when a person tolerates injustice just out of "saintliness", there is just no excuse and such behavior is unforgivable and unjustifiable. The English word for such behavior would be Masochism or Self-flagellation (and Sadism). But perhaps the ostensible Indian practitioners of this perverted mentality, depicted in the films and serials as the "good" people, actually have a secret purpose behind this determination to tolerate, encourage and instigate nasty and unjust behavior in the "bad" people? Perhaps they believe strongly in the Law of Karma, and they want the "bad" people to behave as badly as they want and can, so that they will get the full punishment for it in their next life? Perhaps they believe in the same logic as the "injured dog" in the grotesque story in the Uttara Kāṇḍa of the Ramayana?
As per this story in the Valmiki Ramayana (Uttara Kāṇḍa, chapter 69), a dog, sleeping peacefully on the road has his head crushed by a nasty brahmin who is frustrated at not having received any alms throughout the day and vents his frustration on the sleeping dog by flinging a stone at his head and injuring him fatally. The dying dog crawls to the door of Rama's palace and wails for justice. On consulting the "scriptures", Rama's ministers (brahmins themselves) tell him that a brahmin cannot be punished by law!! Rama then asks the dog himself how he should punish the brahmin. The dog tells him that the head priest of a very eminent and respected monastery in Ayodhya has just died and his successor has not yet been appointed. He suggests that this brahmin be appointed the head priest. all are stunned and ask the dog how giving him this great and coveted honor will amount to punishing him. The dog reveals that in his last life he had been the head of that monastery. He had been an extremely pious and saintly person. One of his duties had been to extend hospitality to all the brahmins from all over the land, and from other lands, who visited Ayodhya and stayed in the monastery. In this also he had been painstakingly meticulous in giving full and unstinting service to the visiting brahmins. But - doubtless, without knowing it, and due to circumstances beyond his understanding and control, there may have been some inevitable shortcomings at various times in satisfying the visiting brahmins. For those unknown and unintended sins, he was reborn as a dog in this life. The dog's logic is that this particular brahmin being by nature a nasty and bad-tempered person, would be daily committing sins by way of his bad behavior towards visiting brahmins. The Law of Karma would then make him take birth as a dog for hundreds of lives, and he would get all his just punishments!!
I personally do not believe in the Law of Karma - the gross injustice prevailing everywhere in society, where more often than not the evil flourish and the good and innocent suffer, does not seem to me to be testifying to the truth of this alleged Law. What is the logic by which we must assume that the evil person flourishing now is flourishing because he was extremely good in his last life and the good and innocent person suffering now is suffering because he was extremely evil in his last life? If the other person in the last life was so different by nature from the person in this life, then they are two totally different people. Why should anyone get the fruits of the good deeds, or suffer the punishments for the evil deeds, of some totally unknown and totally different person?
One must do good things and not do bad things simply because that is the only way to make the world we are living in a better place, and not because there are rewards and punishments in store for us. The motto should be: "Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu nirāmayāh, sarve bhadrāṇi paśyantu, mā kaścit dukkha bhāgbhavet - om śhantih śhantih śhantih" ("May all be happy, may all be free of illnesses, may all see auspicious things, may none suffer; Peace, Peace, Peace") Even Charvaka, the ancient Indian philosopher who advocated a full-fledged "nāstik" and materialistic philosophy (denying any existence after death, believing that existence starts with birth and ends with death, etc.) and said that the only two aims in life should be to maximize pleasures and minimize pains was not fully wrong in this. The aim (whether or not he intended it that way) should not be only to maximize one's own pleasures and minimize one's own pains, but to maximize pleasures and minimize pains for everyone around us and for the world in general. Then only will there be real Justice and Peace.
The above example from the Ramayana brings up one more very important point: ideas of Truth and Justice cannot be based on things written in "holy" books and "scriptures". No God comes to write or dictate books, the writers are all human beings with their own biases and vested interests. The above story from the Ramayana, for example, was obviously inserted by some brahmin interpolator who wanted to stress two principles: 1) A brahmin cannot be punished by Law. 2) When doing service (sewa) to a brahmin, see to it that there is not even the smallest shortcoming in it or anything which leaves him less than fully satisfied. The point is, Hinduism is the most broad-minded Philosophy in the world: and/but everything written in the Sanskrit language long ago, or in a book from any period which is classified as a Hindu text, does not represent Hinduism. Hinduism is not a Religion of The Book (of any Book) unlike Christianity and Islam.
The question of Justice is a separate subject from the question of Hindu interests. I am a staunch advocate of Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism, and have no compunctions in advocating an uncompromisingly ruthless attitude against the active enemies of Hinduism and India, such as, for example, missionaries, terrorists and even anti-Hindu politicians, journalists and "intellectuals". But when it comes to matters of Justice for the normal individual without greater issues being directly involved behind them, religion has no place in the discussion: whether, for example, a Hindu rapes a Hindu, a Hindu rapes a Muslim, a Muslim rapes a Muslim, or a Muslim rapes a Hindu, Law and Justice should be exactly the same in all four cases. No individual should feel scared to live a normal life, or feel that he will not get justice, only because of his identity.
[Note added 14/11/2019: I am adding this note to pay tribute to an actress of the Marathi film industry who surprisingly showed sharp awareness of this phenomenon of degrading "saintliness" depicted in our films and serials. It was the period of the Shah Bano case (1984-86). I don't remember the exact date, but the Shiv Sena held a public rally at Nare Park in central Mumbai which was addressed by a range of leaders including the socialist union leader Sharad Rao and the Marathi film actress Asha Kale. Now this particular actress was popular in Marathi films and known for her extremely "sojwal" (i.e. saintly, goody-goody, suffering doormat, weepy) roles. In this rally, Asha Kale addressed the crowd and revealed her extreme repugnance to injustice and to the very saintliness she was compelled to play in films. She pointed out that often when she played these extremely "sojwal" roles, she actually felt very humiliated and depressed at having to depict "saintly" women who encouraged abuse and injustice by tolerating it in a doormat manner, and (or so she claimed) actually shed tears over this after returning home from the day's shoot. I was extremely touched by this rare sensitivity and common sense in a place where I had not expected to see it, and consequently, I have always had a high personal respect for this lady. I wish more people would realize that people who encourage bad behaviour in others and consider it saintliness to do so are greater sinners than the people who indulge in bad behaviour].
II.
The "Virtues" Propagated in the Hindu Epics and Puranas
And now back to the incident of Karṇa and his "dān-vīr" act in giving up his magical kavaca-kuṇḍala to Indra (appearing before him in the form of a poor brahmin), in spite of knowing Indra's nefarious intentions and being fully aware of the future consequences and repercussions of his action.
While this act is generally praised by analysts of the Mahābhārata, and in all traditional accounts of the story, I do not find it all worthy of praise for a very fundamental reason: it is because this story is part of a huge repertoire of stories in our Epics, Puranas and other popular lore, which are unique only to Hindu texts, literature and lore, among all the major religions of the world, and which, in my opinion, have been the root cause of the continuing downfall of Hinduism vis-à-vis its enemies by inculcating in the Hindu psyche the idea of self-destructivism and compulsive defeatism, and capitulation to the machinations of its enemies and ill-wishers, as a positive and praiseworthy virtue.
There are three kinds of teachings in the religious texts in the matter of justice/injustice in behaviour towards others:
1. The texts of all religions preach that one should fight against injustice towards oneself. The Abrahamic evangelist religions, Christianity and Islam, as well as Hinduism and almost all other religions and sects in this world preach this. We find quotations expressing such sentiments, and stories illustrating such principles, in most religious texts. The exceptions, in all religions, are the cases where the perpetrators of such injustice are the authorities (including the Gods, priests, prophets and holy men, and rulers and leaders) of these religions, or certain special categories (such as the males in the family or clan), who are supposed to be given special rights to perpetrate injustice which must be borne quietly by the other believers or practitioners of the religion.
2. Likewise, the texts of all religions, strange though this may sound, teach followers to commit injustice on others (on women, animals, slaves or lower classes of people, enemies or conquered people, etc., etc.), or at least illustrate, through stories, great acts of injustice which are perpetrated by the heroes (religious or otherwise) of the texts on others, which are glorified or at the very least not treated as in any way condemnable.
The Bible and Qoran (and other Christian-Muslim religious texts) are overflowing with such preachings, teachings and stories. Likewise our Hindu texts, and the texts of other religions, also abound in such preachings, teachings and stories.
There are however two big differences between the two expansionist Abrahamic religions on the one hand, and Hinduism in particular (as well as all other religions) on the other:
2a) These preachings, teachings and stories are fundamental to the former two religions but only peripheral and incidental to Hinduism (where the centrality and finality of religious texts is not as sacrosanct as in Christianity and Islam).
Nevertheless, they are there in Hinduism, and have been presented by many Hindu researchers, including for example Dr. Ambedkar, as well as of course by anti-Hindu leftists (who find the molehills of injustice in Hinduism more massive than the mountains of injustice in the Christian and Muslim religions — if, that is, they are even willing to accept that there is injustice at all in Christianity and Islam). The first section of this article above shows one such example (in the acts of Yudhiṣṭhira): there are countless more.
But these (whether in Christianity or Islam or Hinduism) are not the subject of this section. Nevertheless I will only say at this point that Hindus who think they are showing their Hindutva by denying, whitewashing or glorifying these wrong aspects in Hinduism are like the woman whose small daughter is being repeatedly raped by her husband, and who keeps quiet or tries to hide or play down the facts and thinks that by doing so she is showing her concern for family integrity and loyalty and for the reputation of her family.
2b) Further, the main distinguishing factor between Christianity and Islam on the one hand and Hinduism (and other religions) on the other, is that the two former religions divide humanity into two classes: the believers (in the particular religion, Christianity or Islam) and the unbelievers (among whom the two religions incidentally also include, each, the followers of the other religion of the two). So these texts blatantly teach, preach, and illustrate through stories, that it is perfectly all right, and even in many cases desirable and even compulsory, to commit gross injustice on the followers of other religions, and on co-religionists who break religious dictates, rules and taboos. Voice of India books, and any number of researchers within those religions themselves, have studied and presented all this in very great detail. So such perpetration of injustice against people who follow different beliefs is not a part of Hindu texts (although some individual ancient writers did make occasional, and completely unfruitful, attempts to introduce such intolerance in the texts: e.g. in the Rāmāyaṇa, Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa, 109).
3. But then we come to this third aspect found only in Hinduism and in no other religion — at least, certainly not in Christianity and Islam, which are the two religions which matter in our discussion as they are the ones which constantly place themselves in a strongly adversarial position towards Hinduism.
Hinduism is the only religion in the world which has a massive repertoire of stories which preach, or illustrate as great virtues, abject submission to the machinations of openly or very obviously hostile and ill-intentioned people or enemy forces, or which preach foolish morals or inhibitions which lead to defeat and self-destruction. Christian and Islamic narratives and illustrative stories, either in their texts or in their history, never preach or illustrate such self-destructive "morals" or "principles" as "saintly virtues".
It is only Hindu texts which teach its followers to glorify people who submit to gross injustice from inimical and ill-intentioned people in the name of "dharma". The example of Karṇa giving up his kavaca-kuṇḍala to Indra in spite of having been warned beforehand about Indra's nefarious intentions is not an isolated one: the list is a long one, from the heroes of the Ramayana and Mahabharata to countless holy men in the Epics and Puranas (Paraśurāma who kills his mother to follow his father's command, Cilaya who is cooked and given to guests who demand him as their lunch, Ekalavya who cuts his finger as "guru-dakṣiṇā" on Droṇa's demand, Anusūyā who disrobes herself because her rishi guests demand it — the list is endless). Modern Hindus have learnt this lesson so well that they are willing to accept any principle as "dharma" which teaches them to submit to injustice. This lesson has been learnt so well that it is today the prime principle of Indian virtue and saintliness propagated in traditionalistic films and serials: see my blog article "Justice in Sohrab Modi's 1939 film 'Pukar'":
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2019/09/justice-in-sohrab-modis-1939-film-pukar.html
And so it is very easy for Hindu-haters to convince Hindus that the Bhagavadgitā, whose very context is that Krishna is telling Arjuna not to submit to injustice and to war even against his blood-relatives for the sake of justice, actually preaches ahimsa, non-action and submission to injustice. And to teach us the "difference" and even the opposition between Hinduism and Hindutva!
For this, see my blog article "Hinduism vs. Hindutva: Oxism vs. Oxatva":
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/hinduism-vs-hindutva-oxism-vs-oxatva.html
There was a wave of sharp resentment against me in the Hindu discussion site when I made all these points: anyone who holds anything in our texts and traditions as responsible for any bad behavior in our present Hindu society is "anti-Hindu", "leftist", or "westernized", and even "influenced by Protestant ideology", or else a prey to "simplistic understanding"!
But this is a self-destructive attitude: if we do not accept that there are many things in our own texts and traditions which are responsible for the very bad condition of Hindu society today, we will never be able to correct those faults and win our way to victory or even to security. I find it incomprehensible that people (pro-Hindu people) can believe that to be true Hindus we should hold that recognizing Justice is something that only Left Liberals (or people steeped in western education) are capable of and that to be truly Hindu we must support Injustice!
It is time we learnt to enjoy the rich and unparalleled lore present in our ancient texts in the right way: be proud of this rich lore and rich literature which has absolutely no parallel anywhere else in the world. But don't adopt the self-destructive "morals" of the characters glorified in these texts as the ideal way for us to behave.
Remember, no
other religious text of any other religion teaches its followers to suffer
injustice from their enemies.
Either treat these stories merely as a rich repertoire of our traditional lore and a great part of our matchless culture, or, if we want to learn lessons from them, then learn the right lessons: for example, instead of defending or whitewashing Droṇācārya or treating Ekalavya as a saint or a model of virtue, we should recognize that Droṇācārya's act was the act of an establishment villain and Ekalavya's response that of a sentimental fool.
We will ultimately be destroyed because of some of these very "Dharmic" "principles" embodied in our texts, which are enforcing the slave/masochist mentality in Hindus today and which are making us the spittoon and punching-bag of the world.
But Hindus like to clutch at the very chains which bind them, and to lose battles and wars by following and glorifying wrong principles rather than to win the battles and wars by following the right principles which are also very much there in our texts and philosophies.
[I know I will alienate more readers by pointing out that it is this numbing of our intelligence and viveka-buddhi which is also responsible for the way in which political parties playing the "Hindu card" before elections, and being more anti-Hindu after elections than those playing the "secular card", still continue to be treated as our bulwark against anti-Hindu forces. Hindus have learnt to apply labels and then stick to those labels forever regardless of whether or not the labels prove to be justified. Frankly, I am really not too keen on forcing the truth down anyone's unwilling throat. And now, after long and bitter experiences in seeing the futility of trying to make people see sense, I am not even interested in trying to do it. Hindus are deliberately and knowingly hurtling to their destruction, and I now realize that I can do nothing about it.
However, I
will continue to speak the truth, and if Hindus are determined to
be destroyed, then nothing can save us].
APPENDIX added 14-10-2021:
VASUDHAIVA
KUṬUMBAKAM
As I pointed out,
there is a massive fund of such stories in the Hindu texts, which teach us to
treat submission to injustice or adherence to foolish morals or slogans as
virtuousness to be treated as ideal and to be emulated.
But then it depends upon how we look at these stories. Do the stories actually teach us to treat the foolish actions and slogans as virtuous? Or were they originally intended to teach us how not to behave, but misinterpretation of such stories became a tradition and led to the wrong attitude of treating them as virtues?
One such slogan will illustrate the correct way to interpret these foolish actions and slogans: the slogan "Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam": "the world is one family". This is found in the Mahopaniṣad VI.71-73: "For those who live magnanimously, the whole world is a family" (udāracaritānāṁ tu vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam).
This is
regularly cited as a sign of the broad-mindedness of Hinduism — at least
when it comes to telling Hindus what their texts tell them to believe and
therefore how they should behave: although in evaluating Hinduism as a
religion, it is the "divisiveness" of the caste-system that is cited!
The wikipedia entry on "Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam" tells us that this "is considered the most important value in the Indian society", and even informs us that "Dr N. Radhakrishnan, former director of the Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti, believes that the Gandhian vision of holistic development and respect for all forms of life; nonviolent conflict resolution embedded in the acceptance of nonviolence both as a creed and strategy; were an extension of the ancient Indian concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.[" and "India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi used this phrase in a speech at World Culture Festival, organized by Art of Living, adding that 'Indian culture is very rich and has inculcated each one of us with great values, we are the people who have come from Aham Brahmasmi to Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam'". In 2007, Pranab Mukherji, then Union Minister for External Affairs (and later President of India) informed the Rajya Sabha on 5th December that "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is our foreign policy".
But there are ancient Indian texts which tell us how to behave wisely, and incidentally also how to interpret "saintly" slogans (and therefore I would say also "saintly" actions) in our texts, or rather how not to misinterpret them as models in practical life: the Hitopadeśa and the Pancatantra. Both these texts contain stories illustrating the foolishness of the slogan "Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam" if applied in practical affairs although it is perfectly all right as a principle of abstract philosophy. The stories in both these texts illustrate the foolishness and suicidal, self-destructive result of taking such slogans as models to be followed.
I will not bother to repeat these stories here: they are easily available in the original and in translations of the two texts: in the Hitopadeśa (the story of Kṣudrabuddhī the foolish jackal and Subuddhī the wise crow) and in the Pancatantra (the story of the four brahmin friends, three of whom were well-versed in all the texts, but extremely foolish, and the fourth one who was wise).
APPENDIX Added 18-11-2021: The Story of Raja Harischandra:
I had put up the above article on my blog on 13-10-2021, and that should have been the end of it. But today I happened to see this video on youtube, "The Story of Raja Harischandra", and (although of course I knew the story well since childhood) found in it, and in the way in which it is described in the video, so wonderful an example of the sick and perverted ideas of "virtue" preached in our Epics and Puranas, that I had to add it as an appendix to my article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_O7BGXo3c
Even
at the risk of facing hostile reactions from my "Hindu" readers, I
ask them to think carefully and ask themselves whether this story depicts a
virtuous king who should be held up as an ideal of some kind of
"virtuousness", or whether it depicts a mentally retarded imbecile or
a dangerously deluded maniac, who should have been put into a lunatic asylum
(if they existed at that time) for the rest of his life. I feel it is the
latter; and if the reader feels it is the former, and that the Harischandra
of this story is an ideal of some kind to be emulated or admired, then I
think my article stands vindicated as an indictment of the real reason (i.e.
the mental deformity caused in Hindu society by the Epic-Puranic stories
glorifying perverted "virtues" held up as ideals) why Hindu society
has been at the receiving end of gross injustice and persecution, and why even
the Gods cannot save it from total destruction.
