Raise a hand if you’ve heard statements like this on blogs, articles and various comment forums:
- India was the greatest power in the world for thousands of years
- Muslim invaders came and destroyed Indian culture
- Indian knowledge was far ahead of its time and was the envy of the world
- India had the greatest philosophers
- India had the wisest kings
- India had the best warriors
- The British stole India’s Kohinoor! etc etc.
You get the idea..
They are made with the utmost passion and are usually followed by a tirade of how India has fallen from greatness, has embraced “western imperialism” and needs to get back to its roots. Modern society is degenerating, homosexuals are roaming freely, and women are “losing their modesty”. Honestly, I’m astounded at how often I hear such nonsense.
Let’s assume it’s all true. Obviously there’s a good amount of idealization, glorification and whitewashing, but I’m going to ignore it for now. Pretend that India was the greatest jewel on the planet for thousands of years, that all the rulers were paragons of virtue, justice and wisdom. Give in to the belief that evil Muslims came and destroyed everything great about this paradise hundreds of years ago and imposed their barbaric rule, culture and laws upon it.
I may be asking for too much I know, but bear with me. Now that we’ve descended into self delusion and absorbed this nauseatingly glorified past, I have just one question.
So…bloody…what??
Indians living today share nothing but a few bits of DNA with our long dead ancestors. We didn’t know them. They certainly didn’t know us. We have no connection to them. But still we want to somehow claim greatness based on their (supposedly) lofty stature in the past. In effect, we want to bask in undeserved glory. The reality is that the deeds of those before don’t confer superiority on us today. Those who lived and died hundreds of years ago are strangers to us.
It means nothing. We have no business to feel proud.
I’ll tell you the kind of people who look to the past to find glory and feel better about themselves. Those who have no achievements of their own. People who think themselves so worthless and without anything to brag about that they have to dig up old glories of India – imagined or not – to elevate themselves and compensate for their current failings.
The atrocities committed hundreds or thousands of years ago have no bearing today. Those responsible have long since died and crumbled to dust, beyond the reach of our laws. Even those who suffered have been extinguished. The past is past. Let bygones by bygones.
Advocates of the past justify bringing up these old non-wounds by saying we must “learn from history” and trot out that famous saying “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This might have been valid if there was a danger today of Muslim hordes overrunning India today. If there was a risk of barbarians on horses frothing at the mouth waiting to convert every Hindu into a Muslim.
But there are no such barbarians today. There is no threat. We have far bigger problems than Islamic terrorism threatening us. Perhaps we’re afraid of tackling them and so find an easy target to blame everything on. It’s the evil Sonia Gandhi and her Christian pals in Rome! It’s the minority appeasing Congress that wants to convert every Hindu into a Muslim and impose Sharia law!
If only things were that simple and the enemy was so clearly outlined. But they’re not. Nothing is simple. We have far deeper and real systemic problems which we need to address. Finding an enemy to swing a sword at is just childish. We desperately need to grow up.
“Forgetting the past doesn’t mean you stop trying to change the current situation. So if you murdered my family and stole all my possessions, then I will certainly try to stop you and achieve justice in my own lifetime since I’m still alive and you’re still alive. What did you think I meant by “crumbled into dust?” But my children or grandchildren? They have no connection to me. Regardless of your crimes, your descendants are innocent.
It’s a basic principle of law, justice that the son is not responsible for the deeds of the father. I’m shocked that you feel otherwise.”
But what if you failed, and I still had your stuff, and my descendants inherited it? Would your descendants be justified in wanting it back from mine? If not, isn’t that basically saying that might makes right, that you can take stuff so long as you can keep it and die before its taken back from you? Isn’t that injustice? And if so, then why are you complaining about Indians wanting the Kohinoor diamond back? That the diamond was stolen is a symbol of Indian humiliation, just as much as the “No Indians or dogs allowed” apartheid signs that the British put up, or the fact that Reginald Dyer forced Indians to crawl on the street in Punjab where Marcella Sherwood was assaulted, or their impoverishing the country in general. Feeling hurt and angry about this is hardly the jingoism you make it seem to be. It proves that Indian people have a sense of justice and compassion. The reason I consider you callous and heartless is not only because you make light of this kind of pain and suffering, but you act as thought it is entirely irrelevant and have the nerve to tease people who really do care.
“That “Lion King” quote is a horrible one. In the case of physical pain (like the hit on the head) you have no choice but to feel the pain. But when ruminating over wrongs done to strangers hundreds of years ago, you choose to feel pain. Who’s fault is it?”
Have you even watched the movie, Bhagwad? One of the things that makes it such a classic is its clever use of symbolism and allegory. This particular scene is allegorical. Rafiki is using physical pain to refer to emotional pain that Simba feels, and saying that the pain of the past is no excuse for running away from the problems of the past. My point is, that like Simba you seem to consider the pain of the past irrelevant to the present, when, as the movie showed, it was indeed very relevant. Plus, it is quite incorrect to say that people “choose to feel pain” over the wrongs that strangers did centuries ago. You can’t choose to feel pain, any more than you can choose to feel happy or sad or disgusted or afraid. Why would anyone ever CHOOSE to feel pain and suffer, Bhagwad? Do you think people who are enraged over the atrocities Muslims committed in the past (and still continue to do, despite your studious attempts to ignore and whitewash it) LIKE feeling angry and hurt? If what you’re saying is true, and people choose their emotions, no one would ever grieve over anything. It’s absurd statements like this that make me wonder if you truly understand the scale and depth of human emotion. I’m not saying I do either, but this kind of thing is something that anyone who has ever been unhappy should understand.
“And why do we need heroes and role models? That’s a dangerous thing because heroes tend to be viewed as angels with no flaws. It’s very dangerous. I personally have no heroes or role models for this very reason. People can very well work together without any feelings of “nationalism”. They do so because cooperating is in their best interests. Don’t treat people as if they’re idiots who need irrational feelings to guide them.”
Humans need inspiration. They need something to give them courage, inner strength, and determination. That’s human nature; sorry, humans don’t fit your neat little idealized boxes. Not everyone soulless and dispassionate like you are. Even you, I’m sure, would find inspiration from SOMETHING, if you were truly desperate enough. Surely there’s someone in your life that you admire? Or are you so snobby and uptight that everyone you’ve ever met or heard of is beneath you? Your absolute refusal to empathize the suffering of others, and open mockery of it, would seem to suggest this. As far as people working together simply because it’s in their best interest, with no ideological glue to hold them together, why is it that your pet theory has NEVER, not once been observed in reality? The Communists tried this, Bhagwad. They wanted the state to wither away, and they failed miserably. It’s precisely because you promote bilge like this and simultaneously feel like you have the right to talk down to others that I consider you naive and hopelessly arrogant. I’m not treating people like idiots; I’m recognizing human psychological needs. If anything, you’re the one with the elitist, know it all attitude, sneering at those imbecilic, jingoistic Indian trolls. You’re the one who wants everyone to be a sanitized robot, with no appreciation at all for their heritage, and acts as if they only have the right to feel upset about what YOU want them to be upset about. And yet, I’M the one treating people like idiots? Don’t treat people like they’re machines that Bhagwad the Mighty can program according to your insensitive delusions.
“You don’t need Indian past specifically to know what you can do. We’re all humans right? We have the same DNA no? Take inspiration from all the world’s countries. What is this stupid focus on India as if Indians were something special? Take focus from humanity in general instead of focusing on specific people because you will never really know the truth about anyone in the past.”
Indians take inspiration from India and Indian civilization because Indian civilization is an integral part of their heritage, yes, more so than any other. That doesn’t prevent them from taking inspiration from anything else; it’s simply natural that they’ll be more drawn to India since they’re surrounded by the splendor of Indian culture, a splendor that you refuse to appreciate, and indeed, revel in denying.
In reply to Sasank
Once I die, and once you die everything between us ends. Our descendants are new people who have no connection to either of us except for DNA. I’ve already said this in the last comment.
I don’t know what you mean by “Indian” humiliation. I don’t feel humiliated over some rock that strangers took from other strangers hundreds of years ago. I have more sense than that. I’m Indian. Lots of other Indians feel like me. So “Indian” humiliation means what? What percent of Indians feel like this? There is no “India” as a collective entity which has feelings. Only individual people. India is nothing but a collection of people within these boundaries.
Lots of people choose to feel pain because of ego issues. If I was Simba, I would have happily continued living my life in the forest. Why should I care who killed my father? I’m safe no? And yes, I’ve seen the movie and also know all the dialogues by heart.
if oursome past event helps us to progess today..in a way it motivates yoou without harming society present senario.then i dont feel that its certain crime to feel great about our past and cherish them…but if it has wrong impact on society then why to waste our tym as well as others …
@The Bride
You do realize, that it’s precisely that nationalism that you dismiss, that pride in the past that living Koreans had nothing to do with, that promoted their independence movement (and ALL other independence movements around the world) and fueled their growth to become a first world country? When the Japanese colonized Korea, they went to great pains to destroy Korean culture, precisely because, like all imperialists, they understood the awesome power of pride in one’s heritage. So, they hijacked the bloodline of Korea’s royal family, banned the Korean language, and destroyed Korean national monuments. But that didn’t work. The Koreans always resisted Japanese exploitation. And when they became independent, they rebuilt what the Japanese had destroyed, like the Gwanghwamun, and reintroduced a sense of Korean pride. It is because the Koreans were reinvigorated in this manner that they had the determination necessary to built a prosperous nation, despite having few natural resources in a truncated state, with an aggressive Communist neighbor to the north.
Or take Israel, an even more spectacular case. The original Zionists started with virtually nothing. Their sliver of land was an arid desert with no natural resources. Their army was outnumbered and outgunned, and they were surrounded by neighbors who, to this day, continue to try to destroy them. Yet, they fought off the genocidal Arabs, and built a thriving, developed country with an HDI higher than that of the US, and a flourishing democracy to boot. And they did it precisely because they had fierce pride in their Jewish heritage, despite their state having been destroyed and their people dispersed TWO THOUSAND years ago. These people did not use nationalism as a “crutch,” they used it as FUEL, and I don’t know of any civilization that does otherwise, including India. It is because the Chinese felt humiliated by colonialist exploitation in the last century that they feel determined to be on top during this century, and that is why they invaded Tibet, attacked Vietnam, as well as India, and its why their economy is booming. And it’s because India was run by a gutless, spineless, coward, with little sense of pride for Indian civilization outside of the lip service he paid it in books, that India LOST land to China and Pakistan. India’s problem isn’t too much nationalism; it’s not enough nationalism. It is lack of national pride that causes the Indian government to simply ignore Chinese border incursions, allow the Maoists to continue to ransack and destroy the country, and respond to terrorist atrocities with little more than righteous verbal indignation. A nation’s past is an integral part of its present, and is an integral part of its people’s identity, despite Bhagwad’s bizarre attempts to artificially de-link it. And that is what makes it powerful.
In reply to Sasank
But Sasank, the issue is not whether national pride is useful sometimes. It’s also “national pride” that led the Nazis to WWII and the holocaust. There’s a dark side to everything.
Suppose India suddenly lost all it’s history (just pretend for a moment). What would have changed? Will people stop working? Would we all stop eating? Nothing would change!
The US didn’t have a “history” when they started off as colonies and were fighting for independence. And their example proves that you don’t need the crutch of “pride” in the past to be successful.
“Once I die, and once you die everything between us ends. Our descendants are new people who have no connection to either of us except for DNA. I’ve already said this in the last comment.”
No it doesn’t. The fact remains is that my theft and destruction has gone unpunished. You’re, again, essentially saying that might makes right here. I can kill and steal, and, so long as I’m not punished within my life time, and everyone involved is dead, it essentially NEVER HAPPENED in your book. What you’re promoting is anarchy, Bhagwad. It seems like, if you were in India at the time of the British Raj, you’d never have protested against it if you weren’t personally suffering, even if the rest of the country was bled dry, because in your mind, “we’re all human” so there would be no essential difference between the British and yourself. This cold, callous attitude only shows how out of touch with reality you are. As anyone who experienced British atrocities first hand can tell you, abstract, fatalistic philosophical drivel about the oneness of mankind is hardly useful, comforting, or indeed relevant when your nation is being raped.
“I don’t know what you mean by “Indian” humiliation. I don’t feel humiliated over some rock that strangers took from other strangers hundreds of years ago. I have more sense than that. I’m Indian. Lots of other Indians feel like me. So “Indian” humiliation means what? What percent of Indians feel like this? There is no “India” as a collective entity which has feelings. Only individual people. India is nothing but a collection of people within these boundaries.”
You’re Indian? Really? What about that globalist crap you were spouting a few posts ago? As far as Indian humiliation, it’s really obvious: it’s when those “collection of people” all feel humiliated over something. Take the Anna Hazare protests for instance. The Indian people all felt enraged over the shameless corruption of the Indian government, not just of the present day, but of 60 years of corruption and incompetence. It’s why all of Bengal was in uproar over the partition of 1905, or why the entire nation was upset over the passing of the Rowlatt Act in 1919. Collective consciousness does exist, and is indeed potent. Feeling upset over something bad that is old and entrenched, so old that it predates your very existence, is hardly something to be ashamed of.
“Lots of people choose to feel pain because of ego issues. If I was Simba, I would have happily continued living my life in the forest. Why should I care who killed my father? I’m safe no? And yes, I’ve seen the movie and also know all the dialogues by heart.”
So you would leave the Pride Lands to literally rot under the tyrannical rule of Scar? That’s just cruel, unbelievably selfish, and frankly disgusting. It, yet again, proves that you’re self centered and have zero sympathy for anyone.
In reply to Sasank
Again wrong.
1. I didn’t say it “never happened”. I’m saying that justice after death is meaningless.
2. It’s not anarchy. I’m advocating following the law when we’re alive. How can corpses cause anarchy?
3. I would protest against the British as much as I protest against authoritarian Indians – like Kapil Sibal. But yes, the fact that they’re specifically “British” would be irrelevant to me since I don’t care about skin color.
4. What do you do when some “Indians” doesn’t feel humiliated? Do you still call it “Indian” humiliation? What’s the threshold?
5. Yes, feeling bad about old history IS something to be ashamed of. It means you’re not living your own life but someone else’s. Why not go back millions of years then and hate all tigers because they killed our ancestors at that time?
6. Umm..when you leave a place, what connection do you have to it anymore? Yes – the pride lands would not be my responsibility. And yes, there’s nothing wrong in being selfish.
“But Sasank, the issue is not whether national pride is useful sometimes. It’s also “national pride” that led the Nazis to WWII and the holocaust. There’s a dark side to everything.”
So? Everything is toxic if taken to the extreme, and that’s not what I’m advocating at all. Trying to destroy nationalism because it has the potential for abuse is like trying to destroy the economy to prevent corporate exploitation, or never leaving your house out of a fear that you’ll be hit by a car. Even you’re own globalist nonsense has the potential for abuse, as the painful corruption, ineptitude, and injustice of the United Nations makes very clear. But that doesn’t mean that a concept of global humanism is useless either.
“Suppose India suddenly lost all it’s history (just pretend for a moment). What would have changed? Will people stop working? Would we all stop eating? Nothing would change!”
The sense of Indian identity would unravel, and an already strained India would break apart into a bunch of small, regional states. It’s because India is such a diverse country that nationalism is even more important than in other, more homogeneous countries; there’s less of a reason to stay united.
“The US didn’t have a “history” when they started off as colonies and were fighting for independence. And their example proves that you don’t need the crutch of “pride” in the past to be successful.”
Wrong. If you Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” or indeed any other patriotic document from the time period, you’ll find that the Americans were able to separate from Britain precisely BECAUSE they had a history SEPARATE from that of their British masters that created a sense of separate identity that formed the basis of the American Revolution. The Americans nevver used pride in the past as a “crutch” and I have yet to see any civilization on earth that has. History is inescapable Bhagwad. I really don’t know why you insist on everyone trying to insulate themselves from what is rightfully theirs.
In reply to Sasank
I’m against nationalism because it’s insulting to the individual and makes them feel illogically proud/ashamed of themselves.
What you refuse to explain to me is how can history be “ours?” Just because we shared DNA with those people? Did you know that everyone on earth is related to everyone else – at the most 50 degrees of separation. So EVERY person in the past is your ancestor. So why not feel proud of every country’s history? What’s so special about “Indian” history?
If you want to feel proud of history, I’m not trying to stop you. It’s your right. But I have the right to say that it’s illogical. You can either debate that or not on the basis of logic.
Here’s why it’s illogical:
1. You can only feel proud/ashamed of something you did. Otherwise your happiness/sadness doesn’t depend on you, but on other people whom you cannot influence in any way.
2. You were not part of history.
3. Logically therefore, you cannot feel proud/ashamed of history.
“Again wrong.
1. I didn’t say it “never happened”. I’m saying that justice after death is meaningless.”
So again, you’re saying that anyone can do anything they want, and if they aren’t caught, and everyone involved dies, then no one has any right to feel angry, hurt, cheated, or bitter about it, and everyone should go on with their lives as they would have as if nothing happened, since “justice after death is meaningless.” So, yes, you are implying that it never happened. And that is cruel.
“2. It’s not anarchy. I’m advocating following the law when we’re alive. How can corpses cause anarchy?”
No you’re not. You’re giving anyone a blank check to do anything so long as they can get away with it, and adding insult to injury by saying that future generations have no right to protest the injustices that caused their present misery. That’s just cold.
“3. I would protest against the British as much as I protest against authoritarian Indians – like Kapil Sibal. But yes, the fact that they’re specifically “British” would be irrelevant to me since I don’t care about skin color.”
Why would you protest if nothing was happening to you personally? To quote you, “So…bloody…what?” The people who are suffering have just as little connection to you as the people who are dead and gone did: none whatsoever save for some DNA. So why protest? It’s not like there’s some conception of nationalism that would compel you to feel angry over the rape of your nation. That would be “nauseating” wouldn’t it?
“4. What do you do when some “Indians” doesn’t feel humiliated? Do you still call it “Indian” humiliation? What’s the threshold?”
Was there some kind of palpable effect motivated by the protests of people throughout the nation of all different types and not just one group? Then yes, it’s “Indian humiliation.”
“5. Yes, feeling bad about old history IS something to be ashamed of. It means you’re not living your own life but someone else’s.”
No, in case you haven’t noticed, all patriots throughout history have lived their own lives, as do all Indians who feel annoyed over past injustice. The difference between them and others is because history played an important role in shaping their identity and outlook.
“Why not go back millions of years then and hate all tigers because they killed our ancestors at that time?”
Because tigers don’t know any better. Thieves and murderers do.
“6. Umm..when you leave a place, what connection do you have to it anymore? Yes – the pride lands would not be my responsibility. And yes, there’s nothing wrong in being selfish.”
You have an emotional connection to places you’ve left, especially if you left under duress, as the Kashmiri Pandits did when they were driven out of the Kashmir Valley by jihadi fanatics that you claim are nonexisteant or how the Hindus did when they were driven out of Pakistan. If I kicked you out of your house, I’m sure you’d feel upset, especially if I said that you had no right to be. And there is indeed something wrong with being self centered and selfish, just as there is something wrong with being cruel, greedy, or arrogant. If there is indeed nothing wrong with being selfish, then what is wrong with me killing your family and taking your stuff? Why are you advocating following the law while we’re alive if the selfish thing to do would be to ignore it. Again, you’re irresponsibly promoting anarchy.
In reply to Sasank
1. No one plans on committing a crime and then dying. The threat of punishment while they still live is enough thank you very much! I said “justice” after death is meaningless. How this translates into denying it never happened is a leap of logic I can’t make.
2. If by “getting away with it”, you mean dying, then yes you could call it that. However, I doubt many criminals would agree with you on your definition of “getting away with it”. Most would like to live long lives and profit from their misdeeds instead of just upping and dying :D
3. If I live in India, it could happen to me personally too no? That’s why.
4. So what’s the threshold of people who have to feel something for it to be “Indian?” 10%? 50%? 99? 78.2%? What’s your logic here? Because I can find any number of Indians who don’t give a shit about the Kohinoor. What gives you the right to speak for them and call it an “Indian” emotion?
5. Sure, study history to learn and shape your outlook. But to feel emotional about it is illogical.
6. Sure, I would feel bad if you kicked me out of my house. But my children should not blame your children for it after we’re both dead. In generals humans have evolved empathy. That is why I don’t murder and rape. Because doing so would cause me distress. And that is extremely selfish. Mother Teresa felt happy about her charity work. She also was a very selfish person because she did it to feel good.
Hopefully you wouldn’t want to kill my family because you too have empathy. If not, then the law will punish you – and that’s another reason it’s selfish. It’s not selfish to ignore the law. Breaking the law implies punishment. Don’t you want to avoid pain?
So no – again you fail to describe how this is “anarchy” when I say that the rule of law is so important.
In reply to bhagwad
“1. No one plans on committing a crime and then dying. The threat of punishment while they still live is enough thank you very much! I said “justice” after death is meaningless. How this translates into denying it never happened is a leap of logic I can’t make.”
What does this have to do with anything? I’m not saying that people plan on committing crimes and then dying, I’m saying that you’re essentially saying that it’s okay for people to do whatever they want, and, so long as they never get punished for it, no one should feel bad about it, and everyone should go about their lives as if it never happened, because trying to seek justice after death is “meaningless” and “insulting.”
“2. If by “getting away with it”, you mean dying, then yes you could call it that. However, I doubt many criminals would agree with you on your definition of “getting away with it”. Most would like to live long lives and profit from their misdeeds instead of just upping and dying :D”
My definition involves them living long, happy lives based on blood money while the people that they stole from, and their descendants, rot. And according to you, these descendants have no right at all to be upset, or try to seek justice. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound!
“3. If I live in India, it could happen to me personally too no? That’s why.”
Not necessarily. The Indian elite hardly suffered at all. What if you were chummy with the Viceroy and never suffered, and indeed prospered under British rule? Why would you fight it? You’d greedily amass more and more power and wealth at the expense of your fellow man, and feel no regret about it at all, because the people who are suffering have no relation to you apart from DNA. That’s simply elitist arrogance.
“So what’s the threshold of people who have to feel something for it to be “Indian?” 10%? 50%? 99? 78.2%? What’s your logic here? Because I can find any number of Indians who don’t give a shit about the Kohinoor. What gives you the right to speak for them and call it an “Indian” emotion?”
I’m not sure what the exact percentage is, and I’m also not sure why you’re belaboring this insignificant point. The fact is that the Indian people certainly felt, feel, and will feel a sense of national humiliation, as you will find if you ask anyone who is upset over the theft of the Kohinoor diamond. They feel that the national pride of the Indian people has been wounded, and as such, the concept of national identity exists, and is important. Saying it doesn’t exist simply because we can’t quantify it is simply ignoring reality.
“Sure, study history to learn and shape your outlook. But to feel emotional about it is illogical.”
Sorry, humans aren’t logical beings, and we don’t choose to feel emotions (or else everyone would always choose to be happy.) Like it or not, the past is part of our identity, and people feel emotional about it, whether they like it or not. Deal with it.
“Sure, I would feel bad if you kicked me out of my house. But my children should not blame your children for it after we’re both dead.”
But can your children blame me, and want their house back? Do they at least have the right to feel annoyed that their birthright was taken from them by me?
“In generals humans have evolved empathy. That is why I don’t murder and rape.”
Why is this a good thing?
“Because doing so would cause me distress.”
What if there was something that would cause you great happiness, but cause someone else great suffering? Would you do it? Why not? That person has nothing to do with you aside from DNA.
“And that is extremely selfish. Mother Teresa felt happy about her charity work. She also was a very selfish person because she did it to feel good.”
Who cares? All that these people have in common with me is DNA. Why shouldn’t I hurt them if it helps me to do so?
“Hopefully you wouldn’t want to kill my family because you too have empathy.”
No I don’t. You’re just random DNA that has nothing to do with me. Why should I have empathy? Why should I give a damn about you, especially when hurting you could benefit me?
“If not, then the law will punish you – and that’s another reason it’s selfish. It’s not selfish to ignore the law. Breaking the law implies punishment.”
Why should there be laws? What’s wrong with hurting people who have no relation to you apart from DNA?
“Don’t you want to avoid pain?”
If I can get away with it, there will be no pain from anyone except you. That is why criminals commit crimes; they don’t think they’ll get caught, and want the free stuff.
“So no – again you fail to describe how this is “anarchy” when I say that the rule of law is so important.”
But why do you think rule of law is important when the only relationship we have to other people is through DNA? It only curbs out individual freedom and power.
In reply to Sasank
1. Death washes away all sins.
2. Who said they can’t be upset when the person is living? Not me! Punish them using the law while they live no? Once they die, their sins die with them.
3. Being close to the viceroy is a very unstable kind of security. I won’t be happy with it. I’ll fight to be even more secure. Also, I care about my fellow LIVING human beings because I see myself in them. It’s called empathy. Regardless of country, race, gender etc etc.
4. Oh the percentage is VERY important! Suppose just I feel insulted. Will you be happy with me calling it “national sentiments” and speak for you? No! So clearly there is a line in your mind. I want to know what that line is.
For me of course all this is bogus. There can never be “national” sentiments. Only collective individual sentiments.
5. I’ve never denied that people have the right to feel whatever they want. But I’m saying it’s illogical.
“In generals humans have evolved empathy. That is why I don’t murder and rape.”
Why is this a good thing?
How does good and bad come into this? Homo sapiens is a social animal. It’s just the way we are.
6. If you don’t have empathy, that is what we call a “pscyhopath” in medical terminology. Hopefully if you commit a crime you’ll be locked away. But most people are not like that.
Why should there be laws? What’s wrong with hurting people who have no relation to you apart from DNA?
Again – empathy. A basic human trait.
“I’m against nationalism because it’s insulting to the individual and makes them feel illogically proud/ashamed of themselves.”
Wrong. Nationalism is based on individualism, especially in democratic countries. It’s FASCISM and COMMUNISM that deny the individual, and that’s not what I’m suggesting at all.
“What you refuse to explain to me is how can history be “ours?” Just because we shared DNA with those people?”
I have explained it. Read my posts again. To wit:
“The reason that Indians (and every other member of an advanced culture) feel proud about their past, even if it had nothing to do with them, is because, despite this, it is an integral part of their identity. The reason India is the way it is today is because of the “wise kings, best warriors, great philosophers” and other people who you claim never existed. The Indian worldview, the Indian way of life, Indian languages, Indian food, clothing, architecture, literature, philosophy and other aspects of Indian culture are the way that they are because of the past. Our past is an inescapable part of our present, and of ourselves, despite your bizarre insistence on severing it. People are proud of these things because it shows what India was able to do in the past, and could do again in the future if the Indian people stopped denying themselves and refused to let people walk all over them and their heritage.”
“Did you know that everyone on earth is related to everyone else – at the most 50 degrees of separation. So EVERY person in the past is your ancestor. So why not feel proud of every country’s history? What’s so special about “Indian” history?”
Because it’s “every country’s” history that has nothing to do with Indian people. The culture and history of Swaziland had absolutely no influence on India, aside from DNA.
“If you want to feel proud of history, I’m not trying to stop you. It’s your right. But I have the right to say that it’s illogical. You can either debate that or not on the basis of logic.
Here’s why it’s illogical:
1. You can only feel proud/ashamed of something you did. Otherwise your happiness/sadness doesn’t depend on you, but on other people whom you cannot influence in any way.”
2. You were not part of history.
3. Logically therefore, you cannot feel proud/ashamed of history.”
Like it or not, things that you never did are part of your identity, because those things shape every detail of your life today. The fact that you cannot influence this doesn’t change that.
In reply to Sasank
Ok – I get it now. The problem is this definition of “India”. “India” is just a set of man made geographic borders. This is a fact. Why get so emotional about it?
The weather also shapes certain details of my life today. That doesn’t make it part of my identity.
In reply to bhagwad
“Ok – I get it now. The problem is this definition of “India”. “India” is just a set of man made geographic borders. This is a fact. Why get so emotional about it?”
Nope, India is a concept that is more than just man made borders. See here:
http://sankrant.org/2003/10/why-india-is-a-nation/
Because the concept of India lives in the hearts and minds of the Indian people, it is very much an emotional thing, dependent upon the past, present, and future.
“The weather also shapes certain details of my life today. That doesn’t make it part of my identity.”
Sure it does. Weather is part of culture and thus part of identity. That’s why the Japanese revere the kamikaze, or divine wind that saved them from the Mongol invaders. It’s why the central US is called Tornado Valley, because tornadoes are frequent there. Tornado Valley is meaningless to the British, and kamikaze nonsensical to the Italians, because it isn’t part of their culture and thus not part of their identity.
In reply to Sasank
Again, you use that word “Indian people”. I know lots of legal Indians (like myself) who think India is just a set of man made borders. What gives you the right to speak for me by calling it “Indian sentiments?”
As for weather, you’re saying a person feels proud/ashamed of the weather? Are the Japanese proud of their tsunamis? Are they ashamed of it? Remember this debate isn’t about merely acknowledging history. It’s about feeling proud/ashamed of it.
“1. Death washes away all sins.”
I see. So should we regard all dead mass murderers as saints now?
“2. Who said they can’t be upset when the person is living? Not me! Punish them using the law while they live no? Once they die, their sins die with them.”
Can they be upset after that person is dead? Can they demand their stuff back from the descendants? Can they demand a posthumous condemnation of some sort for the history books? The descendants of the criminal aren’t guilty, both sides know that, but the descendants of the victim want closure and justice. Why do you want to deny them that?
“3. Being close to the viceroy is a very unstable kind of security. I won’t be happy with it. I’ll fight to be even more secure. ”
Let us, for argument’s sake, assume that you’re in the securest position possible, and fighting would only destabilize it. This is hardly unrealistic; plenty of Indian elites risked their own well being for the national cause (a cause you claim never existed). What then? Would you still fight the British?
“Also, I care about my fellow LIVING human beings because I see myself in them. It’s called empathy. Regardless of country, race, gender etc etc.”
Why can’t empathy extend to DEAD human beings? Why don’t you see yourself in them too? Do they suddenly cease to be worthy of your empathy once they kick the bucket? Plus, not all people feel the same amount of empathy to all people; most people, for instance, care about their family members more than they care about random people they don’t know, and that’s why people regard themselves as being part of a nation rather than part of the human species. Are you seriously telling me you have the same amount of affection for random strangers in far off countries, people you’ve never met and never will meet, that you have for your closest friends and family members? Is that really realistic?
“Oh the percentage is VERY important! Suppose just I feel insulted. Will you be happy with me calling it “national sentiments” and speak for you? No! So clearly there is a line in your mind. I want to know what that line is.”
For me of course all this is bogus. There can never be “national” sentiments. Only collective individual sentiments.”
What exactly is the difference between “collective individual sentiments” and national sentiments? A nation is a collection of individuals! I don’t know where the line is, but it clearly must exist, because otherwise, the concept of nationhood wouldn’t exist either, and it clearly does. Indians regard themselves as being part of the Indian nation, Americans regard themselves as being part of the American nation, Italians as part of the Italian nation, etc. and even you can’t deny that since you seem to consider yourself Indian.
“How does good and bad come into this? Homo sapiens is a social animal. It’s just the way we are.
6. If you don’t have empathy, that is what we call a “pscyhopath” in medical terminology. Hopefully if you commit a crime you’ll be locked away. But most people are not like that.
Again – empathy. A basic human trait.”
If empathy is so natural and basic human trait, as you correctly point out, how can you criticize Indians for having empathy for their ancestors who suffered Islamic invasions and British colonialism? Sure, you are cold and heartless, we’ve established that beyond a shadow of a doubt, but everyone else can’t help the empathy that they feel, so how can you say it’s illogical? Emotions aren’t based on logic. They just are more loving and caring than you, I guess.
“Again, you use that word “Indian people”. I know lots of legal Indians (like myself) who think India is just a set of man made borders. What gives you the right to speak for me by calling it “Indian sentiments?””
Because if Indians as a whole did not have some kind of collective sentiment about an Indian nation, the men in question would have no reason to make those borders and declare everything within it as “India.” and the people within as “Indians.”
“As for weather, you’re saying a person feels proud/ashamed of the weather? Are the Japanese proud of their tsunamis? Are they ashamed of it? Remember this debate isn’t about merely acknowledging history. It’s about feeling proud/ashamed of it.”
Yep, the Japanese are proud of their tsunamis, proud of their mountains, proud of their rose trees, proud of their tea, and all sorts of other natural stuff, just as Indians are proud of their sacred mountains, sacred trees, sacred rivers etc. All of these things are part of their culture and their identity. You seem to be employing a very narrow concept of pride in which people are only proud of their own achievements. But these achievements are intertwined with the world around us. The Japanese, for instance may not have become the powerful, developed country that they are today without the sense of Japanese identity that comes from a collective association with tsunamis, mountains, etc, even if they had nothing to do with those natural phenomenon. Your narrow concept of pride artificially separates individual accomplishments from outside influence, when, in reality, that isn’t the case at all.
In reply to Sasank
1. Straw man. Neither saints nor demons.
2. If there’s a matter of law to be settled, let the law take its own course. If there’s no issue of law (like Muslims invading etc), then the descendants of both sides just need to get a life and move on. “Closure” is achieved when you choose to close it.
3. See 4.
4. Empathy can’t extend to the dead since the dead have no feelings. Empathy by definition means feeling what the other person feels. Dead people don’t exist so there’s no question of them having feelings. I would think this is obvious.
5. Unless that line is drawn, you have no right to call anything “Indian sentiments” until every single human being in India feels that way. Till then, you can only use phrases like “most Indians”, “some Indians”, etc etc. Not “Indians” per se. Again – so logical no?
6. Again – you can’t have empathy for dead people. See point 4.
7. Nonsense. Show me a Japanese who’s proud of their weather, and I’ll show you an idiot.
“Straw man. Neither saints nor demons.”
Really? So mass murderers are somehow NOT demons after they are dead? Why? Why shouldn’t we consider them to be incarnations of hate and destruction? The fact that they are dead does not change the magnitude of their crimes. Death is no escape from judgment or justice. Death doesn’t come with a pardon.
“If there’s a matter of law to be settled, let the law take its own course. If there’s no issue of law (like Muslims invading etc), then the descendants of both sides just need to get a life and move on. “Closure” is achieved when you choose to close it.”
“Get a life and move on.” How delightfully vague. How do you intend for Hindus to “move on” when Muslims refuse to leave them alone and continue to try to finish what the Muslim invaders started? As I’ve stated many times on your negationist blog posts, the jihad against India is still continuing. Just ask the Islamic courts of “secular” India, or a member of Lashkar e Taiba, or a Pakistani textbook publisher. Hindus taking pride in their past is their way of achieving closure and reversing the murderous legacy of Muslim marauders. Why do you insist on sneering at their humiliation? Why do you insist on denying its existence when the evidence of it is painfully clear to anyone without your insufferably condescending attitude?
“4. Empathy can’t extend to the dead since the dead have no feelings. Empathy by definition means feeling what the other person feels. Dead people don’t exist so there’s no question of them having feelings. I would think this is obvious.”
Nope. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/61284
“The power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.”
So that definition fits nicely with your “I see myself in them” thing. You can see “project your personality into” a dead person and thus “fully comprehend” them. The very fact that people actually do feel empathy for dead people refutes your idea that empathy can’t extend to the dead. People don’t CHOOSE to feel empathy, or indeed any other emotion for that matter. Emotions just come; if we could control them, no one would ever be sad.
“Nonsense. Show me a Japanese who’s proud of their weather, and I’ll show you an idiot.”
Ad hominem is no substitute for substance. The fact is, the Japanese are proud of their kamikaze, they are proud of their sun (from which their emperor is said to be descendant), they are proud of Mount Fuji, etc. The fact that you happen to consider them to be idiotic for that is really your own tiresome elitist opinion. Being proud of our culture, our heritage, our way of life, is natural; that’s the way humans construct their individual identities. I am puzzled as to why you vehemently reject this as irrational when it’s more or less involuntary.
In reply to Sasank
Hate them in the abstract if you want. But they don’t even exist anymore…so it’s literally impossible for them to be saints or demons.
Just like you use the word “India” illogically, you’re also using the word “Muslims” and “Hindus” illogically. Unless you can show that every single Hindu or Muslim feels a certain way, you have no right to use either of those words.
Google has a nice page with multiple definitions of empathy. All of them refer to “another person” or “another”. Since dead people cease to exist, they are neither “people” anymore nor are they “another”. This is patently obvious and I don’t know why you contest this.
I disagree that people can’t regulate their emotions. It’s called the “Emotional Quotient” or EQ. Anyone who can’t regulate their emotions is a child. I have more respect for people than to assume that they’re children. You might not be able to regulate your emotions, but I assure you that most humans – including myself – can and do on a regular basis.
I have greater respect for the people of Japan than you think – most of them are not idiots. That’s why you won’t easily find a Japanese who feels proud of their tsunamis.
“Unless that line is drawn, you have no right to call anything “Indian sentiments” until every single human being in India feels that way. Till then, you can only use phrases like “most Indians”, “some Indians”, etc etc. Not “Indians” per se. Again – so logical no?”
Not really. Indian nationalism, Indian national sentiment, exist, because if they didn’t then there would be no concept of India, which there obviously is. There obviously can’t be an exact line because Indian popular opinion is constantly changing, but the concept of a collective Indian identity can’t not exist, or else India would never have existed.
In reply to Sasank
Your concept of India need not be my concept of India. So I repeat that you have no right to say anything about “Indians” since you don’t speak for every single Indian in the country. It’s logically impossible.