Sunday, 25 October 2020

Is Shaj Mohan stupider than Divya Dwivedi?

Is Shaj Mohan as stupid as Divya Dwivedi? Is such a thing even possible? From the Philosophic point of view, following Collingwood, we might 'evaluate' Philosophers on the basis of their engagement with open, rather than closed, questions in STEM fields. 

Criticallegalthinking has an interview with Mohan. Let us see if the fellow can match the imbecility of his co-author.

Auwn Gurmani: What triggered your initial interest in M. K. Gandhi? How do you place your understanding of his concepts vis-a-vis the recent scholarship on Gandhi?

Shaj Mohan: M. K. Gandhi appeared as a non-philosophical object of special interest to philosophy, and that’s the “trigger warning”.

Why? Was the child Mohan raped by philosophers? Or was he merely a 'non-philosophical object of special interest' to those slavering pederasts? Does he think Radhakrishnan raped the Mahatma? 

Raghavan Iyer had developed Gandhi as a philosophical object. Countless others- some quite smart, like Sorabji- had piled onto the bandwagon. Thus Gandhi was a philosophical object by the time Mohan got to College.

As you know the research and publication on Gandhi were done with Divya Dwivedi and it began when we made a presentation on Gandhi’s “Indian Home Rule” in 2006 in St Stephen’s college when we were students. At that time I was interested in the meaning of “evaluation” in philosophy after Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

Witlesstein and Heidegger represent cul de sacs. Their 'evaluations' turned out to be utterly shite. Brouwer contributed to both Philosophy and Mathematics. Witless stuck his thumb up his ass. Von Neumann developed Game theory. Witless didn't get that 'following a rule' is just Akriebia. Philosophy is concerned with oikonomia.  

We discovered that the concept of “kinesis”, which Gandhi understood as “speed”, directed his critical evaluation of civilizations.

The Aristotelian concept of kinesis- or movement turning potentiality into actuality- was not known to Gandhi. Islam in India had embraced Occassionalism as had Gandhi's ancestral Vaishnavism. However, Theosophy had embraced theurgy and theosis. Bhai Parmanand, who came to stay with Gandhi, was an Arya Samajist. Gandhi had grown up in the shadow of an Arya meeting hall. That sect had been founded by a fellow Kathiawari. It is quite easy to elucidate Gandhi's philosophy in Indian terms. However, knowledge of Gujarati would also help. The fact is, Gandhi's dad followed the Pushtimarga and would have been affected by the Maharaj libel case- an important reason Gandhi would want to steer clear of sex- but this also meant that the Gandhis were in the opposite camp from the 'reformers'. But, this meant, to be on the safe side- and not have to hand over your wife to some future Maharaj- the Gandhis pruned back on the kinetic aspects of Vallabha ontology- i.e. holy men pumping holiness into the orifices of family members. Still, just to keep up with the Joneses, Gandhi did read a little about Tantrism- a Muslim devotee of his from the Tyabji family loved talking about this sort of thing when I was young- but chose a path which wouldn't leave him riddled with syphilis, like his Sanskrit Prof. Manilal Dwiwedi. Interestingly, Raghavan Iyer's wife came from a very distinguished family on the opposite side from Dwiwedi. Thankfully, Iyer- being a true Tambram imbecile, despite having a high I.Q- ignored the sort of insights his in-laws could have provided. 




This does not mean you can't find an 'open problem' to gas on about 'Gandhian kinesis'. The fact is, Gandhi knew the Jain aashrav theory. He also knew that Jain Sadhu's (or Sankaracharyas for that matter) could not take a train or bullock cart. Why? One Religion has an elaborate theory of kinetics. The other has a block universe. The only interface where a commonality could exist was in antarabhava which also appears in Islam as barzakh. I suppose one could connect this to open problems in reverse mathematics. Another way to look at it, is to ask if a bit of memory arising out of an arbitrary halting mechanism is equivalent to a Turing oracle. One could then give a current philosophical framework within which to ask why Gandhi was so convinced in the inerrancy of his inner voice. True, this would still be a pretty shitty project. But it wouldn't be based on stupid lies.
Gandhi had borrowed his theory of speed and even examples from Thomas Taylor’s “Fallacy of Speed”.

This is not a theory. It is an opinion.  

For Taylor and Gandhi, the analysis of speed, (to put it in a dangerously simplified form for this occasion) showed that the values of things and actions changed according to the speed of their systems.

There was no analysis. Taylor was saying 'faster aint better'. Gandhi translated that shite as he translated some other shite from Fifield's 'Simple Life' Press. Back then, Chesterton and Shaw and so forth made a good living writing 'paradoxical' shite of that sort. Gandhi had a Press and a Paper to run.  

For example, a pilgrimage by foot loses its value when it is undertaken using modern transportation; the presumed piety is exchanged for touristic enjoyment.

Because a pilgrimage is supposed to be about discomfort and sacrifice. Tourism is supposed to be about enjoyment. This is comparing apples with oranges.  

We found that Gandhi had a desire for absolute values.

Unlike most theists who want to get right with only a relatively Divine God. 

As you know “absolute zero” in thermodynamics is that temperature at which all “kinesis” at the molecular level comes to an end, and it is theoretically impossible to obtain. Gandhi explicitly sought to reduce himself, and humanity, to the speed of zero; that is, he wanted to bring humanity to a voluntary self-sacrifice and declare “henceforth time shall no longer be”—a worldwide state of passive resisters creating “the absolute zero” of politics was Gandhi’s goal. The risk we face today is precisely the attempts at the creation of an absolute zero in politics.

Gandhi said some stupid shit. Politicians tend to do so.  But he believed in reincarnation. Absolute zero in this world would not matter. There would still be rebirth on other planes of existence. No doubt, Umasvati's omega point does feature a heat death of the multiverse. But everybody would have kevalya-gyan for non-denumerable infinity. 

Why is Mohan pretending that Gandhi wanted to end the Universe? Has he been reading too many Marvel comics? 

In 2007 we published a research paper on Gandhi in the Economic and Political Weekly

which, believe it or not, was once read by smart people 

after we discovered another thinking at work in Gandhi, to which we gave the name hypophysics. Hypophysics identifies “the good value” of a thing with its ‘natural state’, and deviation from nature is then evil.

So a pair of silly kids write dadaist shite- exercises in pure pataphysics- and EPW publishes them- perhaps as a joke. Then the kids get trapped by their own jeu de esprit. They made a face but the wind changed direction and now, for the rest of their lives, they are doomed to grimace at the world while asserting that Gandhi was the sort of Comic Book Villain against whom the Avengers must assemble. Thanos merely killed half of all sentient life. Gandhi wanted to bring about the heat death of the entire multiverse. What will Mohan write about next? Anne Frank's cunning plan to prevent the Big Bang from ever happening? Mother Theresa's dastardly plot to turn everybody into pizza- that too, the Hawaiian sort?

For Taylor and Gandhi a man taking a walk across the field adheres to the nature of his limbs which was determined by “the Maker”,

in which case, Mohan is lying about Gandhi wanting to reduce the Universe's temperature to absolute zero 

but a man on a motorcycle is fleeing from his nature.

Very true. When you see a bunch of Hell's Angels you must tell them this. By nature, they are a bunch of sissies. How long will you flee from yourself, my little powder-puff?  

Hypophysics is older than M. K. Gandhi and it is at work even now in the Gandhians and his opponents.

Hypophysics, as defined by Kant, just means 'occult qualities' or what we call 'hidden variables'. What Mohan is doing is pataphysics.   

It is impossible to find any such given ‘nature’, even in what we call the “natural world”. This problem is circumvented by most versions of hypophysics by setting up something like an idyllic a priori.

Postulating a golden age at the beginning of time is a feature of many religious traditions. Hinduism has a notion of Satya Yuga. Christianity has the notion of Eden. To return to that paradisal state involves 'hyperphysics'- as in Tielhard's system. I suppose one could hypothesize 'hidden variables' which could be manipulated till the original position is restored. But if, like Gandhi, you believe in reincarnation, what is the point? If you live properly, you will be reborn in Satya Yuga or Vaikuntha or whatever. 

Mohan is mindlessly applying a Western analogy to a Hindu man. 

Idyllic a priori are the terms and values derived from the idylls, or the desired a posteriori of someone or some men. All kinds of idyllic a priori suppress the oppressive conditions in which those idylls were possible and all idylls are derived from the experiences of privileged groups of men. For example, Gandhi found his idyllic a priori in the Indian villages and it corresponded to the lives of the well to do upper caste men of the village, thus suppressing the horrors of the caste order that sustains Indian villages even today.

This criticism would be effective against Chesterton, who liked his food and drink and wouldn't have enjoyed such lenten fare as medieval England afforded the villein, but it is ineffective against Gandhi who moved to the boondocks and did manual scavenging and so forth. What 'horrors' did Dalit members of his Ashram have to face? Whatever they were, they were the same as other Ashramites faced. Or so we are told. 

The subcontinental versions of postcolonial and subaltern studies think from the same upper caste idyllic a priori.

No they don't. This is Mohan's own unique contribution to the history of stupidity.  

Recently, in the context of the pandemic, Giorgio Agamben revealed his idyl[iii]l as the small town in Europe where the churches determine man’s relation to his nature, from which his idyllic a priori follows. In this case, it suppresses the colonial

what fucking colonies did Italy possess then?  

and other exploitative conditions which sustained this very idyll.

but, if Agamben has finally made his way back to the Church, then those exploitative conditions don't matter. Everybody, bought a ticket to paradise at the price of a nasty, brutish and mercifully short life.  

To return to the second part of your question, most of the scholarship on Gandhi, including the criticisms, share Gandhi’s idyllic a priori.

No they don't. Only Mohan mentions any such nonsense.  The fact is Gandhian communes are like Tolstoyan communes. They are independent of caste or class configurations. Plenty of journalists turned up at Anna Hazare's Ralegan Siddhi hoping to uncover exploitation of Dalits. They failed. But, it turned out Hazare used to beat drunkards. Indians were delighted to hear this. Hazare's stock rose. 

AG: As much as your work is critical of Gandhi and it decenters him from his usual position of a Mahatma and a political and spiritual hero of subcontinent, there is a cause of worry for some readers. As the political thinker J. Reghu in his review of Gandhi and Philosophy[iv], wrote that Gandhi has been elevated too much by this work? How would you reply to that?
Likewise, there is a body of criticism of Gandhi’s views on caste and his racial ideas. How do you view Gandhi on Caste and Race?

SM: J. Reghu is one of the most exciting political thinkers of India.

 But only to deeply boring cunts with zero political influence. 

Being uninterested in any consensus he is able to see the articulations of these very consensual structures which decide what can and cannot be said in public. However, I would like to think that J. Reghu had discussed some of the reasons why Gandhi became important within a philosophical project.

Some day, I like to think, Mohan will attain the erudition and eminence of J.Reghu. Perhaps that day has already come and gone. This was Mohan's a priori idyll. 


A philosophical interest in Gandhi is very different from the lobbying interests invested in him; the former gives us the possibility to think the absolute zero of politics while the latter has given us the “Mahatma Propagandhi”, the man suited to sell anything. Philosophical interests cannot be determined by lobbying activities even if they have the best intentions. If someone says that we should not study the theorems of Grigori Perelman because he is against society that would make little sense.

WTF? Perelman isn't against Society. He gave cogent reasons for rejecting prizes which, it must be said, were well deserved.

Gandhi had created the most systematic version of hypophysics, he had drAGn the most extreme consequences of an analytic of speed, and using all that he proposed the terminus for all nihilistic political projects—the voluntary self-sacrifice of mankind, or the absolute zero of politics. It is dangerous to avoid these insights held within Gandhi, whether by yielding to the recent model of “don’t read X or Y because we don’t like their views”, or by silently passing over these insights to use the saintly icon.

So, St. Stephens no longer produces alumni who can speak English properly. Why does Mohan not write in his mother tongue?  


Caste order is the oldest and the worst form of racist oppression in the world, and it is strange that it has endured into the 21st century after the end of apartheid!

Why is it strange? The thing exists in Japan. Why not India? The Gypsies in Europe don't seem to be having a wonderful time. They are descended from Indian Doms. It seems caste is portable.  

As you said, there have been several works critical of Gandhi’s approaches towards race and caste. It began at least with B. R. Ambedkar. Today “critical philosophy of race” is a complex discipline. The researches of Charles W. Mills, Emmanuel Eze, Robert Bernasconi and several others have deepened our understanding of the births and the speciation of racial theories; that is, there are many racisms.

But these guys didn't have the tools to understand Caste. Ackerloff had a stab at it- as he says in his Nobel Lecture. Sadly, we have no Ambedkar today to use the new tools available to build a structural causal model which could help us improve mechanism design in this respect. Histrionics do no good. This is just virtue signalling. Mohan is wasting everybody's time. 

Gandhi may have invented a new ground for racism, which is hypophysical.

Or he may not. Scratch that. Definitely not. 

Mohan can't point to some new form of discrimination or oppression which Gandhi invented. I can. It is highly discriminatory and oppressive for kids who have shit for brains to have to study shite taught by the likes of Mohan simply so as to be more worthless than they would otherwise be. 

If Gandhi, hadn't existed, Mohan's stripe of shite could not exist.  

For him, there is something like ‘natural populations’; that is, the people of the world are distributed in a ‘natural environment’ which is most appropriate for each of them. As long as a population remains in their ‘natural state’—for example, the Dalits of the subcontinent under ritualized social oppression—there is good for him. Any inspiration to deviate from the ‘natural state’ would be evil. Gandhi read into Darwin a kind of moral biology according to which being moral was equal to being true to one’s given ‘natural’ environment.

For shitheads like Mohan & Dwivedi, Gandhian philosophy is their 'natural environment'. This is the fault of the upper castes. Modi is not upper caste. I hope he will drain the swamp in which such shitheads flourish. Defund non STEM subjects at P.G level. Do it now.

I began this blog post by asking if Mohan was stupider than Dwivedi. He isn't. But he is more monotonous and boring. Still, by applying himself, he may attain the eminence of a J.Reghu. Good luck to him. I can read no more of his shite.

Saturday, 24 October 2020

Divya Dwivedi's pataphysics

Some months ago the LARB featured this interview with Divya Dwivedi 


KRITHIKA VARAGUR: It was on the occasion of Gandhi’s 150th birth anniversary that you made your now-controversial remarks that Hinduism was invented in the 20th century. You received a pretty enormous and immediate reaction of outrage and trolling on social media and in the public sphere. Why do you think this statement caught fire at the time it did?

The answer is that Modi, a Gujarati, has reclaimed Gandhi for the BJP. We now see Modi as a Kathiawari, like Swami Dayanand, who was influenced by Bhai Parmanand, like Lala Har Dayal, but who initially was a 'loyalist'. In other words, Gandhi has the same intellectual genealogy as the RSS. 

Congress has tried but has failed to assert its property rights in Gandhi but, the truth is, the dynasty is dying nasty only because Rahul Baba still refuses to step up to the plate- or let anyone else do so. 

Meanwhile, the leftists in the Academy- whom we all expected to provide good quality testimony to the Bench in the Ram Janmabhoomi case- have shat the bed. They have proved useless, utterly ignorant, and irremediably stupid. Divya's performance on the TV debate explained why the Left has declined so precipitously in electoral politics.  It has lost all contact with reality. It doesn't care how absurd it sounds. It was one thing to say 'British created divisions of caste and creed'. Blaming the foreigner for everything makes sense. But saying Hinduism was invented in the Twentieth Century is just stupid. Most of us knew at least one of our grandparents who, in turn, could remember their grandparents. Thus we know our Religion was present in the Nineteenth Century. There are one or two sects- e.g. Brahma Kumaris- which came into existence in the Twentieth Century but Hinduism has been around for a very long time. Indian lawyers- some of whom become politicians- derive their bread and butter through their knowledge of Hindu law. Many of the cases they cite are from the Nineteenth Century. There is a Constitutional aspect to this. Certain sects have approached the Court to be declared non-Hindu. In refusing these requests, the Court upholds the notion that Hinduism is prehistoric. Otherwise, Nineteenth Century creations, like the Brahmo and the Arya Samaj and so forth could gain 'minority' status for their educational establishments. 

Why did Divya say such a stupid thing? The answer is that she is stupid and has been reading stupid books by stupid people in a shite branch of the academy.

DIVYA DWIVEDI: First of all, this statement is something that has been very well researched over the past three or four decades.

Even the best research conducted by shitheads will be shite. However, Divya has a point. Fifty years ago, Professors in Departments which are now utterly shite had to at least pretend not to be paranoid nutcases. Thus, an academic who said 'Hinduism was invented in the Twentieth Century' in 1970 would have been sacked from the IIT.  

Also, some academics did come out and try and refute it, which was bizarre because they’re not refuting me, they are refuting a whole host of extremely sound historical precedents and Indologists and anthropologists.

Divya told a stupid lie. Some refuted her stupid lie. She says 'this is bizarre. I am not the liar. There is a host of shitheads who utter this sort of stupid lie'. 

But nothing bizarre occurred. The truth is it isn't just Divya who is a stupid liar. The entire Left-Liberal Academic establishment is populated by either stupid liars or guys who go along with stupid lies for the sake of a quiet life.  

Given that it is so well established, I definitely knew what I wanted to say on TV and I meant every single word of it.

Divya's parents may have been libtards. Did she never meet her grandparents? Did they not tell her about the beliefs of their own grandparents? Had Divya been brought up in Siberia, we might think her ignorant but not necessarily stupid. But Divya has always lived in India. Her Academic credentials are Indian. She teaches in India. 

It may be that she is a RSS 'plant', or that her TV appearance was an exercise in dadaist 'pataphysics'. But the Libtards have rallied to her. Divya's stupidity is their stupidity. No wonder their 'long march through the Institutions' has ended in complete political irrelevance. 

I also knew the format of television debates in general, which are not aimed at serious discussion, but I said what I said in that limited time because I feel both morally and philosophically obliged to do so.

She told a stupid lie because, morally, she is a liar and, philosophically, she is as stupid as shit.  What is remarkable is that she has profited by it. The Libtards have rallied to her. That's a good thing. It meant Shaheen Bagh would fail before it began. 

I thought that on this occasion, the birth anniversary of Gandhi, there was nothing else that could be said. I thought I was able to say that Gandhi is not going to be our way into a political future, because our main problem is the problem of caste hierarchy, and exploitation, and oppression,

which is why Hinduism was reinvigorated in the Twentieth Century as a way of getting rid of untouchability and 'outcasting' caused by the breaking of ritualist taboos- e.g. that against the crossing of 'black water'. 

so we should think of a future without Gandhi.

In 1950, Acharya Vinobha Bhave agreed with Nehru that the Gandhians should concentrate on voluntary work in the boondocks while technocrats ran the 'modern' sector. By 1970, it was clear that 'bhoodan' etc. had failed in the rural hinterland. India's future involved relegating Gandhi to the status of a mascot.  

This is the primary fact from which everything follows: that “Hindu” as a religious category encompasses a minority, which is the upper-caste minority population.

So what? Power passed to the 'OBC' from the late Sixties onward. Brahmins vote for Modi. So do Banias and Kayasthas and Khattris and Thakurs. The problem for Divya is that a lot of Dalits too are Hindu Nationalists. Thus Hinduism is now led by its own majority- unlike Christianity or Islam. Divya may not have noticed but most people with the surname Dwivedi are as poor as shit. Some aren't but most are. Still, they are good people and come up quickly if given a chance at productive employment. 

But it has been invented as a category in early 20th century in order to represent the majority.

What happened in the 'early Twentieth Century'? The Muslim League was established in 1906. Is Divya saying 'Muslims invented Hinduism?' The moment they got 'reserved seats', non-Muslims got lumped together as 'Hindus'. Then the Muslims got Pakistan and ethnically cleansed non-Muslims. So 'Hindu Nationalism' is the creation of militant Islam. The thing is purely defensive. Is Divya a crypto-bakht? No. She is merely ignorant and stupid. 

So it’s a false majority. And all our political problems, and our academic problems including whether it’s possible to do philosophy on the subcontinent or not, have to do with the suppression of this fact.

What fact? Non-Muslim Indians are forced to band together to protect themselves from persecution? Is that it? The big problem with the Academy on the sub-continent is that it has to suppress this 'fact' which is actually an axiom of Islamophobia. 

Divya thinks she is attacking Hinduism but, like Shaheen Bagh (which protested the granting of citizenship to refugees fleeing Islamic persecution), the attack backfires. It seems Islam's intolerance is the problem, not Hindu chauvinism. Indeed, by Divya's logic, Hinduism only came into existence as a reaction to Islamic militancy.  

Can you elaborate on your account of this construction of a Hindu majority? And what does this construction mask?

Why would Hinduism need to be invented at exactly the same time as a Muslim League demanding reserved seats? The obvious answer is because Muslim rule was horrible for non-Muslims. It wasn't great for a lot of low caste Muslims or those from minority sects. But for non-Muslims, it was a catastrophe. 

Divya can't say 'Hinduism was invented so as to counter Islam'. Instead she has to talk paranoid bollocks.

This has been very well researched by historians like Jaidayal Dalmia,

who on earth can she possibly mean? 

Heinrich von Stietencron,

 Vasudha Dalmia could be said to have this sort of bias- but nobody thinks she is smart. Stietencron went with the flow. But he never pretended to know more about Hinduism than actual Hindus like my parents. Neither Dalmia nor Stietencron are considered historians. 

Will Sweetman,

is a low IQ, Religious Studies, guy on some Campus in New Zealand. 

Robert Frykenberg,

 was born in India and is interested in the history of Christian Missionary work there. He is well aware of what happened to Christians in Pakistan. 

and Romila Thapar,

Thapar is a historian. She has endorsed Divya's work. But Thapar has gone completely mad. Sonia made a big mistake by listening to this shithead. Thanks to her, Congress became anti-Hindu and now is flirting with anti-Nationalism.  

The fact is Raja Ram Mohan Roy- because of his Persian education- was using the term Hindu in his English writing from 1817 onward. David Lorenzen, in his article 'Who invented Hinduism' highlights John Cruwford's use of the term 'Hindu', 'Hinduism' and 'Hindu Religion' to designate the creed of the Hindus of Bali in 1820 to prove the opposite of Divya's case. The fact is, 'Hindu' became the dominant term in English writing on India during the second quarter of the Nineteenth Century English. This nomenclature replaced 'Gentoo' or 'Indu' which had currency in European literature from the Sixteenth Century onward. By the time Mahatma Gandhi was born, 'Hinduism' was replacing 'Brahmanism' as the scholarly name for the Religion. 

The term 'Hindu' is not, however, the original term by which followers of sanatan dharma referred to themselves. However, it appears to have attained wide currency by the 14th Century- because of Muslim expansion. Lorenzen writes-

Why would anyone want to claim that 'Hinduism was invented in the twentieth century?'

I suppose, if you are a bigoted follower of Savarkar, you would insist that all Indian citizens or those domiciled in India are actually Hindus and obliged to uphold Hindutva against any other creed. The problem with postmodernism is that it is a double edged sword. Ex falso quodlibet. From self-contradictory premises anything at all can be deduced. The invention of the idea that Hinduism was invented can be as easily to the Nicaraguan horcrux of my neighbor's cat as to the guys who set up the Hindu Mahasabha in 1916. No question, Congress and the Communist Party were ploys by elitist cunts to tyrannize over the majority. So what? Other Parties were ploys for their promoters to turn into elitist cunts who got rich fucking over the Common Man. Then the Common Man was founded to cut out the middleman.

almost everything regarding caste has been articulated consistently by low-caste intellectuals including Jyotirao Phule, B. R. Ambedkar, Urmila Pawar, Kancha Ilaiah, Anand Teltumbde, Khalid Anis Ansari, J. Reghu, Meena Dhanda, Hartosh Bal, Suraj Yengde, and more.

Phule & Ambedkar were aware that untouchability existed in all religions in India. Neither thought Hinduism was invented in the Twentieth Century. Ambedkar endorsed Iyothee Dasan's theory re. Dalits as downgraded Buddhists.

 Khalid Anis Ansari has written off the oppression of the 85 % Pasmanda majority by the Ashraf Muslim majority. He thinks this is because of 'Brahminism'. Yet, the problem is now worse in Iran and Iraq. Being a Syed means radically different life-chances under conditions of economic collapse or insecurity. On the other hand, widespread slavery and castration of eunuchs reduced the need for 'untouchability' in Islamic countries. But emancipation meant that groups like the Yemeni Akhdam are now more vulnerable than ever before. Hopefully, restoration of peace and economic growth will rapidly ameliorate these problems. But that is true of every under-class. Raising productivity and properly resourcing the Rule of Law is the only sustainable way forward. 

“Hindu” is related to the Arabic term “al-Hind,”

which arises from the Sanskrit root 'Indu' which has a spiritual as well as a geographic meaning. In antiquity, it was usual to use a geographic term of high salience interchangeably with a nation. Thus 'Egypt' could refer to the Nile and vice versa. Malay mariners used the word 'Bharat' to mean West as well as to refer to the Indian subcontinent. 

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who learned Persian and Arabic before he learned Sanskrit, preferred the term 'Hindu' precisely because he considered Muslims a threat. He explicitly appealed to Westminster to permit unrestricted European settlement in India so as to help defend Hindus from militant Islam. What was important about Hinduism was not whether or not it was unified or, indeed, whether it had previously existed. In the light of the Islamic threat, it needed to exist. Thus H.H Wilson has to testify both to the inchoate as well as to the unitary nature of the Religion. On the other hand, Christendom too needed ecumenism. Britain in particular needed to stop getting its knickers in a twist about Dissenters and Catholics and Methodists and Unitarians and so forth. 

which was used to designate the region around Indus river by travelers to the subcontinent. Before the 19th century, the term Hindu simply didn’t refer to religion, but to a loose collection of peoples who happened to live on the subcontinent and who were neither Muslim nor Christian.

So, Hindu Nationalism is a reaction to predatory Muslims and Christians. Thus, if you are a non-Muslim Indian, you should join the RSS because, clearly, there is still a Caliphate type threat. 

On the other hand, Hinduism- e.g. in Bali- exists independently of Hindu Nationalism and has done so from long before the Europeans showed up.

The term Hindu began to be used in the 19th century, when European Indologists were trying to codify a religion.

Judges and officials codified. European Indologists did philology and hermeneutics. 

European Missionaries in India were using the term 'Hindu' in the eighteenth and seventeenth century. Lorenzen, an actual historian, unlike dim little Divya, gives the following example-

But Indologists work only with texts, and texts are the basis only of upper-caste culture.

Codification was not based on texts. It was on the basis of customary practice,  'judge made law', and official decisions of a legislative or executive type. 

So the upper castes acted as native informants for these Indologists,

No they didn't. Many German and Russian and other Indologists never met a 'Native'.

The fact is, learned Pundits and Mullahs and so forth instructed scholars and administrators as well as kids whose parents hoped they'd grow up to amount to something. Smart people got jobs and learned stuff or compiled information which was useful. There were 'Court Pundits' till the 1860s. Plenty of barristers learned Sanskrit or Arabic so as to specialize in lucrative Inheritance Law cases. Aurobindo & Chesterton's headmaster had an M.A in both Sanskrit and Law. On the other hand, there were and are plenty of Indologists who had no influence whatsoever. Why? They are stupid. They'd make a fool of themselves on the witness stand. Their 'expertise' is useless. Sadly, the Indian Left historians and scholars proved to be equally useless. They were supposed to stand up in Court and prove that the Babri Masjid was always a Mosque- never a place of Hindu worship. They failed miserably. 

and as a result, what was conceived as religion at that time was only the upper-caste religion. With the 1872 British census, a new dimension came up, which was that communities were going to be enumerated, and that’s when the upper castes began to consider their category. For the longest time, they always continued to think of themselves in terms of caste rather than the category of religion.

So, even if- like Divya- your Mummy & Daddy were atheistic Commies- you should join the RSS or at least vote for Modi. Why? Because Hinduism is just the name given to resistance to Islamic militancy. Don't confuse Hinduism with upper-caste stuff like vegetarianism and studying Sanskrit. Europeans, for some reason, preferred talking to guys of that sort and so they imposed a 'Brahminical' Hinduism on us. Incidentally, they treated the Gypsies- who are related to the Doms in India- like shit. In other words, non-Muslim Indians, regardless of caste, should rally behind Modi. They should join the RSS.  

By the early 20th century, censuses began to show that the upper castes are a minuscule minority.

Makes sense. In a poor country only a few are going to be able to live in an 'upper' class manner.  The problem, in India, was that upper castes were very numerous in the Gangetic 'heartland'. Even elsewhere they were so plentiful that many of them were severely malnourished. 

Some upper-caste people began to catch up to the new game, which was that Indians would get greater room in governing themselves.

As a gift from Whitey, coz Whitey is actually Santa Claus- right? How come South African blacks didn't get to govern themselves till quite recently?

They decided that if their numbers were revealed to be low,

but that had already happened- otherwise they wouldn't themselves have known about it. 

they would have no traction in this new form of electoral politics

which only thirty to forty years after the first Census was conducted 

and therefore, they needed to hide caste

But caste data was collected by the Government. The only reason caste tabulation did not appear in the 1941 Census was because there was a war on and so the Government decided to save a little money.

Divya seems to be unaware that Modi is forcing OBC caste listing on the 2021 census. It seems the RSS does not want to 'hide caste'. It wants to reveal it.

Once again, we have to ask- is Divya a RSS plant or just stupid? 

and to produce a new category under which they would not only appear to be the majority, but also be the representatives of that majority. And that is when “Hindu” as a category was embraced, and they required quite a lot of persuasion to do so. This is all very, very well archived: Gandhi, Lajpat Rai, several other nationalist leaders were part of this.

This is pure fantasy. By the 1880s everybody was setting up Caste Associations and claiming superior status and special consideration. Young people hated this because they were being denied opportunities on the grounds that this would lower the prestige of the community. That's why Gandhi and Motilal and, a little later, Rajendra Prasad and so forth jumped on the Nationalist bandwagon. Only if Hindus had the popular mandate and constitutional right to legislate for themselves could they get rid of a wasteful type of holier-than-thou Caste competition whereby if the Iyengars marry off their daughters at 12, we Iyers will marry them off at 10.  

So, in the early 20th century, they actively adopted a foreign term, “Hindu,”

which was derived from a Hindu term- 'Indu'- and wasn't foreign at all because it was the term used by Persian speaking Muslims who had been ruling much of the country for centuries. 

and the religion was “invented.” And this constructed majority allowed them to continue caste oppression, which continues until today.

This is mad. Either there was caste oppression which continued regardless of any invention, or there was no invention at all.  

Currently, the Left is trying to construct, or invent, an anti-Hindu majority by roping in Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs. But they are failing. Inventions often do if there is no demand for what they offer. In the case of the Left, it is rule by corrupt, casteist, utterly incompetent, dynasts. 

And what about the reactions from the public to your statement? What was it like for you from the eye of the storm?

I think that the threats and the abuses, which continued for a while, definitely are scary. And there are too many other people who have faced it. So it’s just the condition that we are in today. There was also pressure on me to retract my statements. What was shocking to me was that there is this much ignorance about this fact and that it’s a deliberate ignorance. And also when some academics from the so-called liberal left tried to refute what I was saying, that was very saddening and shocking. I think that the reaction was carefully aimed at me in order to make sure that this is not amplified further or given more space in a medium (TV) that does reach a very large number of people.

Divya was told to shut up because she was making her fellow libtard academics look bad. She was very saddened and shocked by this.  

When you were in college and studying philosophy, was there an expectation that Indian academics outside the mainstream can expect to get so many personal threats? When did it become an expectation that if you had a certain kind of approach, this is just part of the deal?

Plenty of Indian academics got death threats in the Nineties when Divya was a little girl. 

I think the attempts to try and silence academics who produce well-evidenced research contrary to the reigning dogmas have always been there.

Lorenzen comprehensively rubbished the 'Hinduism is a nineteenth century invention' dogma before this silly moo got to St. Stephens. 

But it never got the traction that it is having now. It didn’t have a political party representing it at the center.

OMG! This silly moo didn't notice that Atal was PM when she started College! 

Previously there were groups who attacked historians, like Romila Thapar and Sumit Sarkar, and even certain texts like Three Hundred Ramayanas by A. K. Ramanujan.

Before she got to College. 

There have also been episodes where academics have been attacked physically in the university, and the offices of heads of history departments have been trashed, and research centers which contained manuscripts of the Mahabharata have been trashed.

 While she was at College.

But it is more recently that Hindu nationalists have occupied all political and social spheres in an unprecedented way and, definitely, that increases the consequences of attacks coming your way.

There is no evidence of this.  

As a college student, speaking your mind or protesting are fairly common activities and I certainly did a lot of that. You can see now that student protests have shut down, certainly in Delhi and in most other parts of the country as well. Heavy anti-terror laws are used against people who try to speak their mind, which was not the case earlier. That should tell us something about how people now share a basic level of fear or inhibition.

It tells us that either these guys are cowards or that the Government was cowardly in not curbing a nuisance because it thought there would be 'Hindu consolidation'. It may be that Divya gave this interview before Shaheen Bagh. Still, it is good for 'activists' to know that the sort of philosopher who supports them believes 'Hinduism was invented in the Twentieth Century'. Personally, I'd prefer David Icke batting for me.

Did you feel something start to change in 2014, after the first election? Is there some kind of time frame you can put on when the fact that this Hindu nationalist administration with an unprecedented mandate made its presence felt in the academic sphere?

Back in 2014, the smart play was to show loyalty to the Dynasty and make nice with the Commies because, everybody thought, they had learned their lesson and would up their game.  

There was no point wooing the BJP because the grace and favor appointments would go either to long time RSS types or else to technocrats.

I’m actually much more interested in the manner in which almost all political players and intellectual players in India have maintained the same consensus regarding the upper castes.

Which is that they didn't invent Hinduism in the Twentieth Century in the manner that Dwivedi believes her great-great-grand daddies did.  

Everybody has been part of this consensus where the only fight in which one can take positions is that between Hinduism and Hindutva [Hindu-ness, the ideology informing the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party] or an Indian secularism versus a kind of more rabid nationalism or ultra-nationalism.

As opposed to the notion that Hinduism was invented around the same time as 'Hindutva'.  But who was the inventor? It must have been Savarkar & Co. Thus every practicing Hindu is, like it or not, a follower of Savarkar. 

Today, a lot of academics are invested in making this distinction. But to me this is still a fake wrestling match that continues to avert our eyes from the real problems, which are related to the caste hierarchy.

We are speaking of a country where a billion people have been tricked into following a Religion which was secretly invented just three or four generations ago. What other elements of our immemorial tradition were invented at that time? Indian languages are a likely candidate. The Brits invented them to 'divide and rule'. Previously, Indian agriculturists from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari conversed in Parisian French. 

If you look at major conflagrations of, what are called “riots” but are most often pogroms or attacks on religious minorities, that discourse is not changed in its fundamentals.

But has its head up its fundament. 

I think that continuity is something we should pay attention to, because it means that a consensus that was decided very long ago has informed the idea of India.

Every idea that has lasted has been informed by a long enduring consensus. Divya finds this very suspicious. She stands up and says something absurd. Everybody laughs at her. Isn't that strange? Doesn't it prove there is a huge conspiracy here? I mean it isn't as though Divya is stupid and ignorant- right? Oh. She is stupid and ignorant. Sad.  

You’ve talked and written about how India is trapped in a Hindu-Muslim unity discourse championed by Gandhi, to the exclusion of discussing intercaste relations.

The interviewer is American- though her name is properly Indic and unpronounceable. She doesn't know Partition occurred more than seventy years ago. Hindu-Muslim unity has not mattered since. All that matters is caste.  

These days, the Indian government doesn’t even release caste data from the census.

No. Manmohan funked releasing that data- though, it must be admitted, it was worthless because people put down anything they liked. Modi is determined to get the job done properly- so people will have to pick one jati from a list not just write (as I do) Honeytitted Jedi Knight. 

Can you talk about that and other ways in which caste remains the elephant in the room?
Caste is difficult to talk about because it’s the elephant in a room full of upper-caste people.

Who, if they are my age, are constantly asking about the jati and gotra and astrological chart of every suitable boy or girl you might be related to. Middle aged people become obsessive match-makers.  Young people find this very boring and try to run away when they see a Mama or Mami coming. 

True, there are some superior sorts who went to Doon School & St. Stephens who feel this is infra dig. But they listen to people who are experts in caste arithmetic. 

So you could even say it’s not the elephant in the room.

In which case, sane people would not mention it. When is the last time someone at a cocktail party said 'why are we not talking about the tiger which is not in the room?'  

It’s the elephant which has been kept outside the room.

As opposed to the elephants that inhabit Divya's gracious dwelling. 

It’s exactly consonant with the basic structure of the society of the subcontinent. So for 2,000 years, the upper castes maintained their stranglehold on all institutions and exploited the labor of the lower castes. They had segregationist policies and ethos and ritual and scriptural justification for it. And the oppression of women also has to do with the control of reproduction and sexuality in order to maintain caste hierarchies and boundaries.

So, the silly moo is trying to package herself as a Dalit activist! Sadly, her surname is a disadvantage. Also, she needs to marry a Muslim. Nothing else will do.  

And this order, which has a feudal dimension, has carried over despite independence, in institutions like the media, or academic education at all levels, and politics itself, political representation of the people. If in all these institutions, the upper castes continue to dominate, how can the discussion of what facilitates their own privilege, how can that discussion break through?

Divya has an answer. It can break through by telling stupid lies.  

How does the issue of upper-caste domination manifest in your field, which is philosophy in India?

Her field is shit. There is no philosophy in India. There is darshan gyan and so forth. But no philosophy. At one time, people thought Joshi and Matilal and so forth weren't as stupid as shit. But, that time has passed.  


It’s total. First of all, simply in terms of what is considered to be philosophy. There is no emphasis on thinking on your own.

Because silly moos like Divya will start saying 'Hinduism was invented in the twentieth century!'  

It is a relationship to a canon.

As opposed to just saying any stupid shit that comes into your head 

And for Indian philosophy, there is an idea that philosophy should have a qualifying identity, the “Indian” identity of philosophy.

If it is crap- sure. But must it be crap?  

It makes sure that you only study a canon that was composed several centuries ago and you do it in the name of preserving the brilliance of this heritage, not paying attention to the fact that it was the tool for maintaining upper-caste dominance.

So, this 'upper caste' silly moo deliberately studied, and now chooses to teach, a subject which she herself believes to be about 'maintaining upper-caste dominance'. 

The truth is some branches of Indian philosophy- e.g. Navya Nyaya- flourished under Muslim or British domination. Clearly, philosophy was shit at dominating anybody. Military technology is the way to go. But weapons are expensive. So, long run, as Marx pointed out, only Economic dominance- 'market power'- matters. 

All research is constrained by the idea of maintaining an Indian philosophy, which really has only three or four components, including the socio-cosmic justification for the caste system.

Divya is right to say Indian philosophy, in the English language, is shit. Scrap it by all means. But Indian Soteriology has a big market. Let that burgeon. Its practitioners could make money and pay taxes. Rajneesh made a lot of money. He got his start as a philosophy lecturer. 

So you study these texts as kind of metaphysical articulations, which are simply articulations of how people should remain segregated. The Brahmins are the only ones, in fact, who are supposed to do any intellectual or cognitive activity.

This would be news to the Jains and the Buddhists whose founders were not Brahmins. Indeed, it would be news to such Brahmins as had read the Vedas and Upanishads.  

And as [the eighth-century theologian] Adi Shankara said, Bhaja Govindam, mudha-mate: worship Govinda [Krishna], you fool! Meaning, lower-caste people simply don’t have the intellectual capacity to deal with the Vedas. They should just express their devotion by chanting the name Govinda.

Sankara saw an old Brahmin reciting a formula from Panini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. He admonished him to forget grammar and philology and seek salvation through devotion to the Lord. Sankara was speaking to a high caste man in the Holy City of Benares. His song is in Sanskrit. How were poor unlettered people supposed to understand it? 

You’re not capable of engaging with the texts. You’re not even allowed to listen to the Vedas. This is an injunction in text after text studied within Indian philosophy. We have continued the same attitude in our philosophy departments, which is of ritual repetition of the texts and commentaries that you’ve been given.

This is a good argument to discontinue non-STEM subject Post Grad courses in India. 

At one time it was argued that doing a PhD in shite was good coz that way poor people could become Communists. But poor people won't vote for Communists because doing a PhD stuffs your brain full of shit. So the thing is completely useless even from the Communist point of view. 

Do lower-caste students drop out as the field narrows because they feel discouraged by these structural constraints?

To answer this autobiographically would be a bit of a mockery, but the fact is that the dropout rate for lower-caste invalid people is so staggering and so well recorded that it doesn’t need any personal testimony. Just take a look at the statistics. The highest suicide rates in higher academic institutions, medical colleges, and engineering institutions, are of students from the lower castes.

On the other hand, professional gangsters stay on in the Post Grad Hostels for decade after decade. 

On the other hand, reserved seats are not filled, so you have a lot of vacancies. The excuse is that people are not meritorious enough. If you look at professorial posts or just teaching posts in higher education institutions, 90 percent are held by the upper castes. And then the so-called prestigious institutions, including [my own] IIT, don’t even follow the reservation policy for teaching posts, only for students. So again, dropping out is one part of the picture. The other is keeping out.

But, the big picture is that Indian Post Grad Education is almost completely shit. This is fine if you are just marking time till cracking the Civil Service or Banking or other similar exams. But it is a colossal waste of scarce resources. India could have got rid of caste by pushing girls in the villages into factory dormitories. Bangladesh has just overtaken India in per capita Income. This may be reversed but the fact remains, getting girls to work in factories, not do worthless BAs and MAs while waiting for marriage, is the only way out of poverty and casteism. 

What’s the canon in Indian philosophy, loosely?

The canon would include Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, a bit of Nagarjuna, who is a Buddhist thinker, but not canonized to the same degree as a Shankaracharya.

Nagarjuna and Umasvati are more not less canonical to their respective Religions and link up with first rate modern mathematical logic and philosophy. Ramanuja isn't particularly important- though Zaehner and a few other Christians tried to make a case for him some fifty or sixty years ago. Madhava's stock has risen greatly. Yoga-Samkhya has a market. Mimamsa dovetails with judicial and other hermeneutics. Navya-Nyaya still has some mileage. But there are other avenues of approach. Robert Aumann has shown game theory in the Talmud. It would be easy to do this with respect to the Mahabharata & thus get a less shite perspective on the Gita- which, however, fools like me understand perfectly. Why bother with the Vedas when Vyasa created such an engrossing 'non-dissipative' narrative for us such that, as if by Noether's theorem, karma and dharma are conserved by the symmetries of the system. 

And then there are all these schools of Indian philosophical traditions such as Nyaya and Mimamsa. And of course the Upanishads and Vedanta philosophy. And then there are 19th-century thinkers like Vivekananda who contributed to giving shape to the Hindu identity, who famously represented Hinduism in the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago.

So, kids, what have we learned today. Don't study philosophy in India. Just read up on it on the internet.  

So, when one gets an undergraduate philosophy education in India, are they taught on two different tracks, the “Indian” and the “Western”?

Yes, yes. The papers themselves are called Indian philosophy, logic, aesthetic philosophy. But Indian philosophy is the one that’s grouped according to its national identity. So if you choose to study, say, aesthetics, then you will have “Indian aesthetics” and study [Ananda] Coomaraswamy.

So, steer clear of the subject. Since it will only attract imbeciles, it will only be taught by imbeciles. Don't waste your life.  Join the RSS. If you work hard and stay clean, you could end up Prime Minister no matter how poor or 'low caste' your family was!

You’ve often talked about the limits of the postcolonial lens in India, which is the postcolonial subject par excellence and the quintessential “subaltern.” Why do you think the postcolonial frame has been so pervasive?

Because you could emigrate to the West and get tenure in some branch of 'Grievance Studies' as part of an intellectual affirmative action program.  

Gandhi provides the major articulation of what it means to be independent in India.

Nonsense! Among Gujaratis, Dadhabhai Naoroji gets credit for doing the major articulating.  

He insisted on native traditions, native knowledges, and native customs,

but was ignorant of what they were. So the thing was purely cosmetic- or 'naam ke vaaste'.  

which are to be recovered after the epistemic violence or epistemic damage performed by the colonizer. And he adopted very consciously and vocally the Hindu idiom in politics:

which Bhai Parmanand indoctrinated him in 

to speak of independence as swaraj, to ask people to chant the name of [the Hindu god] Rama, to ask for cow protection.

In 1893, Viceroy Landsdowne said cow-protection was what turned the INC “from a foolish debating society into a real political power, backed by the most dangerous elements of native society”. Gandhi's first intervention in Indian politics- the Champaran agitation- provided a cover for systematic attacks on Muslims in Bihar which ended in the end of cow slaughter.

So by theologizing politics,

i.e. by listening to Bhai Parmanand and parroting his line 

Gandhi is the one who inaugurated the postcolonial identity,

in the opinion of a silly moo who thinks Hinduism was invented in the Twentieth Century 

and the Hindu one, and then postcolonial as Hindu, and Hindu as postcolonial. And we are still living in that consensus.

This silly moo is living in that solipsistic consensus. Hindus won't kill this bovine creature so let it chew its cud in peace.  

Subsequently, we found more sophisticated articulations of this same paradigm

in other words, yet more garbled and illiterate variations on a paranoid theme 

— sophisticated only because the postcolonial theorists who are predominantly based abroad in First World academia borrowed approaches from European philosophy of the 19th and 20th century. So for example, the Heideggerian opposition to Western metaphysics assisted postcolonial theorists in saying that we have to oppose everything which is Western because all of that is coming from Western metaphysics.

Sadly, Me-too happened and it turned out what the students of these nutters really opposed was not Western metaphysics but greasy Indian dicks rubbing up against them.  

Then Deconstruction is again borrowed in its entirety by postcolonial theorists to say that the entire edifice of Western philosophy is complicit in colonization and that we have to deconstruct them.

Whereas the truth is Hinduism was invented in Twentieth Century. Thus Twenty First Century should invent anti-Hinduism. Then BJP will disappear. Next item on the agenda is to invent anti-Poverty and anti-Naughtiness. Then Poverty and Naughtiness will disappear and everything will be sweet as sweet. 

So it’s amazing that a theoretical edifice borrowed entirely from the West

by a small number of pedagogues doling out worthless credentials in return for a small wage 

is used in order to speak against the West, and for the “native,” which is of course defined as Hindu, because the academia and the media are saturated with upper castes.

who are nevertheless as poor as shit because India isn't getting girls into factories but instead is subsidising their 'Higher Education' in worthless bullshit. Even IITs employ cretins like Divya as an awful warning to their students of what happens if you study non-STEM subjects.

An example is Gayatri Spivak’s famous essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Her definition of “subaltern” is exemplified in a Brahmin woman who is too worried about how her family customs regarding virginity and female honor are going to look at her suicide. So she makes sure that she’s menstruating when she kills herself, so that nobody thinks she’s pregnant because of an affair. On the other hand, she also wants to oppose the British and be an anticolonial revolutionary.

Gayatri was simply lying. Girls who hang themselves are checked for signs of sexual activity. Whether they are on the rag does not matter. If they have been fucked, chances are they hanged themselves because some Uncle or brother-in-law, not content with raping her, was now trying to pimp her out to his pals. There was no revolutionary activity in the year her Aunty hanged herself. There were, however, plenty of Hindu Muslim riots. A couple of years later, there were some very competent Female revolutionaries. But they were College educated and living independently. They weren't kids who were being teased by brother-in-laws.

Which academic fields are most susceptible to the Hindutvadis? History is kind of obvious, the low-hanging fruit. Is literature, too, for example?

STEM subjects if they are well taught and there is a demand for the credential. Non-STEM subjects attract losers. They should choose losing sides because winners will arrange things so they get picked as their adversaries of choice.           

Yes. There is a pressure to, first of all, teach more Hindi literature and to teach certain kinds of literature that have “Indian values.”

As opposed to Arabic literature delineating Al Qaeda values. How strange!

And if we don’t lose sight of the fact that Hindutva and postcolonialism converge extremely well and at heart are not different at all,

both having been invented in the Twentieth Century- just like 'Hindi literature'. Prior to Premchand, UP bhaiyyas were writing chansons in Provencal.  

then the entire enterprise of postcolonial literary studies has been nothing other than the same agenda.

Very true! Everybody is pushing a horrible agenda which consists of saying Divya is a retard. So-oo unfair!  

This idea of recovering the voice of the subaltern or of the oppressed, those who are oppressed by colonization,

is silly. Suppose the thing were possible. Then the police could recover the voice of the murder victim and get it to identify the assailant.  

those whose culture was silenced and their pride was hurt, these are nothing but upper-caste traditions, upper-caste texts, and upper-caste pride.

So, Ambedkar was high caste. Cool.  

Another discipline being affected is policy, and I mean all domains of policymaking. And all domains even of sciences, if they have to study so-called Vedic science and Vedic plastic surgery and Vedic nuclear physics.

But the nutters who do that would otherwise be writing Sokal type postmodern shite. The only way to deal with entrenched academic nonsense is to entrench equal but opposite nonsense in the same Department. Sooner or later, even the most Emeritus of senile Professors will understand they wasted their lives.  

Then also political science. Having accepted this false Hindu majority and then the Muslim minority, only two paths are allowed to us: one is of the aggressive Hindu nationalism that we see in politics. But the other path is adopted by the academics themselves, which is for political theorists to say that instead of hating the Muslim, we should tolerate the Muslim.

Why can't 'political theorists' do mechanism design based on quantitative research? Oh. Right. They are too stupid. Well, in that case it doesn't really matter which side they pick.  

What is there beyond tolerance?

Tickle fights. Please say 'Tickle fights'.  

What other paradigm is there to conceptualize inter-group relations?

There is something we already have but which is very marginalized: the Indian constitution, which is the gaping gesture of what it means to be modern. A society which for centuries was run on the basis of a caste hierarchy and a feudal economic and political order came

to an end when foreigners took over. But that happened long ago. No doubt, there were feudal princes and landowners. But their power was not based on caste. It was based on beating people. Two thirds of India had been under popularly elected Governments for more than a decade when the Constitution was promulgated. But that Constitution didn't matter very much. Every newly independent country got a Constitution. But it was just empty verbiage.

at a point at least to say that we will no longer govern our mutual relationship to each other on the basis of these existing paradigms. We are going to make a break with the past, and we will found our coexistence on an entirely new ground. And the new ground is liberty, fraternity, equality, justice, which is political, social, and economic. This is exactly what the first page of the constitution says.

So what? The 1930 Lahore Resolution said the same thing.  

But Hindu nationalists have recently been saying the constitution is too Western

because 'cow protection' is a Directive Principle of many Western Constitutions.  

and that we need to inject some Indian values into the constitution. So what we are seeing is really a conflict between what the constitution stands for and what those who actually control society stand for.

There is no such conflict. Only the Bench can interpret the Constitution. But the Bench opened detention centers for Muslim migrants a decade ago. It was the Bench which ordered and oversaw the NRC register in Assam. It was the Bench which awarded the whole of the disputed site in Ayodhya to the Hindus.  

You mentioned a pressure to teach more Hindi texts; how else is Hindi language encouraged in the academy?

As far as I can see, what encourages Hindi is everybody not bothering to speak it correctly.

This, too, has been multipronged. Hindi is not the national language, but it was chosen as the “link” or official language for independent India. It’s not just this government, but this one is doing it much more aggressively. Hindi has been also promoted by upper-caste academics and intellectuals themselves, who say that we should reject English because it’s the language of the colonizer. So this perennial, upper-caste obsession with not being polluted by that which is foreign is combined with the effort to somehow disguise Hindi as the vernacular. But if you have to invent a new Hindi with more Sanskrit terms, making a break from the [Persian-influenced] Hindi-Urdu of the past, it already shows that you’re not speaking the vernacular. Increasingly, all the circulars that come to us faculty are sent in this unreadable, unintelligible “pure” Hindi.

Which, however, is easy to learn if you are from the South. Hindi turned into a 'scoring subject' for us. We justified writing unintelligible pure Hindu by pointing out that North Indians don't understand anything anyway. Then we learned that quoting a random sher of Ghalib's- or, in my case, just making one up- caused North Indians to immediately experience satori. Bak raha hoon Junoon me Kya kya kuch/ Kuch Na Samjhe Khuda Kare Koi

Ironically, many low-caste Indians in fact prefer English to such a Hindi.

Everybody would prefer to know English. 

Yes. Lower-caste intellectuals and Dalit scholars have been openly saying that they need and embrace English and they don’t see it as an oppressive language because it is the language in which they came across the discourse on human rights, the language in which [founding father Babasaheb] Ambedkar wrote and was read, and it is the language in which employment opportunities and the prospects of a better future than the ones stipulated by the caste system is available to them. In fact, Dalit scholars can go abroad for their studies only if they have access to English. So Hindi and vernacular education, which does not give you employment and does not give you freedom, is being imposed on the very people who need that freedom the most.

This is equally true of every State language. Mumbaikars don't want to learn Marathi and people from Bangalore aren't enthused by Kannada.

I wanted to ask how you use your agency

Agency? She teaches a shite subject at an IIT! Still, she went to St. Stephens. So her English is pukka.  

to push back against these trends that we’ve been talking about: this upper-caste domination, this Hindu-Muslim static discourse, this postcolonial ubiquity. Because no state of affairs is permanent, right?

No.

Hinduism was invented last century. We can certainly invent anti-Hinduism. What's that? Islam did it already? Cool!  

Articulating these things is already, I think, a point of resistance. But what else?

You could roll your eyes or fart in a derisive manner.  

My research and published work, including the Gandhi book with Shaj Mohan, are an assertion of doing philosophy as something related to politics, and doing philosophy as an exercise in creating new freedoms.

Freedom from sanity- sure.  

So it’s both an instantiation and a plea for being modern in our exercise of our own thinking, in the exercise of reason and having the confidence in ourselves that we can do it and we don’t need the crutches of the past.

Coz the past was only invented in the twentieth century! But that invention was not properly registered with the appropriate authority. This means the past does not exist. We don't need it. I wasn't born in the Twentieth Century because that is in the past which does not properly exist! Thus I'm only 19 years old! 

It also informs my research praxis

which consists of telling stupid lies  

and teaching and does not at all follow the agenda of postcolonialism and nativism.

It follows the agenda of Alfred Jarry's pataphysics- i.e. it is a nonsensical parody of academic language 

And a part of it is also to expose the logic of postcolonialism, which has informed several things that I published.

Only stupid people wrote that type of shite.  The thing is wholly played out. Mounting student debt in the West has killed off that nonsense.

Another part is to encourage the generation for which I’m responsible and for a few generations as a faculty to be able to set their own agendas and not be trapped by the ones that have continued for so long. So the idea that I mentioned earlier of erasing the ground on which we have conducted the dominant discussions in India and clearing the ground for a new kind of discussion.

Do it on the internet. Don't pay money to listen to prematurely senile losers who would gladly buy you round after round of drinks so as to get an audience for their paranoid rantings. 

Philosophy is not meant to refurbish and plaster up that which has been thought a long time ago.

Yes it is. In looking at any theorist in the Humanities, your job is to repair the gaps in their knowledge and to give the thing a more context independent formulation. But do this you have to know which problems are 'closed' and which are 'open' for current Maths and Science. Only the application of a savant's theory to an open problem is philosophical. Take Kant's 'incongruent counterparts' argument. Physics closed this starting with the Wu experiment. But there are open questions where a similar arguments are current. Thus Philosophy moves on just as Science and Math moves on. 

Divya has had an appalling education. But she has access to the internet. The truth is she is simply stupid. 

It’s not meant to continue or to transmit the messages of your gurus or your ancestors or of your race or identity.

Yes it is. You are meant to repair that message and find new applications for it. The same thing happens in the Law. Judge Hercules finds a new heuristic principle to permit a seamless 'harmonious construction' which is equitable.  

And therefore, philosophy is not culture.

It is part of culture- when done properly. But Divya isn't doing philosophy. It isn't even 'Grievance Studies'. It's just stupid shit which makes Stephanians look like fools while Modi turns, before our eyes, into Hinduism's Paramahamsa with a beard as beautifully white as a swan. 

Friday, 23 October 2020

Mohan & Dwiwedi's dadaist Bapu


Phusis- physics- is the natural world- what we see and touch and smell. Metaphysics is what is beyond Physics but which appears to the Mind to be law-like or part of 'Nomos'. Underlying both, there might be an undergirding- a universal or final hypokeimenon eschaton- onto which they are fastened and from which they are at least conceptually separable.

The notion here is that if Ethics or Nomos is relatable to Phusis- assuming we are part of Nature in the first place- by a priori Reason then there must be some common undergirding involving occult qualities- which Kant calls hypophysics. 

This is a silly notion- unless you don't believe in Evolution and you know shit about Math. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that 'evolution evolves' and thus all Reality is moving towards some 'omega point'. Tielhard de Chardin's system features this type of higher 'hyperphysics' which may be based on lower level mechanisms- hypophysics- which are hidden under the visible structure of Nature. 

Since, the fact is, a lot of ordinary people know shit about math and think that if their kids are taught that they are descended from monkeys then they will be constantly pooping into their own hands and flinging their feces about. Also they don't know what a priori means.

Kant was a nice guy who wanted his work to be useful to ordinary people. 

He says- 

To accommodate a science to the common conceptions of the people is highly laudable,

Yup. You may be persuaded to quit smoking by ad captum vulgi arguments. But when you long for a ciggie, it's actually quite helpful to read medical articles on the internet which use highly technical language to describe all the ways smoking is bad for you.  

To 'accomodate science' to the 'common conception' that smoking makes you stink and look like shit is, indeed, a laudable thing. 

But, the the thing should be genuine science otherwise it backfires.

Thus Kant says-

when once the science has been established on first principles; and that, in the present case, would amount to founding ethics on their true basis, metaphysics; after which a popular dress may carry and spread the science more widely: but to attempt such a thing in a first investigation is folly.

So Kant is going to be doing the boring sciencey stuff which ordinary people can't relate to.

Others, however, may be tempted to just fake it for a popular audience. 

Not only would such procedure have no claim to the signal and rare merit of true philosophic popularity, but it would lie open to the objection of amounting to no more than an odious and revolting mixture of random remarks, crude and half-fledged opinions,—a mad attempt, which would furnish the shallow with materials to talk of and quote in conversation, but which could only embarrass the more profound, who, dissatisfied, avert their eyes, and remain unaided; although those who see through the illusion are little listened to when they insist on the abandonment of a futile popularity, in order to become then only popular when clear and definite insight has been attained.

We now know that 'definite insight' wasn't attained by Kant or anyone else. Still, the geezer gave it the good old College try.  

To illustrate this remark, it were only requisite to examine popular modern treatises which have been got up in this taste, and we find at one time the destiny of man, which is particular, at another, the idea of an intelligent nature, which is general,—here perfection, there happiness,—then somewhat of the moral sense, and of the fear of God,—all mixed up in one huge heterogeneous mass. But nowhere do the authors seem to have impinged upon the cardinal question, whether principles of morality were to be sought for in the psychology of human nature? (which we know only from experience and observation,)—or whether, if this be not the case, they are not to be met with wholly à priori in pure ideas of reason, and nowhere else?

So other pedants who wrote on this topic hadn't done something Kant would do.  

Nor did it ever occur to them, in this last event, to commence an investigation of these first principles, as a particular and separate department [23] of philosophic science, called, if I may be allowed the expression, “metaphysic* of ethics,”—to isolate and keep it by itself, in order to exhaust and complete its entire circuit and extent,—diverting in the meantime a public impatient for popularity till the issue and conclusion of the investigation.

Sadly, that investigation was worthless.  Metaphysics needed a Hypokeimenon from the get go. Kant, silly man, wanted to do without it. He failed. 

Such a system of metaphysic ethics, isolated and cleared of all theology, anthropology, physics, hyperphysics, and occult qualities, which I may call hypophysics, is

empty. Being cleared of anthropology means it is inaccessible to humans. Without 'occult qualities'- stuff like 'karma' or 'Providence' or 'Geist' or 'Gaia'- there is nothing to tether a 'system of metaphysics' to anything else. A sequence of farts might be a 'system of metaphysics'. But Kant's shite can't. Why? We don't know when a fart contradicts another fart. But we do know that Kant's system contradicted itself immediately.  

not merely a substratum indispensable for all theoretic knowledge in the department of duty,

This is clearly false. Kant knew there were plenty of Professors claiming 'theoretic knowledge' of this sort. They relied on occult qualities- hypophysics- and that was their 'indispensable substratum' or hypokeimenon. But Kant's own theoretic knowledge is dependent on the hyophysical assumption that thinking is done by entities with a particular anthropological description. 

but is likewise a main desideratum towards the actual fulfilment of its law; for the naked representation Duty, unadulterated with any foreign charms,—in short, the moral law itself,—is

baloney. If it is unadulterated then it don't got no anthropology. But in that case it is not prescriptive for any anthropos.  Kant knew Hume & Smith & Hutcheson- who mentions the akreibia/economia syzygy better developed in Orthodox Christianity. Kant's Deduktions are meant to be juristic, protocol bound, and 'buck stopped' by endoxa- which is how come he can have synthetic a priori judgments. This is why he disregarded Solomon Maimon's mathsy critique- which we can think of as a drunken attempt to do Voevodskian 'univalent foundations' avant la lettre. 

so much stronger a mobile to the will than any other motive,

i.e. participation in juristic processes is the primum mobile of the Will upon which judgment is passed- this is Alexander Pope as much as any Whiggish Edinburgh hack-  

that reason first learns by this method her own causal-force and independency on every sensitive determinator; until at length, awaking fully to the consciousness of her own supremacy and dignity,

she divorces the body and goes off to live by herself on the Moon. Ariosto supplies this theme to Defoe in a manner which impressed Pope. 

she scorns to act from any such, and comes in the sequel to be able to control and to command them:

like in a Jacqueline Collins novel 

which things a system of ethics, not distinguished from the emotions of the sensory, cannot effect; for there the mind is at once perturbed by opposing causes, and is forced to waver betwixt feelings and ideas which cannot be reduced to any common principle, and is accordingly, owing to its instability and uncertainty, led sometimes wrong, sometimes right.

Kant was very old when he wrote this. Soon he would start babbling about Zarathustra.  

Duties are real things. They are part of the undergirding of Social relations. Law & Econ don't just study duties and immunities, they make money and increase Social Welfare by doing so. Meanwhile, Philosophy stands in a corner with its thumb up its butt drooling incontinently. 

As a case in point, consider Mohan & Dwiwedi's 'Gandhi & Philosophy', published last year. 

Wikipedia states

' Gandhi and Philosophy proposed that parallel to the metaphysical tendency in philosophy there is hypophysics. Hypophysics is defined as "a conception of nature as value".
 Plenty of metaphysical systems can have a conception of nature or anything else as value. On the other hand, so can magical thinking, superstition, or just plain lunacy.  Mohan & Dwivedi's tome epitomizes the lunacy of the Indian leftist Academy. 

Ziya us Salam writing for the Hindu, says Mohan & Dwivedi discern
a theology behind his (Gandhi's) globally celebrated concepts of satyagraha, non-violence and brahmacharya.

Gandhi constantly says that he believes in God. He also says that a Hindu, properly so called, must believe in karma. Thus, we all already know that Gandhi's theology was karmic and could either be represented within the 'aashrav' Jain theory he learned from Raichand Bhai, or else the 'Vedic' (i.e. advaitic) version which Bhai Parmanand came and explained to him in South Africa in 1906. Incidentally, Parmanand, who was an Arya Samajist on a mission to the diaspora, also influenced Lala Har Dayal at just this time. That worthy started babbling about the need for celibacy and vegetarianism and went off to California where he set up an Ashram and initially lived very very simply. However, Har Dayal's trajectory was different from Gandhi's. The 'Ghaddar' Americans played a crucial role in the 'Indo-German' conspiracy so that Khattri polymath kept popping up in Berlin and Istanbul and so forth during the Great War . Still, in the end, the trajectory of the polyglot genius but utterly useless Har Dayal wasn't really so different from that of the epistemically challenged Mahatma. Indeed, the silly Stephanian surrendered unilaterally to the Brits a couple of years before Gandhi did. He then took a worthless Doctorate from SOAS and lectured on Psilosophy. 

Aurobindo, also bright but less facile- & married like Har Dayal- decided to go the celibate route at about the same time as Gandhi. Unlike Har Dayal, who kept shacking up with Swiss or Swedish chicks, Aurobindo stuck to brahmacharya and even gave up cigars and brandy on the urging of 'Divine Mother' who, frankly, I have to rate pretty high.  Auroville still flourishes coz of that spiritual 'f.d.i' on the basis of true partnership- not 'turnkey', 'turnpike theorem', Planning Commission, shite of a sort Stephanians are programmed to clamor for. 

One may say, 'but Aurobindo and Har Dayal were 'garam dal' votaries of violence. Gandhi believed in Ahimsa. But, this simply isn't true. Gandhi was a recruiting sergeant during the war. In other words, he too believed in violence- and, what's more, had shown abundant courage under fire- it's just that he was on the side of the King Emperor while Har Dayal & Amba Prasad Sufi and so forth were busy committing treason by seeking help from the Kaiser- George V's seniormost cousin. 

Nature, in Hinduism, is 'Prakriti' which is the active 'pravritti' aspect of the Godhead. 'Purusha' is purely passive and contemplative. Everybody knows this. Everybody, it seems, except Mohan & Dwiwedi.

Ziya us Salam, who 'builds bridges between Quran Sharif and the Holy Vedas' writes-

They find that nature is divine and the divine is nature in Gandhi’s theology, which they name “hypophysics”,

This is not hypophysics- which is about 'hidden variables' i.e. occult qualities which permit 'action at a distance' and which synchronize 'mind' and 'matter' or 'free will' and 'deterministic causation' etc, etc. It is pataphysics- Alfred Jarry's parody of science based on the paronym or linguistic pun or the, rasaabhasa, urge to indulge in a type of silliness subversive of all literary autocritas.  

and which they say Gandhi developed through his ingenious use of the theories of Euclid, Newton, Darwin and J.C. Bose:“He considered politics and civilisation to be deviations from the divine nature and therefore ‘satanic’. He developed a scale of speed to measure these deviations, and proposed the cure in the form of adherence to Truth and non-violence which cannot be fully grasped until the Gandhian Hypophysics is understood.” The book reveals, arguably, that a political project adhering to this theology would be the ultimate limit of nihilism and would risk the very existence of humanity.

In other words, these guys are saying Gandhi thought humans should live like cave-men without any recourse to technology or the evolving mechanisms of political economy.  The greater the deviation from the natural order, the faster 'catch up' growth could be. But such growth was ab ovo evil and satanic. Mohan & Dwiwedi conclude that 'adhering to' Gandhism 'risks the existence of humanity'. Actually, if everybody had given up sex like he wanted them to, humanity would have disappeared by now. 

If Dwiwedi & Mohan are right, then Gandhi was a cretin. But, we know they are wrong because we know Gandhi believed in karma. Thus all he is saying is those who follow brahmacharya, ahimsa and who practice satyagraha get reborn in Satya Yuga or Vaikuntha or a time when a Tirthankar is preaching- in other words, they get an almost infinite benefit in the next life. But, during the War, all the various theist 'recruiting sergeants' were saying 'Die in battle and go straight to Heaven. Martyrdom is a career move.'

This type of special pleading poses no risk whatsoever to humanity's existence. 

Mohan said "This non-philosophical system, which we call hypophysics, is necessarily interesting for philosophy. "[4]

For shite philosophy- sure. But phenomenology could appropriate this Kantian term for a more useful purpose- e.g. Schnell's correlational hypophysics or by thinking of 'hidden variables' as 'black box' endoxa underpinning 'overlapping consensus'. What Mohan & Dwiwedi are doing is exploring Gandhi's, not hypophysics, but pataphysics. Bapu, in their hands, becomes a dadaist Ubu Roi.

The distance from nature that human beings and natural objects come to have through the effects of technology lessens their value, or brings them closer to evil.

Schumacher explained this aspect of Gandhian economics. Simply by reimposing 'cascading' excise duties on the basis of highly localized Tiebout models you get back to medieval autarky.  Alternatively, let piracy prevail on the High Seas and 'thugee' and 'dacoity' on the highways. Transport costs will go through the roof and the great mass of humanity will starve to death. The survivors can live like cave-men or foragers. The same outcome may not arisefrom involuted Warlordism because one Warlord may prove smarter at 'killology' than the others and thus found an Empire. 

All this has nothing to do with 'Nature'. Gandhi wasn't such a fool that he couldn't see that a boat journey was cheaper and shorter and safer than a land journey where bandits and excisemen might appear every few miles. Yet floating down a river, or crossing a sea by sail, or in obedience to tides and currents, is 'natural'. Bandits and exceisemen are 'unnatural'. 

It is quite true that there are nutters who prefer 'local' and 'natural' shite. But they subscribe to many different theologies or none at all. No question, Gandhi was a crank but, theologically, he was a Hindu who believed in Karma which aint 'natural' and which involves transmigration across gazillions of light-years. The Gita, itself speaks of man as 'yantrarudhani mayaya'-  machine mounted, not 'natural' or 'vitalist' at all. 

Gandhi's concept of passive force or nonviolence is an implication of his hypophysical commitment to nature.[34]

No. The guy was an, albeit Occasionalist, Hindu who believed that 'Rishis' gained supernatural powers through ascesis. Mahatmas- a term the Theosophists had popularised in the West- had superpowers.  

 A Jain 'aashrav' type theory can easily accommodate Gandhian nuttiness. Indeed, the rules for Jain monks re. diet and travel and so forth are an example. The notion is that there are 'karma binding particles' in Nature and so what we eat and how we move and so forth affects our ethos. It is easy to give a Jain or Hindu or Greek or 'Quantum Consciousness' type account of any type of stupidity. But such accounts have no hypophysical commitment to nature. Rather they have a pataphysical commitment to completely imaginary entities belonging to a world not our own but merely supplemental to it by way of extreme silliness. 

Raj Ayyar- apparently a Humanities Professor at an IIT or something of that sort- writes in the Wire about Mohan & Dwiwedi's book-

I ask them, “Hypophysics, or the perception of the good in nature alone,

coz 'the good' is in Nature just like 'the bad', 'the ugly' and 'early Clint Eastwoodish'-as opposed 'late Clint Eastwoodish when the guy had clearly lost his marbles and was talking to an empty chair'

is closely linked to calypsology

& nonsenseology & shitting-higher-than-your-arsehole-ology

which confines oneself in effect to a kind of nature.

when what you really need is a corset coz of your burgeoning muffin tops.  

You have suggested a criticism of Gandhi’s relation to caste through these concepts, which is very different from the other critics. Could we go a bit more into it?”

so we can laugh ourselves silly over this pair of nutters 

Shaj (Mohan) said, “If what is called ‘the ends’ are deployed in order to reproduce ‘the means’ or the conditions, and vice versa, we have something like a calypsology of caste”.

No. We have this horrible couple's respective parents getting their ends off the way their own respective parents had done. Endogamous fucking is the aspect of caste we really don't want to look at coz the vast majority of Indian peeps simply don't have porn bods.  That's also why most of us only get to reproduce thanks to the arranged marriage system. 

Divya joined in, “Caste is the primary functional isolation of a person’s body into either “touchable” or “untouchable”.

This is nonsense. The word 'caste' is from the Portuguese. The thing can exist without untouchability and vice versa. Lepers were untouchable even under purely tribal regimes. 

Functional isolation is a new concept from “Gandhi and Philosophy”.

But is as shite as the the rest of the book. 

It explains the freedom inherent in things.

Really? Which things are free from the Law of Gravity?  

For example, the hand can perform many functions such as gripping, sewing, writing, and typing.

those aren't 'functions', they are activities. The functions of the hand can be sequenced so that those activities could be completed. But that sequencing is not a function of the hand. It is a function of a brain or C.P.U of some sort.  

The eye can perform only one function, that of seeing.

Nonsense! Rolling your eyes conveys a certain type of information. A perfectly 'functional' eye may be possessed by a person who can't see at all due to a brain injury or some psychological malady.  

But what is important is that functionally isolating the hand for a while allows us to write.

I write a lot. I've never 'functionally isolated' my hand. On the other hand, an illiterate could functionally isolate the shit out of her hand and still be incapable of writing anything. 

This applies to groups of people too. A group of people functionally isolated to fight is an army, to play is a football team.

This is nonsense. Most armies, most of the time, aren't doing any fighting at all. There are two teams on the football field. No 'functional isolation' occurs. A football game may end in a punch-up. Soldiers may spend a lot of time playing footer and none doing any actual fighting.

Caste in India may be notionally occupational. But for most people like Ayyar or Dwiwedi, it has been generations since that has been the case. Why, at this late hour are these cunts invoking 'functionalism'? 

Divya (Dwiwedi) continued, “Then, there are specific functional isolations such as caste-based labour—carpenter, manual scavenger, tradesmen—which one inherits.

Fuck did she inherit? 

'The caste system’s task is to reproduce itself faithfully through anti-miscegenation laws and other functional isolations.

Which is howcome Dr. Ambedkar's widow was Brahmin. By contrast, America- which did not have caste- had anti-miscegenation laws.  

Then, caste as the means reproduces caste as the end.

Endogamy solves the stable marriage problem. That is its function. Endogamy may or may not be associated with Caste. But sex is the means and reproduction is the end. 

Gandhi was faithful to this interpretation of caste as the self-reproduction of the social order and he thought this was the essence of what was by then called the ‘Hindu’ religion, and India”. She paused and added, “This is calypsology as the end of politics”.

How come one of his son's married out of caste? Clearly, there was no 'calypsology' nor was Gandhian politics concerned with perpetuating caste.  

Are Mohan & Dwiwedi parodists of an undergraduate type? Consider the extract from their book published by Scroll.in

The problematic of truth telling requires us to return to the sense of means and ends – for Gandhi, means and ends are convertible.

Fuck does this mean? 

We do not term the minor premise a means, and the conclusion the end, in the case of syllogisms. That is, “Socrates is a man” is not the means to the end “Socrates is mortal”. The form of syllogism conveys necessity.

A syllogism was considered a means to arrive at valid deductions. Then people noticed it was shit.  

In the case of a mechanical law, such as “Momentum is the product of the mass of an object and its velocity,”

This isn't a law. It is a definition. 

momentum is not the end obtained through the means of mass and velocity.

Momentum is merely a 'term of art'. 

The form of the mechanical law conveys that each of the terms which constitute the law has a strict relation with the others, and also that any one term can be obtained, given the other two; that is, “Velocity of an object is given by its momentum divided by its mass.”

Velocity is given by measurement as is mass. Momentum is not given at all. It is calculated. 

For a physical law to be available for articulation

the articulation must be done by somebody who knows physics. These guys don't.  

under the logic of means and ends, the terms of that law will have to be substitutable, except for one term, the end; in the case of momentum, one should be able to entertain the possibility of obtaining it under more than one set of relations between terms, such as, a product of the viscosity of an object and its temperature.

This is nonsense. The 'logic of means and ends' is decision theoretic. It does not arise in Physics.  An object's viscosity is a function of its temperature. An object's velocity is not a function of its mass. Thus, the notion of momentum has no correlative of the sort these nutters imply.

Gandhi’s assertion concerning means and ends,

was simple. Only pure means can achieve pure ends.  

that there is no polynomia in any domain,

Did Gandhi say 'It is wrong to teach polynomial equations in Maths class'? No. These guys are just pulling this stuff out of their arse.  

extends the form of mechanical laws into the domain of human freedom: there is no freedom since polynomia is an illusion, and man will inevitably be punished by the Maker, His Law, for surrendering to this illusion.

But, if there is no freedom then 'mechanical laws' can't be extended into its domain- since that domain is empty. A punishment for surrendering can't arise if there is no freedom to surrender.

This is meaningless shite.

This convertibility of means and ends is beyond the imagination of the ordinary alchemist who seeks the convertibility of any metal into gold, whereas the Maker establishes the supreme convertibility which dissolves all the illusions of abandonment of man – “God is the supreme alchemist”. The supreme alchemist converts all actions into the value zero.

Gandhi was Hindu. He was interested in 'rasayana'- i.e. transmutation of semen into amrita for longevity and spiritual gain. But then so was Lala Hardayal and Aurobindo and so forth at around the same time. 

The fact that a 'means to an end'- e.g eating cake to gain nutrition- can become an end in itself- i.e. eating cake for the sake of eating cake- is not beyond anybody's imagination. Islamic alchemy, which influenced Christian esoteric thought, has a notion of 'takwin'- the Supreme Alchemist creates Life. By contrast, the folie a deux of this couple converts everything they hit upon into shit. 

After all, our concerns with good and bad actions are determined

by their outcomes, not 

according to the distinctions we entertain between means and ends;

We can easily demarcate 'means' from 'ends'. But this does not tell us whether the means or the ends are good or bad. Only our expectations re. the outcomes they lead to make this determination.

This stupid couple think there is some formula 

'in the ratio between the given means and ends' which enable 'men (to) determine the best action there is.'

This is crazy shit. Suppose the end I am aiming at is 'to provide food and drink for a dinner party'. All the shopping and cooking and table setting I do is a means to the end. If I start eating and drinking before the guests arrive- though one 'end' of the party is served- there is a danger that there will be no fucking party coz I'll be drunk off my head and all the food would have been burnt to a crisp. 

What the fuck are these cretins getting at? 'Golden path' savings rates? Surely that type of shite isn't taught anymore even in Marxist shithole Econ Depts in India? 

The abandonment of mankind, for Gandhi, is effected by the illusion of polynomia. The abandonment of man is his freedom, contrary to the binding of man to the Maker’s Law – “Bond means bandhan.” The man in abandonment is the observer of the convertibility of means by other means, ends by ends, a means for an end, and an end for a means.

But everybody sees that 'means'- e.g. money- is converted into 'ends'- e.g. a nice slice of cake- all the time. Furthermore, a polynomial is merely an abstraction and thus is known to be an 'illusion'. Why make such heavy weather of things? Everybody knows that they have a nose on their face. Why drag alchemy and polynomia and so forth into the matter? This is not even pseudo profundity. It is naked stupidity.  

We found that Gandhi’s exasperation with language, that one word can mean several things and the same meaning can be conveyed through several words, reflects the acknowledgement of the conflict between polynomia and calypsology.

So the conflict between two meaningless words arises out of the fact that words can mean anything you like and any meaning whatsoever can be conveyed, if that is your intention, by any form of words...or sequence of derisive farts. 

In this sense, the arts are a game of un-truth.

like farts or marts or tarts. The un-truths of games are the arts of this sense. This sense of untruth is the art of its own game. One can go on mechanically churning out equally meaningless, pseudo-philosophical shite. 

That is, they extend polynomia to newer limits with each instance.

Each instance of newer limits extends polynomia to the 'that' that 'is'- it is this novel detournement on the Upanishadic mahavakya 'tat tvam asi' which skidmarks Gandhi's gandhi chaddi with the calypsology of polynomia under conditions of increasingly populist hegemonic neo-liberalism. 

Had Rohith Vemula not topped himself, this is the sort of shite he'd have been writing. His Mum would have been so proud. 

Just as Gandhi would remark on the difference between absolute truth and relative truth, he would also practise the relative telling of truth.

He was a politician. He lied his arse off.  

We found that certain truths have unwelcome consequences, even if their telling is the right means, which should ensure a right end, although it may not be apparent.

e.g youse guys saying- we are as stupid as shit. This book is crap. Only a couple of senile French assholes will be taken in. 

Even then the passive resister, who is the adherent of Truth, shall tell it at all times – “A devotee of Truth cannot stop to consider if someone will not be injured by his telling the truth, for he believes that truth can never do harm.”

These two cretins are taking the quotation out of context. What Gandhi said was

 There cannot be a vow to commit a sin; in the case of a vow, first thought to be meritorious but later found to be sinful, there arises a clear necessity to give it up. But no one takes, or ought to take, vows about dubious matters. Vows can be taken only on points of universally recognized principles. 

In other words a 'vow' or 'categorical imperative' only arises where it coincides with 'endoxa'- the consensus of the population and wise people with a supposed more valid opinion than that of the individual- i.e. represents a 'Muth Rational', 'overlapping consensus', 'reflexive equilibrium'. 

The possibility of sin in such a case is more or less imaginary. A devotee of Truth cannot stop to consider if someone will not be injured by his telling the truth, for he believes that truth can never do harm. 

Since a Law Court would find that a 'reasonable man' exercising ordinary prudence could not be harmed by the action in question.

So also about total abstinence. The abstainer will either make an exception as regards medicine, or will be prepared to risk his life in fulfilment of his full vow. What does it matter, if we happen to lose our lives through a pledge of total abstinence ? There can be no guarantee, that our lives will be prolonged by liquor, and even if life is thus prolonged for a moment it may be ended the very next through some other agency. On the other hand, the example of a man, who gives up his life rather than his pledge, is likely to wean drunkards from liquor, and thus become a great power for good in the world. Only they can hope some time to see God, who have nobly determined to bear witness to the faith that is in them, even at the cost of life itself.

What Gandhi is saying is quite reasonable. Our two cretins turn it into mischievous nonsense-

We shall take an example from Kant and set it to work under distinct parameters of a man who took refuge from his pursuers in a hospital.

This is bad English. It seems St. Stephens turned to shit some twenty years ago. 

Let’s assume that it was in Nazi Germany, the man who was seeking refuge was a Jewish activist, and the hospital was manned by “native German” doctors. The imperative which commands the doctor is that he shall save all lives without discrimination.

This is false. Have these guys never heard of Dr. Mengele? Perhaps they mean 'the imperative which should have commanded', but that's not what they say.  

The primum mobile of imperatives for Kant was that one shall tell the truth at all times.

Nonsense! Kant merely said that no legal action can be taken against you if you told the truth when legally required to do so. On the other hand, you would be held legally accountable for a lie no matter how noble your intentions. The corollary is that there is no metaphysical duty to propagate a 'noble lie'. The metaphysics of morals can proceed without bothering with consequentialist considerations. Obviously, if you are legislating for yourself, you stipulate that your own truthfulness can't be a transgression- no matter what its effect might be.

It is a separate matter that such legislation is onanistic. 

The moral value of an imperative is established through a logical examination;

Fuck off! Moral value is established through a moral, not logical, examination.  

if an imperative is partial, such as truth telling, it results in the conditions where one is unable to practise it

Fuck off! I've got an imperative to go the loo. But it is partial. I only need to do number one, not number two. Will I be unable to piss? Sure, according to these two fuckwits.  

– the partial telling of truth will encourage men to not trust any statement at all,

Which is howcome human beings don't use language to communicate. Partial truth telling causes us to distrust any type of communication.  

and if all men were to tell the truth at all times it would establish the faith in the speech of men.

Yet, it is clear that 'faith in the speech of men' exists. That's how come we have such a sophisticated economy. But no man tells the truth at all times. The thing would be a nuisance. 

The imperative to tell the truth will, then, establish a society which will require the least policing;

Nonsense! If people did not constantly, with great honesty, say they want to fuck you up got good, you would not be constantly ringing 911. At least that was my experience when I lived with my parents.  

the relation between truth by brute force – policing – and continuous and voluntary truth telling was to be one of the pillars of Gandhi’s ideal state of Hind Swaraj...

The police were constantly arresting Gandhi and his groupies because they were continuously and voluntarily confessing to seditious intentions. But British Jails were not mentioned as one of the 'ideal' features of that shithead's pataphysical 'Hind Swaraj'.

The doctor in the German hospital is obliged to deliver the Jewish activist over to the Nazis, while knowing that his truthfulness will kill a man.

Kant merely says that doing what the Law requires won't get you in trouble with the law. German doctors who didn't hand over Jews probably did run some risk. But the thing was a double-edged sword. What if Hitler lost? Then that Jew might be avenged upon your sorry ass.  

The Jewish activist hiding in the hospital is himself obliged to tell the truth, and reveal himself before his SS pursuers.

Not according to Kant. However, if that Jew wants to 'legislate' for himself, he shouldn't lie to himself on the grounds that he did it to the SS. That would be silly. But then Mohan & Dwiwedi are engaged in a dadaist exercise. Silliness is par for the course.  

Gandhi’s own thoughts about the Jewish people in 1938 are difficult to grasp – “The Jews are not angels.” Gandhi’s advisories to the Jewish people, threatened with annihilation, are not surprising:“The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror.”

Because they'd all get to go to Heaven.  Gandhi's thought is easy to grasp. If you believe doing stupid shit will get you an eternity of felicity, do do that doodoo so God work that voodoo he do so well. 

The sense of truth in this occasion concerns not merely a thought or a statement but rather the exposure of oneself to the brute force which seeks one’s own destruction. That is, when the Jewish activist tells the truth and submits himself before his captors, he identifies himself before the Nazis according to the Nazi criteria of being a Jew, and receives the fate reserved for the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Gandhi appears to contradict himself in this case, since the truth to which man ought to expose himself, and the truth of man which will thus be exposed, are in accordance with the Laws of the Maker, whereas, the Nazi laws are still man-made.

There is no contradiction if you accept Occasionalism. God makes the Nazis enforce a bad law so they can burn for all eternity while the Chosen People obey it so they can relish immortal bliss.

Yet, in another sense the calamitous exposure to the truth held by the Nazis would remain a mediate exposure of the Jewish people to the thousand suns of the Maker.

Not in another, but the same sense. Life in this world is brief. Let it go. Heaven is the only real happening place. 

This leads us to the tonal centre of Truth – exposure and concealment.

No it doesn't.  Truth is truth. It isn't Music. It does not have a 'tonal center'. But the 'tonic' is neither exposed nor concealed. Generally speaking it is where the piece of music begins and to which it returns. On the other hand, one does to expose and conceal one's dick depending on whether you need to urinate or not. It may be that Mohan has suffered the inconvenience of thousands of Jewish people being led to his dick by mediate exposure to the thousand suns of the Maker or the myriad buns of the Shaker or the gazillions guns of the Quaker or some other such shit. I deeply sympathize with is predicament. The only sort of Jew who might be interested in my baby dick is a mohel hired to snip off the foreskin. 

Truth is that which remains concealed,

from this pair of knobheads 

and man ought to expose all the hidden markers of Truth, His Law.

Wave your circumcised dick about! That will cause calypsology to fuck off, sho' nuff.  

Truth is also that which brings about suffering;

No. Through Suffering, Wisdom may be attained. It is not the 'Revelation', the rending of the veil, which is apocalyptic. Rather it is one's previous commitments or conatus. Had Oedipus not been bound by a previous vow, learning the Truth he could have said, 'Cool! I fucked my Mom and killed my Dad! I'm like Zeus, baby!'  

if one obtains truth without suffering, it is not worthy of being called by that name.

Said nobody ever. Aeschylus wasn't saying 'guys, my plays are shit. If you sit through them you will want to tear your own eyes out just to alleviate your boredom'. On the contrary. The fucker used to go around telling everybody his plays rocked.

Truth is like a b.j from your wife. Great if it comes gratis but, we are obliged to pretend, also something of sufficient present value to put up with her shit. Thank God, she doesn't put anal on the menu or promise to go ass to mouth. Or maybe she does in your age-bracket. In mine, b.js are still thought of as a birthday treat. Unless you lose your job and artificial respiration once again becomes necessary. But, death would be preferable. 

We identify a proportional articulation here

No you don't. You articulate a prolapsed rectum, dear.  

– in direct proportion to the exposure there is suffering, and in direct proportion to un-truth there is liveable life.

You are saying- 'Truth hurts! Lies make everything better'.  That's not Aeschylus. That's fucking Tennessee Williams! After Blanche was carted away to the nuthouse, Williams told Gore Vidal, she married a wealthy and aristocratic Chief Psychiatrist and established a Literary Salon for non-kike Fugitives in the French Quarter. 

This proportional articulation determines the movements of the Gandhian ascetic; he is scorched and baked in the thousand suns of Truth into the hardest terracotta figurine, which will endure forever.

The Gandhian ascetic, like Aurobindo, or Hardayal, wasn't actually ascetic at all. A wife or 'Divine Mother' ran the household. Not fucking isn't 'ascetic'. It's a choice. So is dressing up like a Yogi or whatever. India has strict codes for ascetics. Aurobindo might qualify- after all he did give up cigars and brandy- but Gandhi and Hardayal fail.  Compared to what Savarkar or Bhai Parmanand went through, neither suffered shit. 

Gandhi needed more and more money for his money pit schemes and, okay, he turned into a marionette or just a fucking statue or whatever. So what? He was a slot machine which paid out for at least some of those who most fed him coin. 

It is this mode of suffering, of offering the vulnerability of themselves before the Nazi machinery of genocide, which Gandhi proposed to the Jewish people – to expose oneself to annihilation in order that one is conjoined to absolute truth. In their own annihilation the Jewish people were to have the non-experience of Absolute Truth – “a joyful sleep”.

If a Christian or a Muslim writes this type of shite, there could be a deep ecumenicism- rather than literary pretentiousness and shallowness of mind- at work here. Why? The 'Shoah' is recognized as 'Holocaust'. The Jew is accepted as a common pharmakos or korban. But when this shite pair of Stephanian illiterates do it, the effect is pure pataphysics. 

Why? For Hindus, this world is one we share with Mleccha only coz of some previous life sin. Like Gandhi, we iz outta here like Otter beer- tastier than Tarka's twat but diuretic- so see you never losers! 

Lala Har Dayal was considered a very brilliant Stephanian. C.F Andrews was associated with that suppurating anus which has shat out Zia ul Haq, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Shashi Tharoor, and now this pair of clowns. 

There was a time when Stephanians, like Mayo boys, knew their place. They were stupid but well enough bred to know their place epistemically speaking. Now Stephanians are just vulgar. Sad.

P.S.- why do these guys refer to Joseph Alter as John? Is it coz they use the fellow as a toilet? Clearly, Modiji has not really ended open defecation as he promised. Army should take action.