The cretin, Ram Guha directs our attention to the following Op-Ed in the Telegraph by a Philosophy Professor
The relationship between India and Bharat has been a source of much debate in recent times.
Bharat is the other official name for India. It is of wholly indigenous origin. The Greeks or Iranians coming into India from the West named the country after the Indus river. Malay mariners coming from the East used the word Bharat to mean 'the West'. It appears that Sanskrit culture has established itself in South East Asia many centuries ago.
At least three relationships between India and Bharat can be discerned on closer scrutiny.
Currently, there is only one relationship. Bharat is associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party which is expected to win upcoming elections. INDIA is the acronym for the Opposition coalition.
First, Part I Article 1 of the Indian Constitution refers to the name and the territory of the Union as “India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of States.” “India, that is, Bharat” is the territory’s name.
No. India is one name. Bharat is another name. Aryavarsha or Jambudvipa or Hindustan are also names for India though they are not used for official purposes.
One possible way to understand the relationship between ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ is to see both words as synonyms or a translation of each other.
India is an English word originating in ancient Greek. Bharat is an indigenous name for the same country. They may be used interchangeably but are not 'translations' of each other.
India can be seen as a synonym of Bharat in the Hindi version of the Constitution.
No. The English version is the original. The Constituent Assembly authorized a particular Hindi translation.
The two terms can be interchanged without altering their meaning and they can remain equal. This can be characterised as the ‘Is Model’.
We can say they are interchangeable 'Kripkean rigid designators'.
Second, these terms are not used as synonyms in scholarly and public discussions but are positioned within a larger social and cultural setting.
So, they are not synonyms. They are rigid designators but bound by different socio-linguistic protocols.
The English version of the Constitution refers to India and the Hindi version refers to Bharat. The Constitution states this is a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” that promises to secure its citizens “Justice” that is “social, economic and political”; “Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”; ”Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the [unity and integrity of the Nation].”
This is irrelevant. A despotic dynast introduced the words 'Secular' and 'Socialist' which meant 'anti-Jan Sangh'.
Justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are modern political ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment in the West.
No. These are ancient ideas found amongst all ancient civilizations. The Western Enlightenment considered non-Europeans (or even some Southern or Eastern Europeans) as racially inferior and thus unfitted for liberty.
In the Constitution, India is envisioned as a modern nation, much like the Western nations.
India joined the League of Nations at the same time as countries like Poland and Mexico. The First World War was the graveyard of Emperors. What emerged in 1919 were nation states.
This is how modernists in India perceive the Indian nation — India is modern, and Bharat is a synonym for India.
No. 'Modernists' perceived India as a starving shithole unable to feed or defend itself because that is what Chacha Nehru did to the country.
The traditionalists, however, contested this association of the word, India, with a modern nation, reducing Bharat to a mere synonym.
No. The traditionalists, who included Sanyasis and Purohits, associated India with the Hindu majority successor state to the British Raj. They used terms like Aryavarta, Jambudvipa and Bharat for the country.
They argue that Bharat refers to a culture that has inherited a legacy from the ancient past, dating back to the epic, the Mahabharata.
If so, Nehru was the biggest 'traditionalist'. BTW, he referred to Allahabad (as it was then named) as Prayag.
The word, Bharat, is entrenched within that tradition. Thus, India and Bharat cease to be synonymous and become different.
Shashi Tharoor's 'great Indian novel' is based on the Mahabharat. He depicts the Dynasty as the Kauravas. It is simply not true that any 'modernist' rejects the term Bharat or says that the Mahabharata and Ramayana aren't part and parcel of India's civilizational heritage.
In recent debates,
between retards
India and Bharat have been positioned as a binary between a modern India and a traditional Bharat. Here, I would like to point out that Bharat is used not only by traditionalists but also by others who are not traditionalists, such as Sharad A. Joshi,
who was utterly useless
the founder of the Swatantra Bharat Paksh Party, and the Shetkari Sanghatana. Joshi uses the term, Bharat, referring to farmers, and counterposes it with India.
The fucker was a bureaucrat who ended up working for the UN. At one time, he was touted as a classical liberal but he turned out to be as stupid as shit.
The term, Bharat, or its equivalent, is also used by dissenters of modern Indian states like Sunil Sahasrabudhe,
Gandhian shithead
a chemistry graduate at IIT Kanpur who went on to do a PhD in philosophy at the same institute in the Eighties, to refer to ‘the non-capitalist social formations’.
which were also non-useful and non-sensible and non-not-utterly-shit.
So there is not one claimant to the use of Bharat but two.
The only claimant that matters is the Bharatiya Janata Party which looks set to win the upcoming elections. The Opposition calls itself INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance)
One refers to tradition; the other to premodern ‘non-capitalist’ social communities.
Neither matter. Bharat now belongs to Modi. INDIA will get trampled by him in the General Elections.
In contrast, those who advocate India as a modern concept underplay both the versions of Bharat, the traditional and the non-capitalist social formations. Similarly, those who support Bharat undermine the role of modernity, making this an ‘Or Model’.
Modi is plenty modern. It is Rahul who looks like some sort of dirty Santa whose sled crash-landed in Hindu India and who has been desperately walking here and there hoping to round up some of his flying reindeer.
Finally, a third relationship is connected with the conjunction, ‘and’. The underlying philosophy for this is found in the writings of Indian national leaders such as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo.
none of whom were particularly keen on Muslims.
They acknowledge the virtues of modernity for India, especially the modern political ideals later enshrined in the Constitution. They used these modern ideals to reform Bharat and eradicate social evils.
Sri Aurobindo even gave up brandy and cigars on advise from 'Divine Mother'- a French lady married to a senior Colonial officer.
Without falling into a modernist trap, they accepted tradition and, at the same time, critically engaged with it.
But refused to get married to it probably because it kept fucking other dudes. Sad.
They recalled the past to make a case for India’s independence. The past that they recalled is not singular. It is diverse and plural. Moreover, their engagement with the past is both critical and elaborate.
They are dead. Get over it.
These leaders accepted both tradition and modernity
but drew the line at allowing tradition to sodomize them while modernity filmed the dirty deed on its smartphone
and proposed an active and critical engagement with each other.
But drew the line at a homosexual marriage.
They did not hesitate to use modern political ideals such as democracy, freedom, and liberty, including modern science and technology, from the West, to reform Bharat.
But they did hesitate to use modern sexual ideas- e.g. the reach-around- to deprave Bharat.
Simultaneously, they identified the limitations of and some evils in modernity, such as the
reach-around- which is where you tug off the dude you are buggering.
consequences of excessive materialism.
it is excessively materialistic to want nice food and clothes.
Further, they highlighted the virtues from India’s past symbolised in the term, Bharat. A close reading of their writings reveals that they tried to make a balance sheet between both positive and negative aspects of tradition and modernity.
Sad that they ended up writing boring shite instead. The lesson here is you have to learn Accountancy if you want to draw up a balance sheet.
This conjunction between India and Bharat remains complex and enigmatic.
Only to a cretin who teaches worthless shite
The complex and enigmatic nature of this relationship can explain the developments in modern India.
Saying something is complex and enigmatic means it can't explain shit.
It is necessary to recognise that the engagement between India and Bharat is active.
It is wholly imaginary. India is ruled by the BJP. INDIA is utterly shit and will lose the upcoming elections.
Bharat is learning from India yet resists surrendering to it.
This professor's hapless students are learning shit from him. Thankfully they are not surrendering their anal cherries to him.
It mutates in different ways to resurface in another form and surprises India.
It will come as no surprise to Kharge when Modi's BJP tramples his INDIA coalition.
The engagement is reminiscent of the quarrels in the Panchatantra stories.
Rahul is a donkey- that is true enough. But nobody bothers to quarrel with him.
This approach could pave the way to understanding the interaction between an India based on modernity and a Bharat rooted in tradition.
Fuck off! The BJP will trample INDIA. This is because Modi is a good PM. Rahul is shit at being even a plain MP. He will lose his seat.
These three approaches determined by ‘is’, ‘or’ and ‘and’ can broaden our understanding of the present discussion on the relationship between India and Bharat.
What we have understood by reading this is that IITs employ cretins to teach philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment