Fallacy of the Hindutva Project by Shamsul Islam

 

Fallacy of the Hindutva Project   by Shamsul Islam

One has lost count of religious conclaves of Hindu ‘saints’ friendly to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) calling for violent cleansing of lawful Indian Muslims.

 

It was not long ago that Tathagata Roy, an RSS luminary who

also graced the high constitutional office of Governor of Tripura, tweeted that  “the Hindu-Muslim problem won’t be solved without a Civil War”. Roy claimed that he was only reminding Hindus of an unfulfilled wish of Syam Prasad Mookerji, the RSS icon.

 

In fact, it has been the most favourite theme of the RSS since its inception in 1925. India is for ‘Ramzade’ (children of Ram) and out of bounds for ‘Babarzade’ (children of Babar) who are also described as ‘Haramazade’ (illegitimate children).

 

The RSS and its Hindutva appendages have been demanding revenge for crimes against Hindus in history but have singled out the medieval period in order to focus on the persecution by ‘Muslim’ rulers.

 

It is surprising that in a country like India whose civilisation is more than 5,000 years old, it is a period of 400-500 years of ‘Muslim’ rule that is put under the scanner.

 

In order to arrive at the truth, we need to study the nature of ‘Muslim’ rule. The most crucial issue is, why do the common Muslims of today’s India have to pay for the sins of ‘Muslim’ rulers of the past who had friendly and cordial relations (including matrimonial) with higher caste Hindus?

 

We also need to investigate whether ‘ Hindu’ history was devoid of religious, social and political persecution.

 

Hindutva zealots demanding a Muslim-free India must know that ‘Muslim’ rules survived because higher caste Hindus assisted ‘Muslim’ rulers in running their empires.

 

This unity between Muslims and caste Hindus can be gauged

from the fact that no Mughal emperor after Akbar was born of a Muslim mother. Several higher caste Hindus served the ‘Muslim’ rulers faithfully.

 

The Mughal rule established by Babar, who was invited

by a section of Hindu kings to seize India (as we know it today), was the rule of higher caste Hindus too. Hindu officials in Mughal courts

 

Aurobindo Ghose, who played a prominent role in providing Hindu foundation to Indian nationalism, confessed that Mughal rule continued for over a century because Mughal rulers gave Hindus “positions of power and responsibility, used their brain and arm to preserve” their kingdom.

 

The renowned historian Tara Chand, relying on the primary source material of the medieval period, concluded that from the end of the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century, “it may

reasonably be concluded that in the whole of India, excepting the western Punjab, superior rights in land had come to vest in

the hands of Hindus” most of whom happened to be Rajputs.

 

Maasir-ul Umra, a biographical dictionary of officers in the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1780 (Akbar to Shah Alam), is regarded as the most authentic record of high-ranking officials employed by Mughal kings. This work was compiled by Shahnawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai between 1741 and 1747.

 

According to it, Mughal rulers during this period employed around 100 (out of 365) high-ranking officials most of whom were “Rajputs from Rajputana, the midlands, Bundelkhand and Maharashtra”. After Rajputs, Brahmins were the second largest group of Hindu officials in the Mughal administration.

 

Interestingly, the Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha established in 1893, “committed to the cause of Hindi as official language”, published the Hindi translation of the book in 1931. It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb did not commit heinous crimes against his Indian subjects. It must be remembered that his cruelty was

not restricted to non-Muslims; his own father, brothers, Shias, Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam and Muslim ruling families in the eastern, central and western parts of India faced brutal repression and were annihilated. Aurangzeb executed the renowned Sufi saint Sarmad in the precincts of the Jama Masjid in Delhi. It is true that during his despotic rule there were countless cases of violent targeting of Hindus and their religious places.

 

However, contemporary records reveal that he patronised Hindu

and Jain religious places of worship. A standing example of this is the grand Gauri Shankar temple, a stone’s throw from Lahori Gate of Red Fort, which was built during Shahjahan’s reign and continued functioning during Aurangzeb’s rule.

 

Reducing all his crimes to repression of Hindus is tantamount

to reducing the gravity of his crimes against humanity. No sane person would deny that the Somnath temple in Gujarat was

desecrated, looted and razed by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi). But a fact that remains buried is that it was done with the active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains.

 

M.S. Golwalkar, the most prominent ideologue of the RSS, while referring to the desecration and destruction of the Somnath temple said: “He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in

Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food, and no water for his army, and even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished .But no, Mahmud Ghazi made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs against them. In their folly and pettiness they believed him. And they joined him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu, blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul – who stood in the vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the Hindus. These are facts of history” (RSS English organ, Organiser, January 4, 1950). Hindu kings as persecutors

 

Muslim rulers were not the only ones who defiled Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that “the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet” (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, p.264). It was not an isolated incident of desecration.

 

Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who is regarded as a Prophet of

Hindutva, while dealing with the contribution of Shankaracharya in his tome Satyarth Prakash wrote:

 

“For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole here and there under the

ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.”

 

According to the ‘Hindu’ narrative of ancient Indian history, Brihadratha, the last Buddhist king of the Maurya dynasty (Asoka being one), was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 B.C., thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the reign of the Shunga dynasty.

 

D.N. Jha, an authority on ancient Indian history, referred to Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries that described Pushyamitra Shunga as a persecutor of Buddhists who destroyed Buddhist and Jain religious places. In his 2018 collection of essays titled Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History, Jha writes: “He is said to have

marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot, where he announced a prize of one hundred dinars for every head of a Shramana [opposed to Vedas].”

 

Jha also presented evidence from the grammarian Patanjali, a contemporary of the Shungas, who famously stated in his Mahabhashya that Brahmins and Shramanas were eternal enemies, like the snake and the mongoose (“Monumental Absence: The destruction of ancient Buddhist sites”, Caravan,

June 2018).

 

In the Hindutva narrative, the persecution of Sikh Gurus and

their followers by Mughal rulers is used to spread hatred against present-day Indian Muslims.

 

Mughal rulers, especially Aurangzeb’s armies, committed heinous and unspeakable crimes against Sikhs. Was it Muslims versus Sikhs? Contemporary Sikh records reject such an interpretation.

 

According to a Sikh website (https://www.sikhdharma.org/4-sons-of-guru-gobind-singh/), during the last and the most brutal siege of Anandpur Sahib in 1704, Muslim and Hindu hill rajas completely surrounded and cut off the city.

 

While the Sikhs were trying to escape the Mughal invaders “the younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh, Baba Zorawar Singh, aged 9, and Baba  Fateh Singh, aged 7, were separated from the group in the confusion. They walked through the rugged jungle with their holy grandmother, Mata Gujri ji (mother of Guru Gobind Singh), until they came to small village where they took shelter.” An old servant of the Guru’s household, Gangu, on coming to know that they were there in the village visited Mataji and persuaded her to go with him to his village. According to the narrative,“he expressed care and concern, but his heart was dark with betrayal. Cold, wet and alone, Mata Gujri gratefully went with Gangu to his house” taking her grandsons along.

 

For a few gold coins, Gangu betrayed their whereabouts

 to the Mughal army. At dawn, there was a loud banging on the door and soldiers of the evil governor Wazir Khan took away the holy family to Sarhind.“As they travelled through the city, people thronged to see them pass offering words of encouragement. They shouted curses at the Brahmin and were shocked at the depravity of the Moghul governor.”

 

Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned historian, held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in India. In fact, he is regarded as a narrator of the Hindu history during the Mughal rule.

 

However, his description of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in 1742 makes it clear that this army of “Hindu nation” cared little about honour and property of Hindus of Bengal.

 

According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands committed wanton destruction and unspeakable outrage”. In The History of Bengal-Muslim Period 1200 A.D.-1757 A.D. (volume II) edited by him, Sarkar reproduced eyewitness accounts of the sufferings of Bengali Hindus at the hands of Marathas.

 

According to one such eyewitness, Gangaram, “the Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else. Of some people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and ear; some they killed outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after raping them.”

 

Another eyewitness, Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated the horrifying tales of atrocities committed by the Marathas. “Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every kind of sinful act.”

 

Contemporary records prove that Aurangzeb’s rule was also the rule of Rajputs and Kshatriyas (members of two of the four castes in the Hindu social hierarchy) and other members of higher caste Hindus.

 

Aurangzeb never faced the Maratha ruler Shivaji in the battlefield. It was his commander-in-chief Jay Singh II (1688-1743), a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), who was sent to subjugate Shivaji.

 

Aurangazeb conferred the title ‘Sawai’ (one and a quartertimes superior to his contemporaries) on him in 1699 and thus he came to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Aurangazeb also conferred the title ‘mirza raja’ (a Persian title for a royal prince) on him. The other titles bestowed on him by other Mughal rulers were Sarmad-i-Rajaha-i-Hind (eternal ruler of India), Raj Rajeshvar (lord of kings) and Shri Shantanu ji (wholesome king).These titles are displayed by his descendants even today. This Rajput chief also gave his daughter in marriage to Aurangzeb’s son. (https://www.indianrajputs.com/view/jaipur and

https://www.indianrajputs.com/famous/Jai-Singh- II-Amber.php)

 

We have first-hand account of Raja Rughnath Bahadur, a Kayasth who functioned as Deewan Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. According to a biographical work penned by one of his direct descendents, “Raja Rughnath Bahadur having attained to the most exalted rank of Diwan Ala (prime minister) was not unmindful of the interests of his caste-fellows [Kayasths].

 

Raja appointed every one of them to posts of honor and emoluments, according to their individual merits; while many of them were granted titles of honor and valuable jagirs for their services. Not a single Kayasth remained unemployed or in needy circumstances.”

 

(Short Account of the Life and Family of Rai Jeewan

 Lal Bahadur, Late Honorary Magistrate Delhi, With Extracts from His Diary Relating to the Times of Mutiny 1857.)

 

This account shows that a Kayasth prime minister of Aurangazeb, a bigoted Muslim ruler, was able to patronise people of his own caste.

 

Another crucial fact that is consciously kept under wraps is that despite more than 500 years of Muslim rule, which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project to annihilate Hindus or forcibly convert them to Islam, India has remained a nation with an absolute Hindu majority.

 

The British conducted the first Census in 1871-72, by when the ceremonial Muslim rule was over. According to the Census report:

 

“The population of British India is in round numbers divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”

 

These figures make it clear that persecution and cleansing of Hindus was not even a secondary project of the ‘Muslim’ rule. If it had been so, Hindus would have disappeared from India.

 

According to the 2011 Census, Hindus constitute 79.80% of the total population and Muslims constitute 14.23%. India seems to be the only country where despite five centuries of ‘Muslim’ rule the populace did not convert to the religion of the rulers.

The linking of Aurangzeb or other Muslim rulers’ crimes committed in pre-modern India to his/her religion will have serious consequences even for the ‘Hindu’ version of history as narrated by the RSS.

 

Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who according to the Hindu narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Rama and his companions. This Ravana was a learned Brahman who also happened to be an ardent worshipper of Siva.

 

The epic Mahabharata narrates the story of a great war between two families Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas),

not between Hindus and Muslims, in which 1.2 billion people were slaughtered.

 

Draupadi was disrobed by Kashtriyas. If the crimes of Ravana, Kauravas, Pushyamitra Shunga, Jai Singh II, Marathas and Gangu Brahmin, among others, are linked to their religion, as in the case of Aurangzeb and other Muslim rulers, then the country will turn into a land of butchery.

 

If revenge is to be taken on the present descendants of the past perpetrators, then a beginning must be made from the beginning of Indian civilisation; the turn of Indian Muslims will come later.

 

It is sad that the RSS-Bharatiya Janata Party rulers of India, who are never tired of talking about a powerful Hindu nation leading the world, are forcing the country into a state of civil war. With them around, pitting one section of Indians against the other, there is no need of any foreign enemy to undo a democratic-secular India.

BURNING THEIR DRAFT ORDERS By Oren Ziv,

 

BURNING THEIR DRAFT ORDERS By Oren Ziv,  :May 26, 2023:

Resist!

 

On April 1, in the midst of one of the weekly mass demonstrations in Tel Aviv against the Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plans, a group of around 10 teenagers gathered to burn their military draft orders, after announcing that they would refuse to serve in the army in protest of the occupation and apartheid. This symbolic act gained a great deal of attention, perhaps buoyed by the recent wave of refusal threats by hundreds of reservist soldiers as part of the protest movement against the government.

 

From conversations with several of these high school students and young people, it is clear that the protests against the judicial overhaul and the political awareness that it has brought about has accelerated the process of radicalization. Moreover, they feel that other young people are becoming more willing to hear about the occupation, while the issue of army refusal in various forms is growing much more widespread.

 

“People are getting more into politics because there is no choice,” says Sofi Or, a 17-year-old from the northern town of Pardes Hanna, and an activist with Mesarvot, a network that guides young people through the process of conscientious objection. Before the protests, she says, most young people did not think much about politics. “Now, young people who were not in the political scene are open to hearing about politics — and not only ideas from the mainstream. Even within the protests themselves it is easy to start conversations.”

 

“If young people learn about the committee for the appointment of judges [which the government is trying to control], maybe they will also learn about apartheid in the occupied territories,” explains Tal, a 17-year-old from Tel Aviv.

 

Ayelet Kobo, another 17-year-old from Tel Aviv, is also active in Mesarvot. “People around me have really changed,” they say. “At the beginning of the protests, I organized students to come to the ‘anti-occupation bloc’ [a group of protesters at the sidelines of the main demonstration who hold banners and chant slogans against occupation and apartheid, and wave Palestinian flags]. I met people who in the past might have spoken about politics, but were not active. Now they are joining many protests and coming every week.”

 

Kobo says the change is due to the fact that the demonstrations are accessible to everyone. “It is expected that young people will be more radical,” they explain. “The problem is that you hear about terrible things but then don’t know about left-wing organizations and how to join them. The [current] protests are so big that you do not need to get to the other side of Israel to see them. You can just leave the house on Saturday and find people who will speak to you. This knowledge gave people the courage to join in.”

 

Many of the high schoolers who spoke to +972 are not sufficing just with the weekly anti-government demonstrations in Tel Aviv, but are also participating in civil disobedience and direct action. Some are joining Palestinian-led protests in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem, against the eviction of Palestinian families by settlers and the state.

 

Iddo Elam, a 16-year-old from Tel Aviv and a member of Banki, the youth wing of the Israeli Communist Party, says that he has been politically active since the age of 14. “Suddenly, I see friends who never cared about such matters making throw-away comments like ‘It’s so terrible what [the government] is doing.’ Many come to the demonstrations every week and are open to hearing about issues such as occupation and apartheid. Many friends come to the radical bloc and wave the Palestinian flag for the first time, when a year or two ago they would ask me why I’m waving it.”

 

Elam claims that it was the power of the protest that brought about this change – “you can’t ignore them.” What’s more, he says, other young protesters who are not part of the anti-occupation bloc pass by it on their way to the main demonstration — “they see what we’re talking about, they ask their parents, and they watch the news,” Elam explains. He also believes that the need “to fight against more fascist people like [National Security Minister Itamar] Ben Gvir and [Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich makes it illogical to ignore the occupation.”

 

Defying Their Elders

In February, Uri Lass, the principal of Tel Aviv’s Ironi Dalet High School, was reprimanded by the Education Ministry for calling on his students to join a youth demonstration against the government’s judicial overhaul. The day before the demonstration, Lass sent a message demanding that students refrain from waving Palestinian flags; some of his students defied him, forming their own anti-occupation bloc within the youth march.

 

At the demonstration, one of the administrators asked a student to stop waving the Palestinian flag. When the latter refused, the administrator asked the police officer supervising the demonstration to forbid the anti-occupation bloc from entering the main square with the rest of the protesters, where the speeches took place.

 

Kobo views that demonstration as a great success. “We appealed to young people we know, and the response was amazing,” they say. “I didn’t think there were more than five or six left-wing kids in my year. But I started talking and sharing things in the [student] WhatsApp group and realized that we have a presence in the school — that we have a voice. A few months ago, [students] didn’t know how to organize, and now they send me selfies from [demonstrations in] Sheikh Jarrah. It’s really impressive.”

 

Kobo was offended that the teachers denounced the bloc, but was ultimately unsurprised. “In the end, the teachers’ job is to preserve the establishment. They teach us history and civics with the aim of making us think that Israel is the most moral country in the world and that we need to enlist in the army.”

 

While Kobo and Elam were active in left-wing groups before this wave of protests began, Tal became active only recently. “I was raised on values of respect for other people, but I never went out to protest,” he says. “At the first demonstration [on Jan. 7, organized by the Jewish-Arab socialist movement Standing Together], I went with my mom and listened to the speeches. The speech by Ayman Odeh [head of the left-wing Hadash party] was amazing.”

 

At the next mass demonstration a week later in Tel Aviv’s Habima Square, Tal was already looking for Palestinian flags. “When I arrived, someone asked me if I wanted to hold a flag,” he recalls. After he took one and started waving it, he says he experienced “verbal and physical violence,” but that this only strengthened his desire to go out to the streets and protest.

 

“Going to protests means experiencing radicalization every time afresh. Police violence, tours in Hebron — every time I go out to protest it strengthens my opinions,” he says.

 

‘People Are Getting Used To Our Presence’

The anti-occupation bloc, which has grown to around 1,000 people each week, has become a meeting point for left-wing youngsters. A significant number of them are members of the youth wing of Banki, coming to demonstrations after meeting earlier at the Left Bank — the organization’s headquarters in the city center.

 

“A lot of young people are joining,” says 18-year-old Einav Zipori, secretary of Banki’s Tel Aviv branch. “There is a lot of interest. The protests helped young people who might have been aware of these issues to enter and do things.”

 

Zipori says that at the beginning there were arguments among the leftist youth about whether to join the big demonstrations at all. “In the first weeks it was problematic, but little by little connections were made with other organizations and new people, the [anti-occupation] bloc was formed, and people joined other activities as well.”

 

And whereas members of the bloc initially faced a lot of aggression from other protesters, the level of violence toward them decreased as the weeks went on. “Many people who come to fight are also ready to listen,” Zipori continues. “People are getting used to our presence. More people are reaching out to us, and there is more awareness that Banki exists.”

 

“The message we are conveying is that there is no democracy if it is not for all,” says Or. “The current protests, which are supposedly about democracy, are really a struggle to preserve the status quo — returning to what we had before, where democracy was granted to Jews only. We want to remind this protest movement of the occupation, the oppression that Palestinians are experiencing, and their flag.”

 

“We oppose the reform, but we don’t only want to settle for that,” says Kobo. “The mainstream protests demand a return to the values of the Declaration of Independence. But we know that there has never been a democracy here. Not only because of the occupation; before that there was the Nakba, when people were deliberately expelled to create a Jewish state.

 

“The protests say that if the laws are passed, Israel will not be a democracy,” Kobo continues. “We say that if the laws are passed, they will serve Israel’s anti-democratic essence since 1948. The weakest people will be harmed: Palestinians in the West Bank, Mizrahim, Ethiopians, and immigrants from the former Soviet Union.”

 

Kobo is conscious, however, that while the anti-occupation bloc has managed to assert itself as a legitimate voice in the protests, change doesn’t only take place at demonstrations. “Protests are not the place to change people’s opinions,” they say. “That happens in more intimate forums, such as tours or ceremonies. The idea of a joint [Jewish-Palestinian] ceremony [such as the joint Memorial Day ceremony that took place at the end of April] appeals even to non-radical youth.”

 

Tal’s experience shows that the anti-occupation bloc is sparking conversations with other young people in the crowd. “There have been countless discussions,” he recalls. “People are surprised by what we think. At first they approach us aggressively. When we explain that we just want everybody to live in equality, we don’t want to throw the Jews into the sea, and that there is no reason for one people to rule over another people, they will say: ‘That’s not so bad.’”

 

But despite the optimism, Or is aware that most young people do not accept these positions. “The majority of young people in Israel are right-wing. It has to do with the society we grow up in — a society filled with militaristic, nationalist, and inflammatory messages, which we are fed from a young age. There is still so much work to be done before the message ‘democracy for all’ is seen as normal.”

 

‘We’ve Reached The Mainstream’

One of the issues preoccupying the radical youth in these protests is conscientious objection. Some are preparing to go to military prison as a result of their refusal, while others hope to get exemptions for health reasons. The protests in Tel Aviv have seen future conscientious objectors addressing the crowd in the anti-occupation bloc. And according to those who spoke to +972, the fact that army reservists are now openly talking about refusing has made it easier for them to speak to other young people about refusing to be enlisted altogether.

 

The first conscientious objector to be sent to military prison since these protests began was Yuval Dag, 20, who is now serving his third term behind bars. I met Dag twice — once right after the elections in November 2022, and a second time after the protests started.

 

During our second meeting, he explained how the reactions to his decision to refuse had shifted over the past half year. “I feel that there is more support [for my decision]. You see many more people who go to the main demonstration with Israeli flags, and then encounter the anti-occupation bloc and say, ‘Well done, we are with you.’ This has given me more strength.”

 

Dag attributes this change to the extremism of the current government. “It has become clear to everyone that there is a deeper connection between Israel and the occupation. There is a tangible example of what the government allows, what it lends a hand to, and what it consists of. Suddenly people are talking about Palestinians in the middle of Tel Aviv.”

 

Elam, who plans to refuse, says that the issue came up at school: “We are now having a discussion in civics class about conscientious objection, and many friends who may still want to enlist now understand why people refuse to do so,” he explains. “They also see conscientious objection by reservists and understand that the army and militarism are not some supreme value, but something that should be doubted to a certain extent and even rejected.”

 

Or, who graduated high school this year, will likely be sent to prison in the coming months upon declaring her refusal to enlist. “I am not refusing as part of the protest movement, like the reservists. I am refusing because of the occupation and apartheid,” she says. “But the general discussion about conscientious objection has allowed us to reach the mainstream. People are far more willing to hear it, despite the fact that there is still a lot of hatred.”

Hinduism , lessons from the past by Wendy Doniger

 

Hinduism , lessons from the past

 

 

You could easily use history to argue for almost any position in contemporary India: that Hindus have been vegetarians, and that they have not; that Hindus and Muslims have gotten along well together, and that they have not; that Hindus have objected to suttee, and that they have not; that Hindus have renounced the material world, and that they have embraced it; that Hindus have oppressed women and lower castes, and that they have fought for their equality. Throughout history, right up to the contemporary political scene, the tensions between the various Hinduisms, and the different sorts  Hindus, have simultaneously enhanced the tradition and led to incalculable suffering.

What an utter waste it would be not to keep using our knowledge of a tradition, such as the Hindu tradition, that is so rich, so brilliantly adaptive. The profuse varieties of historical survivals and transformations are a tribute to the infinite inventiveness of this great civilization, which has never had a pope to rule certain narratives unacceptable. The great pity is that now there are some who would set up such a papacy in India, smuggling into Hinduism a Christian idea of orthodoxy; the great hope lies in the many voices that have already been raised to keep this from happening.

We can learn from India’s long and complex history of pluralism not just some of the pitfalls to avoid but the successes to emulate. We can follow, within the myths, the paths of individuals like King Janashruti or Yudhishthira or Chudala or, in recorded history, Ashoka or Harsha or Akbar or Mahadevyyakka or Kabir or Gandhi, or indeed most rank-and-file Hindus, who embodied a truly tolerant individual pluralism. We can also take heart from movements within Hinduism that rejected both hierarchy and violence, such as the bhakti movements that included women and Dalits within their ranks and advocated a theology of love, though here too we must curb our optimism by recalling the violence embedded in many forms of bhakti, and by noting that it was in the name of bhakti to Ram that the militant Hindu nationalists tore down the Babri Mosque. We must look before we leap into history, look at the present, and imagine a better future.

 

Wendy Doniger

Can the U.S. Adjust Sensibly to a Multipolar World? in World — by Medea Benjamin — 05/05/2023 by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

 

Can the U.S. Adjust Sensibly to a Multipolar World?

in World — by Medea Benjamin — 05/05/2023 by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

 

In his 1987 book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, historian Paul Kennedy reassured Americans that the decline the United States was facing after a century of international dominance was “relative and not absolute, and is therefore perfectly natural; and that the only serious threat to the real interests of the United States can come from a failure to adjust sensibly to the newer world order.”

 

Since Kennedy wrote those words, we have seen the end of the Cold War, the peaceful emergence of China as a leading world power, and the rise of a formidable Global South. But the United States has indeed failed to “adjust sensibly to the newer world order,” using military force and coercion in flagrant violation of the UN Charter in a failed quest for longer lasting global hegemony.

 

Kennedy observed that military power follows economic power. Rising economic powers develop military power to consolidate and protect their expanding economic interests. But once a great power’s economic prowess is waning, the use of military force to try to prolong its day in the sun leads only to unwinnable conflicts, as European colonial powers quickly learned after the Second World War, and as Americans are learning today.

 

While U.S. leaders have been losing wars and trying to cling to international power, a new multipolar world has been emerging. Despite the recent tragedy of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the agony of yet another endless war, the tectonic plates of history are shifting into new alignments that offer hope for the future of humanity. Here are several developments worth watching:

 

De-dollarizing global trade

 

For decades, the U.S. dollar was the undisputed king of global currencies. But China, Russia, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and other nations are taking steps to conduct more trade in their own currencies, or in Chinese yuan.

 

Illegal, unilateral U.S. sanctions against dozens of countries around the world have raised fears that holding large dollar reserves leaves countries vulnerable to U.S. financial coercion. Many countries have already been gradually diversifying their foreign currency reserves, from 70% globally held in dollars in 1999 to 65% in 2016 to only 58% by 2022.

 

Since no other country has the benefit of the “ecosystem” that has developed around the dollar over the past century, diversification is a slow process, but the war in Ukraine has helped speed the transition. On April 17, 2023, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that U.S. sanctions against Russia risk undermining the role of the dollar as the world’s global reserve currency.

 

And in a Fox News interview, right-wing Republican Senator Marco Rubio lamented that, within five years, the United States may no longer be able to use the dollar to bully other countries because “there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won’t have the ability to sanction them.”

 

BRICS’s GDP leapfrogs G7’s 

 

When calculated based on Purchasing Power Parity, the GDP of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is now higher than that of the G7 (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan). The BRICS countries, which account for over 40% of total world population, generate 31.5% of the world’s economic output, compared with 30.7% for the G7, and BRICS’s growing share of global output is expected to further outpace the G7’s in coming years.

 

Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has invested some of its huge foreign exchange surplus in a new transport infrastructure across Eurasia to more quickly import raw materials and export manufactured goods, and to build growing trade relations with many countries.

 

Now the growth of the Global South will be boosted by the New Development Bank (NDB), also known as the BRICS Bank, under its new president Dilma Rousseff, the former president of Brazil.

 

Rousseff helped to set up the BRICS Bank in 2015 as an alternative source of development funding, after the Western-led World Bank and IMF had trapped poor countries in recurring debt, austerity and privatization programs for decades. By contrast, the NDB is focused on eliminating poverty and building infrastructure to support “a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable future for the planet.” The NDB is well-capitalized, with $100 billion to fund its projects, more than the World Bank’s current $82 billion portfolio.

 

Movement towards “strategic autonomy” for Europe

 

On the surface, the Ukraine war has brought the United States and Europe geostrategically closer together than ever, but this may not be the case for long. After French President Macron’s recent visit to China, he told reporters on his plane that Europe should not let the United States drag it into war with China, that Europe is not a “vassal” of the United States, and that it must assert its “strategic autonomy” on the world stage. Cries of horror greeted Macron from both sides of the Atlantic when the interview was published.

 

But European Council President Charles Michel, the former prime minister of Belgium, quickly came to Macron’s side, insisting that the European Union cannot “blindly, systematically follow the position of the United States.” Michel confirmed in an interview that Macron’s views reflect a growing point of view among EU leaders, and that “quite a few really think like Emmanuel Macron.”

 

The rise of progressive governments in Latin America

 

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, which has served as a cover for U.S. domination of Latin America and the Caribbean. But nowadays, countries of the region are refusing to march in lockstep with U.S. demands. The entire region rejects the U.S. embargo on Cuba, and Biden’s exclusion of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from his 2022 Summit of the Americas persuaded many other leaders to stay away or only send junior officials, and largely doomed the gathering.

 

With the spectacular victories and popularity of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, and Ignacio Lula da Silva in Brazil, progressive governments now have tremendous clout. They are strengthening the regional body CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) as an alternative to the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States.

 

To reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, South America’s two largest economies, Argentina and Brazil, have announced plans to create a common currency that could later be adopted by other members of Mercosur — South America’s major trade bloc. While U.S. influence is waning, China’s is mushrooming, with trade increasing from $18 billion in 2002 to nearly $449 billion in 2021. China is now the top trading partner of Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay, and Brazil has raised the possibility of a free-trade deal between China and Mercosur.

 

Peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia

 

One of the false premises of U.S. foreign policy is that regional rivalries in areas like the Middle East are set in stone, and the United States must therefore form alliances with so-called “moderate” (pro-Western) forces against more “radical” (independent) ones. This has served as a pretext for America to jump into bed with dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman and a succession of military governments in Egypt.

 

Now China, with help from Iraq, has achieved what the United States never even tried. Instead of driving Iran and Saudi Arabia to poison the whole region with wars fueled by bigotry and ethnic hatred, as the United States did, China and Iraq brought them together to restore diplomatic relations in the interest of peace and prosperity.

 

Healing this divide has raised hopes for lasting peace in several countries where the two rivals have been involved, including Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and as far away as West Africa. It also puts China on the map as a mediator on the world stage, with Chinese officials now offering to mediate between Ukraine and Russia, as well as between Israel and Palestine.

 

Saudi Arabia and Syria have restored diplomatic relations, and the Saudi and Syrian foreign ministers have visited each others’ capitals for the first time since Saudi Arabia and its Western allies backed al-Qaeda-linked groups to try to overthrow President Assad in 2011.

 

At a meeting in Jordan on May 1st, the foreign ministers of Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia agreed to help Syria restore its territorial integrity, and that Turkish and U.S. occupying forces must leave. Syria may also be invited to an Arab League summit on May 19th, for the first time since 2011.

 

Chinese diplomacy to restore relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia is credited with opening the door to these other diplomatic moves in the Middle East and the Arab world. Saudi Arabia helped evacuate Iranians from Sudan and, despite their past support for the military rulers who are destroying Sudan, the Saudis are helping to mediate peace talks, along with the UN, the Arab League, the African Union and other countries.

 

Multipolar diplomatic alternatives to U.S. war-making

 

The proposal by President Lula of Brazil for a “peace club” of nations to help negotiate peace in Ukraine is an example of the new diplomacy emerging in the multipolar world. There is clearly a geostrategic element to these moves, to show the world that other nations can actually bring peace and prosperity to countries and regions where the United States has brought only war, chaos and instability.

 

While the United States rattles its saber around Taiwan and portrays China as a threat to the world, China and its friends are trying to show that they can provide a different kind of leadership. As a Global South country that has lifted its own people out of poverty, China offers its experience and partnership to help others do the same, a very different approach from the paternalistic and coercive neocolonial model of U.S. and Western power that has kept so many countries trapped in poverty and debt for decades.

 

This is the fruition of the multipolar world that China and others have been calling for. China is responding astutely to what the world needs most, which is peace, and demonstrating practically how it can help. This will surely win China many friends, and make it more difficult for U.S. politicians to sell their view of China as a threat.

 

Now that the “newer world order” that Paul Kennedy referred to is taking shape, economist Jeffrey Sachs has grave misgivings about the U.S. ability to adjust. As he recently warned, “Unless U.S. foreign policy is changed to recognize the need for a multipolar world, it will lead to more wars, and possibly to World War III.” With countries across the globe building new networks of trade, development and diplomacy, independent of Washington and Wall Street, the United States may well have no choice but to finally “adjust sensibly” to the new order.