In his book, India: A History, John Keay unravels recent historical discoveries regarding the Aryans of India. The previously held theories of Aryans as being invaders and destroyers of the original and primal cultures has been challenged by twentieth century scholarship. Keay does leave room for the assumption that the arya migrated into India and agrees that the "names of their gods predate arrival in India, many (e.g. Indra, Agni, Varuna) being almost synonymous with their counterparts in Persian, Greek, and Latin mythology." The linguistic resemblances certainly cannot be overlooked: Agni (Fire god) looks similar to the Greek Ignus (from which derives the word ignition), Varuna (God of heaven) corresponds to Ouranos (Greek for "heaven"), and Mithra means "friend" in both Sanskrit and Persian. Factually, recognition of linguistic resemblance did play an important role in the development of the "Indo-Aryan" theory. In 1788, Sir William Jones had proposed that "some common source" may be believed to be the origin of all these languages. However, he didn't push the search for that "common source" any further. Later scholars found the idea of dating texts by means of identifying linguistic development (of the forms of words and grammar) to be as rewarding as archaeology and so, using and developing this new discipline of philology, they "at first called the elusive 'common source' language (and the family of languages which derived from it) 'Indo-Germanic' or 'Indo-European'. This changed to 'Indo-Aryan', or simply 'Aryan', after it was realised that the ancient Persians had indeed used their arya word in an ethnic sense; they called themselves the 'Ariana' (whence derives the modern 'Iran')."[p.21] Keay continues to point out that numerous writers had challenged this assumption that a "shared language necessarily meant a shared ethnicity". "Yet, the idea of a single race sowing seeds of civilisation from Bengal to Donegal" he says "proved intensely exciting, and ultimately irresistible". [p.21]
Next, followed the search for an Aryan homeland and most scholars favored the steppes of southern Russia and the Ukraine, or the shores of the Caspian from where the Aryans were thought to have migrated with their language, their gods, their horses and their herds to Iran and Syria, Anatolia and Greece, eastern Europe and northern India. These Aryans were assumed to be very combative tribes that ruthlessly displaced the aborigines of India by either exterminating them or driving them off into the jungles and farther into the south. The aborigines were contrasted from the Aryans by physical structure, facial features, and complexion. They were "dark, flat-nosed, uncouth, incomprehensible and generally inferior. The Aryans, on the other hand, were finer-featured, fairer, taller, favoured above others in the excellence of their gods, their horses and their ritual magic, and altogether a very superior people." [pp.21-22]
Keay felt that this theory of Aryan supremacy aided the Colonialist complex of superiority as the "neo-Aryans" who, in the nick of time, out of the west, came and salvaged the diluted and degenerated people of India into industry, morality, and into a new and golden age. But, this illusion, he says, was rudely shattered in the 1930s through the Nazi propaganda in Europe and the recent archaeological discoveries at Mohenjo-daro and elsewhere in India. It seemed that the Harappan civilisation predated the Aryan 'invasions'. Yet, the Aryan "myth" was not immediately dumped, even by Harappanists. Sir Mortimer Wheeler proposed that if the Aryans could not possibly have created the Harappan cities, they might have been responsible for destroying them. In 1964, however, the American George F. Dales investigated the skeletons (that were thought to be evidence of "massacres") found scattered at both Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites and concluded:
There is no destruction level covering the latest period of the city [Mohenjo-daro], no sign of extensive burning, no bodies of warriors clad in armour and surrounded by the weapons of war, [and] the citadel, the only fortified part of the city, yielded no evidence of a final defence.[G.F. Dales, "The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo Daro", repr. in Possehl, G.L. (ed.), Ancient Cities of the Indus, p.293, quoted by Keay, p.23].Keay expresses doubt if the "Aryan chariots and catapults could have made much impression on Harappan walls thirteen metres thick, according to the archaeologists, and every bit as high". However, that the Harappans and the Aryans had contact, could not be ruled away. Such contacts may have mutually benefited the both. It may be inferred from the more recent discoveries that the Aryans were a semi-nomadic pastoral people who migrated to the Panjab in search of pasture and may have lived an itinerant outdoor life. Later, they may have formed their first temporary settlements, and then through further migrations have built cities and founded states in India. It is not clear when the Aryans might have entered India, but it seems that they came between 1500 BC and 1300 BC. In fact, there may have been several waves of migration rather than a single mass movement. Aryanisation (through spread of Sanskrit, Brahmanism, and Caste) might have been gradual and not through migration or coercion. The Aryan "myth" may, therefore, be the myth of Aryan invasion: Aryan migration, however, is readily assumed, though it is unclear where they migrated from. Of course, there are many other questions that still remain unanswered. Perhaps, the world awaits the deciphering of the Harappan script that may throw some further light on the ancient history of India.
References
Keay, John. India: A History, London: Harper Perennial, 2004.
At Google Books At Flipkart
Domenic Marbaniang, August 2010.
"The king who judges the poor with truth, his throne will be established forever" (Prov. 29:14).
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE POOR IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT'LL ENDURE.
The Government that protects the poor, fights for their cause, gives them justice (economic, social,and political) is the Government that is functioning right; the Government that is functioning right is the Government that is healthy; the Government that is healthy is the Government that lives and thrives on.
There are various reasons advanced for separate states. Whether such bifurcation of states is commendable or not is a matter of administrative judgment. Even the human cells bifurcate (mitosis) while the human body grows. Well, that doesn't mean that such divisions should regularly occur in the nation; for that would leave the whole as composed of city states. Yet, where the rationale is proper administration and healthy supply in the system, one must always remember that the soundness of the State is the goal, and such soundness can only be a reality when each member of this massive organism has the means and opportunity to exercise his or her fullest potential. This also means, accepting our differences; yet, preserving the feelings of love and unselfish generosity towards our neighbors. What about the migrants? Don't they serve as the blood vessels that link the whole nation through interspersing of cultural values and riches of our heritage? What about the wicked and corrupt, the pests of society, some of whom also serve in the administrative system? I believe that if the cells, molecules, and organs in the body preserve their integrity and immunity, the whole system will automatically be disease free. It first starts with spiritual renewal and faith in God, who gives the transcendental meaning in the life of each individual.
From the book Secularism in India: A Historical Outline (2005)
The religious policies of Ashoka grew out of his concept of religion and its role in human society. Ashoka’s practice of the principle of non-violence, after becoming a Buddhist, led him to ban animal sacrifices to the great chagrin of the Brahmins. The principle of universality and inclusivism kept Ashoka from all forms of communalism that the caste-Hindus were so fond of. Ashoka’s religion contained gleanings from all religions.[3] Ashoka followed the policy of religious tolerance and made a law that prohibited anyone from any act or word against any religion.
According to Jawaid Quddus, during the reign of Ashoka, diverse religious sects, such as the Brahamas, Sramanas, Nirganthas, Ajivakas, etc., bore great hostility and sectarian rancor against one another. Quddus quotes from the ' Studies in Ancient India' by Provatansu Maiti, (1969 edition) following of the directives of Ashoka that aimed at religious tolerance and mutual respect among the various sects:
1.All sects must dwell at all places so that they could know one another and develop tolerance for each other.
2.All sects must observe restraint of speech and purification of heart when they deal with each other.
3.The exaltation of one's own religion and condemnation of others' creed is not permitted.
4.Different sects should study of the scripture of other sects and develop concord among themselves.
5.All people must practice Ahimsa (non- violence) towards each other and towards animals.
6.Ashoka renounced the policy of conquest by sword and urged people to adopt the policy of conquest by law.[4]
Although Ashoka’s policy of religious tolerance seems quite conforming to the principles of secularism, his declaration of Buddhism as the state-religion doesn’t apparently do so. Ashoka considered religion as the foundation of a stable state. By religion, Ashoka meant Dhamma, the principle of right duty and obligation. Though this Dhamma was much influence by Buddhism, it was not separated from reason but based on reason.[5]
Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to foreign kingdoms and he also undertook religious journeys to inspire his people towards religiosity. He established a department of religion that was responsible for measuring the religious level of the people and also teaching them the principles of Dhamma. He used to organize religious discourses and shows for the education of the masses.[6] The various pillars and inscriptions dating from the time of Ashoka point to the seriousness with which he understood the inter-relationship between religion and the state. The goal was to instil in the people the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong and awake and motivate them towards right thinking and right action. No doubt, Ashoka succeeded in doing so.
Thus, though Ashoka’s religious policies cannot be called as purely secular-oriented, they do resemble secularism in practice in their laws of religious freedom, religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. To be sure, Ashoka’s religious policies were oriented to the well being of all people in the present, despite race, colour, language, creed, or gender.
_______________
[1] As cited by Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p. 238.
[2] Romila Thapar, ‘Ashoka’, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (Microsoft Corporation: 2001).
[3] Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p.245.
[4] http://www.truthindia.com
[5] Ibid, pp. 244-246.
[6] Ibid, p. 247.
© Domenic Marbaniang, 2005, 2010
_______________________________________
The word secularism comes from the Latin saeculum, meaning ‘a generation or this age,’ and corresponds to the Greek aeon. Its meaning extends on to connote also this ‘wordly;’ thus, its Lower Latin form saecularis means ‘worldly.’ Basically, secularism is the ideology that facilitates practice without reference to religion of any kind. When applied to politics, it is the state policy of being indifferent to political theologies, the policy of keeping politics free from religious interferences.
In his book, The Secular City, Harvey Cox differentiates secularization from secularism. According to Cox, secularization ‘implies a historical process, almost certainly irreversible, in which society and culture are delivered from tutelage to religious control and closed metaphysical world views.’ Quoting the German theologian Friedrich Gogarten, Cox announces secularization as the legitimate consequence of the impact of biblical faith on history. It is not untrue that biblical faith has had a powerful impact in the reformation of cultures world-wide and the shaping of modern history. According to Cox, the biblical doctrine of Creation is the ground of freedom from animism, totemism, pantheism, and magic. This has led to the development of natural science. Today, sacrifices to wind, rain, and sun are laughed to scorn as science and religion are separated from each other. Further, the Exodus narrative is seen as the desacralization of politics. It signifies insurrection against a duly constituted monarch who claimed divine rights to governance. This not only frees politics from priest-craft but has also become the basis for modern political liberation movements and revolutions. Cox further contends that with the Sinai Covenant and its prohibition of idols, values are deconsecrated. The devaluation of idols is the precursor to the devaluation of absolutes. With the revelation of idols as mere projections of human mind, their absolute value is broken down. Thus historical relativism is considered to be the end product of secularization. Consequently, traditional values are no longer regarded as absolute. This emancipatory impact of biblical faith, according to Cox, is irreversible and must not be feared since it emancipates man for a proper relationship with nature, state, and society. It is, however, the ideology of secularism that needs to be checked for secularism, in contrast to the process of secularization, is an ideology that is atheistic; thus limiting the individual’s mind to the natural alone.
But when viewed in the political context of religious pluralism, political secularism can be an aspired policy of the state. Evidently, religious politics of any kind can be destructive to religious freedom. The history of Christianity is proof enough of the atrocities committed by Christian rulers against Christians who were considered to be heretics because of their liberal or reformative views. Religious freedom can only be realized in a truly secular state. But, as Cox notes, a secular state itself can become guilty of imposing secularism as an ideology on its citizens; for instance, when it declares practice of religion as anti-scientific or criminal. This kind of approach has been observed in hard secular atheist states were communism has held power. Total indifference towards religion, however, is impossible since man is not just a political animal; he is also a religious being. Yet, it is within politically sanctioned freedom of religious practice that religion itself can find true realization.
There are at least two things to note about the development of secular politics in relation to the Kingdom of Christ:
1. Political Irreligiosity
2. Religious Individualism
Political Irreligiosity
Modern secularism has dethroned the gods from the realm of politics. The dethronement of the divine from the human hemisphere was a gradual process appearing first in Classical Greek philosophy. Thales (5th Century B.C.) is considered to be the first who ‘shifted the basis of thought from a mythological base to one of scientific inquiry.’ The first philosophers, known as sophos, challenged the mythological and superstitious assumptions of traditionalism, thus unshackling philosophy from the control of religion. The impact of the rational and secular spirit of Classical philosophy, however, could be seen in the development of city-states that de-emphasized the role of gods in politics and separated government from religion, magic, and superstition. With the fall of Greece, however, this secular influence over politics disappeared. Roman politics was highly coloured by religious sentiments and beliefs.
Secularism resurfaced during the Renaissance (A.D. 1359-1600) as humanism and individualism gathered momentum. However, it was during the Protestant Reformation that the theory of the separation of church and state took root. Religious persecution under Papal political influence led Reformation thinkers to denounce the authority of the Church over political matters. In 1523, Martin Luther published his “On Temporal Authority,” in which he argued for the division of the church and the state. Luther specified two distinct realms or powers: weltliches Regiment (German word for ‘the kingdom of the world,’ ‘the State’) and geistliches Regiment (German word for ‘the kingdom of God,’ ‘the Church’). The state was connected with God’s continual work of creation and the Church with God’s continual work of redemption. God, Luther stated, is the head of both the kingdoms. Therefore, subjection to the ruler’s edict was only necessary as long as the edict conformed to God’s divine will as shown in the scriptures.
With the American and the French Revolutions, the idea of human rights gained ascendancy. The first amendment of the American constitution declared that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ The American and British constitutions had a great impact on the development of constitutions like that of India. The secularization of politics meant the dethronement of the gods from politics. There are still elements that try to disrupt the secularity of politics through religious provocations; however, secularized society finds such religious provocations as quaint. Yet, the Nazi style of breeding ethnic or communal animosity on non-religious basis does have powerful effect on the masses. This, nevertheless, shows that it is not the gods but communal sentiments that are behind them.
Religious Individualism
The secularity of politics is based upon the recognition of man’s fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Freedom of religion is a right recognized by the Bible. It is based upon the biblical doctrine of human liberty. Therefore, the Bible never teaches forced conversion.
The Bible emphasizes truthfulness and spirituality of worship as acceptable before God (Jn. 4: 23). Sure, religion was more a social phenomena in the Old Testament; however, the individuality of spirituality was always highlighted (Gen. 4: 7; 6: 8; Ex. 32: 10; Ps. 51: 6-17). Similarly, one finds in the New Testament that God is individually concerned about His children (Lk. 15). Religious individualism, however, is not the same as religious privatism. Religious privatism does respect the freedom of conscience; however, it regards religion to have nothing to do with public life, often to the extent that talk of religion at public places or by means of public media seems disgusting. Unfortunately, religious privatism is one of the byproducts of social secularization. Religious individualism, on the other hand, respects both the freedom of conscience and the freedom to religious speech or religious preaching.
The individualization of religion must be seen as the effect of the Gospel of the kingdom of God. It is based upon the preaching of individual responsibility for salvation through personal commitment to Christ. It is religious individualism that makes religious reformation possible and assists the true development of the spirit of religion. True secular politics does not judge one’s national allegiance by means of one’s religious allegiance. Thus, though one may be a Hindu or a Christian in heart, he could still be a true Indian at the same time. This could only happen when the socialist nature of religion is replaced by an individualist one and the strength of the nation is measured, not by religious plurality, but by political stability, law and order, and economic growth of all classes. The kingdom of God operates individualistically and transcending all national barriers since God is primarily concerned with the individual person and not the nation to which that person belongs. Therefore, individual freedom of conscience and religion must be seen as in tune with the dynamics of the kingdom of God. It is the preaching of the kingdom that holds people individually responsible before God.
However, both the above facets of political secularism must only be seen as having pre-judgment significance. At the second advent of Christ, all acts of freedom will be judged. Secular politics will cease to exist since all knee will bow before Christ and all tongue will confess that He is Lord (Phil. 2: 10, 11). That Christocratic rule will not be enforced by might of sword but by the final revelation of God. The final judgment will separate the people of the world from the people of God. It will mean the salvation of the believers and the condemnation of unbelievers. This eschatological perspective is significant since one is not entitled to judge anyone before the Day of Judgment. In other words, religion now is an individual issue. No human is judge in religious matters pertaining to the conscience (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 28). A believer stands or falls before his God (Rom. 14: 1-10). Thus, in the modern scheme of things the secularist promotion of religious individualism must be seen as veritably biblical.
In summary, social secularization is seen as the emancipation of politics and society from religious dictatorship. Political secularism not only frees politics from domination of religion but also promotes religious freedom. Social secularization is individualistically liberating, as Cox saw it. This is clearly evident in the modern secular city where a person enjoys more individual freedom than in the villages or even towns. The social adhesive provided by religion and tradition is weak in the cities. This is all the result of freeing society from dominance of religion. This, however, does not mean that social relationships have come to an end. It only means that they have taken newer forms and meanings. Also, instances of religious fundamentalism or even atheistic fundamentalism must be seen as anachronistic. They look odd amidst the secularized status quo. The extent of such secularalization must not be regarded as anti-Christian, but as assisting the cause of Christ’s kingdom by giving the Church an opportunity to reach individuals with the Gospel with the result that individuals are now freer to make a rational commitment to Christ.
References
Cox, Harvey. The Secular City, New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., 1975.
Perry, Marvin. Western Civilization, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, 4th edn.
Thompson, Bard. Humanists and Reformers, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's, 1981.
Zacharias, Ravi. Deliver Us From Evil, USA: Wpublishing Group, 1997.
Published in Basileia (Itarsi: CITS, Oct, 08). Copyright © 2008 by Domenic Marbaniang
Basically, there are two kinds of government or rules: the rule of people and the rule of law
The rule of people is manifest in democracy (mobocracy) where majority rule or in dictatorship where the whim of a single man pilots the state. Obviously, the rule of law is preferred above the rule of the mob. However, the appropriateness of the laws is an important question to tackle.
As far as best governance is concerned, the best government is considered to be that which has the least control. In other words, if you have to monitor every act of your subjects you are not a good administrator. For the goal of administration in a healthy setting is freedom, justice, fraternity, and equality.
This also means that the laws of the state do not specifically interfere with every minute detail of the subject’s life so as to keep him in constant terror, insecurity, and uncertainty.
As far as the nature of the laws is concerned, there are two opinions: one group argues that the best laws are those that have the best consequences and these we call the consequentialists; the other group contends that laws reflect the fundamental recognition of the essentially good or evil, and these we call the absolutists.
Obviously, the laws governing any body, be it a great nation or a small organization, cannot be consequentialist; for then, law would become arbitrary. Therefore, a rational recognition of laws becomes important. Thus, the role of a legislator is prominent in administrative settings. The legislator is in reality the governor or leader of the state or organization.
Classically, there are three divisions made of human society: (1) Those governed by reason – they should be leaders (2) those governed by passion – auxiliary and warriors (3) those governed by desire – workers and traders.
The qualities of the leaders – they are the mind of the society, the lawmakers, men in ultimate authority, the rulers. They know the absolutes on basis of which relatives are arbitrated. They are those whose passion and desire is governed by principles and laws. (Josh.1.8; Pr.31.4; Tit.2.6; 1Pt. 1.13; ‘sober’ – ‘be in right mind’ ‘watchful’). Do not lose yourself in the market of common jesting and pleasure.
The qualities of the auxiliary – passionate and zealous; defy death and danger; positive minded, victory oriented, depend on the interpreters of law, the legislators.
The qualities of workers, traders – desire and mood is predominant, fluctuating decisions, money makers, fund-raisers; since mood changes, are easily led away by circumstances, orators, etc.
Domenic Marbaniang, 2007
© Domenic Marbaniang, 1999.
India is a democratic country; and by that we mean it is governed by us, its people [“democracy”, from the Greek democratia: demos, people, and kratia, government or rule]. Ethics refers to the study of moral conduct, of “what one ought to do”.
Our nation recognizes the ideals of Justice, liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in its constitution. With the complexity of religious beliefs, its diversities, secularistic views, and the influence of the media ethical decisions are becoming more and more difficult in our society. The film producer defends his stance of overloading his film with sex as right, while a religious or even a secular man opposes it as morally depraving and detrimental to society. The advertisement agencies technically propagate lies deluding people to believe something which is not true. Our nation has found itself in a closet of ethical relativism – subjectivism and conventionalism. Variant religions assume their own moral standards. The Western culture is having a profound influence in our society, especially through the media (TV, Cinema, Song Albums, Novels, Journals, etc.). In such a context of diversity, and complexity, what kind of ethical standard should we, as citizens of democratic India, adopt form making ethical decisions? Following are some options:
1. Ethical Egoism (from the Greek ego, I). It is a consequentialist ethical theory (“the end justifies the means”) which asserts that “right” is what is beneficial in the end to the individual (“to me”). Two of its forms are: Hedonism, according to which pleasure is the ultimate good; and Self-realization, according to which knowledge, power, or rational self-interest, and the promotion of all one’s capacities is the ultimate good. Its method of justification is self-interest.
This theory, of course, poses a number of problems. There is the issue of conflicting interests, the danger of self-benefit at the expense of others; and in a democratic country like ours, it cannot be the ultimate standard of ethical decisions.
2. Utilitarianism: This also is a consequentialist theory that asserts that “right” is what produces the greatest quantity of happiness or pleasure. Its two forms are: Act Utilitarianism, the morality of an action is determined by the quantity of happiness it produces for the most people; Rule Utilitarianism, our actions should be governed by such a rule that produces the greatest happiness for the most people. Its method of justification is empirical evidence.
The problem of this theory mainly consists in the problem of knowledge. How do I know that my action have produced the greatest happiness for the most people? How can I trust the authenticity of the consequences? What about the minority? Is what is happiness to me, or in my sight, happiness to everybody else?
3. Altruism: (from the Italian altrui, “someone else). This is the theory of self-sacrifice, of concern for the welfare of others, and as such is opposed to egoism. It is the attitude of selflessness. It is doubtful if this theory is applicable to the majority: for a person cannot be selfless unless this position and attitude produces in him a greater satisfaction and happiness.
Now, which of the above criteria is applicable in a democratic society? It is my opinion that none of them as a solitude can be applied. A person should consider egoism (not total egoism) for self-development, utilitarianism for society’s benefit and happiness, and altruism that he may not become overly self-interested but will have concern for the welfare of others as well. The blending of these three together will produce an ethical standard applicable in a democratic society; a democratic ethic, which has respect for the ideals, aspirations, and talents of others.