Monday, May 22, 2017

1014. Bharathiyata, the Indianness....!

Bharatiyata (Indianness) thrived on the improvised thought. This is one society which welcomes a new thought. One view about its existence comes from the Sampradayastas (Traditionalists), while a contrast views is from the Udaravadis (Liberalists).
Though the traditionalist have not move an inch away from their views, the winds of modernity cropping up from west in recent times have created a lot of confusion among the liberals. Post independence due to the colonial mind-set the liberal thought gave rise to two groups namely the orthodox and the heterodox. The orthodox liberal like the traditionalists stuck to the indigenous path though fighting for the need to change. They never were pulled by the western materialism. But the heterodox liberals who misunderstood the western modernity as only material achievement, ended up imitating the results than to assimilating the methods to achieve them. Hence they started to adore the western culture more by criticizing our traditions and over the course of time have had the inclination to adopt the western way going away from where they truly belonged to. It will not be correct for us to question their decision but we can observe that being brought up in an environment which has its roots firm in the acceptance of the new thought they found it as if they were not ready for so momentous a change where the change is not accepted and if accepted it is just the contrary to what was. It's like how a mudskipper leaves its pond which is in the verge of drying up and making its way into an unknown river looking for more abundant, nutritious waters. In this venture the mudskipper would not understand the fact that unlike its pond which would have been rejuvenated with one rainfall, this river is filled with risk factors in the form of other water inhabitants.    
If those heterodox liberal who call themselves “Intellectuals” examine the liberalism they find in the western society, they will notice that it is an inherently flawed doctrine. From the feudal system to a capitalistic age we have noticed the change since centuries and the variations in our thought and that of the western thought.
In feudal society the land was mainly owned by the lord and rented out to the peasants, while capitalism gives the right to accumulate private property merely out of self-interest with illusionary explanation that it would create a system where everyone is benefited. In the feudal system the administrative affairs were managed by aristocracy consisting of a Master and religious matters by a Guru. The heterodox liberals began a movement to set free the peasants from the control of the Master and the Guru. They failed to understand that the feudal relations were paternalistic in nature with the master and the peasants sharing the bond like father and son. Liberalism was a revolt against both the order and its hierarchical nature.
All of this sounds wonderful but what happened in reality was that liberalism only succeeded in destroying the paternalistic tie between master-peasant, not the master-servant hierarchy itself, which in turn reproduced itself in the modern form of the capitalist-labourer. But in the absence of paternalism, the new master and servant are connected by the bond which related them monetarily. Eventually the liberal thought destroyed the best of feudalism and retained its worst.

This was never the essence of true Bhartatiyata.....Do you agree??? 

No comments:

Post a Comment