Hindus are naive, apathetic; they lack national character and spirit.

By Greet C. Sharma Ph.D. Hindus are naive, apathetic; they lack national character and spirit.

http://indiatribune.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9160:hindus-are-naive-apathetic-they-lack-national-character-and-spirit-&catid=30:opinion&Itemid=460


We all grew up hearing back home that it makes no difference as to who rules us. Apathy among Hindus is one of the most complex and fascinating phenomenons.  Hindus show utter apathy when it comes to actual karma, in spite of constant references to scriptures and exposure to sermons. Hindu tendency is to act individualistically. Apathy becomes even more visible when dealing with people of other religions, missionaries, terrorists, and their agendas resulting in demographic manipulations to change India’s national character, as well as Hindu destiny. As a consequence, Hindus are stereotyped as meek, weak, coward, gullible and never a “force.”

In Guyana when a local criminal needs money he turns around and robs the nearest Indian. In Zambia, average murder of an Indian is one  per week. Locals know that Indians are hard working, entrepreneurial and have money. This “sitting duck”  syndrome is pervasive in most countries where Hindus have settled, whether Jersey City in the USA, Suva in Fiji, Dhaka in Bangladesh, Sindh  in Pakistan, or Aligarh in India.

The sole factor that defines such a dynamics is Hindu apathy. It is unique except it has only one parallel that is,  Jewish passivity in Germany just before the holocaust. Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937) wrote:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out as I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The extremes of apathy are indifference, depression, immobility, paralysis, desperation, abandonment and brain atrophy.  In clinical terms, it is indicative of serious disease revealing mental disorder or brain damage. In mental health, the apathetic individual has no energy, talks inaudible, moves very slowly, is uninvolved, and avoids any interaction.  However, the worst character defect of an apathetic person is taking his words as a substitute for action.

Apathy is not stoicism, not spirituality, not freedom from emotions, nor an effective buffer from negative consequences.  It is about living by default, and letting others control your destiny.  It is about living in illusion that one cannot change the ultimate outcome or destiny. Selfish, self-centered, opportunistic orientation, tolerating unfairness and corruption, and patronizing offenders instead of confronting them are character traits, which have become Hindu hallmark. Such mindset is contrary to the Bhagavad-Gita and the cumulative wisdom of  Dharma. It is abandoning everything that should matter, whether motherland, culture, identity, family, or one’s future.  It is allowing others, regardless of their “motives” to make decisions for you.

The collective history of any nation offers a good view of the past to figure out one’s national character. However, it works well only if history is written objectively and not driven by politics.  In the case of Hindus of Bharatvarsha, its history has been written, dictated, edited, and marketed by other than Hindus, whose agenda has always been seeking total control, monopoly and intolerance for differences.

Hindu apathy and passivity have made it possible for one of the most original civilizations to be defined by others, for others, paid by Hindus and sold to the world.  It is the holocaust of the Hindu’s in the making.  The corporate world has taken liberties to commercialize Hindu religious symbols to market sandals, toilet seats, and other offensive items.  Unfortunately, the reaction from Hindus, if any, has been minimal.

Compare Hindu behavior with Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, British, Israelis, and Pakistanis, but only the Hindu apathy wins the distinction. The irony is we do not see the ground realities, Muslims have 56 countries, Christians 7, Jews 1, however, Hindus still have no country to call home.

Psychologically speaking, one behaves according to one’s thinking, which is a combination of concepts, values, and beliefs. A Hindu wakes up praying for the well being of the entire creation, practices non-injury, believes that all religions are the same. They are beautiful ideals for ideals all mankind to pursue. Ironically Abrahamnic religions believe in converting, violence, and Jihad to seek a religious monopoly. Hindus naivety and one-sided idealism leaves them vulnerable incapable to confront reality, adversity, and danger.

Apathy thus unwittingly serves the purpose of keeping Hinduism glued in an imaginary cocoon, even though it’s stagnating in a rigor mortis. Hindu scriptures are rich with inspiration, defining the duty for the nation as well as promoting a pragmatic life. The Hindu pursuit of nirvana, “detachment,” and Bhakti Yoga inherently causes ineffective handling of inter-religious politics. Hindus need leaders and there is an abundance to name a few, Swami Vivekananda, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh Azam, and Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.

The opposite of apathy is action, resilience, determination, direction, pride and clarity of thinking. Knowing one’s place in the scheme of life, and being an important player in the worldly drama is not a luxury but a necessity.

REJINAGAR STORY - Behaviour in Groups

In the town of RejiNagar there lived on the mountain side a demon called BurnOutasura. The demon had a craving once a year to chew on humans, suck out their juice and leave their bodies deadened, unfeeling and without sensation. The villagers agreed among themselves to find volunteers to offer to the demon. But after a few years it became very difficult to find any volunteers. The chewed-out people did not want to volunteer again…… ….

The above story serves as an analogy to our Hindu Samaj where it is becoming more and more difficult to find volunteers to serve on the Board of Trustees and doubly difficult to fill the President and Vice-President positions. Every year we have been hoping the problem would not be there the next year. But it is not going away. I do not understand why we have not given some serious thought to see what, if any, are the deeper aspects. The fact that the past 4 presidents, have, towards the end of their term, looked forward to the day they completed their term should also make us question as to what is happening to these people. And after the completion of their term they all have disappeared from the temple scene for months. Did the demon BurnOutasura chew and suck out their juices?

In the days when we did not have this temple, we felt a void in our lives. During its design, construction and financing stages there was a sense of cohesiveness among us, an electric current in our nerves, and an expectation that it would help us lift ourselves to higher ground of living and thinking. When the temple finally became a reality, we were fortunate to have some of the Hindu world’s renowned swami’s and guru’s come and inspire us towards a more sane and sensible life and living. We recently added to our altar a new diety – Kartikeya, to make it more inclusive. We have just acquired a priest who is trained as a priest. Our temple has also become a place of cordial fellowship. In our 20 years as the Samaj we have not broken into factions and splinter groups (as has happened elsewhere), and managed our differences with maturity, flexibility and dignity. Why then are people reluctant to come on to the Board and rise to positions of responsibility and honour?

Is the problem only the tip of an iceberg, is there more below the surface? Wanting to see what exactly is the problem, I have talked with some past presidents and Board members of the last few years, for their take on this problem. My own experience as President in 2005 gave me an empathic understanding of their perspectives. While the data is not exhaustive, I have presented it below, so we may all give some thought to solutions.

Some factors that are frustrating to Presidents are as below:

o High absenteeism of Board members, often a lack of quorum.
o Board members wanting to reopen issues resolved while they were absent.
o Board members leaving after signing the quorum sheet or after their presentation.
o Board member complaints on length of meeting, wanting resolutions in a hurry.
o Board members threatening to quit and even resigning on petty issues.
o Board members carrying on side conversations unrelated to the agenda item at hand.
o Solidified and inflexible positions on issues of some Board members.
o Board members thinking the president ought not to have any discretionary powers; that he is no more than any other Board member.
o Lack of commitment to tasks assigned, and laxity in duties of key Board members.
o Leaking of in camera discussions of the Board….. all details, even who said what.
o Conflicting guidance from those previously active in the Samaj.
o Never ending complaints from the congregation on minor and petty issues.
o Morale damaging gossip at weekend social gatherings of Samaj members.
o Arranging for weekly prashad sponsorship.

Conversely, from the Board Member perspective, the problems are:

o Undemocratic decision making by the President.
o President demanding performance at his/her beck and call.
o President unwilling to delegate or trust members
o President holding back decisions until the 11th hour.
o Differences in the perspectives of President and Vice-President.
o President overriding decisions made at Board meetings.
o Speaking up at meetings has the risk of losing friends and gaining enemies.
o Do not know Hinduism enough to base decisions on Hindu principles.
o Criticism of Board and temple activities at social parties; Not constructive criticism.
o Conflicting advice from those who have been in the Board at earlier times.

Roughly then, the above lists can be summarized under three headings: Group functioning, negative comments from the community, and guidance/input from those previously active in the Samaj. [Note that the above listing of items is not from any one year but from over the last few years. Also only the factors mentioned by more than one person are listed above.]

Group functioning problems are there in most groups put together for task accomplishment. On their way to become a team, they go through stages of development – forming, storming, norming, and performing. The caricatured picture at the outset of this writeup shows a group in the storming stage. Some come ready for a bloody battle, Some are ready to shoot any proposal. Some put on a ‘wise owl’ posture. Some are meek, unsure and afraid to speak up. Some feel gagged and muzzled. Some act indifferent. Some act as if they know everything. Some are reluctantly willing to be persuaded. Some act as clowns and draw attention to themselves. Some don’t want to contribute or be part of the group, but are all ears to the discussion going on. Thus at this stage of storming the group is not too functional. If this stage does not progress to the next stages, the task and mission of the group is adversely affected.

The second problem of negative opinions expressed in community social gatherings seem to have a demoralizing effect on the Board members and the President. But people in general like masala more than mantra. How this masala-talk can be stopped or how the Board can be shielded from it, is a question we all need to put our heads together to solve.

The complaints from the congregation are very many. I can vouch from my own experience that people do get upset in the mandir about all kinds of things: about somebody else’s behaviour, something not done right, something not prevented, and mostly about the inadequacy of opportunity for singing, and at the coveted time slot. I wonder whether this singing activity has come to be a competition, for recognition, status, honour, standing in the community and thus ego-enhancement. Responding to these complaints does chew up hours and hours on the telephone. And these complaints cannot be resolved to everybody’s satisfaction. This is a mental overload for any volunteer in the president’s position.

The third problem – guidance from those from the past, could be confusing, irritating and debilitating. The intentions of advice givers may be of genuine help and concern for the direction of the Samaj. But if different suggestions are coming from different people, the recipients (especially younger and new-comers) feel conflicted, confused and stalled. Advice from elders is a cultural value among us. But the present generation may feel torn between their preference to do it on their own terms and respecting the elders.

Arranging for weekly sponsors for prashad has come to be a major responsibility of the President. It involves more than making announcements from the podium for people to sign up. When there are gaps in the signup sheet, it involves asking friends, board members, and other people in the name of God. And still, many a time it becomes the job of the President’s wife (if the president is a lady, then she and her friends) to come early and cook the food, and stay late to clean up. This puts much stress on his/her family.

Thus, it seems to me that there are a number of interrelated problems and issues underlying the obvious problem of finding volunteers for the Board and President positions. I wonder if we all, individually and collectively, been part of the problem? Do we have the will to become part of the solution?

We can also speculate if the problems we are experiencing in the Samaj are due to our (cultural) not-so-flattering characteristics identified by our own (Indian) sociologists and social psychologists:

o Affiliation (relationships) is primary; Not task accomplishment
o Faith in words. Talking about a task is equated to task accomplishment.
o Presentation of socially desirable face (false face), not true face.
o Lack of differentiation between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ (or, should be).
o Personal loyalty to charismatic/inspirational leaders, not to the organization.
o Passivity and lethargy in serious matters but a lot of wasted energy in transient matters such as movies, movie stars, fashion, Cricket etc.,

However, the above may not apply to us -- immigrants such as ourselves -- who have been known to be industrious, intelligent and educated. We are the envy of the local people world over.

What I have penned above is my one man’s examination of our annual birth pangs. I feel I have hardly scratched the surface. I hope nobody will think of me as the bearer of bad news, and call for my head on the chopping block. That is OK too as long as the block is genuine Burma Teak! But before you put my head on the block, do let me hear your comments, observations and insights on the above.
- Kalburgi.Srinivas@gmail.com

PS: My email directory is rather old and I do not have the email address of many newer members of the congregation. Hence feel free to tell others, make copies for them, or forward, if you think what I have said above has some merit.


-

Passivity as a national character

Jagannathan, R. Passivity as a national character Wednesday, India.com/DNA Analysis.
13 February 2008

If there is one country where individuals can make a difference, it is India. I don’t mean this in the sense it is normally understood; I am saying it cynically.

If there is one country where individuals can make a difference, it is India. I don’t mean this in the sense it is normally understood; I am saying it cynically. As a people, we are so absorbed with ourselves, that if anyone seriously wants to change things around — for better or worse — people will let him do so.

A few vested interests may  oppose him or her some of the time, but if the individual bares his fangs, the  opposition usually dissolves.

It took only one Seshan to clean up the electoral system. It took only one Indira Gandhi to launch and rescind the Emergency. It took a meek Manmohan Singh to launch economic reforms in the country.

It took only one T Chandrashekhar  to clean up Thane and Nagpur. It took just a Dhirubhai Ambani to create the equity cult in India.

One Narendra Modi managed to clean up the administration in Gujarat to make it more efficient and growth-oriented. One determined Teesta Setalvad is able to get the courts to start booking the rioters of 2002.

It takes only one public interest litigation to force a policy change in favour of cleaner fuel or to demolish unauthorized structures in Delhi. Equally, it may take only one politician or thug to reverse the whole process.

On the negative side, the state recedes at the slightest hint of public protest. One statement from Raj Thackeray is enough bring out the goons, with the police doing little to stop the roughing up of people of north Indian descent. It took only one small demonstration by zealots in Kolkata to send Taslima Nasreen packing, forcing her to rewrite her books. It took only some threats from the Sangh Parivar to send India’s most distinguished painter into exile.

Then, there is the other side of the coin, too. Once the individual who wants to change things disappears from the scene, the old order returns. Exit Chandrashekhar, and Thane and Nagpur are back to garbage on the streets.

Quite simply, passivity and the pursuit of narrow self-interest are core elements of our national character, and this is both the plus and the minus of being Indian. The collective passivity of people makes it easy for determined individuals to push through change without much opposition. It’s easy for both do-gooders and tyrants to get their way here.

In UP, it took a Mayawati to organise Brahmins; the Brahmins never did so themselves.

One reason why terrorists are getting nowhere with their provocations is that Indians have begun to accept periodic blow-ups as part of the landscape. Terror no longer has the ability to shock or force sharp divisions among people, though the politicians try hard to aid the process.

After the Mumbai train blasts, many people thought it would polarise the city on communal lines. It didn’t. The Mecca Masjid blasts, too, didn’t. After a few mandatory rallies and chest-thumping, people went back to work. This is not because Indians are uniquely tolerant —they are uniquely apathetic.

Gandhi’s success during the freedom movement can probably be attributed to passivity. Our freedom struggle demanded little more than non-cooperation with the British, which meant doing little. Any active form of resistance — of the kind espoused by Bhagat Singh or Netaji — drew far fewer supporters.

We continue to revere the Bhagats and Netajis not because we would like to emulate them, but because we feel guilty that we haven’t done what our conscience told us to. Heroic figures like Shivaji come few and far between in India, and that is one reason we celebrate them even more. They compensate for our own passivity. In the end, Indians did not find even Gandhi worth emulating.

The key to unlocking individual and group energies in India is self-interest.

Any leader who can align a group’s self-interest with broader goals will be able to rule uninterrupted in most parts of India. Unfortunately, we have not had too many leaders who can match the two objectives.