blurring mindscapes

Everything is connected. The stories of the world can be woven together to form a single ball of consciousness. We have apparently had parallel histories throughout the past. But, some things (well, a lot of things) don’t make sense to me anymore.

I don’t know if you would brand me a nativist or not. That’s not the central issue at hand. What bothers me is the double standard with which the academia that I’m exposed to views world histories and present scenarios.

As scrutinised as it is, colonization is looked upon as something that brought in a sense of the modern with its great ideals of renaissance and reformation. Thanks to these revolutionary ideas, there was advancement in human thought from the archaic knowledge systems of the East. We were totally incapable of “modernization” by ourselves thanks to our RIGID social set-up.

Moving on, it seems, when Hinduism encroached the territories of tribal regions in India the religion was bent upon epistemological violence. So when Buddhism influenced large sections of vedic society, it was a beautiful exposure to a new knowledge system. [okay, I love all things indigenous and all things Buddhist. This is just for argument’s sake.] The arrival of Islam, for instance, is considered the best thing that ever happened to Indian society because they brought in their knowledge and texts along. [Although I understand how important the blending of cultures is in societies evolving. But why romanticize something and put down a similar event?]

When UR Ananthmurthy talks about doing away with religion – because what is religion other than a set of superstitious beliefs – we uphold the spirit of Ananthmurthy. When say North East Indian writers talk about how Hinduism erased their sense of the past and created anew their memories, it’s the wiping out of tradition that formed the core of their being-ness. And there’s a call back to traditional ways of living to gain a better hold of life in general.

I understand minority discourses in this context, but how is upholding one tradition considered a great purpose of life while upholding another tradition is nothing but an act of power?

Why are knowledge systems of the West held so dearly while the traditional “Hindu” texts are branded “oh so sanskritized!”, “power politics”, “it’s all about maya”, “no sense of the material”, “far removed from reality”? Why can’t they be looked at from an intellectual perspective?

I hope I made the raw argument clear enough. I’ve been stuck with these thoughts for a while now, and I can’t find a suitable outlet in anyone. Kindly leave your comments and suggest some reading so that I can take this forward and construct a decent argument.

Anything that is right inclined is cast away as being closed or narrow minded while being left is the in thing. What I’m really in a way asking for is consideration of all knowledge systems alike, because the dots cannot be connected otherwise. To me, they seem to be falling apart every day with every reading.